Below is my column in the Hill on the focus on abortion in this election, including the advocacy of an absolute right to abortion by many Democratic candidates. President Joe Biden has voiced such a rule that any abortion decision should be left entirely to women. When media pressed to confirm that the President does not believe that there should be any restrictions, the White House has simply refused to say. Thus, the President continues to campaign on the issue while refusing to answer questions on how he defines the right and any restrictions. It is the same approach that the President took during the last presidential campaign where he simply refused to state his position on court packing until after the election. This is an obviously important and valid issue to campaign on for the midterm elections. Abortion is clearly rallying many to the polls due to the support for Roe. However, candidates of both parties should be clear on the meaning and scope of this right. Indeed, it is interesting to see the level of focus on this right with little substantive discussion on the scope of the right in campaigns.
Here is the column:
“A blessing in disguise.” Those words from a Democratic political consultant refer to the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, which he described as giving “Democrats a renewed optimism about this year.”
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the court returned the question to the citizenry to determine whether there is a right to abortion in any given state. What happened next, though, is a bit curious: Most Democratic politicians, including President Joe Biden, are declaring that a woman alone should make any decision in consultation with her doctor — an absolute interpretation of the right that was not supported in Roe and that runs counter to the view of most voters.
For that reason, when pressed, most candidates are steadfastly avoiding questions on any restrictions, including questions about late-term abortions.
Senate candidate Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) has adopted an absolute position that there should be no limits on a woman’s right to abortion — far beyond anything in Roe or Casey — and has refused to address whether this would mean that a fully formed baby in the ninth month of pregnancy could be aborted.
Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly (D) has been accused by her opponent, Attorney General Derek Schmidt (R), of opposing any restrictions on the right. But when asked by the media, Kelly has replied: “You know, I have never said that.”
The question is what politicians on both sides have to say about specific restrictions and not just about the right.
Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler on Thursday swatted down questions about late-term abortions as being “disingenuous.” Instead, he insisted these are questions involving “painful, emotional and even moral decisions.” They are. But they also involve the very legal questions addressed in past Supreme Court cases, including Gonzales v. Carhart, upholding Congress’ right to ban late-term abortion techniques.
While Kessler focused on whether late-term abortions are “common,” the issue is whether a woman has a constitutional right to late-term abortions. The answer to that question can help understand the meaning of this right and any balancing of interests recognized in cases like Roe. (While states could adopt a more permissive approach under Roe, it stressed that the state had a powerful interest later in a pregnancy to protect the life of the baby.)
Late-term abortions are rare, but they do occur — for a variety of medical and personal reasons. Kessler admits that “in 2021, state records show, about 1.8 percent of 11,580 abortions in Colorado took place after 21 weeks, but just 60 took place at 25 weeks or later.” That is 268 late-term abortions in Colorado in one year, a small percentage but not inconsequential. More importantly, the question is whether a woman has an absolute right to demand such an abortion and, if not, why? Even if statistically rare, the answer is legally significant in understanding the meaning of this right.
The fact is that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to a claimed right to late-term abortions. Indeed, a majority supports limits on abortion after 15 weeks.
Polls show most Americans reject extreme or absolute positions on either side of the abortion issue. Polls also show that 65 percent of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80 percent would make most abortions illegal in the third.
The United States is one of only 12 among the world’s 198 countries that allow abortions for any reason after 20 weeks; 47 out of 50 European countries ban abortions at around 15 weeks. Such bans are found in countries like France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark and Spain.
Rather than address the legal and policy questions of when a right to abortion is limited or extinguished, many politicians repeat the mantra that the decision rests entirely with the woman. There is a preference to discuss anything other than restrictions of the right.
That was evident in a recent interview with Democrat Stacey Abrams, who is running for Georgia’s governorship. Abrams was discussing abortion as an issue in the upcoming election and declared that “there is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks. It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body.”
Abrams voiced a position put forward by Planned Parenthood, which changed its prior position of a “very basic beating heart” at 5 to 6 weeks of pregnancy. Now, it maintains that a “part of the embryo starts to show cardiac activity. It sounds like a heartbeat on an ultrasound, but it’s not a fully-formed heart.”
The point is that people do not have to think of this as a heartbeat but rather as “cardiac activity [that] sounds like a heartbeat.” Although Abrams put it in the more sensational terms of a male conspiracy against women, it is a distinction drawn by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which says that, since the chambers of the heart are not fully formed, it is “clinically inaccurate” to call it a heartbeat.
Recognizing a heartbeat no more concedes abortion as a right than it supports the right. The question is, first, whether such a right exists under state or federal law (as most Americans believe it does) and then whether that right is absolute or diminishes with the term of a pregnancy.
That is why late-term abortions are relevant in this debate if we are to understand a candidate’s view of this right. When pressed, there has been backtracking or evasion on both sides of the abortion issues, including by some Republicans who are taking back earlier, more extreme positions.
In the case of Abrams, she previously rejected limits and said it should be left up to a mother and her doctor, which means legally leaving it up to the mother. Recently, Abrams declared she would support a right “until a physician determines the fetus is viable outside of the body, except in the case of protecting the woman’s life or health.” The question is the scope or meaning of the health exception.
There should be clarity on precisely how far this right extends, even in the relatively rare cases of late abortions. Those extremes not only define the scope but the right itself. They may also determine the support of the public, which is far more moderate than their leaders on this issue.
Whatever the “blessing” of Dobbs proves to be in this election, the absolute, unlimited right to abortion finds little support in either Roe or the public.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
JT seems surprised by current Democrats saying that the abortion decision should be left up to individual women when this is the pro-choice position that Democrats have been saying for at least 40 years.
I don’t think you speak for all Democrats since a plurality say after a certain number of weeks gestation of the baby that abortion should be illegal. Your position, that there can be no restrictions on abortion (probably the ONLY place Democrats don’t want the hand of the government) is only the view of a minority of Democrats.
I think most moral Americans recognize that poisoning a 20 week baby in utero, then cutting the baby apart in utero in order to extract the poisoned dead baby is actually Mengele not medicine.
Both Republicans and Democrats “don’t want the hand of the government” in lots of places.
Both Republicans and Democrats do “want the hand of the government” in lots of other places.
They simply differ on what things belong in which category.
So which party is for bodily automony?
neither.
Concerned Citizen:
Actually, most Democrats supported restrictions at some point in gestation. The idea that there should be no restrictions whatsoever, is a new Democrat phenomenon. Roe v Wade recognized a State interest in preserving life overcame the woman’s right to make decisions that pertain to her body after viability. Democrats supported Roe v Wade. Are you saying that all this time, actually Democrats did NOT support Roe v Wade, they didn’t understand what was in it, or they’ve always supported the right to kill even a healthy baby all the way up until the moment he breathes air?
There are 325 million people in the US. Roughly half of them are women. Why would anyone assume that millions of people would all make altruistic, good decisions? There were plenty of women who went to Dr Kermit Gosnell to abort healthy, third trimester pregnancies. There are women who throw newborns in dumpsters to die, or who push their car full of kids into lakes. Why do Democrats insist that women would only terminate third trimester pregnancies in the direst of circumstances? As far as the fetal abnormality argument goes, it certainly doesn’t take an abnormality incompatible with life for a mother to want to abort. There are a whole range of abnormalities that are commonly aborted, including Downs Syndrome, the people of which are some of the nicest on Earth. People also selectively abort girls because they only want boys.
Why would there be no restrictions on one person’s ability to kill another? Up until recently, the overwhelming majority of people believed there was a clock that ran out the right to choose. By the third trimester, there is no escaping childbirth. The third trimester abortion requires either delivering a stillborn, that has been killed by lethal injection, or a C-Section. It takes a lot longer than either labor and delivery or a regular C-section. The purpose of a third trimester abortion is to kill the baby, not save the life of the mother. If it was the latter, then a C-section of a live infant is the fastest.
Jonathan: On an unrelated but important topic we now have some indication where Abbott and DeSantis come up with their crazy and cruel idea to ship migrants to Dem strongholds. It was, not surprisingly, Donald Trump. The Trumpster is already mad at DeSantis for stealing his political thunder and is telling his major donors to stop giving money and support to the FL governor who is Trump’s rival for the 2024 nomination. Trump is particularly miffed over DeSantis’ flying of the migrants to Martha’s Vineyard. Trump says it originally was “his idea”. And Trump is right for a change.
In 2019 Trump came up with a plan to bus migrants suspected of serious crimes to “liberal” cities. Trump told his aides he wanted to “punish” his Democratic rivals. He wanted to “destabilize those sanctuary cities”. Former Dept. of Homeland Security official, Miles Taylor, relates that Trump wanted to sent the “worst of the worst” to LA, Portland, Chicago and NY. Trump’s idea apparently went nowhere because administration lawyers strongly opposed such a bizarre and illegal proposal. So it appears DeSantis and Abbott took Trump’s idea and ran with it–and without giving Trump any credit. No wonder the former president is livid!
But there are others who think the cruel hoax was the idea of Fox’s Tucker Carlson. On a recent show John Oliver pointed out that about 2 months ago Carlson did a segment pointing out the “whiteness” of Martha’s Vineyard–suggesting that hundreds of thousands of migrants could be sent there to overwhelm the island. Maybe Carlson was just reviving Trump’s 2019 idea. Whatever, we should probably give credit where credit is due, the former president and intellectual author of the cruel and racist stunt!
“Jonathan: On an unrelated but important topic we now have some indication where Abbott and DeSantis come up with their crazy and cruel idea to ship migrants to Dem strongholds.”
The idea came from Biden, who is both inflicting illegal aliens on red border states and shipping them to other red states.
As migrant is someone who will return to their country of origen.
The correct legal term is alien – which allies whether they are migrants or immigrants.
Outside the law – they are immigrants – unless they are planning to return where they came from.
The term illegal is probable incorrect – people are not illegal.
The correct term would be criminal – which is what you call a person who violates criminal laws.
“The Trumpster is already mad at DeSantis for stealing his political thunder and is telling his major donors to stop giving money and support to the FL governor who is Trump’s rival for the 2024 nomination. Trump is particularly miffed over DeSantis’ flying of the migrants to Martha’s Vineyard. Trump says it originally was “his idea”. And Trump is right for a change.”
What do you care about Republican politics ? Are you going to vote for either DeSantis or Trump ?
Regardless, the idea was Biden’s (or Obama before him).
“In 2019 Trump came up with a plan to bus migrants suspected of serious crimes to “liberal” cities. Trump told his aides he wanted to “punish” his Democratic rivals. He wanted to “destabilize those sanctuary cities”. Former Dept. of Homeland Security official, Miles Taylor, relates that Trump wanted to sent the “worst of the worst” to LA, Portland, Chicago and NY. Trump’s idea apparently went nowhere because administration lawyers strongly opposed such a bizarre and illegal proposal.”
More nonsense from the left. You beleive all this self serving garbage.
Trump wanted to ship illegal aliens OUT OF THE COUNTRY.
The idea of moving them arround inside the country is a DEMOCRAT idea.
Trump has been crystal clear. Rather than gossip and rumours we have what Trump ACTUALLY did – “Remain in Mexico” – and it worked.
Do you honestly beleive that if Trump could get an illegal alien on a Plane or a Bus, that he would send them to Portland rather than Mexico ?
“So it appears DeSantis and Abbott took Trump’s idea and ran with it–and without giving Trump any credit. No wonder the former president is livid!”
Nope, Biden’s idea.
“But there are others who think the cruel hoax was the idea of Fox’s Tucker Carlson.”
Still Biden’s idea.
“On a recent show John Oliver”
John Oliver is a comedian.
“Carlson did a segment pointing out the “whiteness” of Martha’s Vineyard–suggesting that hundreds of thousands of migrants could be sent there to overwhelm the island.”
Good idea, make the hypocrits on the left deal with the failure of their own policies.
“Maybe Carlson was just reviving Trump’s 2019 idea.”
Still Biden’s idea, and before that Obama.
If Republicans could – they would send illegal aliens back where they came from as the LAW requires.
But only the federal government can enforce immigration laws.
The only choice governors of states overwhelmed by illegal aliens have is sending them elsewhere in the US.
Which BTW has been going on for decades with the homeless. Blue cities ship homeless people to other blue cities.
This has ALWAYS been a democrat idea.
“Whatever, we should probably give credit where credit is due, the former president and intellectual author of the cruel and racist stunt!”
Why is it racist to send brown people to a pasty white place that is incredibly affluent ?
I thought democrats favored affirmative action, bussing, diversity and integration.
Do those of you on the left just make things up as they go ?
I thought bussing people from areas that were predominantly minority to places that were predominantly white was a Democrat idea to FIGHT racism.
Yet, you are calling it racist.
Does racism have an actual meaning for those like you – beyond “I do not like it” ?
The only racism here is that of democrats.
Massachusetts is 77%white
Texas is 50% white
Florida is 51.5% white.
Florida and TX should probably send about 1.5M brown people each to Masssachusetts to overcome the racism of MA.
Perfect. Thanks
Fifteen weeks is where the majority of Republicans (59%) and Democrats (61%) are comfortable. It is also more liberal than nearly all of Europe where most countries cap it between 12-and-14 weeks with some lower or even forbidden.
Roe’s 24-26 weeks was not supported by the majority of either party.
Most European countries pay for abortions as part of their health care. We should do the same.
It’s not healthcare when it kills a life. It would be like saying we should be paying for ingestion of fentenyl, also used medicinally, by anyone interested in drugs.
It’s healthcare for the only person involved: the pregnant woman or girl, whose health is always negatively impacted by pregnancy.
Healthcare often kills things that are alive (sometimes the living cells that are killed belong to other species; sometimes the living cells that are killed are human cells).
Actually more than the woman is involved (including the father) but most impactfully the baby. We are all a conglomeration of cells that are not fully developed, as is a baby who is one minute old, as are you. This is not like killing wart which has no fundamental ability to be anything but a wart… this has all of the DNA of any human. and is a human unless something kills it. I recognize that we will never go backwards to no abortion but limitations on abortion are appropriate and the Democrat belief that all abortion at any time is egregious.
Pay attention to what I said: the only PERSON involved. The embryo is not a PERSON. If you think it’s a PERSON, then you’d also demand that it be counted in the census, which counts all PERSONS in the country.
As for the father, who is a person, he is not the one who is pregnant. Figure out a way for men to carry a pregnancy to term and a means of transplantation, and then a father who wants to do that can do it.
“this has all of the DNA of any human”
Human DNA establishes it as human, but does not establish it as a PERSON.
I don’t believe in “all abortion at any time” and have said so elsewhere in the comments here.
Trite and ridiculous.
State legislatures have the power to protect a baby in-utero.
Really? What are you curing on this female?
Are you unaware that pregnancy always negatively impacts a woman’s/girl’s health? If you’re unaware, try asking some pregnant women/girls how the pregnancy is affecting their health (nausea, backache, increased blood pressure, fatigue, etc.)
Perhaps they should improve their nutrition so they don’t suffer such things so much. Not saying that will fix absolutely everything perfectly, but it will go a long way. Too many of us are Pottenger’s cats trying to carry babies to term.
Just about everyone “should” improve their nutrition. But that will not eliminate the negative effects of pregnancy on the human body. It’s a significant stressor.
It’s a significant stressor.
So is free-climbing El Capitan. It’s called having free will to make informed choices.
Right! Choosing to have an abortion is an example of having free will to make an informed choice. It’s not your choice to make for that woman or girl, any more than you should be able to force someone to continue climbing El Capitain.
Explain why you believe it is unethical for the state to forbid girls and women from having abortions.
I don’t think it ought to be just her choice considering that embryo isn’t a polyp. He or she was formed by the union of an egg and a sperm. That is also some man’s baby. And, it seems rather cavalier to treat that baby as though it is just a polyp to be discarded. It is a developing baby, soon to be a little person. He or she should not be treated as an inconvenience or as disposable.
Pregnancy has a self cure in nine months.
Sometimes. Sometime the “cure” is miscarriage. Sometimes it’s elective abortion. Unfortunately, about 700 women also die each year in the US from pregnancy- or delivery-related complications.
Anonymous:
About 827,000 women have abortions every year in the US. They experience a 155% increased risk of committing suicide.
When someone is pregnant with an unplanned pregnancy, there are difficult choices to be made, and none of them carry no risk or consequence.
Karen, abortion versus forced birth is not your decision to make for them, and I’m not going to take your word for a study you don’t identify.
“abortion versus forced birth is not your decision to make for them”
Correct, it is a decision that nature made.
Short people do not have the right to be tall.
People with Type II diabetes do not have the right to a cure.
We can hope for the ability to overcome the limits of nature, but those do not become a right should they become possible.
“We found that women who had abortions had a higher risk of non-fatal suicide attempts compared with women who did not have an abortion. However, because the increased risk was the same both the year before and after the abortion, it is not attributable to the abortion. Thus, policies based on the notion that abortion increases women’s risk of suicide attempts are misinformed.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31757590/
The conclusion of the article makes no sense.
The fact that the suicide rate for women who have abortions is the same before and after the abortion does not mean the abortion is not the cause of the suicide.
People commit suicide before doing all kinds of horrible things. We do not presume that because they did not wait until they had done those stupid things that the stupid thing the were contemplating was not the cause.
Karen, following your discussion, Anonymous provided so-called impartial data. Look at the funding for the study. I link it to https://www.societyfp.org/wecount/
“#WeCount is a time-limited, national abortion reporting effort aimed at capturing aggregate data, by state, on the shifts in abortion access following the Dobbs v Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court decision.
For abortion providers
For the data to be as powerful as possible, we need ALL abortion providers to participate. Enroll your site and share this opportunity with your colleagues to help us reach this goal! Participating facilities will be compensated for their time and effort for the life of this project. Contact VArenas@SocietyFP.org with questions.”
Look who is on their steering committee. I’ll provide one that stands out.
“Hannah Simons, DrPH; Planned Parenthood Federation of America”
They refer you to their # we count flyer: societyfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/SFP_2022_We_Count_PDF_f_1.pdf
“The Society of Family Planning is a community of scholars, clinicians, and partners who share a vision of just and equitable access to abortion and contraception informed by science.
To inform our community’s response to the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court decision”
“For the data to be as powerful as possible, we need ALL abortion providers to participate.
Please share this PDF to help us to reach this goal.”
There is nothing I would trust from this specific Anonymous. Most things he writes or quotes are distorted and wrong. I read the study abstract. I would not trust it even if I agreed. It uses one metric (in the abstract), and one wonders if they data mined their data providing only that which proved their case.
A study of this nature requires more than one or two studies to become significant. I would have liked to see their data and more things to reveal the selection process. I do not afford this study much credibility based on what is available from the abstract and the funders.
I believe that the left has invaded science, including medical science studies. I remember Lancet articles that were political discussing the Middle East though I don’t remember how they incorporated it into their journal. We saw politics entering decisions during the Clinton impeachment, where I think JAMA fired the editor.
Today, almost every part of our lives are increasingly governed by PC, even though PC is frequently proven to be harmful and counterproductive.
(Please note, this is based on a quick look, so, I advise others to check for themselves.)
the anonymous who responded to you at 4:10 and 4:13 listed a study that showed suicidal similarity in the year before and after an abortion. Pretty funny, since 9out of 12 months BEFORE abortion, the female is pregnant, and most likely depressed because she does not want this baby…..THis is the way the left interprets data to its advantage.
Anonymous:
Your article, funded by a pro-abortion group, claimed that while women who have abortions have an increased risk of suicide attempts, since the risk is higher just before and just after the abortion, then it was not attributable to abortion. That’s a very subjective opinion.
Suicide attempts while pregnant, just before an abortion, could also be women who can’t face either being pregnant, nor having an abortion. Suicide attempts after an abortion can still be attributable to the abortion, because the grief and regret can be lifelong. The study you cited also noted that risk of non fatal suicide attempts decreased with increasing time since the abortion.
The study authors made a rather wild leap to proclaiming that the link between suicide attempts and a first abortion was not causal.
Karen,
You still haven’t provided a citation for YOUR claim. You raise the issue of funding. Will we find that the research YOU cite is funded by an anti-abortion group?
“the risk is higher just before and just after the abortion”
No, Karen, not “just before and just after.” For an entire year before and after.
“Suicide attempts while pregnant, …”
Obviously if they look at the entire year before and after, the person is NOT pregnant for most of the year preceding the abortion, since most abortions occur in the first few months of pregnancy.
“The study authors made a rather wild leap …”
It wasn’t wild at all.
Anonymous:
You said I did not link to the increased abortion risks. I did, elsewhere, but will include more links here:
https://lozierinstitute.org/new-study-elevated-suicide-rates-among-mothers-after-abortion/
“Of the maternal suicides included in this study, the suicide rate of women who had abortions was more than double the suicide rate of women who gave birth. The maternal suicide rate among women who suffered miscarriages was also stunningly high highlighting the need to support mothers grieving from the loss of a baby.”
In my opinion, this is because these women viewed their unborn as a baby. Not a ball of cells.
Anonymous:
You said, “abortion versus forced birth is not your decision to make for them.” You also said you supported restrictions after viability. Does that not mean that at a point in gestation, you would “force” women to give birth to live infants? Is it only right for you to “force” them, but not to do so a couple of weeks prior to that?
Karen, if you read the Italian research paper, you’ll find “The majority of the women who died by maternal suicide (34/57) had a previous psychiatric history,” where they define “maternal suicide” as “suicide during pregnancy or within 1 year after giving birth, induced abortion or miscarriage.”
If you read the US research paper, you’ll find that it’s over 20 years old and looks at deaths during the **10 years** after abortion or birth and only looked at low-income women: “California Medicaid records for 173,279 women who had an induced abortion or a delivery in 1989 were linked to death certificates for 1989 to 1997. Results: Compared with women who delivered, those who aborted had a significantly higher age-adjusted risk of death from all causes (1.62), from suicide (2.54), and from accidents (1.82), as well as a higher relative risk of death from natural causes (1.44), including the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) (2.18), circulatory diseases (2.87), and cerebrovascular disease (5.46). Results are stratified by age and time.” There would be no reason to expect that diverse causes of deatth would be different for the two groups unless there were preexisting differences in the two groups.
The Finnish paper is even older.
Your article, which comes from an anti-abortion institute, also fails to look at lots of other relevant research in the US and internationally.
Just two of the many examples:
Major, Brenda, et al. “Abortion and mental health: Evaluating the evidence.” American Psychologist 64.9 (2009): 863.
“The most rigorous studies indicated that within the United States, the relative risk of mental health problems among adult women who have a single, legal, first-trimester abortion of an unwanted pregnancy is no greater than the risk among women who deliver an unwanted pregnancy. Evidence did not support the claim that observed associations between abortion and mental health problems are caused by abortion per se as opposed to other preexisting and co-occurring risk factors.”
Biggs, M. Antonia, et al. “Five-year suicidal ideation trajectories among women receiving or being denied an abortion.” American Journal of Psychiatry 175.9 (2018): 845-852.
“Levels of suicidal ideation were similarly low between women who had abortions and women who were denied abortions. Policies requiring that women be warned that they are at increased risk of becoming suicidal if they choose abortion are not evidence based.”
“Does that not mean that at a point in gestation, you would “force” women to give birth to live infants?”
At that point, they can choose to end the pregnancy by inducing labor, so I would not be forcing them to bring the pregnancy to term, which is what I’ve been discussing this entire time, not whether they give birth to live infants or not. As you’ve pointed out several times, at that point in pregnancy, the actual labor doesn’t differ much between abortion vs. early delivery. Also, there is no guarantee that it will be a live birth rather than a stillbirth.
700 women vs. how many dead babies?
They could always close their legs.. I know when I’ve found something that negatively affects me I avoid doing it.
What are you curing on this female?
Irresponsibility.
True enough.
Trite and ridiculous.
Anonymous:
There are 3 people involved – the father, the fetus, and the woman, in whom the fetus grows. The person directly impacted is actually the fetus, who is killed. If you have a tumor, those are your cells. You are removing your own cells, and impacting only yourself. A fetus is part of the natural reproductive process, a completely separate human, and not the cells of the mother. When a woman has an abortion, she has killed another human being.
Now, people can certainly make arguments in favor of abortion, but gaslighting us that a fetus is a tumor or parasite, or that this only involves the mother’s body, is not a rational or truthful argument. People are also getting gaslighted about the consequences for abortion. Studies show that women who have abortions experience an increased risk by a shocking 81% in mental health issues, including substance abuse, anxiety, depression, and suicide. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/abortion-tied-to-sharp-decline-in-womens-mental-health/). Pro Choice activists don’t share that information with the women to whom they proselytize.
The entire purpose of abortion is to kill a baby before he or she is born. When an abortion is performed on a viable fetus, the mother would prefer the baby dead, than be allowed to live with another family. During the 2nd trimester, the abortionist reaches in blind with forceps and twists off limbs from the living baby, until finally finding and crushing the skull. It’s very violent and must be agonizing, and it’s entirely directed by the baby’s own mother. When an abortion is performed in the 3rd trimester, the mother still has to deliver a baby. Her health has already been impacted by her pregnancy.
One of my relatives was adopted before Roe v Wade. I’ve sometimes wondered if he was conceived after, would he have been allowed to live, or killed before he ever had a chance? None of us have any idea how he was conceived. Would he be less deserving to live if he’d been conceived through rape? I don’t know what his mother was going through. I just cannot imagine a world without him. I cannot imagine his mother killing him before he was ever born, with us never having known or loved him. He was known for going above and beyond to help others, yet he might never have been born. I think that influences my personal perspective on abortion.
There are many reasons why women abort their babies. I am very sympathetic to a woman who’s scared about being pregnant. I just think that in order to have a reasoned debate, in each state, someone needs to also speak for the unborn. Way too many women get pressured by the father of their child, or their parents, to have an abortion.
There are two issues: what the law should be on abortion, and whether it is ethical to kill the unborn. Laws do not prevent every unethical act. People need to not only vote on what they want the laws of each state to reflect, as well as their own personal code on abortion.
The fetus is human. Every young woman and man should think about this issue. Is it ethical for HER to kill an innocent human because he or she is really inconvenient or she dislikes the father? If she gets an abortion, or his girlfriend does, will you regret it later, or be content?
The embryo is not a person, Karen. It’s human, but not a person. If it were a person, they’d have been counting embryos in every census since the country was formed. If it were a person, you could have a congressional district with a frozen embryo bank with 100,000 frozen embryos comprising a large fraction of the “people” in the congressional district.
I’ve never suggested that “a fetus is a tumor or parasite.” Of course it isn’t a tumor or a parasite. It also isn’t a person.
Can you give me an example of a LEGAL abortion of a viable fetus? Because the only example I know of was a raped 12 year old (if I’m remembering right) who had to wait for a court to rule on whether she could get an abortion that her parents would not agree to, and it wasn’t resolved until the 7th month of pregnancy. Maybe you’d have forced her to continue the pregnancy and give birth and risk not being able to have any other children. I would not force a raped 12 y.o. to give birth.
That is irrelevant to the question at hand.
Anonymous:
European countries did not skip the legislative process, and declare that abortion was a constitutional right. Europeans voted on abortion laws, just as the Dobbs Decision confirmed we should do. Europeans also voted on whether their state run healthcare should pay for abortion.
In fact, most European countries have restrictions on abortion after the first trimester. In France, restrictions are imposed after the 14th week, which was the restriction in the Dobbs decision.
It is up to each State in the US to decide on abortion law and abortion financing.
Honestly, I’ve never seen people so angry and outraged at being expected to participate in self governance than I have on the abortion issue. When abortion laws are either too permissive, or too restrictive, than the population will allow, then there is now a process to change that.
The real issue is not whether women have a Constitutional “right” to abortion – they don’t – it’s whether or not states have the right to declare abortion a crime – they do. Look folks, before Roe v Wade was decided, abortion was a crime in all but a mere handful of states and those states had only made it legal recently. Feminists pushed it as a means of preventing “back alley” abortions, which date back to the dawn of the human race. The difference between “conservative” and “liberal” is how they perceive the Constitution. Roe v Wade was just the latest, at the time, of a series of decisions based on liberal interpretations of the Constitution, specifically the amendments adopted right after the Civil War when Southern states had no input and Radical Republicans controlled Congress and applying them to anything and everything under the sun, starting with the Brown v Topeka decision that opened up a can of worms. Then the late Madlynn Murray came along with her suit about the reading of the Bible and reciting the Lord’s Prayer in schools and it went from there with the most recent being the decision that the Constitution somehow conveys a “right” to same-sex marriage. Whether the knock down of Roe v Wade will actually affect the election remains to be seen but you can bet Democrats are going to make it a major talking point (because they don’t have anything else.)
Semc, imagine if men were sent into combat by a draft? Oh wow, men being told what to do with their bodies!!!
Jonathan: Personally, I’m an absolutist. The decision on abortion-even late term abortion- should be between a woman and her doctor. Can you imagine what would happen if men were restricted in what they could do with their bodies? If women suddenly controlled a state legislature and put restrictions on the right to a vasectomy there would be, to use Lindsey Graham’s phrase, “riots in the streets”. Graham is getting pushback from his own party and severe ridicule for proposing a nationwide ban on abortion. So much for “state rights”. Abortion bans in many states after Dobbs will probably come back to haunt the GOP in November. Women voters are now energized. They recently overwhelmingly defeated an anti-abortion measure in very conservative Kansas. Justice Alito’s decision that women’s rights should be determined by laws and customs in the 17th century may come back to haunt him. Abigail Adams, John Adams wife, said it best when she wrote him in 1776: “Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and we’ll not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation”. John Adams ignored his wife’s wise counsel and we have reaped the whirlwind ever since!
Dennis, I am an absolutist. I believe all life is protected by the Constitution.
That said. Graham is wrong. My only thought, he is attempting to trigger the first SCOTUS case on abortion, post Dobbs. If Republicans get the legislation passed and signed, the left will bring a case to overturn it. The left would be forced to use States Rights as the easiest path to succeed. Hence setting trial precedent anchoring Dobbs.
“Personally, I’m an absolutist. The decision on abortion-even late term abortion- should be between a woman and her doctor.”
I would absolutely agree that men and women should have the absolute right to control of their own bodies.
But there is a difference between what should be and what is.
The courts have WRONGLY ruled that we do not have absolute control of our own bodies.
Buck V. Bell is heinous, it is also still good law. There is plenty of law requiring vaccinations. States and the Federal govenrment forced many people to vaccinate for Covid. They also forced us all to Mask. While there are SOME legal immediments to government having near absolute control over our bodies there is today nothing even close to a right to control of your own body that has any teeth.
A fetus is not YOUR BODY, it is IN your body. Not the same.
I would further note – what has a doctor got to do with this ? If I am a competent adult MY control of my own body should be absolute and not subject to even a doctors consent.
Finally control of your own body at best give’s a woman the right to have a fetus removed. It does not convey a right to kill it.
Abortion does not hinge on the right to control YOUR body. It is about the right to control the life of the fetus.
“Can you imagine what would happen if men were restricted in what they could do with their bodies?”
They are, they are forbidden from raping people, from assaulting others.
“Graham is getting pushback from his own party and severe ridicule for proposing a nationwide ban on abortion.”
I honestly do not care much for Graham or about his nationwide law.
Though I would note that Graham’s proposed law essentially Converts Roe into Federal law.
No abortions after 16 weeks. The supremecy clause of the constitution would then prevent red states from retricting abortion before 16 weeks.
If you do not like Graham’s proposal – fine. But all it does is essentially convert Roe into federal law.
“So much for “state rights””
The Dobbs decision was that Roe (and Casey) were unconstitutional court made law. Dobb’s says nothing about whether the congress can make abortion law.
“Abortion bans in many states after Dobbs will probably come back to haunt the GOP in November.”
We will find out in November. But thus far Polling is indicating that for those where Abortion is pivotal slightly more people on the right have been energized than on the left.
There are two important factors regarding any election critical issue.
The first is does that issue change any minds.
Very very few people are changing whether they support democrats or republicans based on dobbs.
The second is does it get people to vote who would have sat home.
Dobbs has clearly gotten some democrats who likely would not have voted, to vote.
It has also gotten some republicans who would not have likely voted to vote.
We are unlikely to know for sure how that plays out until november.
“Women voters are now energized.”
They are – and education is more important to them than abortion – an issue that Democrats are losing on.
Food prices are more important than abortion – and issue democrats are losing on.
The growing nuclear threat is more important to them than abortion – and issue democrats are losing on.
Crime is more important to them than abortion – and issue democrats are losing on.
“They recently overwhelmingly defeated an anti-abortion measure in very conservative Kansas.”
Proving that voters are capable of making up their own minds and do not need the supreme court to step in.
“Justice Alito’s decision that women’s rights should be determined by laws and customs in the 17th century may come back to haunt him.”
What alito said was that to create a right that did not exist in 1787 you must amend the constitution.
If I claim that each of us has the right to daily sexual gratification – does my utterance bring such a right into existance ?
Clearly no one 250 years ago thought that was a right. If people today think it is – they should be able to amend the constitution to establish that right.
Dobbs does not say the past controls the present.
It says the rule of law controls the present.
If you want change – you must create change through the law.
“Abigail Adams, John Adams wife, said it best when she wrote him in 1776: “Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and we’ll not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation”. John Adams ignored his wife’s wise counsel and we have reaped the whirlwind ever since!”
Women have had a voice in the laws since 1916. More women vote than men.
This might be the dumbest comment ever written
Do State lefislatures have the power to protect a child not yet born?> Do State legislatures have the power to determine when that power should be applied. ?
SCOTUS decisions, including Roe, have acknowledged that State legislative power.
Like almost all Democrat legislative agenda items, they or forced into work play and obfuscation. in an attempt to confuse. Shift the real debate to something it is not.
Life? yes or no.
> one of only 12 among the world’s 198 countries that allow abortions for any reason after 20 weeks;
Is this “there are 12 countries where at least one reason can justify late abortions”, or “there are 12 countries where you don’t need a reason”?
(Like, I think I know from other discussions, but the wording is confusing.)
This is why most Democrats will not debate…they cannot answer the simple question, “how many weeks?”. They love to live on abortion and they scream that Reps want to ban it, but they cannot survive a true debate on it.
We’ve had this discussion before: at viability (which does not occur at a set number of weeks but instead varies by pregnancy), with exceptions for serious risks to the mother’s life or health and for newly diagnosed serious fetal conditions like the one discussed here: https://twitter.com/wtadler/status/1521167627833552899
I have no problem at all debating it. You don’t want to debate the actual complexities.
No republican does. Now that they have to own up to it.
Name one Republican that is not debating. Now name 5 Democrats that aren’t. Most of us on the right say no abortion after 15 weeks, EVERYONE on the left says no restrictions at all. If you are going to say I am wrong please name one Dem that has said he or she favors any restriction at all.
I’m on the left.
I just told you that I disagree with “no restrictions at all,” yet here you are lying that “EVERYONE on the left says no restrictions at all.” Why do you lie so blatantly?
Anonymous, you may find this hard to believe but when I said “name even one Democrat that will agree to any restriction, even one at 8 months” I meant AN ELECTED DEMOCRAT, not some moron who comments 1000 times a day on a site he hates.
Now genius, name ONE ELECTED DEMOCRAT that will say he or she agrees with any restriction at all.
Sure, here’s one: Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), who is anti-abortion.
Hey, “genius,” can you admit you’re wrong?
And I don’t post 100 times/day, much less 1000. You could easily do a text search that will tell you how many times “anonymous” appears on this page, and only some of those are mine. But you wouldn’t want to have to deal truthfully with a simple factual issue, you’d rather lie about the people you disagree with. I feel sorry for you.
Anonymous:
While I agree with you that not all Democrats are in favor of no restrictions, the hard truth is that the Democrat Party most empathically is pushing the removal of restrictions. Your personal feelings do not reflect the trajectory of the party you support. No matter what you think, personally, if you vote for Democrats who oppose restrictions, or who make those restrictions so wide, including mental health such as stress, then you, too, are voting for the removal of abortion restrictions. You would have to vote for a party other than the Democrat Party to actually support restrictions.
Take, for example, the Women’s Health Act of 2021:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text
It banned “A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.”
It banned “A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.”
The woman’s health is not defined, and has been stated by numerous OB/GYNs, would include stress or feeling overwhelmed. As stated previously, a 3rd trimester abortion takes longer, and carries more risk, than labor and delivery of a living infant. It is done to kill the baby, not save the life of the mother, as it physically takes longer. By stating that any indefinable risk to a patient’s health can be used to justify abortion, there can be no restrictions. Having a baby is stressful. Of course, having a stillborn would also be stressful.
It banned notifying the parents of minors. A 14 year old could get an abortion and her parents would never know.
The Democrat Party keeps trying to push federal abortion law that is more permissible than polling shows voters approve of.
NY expressly lists mental health as a reason to get an abortion after 24 weeks, regardless of whether the baby is viable or not. It allows abortion for minors, with no age minimum.
“You have the right to an abortion up to 24 weeks from the start of pregnancy. After 24 weeks, abortion is legal if the fetus is not viable or if your life or physical or mental health is at risk. If you are younger than 18, you do not have to notify your parents or receive their consent for an abortion or other reproductive-health services.”
Karen, no matter what you think personally, if you vote for Republicans who oppose all or almost all abortions and pass legislation consistent with that, then you, too, are voting to make abortion almost universally illegal.
And if you are voting for democrats you are voting for censorship, tyranny, a police state, and an abysmal economy.
Anonymous:
The Democrat Party keeps pushing for no restrictions whatsoever, even trying to remove restrictions on abortion procedures, which would allow the infamous partial birth abortion. If you vote Democrat, you are voting for no abortion restrictions, in violation of your personal beliefs.
Around 23 weeks give or take.
https://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/23-weeks-pregnant
Bottom line is one can be pro-limitations without there being religious underpinnings for it. And, shocker, even women can be pro-life. Even someone who does not believe in God (or doesn’t have a specific religious persuasion) can know that a pain-capable unborn child will suffer greatly upon being aborted. If only those who believe in God are the only ones remaining who believe in the sanctity of life, then we are screwed as a society. The Dems went off the rails when they supported with religious fervor the right to abort any time for any reason placing the USA in the small category of countries that allow such a thing, including China, North Korea, and Vietnam. They really lost the remaining shreds of credibility when they zealously went after vaccine doubters and demanded everyone get an unproven vaccine that already was known not to prevent disease. My body, my choice went flying out of the window.
RE:”candidates of both parties should be clear on the meaning and scope of this right.” Candidates for office are a tiresome lot. Little of what they say, and more of what they’ve done should be the voter’s benchmark, particularly where incumbents.are concerned. Politicians understand that level of interest is small amongst the electorate, which is why the vocal yada yada heats up in the last four weeks. What utters from the mouths of the likes of Stacy Abrams should be evidence of a dyed in the wool wackjob. Unfortunately, she’ll have a following of that lot. That’s how we were saddled with ‘there goes Hid’in Biden.”
“Every two years the American politics industry fills the airwaves with the most virulent, scurrilous, wall-to-wall character assassination of nearly every political practitioner in the country – and then declares itself puzzled that America has lost trust in its politicians.” –Charles Krauthammer
Miss him!!
I wonder how the Democrats got so radical on abortion.
Dick Durbin supported overturning Roe v Wade in 1989.
FJB voted for the Human Life Federalism Amendment in 1982.
What happened?
MTE:
“What happened?”
****************************
China happened and its money is being used to wage asymmetrical warfare on the US populace -their personal sentiments be damned. The Dims are a wholly owned subsidiary of the CCP and their efforts to disrupt and demoralize the American people are self-evident. Nothing else plausible explains this 180 degree change of heart except what the Bible so presciently taught:
“For the love of money is the root of all of evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (1 Timothy 6:10).
Sound descriptive to you? I’m not particularly religious but truth is truth regardless of who says it.
The Dims are absolute traitors in the colloquial sense in this “phony” precursor “war.”
“China happened and its money is being used to wage asymmetrical warfare on the US populace”
Worse, I think, Mespo. It is *our* money being used against us.
Clinton, Gingrich, Biden, and other ilk sold us out to China with the WTO so nigh on everything is “Made in China” (and later Bush following 9/11 wanted everyone to buy stuff, now Made in China). We give them our money to buy junk and they use our money to wage asymmetrical warfare against us. We fed that monster. Of course, some of our dear globalist leaders made sure that was the main monster to feed.
Sacrificing our liberty, among other things, on the altar of convenience and materialism.
Mespo727272, I agree with you. You have this exactly right in everything you wrote. Evidently you, I (and I hope/pray enough others also) have put a priority on searching for and ferreting out truth. I encourage everyone who wants to live free (and pass on a free America to their descendants) to shed the scales from their eyes pronto. Once people see the enormity of the Marxist/Communist/Fascist/Tyrannical/Police State maneuvers currently in play to destroy America and the whole world, (so the idiot destroyers can “Build Back Better”) maybe enough people will put their hearts, minds, souls into working together to solving real problems and do constructive things to maintain/build a way of life that actually produces a better world for the Earth and all its inhabitants as time and unexpected events evolve. The Earth has had 5 documented mass extinctions all by itself before humans arrived. I would like to see us all do a good job of electing officials who are dedicated to doing a good job of running the country (their job) instead of squandering the citizens tax money on show trials, lawsuits, hearings with no results, trillions in payments for virtual ‘roads to nowhere.’ We can only elect good officials if we get informed and stay informed. Everyone, Please, make your votes count.
Democrats are not radical at all on abortion. They just want what would be normal in the rest of our peer countries. It is the Republicans with their stick (even if women die) abortion bans.
Roe established viability and would be a good standard to return to and to codify nationally. R’s won’t want to stand by their red herring of it being about states rights. Kansas kicked that bit of falsehood right in the butt.
Turley, late term abortions are rare because they come about mostly for health reasons and clinics largely turned them away without that medical justification.
You took the position right after Dobbs that it was a) okay for women to have a civil right taken away from them and, b) that abortion rights are okay to be determined by economic conditions and address. This says much about you, Turley. You may’ve taken this position by default but the saying does maintain democracy and freedom die when good men say nothing in response to rights being chipped away…
Of course that gives you credit for being a good man previously…, does this actually describe you? Have you been so beaten down by the sordid side of the law that you gave up and just took the money? Was there an outstanding reason that seemed to dictate this financial choice? Life often gets weird and hard to understand, no?
Roe established viability and would be a good standard to return to and to codify nationally.
You exposed the horrible constitutional footing of ROE. There exists no statutory, or constitutional direction to make such a finding. This is pure legislative power being usurped by SCOTUS. SCOTUS is a big threat to unraveling democracy
“after Dobbs that it was a) okay for women to have a civil right taken away from them and, b) that abortion rights are okay to be determined by economic conditions and address.”
No civil rights were taken away. A bad ruling by the Court was overturned.
—
ATS, I note you being more careful about your libelous statements. Presently, you are being insulting.
deleted post:
>>“No civil rights were taken away. A bad ruling by the Court was overturned.”
>Even if what you say is true, and it’s not, it was done by removal of a civil right.
There is no civil right to abortion.
>A historical first. And you should really look into what constitutes libel…, not for my commentary or that of others, but for yours.”
Check out your dictionary. In short defamation. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libel
I would also point out that Roe is consistent with Buck v. Bell and Jacobson v. Massachusetts.
The Rs are needlessly damaging themselves on this issue. They should say two things:
1. Those in or competing for national office, that it is a matter for the states; and
2. Those in or competing for state office, that the right exists in the state but ends after the first trimester, save for the life or serious physical health of the mother. Exceptions for rape or incest are not needed since three months is long enough to deal with those situations.
This is where most voters appear to be.
The Rs should continue to highlight that Ds consistently vote for the right to extend to the time of birth. Very few voters support this.
To be clear, had this woman not had a stillbirth (which some call miscarriage), you would have forced her to give birth and watch her newborn suffer and die, as you have no exceptions for serious health issues with the fetus:
https://twitter.com/wtadler/status/1521167627833552899
Serious fetal anomalies are often diagnosed after the first trimester.
You’ll also force some children who’ve been raped to give birth if their parents object to abortion, as they have to obtain a court order, and that often takes them past the 1st trimester.
You also ignore that in states that already have more restrictive abortion laws, it takes poor women a long time to save up money to travel out of state, to arrange childcare for their existing kids, to take time away from work, …
I agree that serious fetal abnormalities diagnosed after the first trimester should also be an exception. Thanks for pointing that out.
Anonymous keeps writing about reasons for abortion. No one denies that reasons for abortion exist. The decision righted a wrong because Roe was bad law and placed a boundary on abortion. With it removed from federal jurisdiction, the decision returned to the states where it belongs.
Your reasons for abortion remain. You can now present them to the states. The states are now constitutionally empowered to make their own decisions. This empowerment is a victory for the people as they can decide, not nine judges who inserted their feelings to create law instead of following the Constitution.
Women are people too, so it is a victory for women also. They have a voice. Presently, one can have an abortion, though the location for an abortion may have changed with an extension of the time limit denied by the Roe ruling.
Both sides should be happy, but the left is never satisfied, always wanting to use the woman’s body as a campaign slogan.
“ Women are people too, so it is a victory for women also.”
Not in states where abortion is illegal and very few to no exceptions. This means that not all women are feeling “victorious”. In those states they have less liberty to choose what they want, the state decides for them what they should do.
In those states they have less liberty to choose what they want, the state decides for them what they should do.
They still have the liberty to choose not to get pregnant. If they don’t want to take on that level of personal responsibility, then they have the liberty of moving to a state that supports their irresponsible behavior.
I’m sure that women and girls who are raped, or whose birth control fails, or who develop serious pregnancy-related health concerns, or whose fetuses are diagnosed with serious health conditions that lead them to terminate for medical reasons all agree with you that it’s just a matter of “choosing not to get pregnant.”
Good. Now you’ve pivoted back to the exceptions that most of us agree on.
So you agree that if someone’s birth control fails, they should be able to get an abortion?
It is a victory for all women, but some might see it differently. Though you might not realize it, women have opinions on both sides whether you like it or not, so .
The woman’s vote in each state will count no matter which side they are on. They might vote for late term abortion in which case your stance would have deprived them of that right.
Just like FJB’s COVID vaccine mandate?
Another problem with your approach: in some cases women develop complications that are known to eventually put their life or health seriously at risk, but where the complication has not yet reached that point. You want to force them to wait for the point where their life or health are seriously at risk, increasing the likelihood of death, rather than allow a post-first-trimester abortion before it reaches that point of being life-endangering. You are unwilling to let doctors determine how to care for their patients.
Anonymous wrote, ” in some cases women develop complications that are known to eventually put their life or health seriously at risk, but where the complication has not yet reached that point.”
This is a reasonably valid point.
The female has the same right to life as the unborn human being and both of their rights must be considered – legally. I propose that there should be a guardian ad litem assigned to the unborn human being and a rapid, and I mean very, very rapid, legal process that allows these medical arguments to be presented to the court and verified by the court before the human right to life is stripped of an unborn human being and therefore can be terminated. I think this process could take place at any time in the pregnancy and the process should take no more than two weeks from initial notification to the court and the final decision.
If there are enough cases to justify its creation, a special court could be set up to expedite these cases within the predetermined time frame, after all these really are supposed to be life threatening emergencies that require “immediate” rulings.
Lastly, there should be severe legal consequences for people that intentionally abuse the court to try to falsely justify abortions where there is no justifiable medical or legal claims.
I propose that an embryo’s right to use a woman’s uterus to save its life is the same as someone’s right to use your bone marrow to save their life, namely: there is no such right.
Anonymous wrote, “I propose that an embryo’s right to use a woman’s uterus to save its life is the same as someone’s right to use your bone marrow to save their life, namely: there is no such right.”
After that absolute nonsense I can only conclude that you’re intentionally trolling.
No, I’m not trolling. I’m pointing out that you are arguing that an embryo has a right to use a woman’s or girl’s uterus to save its life, when in NO other situation does one human being get to use another human being’s body against their will.
You won’t say why you find this logically or factually in error.
I have a lot of experience with donation. I donate whole blood and platelets, and I know that if the donation process is making me nauseous (for example, as is common with platelet donation), I can remove my consent in the middle of the donation, and they stop. I’ve been evaluated as a living organ donor, where even if I’m willing, doctors will refuse to take my organ if they determine it to be too great a risk for me. I’m in the National Bone Marrow Registry. A friend’s son recovered from leukemia thanks to a generous bone marrow donor, but that person could not be required to donate their bone marrow; it had to be with their consent.
Consent to sex is not consent to bringing a pregnancy to term.
I’m pointing out that you are arguing that an embryo has a right to use a woman’s or girl’s uterus to save its life, when in NO other situation does one human being get to use another human being’s body against their will.
The “against her will” argument is null and void if the pregnancy resulted from consensual sex.
Consent to sex is NOT consent to carrying a pregnancy to term.
Olly, you have to forgive ATS. He thinks the living being in a mother’s womb isn’t any different then chopped chicken liver or a cancer.
Consensual sex to him is equivalent to states and municipalities declaring sanctuary status. He’s all for it until he has to take responsibility for that choice.
Consent to sex is not consent to bringing a pregnancy to term.
Yes. Yes it is. Intercourse is reproduction. To engage in intercourse, acknowledges the potential of pregnancy.
I applaud your religious beliefs…, for you. They are not monolithic.
No, consent to sex is NOT consent to bringing a pregnancy to term.
As I pointed out: I can remove my consent to a blood or platelet donation in the middle of the donation, and they’ll stop taking my blood. I’ve had to do this a couple of times when I’ve thrown up during a platelet donation — a response to the anticoagulant that’s added to your blood during platelet donation to prevent it from clotting. I could agree to be a living organ donor and decide in the operating room to withdraw my consent. Continued pregnancy requires the continued consent of the pregnant person.
For the analogy to work, consensual sex = consent to be an organ donor. Pregnancy in this case is the result of the consensual sex = as organ donation is the result of consenting to be an organ donor. The organ donor’s consent is no longer applicable once it has been donated and received by the donee. Only a monster would demand the state force the return of the organ, killing the donee, after willfully donating it.
Consenting to being an organ donor does NOT guarantee that one becomes an organ donor. I tried to donate part of my liver to someone who needed a transplant, and I was rejected by the transplant team, who decided that it was too great a risk to my health. I have twice stopped a platelet donation in the middle of the donation because the anticoagulant was causing me to throw up; they got to keep the platelets they’d already collected, but they could not continue collecting more. A bone marrow donor could likewise refuse in the middle of the donation. The uterus is not “received by the” embryo. It remains in the woman. We’re talking about its use in situ.
Consenting to being an organ donor does NOT guarantee that one becomes an organ donor.
Consenting to sex does NOT guarantee that one gets pregnant either. But in both cases, the opportunity to choose not to donate or get pregnant exists prior to completing the act.
Anonymous:
You voiced a common opinion, that consent to have sex is not consent to get pregnant.
Sex is part of the reproductive process, the literal act of mating. Pregnancy can be a consequence of mating. It’s like those proceed at your own risk legal disclaimers.
If you consent to have sex, then you are consenting to an act for which pregnancy is a known risk. If you consensually have sex, why is it the baby’s problem, solvable by his death, if you get pregnant? Why is it ethical to kill a human for convenience? This has nothing to do with whatever the law will be in each state. There are lots of laws that still allow unethical behavior. I don’t expect every law to follow my own personal code. The question is on the ethics at the core of the matter. Is it right to kill someone else because they are inconvenient? If a woman gets raped, the rapist doesn’t get the death penalty, but the innocent child might. I can understand why a woman would not want to carry the baby of her rapist, though I’ve never been in that situation. However, I also find it tragic that the baby gets the death penalty, while the actual guilty person does not. Plus, one of my relatives was adopted as a newborn. None of us have any idea how he was conceived, but it was before Roe v Wade. If he’d been conceived from assault, should he have deserved to die, and thus we’d never have known him? I’m not saying that abortion of a baby conceived through rape should be banned, but I do think those in that situation should think carefully about it before making a decision. That baby is their blood, too. Their kin. You’re supposed to protect your kin.
I think women with unplanned pregnancies should receive full, and varied, counseling as to ALL their options, and that efforts are made to ensure she is not getting pressured into making any particular decision. There are many women who say the baby’s father or their family pressured them into getting an abortion, which they later regretted.
“You voiced a common opinion, that consent to have sex is not consent to get pregnant.”
NO, Karen, I said that consent to sex is not consent to carry the pregnancy to term. For goodness sake, if you’re going to dispute what someone says, don’t use a straw man substitution.
Or is the problem that you simply do not understand the difference between what I actually said and your straw man substitution? I don’t believe that you’re so ignorant that you don’t understand the difference.
Anonymous:
Please re-read my comment and then discuss how sex is part of the reproductive process.
Are you trying to say that these women have no issue, whatsoever, with getting pregnant, and that they just didn’t want to carry them to term? Strange. Why are they called “unwanted or unplanned pregnancies” then? Are you saying that these women planned to get pregnant, but just didn’t consent to deliver?
That’s tortured reasoning.
Many men and women today want sex without responsibility. This has had the unfortunate effect of driving up the rate of STDs to a shocking degree, to the point that there are now Monkeypox outbreaks among promiscuous groups.
Sex without any responsibility is irresponsible behavior. Many people aren’t mature enough to deal with the consequences of their own consensual decisions. “Getting rid of it” or “making it all go away” is avoiding a problem. It makes someone else pay the price.
You’ve admitted that you do not agree with abortion after viability. Those women decided they did not want to carry the pregnancy to term. Why should your opinion supersede their own? Why are you in favor of “forcing” women to carry a pregnancy to term once the unborn child is viable? Are you waging a war on women?
“Are you trying to say that these women have no issue, whatsoever, with getting pregnant…?”
No, I’m not trying to say that and find it truly bizarre that you think I was. Conception is not the same as intercourse, and I don’t think that conception itself generally involves consent. Perhaps it does in a small subset of situations: you ask someone to be a sperm donor and he consents, you ask someone to be an egg donor and she consents, you use IVF, …
“Are you saying that these women planned to get pregnant, but just didn’t consent to deliver?”
Nope, not saying that either, nor would I suggest that it’s all one way or all another, since we know that that’s not the case: some women terminate wanted (and often planned) pregnancies for medical reasons, and others terminate unwanted and unplanned pregnancies.
“That’s tortured reasoning.”
It’s not my reasoning, so don’t pretend it is. If you honestly don’t know the answer to a question, and you’re asking sincerely, then don’t presume to know the answer. If you’re not asking a sincere question, then you become a bad faith discussant.
“Why are you in favor of “forcing” women to carry a pregnancy to term once the unborn child is viable?”
AGAIN: don’t presume to know the answer to your question. My actual answer is: at that point, they can terminate the pregnancy via early induced labor instead; abortion is no longer the only way to end it.
“Why should your opinion supersede their own?”
I didn’t say that my opinion SHOULD supersede theirs; I only said what my opinion IS. My opinion doesn’t supersede theirs. It’s just an opinion and it has no impact on their actual choice. The options are determined by law, not by my personal opinions. I would have thought that obvious. That I favor X does not make X the law.
That is an example of moral luck.
“ Intercourse is reproduction.”
No it’s not. Intercourse is intercourse. Its’s not reproduction. The act of reproduction happens AFTER intercourse. How can that be? Because even when someone has intercourse and no pregnancy occurs that is NOT reproduction.
Seriously, I’m convinced that the majority of conservatives and republicans are just plain illiterate when it comes to science. From COVID to climate change. It’s all one big massive ball of science illiterates thinking they know what science is. It’s just simple ignorance at best.
Intercourse is an act.
Reproduction is a process.
Anonymous wrote, “Consent to sex is not consent to bringing a pregnancy to term.”
There it is folks in black and white, these immoral hacks are actually advocating for sex with absolutely no responsibilities.
They don’t want the baby so they think they can just exterminate it willy-nilly; this is immoral and pure evil!
“There it is folks in black and white, these immoral hacks are actually advocating for sex with absolutely no responsibilities.”
BS. I absolutely advocate that people be responsible when it comes to sex: get consent, use birth control, etc. That doesn’t change the fact that consent to sex is not consent to bringing a pregnancy to term. The latter does not imply that one should be irresponsible; it simply states a fact.
If you consider yourself a moral person, then don’t put garbage in my mouth and pretend that it comes from me. If you consider yourself a moral person, the choose to be a good faith discussant. Choose to listen with the goal of understanding what the other person does and does not mean. Ask for clarification if you need to know whether the other person is really implying what you’ve inferred.
Witherspoon,
Sex is not always going to end up with a pregnancy and everyone even those who are careful and responsible do end up getting pregnant. The point still is that the choice of what to do about it lies with the person affected period. Nobody else has any business on what choice they make. Just as nobody has any right to dictate what you choose to do with your own body.
If someone chooses to terminate a pregnancy it is none of your business at all. If you are so concerned about what happens to the fetus then volunteer to take as many unwanted babies as you can OR submit to the government money to take care of them when they are born till the age of 18 and have the best care and education they can receive because you value their lives, right?
It’s simply none of your business, at all.
Svelaz:
The majority opinion of Roe v Wade indicated there was a State interest in protection potential life, which superseded the woman’s right to privacy, after viability. Did you disagree with Roe v Wade, and thus rejoice when it was overturned, so that voters would have the opportunity to make it no one’s business when, or if, someone got an abortion at any point in pregnancy?
Are you prohibited from voicing an opinion on modern human slavery unless you open your home to a rescued trafficked slave? Otherwise, your opinion is invalid?
One could argue that all girls and women have to do is not get pregnant.
If you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, the bullet is in the air and you are reponsible.
You can pray that your aim was poor or the person is wearing body armor.
You can call 911 to get your victim help.
You can and shoudl do all kinds of things.
And maybe you will get lucky and the harm will not be too large.
But you still pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.
That analogy is criminal
But you can make the same analogy many other ways.
The fact that it might be possible to undo an action that you later regret, does not alter the fact that you did it.
Most of us would be very happy if there were simple things that you could do to avoid even having to contemplate an abortion.
Like if there were ways to prevent sperm and egg from getting together. or stopping the sperm from reaching the egg or even killing the sperm
or the day or week after when you regret prior choices some inexpensive pill you could take to make the consequences go away.
But unfortunately there is no such magic …… Except there is.
So why is it we are tying to provide legal protection to the most heinous choice, that is only made when a dozen much easier choices were ignored ?
Why are we trying to put the bullet back in the gun after it has been fired ?
Life is about choices.
We all make choices some good some bad.
Our lives reflect those choices.
As a libertarian I fight against government restricting our choices.
You want to shoot heroin – that is your right.
You want to be a prostitute or hire one – go for it.
You want to say something stupid on FaceBook – Be my guest.
You want to drop out of school.
you want to get pregnant before you are ready
All fine. But choices come with consequences.
And there is no RIGHT to make choices without consequence.
I propose that a woman that willingly left her vaginal border unprotected, resulting in an unborn human residing in her property, should have her womb declared a sanctuary body. Clearly this unborn human is in need of asylum and the obvious location for that would be the womb that is responsible for it’s existence.
In a sanctuary cities, you retain the right to kick an immigrant off your personal property, so your stupid analogy fails.
NIMBY
If you think a woman’s uterus is your backyard, you’re a sick man.
Well then, it’s a good thing I don’t believe it to be in my backyard.
Glad you agree that NIMBY doesn’t apply since it’s not in your backyard.
Your analogies are not impressive. A person in China has different rights than the exact same person in America.
—
A sanctuary city affords rights for illegals not given to American citizens.
This is where the ATS leftist mindset becomes ridiculous.
Suddenly an embryo is not differentiated from bone marrow or chopped chicken liver?
An embryo has no legal rights.
If you think that embryos have legal rights, start with the easy case: embryos created via IVF but are in a petrie dish or a frozen embryo bank. According to you, what legal rights do they have?
If you believe that they are legal persons, then one legal consequence is: they must be counted in the census.
You’re proposing ADDING more bureaucracy to have someone else decide instead of the mother. That just adds costs and further burden to an already overburdened judicial system. It’s not practical or feasible.
Svelaz wrote, “You’re proposing ADDING more bureaucracy to have someone else decide instead of the mother. That just adds costs and further burden to an already overburdened judicial system. It’s not practical or feasible.”
Rationalizations one and all.
What I’m proposing is that a human being not be stripped of their human right to life and literally exterminated without due process of law and I don’t give a damn if you don’t like it or think it’s adding more bureaucracy or it’s too expensive or not practical or feasible in your eyes. These are human beings with a human right to life and your deflections from that fact are signature significant.
Again: an embyo is not a person with rights.
IF you think an embryo IS a person with rights, THEN you’d have to conclude that embryos should be counted in the census. They have never been counted. The Founders did not consider embryos to be persons with rights, and the Constitution has never been amended to change that.
That my friend’s son with leukemia has a “right to life” does not mean that he had a right to demand that someone else donate their bone marrow to save him. He had to wait for a donor who consented to donating it. Likewise, even if an embryo were a person (which it isn’t), it would not have a right use a woman’s body to save it unless she consents to that. And to be clear, since you project garbage into my beliefs: I’m not saying that I don’t care if people are reckless / irresponsible. I do care. But I also care about people’s rights, and the pregnant woman/girl is a person with rights, whereas the embryo is not a person and has no rights.
Do you understand how pregnancy uses a woman’s body to support the embryo/fetus? It is literally getting oxygen through her respiratory and circulatory systems, getting nutrition through her digestive and circulatory systems, etc. It actually makes more cumulative physical demands on someone’s body that bone marrow donation does.
Anonymous:
Why aren’t pregnancies noted in the Census? Why wouldn’t a government want to know how many women are pregnant at any given census taking? Such information would be crucial for not only logistics, but also emergency planning in the event of, say, a pandemic.
When a woman has a planned pregnancy, everyone always asks her how the baby is. They don’t ask how the ball of cells, the tumor, or the parasite is doing.
In Los Angeles, a crazed nurse blew through a stop light going about 100 mph. One of the people she killed was a woman who was 8 months pregnant, along with her toddler, and the father of her baby. The unborn baby was listed among those killed. That’s because before the accident, the unborn child was alive, and because of the accident, the unborn child was killed. The parents of the mother and father are grieving not only the adults, but also the unborn child who almost got to be born.
When we’re pregnant, we excitedly share ultrasound photos, my first of which I got at 10 weeks gestation.
Whether a baby is wanted, or not, it’s still the same baby. The baby can’t wait for another woman to consent to carry him or her.
Donating a kidney is not a natural function of life. Reproduction is. Donating a kidney is not killing someone else. Abortion is.
By all means, make the argument in favor of abortion, when you feel restrictions are, and when you feel rights begin, but stop pretending the unborn aren’t human, or that they’re like a kidney or tumor. Even you, if you are the right Anonymous, said you believed abortion should be restricted by viability. That would mean the fetus has the right not to be killed after viability, with the exceptions of medical emergencies. By your own admission, the unborn eventually have rights at some point in gestation.
If you support no restrictions on what we do with our bodies, then do you support Covid vaccine mandates, mask mandates, mandatory vaccines for schools, the draft, or any other mandates on what we do with our bodies?
Abortion does not kill a person. It kills an embryo (most often) or fetus (less often), which is not a person.
And your question about counting pregnant people as a subset of all people does not imply that the embryo is counted as a separate person. It’s not counted in the census because it’s not a person. If you think embryos should be counted as people, then you’d have to be comfortable with a congressional district in which 100,000 “people” are simply frozen embryos sitting in an embryo bank.
“stop pretending the unborn aren’t human, or that they’re like a kidney or tumor”
Stop lying about me. I have not pretended that they aren’t human. Of course they’re human. I haven’t pretended that they’re like a kidney or a tumor. I’ve compared a pregnant PERSON to the PERSON who decides to donate an organ or even just blood (which is not an organ). That does not imply that an embryo is an organ. A pregnant person is not donating the embryo. She’s donating the use of her uterus, and the uterus *is* an organ.
She is donating the use of her uterus – to another human.
Arguably she can rescind the use of her uterus.
That is what control over your own body would mean – a Right that Scotus has not recognized – not in abortion, not in other medical treatment.
What it does not mean is the right to kill that fetus.
You like to call a baby an embryo and other things rather than a baby.
Thanks to Estovir, we can see that even the CDC used the word baby, because that is what it is. What you want to call something else was referred to 32 times by the CDC.
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/diagnosis.htm
“First trimester screening is a combination of tests completed between weeks 11 and 13 of pregnancy. It is used to look for certain birth defects related to the ***baby’s heart*** or chromosomal disorders, such as Down syndrome. This screen includes a maternal blood test and an ultrasound.”
Anonymous:
When you post anonymously, I can’t keep track of which Anonymous wrote what. I wish you would pick an Avatar. If you post without one, then there is no continuity in discussions.
If you’re not the Anonymous who was discussing pregnancy like removing a tumor, then I’ll take your word for it.
Are you the Anonymous who said a fetus is human but not a person with rights? (See how long this takes, just trying to figure out which Anonymous you are?)
I give you full credit for engaging in this emotionally fraught discussion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and everyone is entitled to vote based on that opinion.
When someone has an unwanted pregnancy, they might view it as a ball of cells, and not a person. It has no rights to live, and the woman doesn’t want anyone interfering with her getting an abortion, whenever she decides she wants one, and for whatever reason.
I can tell you from personal experience, that when a woman is pregnant and wants that child, that child is unquestionably a person. Your Mom will ask, “How’s my grand baby doing today?” People will say, “Oh, look! He moves when he hears Daddy’s voice!” “The baby loves when you play Beethoven.” “The baby doesn’t like spicy food.” “The baby won’t let me sleep on that side.”
When Lacey Peterson was murdered, it was made more horrifying because her husband killed her unborn baby son. Not her “ball of cells.” The baby was treated like a murder victim. When the crazed nurse plowed through a stop light on La Brea Avenue, she killed a woman and her unborn baby. Baby. As in person. When a man doesn’t want to be a father, so he punches his heavily pregnant girlfriend in the stomach, he murders her baby. As in person. Those babies were mourned as lost children. When I had a miscarriage, I absolutely mourned a lost child I never got to know.
For some people, they only view unborn children as people when they’re wanted. For others, they view all pregnancies as either people, or least potential people.
If you’re the right Anonymous I’m thinking of (again, pick an Avatar please), then you said you believe there should be limits on abortion after viability.
That indicates that, even though you don’t consider the unborn a person, you do think at some point they have the right not to be deliberately killed. The point is that most people feel that way, and those people vote. The final laws should reflect how the majority of voters feel. The majority of voters in NYC will have different opinions than the majority of voters in Kentucky. Just like a nation is supposed to be comprised of a group of people with a shared national culture, with laws that reflect the nations’ values, so states do the same on a smaller scale.
Just as the people of Europe decided what abortion laws they wanted, with some countries more restrictive than others, and most more restrictive than Roe v Wade allowed, the people of the US shall decide abortion law. It is doubtful that the law will exactly reflect what either you or I would ideally want. It’s supposed to reflect a majority. If it doesn’t, then it’s the onus of the voter to change that. If they keep voting for people who create policies they disagree with, that’s on them. CA is a prime example. Everyone complains, those with means leave, but the majority just keeps voting for politicians that enact policies they complain about.
“Are you the Anonymous who said a fetus is human but not a person with rights?”
Yes.
“For some people, they only view unborn children as people when they’re wanted. For others, they view all pregnancies as either people, or least potential people.”
And I’m not talking about people’s opinions. I’m talking about our Constitution. As noted in Roe:
“The Constitution does not define “person” in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to “person.” The first, in defining “citizens,” speaks of “persons born or naturalized in the United States.” The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. “Person” is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.”
Legally, personhood begins at birth. If you want to change that, you’ll have to amend the Constitution.
But be prepared for the side-effects: you could have a congressional district with 600,000 “people” all in the form of frozen embryos in a single huge embryo bank.
That is nature.
You are quibbling. If complications are “known” to cause serious health consequences for the woman then the exception would apply.
In any event, my point wasn’t to persuade you of the best policy, it was to suggest a way for Rs running for office to deal effectively with this issue by positioning themselves where most voters appear to be. Unfortunately they seem incapable of doing that.
No, it’s not a “quibble” at all:
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/23/texas-abortion-law-doctors-delay-care/
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/doctors-fearing-legal-blowback-are-denying-life-saving-abortions
“You are unwilling to let doctors determine how to care for their patients.”
That is an intentional trolling type argument, unless you believe doctors have a right to do anything they want to patients. The Nazi doctors that tortured Jews and others felt they had that right. Do you agree with them?
From the perspective of federalism and from the perspective of decentralization and, thus, democratizing of governmental decision-making, the Dobbs-ruling should be welcomed. It is correct to let abortion rights and its boundaries be decided through the democratic process of each state instead of by a top-down federal mandate (whether by the Supreme Court or Congress). I believe Dobbs was correctly decided. Graham’s proposal should be rejected because it tries to federalize abortion rights again. If abortion rights are not protected by the US Constitution, the question arises whether a federal law granting while limiting these rights is constitutional given the enumerated federal powers. The SC might allow it under its ridiculous broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
Lindsey Graham obviously did not read the Supreme Court decision. They obviously said to return the decision to the STATES and not congress and that is the whole point. We are a federal system, remember. The states and the people of those states make the decision. I thought that was simple to understand. The democrats want to make it a congress issue when it is a state legislature issue.
GEB wrote, “Lindsey Graham obviously did not read the Supreme Court decision. They obviously said to return the decision to the STATES and not congress and that is the whole point. The states and the people of those states make the decision. I thought that was simple to understand. The democrats want to make it a congress issue when it is a state legislature issue.”:
You’re missing a very valid point; the United States Congress IS a representation of “the people” just like state legislatures. The Supreme Court returned the decision making process to “the people” not just state legislatures. The way I understand the Dobbs ruling is that it gives individual states the full power to regulate any aspect of abortion that’s not preempted by federal law, that does not prevent the United States Congress from making a law.
The whole point of repealing Roe was based on the principle that the decision on abortion rights should be left to the states. Now republicans like Lindsey Graham who argued that point are backtracking and they are now arguing that the federal government should make the decision for all the states. Roe did that for decades and conservatives always argued the decision should always be left to the states. Now they got their wish and they don’t seem to like the outcome and want to move the goalposts. Again.
What Lindsey Graham is proposing is contrary to the federalist ideals that originally pushed for the repeal of Roe and what the Supreme Court clearly said that this is a states issue. Even when democrats feared republicans would push for a nationwide ban republicans repeatedly said this was only a states decision. Graham is making liars out of the Republicans.
It is the independent state legislature theory that dominated their push for the repeal of Roe and it is precisely what they meant when they clearly stated that the issue should be left ONLY to the states, because it’s a states rights issue.
Many republicans and Trump republicans are furiously backtracking on their extreme views and ideas about abortion because they are realizing that the majority outside of their extremist bubble don’t agree with their views and it’s women, even republican women who are driving that point home by registering in large numbers and that doesn’t bode well for republicans in the midterms. The realization that it’s women, all women who had their rights revoked and their own choices being dictated by a few does not sit well with them. Republicans didn’t see that coming and that includes republican women who now know it affects them too.
Svelaz wrote, “The whole point of repealing Roe was based on the principle that the decision on abortion rights should be left to the states.”
You’re welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts.
It’s really clear to me that you haven’t read or understand the actual ruling because your statement is verifiably false.
Please see pages 78 and 79 of the actual Dobbs vs Jackson ruling:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
(NOTE: the actual page numbers don’t correspond to the PDF document page numbers, look at the page numbers in the actual document)
Here is the section you need to read with bold emphasis added by me…
I know this doesn’t fit within the bill sh!t leftist narrative that you’re parroting to falsely smear Republican’s in the United States Congress, but it is 100% perfectly clear that the court ruled to “return authority to the people and their elected representatives” and the United States Congress is FULL of elected representatives of “the people”.
The ruling does in fact return authority to the elected representatives in state legislatures to make laws regarding abortion but it also returns authority to the elected representatives in the United States Congress to do exactly the same thing.
Deny these facts and you’re literally denying reality.
Rats, a bit of unintended over bolding and italics due to two bad ending tags after “the people and their elected representatives”.
Sometimes it is best to give the link and copy the exact paragraph. It makes finding it a lot easier and one might find a lot more people reading it. These words from the paragraph are most important and explanatory.
“Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. ”
VII
We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents
Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 79
AppendOixpiAnitonoopfinthioenCoofutrhte Court
a profound moral question. The Constitution does not pro- hibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibit- ing abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.
The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.”
S. Meyer,
Since I had already done exactly what you said I should do, I’m a bit perplexed by your comment.
• I copied and pasted the actual text as a quote into the comment so others could read the text.
• I provided a link to the actual text and told them exactly what pages to find the text I quoted.
I’m curious, why did you reply to my comment the way you did?
I’m curious, why did you reply to my comment the way you did?
Steve, I wish I didn’t. I replied from my email which wasn’t complete. Sorry.
Thanks for the explanation.
No Dobbs leaves it to the States or the people
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Notice the 10th amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,” Power originates from THE PEOPLE. The People, delegate their power to others.
The Federal Govt was never delegated the power to determine when Life would be protected by law. You are trying to claim Federal legislature is the same as State Legislatures. But that is not so. Federal Legislation can only use the power delegated to them by the Federal Federal Constitution. Article I is where the People, through their ratification of the Federal Constitution, delegated limited, enumerated, powers, to the Federal Legislative Branch.
RE:”No Dobbs leaves it to the States or the people.” Precisely. Nor did Roe completely disregard stages of pregnancy and the state’s interest therein. Often a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. The challenge provided SCOTUS with the opportunity to re-visit Roe. Developments in science and medicine, and changes in public opinion happen. The plaintiff should have anticipated that as well as any and all ramifications thereof. 50 years hence may bring another reality. Deal with it.
Imagine if you will a higher order thinking culture that has all the modern technological and medical advancements that the planet has to offer at its fingertips and that culture chooses to freely give some individuals the ultimate legal power to permanently remove defenseless human beings from their lives because they are “unwanted” and the removal method of choice is extermination.
Unwanted is a slippery slope rationalization straight into the abyss of immorality.
Many “unwanted” human beings ended up in Auschwitz. The Germans exterminated around 6 million “unwanted” Jews in their 4 year reign of terror across Europe in the early 20th century, that’s about 1.5 million exterminated per year. On a similar note; it’s been estimated that 62 million abortions have occurred since Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, that’s an average of around 1.3 million per year for over 48 years (roughly one extermination by abortion every 21 seconds) and that my friends is what our higher order thinking culture that has all the modern technological and medical advancements that the planet has to offer has allowed to happen in the name of “pro-choice”.
When exactly did individual responsibility become completely irrelevant to abortion advocates?
I have absolutely no respect for anyone that completely ignores individual responsibilities in their abortion arguments.
Females having control of their body doesn’t begin at pregnancy.
Who really has the moral high ground in the abortion argument? It’s certainly not the ones that are exterminating helpless human beings because they blindly shirked their individual responsibilities regarding sexual intercourse and unintentionally created an “unwanted” human being. Yes, there are actually responsibilities regarding sex that are something other than “getting off” to fulfill your personal enjoyment goals. There are responsibilities for those who engage in sexual intercourse regardless if it’s consensual sex or not and every male and female should be taught these things by their parents and reinforced by our society/culture before they enter puberty and continued as they grow to be an adult.
GIVEN 1:
Biologically speaking; sexual intercourse is the beginning of the human reproductive process and breeding human beings is the sole biological purpose. It’s the inclusive tunnel vision process between the point of sexual intercourse and the birth of a baby. Don’t extrapolate the intent of this statement and use it as a deflection to talk about other biological things that take place to make the sperm and eggs possible.
GIVEN 2:
Pregnancy is one of the consequences of sexual intercourse even if a form of birth control is used.
GIVEN 3:
No form of “birth control” is 100% effective.
What are the responsibilities?
1. The male has the legal, moral and human responsibility to not force the act of sex upon a female.
2. The male has a responsibility to use a condom unless there is consent from the female to engage in unprotected sex.
3. The female has the responsibility to tell the male to use a condom unless she is willing to take all the risks associated with unprotected sex.
4. Both the male and the female engaging in sex must understand that condoms are not 100% effective at preventing pregnancy and the ultimate responsibility for a possible pregnancy lies on both the male and the female.
5. If a female chooses to be sexually active then that female has the responsibility to use birth control if she doesn’t want to get pregnant and the ultimate responsibility for a possible pregnancy lies on both the male and the female.
6. If a female is forced into sexual intercourse, whether it’s unprotected or not, she has the moral and human responsibility to get immediate medical treatment to prevent a possible pregnancy if she doesn’t want to become a mother.
7. If a female is forced into sexual intercourse, whether it’s unprotected or not, she has the moral and civic responsibility to report the incident to police to help prevent the male individual from forcing himself upon another female.
8. If a female chooses to have sex and doesn’t want to get pregnant, even if it was protected, she has the moral and human responsibility to get immediate medical treatment to prevent a possible pregnancy if she doesn’t want to become a mother.
9. If a male and a female do not want the responsibility of breeding a human child then it is their responsibility to do the things it takes to not become a parent.
10. ABORTION IS NOT A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL, it’s exterminating a completely helpless human being. It’s the responsibility of those engaging in sex to do the responsible things required of them to prevent “unwanted” pregnancies and therefore prevent the perceived need for abortions.
Again; females having control of their body doesn’t begin at pregnancy.
The Pro-Choice/Pro-Abortion rationalizations that allow females to intentionally shirk their obvious responsibilities regarding sexual intercourse are IMMORAL! Screw your pro-“choice” rationalization bull sh!t when you’ve already made “choices” that allowed you to become pregnant in the first place! There are many, many ways to avoid pregnancy including a readily available post intercourse medical treatment.
Here is reality folks…
Pro-Choice/Pro-Abortion = Death
Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion = Life
Don’t all human babies deserve the human right to NOT be exterminated?
Stop allowing people to shirk their responsibilities!
Steve Witherspoon,
“ Again; females having control of their body doesn’t begin at pregnancy.”
Who gets the right to decide that? You? Then state? The federal government? Religious leaders?
You seem quite content on dictating how someone else should be behaving by state enforcement.
You’re leaving out the most crucial point. Only one person gets to decide and that is the woman who is in control of her own body. Why do you or anyone else gets to determine how what a woman is to decide? That it’s contrary to personal liberty and freedom. The fact that you or anyone else doesn’t like the idea of someone else having the power to make such a choice makes you or anyone feel helpless and need to force your will or someone’s upon another through state mandate. It’s entirely against everything conservatives and libertarians rail against. Being told what to do or how to behave by others.
Republicans brought this upon themselves by forcing the issue back to the states and now they are not liking the idea that there are some states where it is still legal and where they are enshrined in their state constitutions. I predicted that the religious zealots wouldn’t accept that and Lindsey Graham is wanting to force a change in the “let the states decide” idea because he and others like him never really believed it should be that way.
The majority of the population doesn’t believe in total abortion bans. The believe that the choice should still be available and in those states where it is banned that there should be be exemptions that are reasonable. However religious zealots and republican extremists won’t tolerate that and they are finding out that their views were never really accepted by the majority .
It’s nobody’s business what a woman chooses to do with the pregnancy or a couple who decides together. Its’ a fundamental liberty that everyone should recognize.
One could argue that all women have to do is not get pregnant.
Is that so hard?
Svelaz wrote, ““ Again; females having control of their body doesn’t begin at pregnancy.” Who gets the right to decide that? You? Then state? The federal government? Religious leaders?”
That’s some extrapolation to absurdity
Either the points I clearly made blew completely over your head and your cranial power generation potential is increasing or your trolling for effect, either way, I’m not biting.
“ That’s some extrapolation to absurdity”
No, those are just basic questions. Your entire diatribe is about judging others for their actions and dictate what their responsibilities should be. It runs contrary to the basic idea that individuals have the freedom to make their own choices regardless of whether they are good or bad. They alone are responsible for the consequences of those choices. Here you are wanting to dictate what choices others should be making while you would bristle at the very notion of others doing the same onto you.
It follows a common oxymoronic principle often demonstrated by conservatives. They HATE being told how to behave or what to do by others because they view it as an infringement on their individual liberty and freedom, BUT they LOVE to judge others because their RELIGION does exactly what they hate…and it’s ok as long as it’s done to someone else. It’s hypocrisy at it’s most grotesque.
Svelaz,
It’s now transparently obvious that your trolling me.
I’m not biting.
Steve,
The state cannot require you to do even something as simple and relatively risk-free as giving blood to save someone else’s life, yet you want to demand that women and girls donate the use of their bodies for 9 months to gestate a baby. Pregnancy ALWAYS impacts the health of the woman or girl. At some point, medicine will develop an artificial uterus and a means of transplantation, and then those of you who consider an embryo to be the equivalent of a person can pay to gestate them in artificial uteruses.
You ignore that a woman on birth control will not “get immediate medical treatment to prevent a possible pregnancy” because she will not know that her birth control failed until she’s already pregnant. You ignore that emergency contraception also sometimes fails. You ignore that women and girls are diagnosed with pregnancy-related complications. You ignore that serious fetal complications are diagnosed. You ignore that a 10 y.o. who is raped may not understand that she’s at risk of becoming pregnant. …
You are also biologically wrong that “sexual intercourse is the beginning of the human reproductive process.” We’ve been through this before: it is a cycle that began when the species first evolved and has no “beginning” point beyond that. If you don’t want this to be a “deflection” then learn more biology and stop making the same mistake.
RE:” learn more biology and stop making the same mistake..” Give consideration to the fact that there are participants herein who have done their due diligence in embryology, human physiology and medicine. That having been said, science should research rendering men temporarily infertile, totally reversible and the abortion issue becomes more narrowly focused to the special needs circumstances. https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/36/8/2121/6294420
Anonymous wrote, “You are also biologically wrong that “sexual intercourse is the beginning of the human reproductive process.” We’ve been through this before: it is a cycle that began when the species first evolved and has no “beginning” point beyond that. If you don’t want this to be a “deflection” then learn more biology and stop making the same mistake.”
Even after I intentionally put this statement in there for just for hacks like you “It’s the inclusive tunnel vision process between the point of sexual intercourse and the birth of a baby. Don’t extrapolate the intent of this statement and use it as a deflection to talk about other biological things that take place to make the sperm and eggs possible.” you STILL chose to deflect trying to smear me.
You can shove your deflection where the sun doesn’t shine.
IF you make a false claim (as you did about the “beginning” of human reproduction), THEN you can expect to be called out on it. IF you do not like that, THEN you should learn not to keep making the same mistake.
You can shove your own desire to avoid correcting your error.
Anonymous wrote, “IF you make a false claim (as you did about the “beginning” of human reproduction), THEN you can expect to be called out on it. IF you do not like that, THEN you should learn not to keep making the same mistake.”
Even after I intentionally and very pointedly put my words in your face, you’re still choosing to double down on your lie; therefore, you’re a liar spewing intentional defamation and you should be banned.
It’s not a false claim when taken in full context with what I wrote. I made absolutely no mistake that needs correcting, in fact I fully acknowledged that there are other aspects of reproduction process outside the scope of what I wrote in my “GIVEN 1” and you’ve completely ignored that absolute irrefutable fact. What you did was to intentionally cherry pick my statement and present it out of context as intentional defamation.
I’ll not discuss your intentional lies any longer, I’ll just continue to point them out so everyone here knows you’re a liar.
Apologize and retract your lying defamation!
Again: your “GIVEN 1” is false. If you start with a false claim, nothing logically proceeds from it. It is not defamation, much less “lying defamation” to point out the biological fact that your “GIVEN 1” is false.
Anonymous wrote, “Again: your “GIVEN 1” is false. If you start with a false claim, nothing logically proceeds from it. It is not defamation, much less “lying defamation” to point out the biological fact that your “GIVEN 1” is false.”
You’re a cherry picking LIAR that refuses to acknowledge reality when it’s plastered in your face, you’re a confirmed internet troll.
I’m back to no longer replying to anyone using the Anonymous moniker. I will not argue with a confirmed lying trolling hack like you and I there is no real way to know which Anonymous is posting. I gave it a reasonable effort but I’m done.
To those out there using the Anonymous moniker and actually trying to argue in good faith, get a unique moniker, tree, dog, battery, tire, etc. I just don’t care what it is as long as it is unique and you use the same one every time you post.
Fin.
That’s up to you, but I have no idea what you’re referring to by “cherrypicking,” nor what “reality” you believe I’m “refusing to acknowledge.” C’est la vie.
1. The Republicans have made it clear they are ok with women having miscarriages dying.
2. JT is as normal lying. European laws a much more favorable to abortion then those in the red states.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/22/europe-abortion-laws-vs-usa/
Sammy wrote, “The Republicans have made it clear they are ok with women having miscarriages dying.”
That’s pure propaganda and an immoral bald-faced lie
If you have to lie like that the support your opinion then you’ve already lost the argument.
Steve,
Perhaps you don’t understand that the same medication is used for a miscarriage and an abortion, and in states that restrict its use for abortion, pharmacists are unwilling to dispense it for miscarriage.
Anonymous wrote, “Perhaps you don’t understand that the same medication is used for a miscarriage and an abortion, and in states that restrict its use for abortion, pharmacists are unwilling to dispense it for miscarriage.”
Perhaps you don’t understand what Sammy wrote and what my reply was covering.
Reread and try again if you like.
Why would pharmacists be unwilling to dispense it for miscarriage?
That should not be a problem as the same type of conflict occurs all the time.
Stop using a scatter gun approach. Try to focus on the significant issues or someone might accuse you of being a troll.
I wonder why such arguments are so common from the pro abortion side.
Could it be the ethics corrupting effect of the network broadcast and print media?
Michael T Ejercito wrote, “I wonder why such arguments are so common from the pro abortion side. Could it be the ethics corrupting effect of the network broadcast and print media?”
I’m sure that’s at least a piece of the pie.
Oddly you can’t find it* on abc.com (and I don’t subscribe to the Washington Post**) but this weekend’s ABC/Washington Post polls says abortion is only the fifth most important issue, tied statistically with immigration, and well behind the economy, education, inflation and crime. In the other issues, the Republican position is favored by voters (on education and immigration, there is a statistical tie with the Democrats but on the economy, inflation and crime, the Republican position is widely favored).
____________
*It takes a little searching but there is pdf that explains all of this; the big news according to ABC is that so few Democrats want Biden to run again
**I got it with my KIndle for $1 for six months but found it over priced
Very interesting.
It is alsmost as if enough girls and women know how to not get pregnant and thus do not feel abortion is important enough.
Who would have guessed?
typical progressive nonsense. You could say the same thing about gun “control” or any other issue. They run on a platitude (gun “control”, abortion “rights”, etc.), say almost everyone supports it – except evil republicans, and avoid any actual policy proposals or implication. The progressive party does not attract deep thinkers, it is the stupid party.
Lindsey Graham’s proposed 15-week ban would reduce abortions by approximately 5 percent. A few senators, including Marco Rubio, and more than 80 House members, including Elise Stefanik, support Graham’s very limited restrictions.
This does raise the question.
Article I does not mention abortion.
How would congress have any power power to ban abortion than ity
Probably the same way they regulate health care, health insurance, or anything else. Have you heard of the fda? Where is their regulatory authority in the constitution? The problem deep thinking progressives have, any government capable of implementing their plans, must be capable of regulating arbortion.
There is one good thing that can come from a nationwide, no-exceptions abnortioon ban.
It will be challenged on sweveral ground, including Article I grounds.
The government wikll defend the law citing the Commerce Clause, and lower courts will accept the government’s defense because of Wickard v. Filburn.
The Supreme Court takes the case, overrules Wickard, and strikes down the federal nationwide abortion ban