Simple. Vote Democrat. And NEVER Republican.
21
If Roe v Wade were to be overturned, how about giving vasectomies to all the men who fathered those fetuses! Would abortion still be opposed?
16
If only your country's government spent a tenth of this effort on matters actually impacting Americans--climate change, gun violence, race relations--that it spent on this absolutely archaic, obtuse fight, my GOD the changes that would come of it.
American women, find your rage, harness it, fight. Because you are in dangerous waters with this one...
16
Republicans might lose their platform. After they win their war against women, make sure guns are ubiquitous, trash the environment, and give the rich all the tax breaks known to mankind, well, they will be out of ideas to mobilize fearful Americans. Oh yes, they can teach us to hate strangers of all stripes. Most of the causes that Republicans use to round up votes are sucker bait. It is strange that the private lives of unfortunate women should be their battleground. Gross.
10
As an adoptive mom I have one question for the opponents of safe and legal abortion: Are they willing to adopt children who, for whatever reason, are unwanted or cannot be cared for by their biological parents? If not, then please shut up.
13
You don't get a birth certificate when you are conceived. Too many puritanical clerks if nothing else. Good intentions aside.
Thanks for the divisive mess. Your everlasting contribution.
6
HERE is what the New York Times could do about it.
SERIOUSLY. The "abortion" argument has NOTHING to do with the "value of human life". Not a thing.
100% of those pushing to write restrictive abortion laws are - CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS. 100%
They are pushing to write their own religious beliefs into national law. That's as unconstitutional as it is possible to get.
But - because news sources like the NYT refuse to discuss the religious aspects of abortion law - on the front, or back page - the Religious Right have successfully distracted the entire nation from the pure religious bigotry of their "movement."
They are - successfully so far- working to impose Christian Sharia Law on the entire US.
Wake up. New York Times Editorial Board - SPEAK UP.
There is ZERO scientific or philosophical or even religious consensus about abortion. It's only the Conservative Christians; who claim to speak for everyone - and YOU ARE LETTING THEM.
17
On the bright side, more poor babies mean more voters against the corporatists, more warriors against the elites.
3
The left is against killing unless it's a baby.
The right is for killing unless it's a baby.
5
The idea that the unborn has more rights than the mother comes from Catholic dogma stating that as soon as you are born you are no longer clean and pure. Only the unborn are truly innocent which is why they always use the language of "innocent babies in the womb." The minute the baby come out of the mother it is filthy and sinful. Which, when you think about it, is just another way to vilify women - the notion that what we bring forth is a stain.
13
If Roe is overturned we can hear more stories like this where women die from septicemia.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/14/ireland-woman-dies-after-abortion-refusal
8
So where are the laws governing men's health?
10
I am a diehard pessimist, so I expect Roe to be overturned eventually.
How to prepare? Get an IUD—even if you don't currently have sex, even if you're celibate. Working for Roe's preservation is not a failsafe strategy, an IUD comes pretty close.
Otherwise, saving up for the inevitable plane ticket, to a prochoice state or Canada or Europe. Stop putting the power in the hands of others—take control of your own life.
4
@Jessetheconservative
My friend, you may not like to hear it, but actually, the controversy continues in large part and for better or for worse because of "...Christian hegemony, which [is] define[d] as: the everyday, pervasive, deep-seated, and institutionalized dominance of Christian institutions, Christian values, Christian leaders, and Christians as a group."
4
What the Pro-Choice movement must do is prepare to transport needy women across state lines to get a legal abortion. This may involve money for travel, accommodations, companion, etc.
If we are going to become two countries, the red half needs to be able to access services from the blue half.
53
Here is a great way to ensure that more abortions happen:
"... recent proposals in Kentucky and Florida that ban abortion around the sixth week of pregnancy. That can translate to about two weeks after a missed menstrual period — before many women even realize that they’re pregnant, let alone have time to consider an abortion. Ohio lawmakers have already voted for such a measure."
Great, so now more women will freak out if they miss a period, rush to a doctor and have an abortion as soon as possible, without giving themselves adequate time to mentally and emotionally process the fact of the pregnancy before deciding to end it, lest they risk thinking, feeling, praying themselves over the extremely brief deadline to decide.
The women I know who had an abortion all, to the one, spent long hours, days, sometimes weeks weighing what to do and why before deciding to end the pregnancy. And a number of women I know who chose to maintain a pregnancy and birth a child chose that path after also spending long hours, days, sometimes weeks weighing what to do and how to do it. The majority of these women would have opted for an abortion if pushed to decide on the quick. Is that what anti-abortion rights people want to happen?
In crafting policy, plans for impact litigation, and judicial rulings, be careful what you wish for, lest you get exactly that.
9
Just to be clear, the thinking, feeling, praying their way to a decision all happened BEFORE actually seeking to schedule an abortion; which is why mandatory days-long waiting periods that start when a woman attempts to schedule the procedure are questioned by many.
7
I'm sick of people demanding the rest of us follow their morals, their religious choices and calling it "their religious freedom". It's not. It's their imposition of their religious beliefs on us. In 1985 I terminated a pregnancy that I didn't believe could happen (I am a DES baby and we typically have fertility problems). It meant the boyfriend I should have been with in the first place clearly showed his colors, and made it possible for me to end a bad relationship without involving an innocent child and tying us both to him. It is no one else's business, I mention here because for every abortion there is a different story and a different reason and legislation is notoriously bad for accommodating that sort of difference..
18
Many if not most laws are about imposing morality on others. Funding for the poor for food, shelter or healthcare is about morality. Illegal drugs is about morality. Having 3 spouses at the same time being illegal is morality at play. Paying people differently based on sex, race, religion, etc. being illegal is morality at play. . A patent is awarded for 20 years vs 30 years is morality. Sentencing guidelines and limits for different crimes is morality.
4
If the republicans insist on removing women's rights then they ought to be heavily taxed to support welfare for all the underemployed/unemployed women now forced into having children.
Why they think Government ought to stay out of our lives - except when it comes to our bedrooms - is beyond comprehension.
16
If a person truly believes that a human fetus at 7 ( or X ) months deserves human rights, it is easy to understand her opposition to abortion. Similarly, if a legal abortion advocate believes that a human fetus at 8.75 months does not deserve any human rights, it is easy to understand his support for legal abortion.
3
The Roe v Wade issue is a political football. The Republicans have no intention of banning abortion rights.
They are not going to throw away a "red meat " item
they can throw at their pro-lifers for their perpetual votes.
Ditto with "gun reform."
2
Introduce legislation that if abortions are not allowed then sole care and responsibility of baby falls to the father.
10
If I have a rare blood type and you are bleeding to death, there is no law that compels me to give you my blood. I am secure in knowing that my own body belongs to me alone.
Even in DEATH, someone cannot just take body parts from me, no matter how badly they might need a new heart or kidneys.
There is already an implied sovereign right over ones own body. Why should this be different for women?
27
There are many laws that control what you can do with your body. You cannot work for less than the minimum wage. Prostitution is illegal most everywhere in the US. The FDA and various laws define what medical drugs and devices can be used. Illegal drugs is the government having a say over your body. You cannot legally sell any of your body parts (except blood). Conversion therapy has been made illegal. While I may disagree with some of these, I recognize that governments reach is into what we can do with our bodies.
6
@Scott D
Well said, indeed.
Thank you!
1
Conservatives want to control women of reproductive age. That's the goal. It's some weird Roy Moore type sexual hangup with them. The idea of young women being able to choose to do whatever they please means. sexually, reproductively — this drives them crazy. They can't deal with women having that kind of autonomy without trying to be involved in it in some way. And since they can't date those women, they want to make sure that no one else can, either. I do believe this is at the root of the anti-abortion crew's zeal for "life."
It ain't about sanctity, that's for sure.
14
If the extreme right really cared about children there would be far fewer of them living in poverty with no access to health care and a decent education. This has nothing to do with "unborn children" and everything to do with the tiresome age-old attempt to control women.
16
Let's call each what it is:
Pro-Choice
vs
Pro-Fetus
And women need to understand that they will be killed to save a fetus.
Conversely, she needs to understand that even if she has a DNR while pregnant, she will be on machines until her baby is born - and those massive costs will be incurred by her family, not these Pro-Fetus supporters.
She has lost ALL control of her body and a woman's decision is totally irrelevant.
This is worse than Handmaid's Tale.
This must be stopped - we need to educate women and men in red states what's at risk - clearly, concisely with all the horror associated with it.
20
Liberals must ask themselves: why has Roe v. Wade been so contentious--and so often challenged in the courts?
The answer?....this is a logical result of the Court overreaching, by taking control of a controversial issue--and settling it nationwide.
It also doesn't help that the Court employed specious reasoning to gird its decision. The right to privacy entitles one to end the life of another human? Really? In the privacy of my home, am I allowed to manufacture illegal drugs and make them available to others for private use in their homes? We have decided no.
The right to privacy should never be used to justify doing harm to others. Roe v. Wade was an illegitimate decision--right out of the box--and Liberals know it. It's why they're so sensitive to its imperilment.
It only gets worse, when Liberals try to describe the killing of another human being as a "health care choice". Only in certain rare instances could it ever be considered so.
The truth is, like certain drug laws, the decision to allow, restrict or ban abortion should have been left up to individual states. For those who believe the right to abortion is the most important of societal issues--let them reside in a blue state, where they'll be able to get one--on demand--right up to the ninth month--and have taxpayers pick up the tab.
But for those valuing human life--horrified 70 million babies have been snuffed, move thee to a blue state.
Judicial overreach has caused this controversy.
9
Nothing will energize more Democrats, progressives, liberals than overturning Roe v Wade. It's about time those who have the majority in many issues to make it the majority in policy making. The constitution begins with "we the people" and specifies a representative democracy "elected by the people" not the SCOTUS.
Vote!
6
I am confused. When my sister (who lives in Texas) told me about the Reproductive Health Act to be voted on today in the NY legislature I was surprised that I haven't read about it in the Times (Though I don't always read this newspaper daily.) There is nothing on the front page of the Times the day the act is to be passed. I have also not heard about this act on TV news. Are reporters and editors deliberately hiding the Reproductive Health Act from their readers and listeners?
6
One thing we don't need to do is sabotage major political operations like the women's' march.
It is a very sad day for our country when the rights of the mother trumps the lives of the unborn. What is even more discouraging is that the pro abortion crowd make no excuses for terminating those innocent ones in the womb. Where are their consciences. I could never fathom as do millions upon millions of ending the life of my own flesh and blood. And yes those fetuses if left to their own devices will become your flesh and blood if given the right to live. The views of liberals and progressives with regard to abortion is truly disheartening. Thank God they are now in the minority after years of determined pro lifers who are fighting for the unborn. We will never give up this very important cause.
6
@WPLMMT
“It is a very sad day for our country when the rights of the mother trumps the lives of the unborn.”
No, it’s very consistent with the existing laws and bioethics principles that govern our country. No one has the right to use another person’s body without her consent. A newborn baby doesn’t have the right to demand blood or organs from its mother or father.
Why should a zygote? Why should a fetus?
10
@WPLMMT...minority? Actually, those advocating a woman's right to choose has increased to near 65%, up from the mid-80's 58%, and even then, a majority. Please use data to make your case... belief just isn't viable anymore. Sorry, but it's just not.
10
Then you shouldn’t have an abortion! That’s your religiously based decision, and you have a legal right to that decision. But you want to force your religious decision on me. Where’s my religious freedom to be protected from your religious belief?
I’ve had three c-section deliveries, one stroke during the first, ongoing blood pressure issues with all three, and continuing pain from the scar tissue. I was primary care giver and financial support for my children. After 3 dr’s told me another pregnancy would kill me (who would raise my children then?), an arrogant pro-life family practitioner told me “You could have one more and probably survive. Clearly, my life meant nothing to him; I was simply a disposable vessel. I changed Dr’s that afternoon.
15
Yes, "States can take critical actions."
Don't you know, that's where women started from. That's why Roe v. Wade was necessary.
Not that states haven't taken "critical actions" since that ruling: to dismantle abortion rights bit by bit.
Dream on.
3
Our son and daughter in-law are pregnant with their first child (yes, I know that the woman is the one carrying the child). They sent us the sonogram from the baby at 7 weeks. We could hear the heartbeat. You can also start to see limbs and even appendages. I understand both the issues around rape and risk to the mother's health with a potentially difficulty pregnancy. But what I do not understand is when two people (or the conversation really has been that only the woman should be given the choice option) enter into a sexual event knowing what the outcome could be and then make a decision after the woman is known to be pregnant and the baby has reached the stage of having a heartbeat, having human form, and there are no extenuating health circumstances to consider that the pregnancy can be ended without consideration that a life is being taken? To me its like buying something at the store, taking it home and using it for a period of time, and then deciding that you want to return it except there is no place to do the return so you simply decide to throw it away. It is a life. How is that life to be treated any differently then if someone commits murder? Does it really come down to if the life exists inside the womb versus outside? For me it is not a religious issue, it is an issue as to what constitutes a life.
6
@DC Your son will not be risking his health and life to gestate and give birth. Only your daughter-in-law will. That's why women get the decision. I wish nothing but the best to your family and hope that several months from now you get a healthy grandchild. However, someone being pregnant is never a guarantee of an actual born child. It's a game of chance, all the way through. It takes very little time for the heart tube to start beating. Personally, if I hadn't been looking for it, I would never have known I was pregnant until near week 12. I cannot walk up and demand to live off parts of your body, even if I will die without them. Why should a woman be compelled to be an incubator if she doesn't wish it?
15
This is what those of us who believe in freedom of choice have been alarming people about, a SCOTUS which may very well over turn Roe v Wade ending freedom of choice for women. However, not only choice but access to birth control because the anti-choice groups ALSO want to restrict, if not downright BAN birth control!
Where are we headed? To a nation in which women are no longer free to choose to plan their families, but where you can own an arsenal of weapons and kill anyone you’d like?!
Elections have consequences ....I hope that everyone who didn’t vote in 2016 ....WILL vote in 2019 and 2020...our freedoms are on the line!!!
8
I do not understand how anyone can be pro choice/pro abortion with all the scientific advances we have discovered over the years. The sonogram which is used to view the woman's womb has proven there is life within the womb at all stages of development. Yet there are those doubters who will not believe this is true. If this definite proof will not convince them that life exists, they will never believe. Yet life does exist even though they refuse to see and admit it.
3
I can be pro-choice despite sonograms and other medical technology because a fetus still needs a woman’s body to sustain it. Pregnancy and childbirth are dangerous, and women’s abilities to control when and if they have children is a vital component of their march toward equality.
Talk to me when the artificial incubator is ready to go.
15
@WPLMMT I don't understand why anti-choice folks see women as something less than people with rights.
10
@WPLMMT It is a very under-developed life, one that is *in progress*. 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester when the embryo (no, it's not yet a fetus) is around the size of a pea. It has no brain, no feelings, no face. It can't think and it can't feel. It is not yet human. And mother nature will spontaneously abort a lot of these embryos herself - it's called a miscarriage.
11
It would be interesting to know how many of these religious zealots have secretly had abortions.
12
@Steve . . . and how many believe in capital punishment, euthanasia, "right to die." There is a big difference between being "anti abortion" and being "pro life."
4
I want to applaud the various pro life groups for not giving up on the pro life cause. They are the reason we are seeing the positive results of pro life legislation among the various states. Do not give up. We have made great strides but our work is not done. We must speak out against the injustices of abortion. An innocent life is never given a chance to live. You have been trying to change people's minds and it working. More people are pro life today than ever before. We must never give up this extremely important cause. With unity and strength in numbers we can prevail.
20
@WPLMMT
"More people are pro life than ever before." Wrong. Between 1989 and 2018 the percentage of people who say Roe v. Wade should NOT be overturned has risen from 58% to 64%. That is a super majority of Americans.
68
@WPLMMT
I'll be more open to perspectives of the anti-abortion fanatics when they start being pro-life for the living. You won't see these folks demonstrating against capital punishment or unjust wars. They like to think of themselves as baby savers. It is a vanity movement.
69
@WPLMMT
The positive results of which you speak tend to be teen mothers and broken homes, and women dead from back-alley abortions.
36
Republicans might see their chance now with packed courts and such to give their base the promised ban on abortions; but what will they then use to gin up this very base base?
The t rump voters from the "heartland" have been voting against abortions for a long time; they have also been voting against their own economic well being, the futures of the children, and the continued success of American democracy.
If they don't have abortion to rally around they might begin to look at what they haven't been getting: Good infrastructure, good paying jobs, clean water and air, a solid education for the children, even a future for their children.
As with everything else these so called conservative republicans have had a fire in their bellies about this one too will probably come back to bite them, and the rest of us, in the butt.
3
One more thought on this: why is it perfectly okay to endanger a woman's life and safety, to question her decisions, to refuse to fund abortions while men can get away with raping a woman, assaulting her, beating her when she's pregnant or not, and have whatever they want or need covered when it comes to their reproductive lives?
Women are not cattle, pets, or cute little animals. This country is kinder to animals than it is to women, children, and people who aren't extremely rich. This country is anything but pro-life and it shows in how it treats its citizens. Humphrey had an excellent point when he said this: It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.
9
The phrase "Right to Life" is inappropriate for opponents of choice. Before Roe v. Wade, we had abortions. If it is overturned, we will have abortions.
So the correct term would be "Illegal Abortion Advocates", since the end result they would be achieving would simply be a change in the legal status of abortions.
9
The 2016 Republican party platform would outlaw abortions in all cases. No exception for rape, or incest, or to protect the life of the pregnant girl. They are not reasonable people who would force a girl to bear the child of her rapist.
Just avoid Republicans. Do not date them and definitely do not have sex with them. Let this strain of extremism die out.
14
@Sherry Sexual partners ought to have the "what if" discussion before engaging in intercourse, not only because communication matters, but because a woman needs to know if the man she's sleeping with has a point at which he feels others get to control her body. It's a matter of safety.
4
Let's not forget that the reason the Covington Catholic High School students were in Washington, D.C. was to participate in "right to life march" with primary purpose of overturning Roe v. Wade, and eliminating a woman's right to choose.
14
@STSI They also want to eliminate the "evil of contraception" as one of our Catholic Church deacons mentioned in his sermon before the march.
4
Yes, she can do it. No, she can't. We have to move beyond these polarized positions to seek a solution that will satisfy at least a healthy majority of the populace. Abortion is a terrible thing, and we can do much more to minimize its occurrence, short of denying women the right and opportunity to abort a non-viable fetus. Improved sex education; better access to birth control; innovative adoption programs; a higher standard of living through guaranteed employment at a living wage. These and more can reduce even further the abortion rate which has, after all, plummeted by half since 1980.
It's been "divide and conquer" for too long in America, and if it goes on much longer, it is going to bring us down.
7
Abortion is a "terrible thing" in the eyes of those whose lives don't depend on having one.
Otherwise, it's a sad thing, perhaps, but also one that must be a big relief to those who choose it.
5
@B. It's something nature does all the time, and doesn't think a thing about it . . .
9
If Roe is overturned since privacy was it's basis it is hard to see how Griswold v CT will survive. This case allowed married couples to buy contraceptives. We are going to see that the right and anti-abortion groups are really about using pregnancy to punish women.
18
That’s all well and good until SCOTUS declares a fetus a “person.” What then? Courts will adjudicate the competing rights of women and the fetuses they carry any time some third party decides there is a conflict between the two. Progressive legislatures may try to protect mundane decisions by pregnant women from litigation, but it won’t matter if claims are based on federal law.
Women are already at risk from overzealous doctors of becoming hostages, glorified incubators, when their judgement differs from what someone believes is best for their fetus. Now imagine if that fetus is a “person.” Mandatory bed rest that costs women their freedom, employment, housing, etc. Penalties for women who decide that taking a Rx is less dangerous than not. Too much exercise. Too little exercise. A bad diet. Failure to take enough folic acid. A job that’s deemed too stressful. Missed OB appointment. Advil for a migraine. Travel for a funeral against medical advice. The possibilities are endless.
16
Whether abortion is legal or illegal, women will always have abortions and will find a way to terminate a pregnancy if that's what they want/need to do. I remember the old movie, "Peyton Place" where a young girl is made pregnant by her horrific step-father and the family doctor does the abortion but calls it something else "for the record." Women and girls with means will always be able to find someone to safely end a pregnancy, it's the poorer women and girls who, in desperation, will be hurt or killed by crude methods.
18
This issue should have always been addressed by the states. If Leftist states want more abortion they should be able to encourage them as they see fit (but also pay the price, both literally and morally). More traditional/conservative states should be able to restrict abortion as they see fit. Let's get our out of touch elites in DC out of this.
4
PS. “Out of touch elites”? Vast majority of Americans both male and female want abortion kept legal! You are out of touch.
7
No one wants “more abortions” that is a lie.
5
@Thomas Aquinas
If states are allowed to decide, poor girls in red states will be denied equal protection of the law.
6
Don't these "pro lifers" remember what happened to women BEFORE Roe vs Wade? Women died from abortions done without medical supervision. Mothers who couldn't go through with another pregnancy died leaving their children motherless. Sisters died. Aunts died. Wives died. This WAS what was happening. Outlawing abortion will not stop women from seeking abortions, it will only make it more dangerous and deadly. This is a fact because this was the reality before Roe vs. Wade. These 'pro lifer', ironically, are going to be responsible for the death of many women if they succeed in restricting legal abortions.
19
I am a right to life believer and that every life is important. However, I respect everyone's personal decision on this most personal and important issue. Admittedly, I've been guided by religious beliefs and have learned over the years to not enter into a debate with those who feel differently.
55
Hello me to understand your reply. Do you mean you believe that each woman has the right to choose if she wants an abortion or not? I understand that you consider yourself "pro-life" and that it's linked to your religious beliefs, but can't get where you stand on other women's choices.
13
@Mebschn
I respect every woman's right to make her choice...that's what "I respect everyone's personal decision" means. But I should add that's what current law requires and I further believe in following the law.
1
@Mebschn Your "beliefs" are just that. A concoction. A believer attempts to fix itself in a moving, shifting dynamic referred to as life. You are not pro life....you are pro nothing.
2
As a lawyer myself and having watched how conservatives respect no boundary, I find myself very skeptical that the Supreme Court will throw the question of abortion back to the states. The Supreme Court has the option of simply declaring fetuses to be persons under the 14th amendment and in one fell swoop prohibit abortion and probably birth control nationwide, rendering statewide efforts irrelevant.
I don't see any particular reason why the Republican majority wouldn't do this, other than a concern about the backlash and anger over the Court's legitimacy. However, that seems like a small and quaint concern given how Republicans generally proceed these days.
15
The anti-abortion movement will never be satisfied with overturning Roe. They’ll push states to criminalize abortion, even figuring out a way to prosecute women who travel out of state for an abortion or who use medical abortion in state. They will push for a federal ban. They will go after contraception (as they have done, see Hobby Lobby). They think God requires they enforce their morals on the rest of us.
199
@Heather
How do you think you can predict the future like that?
8
@Charlesbalpha
This 'prediction' is not so far fetched. It is very likely based on what some states are already trying to do and what anti-choice groups have stated as their preferred outcome.
38
@Charlesbalpha Easily. By observing anti-choice tactics since always.
18
Maybe stop calling this "abortion rights" and start calling it what it is: elimination of women's rights. Ultimately, no one is for abortion, but we are all for individual freedom. Why should women have anything less than any man or anyone else protected by our Constitution?
Chipping away at this fundamental right for a woman to chose her right to exercise her freedom should be alarming for every individual. If the conservative movement is successful at taking away women's rights on this this, what's next?
336
@Julie K next is taking away contraception, government intervention in medical and personal care decisions during pregnancy, investigation and prosecution of miscarriages. That last one in fact has already happened in this country.
20
@Julie K
Only one more state has to approve the Equal Rights Amendment to make it part of the Constitution. Go for it.
6
@Julie K How about calling the other side, MANDATORY BIRTH -frame it for what it really is
13
If men were the ones who were expected to take responsibility for unwanted pregnancies and to be the daily caregivers (financially, emotionally, physically, etc.), then they'd definitely want abortion as an option. But since they can easily walk away (maybe minimally pay some child support, but often not), they shrug and say, "Yeah, women should have to have that baby! But I don't want to pay taxes for food programs, safety nets, or assistance to low-income single moms--that's they're problem!"
544
I hear this argument constantly and I’m not entirely sure of its veracity. I’ve seen various polls placing men’s support for abortion equal or even slightly greater than women’s.
And considering that half of white women voted for a staunchly pro life candidate in Trump, maybe that should be the focus.
19
@Mark
“And considering that half of white women voted for a staunchly pro-life candidate in Trump...”
Mark, you do know that Trump was for choice until he decided to run for Presidency and realized a “pro-life” stance would garner many votes with white evangelicals. Trump’s shutdown will hurt many, including pregnant women who work for the federal gov’t and not getting paid. Will they lose their homes? Will they not eat well...affecting their fetus? Will the stress of no pay cause them to miscarry? This shutdown proves Trump is not pro-life. He is pro-Trump only. His “winning” is all that matters. He hurts the innocent by his actions, and the evangelicals are culpable in all of this.
29
@Anne But what constitutes or defines "unwanted"? If two consenting adults, knowing full well the potential outcome of unprotected sex do so anyway and the woman becomes pregnant, is that really "unwanted"? It is unwanted by me to lose my job. It is unwanted by me to get hit by a car. it is unwanted by me to get cancer. But all of those things are outside my control. Outside of rape, getting pregnant is within the control of the people involved.
4
In 2017, at the start of her fourth month of her first pregnancy, my daughter suffered a silent miscarriage (the kind of miscarriage where the fetus dies but the woman doesn't experience any symptoms). Having dearly wanted a baby, my daughter and her husband were devastated.
Make no mistake, Right-to-Lifers who are working frenetically to pass laws banning all abortions after 6 weeks (or better yet, if they achieve their ultimate goal, banning abortion entirely) don't give a rat's tail about women like my daughter. No matter the trauma my daughter was experiencing. Their banning abortion would mean women in her situation would simply have to wait until they go into labor and deliver a dead fetus.
My daughter was lucky to be living in New York, where she was able to have an abortion two days after she learned the fetus was without any doubt dead. It was emotionally draining and terribly painful to have an abortion, to be sure, but far preferable than the alternative.
Americans, do you really grasp what it is pro-lifers want? These people love the warm and fuzzy faux-moral feeling that comes from the abstraction embodied in the words that they are "protecting helpless fetuses." What they can't tolerate are the concrete and very messy complications that surround real-life women and their pregnancies.
756
@Emile, I don't think what you're describing is an abortion. If the baby is dead or the pregnancy is unviable and dangerous (such as in the case of ectopic pregnancies), of course medical intervention is necessary. The problem with examples like these is that they become, for abortion-rights supporters, justification for abortion-for-any-reason. Likewise, unaware pro-life folks feel threatened by the idea that "abortion" in any form might be allowed, and dig their heels in without compassion or understanding. We need to be more sensitive to the complexities of this issue for sure; however, I do NOT appreciate the Times' one-sided stance.
18
@David Yes, what Emile is describing is a medical procedure that is the same as an abortion. If abortion is outlawed or restricted past 6 weeks women will be unable to make choices in regards to their own bodies and that is just cruel. Basically this is what’s at stake when access to abortion is limited.
131
@David
There is one huge difference between the so-called "sides". One side wants to make their own choices about their own bodies. The other side wants to control and make blanket choices about other's bodies. BIG difference.
183
The high average income of legislators results in their being able to pass restrictive anti-abortion legislation with little personal risk. Back in the early 70's, college girls got induced abortions at the good Roman Catholic country of Mexico. Our legislators can hypocritically decry induced abortion while offering to help a pregnant mistress to get an abortion. They are rich enough to do that with almost complete safety, although one, fortunately, got in trouble for doing that.
10
I'm of the opinion that reasonable people can have completely divergent conclusions about the ethics of abortion. From a scientific standpoint, the argument that life begins at conception is hard to refute. On the other hand, the fact that the fetus resides within a woman's body suggets that the woman may hold ultimate sway. Does a tiny cluster of undifferentiated cells demand the same value of personhood as a third trimester fetus based purely on potential advanced development? As in utero development progresses, the physiological differences between fetus and newborn collapse and there is little to differentiate the two beyond location, method of nutrient acquisition, and how the blood is oxygenated. The ethical debate is much more nuanced than activists on either side seem willing to admit.
5
@Northern Sole You cannot use someone else's body without their consent. Over 90% of abortions are in the first 13 weeks so why anyone brings up later term ones, done when something has gone very wrong, I don't know. Frankly, it annoys me because it implies that women are waiting until week 38 and then suddenly changing their minds and it's not true.
18
Medical schools need to step up to the plate and train every Ob/Gyn to enable them to perform uncomplicated abortions in their offices, stop forcing women into clinics. One of the most shocking things I ever learned was that most Ob/Gyn’s in this country do not perform the service, even though most urge fetal testing (meaning they are not opposed to abortion). This is not compassionate care on their part. Of course no doctor is forced to perform the procedure, but if they have compassion they should not be sending these needy women off to a strange office far from home where people stand outside screaming at them and a handful of doctors have to put their lives at risk because we live in a patriarchal society.
25
@DJM
They need to train every doctor, not just the ob/gyn specialists.
The anti-abortion group bases their claim on the concept of 'protecting human life'.
Moving forward with this concept, it is perfectly rational to see their next attack as one on 'right to die painfree' approach of modern medical practice. Specifically, a person with a living will directive that includes 'pulling the plug' and 'medication to control pain - morphine injections that eventually suppress breathing leading to death' will be their next battle.
6
Feminists who fought in the 60's and early 70's for abortion rights did so in an atmosphere of crisis. Women, especially poor women, seemed to be dying or being maimed all around us by back-alley abortion. We knew women who had attempted self-abortion or who had gone through unspeakable, filthy procedures on kitchen tables or in strangers' apartments, often at the cost of their future fertility. We had seen the famous picture of a young mother dead in a pool of blood on a motel-room floor from a botched attempt. We were terrified, not only for other women but for ourselves, since we knew we were only one rape or slip away from the same risk.
Bit by bit, we are going back there. Back to when every pregnancy is subject to state surveillance from beginning to end. Women today are being prosecuted for miscarriages or threatened with jail for refusing to submit to obstetricians' demands. How long until pregnancy tests are once again illegal outside a doctor's office? Until doctors leave troubled deliveries to ask husbands "who do you want me to save"? Until women are left to die rather than hopeless fetuses be aborted?
Rich women can always travel or find a sympathetic doctor, but what about the rest of us? Do some research. Do you really want to have to fight to stop women, families, and kind doctors from being destroyed once again? Women's freedom can never separated from our bodies, ourselves.
18
I'm OK with abortion for the mere fact that these will be kids that won't be taken care of. I don't want to pay taxes to raise kids with parents that can't take care of them. Crime will also go up without abortion.
4
@Not 99pct I am pro-life and I have a feeling government keeps it legal for the reasons you stated.
1
Reproductive rights for all is one issue for which there is no compromise. Women should be allowed the right to determine their reproductive choices.
Thus, there will be continued confrontation in this nation over the rights of women. The evangelical movement has settled into the Republican Party that has become antichoice in its platform that unnecessarily increases our political polarization. As this editorial states, Republicans have increased their control over government offices that can legislate to restrict women's rights.
I see no solution to the disagreement over reproductive rights in this nation. This means that there will only be discord as tensions rise. The current 5-4 court is of no help in this matter and only serves to inflame the rhetoric.
In response, to get what it wants, the extreme Right has adopted trump fascism to attempt to expedite its discriminatory policies into law. This nation is on the precipice of losing its democracy to a Right Wing dictatorship that can force the end of reproductive rights for women.
If there is a reconciliation for our dysfunctional condition, it's going to take a long time for us to heal, because there is no compromise to this issue.
22
Thank You, Charles.. Well said.
13
As science continues to push viability earlier and earlier in the pregnancy, we need to consider that personhood occurs earlier. It's science and not disputable. We can't pick and choose when we believe in science (this goes for the right wing climate deniers too).
Let's stop fooling ourselves that these are not human beings.
Obviously, this entire argument does not apply to the health of the mother or rape/incest. Those are incomprehensible situations.
4
@AMurphy Of course it's disputable. "Viability" going earlier and earlier means months and months on machines to finish development. FYI, every gestation is a risk to the health of the mother. That's why she gets to opt out. Her personhood is not disputable.
31
@AMurphy
Those are very comprehensible situations to millions of girls and women all across America. What's incomprehensible is male violence, the targeted violation of degradation of all age females - cradle to grave, the rape, incest, misogyny and denial by males and far too many so-called religious genuflectors that females are human beings with the right to determine their own reproductive health and choices independent of males and the church cults.
13
An embryo will never be viable and 90% of abortions occur at the embryonic stage. It’s the size of a pea and it’s not a baby.
6
There is nothing "religious" about pro-life advocacy. My religious orientation does incline me toward a (qualified) pro-life stance. But it also inclines me toward expanding health care, reducing inequality, opposing racism, and many other "liberal" views. Should the latter be discarded because the former is unfashionable? Have we forgotten that the Reverend Doctor King's campaign for human rights was inspired by his religious training?
9
You are welcome to your own beliefs and ideas, John Fitzpatrick. You are NOT entitled to tell the rest of us what we can do with our bodies and lives.
15
@John Fitzpatrick
Good point.
I am an atheist who leans toward pro-life simply because I do not believe people are intelligent enough the answer the questions to justify convenience abortion. If people want to simply leave it at convenience, leave it amoral and stop the philosophical nonsense for its justification, I would be fine with that, too.
2
"Here's how to prepare" has an individual application also. Do you put your faith and trust in a U.S. constitution, Supreme Court and lawyers? Do you put your time and energy and money into influencing a national congress and president, or a state legislature and governor, or winning elections, all with uncertain results? Or do you "take care of Number One"? Sexual intercourse is not essential for the life or health of a woman. Neither is child-bearing and motherhood. What if large numbers of young single women decided to protect themselves from government-mandated childbirth by remaining celibate for life as Catholic nuns do, or until marriage, as the church advises and social rules once did? What if the "free love" men have enjoyed since the Sixties went away? What if large numbers of married women decided to get tubal ligations at the birth of their second child, or the first, or only married men who had had vasectomies because they wanted no children at all, or divorced those who refused to? None of this is likely on a mass scale, but I wonder if the anti-abortion forces have thought of the social consequences of their "pro-life" wishes? The closer they get to getting their wishes, all women have to think about their options and be prepared.
5
Let's be realistic.
This is not an important enough issue to sway a major election one way or the other. The number of words, marches, etc. devoted to both sides of the abortion debate aren't going to change that.
It's sucking up and wasting a lot of people's time and energy, however. When we're about to be wiped out from pollution, natural disasters, or some kind of cosmic phenomenon, it will be little comfort to debate abstract existential questions like the definition of life (undefinable!), where human rights begin (completely subjective!), and the extent of personal freedom (conditional on culture, personal philosophy, etc.)
4
@Joe Schmoe I totally disagree. I think abortion is the weather vane issue for many voters. How a candidate votes on abortion tells me much about how he/she will vote on many issues. I think many who are anti-choice held their noses and voted for Trump because they care about a conservative supreme court and reducing abortion rights above all else. Issues related to pollution, climate and other cosmic forces are too "out there" for enough people to rally. Abortion rights are now--especially for young women in America.
15
@Nadine
This is not something you can agree or disagree with. The voting patterns of millions speak for themselves. I couldn't care less about how you personally feel, and I doubt there's been an important elect where yours is the single deciding vote.
2
@Joe Schmoe Sorry, Joe, but for this woman, it is pretty darn important issue seeing as how a woman's very life is at risk from pregnancy and childbirth and the whole trajectory of her life changed by it.
1
The ONLY answer to stop these religion-based attacks on Women's Right To Choose What They Do With Their Own Bodies and Lives is to pass the Equal Rights Amendment to OUR U.S. Constitution.
No state should have the right to dictate what a Woman can do with her own body/life - no government should.
22
To all the supposed "pro-life' men commenting here - who are actually anti-abortion - get back to us when you can push a fetus through your body.
13
@njglea
It has nothing to do with women and their bodies, it's more about the baby that's in the women's body.
What you did with your body was completely your prerogative before the conception of the child.
Now that you have a child, it's not entirely up to you. I'm for birth control flowing from the taps, but not sure on when I can kill a fellow human being.
4
I'm not in favor of abortion except for those rare cases where rape and incest is involved nor am I in favor of the death penalty. (For the record, as a Catholic, I was against the death penalty years before Pope Francis changed Catholic teaching on it a few months ago or Pope John Paul II starting talking about ending the death penalty.)
Maybe some of those in favor of abortion rights should start asking publicly when the "pro-life" community will add "ending the death penalty" to their "end abortion now" arguments and proposed laws.
Oh, wait, that would be "pro-life" would mean anti-abortion and anti-death penalty, not just anti-abortion. I won't hold my breath to see that situation change even with all these new laws being passed by conservative legislators.
1
@Pat What gives you the right to justify when a woman is 'allowed' to have an abortion? You don't the right to decide for another human being what they should and shouldn't do with their bodies, unless you happen to be a legal guardian of the said individual.
10
Pat, you are free to believe as you please. You are “pro-life” and anti-death penalty, great! That IS your choice! I am Catholic, pro-choice AND against the death penalty. I decided many years ago with prayer and discernment that though I would not have an abortion, I could NOT require a woman who does not share my beliefs nor my values to not have the freedom of choice to make her own...choice!
I wish that Christians would realize that we CANNOT force others who do not share of faith, our values nor our beliefs to do as we would! God gave each and e dry one of us, freedom of choice. Lastly, I’m FOR life in every sense of the word....for equality for all humans, for healthcare for all, for a fair and just wage so that everyone can live with dignity.
BTW Jesus never mentioned abortion in the New Testament, and in the Old Testament it is written that a “child is a human once it is born.”
1
Sigh.
Even if Jesus had spoken disparagingly about abortion, not everyone in the United States is a dogmatic Christian or even a Christian.
I was born and reared a Christian, am not a churchgoer, and wouldn't heed a priest whose views contradicted mine anyway. Other Christians' righteousness does not impress me, and I certainly would not want the laws of my country in thrall to them.
What are we, Saudi Arabia?
3
Nothing in the Roe v. Wade decision forces women to have abortions. The objections of the "pro-life" organizations, particularly the extremist groups, are off base. Furthermore, it's none of their business who has an abortion or why. That decision should remain between the woman, her doctor, her family, and whomever she decides to share it with. Women do not lose their capacity to be adults when they become pregnant. They do not need to be vilified for becoming pregnant, having to make the decision to have an abortion for whatever reason they decide, or to have various idiotic obstacles thrown in their way to delay the abortion. They need support for whatever decision they make.
When I read the statements from the "pro-lifers" I'm left wondering who they are fighting for. How many of them were unwanted as children? How many of them were single parents, had to decide that they could not, in good conscience afford a child, learned that a child that was wanted had a life threatening birth defect that would kill the child once it was born? How many "pro-life" people understand what it means to grow up unwanted, unloved, abused, etc.? How many have ever reached out to provide financial support to families that need it for the entire length of childhood?
It takes more than a pregnancy or seeing a prenatal picture of fetus to want a child. It's unfair to the woman and the fetus to force the former to complete the pregnancy. Ask any person who was unwanted.
34
@hen3ry
Who has it worse in this life than an unwanted, uncared for and unloved child. Laws can be passed and were passed to force women to carry unwanted children and the consequences are dire for all concerned.
Too many people have forgotten the horrible situations so many women and children found themselves in before abortion was legalized. Families that could afford it sent their pregnant daughters away 'to protect their reputations.' Poverty stricken families got poorer with every extra mouth to feed and the children often had to fend for themselves at a very early age.
There will be underground clinics and desperate measures for those in desperate need. Bad laws just make for larger groups of outlaws but the one thing these abortion bans will not do is prevent abortions for any except the women and girls who are the LEAST able to care for a child.
7
As long as the Supreme Court doesn't rule that abortion is illegal and murder, we can find ways around it. But isn't it sad that we have to find a way around it? Isn't this a health issue between a woman and her doctor?
20
Especially if her doctor is Kermit Goswell.
1
We who are for a woman's right to choose her own reproductive present and future must not let you who would enslave her by your beliefs call yourselves 'pro life.' We should take that label because we tend to be very pro-the-life-of-the-woman as well as pro-the-life-of-the-baby that she was forced to have. If you would force a woman to have a baby she cannot afford mentally, physically, or financially, then at least promise to pay for the best pre-natal care, safe and secure child care so she can get back to work or her education, and complete medical and nutritional care for the child until he/she is 18. Promise me that, and I still won't agree with you, but at least you will prove to be pro-life.
26
In today's politics, there is nothing consistent about being pro-life. We fight wars, leaving cluster bombs around for children to blow themselves up with (those children we haven't actually dropped bombs on). We lose children at our southern border. We let children grow up (or not) in poverty situations without adequate education, health care, food, or hope. Many live in neighborhoods where dealing in drugs is the most lucrative future they have. Mothers struggle against these odds with all the love they have -- too often to fail. And yet a large part of our population is fixated on the 9 months between conception and birth. I would normally be pro-life, but the hypocrisy is overwhelming.
30
@Elizabeth Fisher You are completely right. I would add how we treat the disabled and the elderly. I am pro-life because I don't think that we can exclude the unborn. I think that it's a real slippery slope as to who is a person and their value. No political party has been right yet.
4
There is a word for when a human does not have agency over his/her own body.
And it is the opposite of freedom.
27
The fight for Women’s reproductive rights need to be just that, all rights.
When you talk Pro-Choice women need understand the right to an abortion isn’t just what is on the edge of being denied, it is also contraception and the elimination of women’s access to all birth control. The religious extremists will not stop at just Abortion, they have been chipping away at birth control in many states.
23
Roe V Wade should be overturned, not because of any pro-choice vs pro-life debate but because it should be a State decision to regulate medical procedures within the State.
If overturned, the battle will be returned to the State level, where it belongs. I would be opposed, on the same grounds, to a Federal regulation prohibiting or restricting abortions. Other medical procedures have rules and regulations that vary from state to state, there is no reason why this procedure should be any different.
4
@mikecody It absolutely should NOT be left to states to decide, because that would mean than women in many states would not have the same rights as others. I was very happy when same-sex marriage became federally recognized at the federal level, because our marriages are now recognized in EVERY state. That is true equality!
4
We are in the age of star power. Celebrities must come out and discuss productive rights and openly support (financially and vocally) the Planned Parenthood lawsuits. Those celebrities who do not come forward should be hit at the box office.
6
@Lily
Not only celebrities, but influential people of all stripes should come forward and speak up for women's reproductive rights. People have avoided stepping up because they don't want to get involved in the ugly pressure that comes from the anti-choice side.
But the time is now. The LGBT cause was able to harness the support of not only Hollywood, but also from organizations that boycotted states who passed hateful laws. Women need that kind of clout now.
Where is the solidarity for women's rights?
9
I’ve never understood why abortion and birth control opponents, who are often the same people, believe it is any of their business what a woman chooses to do about an unwanted pregnancy, especially if said woman does not share their beliefs or belong to the same religion.
34
We on the pro-choice side need to do a better job of finding areas of agreement with the pro-life side. Evidence shows that the best way to reduce abortions is to make contraception free, accessible, and widely used. This, in combination with frank and graphic education on sexual and emotional health starting in elementary school. Empowering boys and girls and men and women to view sexuality as a vital part of life and instructing them on healthy relationships and sexual practices (see, e.g., Heather Corinna's book, "S.E.X. the all you need to know sexuality guide") and providing free or low cost birth control information and options at every point of contact (i.e., schools, teen centers, clinics, pediatrician's offices, emergency rooms and urgent care centers, workplaces, shopping malls, etc.) should be the true pro-life policy.
15
Lisa-
Please, please call them 'anti-choice rather than 'pro-life.' You give them way too much power and cede the high ground when you allow them that title. You essentially accept the placing of your beliefs to be 'anti-life' not 'pro-choice.' Funny thing that many self proclaimed pro-lifers are against ready access to birth control, against any type if gun control, and support the use of the death penalty. How 'pro-life' is that??
Abortion...look at Europe, where the question has been settled by legalizing early-term abortions and outlawing stuff where embryos with beating hearts are cut up.
If the US would adopt the European solution, the Culture Wars would end, and an important part of Trump's base would come to their senses.
4
@Michael Masuch You cannot say for certain that "embryos with beating hearts" are not "cut up" in Europe or anywhere else. Those procedures may be less openly discussed in other cultures because it's considered tasteless and gross to make them public. Everything is more in-your-face here in the U.S. Elia Kazan once called the United States "the world's arena."
1
@Michael Masuch Those European countries put their money where their mouths are. They limit late-term abortions but also provide generous welfare benefits to support babies who are born because of those restrictions. You may favor such support (you don't say), but the same states that are etching to restrict abortion or ban it have demonstrated little interest in being "pro-life" after birth. Let's face it, most anti-abortion folks want a ban in a misguided attempt to stop women from having sexual intercourse for pleasure instead of procreation -- an there are plenty of pols ready and willing to pander to them.
5
@Michael Masuch beating hearts begin at 6 weeks. That is considered an early-term abortion. A beating heart should not be the criterion. I agree, however, that late-term abortions should be regulated.
1
Understand, only poor people, kids, minority women, and working class women without a family doctor have abortions. Upper middle class women with family doctors and wealthy women have a medical problem taken care of by their doctor. The word abortion never passes any ones lips.
13
@carlyle 145
It has always been the case that women and girls who were the least able and who had the fewest resources were the ones who were forced to have unwanted children against their will.
If only as much effort were put into taking care of the unwanted children that are already in our society, we all would be immensely better off. If only there were as much effort put into protecting children from sexual predators that seems to be epidemic in churches, schools , sports, and in every aspect of our society, we all would be better off.
1
“Abortion opponents have spent decades planning for a Supreme Court with a majority hostile to reproductive rights.”
The reality of the article lede gives the lie to Chief Justice Roberts’ claim that SCOTUS justices only decide balls and strikes. In truth, the ideological justices desired by conservatives and delivered by Republicans are really aimed at expanding the strike zone to the whole person. Then it’s very easy to strike out any women with the temerity to want to have control her own body. In other words, the conservatives are all about fundamentally destroying the values of reproductive freedom and respect for women’s choices embodied in Roe v. Wade.
8
@pda
This bruhaha is not about fetuses it is about power. The anti abortion folk have nothing else to do but meddle in female bodies. Sickening to be sure.
The most "high-stakes" you mention is the price paid by the human fetus: its life.
For those who think there's a magic tick-tock in time when the blob turns human, prithee tell us when.
Another salient point is that the human fetus has its own DNA. and differernt from its mother. It is NOT her body, and has as much a right to life as his/her mother.
It's time we find a humane way to end this barbaric execution of humankind, and also find a humane way to help mothers in need of help to endure their pregnancy. Life Care centers are everywhere and ready to help.
We must stop this barbaric killing of our kind, now over 50,000,000. and all of whom never got the chance we got to lead a life.
7
@Lake Woebegoner There is no such thing as "no decision" in continuing or ending a pregnancy. As such, the decision must be in the hands of the woman and certainly not in the hands of politicians intolerant of women making choices about their own bodies.
24
@Lake Woebegoner
"Another salient point is that the human fetus has its own DNA. and differernt from its mother. It is NOT her body, and has as much a right to life as his/her mother."
This leaves the path open to involuntarily removing tissue and organs from people to give to someone else. After all, if a woman is just an incubator, does she really need that extra kidney, either? The recipient will also have different DNA.
9
@pda Tell us P, what decision you are talking about here. Pregnancy is a fact, chosen or not.
One more time and read it again: women have the right to choose about their own bodies, but DNA shows clearly that the fetus is not their body, and although it may not yet be able to choose, one day it will.
And like the rest of us, when it comes to life, it will share in our gladness that our mothers chose not to end ours.
1
Conservatives complain about big, intrusive federal government until they insist on poking their heads into our homes and bedrooms, and enforcing their values on women and their families.
30
The Editorial advocates a playbook on how to maintain the right of a woman to have an abortion. Unfortunately, their prescription lacks historical and other context necessary for understanding the political struggle. As bad, it exacerbates the geographical divisions within America.
After Roe v. Wade, those who supported the decision largely went to sleep, thinking the battle won. The opposition stayed awake, stayed in the game, and developed a long-term strategy.
Meanwhile, N.P.R., P.B.S. the Times and most other media that claimed high journalistic standards started calling anti-abortion "right to life." Words matter. Game over.
How about for a playbook starter everyone tells whatever piece of media they subscribe to or organization they support that they will not get one more penny until they call the anti-abortion movement by its rightful name, anti-abortion? How about endless demonstrations at the offices, golf clubs, and homes of Members of Congress who oppose a woman's right to decide whether to have an abortion? How about doing some of the many things the anti-abortion movement does to their foes, though not, as some do calling for assassination in the name of "life?"
Read Roe v. Wade. It is relevant to understand that it is based not on the right to an abortion but on a privacy right, a right the Justices elicited from the Constitution, not one enumerated.
Forget the hypocrisy of "right-to-life" people supporting capital punishment. It's about political pressure.
7
I agree wholeheartedly that words matter, but would suggest one change....'anti-choice' or 'anti-abortion-rights' are both far more accurate and don't paint the opposing side into the corner.
1
in reply to Mark Terry:
Mark, thanks for engaging !
Your general point is valid I believe, but "anti-choice" is a bit vague, close to being a euphemism, while "anti-abortion" is very specific. Everyone knows what abortion is. "Choice" runs into the problem that you have to assume everyone knows precisely what it is referencing. Given that half the population can't name their Member of Congress, I wouldn't bet on a common understanding of "choice."
1
There is also a clear sexist component to the anti-abortion movement.
The movement has no compunctions about interfering in the health issues of women.
But the ant-abortion movement has no problem with men having vasectomies.
11
Is this part of our march toward theocracy and autocracy that the framers of the Constitution worried so much about and warned us about?
Fine if you and your religion believe having an abortion for any reason is wrong and a sin, then don't have one.
Institutionalized intolerance is what I see, coming from a bunch of zealots determined to impose their religious and personal beliefs on everyone who believes differently.
I taught at a medical center and have this terrible feeling that too many of these vengeful anti-abortionists are fairly ignorant about reproduction in general and have little medical information about the reasons for needing an abortion.
If the right-wing zealots are going to criminalize getting abortions, then
1. We will be going back to the days of backroom abortions or women doing their own abortions with catastrophic results (which happened to a foreign student when I was in college in the 1960s). Don't they care? Obviously not.
2. We need to greatly increase funding for children after they are born to poor women. So concerned about taking care of children in the womb but once born, no concern for live poor children.
So what is next? If your religion believes that drinking alcohol and dancing are wrong, then can we expect a 5-4 decision by the conservatives to make drinking wine and dancing a crime?
To me the cornerstone of Roe is privacy between a MD & female patient. Let's leave it that way.
18
I have been happily pregnant and I have to say, I never did pinpoint when exactly I was no longer a person because of it.
Compulsory continued gestation is subjugation of women.
35
One of the best ways to prepare for the possible significant restrictions on Roe is to get out there and vote. The key reason the opponents of Roe have been successful so far - especially in state legislatures is the deplorable fact that people who support Roe and those who support choice do not turn out to vote in sufficient numbers often enough - especially in “off year” elections. The outcome in so-called “off year” elections is extremely important. It is vital that state legislatures become a priority as far as womans’ human rights are concerned - with an emphasis that goes beyond reproductive rights. Registering to vote is quick, easy and free. Prioritize voting. Make a commitment to support the candidates who support you.
20
More the-sky-is-falling histrionics from the media, based purely on wild speculation. So far, none of the parade of horribles predicted by the media, over and over again, has transpired as hoped for, after Trump was elected more than two years ago. I wouldn't care so much, but I know many read this kind of stuff and accept it as the gospel, when it is anything but. Indeed, if you watch CNN and read much from other media sources, and accept it as reality-based, folks should wonder how it is possible that a Super Bowl is being played in 2019. At some point in what I hope is the not too distant future, readers and, more importantly, advertisers, will demand intellectual honesty from the media . . . 100% of the time. We're certainly not there now.
5
So what's your point? That the Times editorial board is in error? That conservative State legislatures are not mounting an assault against the reproductive rights of women? Where's your proof that this isn't so. Your comment reads like a long non sequitur.
@JDB....Easy JDB it's the opinion page. It's an opinion (google it if a definition is needed).
What does the Supper Bowl have to do with it?
"The Supreme Court will determine the fate of Roe, but its dismantling will start on the state level, requiring the effort to push back to be nationwide and expansive."
Exactly, and that's precisely the point. State legislatures are where the proponents of abortion should have started forty years ago. Instead, they deftly employed the court system in a fundamentally un-democratic flanking maneuver to avoid any real public debate. They got what they wanted, but their tactics ensured that their numerous and powerful opponents would never be persuaded or satisfied, and their end run around legislative democracy guaranteed generations of American bitterness and political rancor.
Personally, I am a strong proponent of a woman's right to choose abortion, and would wish any state where I live to make that a component of its law. But as strongly as I support that idea, I more strongly oppose the practice of the really, really smart classes of people in the world imposing their beliefs on those they consider dullards who inconveniently happen to be in the majority. Trampling over vast sectors of people with whom you disagree, rather than attempting to persuade them, is why nations end up with people like Donald Trump as leaders.
7
In my view, women's rights supporters need to start looking beyond the courts and the politicians for answers. The right-wing politicians and their appointed judges will continue to chip away at Roe until it is gone entirely. But this is an issue that can be taken directly to the people in the form of state referendum. Ballot initiatives in all 50 states.
Look to the recent vote in Ireland. Right up to the election, polling showed the issue coming in at a dead heat. Reproductive rights passed overwhelmingly! Why wait until Roe is overturned?
13
This raises the conflict between the imposition personal morals against living in the real world.
Women seeking abortions do not want to, and often, are unprepared to, nurture and raise the children they would otherwise bare. Why should society impose the penalty for the mother's decision to have (unprotected) sex upon an unwanted child?
Women seek abortions for a multitude of reasons, none of which are rooted in dogma. Rape, incest, not using contraceptives, economic circumstances, immaturity to be a parent, a lapse in judgement, unwillingness to be a parent, phase of the mother's life or career.....
If there is no ability to seek an abortion, this leads, in many cases, to unwanted children who become a burden on society and ultimately citizens and taxpayers who had no role in the conception. They could be poorly raised by the biological mother who has an unwanted child; the biological mother may lack the monetary or emotional resources to be a good mother; there may be no male role model in the unwanted child's life; the child is raised by adoptive or foster parents later learning of rejection by their biological mother; etc.
Taken to an extreme, perhaps sex should be banned without a government issued license? I think not. Sex is something that, or better or worse, is part of being human.
While perhaps not perfect, who is best suited to decide whether or not to give birth an unexpected child?
The mother, sometimes with the father, not government.
15
@red or green
Mostly agree, but on the "decision " to have unprotected sex, don't forget that the men who father these children also coerce or demand that they have "unfettered" intercourse. Lack of maturity of both partners only increases the odds of pregnancy. And another biggie: birth control can fail.
Thanks for putting this in a coherent voice.
Abortion rights, like many other issues, can be solved quite easily by going in the voting booth and pulling the lever for the Democrat regardless of whether you like the color of their shoes or are brainwashed by 30 years of Vichy GOP negative talking points.
Yet in November of 2016, 53% of white women succumbed to the charms of a man who bragged about grabbing them in a sensitive spot as if they were property.
In 2017, 57% of white women in a certain Southern State blamed under aged girls for the affections of a man twice their age.
Is it progress that in 2018, "only" 50% of white women voted for the Vichy GOP who will appoint conservative white males to restrict their reproductive rights?
Maybe white women have decided Roe vs. Wade should be overturned.
14
The newest Justice was brought in to do just this, and President Pence will see it through.
4
@Jsbliv Apparently he was brought in to do just this so you could force your religious belief on the rest of us. If we're now a country run on religious belief, much like the nations we've been at war with for the past 10+ years, how are we different than them. How are we different than Iran or Saudi Arabia? Why shouldn't I be allowed to force my religious beliefs on you and your children?
If your religious belief leads you to think abortion is wrong, here's an idea for you...don't get an abortion and keep your religious decisions out of other people's lives.
8
Why do women tend to announce pregnancy after three months? Because before three months have passed, pregnancy is fragile. During early pregnancy our bodies themselves are gauging the viability of the fetus and in quite natural fashion expels those that are not. It is a common and natural practice for the body to decide it's not time to be pregnant, so a prudent woman waits three months for nature to decide the pregnancy is a keeper. In fact, miscarriage can happen in the first three months without a woman or child even knowing. One could even say God intended the first three months of pregnancy to be tentative. So that first three months should also be a time when women themselves gauge the viability of the pregnancy in their lives, and decide whether or not to continue it, just like nature intended. In that way Roe was right on; Roe guaranteed a right to privacy about pregnancy in the first three months. The "personhood" principle, which forces every woman and child to give birth to every fertilized egg, is a relic of slavery (it's no coincidence Mississippi has the strictest abortion law), impossible to enforce, and against nature's law -- and God's.
13
If only everyone could focus on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. We need better education, family planning services, and women's health care. Oh wait, but that's Planned Parenthood. How can someone who is pro-life not support education, family planning, and women's health care?
30
@Lisa
Correct! And further, how can anyone who supports mandatory childbearing be opposed to expanding Medicaid? Love the embryo/fetus, reject the child?
14
January 22, 2019
More so women vs women on this topic - but this is not for women to exclude the litany for dynamics considerations and such expect the political forces to intervene and so bring in the big guys and thus we are we are and the struggle is as if a horrific ordeal -but having this Editorial narrative we can be hopeful that the creative process for how we live and die will find the right balance to afford writ that we can appreciate so that we live with culture we earn and care to share in great humility for all to support our victory in nurturing the code for all Americans having smart guidance respectfully and heroically for the birth we live for and with competencies in all forms of sociology dynamics soul by soul and history.
1
It's unsaid, but always implied that there were no abortions (nada, zero, zilch) abortions until 1973.
Furthermore, there will be no (nada, zero, zilch) abortions if Roe is repealed.
If the young aren't active and careful, abortion is going to be a crime and a women who has a miscarriage will have to PROVE that she didn't have an abortion. It's happening in Central America now and it might be happening here if young women don't get to work.
The women who marched for choice back in the 60s and 70s, even though now post-menapausal are still marching -- but they should just sit down and watch re-runs of the Sopranos or The wonders of tidying up. It's time for the young folks take over and we'll see what happens when the right to abortion is taken away. It's the time for the young to take over.
10
@Dorothy-M I totally agree. I did my marching back in the 60s and 70s. If the young women don't want to defend this choice for their own bodies then it will just fade away. They need to take the reigns and defend their right to choose.
9
We seem to never have the RvW issue settled. It is the law, let's leave it as the law and get on to other vastly more important issues, like reversing Citizens United. Those against abortion on religious grounds might remember that we don't run this country on religious beliefs. If you're against abortion, don't have one, as another commenter said.
27
The pro-abortion people must be in one of two camps: (1) The fetus is not life (2) The fetus is life, but the mother should be free to end that life.
Those in the second group are likely to believe the science behind global warming, a science that has much room for skepticism. Modern science showing that a fetus is life is far more persuasive than the science behind global warming.
Henceforth, those in the second group and support the science behind global warming will not be permitted to accuse non-believers in global warning as being anti-science.
4
A fertilized egg is life but it is a far thing from a baby.
10
@Steve Brown
You may want to reevaluate where you're getting your scientific information.
10
@Steve Brown...what does global warming have to do with the right to privacy in medical decisions? I almost choked on my morning coffee with laughter. Global warming is here whether you deny or not...just ask any farmer, gardener or hiker or skier. It is like denying the earth is flat. As for the abortion debate - if you don't like abortions, don't have one or in your case refrain from intercourse.
12
Make no mistake, forced continuation of pregnancy and banning of birth control have nothing to do with the love for and sanctity of life, as the anti-choice religious right claims.
Restricting women’s reproductive rights is purely and simply about controlling women and their sexuality. It is about continuing the privilege of men to have and use women as domestic and sexual chattel and potting soil.
The claim of a biblical right to restrict women in this way puts the whole argument in the realm of the separation of church and state. And, too often legislators pass laws and judges rule that ALL women, whether they choose to believe in or abide by the tenets of a religion, must obey. And women are charged as criminals if they don’t.
Women and men will have to work tirelessly to restrain the growing scope of so-called religious freedom; otherwise, not only women’s reproductive freedom, but the very existence of disbelievers will offend against the religious freedom of zealots.
Then what?
22
@ChrisJ I think it is absurd to say the pro life movement is about controlling women. It is about protecting young human beings from slaughter. Only in this narcisstic culture can the forces of so many be mobilized in favor of destroying little lives that can't protect themselves. I pity those who will go before God with their "its all about me" argument.
1
@ChrisJ
This is a legacy mindset. Young people don't believe this or experience it.
2
@Bryan...if this your goal it seems more productive to reduce gun violence in our country. How about it?
5
Sometimes I think people don’t remember (or never knew) what it is to be a girl or woman aged 10-55, where you could have an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy.
I am glad to be postmenopausal, and beyond that threat, unless kidnapped by a mad scientist, but I will remember and work to help others.
14
Why we should respect somebody's religious believes in the country where religion is separated from the state by Constitution? It's nonsense! These case should be just thrown away as anti constitutional!
11
@Marat K
I couldn't agree more Marat K! The reality is these anti-choice folks vote as a block. So it's about politicians being re elected regardless of constitutional issues.
I encourage the strategy, suggested in the piece to introduce legislation regardless of the possibility that legislation will pass.
I canvased for the Reproductive Health Act in NY State and ACLU members (!) were unaware of the restrictive pre-Roe V. Wade laws in NY State. We need to get the word out and that takes work beyond demonstration s and marches.
9
@Marat K
It is difficult to discern any rationale for the abrogation of Roe v. Wade other than the fixation of conservative Christians upon anything that doesn't affirm and honor their religious beliefs. Stay tuned for the inauguration of a New American Theocracy governed at its core by the literal interpretation of an old book of questionable authorship in another part of the world by people who lived in different circumstance at a very different time in the history of human thought.
3
Why don't they work for a law to have men(in DNA) suffer 50% of all expenses and trauma.. first.
11
George Carlin, 1996
"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. "
39
Call us pro life, pro birth, anti abortion anything you like that conveys we are against the termination of a pregnancy. These terms have all the same meaning. We are against abortion and it is the taking of innocent human life in the womb. Those of us in the pro life movement will not give up this very important mission. We do not want any more of the unborn to be lost to the evils of abortion. We will not stop until abortion is a thing of the past.
3
@WPLMMT
I call you pro-forced birth, the "forced" part being an important clarification, and the only thing you can ever potentially accomplish is to end safe and legal abortion in red and purple states (unfortunately, like mine) for girls and women who don't have the means to secure abortions elsewhere, for instance in Ireland.
That is, unless you plan to lock up every girl and woman of reproductive age and monitor her around the clock. What are you going to do, force my teenage daughters to undergo a pregnancy test before they are allowed to drive a car across state lines or get on an airplane?
How come people like you never get all hot and bothered in an effort to fund researchers, my next-door-neighbor being one, who study the causes of miscarriage and premature birth? Could it be that you need to be able to conjure up the specter of a "guilty" woman in order to obsess about "innocent" zygotes?
15
@WPLMMT They have always happened, and they always will. What you seek is to make them dangerous and to criminalize the act.
You want YOU to make the decision of what another woman does with her body. I don't know if you're a man or a woman, but it doesn't matter.
Tell me, do you feel this passionately about providing healthcare to poor infants? Day care? Early childhood education?
9
@WPLMMT--So, what about the unborn lost to the evils of miscarriage? You're comfortable criminalizing every woman who can't carry a pregnancy to term? Does that very important mission come next?
13
Not a mention of the legality, or possible future lack thereof, of fertility clinics?
4
If there is no commitment to access to birth control along with restricting abortion access, then the agenda of the right to life movement is suspect. Not logical. Irrational. There is another agenda: controlling women and punishing the poor. The right to life movement has become a dog whistle for the larger conservative agenda.
There's really good birth control available these days. Let's make it available to all. The State of Delaware is making moves in the direction: https://www.upstream.org/campaigns/delaware-can/
Also as reported in the Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/upshot/set-it-and-forget-it-how-better-contraception-could-be-a-secret-to-reducing-poverty.html
Access to a safe abortion is protected by the constitution. If you don't like abortion, don't have one.
23
Politicized religion, the breakdown of the separation of religion and the state, education in certain regions in the hands of religious zealots, enforced indoctrination for those unfortunate enough to grow up being taught what to think rather than how to think - this is the fertile ground that anti-abortion theories thrive on. This is just "Sharia" translated into US fundamentalist moral beliefs. "A rose by any other name...…"
13
People should keep in mind that the Supreme Court rules a law and current trends. The pressure has to be on Congress and even if the supreme court rules a certain way Congress can pass laws that reverse some of the decisions. We can even amend the Constitution to amend a SCOUTS decision. Public must not let Fake Conservatives from harming US Citizens.
Congress can and will act if under pressure to do so.
2
After 50 years still the same arguments.
I am pondering what can I say that is new and I offer this:
This morning I was reading an article on empathy as a path for peace between nations and realized it omitted any discussion of fairness.
The article referenced studies about babies inherent concept of empathy favoring sharing individuals and experiments with monkeys indicating they too are inherently aware of social contexts.
The articles then fail magnificently in omitting the essential part of empathy, the basis of fairness. You can't have empathy unless you first understand fairness. Fairness requires that you are aware how you would feel as the slighted party. And being able to foresee into the future as one.
Group cohesiveness requires fairness, and as you can see from out world of INSTITUTIONALIZED LAWLESSNESS , power pretends not to need fairness but like most of the corporate concepts being practiced today, this is a skim of water of the LaBrea tar pit. Which, by the way, is 80 % saber tooth cats.
The sky is not falling. Roe is secure. Opinions to the contrary are weak attempts at rousing the base and criticizing the opposition. It is a non-story for tribal tendencies on both sides of the aisle. Few care about the middle ground because reasonableness is not click-worthy. Perhaps one day I will read an editorial about ways to work with the opposition rather than to declare war for no apparent reason. Be reasonable.
3
The chances of Row wade being reversed is very, very small. But while all the supporters are gathering at the door to protect RvW, the anti RvW supporters have been sneaking in the back door seriously eroding its effect. One limitation after another have been passed on the state level. Some have been overturned but while they work themselves through the courts, centers women could go to, closed down. While we talk about right to choose, the Court ruling had to do with the right to privacy. We need to keep an eye alert on that as well or it may be eroded. Already people with no connection whatsoever, are stepping in to prevent families dealing with life support decisions. One thing is assured. Abortions won't go away. They will just go back to the past. The poor will end up in basements and back rooms while the maternal death rate go up steadily. Those with money will be done in medical offices with no record and in hospitals where the written diagnosis makes it look like a miscarriage and not a chosen termination. The right to privacy is a cherished rite. We need to protect that right regardless of who or what door or window those who would take it away from us sneak in.
2
There's a reason pro-lifers seem so cold to women in this equation. They've never put their energy into a solution of creating a world where adoption and maternal care is free and accessible to all women. They've never taken a true stance against a domestic and sexual abuse culture that blames women for being pregnant. By pursuing prohibition and criminal charges for women, some of whom were attacked, they'll be forever known as cruel. I hope we don't turn into a country where women are incarcerated for choosing their health, safety, and sanity over a nightmare or death.
12
@Michael
I really don't know where these myths about pro-life people come from. Do you have any statistics to back any of these claims up?
2
@AACNY
No need for "statistics." It's obvious. I've read all your blogs, listened to your speakers, read your proposed bills, studied your philosophers. You all don't care about women or children.
Look at WLPMMT up thread, popping bottles at the thought of a woman being forced to go through childbirth against her will. That’s disturbing.
You people want Trump cause he'll cut off abortion access. If you cared about reducing unwanted pregnancies and the reasons that women get abortions in the first place, you wouldn’t support republicans. This is simple.
And if there is any doubt on the future of Roe V Wade, the Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Trump’s broad restrictions on transgender people serving in the military to go into effect while the legal battle continues in lower courts.
Conservatives, Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, allowed the restrictions to go into effect while the court decides to whether to consider the merits of the case.
Liberals, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan would have kept the injunctions in place.
So the two issues, Roe and transgender troops may be unrelated, but the conservative intent is crystal clear.
It is a cynical push by the republicans to take full advantage not only of the blocking of Judge Garland but the elevation, possibly through criminal activity, of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to the court.
I believe that any discussion of presidential impeachment would be incomplete unless it was closely followed by a movement to remove Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, either through impeachment or recall.
They could be, after all. the "fruits" of an ongoing criminal enterprise.
10
@tronald...
That question revolves around whether or not the Commandeer-in-Chief has the authority to make such a ruling...Remember, the powers of the CiC are broad and the restrictions few.
The issues have yet to be litigated and/or framed in the lower courts...There are very limited cases where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. Remanding for hearing at lower levels is appropriate in such cases.
The law is a ponderous operation. Each court has its own tempo and trying to manipulate tempo can lead to sweeping losses on issues that would never have become precedent had they not been pushed.
Cool your jets, space cadets. You're burning fuel for no gain.
5
@The Owl
I understand, and thank you.
I believe that it is important not only to recognize the obstacles we may face in our current predicament but also to recognize the possibilities inherent in our battered democracy.
And while I may expend fuel only to ultimately "flame out", I would consider any minor incremental difference I might make to be, however small, fulfilling.
And if we never had space cadets, there would be no footprint on the moon.
3
I've come to see the national fight over abortion as a religious issue, where the Roman Catholic Church and other organizations that would claim a moral stance based on the independent humanity of a fetus in utero - and impose that belief legally on others - are attempting to establish religious doctrine as the basis of the law of the land. Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ... " which suggests to me that in the face of honest, competing judgements on the desirability and moral acceptability of abortion (even homicide of a living human has degrees in law), we citizens are entitled to believe human life begins at conception OR NOT, and, as a corollary, that in terminating a pregnancy, the mother's physical and psychological health MAY (in the pro-choice case) or may not (for anyone against abortion absolutely) be determined by the woman rather than the government. Some women may decide and choose, on the basis of their needs or moral beliefs, not - even never - to abort a fetus; other women deserve the right to determine for themselves what they need and can tolerate in carrying a fetus and birthing a child..
6
But we’re not neutral on the subject, are we? Or government and taxpayers would not be required to pay for it, insurance companies to cover it, or Catholic hospitals to provide it.
1
Abortion is a moral issue......
2
@John...
You make interesting arguments with a degree of validity.
I see the question, though, as being somewhat different.
We all know that murder is abhorrent to the conscience of the civil human. We all also know that "government" has a legitimate interest in imposing consequences on the one committing that crime.
Our law, as it stands, holds that abortion is NOT murder and that society DOES NOT HAVE a legitimate interest in dealing with the issue.
The question for the body politic, then, is when abortion, a legal and accepted practice, turns to murder, a nefarious act in all civil societies.
To whence must The People turn for guidance in resolving this thorny question? Religion? Philosophy? The loudest screamer on the block?
Like many, I am not comfortable allowing our political elite to become the ones that make that determination. Far too many of them dive to the extremes rather than to face the difficult position of the center where political compromise is achieved.
Absent other rational moral authority, where are we to turn except to elected representatives vested with the powers to create law and process.
Our nation would do well to have a single acceptable policy applicable on a national scale. But our Constitution places the authority for dealing with such issues with the States. And, if truth be told, the States, there being 50 of them, are the proper laboratories for experimenting with solutions to the limits of legitimate government involvement.
1
This is a fight that can be won with solidarity and the concept of solidarity is finally gaining traction in the U.S. among a wide swath of groups fighting for justice across an array of issue areas. Witness the Sierra Club's support of immigrant rights, for example. Harnessing the power of solidarity to protect the rights of women and families will be key in not just preserving what remains of freedom, but expanding it to everyone.
5
@Lindsey...
A shout-out for a cattle call.
Brilliant. Absolutely BRILLIANT!
1
Washington state enshrined the right to choose in law in 1991 through a state wide referendum of the people. Not sure of the specifics but I believe it extends through the first trimester, possibly more. I suspect if this strategy was employed in every state half of all states would retain roe v wade via state legislation. With travel so easy today
2
In 1971 I wrote a letter to the editor of the NYTimes laying out a number of reasons why banning abortion was "cruel and unusual punishment" for women and their families - including both existing children for whom they may already be struggling to provide, as well as the "unborn child" who never asked to be brought into a world where they are unwanted. I never thought that we'd have to be fighting the same fight in my lifetime
27
I’m with you. As a young person in the ‘70s, I remember “state shopping” (crossing state lines for legal abortions). Never thought we’d have to revisit that again. Honestly, the extreme anti-women religious zealots should just not get an abortion if they don’t want one. They don’t have the right to make a personal medical decision for any other women and force their religious views on any other woman.
10
What to do about roe v Wade? I say let it die its slow long overdue death. It has been falling apart at the seams for some time now and will eventually become extinct. The individual states have been enacting more restrictive laws against abortion which is having a profound effect on the right to life movement. Their hard earned efforts for many years have not been in vain. It is too early to celebrate but it will happen one day soon. Then we will pop open the champagne bottle and toast to life and the unborn babies in the womb. Now that is something to celebrate.
5
@WPLMMT I will never celebrate the dehumanization of women. I doubt many will.
11
@WPLMMT And thus fascism takes over the country--celebrating with champagne the State's ability to overrule an individual's most personal decision on whether or not to continue an unwanted pregnancy. Next on the list of rights to be denied: contraceptive decisions. That can then be followed with denying individuals the right to marry who they choose. The list will go on and on, and the bubbly-headed will celebrate it all.
11
Dictatorship by religious zealots is absolutely nothing to celebrate. And I don’t believe they are at all pro-life, just invasive control freaks, against women making their own private medical decisions. The celebration will be when they make their own personal medical decisions and do not destroy the personal freedom of other women to make their own medical choices.
11
For those who believe that life begins at the moment of fertilization, and even call the resulting zygote a "baby", there is a question that they should answer:
Imagine a burning hospital, in that hospital there is a container with 5,000 human embryos inside it; There are also 5 three year old children; You only have time to save the 5 children or the 5,000 embryos; Which do you save? The answer is easy for rational people.
20
@rich
The thing about abortion is so many clever little arguments can be made for and against it, like this, but it's not really about making these little arguments. Anyone can do that.
It is always about the bigger, moral issues which cannot be trivialized.
2
How to prepare? Use condoms!
You are getting exactly what you voted for. I don't understand why people are acting out surprised now This is what everybody predicted would happen if he became president. He did, and this is what happens.
And wait, he might appoint another 2 or 3 SC judges during his tenure. The American political system has been biased against urban voters BY DESIGN. The appointment of SC judges FOR LIVE by the President is another flaw. Deal with it. And enjoy the economy, your tax breaks, and your out-of-control accumulation of debt.
4
The MAJORITY of voters did not vote for this ! There is an obsolete institution in the USA called the Electoral College which steals and negates the majority decisions by American voters. We also have destructive corporate influence buying politicians. Criminals need to be routed out from our government. Our voices are not being heard.
3
The movement for reproductive rights has by far, one of the most abysmal success records in all of progressivism. This is one of the reasons why the recent news about the Women’s March dirty laundry is so alarming. I’m hoping that we can somehow, miraculously stop the bleeding at the state level.
1
Men don't want their seeds to be rejected. And they are sure they have their god on their side.
6
It’d be great to see a nuanced opinion on this subject for once, rather than an ongoing branding exercise about who is anti-life, anti-abortion, red, or blue.
Pro-choice folks need to keep in mind, whatever their feelings, that many pro-life people view this as murder. Try to understand that point of view.
Similarly, pro-life folks need to keep in mind the cold reality that these abortions are likely to still occur, and making them illegal will push them underground. Try to be realistic.
At the end of the day, you have two competing forces that never lose going to battle: life (at conception, or shortly thereafter, there is a life/soul) vs. liberty (the fetus isn’t a person, it’s a ball of cells, this is my body).
The rights to life and liberty are literally what we’ve been willing to go to war on from the very start of the country. Pushes like what the NYT is doing now serve to rally an army, which is fine and serves the NYT’s cause. Exploring solutions that generally decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies nationally would be more interesting (BC for all?), and address the concerns of both sides. When pro-life pushes against BC, their argument crumbles.
9
"Exploring solutions that generally decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies nationally would be more interesting (BC for all?), and address the concerns of both sides."
We don't really need to "explore" solutions. We know what they are. Medically accurate sex education and widespread access to birth control reduces unwanted pregnancies. But, conservatives actively oppose both of these measures.
9
There is no “both sides” in matters of private physical autonomy.
19
Question: how can so-called Christians reconcile their antipathy to birth control (Hobby Lobby et al) with their negative attitude towards abortion? The first part of the sentence controls the second part. The other question is the same people seem to have an enthusiasm for the death penalty. If taking a Life in utero is wrong how can taking the life of anyone be right? I see a little hypocrisy here. No, a lot of hypocrisy.
16
States that limit or outlaw access to abortion are driving away their own citizenry. West Virginia has steadily lost population since 2015. Alabama showed a slight statewide gain last year -- enough to fill half of Cramton Bowl, Montgomery’s municipal football stadium -- but Montgomery and Mobile both suffered population declines and Alabama could lost one of its seven seats in the House of Representatives in the next census.
4
@Christy...
Good heavens...Suggesting the birth control is the reason why West Virginia is losing population seems to disregard the dinosaur in the corner...
West Virginia is losing population because of the limitations on coal. People are leaving to find jobs, not to find states that allow abortion.
I would suspect that the reasons for Alabama's population are similar to those that are seen in WV.
Getting an abortion is not that big an issue for the average America, and...I doubt that it is a big issue even for the not-average American citizen either.
1
Correlation, not causation.
1
There is only one argument from the left which will appeal to right to lifers. The cost of overturning Roe is in the trillions. There have been over 60 million terminations since Roe. Most of these have been to families who can not afford another child. Millions more to single women in school trying to better their station in life.
Imagine if there was no Roe. We would have to build 30% more schools. Hire hundreds of thousands more teachers. Educate over a million more
children in each grade. Birthing costs would overwhelmingly fall to taxpayers as would ongoing medical costs and SNAP (food stamp costs) would triple. There are dozens of additional social costs to provide for the welfare of those 60 million unwanted births. Think of the overflowing orphanages.
If the increased cost to local and national government would not move the right from their religious position then perhaps the fact that there would be tens of millions more democrats than republicans might make them reconsider. One also must question why abortion is anathema to the right right up to the point that their own unwanted pregnancy test reads positive. Hard to believe none of those 60 million abortions were to Catholics.
A friend of mine who spent a decade in the priesthood said that he knew God intended every conception to end in a live birth. I asked him why then it was that God allowed 58 million spontaneous abortions worldwide annually. Annually!
13
That women in many parts of the country cannot easily get abortions shows the illegitimacy of the government. As a result of the government violating basic patient's rights, we must question and reject its bogus claims to legitimacy.
Representative Farrar's stunt bill helps us understand that the rulers' interference with a person's medical needs is intolerable. (I would use the analogy of a waiting period for appendectomies.) We must insist on equal rights. The rulers are entitled to the same rights as everyone else, yet they claim more rights for themselves.
We also need to address the unethical behavior of hospitals that violate the basic patient's rights, to comply with the government. Regardless of legal penalties, hospitals have an overriding obligation to respect the patient's rights. We must apply the correct penalties to hospital administrators, including the death penalty when correct, if they cross the line.
One solution often overlooked is to overthrow the government. However, when we look at the French Revolution, for instance, the people, while killing the rulers, killed many who did not deserve the ultimate penalty. The revolution should be done properly and correctly.
5
One of the great ironies of the 'right to life' movement is that it doesn't really mean what it says.
The right to life folks really mean the right to be born. And maybe not even that. Women have no right to adequate prenatal care, and once a child is born they have precious few rights.
But among those rights for the newly born championed by Red states are,
the right to little or no medical care,
the right to be beaten as corporal punishment,
the right to poor schools, discriminatory discipline, the right not to have any rights protected by the International Treaty on the Rights of the Child
and of course the right to be treated like an adult, but only if you have committed a crime.
The moral hypocrisy of these politicians is stunning so among the strategies should be efforts to simply point this out.
31
This issue of tissue is completely perplexing unless seen from the way that first ruling from the Supreme Court is viewed: privacy of a person to make the choice for one's own body. Those who support the choice to be made by a woman whether to continue a pregnancy of not are not found on the other side, those who are pro-life, who believe doctors can be shot, clinics closed, and the results of unwanted children, children w/severe physical or mental problems are the result. The emotional evangelicals who preach end-times and a political party , the GOP, have hooked up to fan the emotional flames and hearts of their side, where there is no choice, only their way. That governemnts in states like Texas, perhaps Ohio and others do not offer help for women who cannot provide adequately for children and knew it, this reality is just one more tough reality. This is pretty close to burning women, who were called witches in Salem, when others, men who govern states, or represent the Catholic Church with its long hisotry of sexual abuse, and presidents and vice presidents who use the anti-choice anti-abortion slogan to capture votes. Instead, perhaps loook at Rep. Jessica Farrar from Texas to consider her bill.
9
These same pro-lifers will not hesitate to execute a convict.
And where are these same people after the kid is born? They disappear into their churches and praise the Lord. Hallelujah! Pass the plate! Life is good! Amen!
Ah, the hypocrisy of it all. Life is sacred but apparently not all life.
If these folks really want to do society well, let them fight to end poverty and homelessness, to make health care accessible to all.
22
@wihiker...You have a point.
The irony is that the pro-abortion crowd is so skittish to the point of being obstuctionists, that they fight for the life of heinous murders who have been sentenced to death by juries of their peers
1
How easy it is for pieces like this to avoid the fact that, from the first cell, a baby has the same DNA as everyone reading this article. It is completely defenseless and innocent of any wrongdoing. For as long as abortion has been legal (60 million deaths since Roe) what I find most distasteful is how the left celebrates it.
5
It’s not a baby. Period the end.
1
ALWAYS vote for the Democrats, the more liberal the better.
9
Yes. The New York Times Editorial Board and their opinion and "regular" journalists love to hyperventilate regarding the demise of Roe V Wade but this will not happen. The Supreme Court, run by John Roberts will never let this happen. His actions in the Affordable Health Care Act showed his lack of interest in being the deciding vote in controversial cases such as these by calling the penalty for those who do not purchase insurance a "tax."
Even if, (and this is a big if) the court were to hear the case and vote to overturn Roe (which is considered settled law) the States would not be affected by this ruing. They could continue to perform abortions forever unless each state individually voted to repeal. This will never happen.
Good "liberal click bait" headline though.
5
@Rosie James Wish I could believe as firmly as you do in John Roberts, a man I know and like personally, but who I realize has fraught views on this issue.
3
This article didn't say that abortion would be banned nationally, although that is the goal of the anti-choice movement. But, it is important that many women already live in states that have banned abortion in practical terms. The situation would only worsen if Roe v Wade were overturned. A woman's access to abortion should be not denied just because she lives in, say, Alabama.
I will take the cries of anti-choice scolds seriously when they care about the rights and welfare of the already-born as much as they rend their garments over a fetus. Yes, life is always preferable but it's not a black-and-white world. You would see every potential baby born but once it's born, on average, you don't want to pay for its education or health care and are more than happy to see its entire life be spent behind bars for a few bad decisions with regards to nonviolent crimes. You cry over a lost blastocyst but weep not over a mass slaughter committed by a gunman who had no checks on his ability to buy a gun. You gnash your teeth over a woman's decision not to bring her rapist's baby to term yet blame the woman for being raped in the first place. Life is always preferable but, for all to many anti-choicers, life begins at conception and ends at birth, for the compassion they have for those born. No one has the right to use your body without your consent.
12
As a society we certainly want abortion to be very rare, so you'd think the people fighting for this goal would also be fighting for legislation that encouraged the mother to not have an abortion. Right?
So what's a typical right winger's stand on Healthcare? Daycare? Family leave? Nutrition programs? Environmental issues? Gun violence? etc.
The "choices" have spoken, and I have to conclude that the right wing conservative is a hypocrite.
14
Women and only women can decide. It's their body, no one else's. Old men and evangelical spinsters should keep out of it.
11
A woman does not own her body, then she does not own herself
9
Fight the fight men because less abortion means more child support.
2
Anti-choice women are free to have as many pregnancies as they like. Anti-choice men are free to get vasectomies. We all get to control what happens to and within our *own* bodies.
13
Here's what George Carlin once said on this subject:
"I don't know how you feel, but I'm pretty sick of church people. You know what they ought to do with churches? Tax them. If holy people are so interested in politics, government and public policy. let them pay the price of admission like everybody else."
- George Carlin
22
There are a few sane comments here, but not many. Extremists on both sides dominate the discussion. Do you really believe that a women has no right to choose to continue or terminate her pregnancy, for whatever reason in the first 20 weeks? Some believe even in a rape, she does not. On the other hand, do you really believe that life does not begin at conception? Have you reduced your concept of abortion to a medical procedure and nothing more? Is not life involved? Do you think abortion in the 8th or 9th month is anything short of infanticide? Access to abortion is necessary for women’s health, but there needs to be restrictions. Adopt the Dutch rules, in the first 20 weeks no decision maker involved but the woman. After that, there are restrictions. Let’s take this seriously and reasonably and resolve the question. Protect both mother and child. That will not be done by the extremists, but by reasonable people in the middle.
54
@Mark
You’re about 30 years behind the thinking on this issue.
You’re still thinking “reasonable people in the middle” even matter in this debate.
17
@Mark V You're "Dutch" rules are basically Roe v Wade
33
@Mark V
Well, then. The law of the land seems very sane, because you just described it - except in those states that are attempting insanity.
28
One thing that has always struck me in the abortion debate is the inference on the part of the anti abortion lobby, that women seeking abortions are flippant, careless, naughty girls who need to be brought to heel through the application of laws written by men in the spirit of a wrathful god. Who are these women? Frankly, we don’t know but I suspect that the decision to have an abortion is an agonizing decision.
I would suggest that women on both sides of this issue need to come together in forums, kick all the men out of the room, kick all of the politicians out of the room and share their stories with each other.
After reading the NYT’s special report on Women’s Rights it’s pretty clear to me that women’s rights are being trampled on to a degree that’s shocking. Laws are being written that could lead to women being routinely prosecuted for myriad offences springing from pregnancy. That’s insane; surely it should be unconstitutional.
13
Unfortunately, for far too many on the right, abortion is just another tactic. A tool to keep a segment of their base in their camp. If you are anti-abortion, you are most certainly voting Republican. I doubt for a moment that Trump has deeply held religious beliefs regarding the moral aspects of abortion. But he knows well that some in his base are right-to-lifers. He is not alone here.
But aside from this, the editorial is spot on regarding pushing legislation even if it has no chance of passing. Pro-Choice needs to be pro-active in order to survive.
6
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to correlated the declining white population in the U.S. with the rising fervor of restricting reproductive rights.
To be sure, for some it is a moral question. But for most white, male ,Republican politicians , it is a matter of voter supply, since the majority of women seeking abortions in this country identify as "Caucasian". If, on the other hand, the majority of women were woman of color, there would be little resistance and much support. Couple this with the need (Biblical) for some , of controlling women's sexual freedom and there lies the toxic mix.
3
Just another example of how the American judicial system can be lobbied, bought and coerced.
Yet Americans like to term themselves as 'the great democracy on earth'.
I
5
The pro lifers are really only pro birth. After the child is born, they don’t care a fig for what happens. They aren’t interested in feeding, housing or educating the neediest children.
10
I am pro-abortion, but I am willing to accept anti-abortion if those pro anti-abortion supports ban possession and gun sales in US. Guns probably cause many times more death than aborted fetus.
If we are a free country with many liberties, why can't we accept both? If not, then I rather have none at all.
2
@Usok
Well, its not even close. Gun deaths in 2017(last year available from CDC) were 39,773. The last CDC report on abortion is from 2015 and reported 638,169 abortions. California, Maryland, & New Hampshire don't report the number of abortions performed as they are not legally required to do so. Trying to equate the two is ludicrous.
@Usok: I'm absolutely not 'pro-abortion'; I'm pro-choice.
2
Postings here underscore the many ways in which we (the people of this country) refuse, absolutely refuse, to listen to anyone else's opinion on almost anything (including Roe v Wade) without retorting with animus and generalities and loathing.
On this site all men are turncoat scoundrels for certain women who seem furious; those who feel that life begins at conception are accused of not caring about children once they are born; people with dissident voices are trammeled with insults.
Women should govern their bodies; I am a woman. However, I do not believe in eviscerating people with differing views nor painting them with labels that may not in any way fit them.
Men DO have a right to speak their minds (I'm lucky to have worked with numerous wonderful men and have been married to one). They do not all agree with my stands on many issues, but I know them to be generous, mature and respectful.
And remember that most men have no say nor control on whether a pregnancy (of which they are co-creator) is continued. Women should have the last say, no question, but with imagination you might consider that some men rightfully grieve for the loss.
3
Until every anti-choice zealot has adopted six unwanted children into her/his home, that person speaks no argument worth listening to. Words are cheap and such a person is the worst kind of hypocrite.
23
Ridiculous argument. It’s a an issue of morality. You mean we should throw out morality since we can’t adopt these kids? So if we think it’s murder, we have to shut up since we can’t adopt them? You are the reason we can’t have an adult conversation about this issue. If you don’t think it’s murder, good for you. Many of us do. And our argument is not dismissed just because we can’t adopt them. I have to explain this?
2
@Ari Weitzner What Rachel is pointing out is that anti-abortion zealots care about enough about the fertilized egg to let the mother die in childbirth, but when the baby is born, their interest is over. You don't see the anti-abortion forces campaigning for better health care, better nutrition for children, more child care, etc. You would be more believable if you followed through.
11
@Ari Weitzner What I am saying is that you feel you have a right to judge - which may indeed be your right - but then you impinge on MY rights with your judgment. Keep your laws of my body, when my body does YOU no harm. Feed and educate those children who are born, and stop worrying about a clump of cells in my uterus. There are thousands of children sitting in tents along our border; if you want to show you care about children, do something to help them!
3
Pick the non-Catholic country:
Taiwan population, 1960: 11 mill. Today: 24 mill
Philippines population, 1960: 26 mill. Today: 108 mill
Pre-birth pro-life is post-birth anti-life, pure and simple.
All this over a 2 mo old fetus the size of a kidney bean, with a brain the size of a mustard seed. Really 'Christians'?
12
@Phil This issue has nothing to do with Christians. Jesus makes no statement whatsoever about abortion. In fact, there is no direct statement on the issue in scripture at all.
So those contesting abortion are led by their personal morality, not by any legitimate reference to Christianity or scripture.
6
"I will choose what enters me, what becomes flesh of my flesh. Without choice, no politics, no ethics lives. I am not your cornfield, not your uranium mine, not your calf for fattening, not your cow for milking. You may not use me as your factory. Priests and legislators do not hold shares in my womb or my mind. If I give it to you, I want it back. My life is a non-negotiable demand." --Marge Piercy
23
Pro-life until birth.
Take a look at the states trying so hard to stop women's choice. They are all run by old white men who think women are accessories.
17
@Pat
Have you looked at the Red States? Many have women Reps, and some have women governors.
1
It may surprise the NYT to know that many millions of people across the US would be in heaven if Roe v. Wade were overturned and it was no longer the law of the land to destroy the innocent unborn. We're praying for that miracle.
4
@Cynthia Starks When there is a line a mile or so long waiting to adopt and care for these children - please, mind your own business. Women's bodies are not your business.
5
@Cynthia Starks
Your opinion is a valid one -- and for many people that opinion comes from a place of love, not the wish to control. However, stand back for the insults and recriminations.
2
"Your opinion is a valid one -- and for many people that opinion comes from a place of love, not the wish to control."
Love? Really? By people who would lock up women for having an abortion? Who would force women to carry their rapists' babies? That's a kind of love that many would gladly do without.
As for the control aspect. They may not wish it, but it turns out to be a great fringe benefit, doesn't it?
4
The helicoptered Millennials never found a cause. They're rebels--tick, tock, tick, tock--in waiting. Maybe they can make preserving Roe v. Wade the cause they mass behind.
4
@merc
Only if the real world can squeeze into their selfie and social media rotted consciousness.
Hello,
the answer to the abortion issue is simply if you don’t want children than don’t have sexual intercourse or use a condom.
Why should murder be legal?
4
@A.R.H.: First, you illogically beg the entire question by asking why "murder" should be legal. Second, do you believe that a woman who has an abortion should face the death penalty? If so, then you have doubled the amount of death. If not, why not? Is abortion somehow a less serious "murder"?
7
@A.R.H. Please explain what the difference is betweeen using a condom and having an abortion. In both cases, the result is exactly the same: the child who could have been born, is not born. A fetus has no more awareness of its existence than an ovum - as opposed to a murder victim who will cry and plead for their life if given an opportunity. So as with all forced-birth proponents, your real motivation is simply anger that somebody, somewhere is having sex for pleasure. I have no doubt that after you are done outlawing abortion, your kind will go after condoms.
Well then, I guess that we'd better hurry up and pass the amendment to the Constitution called the "Equal Rights Amendment".
That way women will be legally equal to men -.
- and you don't see men's reproductive rights be regulated, now do you?
You know, they say that within five years there will be a safe and reliable MALE birth control pill that will be available.
Do you suppose that the Republicans and the Religious Righties will pass hundreds of laws against THAT?
......oh! And what WILL men DO if those meany men do!?!
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: NOT JUST FOR WOMEN ANYMORE
Pass the ERA!
17
More fake news from the NYT.
Roe v Wade is not coming up again to the Supreme Court.
The who article is based on fear tactics.
5
Fake news? That's such an over-used term. Please tell us which part of the opinion piece is false. The article never said that Roe v Wade was currently up for review.
2
How about congress passing a bill that men must use contraception or abstinence and are fined and jailed if they do not. Having a baby is a mutual arrangement and one that requires lots of money, responsibility and most importantly the desire to raise the child. Viagra is available to men, how about taking it off the market and adding birth control insurance coverage.
27
@Ellen F. Dobson
It's unfortunately much less about having babies and much more about controlling women.
13
@Ellen F. Dobson
In my son's all male Jesuit Catholic high school he was taught that if you're not ready to become a father, you shouldn't have sex. A responsible position.
And yet the bias directed at young Catholic males knows no limits. This bias stems from ignorance, just like all other bias.
3
@Ellen F. Dobson: If only it were true that the forced birthers were generally men. Look at any of their rallies - it seems they are primarily women. No, men should not tell women that to do with their bodies, but neither should other women. A sure way to lose is to fight only half the enemy.
5
I believe a recall, or impeachment effort for both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh should be part of any discussion regarding protecting constitutional rights.
It is possible that these two men were elevated to the supreme court as part of a criminal conspiracy.
They are surrounded by controversy and an argument should be made that they lack legitimacy.
The addition of a discussion regarding the removal of these men would at least illustrate the depth of public outrage regarding the assault on our democracy perpetrated by the republican party.
29
I don't really get what either side thinks the endgame is.
Abortion isn't a very stable constitutional right. The reason to rule on constitutional rights is to take them off the table for legislative consideration. It shouldn't even be a matter for legislators to decide whether a woman uses her body to birth someone else. (This is my view, for what it's worth.) But normally when you elevate a right to a constitutional one, you make it no longer a political issue, and people start to treat it as a settled matter. Clearly, this hasn't happened with the right to an abortion. It's still a politically unstable constitutional right, in the sense that some politicians want to get rid of it. If things persist, one day Republicans might get lucky and have a majority to overturn Roe v. Wade. Given the vicissitudes of history, you'd expect that to happen at some point if the controversy persists long enough.
On the other hand, what do anti-abortion activists expect is going to happen? Enough people have decided it's a non-negotiable constitutional right that it's going to be ultimately impossible to take it away. Public opinion will shift radically toward the pro-choice position if conservative legislators start trying to make it illegal, arresting women and doctors in countless sympathetic cases, and the backlash will bury them. They're never going to succeed at making abortion widely illegal for a long period of time through legislation.
9
@Pierce Randall I definitely agree. Taking away rights from born people by the Supreme Court or Constitutional Amendment has horrific consequences. The Dred Scott decision made any solution to slavery non negotiable and led to the Civil War. Prohibition led to a depressed economy masked by an over leveraged Stock Market and the development of violent organized crime that had a large group of sympathizers. The Depression and World War II followed. The fight over abortion rights is helping to paralyze this country while China is moving forward(with millions of FORCED abortions). Look at your invoices and where's your outcry H(ypocrite)obby Lobby. Better to promote abortions here as well by limiting access to birth control?
1
Yes, there will be a backlash, but I think that you're being overly optimistic. Some states are way too conservative to change course. Alabama, for instance, didn't remove the ban on interracial marriage until 2000. Even then, 33 years after Loving v. Virginia, 40% of voters opted to retain the ban. Such a state wouldn't legalize safe abortion no matter how many women died.
The anti-choice movement has nothing to do with saving babies and everything to do with controlling women. There are multiple tools proven to help lower abortion rates and the anti-choice groups promote none of them. For it to be the year 2019 and we're still discussing whether or not women are persons with full rights of autonomy is disturbing.
37
Men are overwhelmingly more likely to be breadwinners than women. Thus, the comments about fathers having no financial responsibility to children are both ignorant and sexist. Of course, that says nothing of the comments that deny the emotional labor provided by fathers.
3
"Men are overwhelmingly more likely to be breadwinners than women." - Not anymore. Among working adults, at least 50% of women are the main earners for their families.
22
@Edward
Find yourself losing brain cells every time you post on the internet? There's a solution to that: facts.
Even in the oh, so GOP theocrat-venerated 1950s, wait for it, more than 40% of all women with children worked outside the home as breadwinners, with 100% working inside the home, as well. Nearly 70 years later, that's close to an even 100% on both counts.
Love the idea about Rep. Farrar‘s bill. Let’s give men a taste of their own medicine.
Let’s make it that every bill written by men to control women’s bodies can only move forward for every two bills by women to control men’s bodies. Let’s take bets on how quickly they’ll fold.
And for all the god-botherers insisting on controlling others’ bodies because their imaginary friend tells them so, let their religious practice be confined to their congregants only. Leave the rest of us out of your drama!
25
The start of a Humans life has always been recognized as the moment of birth and codified in law by a certificate.
The self righteous slavery whip crackers who make others business theirs halted government Welfare funding for those who had children keeping them from employment and now don't understand women need support if they have children. And now in past years the Republicans have been working to deny Americans health care coverage.
So is there really a "Party of Life"?
13
What to do about it was instead of voting for Ralph Nader and Jill Stein, voting for Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. Instead, liberals elected George W. Bush and Donald Trump. Don't ever forget that: liberals elected Donald Trump, KNOWING Supreme Court seats were on the line.
Sorry, folks, this ship has sailed. Roe v. Wade is toast, anyone who doesn't realize that is a fool. He Supreme Court overturned precedent last year in the union dues case, they'll sure as heck do it here. And all because of the Sandernistas' spite for Hillary Clinton.
13
@Mike Given that Al Gore and Hillary Clinton were very narrowly defeated, you've got it turned around. There was no chance that Ralph Nader and Jill Stein were going to be elected. The people who voted for Nader and Stein elected Bush and Trump.
You make an excellent point. Republicans tend to pull together after the primaries, while Democrats continue to hold grudges.
@David Goldberg Please re-read my comment, that was exactly my point.
1
This opinion piece is just another "what if true" made up argument designed to intensify hatred.
4
The religious right helped Hobby Lobby win their case to NOT provide birth control with health care to their employees because it was against the religion of HL's wealth owners. That religion is the 1% evangelicals who support all sorts of GOP sexual perverts to get them elected to achieve their agenda. And HL's owners spent $millions on the black market in Iraq to purchase religious articles for their "Bible" museum. They bought items from murdering freaks,ISIS.the religious right does the same by murdering a woman's right to her own body;this news was all over REAL NEWS, why didn't anyone call for an overturn of the HL case. I did. Hobby Lobby happily broke the law to get stolen artifacts and they were heavily fined. Not good enough. Overturning the HL case is important because the religious right cherry picks issues that get them what they want. That's the disgrace of the white, 1% Evangelicals.Keep in mind, this group prays for Endtimes in the belief they are chosen,by themselves,to then rule the world in a dictatorship with a theocracy so the 1% will need lots of poor workers with a dumbed down education by DeVos to make it all work. Recall that DeVos claimed Founding Fathers went too far in separation of church & state;that spiel of insanity shows the 1% as the traitors to Democracy they are;and they are not Christians as base their beliefs on the fictionalized bible in the "Left Behind" books & have its author on their Board.
10
This is the consequence of 53% of white women voting for Trump. Other women of color did their job.
12
@KTH
About 10 percent of "people of color" who voted for Obama did not get out to vote in the last election. That would have been enough to change the outcome.
6
That in 2019 we are still talking about abortion is unbelievable. Have you people NOT heard about birth control methods? You CAN avoid unwanted pregnancy. Take something or stay chaste! Either way: don’t get pregnant! That’s all.
4
@Mary Margaret
Unfortunately, there's as much obfuscation about birth control as there is about abortion. People still mistakenly claim it's about access, which is simply not true. It's about usage.
Just one more hurdle to overcome before the problem of unwanted pregnancies is effectively dealt with.
4
@Mary Margaret Women's bodies are not cookie cutter and not all contraception works for every woman. I know I'm not the only person to have a child from correctly used birth control. Public funding of all contraception, not just what is affordable to the few, lowers abortion rates by significant amounts.
9
I have never understood, nor will I ever understand just why people (men especially) think they have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies. It is always the phony religious people who lead the charge. They voted for Trump, a 3 times married, racist, cheating person so they can change the balance in the Supreme Court. Why don't these people get a life of their own and let others make the decisions for themselves. Nobody is forcing abortion, it is an option.
30
@Mary Dalrymple
But in most situations it is the woman who tells the man that if she wants an abortion she will obtain one because it's her body. I understand that and agree. But what of the good men (there really are some) who want to have that child? Those men find themselves with no option.
2
@hotGumption
The men do have an option. They can find a woman who wants to be a mother instead of an incubator. Let's be realistic. By the time a woman chooses to have an abortion, the male's major involvement has been contributing a bit of incomplete genetic material that he produces by the millions.
5
@hotGumption
"But what of the good men (there really are some) who want to have that child?"
Boohoo.. No good man wants to force a woman to give birth against her will. That's sadistic.
1
I really don't care one way or the other about this festering sore of 40+ years!
Is this all the U.S. Supreme Court has to deal with?
Are we to go another 40+ years with nominees being subjected to Abortion politics? Abortion politics? Abortion politics? ...... on BOTH sides!!!
2
I believe it shameful that no members of the Editorial Board support the Right to Life. If I am wrong then please produce an editorial to that fact. I will not hold my breath.
2
Right accrue at birth.
6
@Donald Yes, the pregnant woman has a right to life and to decide whether or not she brings another life into this world.
7
About twenty percent of all pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage. Being as the great majority of abortion opponents are in large part motivated by religion and think that God holds life sacred from conception, they should realize that their God either doesn't exist or is the greatest abortionist in the universe. If Roe V. Wade were to be overturned, it would be the greatest blow to gender equality the world has ever known because it would encourage the crazies in every other country of the world.
22
Yes. Whether or not abortion is legal, wealthy women will always have access to the procedure. And you can bet that billionaire wife cheaters will always find a way to have the evidence of their indiscretions deleted. Poor women will go back to being at the mercy of coat hangers, potions, charlatan doctors and even death.
17
fear mongering. Conservative judges don't typically try to rule on settled precedent. yawn.
4
Did you read the article? It didn't say that Roe v. Wade was up for review. The point of this opinion piece is that states are erecting barriers to access that render Roe v. Wade moot in practice, if not in law.
1
Reading this argument was overshadowed in my mind with the faces of hatred of the Covington Catholic students, wearing "Make America Great Again" hats – smirking, laughing, chanting and making tomahawk chops in Washington DC this past weekend for the anti-abortion March for Life. I saw Kavanaugh & Trump in each one of those privileged white male faces.
20
After the republicans outlaw abortions, what siren call will they use to stir up the voters?
This is their golden goose!
10
And a Catholic all boys school from Kentucky brings their troops the DC to march in a pro-life event.
The next Brett Kavanaughs in the making.
22
I live in Ohio which has one of the most radical pro-birth legislatures which is now totally supported by a newly-elected pro-birth governor Mike Dewine. I predict Ohio will be one of the first states to completely roll back not only abortion rights but also contraceptive rights. Women in states like Ohio need to be proactive on an individual level if they are of child-bearing age. Now is the time to see a doctor and get an effective, long-term form of birth control if you don't plan on having children. Now is the time to see a doctor and find out what, if any, your risk factors are for carrying a pregnancy to term if you want to have children. Women need to protect themselves because reproductive laws in states like Ohio will be looking not only to take away reproductive and pregnancy choices but perhaps to criminalize miscarriages and other health-related issues that might end a pregnancy before it is completed. Women can no longer depend on anyone but themselves where reproductive issues that effect their lives are concerned. Women can't wait until they no longer have options to make reproductive decisions.
22
Want to decrease the number of abortions (which is what I believe the pro-life movement is really all about)? Then get on board with sex education in schools and free birth control for women (ok nothing is 'free' but at least include it in medical insurance coverage). And keep abortion accessible and legal.
25
@Paul
All for teaching about birth control. The problem is that many parents are not for doing this in kindergarten. I recall a gynecologist guest speaker at a women's group meeting I attended. She said girls should be provided with birth control in 4th grade because that is when they are starting to get pregnant. That was clearly the case in the communities she served but most definitely not in others.
Birth control discussions cannot follow a one-size-fits-all model but must take into consideration the values of the families involved.
3
For all their loud talk about being “pro life”, you hardly hear a sound out of any of those sign carriers about the other “pro life” issues such as paid publicly funded healthcare (which is available in most advanced countries). You also don’t hear anything about affordable housing or about protecting the employment rights of working moms or even paid maternity leave. Those January marchers need to wake up and realize that they also have a moral duty to support much more than simply closing Planned Parenthood facilities.
22
I love babies. I love everything about them. I even love changing diapers. I nursed my children until they were toddlers. But the radical-religious right-wing anti-abortion crowd envisions themselves knee-deep in rosy-cheeked, cooing/gurgling, contented babies with full bellies, all their faculties, and adoring parents.
They're delusional.
(Lest you think I know not that of which I speak, I'm a product of a shotgun marriage in the 1950's. Misery and ruination for all involved. I fixed it by surviving until adulthood and distancing myself from toxic family connections. Not a pretty picture. And just stop with the, 'Well then you wouldn't be here submitting comments to the New York Times.' It's a specious argument. One plays the cards one is dealt; the cards should not, however, be stacked from the breaking of the deck. Certainly there should be more reason for one’s having been born than to provide the New York Times with another commenter.)
33
Pro life Republicans want to ax healthcare. Axing healthcare is not a pro life stance. The GOP pro life is a lie.
17
What to do? Join NARAL Pro-Choice America. I suspect that with the direction the anti-choice zealots have foisted upon us, we may see the resurgence of the women (and men) of Jane, the underground network of activists that helped women get abortions before Roe v Wade. Makes me wonder if that's not already starting to happen in states that have already placed onerous restrictions on getting access to abortion. And, of course, keep in mind that it's not only access to abortion that such "prolifers" demand...it's also limiting and even doing away with access to viable birth control.
14
Roe v Wade will never be overturned because it only reaffirmed what was established in 1845 and confirmed in Lake Placid NY in 1848 ~ The Emancipation and Equality of Women.
2
Bodily sovereignty for women. That's what this fight is about.
29
Future historians will find the cult of fetus worship very curious in that the fetus was held to have such high value in limited circumstances while the lives of so many others and the fetus itself under other circumstances had no value whatsoever. Those valueless lives include the mother, the fetus with respect to health care, those killed with guns, those killed in stupid wars, those poisoned with toxic food, air and water and those killed by unsafe machines among many others.
13
@Tibby Elgato
I would argue that future historians will look back at the barbarity of abortion in horror. The Gosnell case described all its gory details. An Appellate Court recently accepted a documentary involving fetus body parts, widely dismissed as doctored, as evidence.
The truth about the abortion process may be swept under the rug today, but it will receive no such treatment in the future.
2
@AACNY This is an extremely dishonest framing of the issue. Over 90% of abortions are in the first 13 weeks. Increasingly, it's a matter of taking some medication and having what amounts to a heavy period. Please be factual in your arguments.
5
What’s in a name? The phrase “reproductive health” is a distortion. No one is against the “health” of the mother, but the issue is the health of the fetus which is killed when an abortion is performed. Very seldom is the health of the woman even really at stake, but the catch-all phrase “women’s health” as well as the “right to choose” are imprecise advertising phrases used by the abortion industry to hide the moral and physical ugliness of what is being done. But if we’re going to engage in word games, how about “women’s convenience,” “laziness,” “sloppiness, “don’t-care-ness,” or “get-somebody-else-to-pay-ness.”—? They’re all just different names for the various motives for abortion but they are all equally descriptive as the misnomer of “women’s health.”
3
@Edward Every gestation risks the health and life of the mother. Whatever her decision is, it is absolutely women's health.
11
But cutting health insurance for children, cutting food stamps, rejecting family leave, refusing to raise minimum wage—all fine. And of course ripping babies from the arms of poor desperate mothers and throwing them in cages—no problem.
15
@Edward - 2 - 3 women die in childbirth every single day in the US, and hundreds more a day suffer complications that leave them with lifelong health problems or disabilities. Every pregnancy risks a woman's life and health, not to mention her entire financial future.
7
What the heck is wrong in America, when a religious minority is allowed so much influence in a major political party on a state/federal level and has extended its tentacles into the Supreme Court? And this in a country founded on Separation of Church and State. Other progressive Western Democracies put the issue of women’s reproductive rights to rest some time in the past, with even staunchly catholic Ireland now joining their number.
Note to our once pro-choice President, his Evangelical zealots, and the deeply misogynist GOP in general - trying to tighten the reproductive chains on women, never has and never will make this or any other country “great again.”
22
It is our system of government that allows religious minorities, if they're geographically concentrated, to have so much influence over national policy. Trump received a minority of votes. Democratic senators received 12 million more votes than Republicans in 2018, yet the Republicans increased the number of Senate seats.
We need a system of true proportional representation. But, that is unlikely because too many states benefit from the current imbalance.
1
Write what you want about, "abortion opponents," but if Roe vs. Wade fails, it will be because "women" didn't defend it. Like men, what "women" seem to want is lazy sex with the right to terminate any adverse result. Put differently: They seem willing to accept the convenience of an abortion but are unwilling to defend their "right" to have one (in light of their own behavior).
N.B. I am ALL FOR a woman's right to choose. If they are wrong, God will let them know. We are not necessary.
1
It’s all on women. Men have nothing to do with it. Lol.
3
A man. Of course.
3
@Anthony Adverse
Lazy sex?
Huh?
Yeah, having unprotected sex then walking through a gauntlet of anti-abortion protesters calling you a sinner and a wh0re and then paying 500$ for outpatient surgery sounds like something someone would do just because she's "lazy." Don't forget waiting periods, "informed consent" laws, etc.
Does that sound easier or harder than using a condom? Which option sounds more convenient to you: birth control, or an abortion?
I think you know... you just feel like slamming women. Hope you feel better now.
And it is the same Christian Right who sound the alarm, to no end, about the (supposed) threat of Muslims imposing Shariah Law! Hypocrites. The assault on women's rights and safe, legal abortion are indeed a violation of separating Church from State. If it were Islamists making a similar move to impose their beliefs on everyone else, or (re)writing the law of the land, people like Trump and Pence would be the first to push back.
12
I thought that Casey vs. Planned Parenthood (1992) is the precedent?
1
Roe v. Wade is in trouble because the Constitution is mute on abortion and everybody knows it. Abortion was an issue before the American Revolution. It was prohibited in some colonies and permitted in others. So the delegates to the Constitution let the matter to the states to decide.
There is stopping states from prohibiting or permitting abortion. Prochoice advocates should push their state legislatures to draft laws legalizing abortion.
3
My right to choose shouldn’t depend on where I live.
9
@Mary A
The issue is whether you have a Constitutional right to abortion. The Constitution is mute on abortion. You should push for a constitutional amendment making it a constitutional right, fight for state legislation that permits abortion, or fight to eliminate any stater law that prohibits it.
1
@William Case
The Constitution is mute on the question of interracial marriage. Would you argue that question should have been left up to the states, too? Should the right of legal adults to marry also depend on where one lives?
Reversing Roe is not and never has been the ultimate goal of the “pro life” movement. If making abortions safe, legal and rare was their intent then Bill Clinton opened that door years ago. But the goal of making abortions rare except when medically necessary includes readily available and affordable contraception coupled with real life sexual education. The “pro life” position on those issues is just as rigid as their definition of when a zygote becomes a baby. In other words abstinence and ignorance. Because its really about human sexuality and conservative religious domination of all aspects of its expression. Its also about politics with catholic high school students being shipped to Washington to march for “life” with their MAGA hats and Trump buttons. At its core the anti reproductive rights movement is about control, once they had it and the pill and women’s rights and the sexual revolution diminished that control, they want it back. Ending abortions is part of that process. So is the movements ongoing effort to undermine contraception development, access and insurance coverage nationwide as well as their long established goal of undermining of any public sexual education process that doesn’t conform to their religious beliefs. Saying its about the “babies” makes good optics, sayings its about domination and control doesn’t play as well but at least would be more honest. Except honesty isn’t good optics either.
23
If a human being cannot control what to do with her/his body, he nor she is not a full human being. Without a right to abort, a woman cannot control what to do with her body, and is therefore, not a full human being. This is the essence of choice. Whatever happens afterwards is also the choice of the woman. As human beings we make choices constantly and we live with the effects of those choices. Whose right is it to make those choices for us?
17
I favor the situation where states are allowed to make their own laws on abortion as long as they do not seek to ban it. The Supreme Court should not have entered into an area which was traditionally the domain of the states.
The emphasis NOW should be on contraception which is more bipartisan than abortion. Also, abortion will remain legal in most blue states even if Roe v Wade is overturned.
The NYT has refrained from pointing out this last fact because they want to keep alive the sense of panic just in case Roe v Wade is overturned. But in reality there are plenty of compromises if only we look for them instead of fighting pointlessly.
2
My right to choose shouldn’t depend on where I live in this country.
9
Saying that states may regulate abortion as long as they don't "ban" it overlooks the fact that states are doing just that now, with the effect that they've thrown up so many obstacles that abortion is banned in practice, if not in law.
The fact that abortion will remain legal in blue states but leaves millions of women without access to safe abortion is hardly reassuring. How is that a compromise? It also overlooks the fact that without Roe v. Wade, anti-choice forces will start agitating for federal laws to ban abortion and there will be nothing to stop them.
Abortion rights is a generally hard subject to inspire active support among the mostly-apathetic, which is what most people are on this issue. The idea seems unpleasant to think about and makes many of these people squeamish. A lot of those people would skip over an article like this one.
However, let me assure you, when the moment arrives that these mostly-apathetic people face an unwanted pregnancy, suddenly they become alert and interested. The scales fall from their eyes, and they want access to an ABORTION. They often tell themselves, their situation is DIFFERENT. Right.
Most people don't have the sensitivity or intellect, or maybe just don't take the time, or don't care, to fully understand how fundamental fertility control is to women's freedom.
13
@Madeline I, along with about 25% of American women have had an abortion. As soon as you are faced with needing one, you are faced with the nightmare of what would have happened if you didn't have access to one. I have no illusions that I am any different than the rest of the 25%. Of course, I also don't see it as any great tragedy. In my case, it was absolutely the right decision for me and my family and we are all better off because I did not bring an additional human onto the planet.
I am scared to death that my two daughter may not have the same option I did.
4
@Madeline I have had several miscarriages. It occurs to me that if these pro forced birth groups have their way a person like myself might be facing criminal charges.
2
Now with the pro-life groups winning and Roe v Wade about to be overturned, maybe we should take a fresh look at the dispute from a utilitarian perspective. In many cases where the parents decided not to abort, the children are happy to be alive, and as they become adults, many still are happy being alive.
One big problem with utilitarianism is that it won't consider who bears he costs, in this case, young women facing bad situations. An answer is providing them with support and compensation.
One argument for more abortions is the Malthusian view. If we ever need to reduce the population, utilitarian ethics requires euthanizing the most miserable and unhappy people, thus increasing net happiness in the world.
2
@Emily - Any such funding should occur 100% at the state level. There is no justifiable reason why pro-choice states should foot the bill for more rightwing madness. When will blue states turn off the spigot of endless funding to poorly governed red states?
3
@Emily I do what I want with my body...let government take care of what they are there to do....and they do a pretty bad job at that..
2
like or or not, a woman with "an unwanted pregnancy" is also carrying a child, an innocent, if you will, a biological DACA child of sorts...
face it, science will continue to narrow the already iffy "start of life" window and it will never settle the matter of the soul, for those believers who believe in it and its salvation...just when does that start?
any answers? well, start with stepping up eduction (abstinence, avoidance, responsibility, ?), distribution of birth control, and most certainly, separating birth from the obligations of child rearing... yes, no one who is not willing to raise a child should have to...stronger social agencies, a lot stronger than we have now and even that we can imagine, it seems, as we stumble along with the "yes-no" argument on abortion...or we can assist the mothers with pregnancy and delivery and send them on their way with, no parental rights...
the wager here is that relief from the obligations of parenthood, increase in education and advances in pregnancy avoidance will bring about significant reduction is the number of "unwanted pregnancies."
for the newborn, compassionate institutional care (including adoption placement) framed by a commitment to ensure the
education and qualification for equal opportunity for all is essential.
the task is large and may require an entire new or overhauled system, but, for the kids, it'll be worth it.
2
Here’s a shout out to the Guttmacher Institute for providing facts about abortion (and other reproductive health matters) that contribute to evidenced-based policy discussions!
10
The term “Pro-life” has little meaning when the party pushing it down our throats is so committed to destroying the environment that makes all life on this planet possible. By all means, continue deregulating, drilling, polluting, clear cutting, denying. Unwanted pregnancy will be a thing of the past as will the human race. The ignorance and hypocrisy are just astounding!
16
The Editorial advocates a playbook on how to maintain the right of a woman to have an abortion. Unfortunately, their prescription lacks historical and other context necessary for understanding the political struggle. As bad, it exacerbates the geographical divisions within America.
After Roe v. Wade, those who supported the decision largely went to sleep, thinking the battle won. The opposition stayed awake, stayed in the game, and developed a long-term strategy.
Meanwhile, N.P.R., P.B.S. the Times and most other media that claimed high journalistic standards started calling anti-abortion "right to life." Words matter. Game over.
How about for a playbook starter everyone tells whatever piece of media they subscribe to or organization they support that they will not get one more penny until they call the anti-abortion movement by its rightful name, anti-abortion? How about endless demonstrations at the offices, golf clubs, and homes of Members of Congress who oppose a woman's right to decide whether to have an abortion? How about doing some of the many things the anti-abortion movement does to their foes, though not, as some do calling for assassination in the name of "life?"
Read Roe v. Wade. It is relevant to understand that it is based not on the right to an abortion but on a privacy right, a right the Justices elicited from the Constitution, not one enumerated.
Forget the hypocrisy of "right-to-life" people supporting capital punishment. It's about political pressure.
7
@Steve Fankuchen I suggest that "anti-choice" is a more accurate term because they're trying to deny women the right to choose what is best for themselves. "Pro-birth" is also an accurate term since they don't care about human life one second after birth. That's what enables them to vote against healthcare for children with a clear conscience.
1
Anyone who has not seen this coming is a fool. This has been the #1 priority for Christian Conservatives for 30 or more years. Now the day of reckoning is here and those of us who are not Christian Conservatives and who don't wish to force our PERSONAL moral values onto everyone else are dead in the water. Frankly my rights to marry the person of my choice, upheld in Obergefell vs. Hodges is going to personally effect me more, but that is only a trial balloon to make sure of the safety of overturning Roe. Well people, the sky is in the process of falling. Congratulations for ignoring the march to power of Christian Conservatives and their taking control of The Republican Party.
One TINY sliver of hope. Brett Kavanaugh voted 3 times not to have SCOTUS hear cases regarding States defunding Planned Parenthood, thereby leaving lower court decisions (all three not allowing the defunding) in place when the Christian position is to grind PP into the dust. Maybe he will actually vote with a conscious and be a swing vote. I was hoping for Roberts to rise to the occassion but he voted with the Conservative majority to hear these cases, so believing that he would vote to uphold Roe seems senseless.
2
I am a millennial and a pro-life Democrat. I look around me and wonder, where is the missing 1/3 of my generation that could be helping to build a more just and prosperous world?
I am part of a rising pro-life generation that will one day enshrine in law the protection of all human beings, from conception to natural death, of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The other path is one of absolute freedom and autonomy. Dehumanize and Other-ize the child in the womb, or the migrant, or the elderly, or the racial minority, cast them as a threat and a burden, and kill the inconvenience at your discretion.
We were not made for absolute freedom. We were made for virtuous freedom, for one another, and especially for the least among us.
3
@James Do you also feel that the father of the unborn child should be legally compelled to donate their kidneys/liver/heart, if their child would need them to live?
It's not about who does and does not have a right to life. It's about bodily autonomy, and the fact that nobody, unborn children included, has a right to use someone else's body without their consent.
17
The right to decide whether to keep a fetus in a womb belongs only to the woman who is carrying it and no one else. Yes by all means let us build a better world that recognizes and cares for the humanity of all people, one that is better to bring children into. But forcing women to give birth against their will is not compatible with such a world, period. Those who call themselves “pro-life” need to focus on improving the lives of already-born humans, and stop trying to infringe on the right of individual women to make private, personal, medical decisions of the most serious consequences for their lives.
16
@James
Thanks for being a young voter, I absolutely support your decision not to have an abortion! That said this is a very private issue for a women to make, that may include her family and her physician, or not.
All women need to make this very personal choice by herself. Her circumstances may not be conducive for her survival, nor for her fertilized egg. Children require love, time, money, healthcare, shelter and education. We know that society will not pay for most if not all of these needs. We also know, that men can and do walk away.
Your opinion is interesting, in your youth, but we do cast out the elderly, racial minority, immigrants, as well as many others. This is the real world in twenty-first century America. Think about what needs to change but please respect a women's right to make this difficult decision herself. Freedom extends to women as well as men and women do not require further punishment from you nor society.
12
If this is so important to the anti-abortionists why not support adoption? Which they do not. If you adopt these unwanted babies give them a huge tax deduction. Many will end up on welfare of some sort anyways. Which means our taxes pay for therm. Give people an incentive to adopt. Also make it much easier to abandon your baby right after it is born. Allow someone who wants to adopt to give this baby the gift of life-a family. Give people who adopt special needs children an even bigger tax break. Let everyone deduct a fetus in the womb on their state and federal taxes. Force all companies and insurance companies to give health insurance to these unborn babies. As a catholic what I find most troubling is that they only focus on the fetus. And not the baby and it's future life.
2
@Gordon Nor is there focus on the mother; or the responsibilities of the father.
2
Pro-birth is not pro-life.
Access to healthcare, which Planned Parenthood provides, is pro-life.
Keeping families together is pro-life.
Ensuring families have housing and food is pro-life.
Preventing gun violence is pro-life.
Stopping police brutality is pro-life.
Education is pro-life.
Everything else is self-righteous hypocrisy.
28
@Pete "Pro-birth is not pro-life".....tell that to the 60+ MILLION fetuses murdered since this date in 1973.
2
@Jack SavageHMMMMM - you make no mention of women forced to give birth and what that might do to them, emotionally and financially. Wonder why you don't mention that?
5
@Jack Savage - Just as a thought exercise, you might spend just a minute or two considering the life of that unwanted child born to a mother who doesn't want him and isn't prepared to care for him. Or think for a while about the many millions of people incarcerated in our "justice" system, the majority of whom were born to women who didn't want them and shouldn't have had them. Statistics show that 1/3 of unwanted children end up spending their adult lives in the correctional system, after having caused damage to society on their journey there.
3
I had a Republican friend (note the past tense) who was adamantly pro-life. He had a teen-aged daughter who was not, shall we say, in church all the time. I said to him, "You know if your daughter got pregnant and abortion was illegal in the US you'd drive her to the airport and put her on a plane to Sweden." He got upset, saying that I couldn't make a personal argument. In effect he admitted he'd secure an abortion for his daughter but didn't see the hypocrisy of his pro-life advocacy. That's the problem with the Republican mindset.
13
Abortion rights are part of the broader human right to procreate – or not. When a man and a woman consent to intercourse under circumstances where new life begins the courts and our legislators must balance the rights of men and women – something not done in Roe v Wade. Courts seldom talk about fathers because they are not in the cases that have come to the attention of the court.
I have little doubt that the right to procreate is the same for men and women and not the exclusive domain of the one sex with a womb. It follows that consent to abortion should be an equal right of both sexes. No issue arises when both agree, or when a woman wants the child and the man does not. The wisdom of Solomon dictates that love trumps life. The legal and political focus will be on cases where the woman wants an abortion, but the father wants his unborn child to live.
Consensual intercourse has always been a contract usually invoked to make the man pay for support during pregnancy and child support later. More recently, the courts have recognized contracts for surrogate mothers making it clear that life in the womb is not beyond contract law.
It is important to “pre-emptively protect and expand those freedoms wherever possible” Giving men a cause of action against an abortionist that destroys his unborn child without consent would be a good step. Requiring a DNA sampling to make enforcement easy is something not available back in 1973. Every state needs to put equality first.
2
@Eugene Patrick Devany Absolutely not. Men have no right to force women to risk their health and life. To have that right is to effectively enslave women.
3
@Eugene Patrick Devany - Pregnancy equality between men and women would include having the man gestate the pregnancy and risk his life and health as pregnant women do. 2 -3 women die a day in childbirth in the US, and hundreds more a day suffer complications that leave them with lifelong health problems or disabilities. No man has ever suffered a single health problem from a woman's pregnancy.
Men make their choice when they decide to sow their seed indiscrimanently by having sex with a woman they don't know well enough to know what she'd decide about abortion if an unwanted pregnancy were to ensue.
2
@Eugene Patrick Devany
Even though people have explained to you numerous times on this webpage that you’re completely wrong, and why you’re completely wrong?
“It follows that consent to abortion should be an equal right of both sexes.”
You still appear to be unaware that only the woman is pregnant. “Consent to abortion” cannot be the equal right of both sexes because men are not pregnant.
“The legal and political focus will be on cases where the woman wants an abortion, but the father wants his unborn child to live.”
No. Men don’t make my medical decisions for me. They don’t decide who uses my body. You are wrong because you basically believe that men can tell women what to do with their bodies. Do you think that rape is wrong? Do you force yourself on women because you believe you have “the right” to procreate?
“Consensual intercourse has always been a contract usually invoked to make the man pay for support during pregnancy and child support later.”
False. This is a completely incorrect statement. Stop being wrong. The state can enforce child support obligations from BOTH PARENTS. The right is not based on consensual sexual intercourse, but on the right of the child to be cared for by people OTHER than the tax payers.
“More recently, the courts have recognized contracts for surrogate mothers making it clear that life in the womb is not beyond contract law.”
I asked you for a citation to such a case last time you said this and you failed to provide it.
Look, it is a child, if wanted, or if over, say, five months? If not, it is a zygote, or a fetus, or tissue. It is not a matter, of body, because the DNA is different. There is a heart beat, soon. There is a brain, small, but real. There are limbs--hands and feet--tiny, perhaps inconvenient, but real. In what other situation do we determine personhood by age and being dependent?
Abortion is an evil, or a tragedy or the destruction of something unwanted. It is that last that hurts. Someone, somewhere is yearning for a child. Gay and straight couples who go through many hurdles to adopt, and cannot find children--especially the gay couples. We need to rephrase this national conversation to consider that when a life comes into being, more than one life must be considered. Are there times to end a life in being in utero? Of course. Are there nearly as many as people argue? No. It is a failure to envision other futures.
1
@VH - How easy it is for other people to decide to take a child away from it's natural mother/parents and had it over to strangers whom the child will discoer it has nothing in common with. Not every child is delighted to have been adopted, and the majority or adopted children yearn throughout much of their youth to find and meet their biological parents. When they do, they're shocked and delighted to find how much they have in common with their natural mother and perhaps siblings, after having felt "different" for their entire lives. I don't see a single anti-abortion person thinking for a single second about the lives those children will lead, whether they're raised by a birth mother who doesn't want them but was forced to give birth, or by adoptive parents who many try very hard, but still can't provide the biological connection adoptive children year for.
2
@VH Women do not owe infertile couples a baby.
@VH
"Someone, somewhere is yearning for a child."
Boohoo. Someone somewhere is yearning for a blood transfusion but you can't force me to donate.
Women are not baby factories.
" In what other situation do we determine personhood by age and being dependent?"
In what other situation do we force one person to donate organs to another? (Answer key: none)
1
Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will is morally equivalent to forcing a woman to terminate a pregnancy against her will. That's why the choice belongs to the woman.
21
Anti-abortion advocates are pernicious--they presume to tell other people how they should live their lives.
Suppose these people were told by others how they should live, whether they should be allowed to attend church or attend anti-abortion meetings.
I just hope American law can protect women against these presumptuous bullies.
9
" 43 percent of all reproductive-age women — 29 million people — now live in areas that are hostile to abortion rights,"
What did they expect? Most of the country was hostile to abortion in 1973 and still is. That's why the feminists had the Court removed it from democratic control. The only difference now is that they lost control of the Court. They never did try to convince the American people that legalized abortion was a good idea, as their counterparts in Europe did.
1
The pro-abortion states could have done this 40 years ago...thus sparing the nation half a century of social and political agony.
The Supreme Court has not taken up a Roe v Wade challenge. As to changes at the state level, the bible belt states are what they have always presented themselves to be, pro life states. No one has taken away the right to terminate an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy. Before the chicken littles of the Editorial Board scream the sky is falling, perhaps they should take a hard look at issue as it exist now. Push for open access to the morning after pill, planned parenthood, and greater access to all forms of birth control in our schools.
I love babies. I love everything about them. I even love changing diapers. I nursed my children until they were toddlers. But the radical-religious right-wing anti-abortion crowd envisions themselves knee-deep in rosy-cheeked, cooing/gurgling, contented babies with full bellies, all their faculties, and adoring parents.
They're delusional.
(Lest you think I know not that of which I speak, I'm a product of a shotgun marriage in the 1950's. Misery and ruination for all involved. I fixed it by surviving until adulthood and distancing myself from toxic family connections. Not a pretty picture. And just stop with the, 'Well then you wouldn't be here submitting comments to the New York Times.' It's a specious argument. One plays the cards one is dealt; the cards should not, however, be stacked from the breaking of the deck. Certainly there should be more reason for one’s having been born than to provide the New York Times with another commenter.)
9
I have lived for 75-years, voted since I was 21-years old, seen multiple social and political changes in the United States, been repeatedly heart broken by our political and governmental choices, hated the fact that my taxes go to pay for wars, and tax breaks for the wealthy, corporate greed, private schools, religious and political corporations, and the drug industry.
I lived through the disgusting Nixon nightmare, and am now living through the Trump nightmare. I have seen the rise of fascism, racism, and bigotry in the United States and see no end to it in my lifetime. Each American generation seems to be worse than the last in terms of me-first and hating people of color.
There is one shining light at the end of the tunnel: the newly elected Congress full of enlightened pro-choice women. I may be able to rest in peace knowing they are there looking after the interest of women while facing down the evils of the Republican Party/GOP/Trump administration/McConnell cabal.
9
I thought the first objective of the Founding Fathers was to separate church from state. Clearly, there is more work to be done.
The question here is whether the rights of the fetus supersede those of the woman. The pro-life position is that a fertilized egg is alive and has rights, and must be protected in its defenselessness. Having conceived, women abdicate their bodies and destinies to a religious doctrine. This could be extended to absurd lengths - does not the refusal to have sex condemn unborn babies to death? The old times religion proscribed women who refused intercourse with their husbands but also commanded the believers to stone adulteresses and burn witches.
To me, the treatment of women who need/want an abortion in backward countries (such as Ireland and Poland) is remarkably similar to medieval inquisitions and witch hunts. Somehow, the priests and their brainwashed acolytes, using medieval arguments, still get to decide what women are allowed to do and why. Let's get back to the XXIst century.
5
@Kai - Ireland's legislators passed the Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy last year; please reconsider your description of the country as "backward" in this regard.
Abortion has been legalized in Ireland.
The irony of this article is that the Republican platform is State's rights - that this should have been a State's Rights issue all along. Reputable legal scholars who are pro-choice dispute the legal basis for Roe v. Wade as a classic case of a liberal court shoehorning an opinion to fit policy bias instead of the law; SCOTUS did a great disservice with this one.
2
I should not have to leave where I live in order to be adult autonomous woman.
3
@Mary A - As it is, red states rely every year on subsidies paid for by blue state taxes. Imagine if the red states put them in a position to have to help support millions more unwanted, unaffordable children. We would so much more quickly become two separate countries with two separate economies, one where people can live a decent middle class life, and one where the majority of the population is poor and underprivileged.
1
When will we ever learn that prohibition of alcohol did not end drinking, but gave rise to large organized crime establishments. Criminalizing abortion will not end abortions. It will end safe abortions for those who lack the means to travel to a more progressive county. I want to see a reduction in abortions. It can be brought about by effective sex education and ready availability of effective birth control. As a reminder, the United States was created as a secular country, by enlightened and educated founders who largely did not hold religion in high regard. I am referring primarily to Paine, Jefferson and Madison. Even Ethan Allen of the Green Mountain Boys claimed that he did NOT fight to replace an actual dictator with an imaginary one. How wise is it to be against abortion AND birth control?
8
@JSK Those who are against reproductive choice (including contraception) are blatantly against women having equal rights. They want to control women since it is the female that gets pregnant. Anti-choicers want to see women barefoot and pregnant, captives in their own homes. Thinkin I'm joking?
2
Why do 99% of these comments focus only on the pregant woman, as if she lives in a vacuum? There are many affected parties in any pregnancy - the putative mother and father, the putative child, the wider family and the community. Also, there are two bodies in the equation - the woman and the developing zygote/fetus/future baby (all politically loaded terms). There’s so much focus on the individual versus the larger group in our society. It’s the genesis of endless misery. Personally I’m happy about declining birth rates - humanity is crowding out other life on our planet and despoiling the environment. But thought experiment: if the trend of below-replacement reproduction reaches the point that humanity will die out without taking action, would we at that point continue to think myopically in terms of “reproductive rights” or accept that sometimes these decisions should be communal?
2
Communal?? Seriously??
2
@Mary A Yes. Is that so outlandish? Maybe it's better to take women out of the thought experiment. What if we could just grow any arbitrary number of babies? Who should make the decision of how many babies a family can acquire? Just the family? Should there be a limit? Should there be a minimum? What about in the situation I described where population (giving people individual choice) is headed to zero? Headed to infinity?
It seems to me a vast number of traditional customs and norms arose as a means of controlling the unexpected/unwanted appearance of children (morals around marriage, premarital sex, gender roles, etc. etc.). I don't bring that up to say we should go back to those ways, but to show that what I'm saying is basically the way things have been until recently -- it has always been a considered broader decision than what a woman can do with her body -- because there are few decisions that have more impact to others. Even now we have China with its one child policy (though that is easing) and Japan and Europe with their incentives to have children.
I don't know, another example that is similar in my mind: should individuals have the right to avoid conscription in time of warfare? I think that would be nice, but then if nobody defends a country everyone dies. Focusing solely on individual choice is myopic, and (by definition) selfish.
1
@MPO Communal? How about the pregnant woman is the CEO and gets to make an executive decision.
1
The Republicans continue to use abortion, school prayer, guns, islamophobia, and immigration as wedge issues to fire up most of their angry base at election time... Notice they do very little about any of them when the elections over.
The status quo serves their political interests. They know if they eliminated any of these "issues", they would be "exposed" with only their "real" action items to run on: Tax breaks for billionaires, pro-corporate court appointments, Wall Street deregulation, mass environmental pollution, elimination of worker rights, and endless wars for corporate profit.
They know that most of Trump's base wouldn't turn out to vote for them without the smoke, mirrors, and scapegoats.
3
@Jeff
I notice that you use "Republicans" to refer to Republican LEADERS, not their voters. Voters are just sheep to be led around, apparently.
Yes, pro-choice women (and men) should work through the political process to keep abortion legal.
But we must also accept that we won’t always be successful - and start planning accordingly.
We must work to ensure that women and girls can continue to get the abortions they need regardless of their location or economic status.
One can’t predict exactly what the response would be in places where abortion became illegal, but we can assume some combination of the following: “underground railroads” getting women to safe states; widespread use of medication abortion drugs; vigorous “Jane Collective” networks, as existed in the Midwest, pre-Roe.
The crazies may have some legislative/judicial success, but they won’t stop the practice.
(Too bad they won’t use their energy and money to try to improve the lives of existing children.)
4
I have no doubt that abortion that will remain safe and legal in California and New York and a few other states regardless of Roe and that women with the means will travel there. If that would end the matter once and for all and get the issue out of our national politics, I'm almost ready to accept that state of affairs. I have one daughter and she lives in New York so she is safe. If we only care about our own daughters and granddaughters, not those who are poor, abused by men, rape victims, at risk from pregnancy, mentally unable to care for themselves much less a child, or drug-addicted, then we cannot really call ourselves a moral or "Christian" people. To tell girls and women in these circumstances that they must bear a child is barbaric.
4
Roe v. Wade will soon be overturned.
And abortion will be returned to the states -- where it belongs.
So left-wing states will continue to allow abortion, while right-wing states move to prohibit it.
Abortion would only become illegal throughout the United States through a Constitutional amendment.
Or through a drastic Supreme Court ruling no one expects.
I should not have to leave where I live to get access to health services. Period.
3
I am in favour of Universal Health Care,
Education about Contraceptives and
Free Access to them,
Pre and Post-Natal Care,
Paid Leave for both parents after the birth of the child,
and Free Child Care.
What I am not in favor of is the abortion of a healthy babe
inside the womb of her mother.
All of us were once a fetus
and every fetus has human DNA.
3
You need to change that last one to “I am in favor of forcing women to give birth against their will.”
6
@John Brown if families had all those things you support it would reduce the number of abortions dramatically. They also need a living wage to be able to support their families. So, my question to you is: Do you vote for candidates that will fight for those things you listed or do you vote for candidates whose only stance is against abortion rights and not for any of the programs you list? If it's the latter then you will never have the former.
2
@J
Yes, I have and hope to do.
I wish Bernie had won in 2016.
1
Most of the anti-abortionists posit that they are doing the work of 'God'. About a third of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion; that is the product of this same 'God'.
Those who would restrict the freedom of others need to redirect their ire to the primary abortionist, that responsible entity they claim to know.
Pence is both elated and terrified.
Finally the pro life movement is seeing the positive results of their hard and relentless pursuits. They have been fighting this abortion battle for years and it has been paying off. As they said during the Washington March for Life last Friday, hopefully they will soon see the need for this March to no longer be necessary. That seems to be inching closer and closer to the finish line. Those of us who are pro life and are active in the cause certainly hope so. All of our hard work has not been in vain and now more babies will not be lost to the gruesome act called abortion. We will then be able to celebrate.
2
Sigh. MAGA?
2
It’s infuriating that these religious extremist types are the same people who make birth control unavailable to women in Latin America and therefore promote poverty there, and then deny those people help at the border as they try to escape violence. How about we start letting women all over the world choose when to reproduce and sit back and watch how much more pleasant things get? The conservatives are just trying to enlarge their pool of poor, uneducated consumers so they can hire their children for slave wages and get money from their consumption of goods - they clearly don’t care about the babies that are born. This article reminded me of how I need to donate to planned parenthood this year - thanks!
4
But didn’t Bernie’s babies and bullies say there was no difference between Trump and Clinton?
2
The attack on Roe v. Wade is from science--has little to do with social ethos. Eggs are one thing; fetus quite another.
Question now becomes--Does a fetus have a right to life?
Not a good position for women's "rights" advocates.
4
@Alice's Restaurant that question has been answered. The mother is a person. The fetus is not. There can be questions of viability but there is no debate there.
3
@J
Really--then why the debate? Ownership is the issue--fetus chattel, to be disposed with at will? Fetus as unwilling slave? Slavery of the womb--till freedom breathes life?
1
@Alice's Restaurant - Current abortion laws strike the compromise position of allowing abortion until the point of viability, and then making it illegal with certain crucial exceptions. If you grant full civil and human rights to a fertilized egg, you automatically remove the civil and human rights of the living, breathing, sentient woman who happens to host that egg. And you obviously spend not one second thinking about the life of the unwanted, unaffordable child born to a mother who doesn't want him and is in no position to care for him.
1
Don't fool yourselves into thinking that if SCOTUS overturns Roe that states can legalize abortion under state laws. Federal laws preempt state laws. If the fetus has rights under the 14th amendment then states can't interfere with these rights.
3
Over 800,000 abortions are performed in the US each year, making it the leading cause of death (yes, even greater than heart disease or cancer). How many women might "suffer" compared to the 800,000 who are killed?
1
@Dr B - Abortion rates have fallen consistently since the 1980s. It's down from about 1 million a year to about 600,000, thanks to more effective, affordable contraception.
The sight of celibate Roman Catholic nuns and priests at a so- called right to life rallies is the ultimate sectarian hypocrisy. They don't make any kind of life.
The sectarian roots of the " abortion" issue coupled with enduring socioeconomic educational political legal misogyny and patriarchy regarding female choice about their reproductive, sexual and physical health medical care choices.
This should be enough to expose the arrogant inhumane immoral ignorance that makes any fetus worth more than any female person.
4
I propose a bill to criminalize the hypocritical actions of women and men who impregnate them if they or their sexual partner vote for, lobby for, or introduce legislation that makes abortion illegal BUT they obtain an abortion for their own fertilized egg, in or out of the country. And in the interests of verifying their religious sincerity, let's make that law retroactive.
2
allow me to remind all that half the country think abortion is amoral/murder, and almost everyone is sickened by the idea of abortion as birth control. the tone of this editorial is nauseating, as it assumes the pro-abortion view is so valid, that any restriction is a scandal. it's not a scandal. bill clinton was right- it should be safe and rare.
the right to kill whatever is in your body is not sacrosanct.
if states want to impose some restrictions, good for the states. that's why we have a federalist system. and if some want to make it easier to get an abortion, good for them, too.
the NYT has no business teaching its morality to anyone. no one does. let each state arrive at its own compromise.
personally- i think it should legal only when the fetus is not viable.
2
Women don’t equate abortion with birth control.
@Ari Weitzner
The countries of Europe let abortion law be determined by the democratic process and ended up with a consensus on when abortion was acceptable. In the US, the Supreme Court removed abortion from democratic control, handed victory to one side of the argument, and froze their decision into law by declaring it part of the Constitution. The result was that it was impossible to fine-tune the law as in Europe, and the US was plunged into an insoluble mess. Thank you, Supreme Court.
The problem is the delusional religious fantasy shared and promoted by the so-called 'pro-life' groups: that somehow an embryo is a living conscious being, which of course it is not! Life on earth begins at birth, with the first breath of oxygen that awakens our brain, into the first concious awareness of our self. No one has ever had any memory of life before birth, perhaps some fantasies, but absolutely no proof whatsoever of any memory going back to our embryonic stage of development. That fantasy exists only in the imagination of those wishing to control women. An embryo is indeed a connected part of the mother's body, it belongs to her, to either birth or abort, and her choice is none of anyone elses's business. To interfere with a woman's choice and try and control what goes on in her uterus, by forcing her to birth an unwanted child, is perverse, sexually predatory behavior- and that is what must be abolished, not our most basic human right, of ownership to our own bodies.
3
Abortion is the most divisive issue in our nation. There is no middle ground. Abortion is why Trump is president. Abortion is why the evangelicals voted for him and put him in office. So don't waste your political capital. After we have universal health care, infrastructure, campaign finance reform, and Trump is in prison we can worry about abortion.
@Bob D
Easy for you to say Bob, who won't have to gestate any unwanted pregnancies while we're figuring all this other stuff out.
3
Sadly, I live in a state that is heavily gerrymandered and controlled by the GOP. They have passed law after law targeting abortion. It's truly depressing.
I’ve always maintained that the Pro-Life movement’s mission is a a more “palatable” way to legislate that sex be for procreation only. If saving the unborn were the ultimate goal, sex education and access to birth control would be high on the priority list. The #Metoo movement has been in the spotlight of late, but some in the Pro-Life movement are equally if not more misogynistic than the perpetrators of those grevious acts. The most extreme believe women have but one purpose in life, no matter injury, illness, emotional turmoil, or even death.
3
I think people need to understand that if abortion is made illegal, then outlawing birth control is next on the agenda of the anti-abortion crowd.
5
I ask you this: Who is the greater danger to America, Middle East terrorists or the Republican terrorists who enable the radical anti-abortionists who want to take away women’s right to make their own medical decisions? No Middle East terrorist organization could possibly do more damage to more Americans on so many levels that the Republicans have already done and will continue to do.
With the Republicans in Congress unwilling to get rid of Trump, it seems to me that the only solution may be a temporary military coup that would install General Mattis as President.
A country where women do not have autonomy over their own bodies is backward and dangerous. If you are against abortion, don't have one. I decide what to do with my own body, and if I am unable to do that because a backward and patriarchal government prevents me from doing so, I will never be a full citizen. Stay out of our bodies with your religion and your backward biases. Unintended pregnancies happen even with reliable birth control. Please stop telling women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. If men were the ones to give birth abortion would be an unchallenged right. This is simply a way for men to control women.
7
@Glenda Kaplan
" If you are against abortion, don't have one. "
That sounds like a pre-Civil War slaveowner telling an abolitionist: "If you are against slavery, don't buy one".
Women decide. Period.
Anything but that is forced birth.
No more "pro-life" prevarication. It's just forced birth.
5
One state already protects abortion rights throughout pregnancy: Oregon.
Eight states already protect abortion rights up to fetal viability: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, and Washington.
The best way to save it is to let it go and leave it to the states.
Dems get killed by the evangelical and Catholic vote when running for national office. This issue has been CYNICALLY manipulated by the GOP for years. That why we end up with stumpy and Pence (hurl!).
For 'reason' to regain traction, let Roe go.... Those in need will find a way, and in the end they and we all will be better off.
1
“Those in need will find a way”??? Wow.
This whole mess is the result of judicial action making law . If Congress or each state had passed a law legalizing abortion the courts then could interpret the law and not make it. Roe vs Wade was the start of the slippery slope of judicial activism where legislative bodies have abdicated their responsibility.
1
Should abortion after six weeks or whatever period of time is determined to be “legal” be codified, there may emerge some unintended consequences. There is one that has been noted already but really bothers me. That is that every single instance of miscarriage, stillbirth, or anything short of a successful delivery of a baby would, it seems to me, require some kind of criminal investigation, further traumatizing mothers and fathers who have lost a baby. Before dismissing this as over reaction, think about it. An investigation does not mean conviction; however, the facts must be determined if there is suspicion that a “crime” has been committed. Isn’t that what the justice apparatus is all about?
4
For the longest time, the different political factions of this country have made abortion a black and white issue: ie you're either pro-life or pro-choice. The problem is it's not black and white at all. A little data for thought:
Pew research 2018: only 25% of Americans think abortion should be legal in all cases.
Gallup 2018: only 28% of Americans that abortion should be legal after the first three months of pregnancy.
Clearly, there are many shades of grey to this, and it ought to be Congress (i.e. people who are responsible to the voters), not judges with lifetime appointments.
2
My rights to control my body shouldn’t depend on a poll.
2
It should be up to individual women and their doctors. Period. No one has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. No one should be forced to give birth against her will.
1
Thank you for the excellent series about the erosion of women’s reproductive rights. I was in my early twenties before Roe v. Wade was decided and remember well what it was like for women in those days when lack of access to legal abortion did not stop women from terminating unplanned pregnancies; women sought them in dangerous circumstances. I hope your columns raise awareness and make it clear that we have to counteract the highly effective strategies of those who continue to seek to undermine our rights.
3
Abortion should never have been constitutionalized. Abortion is a matter of public health, personal privacy, domestic relations, morality, and community standards analogous to domestic relations, property law, criminal law, liquor laws, and other local concerns which traditionally belong to the people. It looks as if, at long last, the people will be allowed to vote on abortion, as in a democracy they rightly should.
30
@James Ribe. exactly. an issue like this that can't possibly be proven right or wrong by either side-it should never be imposed by the fed. let each state figure out what it is comfortable with. those screaming on both sides are arguing from pure emotion, which is why this stupid debate never goes away. enough already.
3
@James Ribe - Perhaps you should read the Roe v. Wade decision, because the right to privacy is fundamental to that Constitution. You said it yourself.
26
@Ari Weitzner
Can you give an example of a right that can be proved right or wrong?
The pro-life people use religion and care not about the consequences. The pro-choice people use science, as there are serious health issues involved. It's a complex issue.
Funny how the pro-lifers only care about human life up until the moment of birth. After that they don't care at all.
Defunding Planned Parenthood would have serious consequences regarding women's health with issues having nothing to do with abortion.
22
Pro choice organizations must expand their mission to include preventing pregnancy and ending it whether it is known or not. I would gladly give money to Planned Parenthood which would covered the land with people handing out free morning after pills available over the counter, condoms, and information about pregnancy prevention. An organization of this type can interface with school boards, daycare centers, medical clinics to get the word out that prevention is the way of the world. Of course abortion is still and will be still needed and if necessary, the slaves of old had their underground railroad to freedom, so should a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. Draconian laws have been worked around before with ghastly results; there is much more ammunition and creative thinking to avoid dead mothers and babies.
6
Thank you Joannes for stating the obvious - reproductive rights as a term is a far cry from describing the actual event. Those in favor of abortion need to make their argument from a place of truth, meaning that it must be acknowledged that the baby is living in the womb, has everything he or she will need to grow into an adult codified in their DNA, and most importantly, abortion robs that child of the stories of life they will experience, of marriage, of children, etc. Arguments from the left can no long talk in benign pseudo-scientific terms that don't do justice to ripping a fetus out of the womb and stopping the heart beat. Please be honest, make an argument about overpopulation, or how it is a nuisance in your view of the world to have children born that are not wanted. I'm sure incest and rape will also be thrown out, but let's be honest, most pregnancies that end in abortion are from consenting individuals who never thought they would get pregnant and a child is not part of the plan. I understand this, but SAY THAT, not terms that describe something completely different than what is happening.
5
@DUHL
Women's bodies are built to get pregnant. With all of the various pressures on women to have sex, it is disingenuous to say that women are "consenting individuals" who then get caught. Having a male partner is still an economic and social necessity for women in a patriarchal country where they earn far less than men. And having a male partner means you don't say no to sex. And contraceptives within the woman's control are expensive and not necessarily easy to get. We have plenty of data asserting that if you make contraception free and easily available and you will see the number of abortions go down. If you truly care about abortion, help make them rare without criminalizing the female body.
4
@DUHL you attempt to dictate what those of us who are pro-choice should say about abortion. I will offer you some advice. Say that a fetus is not a person yet. Say that abortion in the first trimester is perfectly reasonable and should be legal without hindrance. Stop calling abortion murder, implying that those who have an abortion are murderers (I'm sure it's more than an implication). Stop supporting politicians who try to take away medicaid and food stamps from poor people and support full funding of early childhood education programs so women have childcare, food, and housing. Vote to provide free birth control to all women and men who request it. That would be a pittance compared to what our government spends on the military and tax breaks for the wealthy. Pregnancy happens to married people who are using birth control. They may not be able to afford another child. They may have hit hard times and are trying desperately to take care of the children they have already. Stop judging. Start helping. And, just maybe, abortion numbers will be lower. You are part of the problem and not part of the solution with your rhetoric. We are not all obliged to see biology in your limited way.
3
@DUHL - Most abortions are performed when there's nothing there but a tiny scrap of tissue that looks exactly like a teeny tadpole. It's half an inch long and weighs 0.03 oz. Stop pretending there's an actual baby there. Current law prohibits abortion past the stage of potential viability, with a handful of crucial exceptions, such as for the life of the mother.
3
Of course anti-choice activists are still advocating Roe Vs Wade be overturned and that's their ultimate goal, but anti-choice lawmakers, politicians, and judges seem to be pursuing a 2nd strategy: make Roe Vs Wade irrelevant.
They make regulations so onerous and arbitrary, and so difficult to comply with, that opening an abortion clinic becomes impossible and maintaining an abortion clinic becomes impossible.
So, what does Roe Vs. Wade matter if most states become like Mississippi where there's only one abortion clinic in the entire state?
2
@dK
The reason anti-abortion activists pursued their incremental strategy is that the Supreme Court would not let them carry out their full strategy.
Referring to the removal of a living fetus as "reproductive health care rights" is part of the problem.
Progressives have a tendency to sugar coat complex concepts with terms that make them sound more benign. Conservatives see through this.
For sure, conservatives do the same thing. When it comes to the taking of life we need look no father than the death penalty.
But portraying abortion as health care and an inalienable right (but without any corresponding obligation) is a bad ploy.
Painting it as solely belonging to women belies a morally difficult decision faced by fathers of aborted children.
Does anyone really think abortion is simply birth control? (Answer: It is not).
Both pro and anti abortion advocates ought to have the desired goal of zero abortions.
To achieve this both sides need to ease up on the rhetoric. Conservatives need to understand abortion is here to stay. They need to revisit positions regarding sex education and birth control.
Progressives need to understand that abortion is not health care. It's not a right. It's a serious issue - it is the taking of a human life and needs to be treated as such.
In case you were wondering, for the political class abortion is just another tool to polarize voters. They just want donations and to win elections. None of them really care. If you think they do you're wrong. That's exactly what they want.
Rather than treat abortion as simply another political binary both sides need to work together.
9
@Johannes de Silentio I agree with your stance that there is middle ground to be had on abortion and the dialogue that occurs around the issue. The attacks by the Christian right on reproductive rights has set the tone for decades and resulted in an equally entrenched response from prochoice advocates. However, informed people, those who are interested in protecting reproductive freedom for women and who have a long historical view of the issue, take it very seriously. Your automatic label of abortion as "taking a human life" is part of the problem. We who are prochoice suspect they are not interested in life after birth, but rather their interest lies in controlling women and imposing their views of morality on women. Trust is an issue. Calling someone a murderer is not helpful. Those who are pro-choice have been fighting long and hard for access to contraception for poor women, sex education on pregnancy prevention, early childhood programs so that women can continue to work if they have children. All of these programs could reduce unwanted pregnancies. All of these programs have been consistently fought by the right. So, please, let's not have the usual false equivalency about who is trying to reduce abortions. Being pro-choice does not mean being pro abortion. It means supporting women in all possible ways so they have the financial, emotional, and social support to have children.
1
@Johannes de Silentio It seems you are playing the same duplictious game that you accuse others of engaging in.
You claim that people see abortion as birth control, even though the editorial here does not make that claim, nor does anyone else. So, that's dishonest framing on your part, because viewing it as health care, which the editorial does, recognizes the complex issues that you are trying to avoid.
You are also playing word games about abortion itself. A fetus is not a human. That is why the term is used. Humans cannot live in a sack of amniotic fluid for nine months, nor can they get their nutrition through their belly button.
Throughout human history, philosophers and religions have seen and made distinctions between humans and fetuses. They have also made clear that the distinctions are real and important. Whether it is the Hebrew Scriptures or St. Augustine, the death of a fetus is permissible under most conditions. Interesting to see that more than 2000 years later, you are unable to grasp the distinctions that once were obvious to all
1
Zero abortions? You’ll get a fight from the abortion industry. It’s their livelihood.
1
The constitutional status of abortion is pretty clear, and it is pretty satisfactory to the majority of the population.
Extremists of both sides dominate this issue, and dominate in the news media. The issue used to be the staple of talk radio. Twitter has extended its appeal to twits everywhere.
6
@Sequel
"The constitutional status of abortion is pretty clear, and it is pretty satisfactory to the majority of the population."
Neither. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution; the Supreme Court pretended that they found it there. And if the majority of the population likes it, why all the fear that it will lose if it is put to a popular vote?
3
@Charlesbalpha the Supreme Court ruled it a a privacy right just as they did with birth control. Not all rights are explicit and that is also outlined in the Constitution. There is no fear that abortion rights will be lost if put to a popular vote. That's never even been on the table. It's always been determined by individual states which is part of the problem. I can guarantee that abortion rights would be overwhelming supported in a popular vote. The right has no interest in that which is why they are going through the courts. We need to take abortion decisions out of the courts and pass it through legislation. Had that been done from the beginning this discussion would not be happening.
2
Positions are changing on abortion. A majority of Americans support abortion with limitations. The more detail that is provided when surveyed, the more this position crystalizes.
Millennials seem to be the most balanced. They believe it should be legal but with limits after 20 weeks. "Balance" should not be the enemy but the rule. Extremists on both sides will have an increasingly difficult time swaying public opinion.
6
@AACNY Most fetal defects cannot be detected until after 20 weeks. Some of these are absolutely horrendous - microcephaly, organs missing or on the outside of the body. Abortions for these cases as well as for a woman's health should always be legal.
This is an old argument, but still, in my opinion, the best one. It is an argument by analogy.
Patient A in hospital will die unless he receives a transfusion of his extremely rare blood type. There is no known source of this blood except for ..
Patient B in the adjacent bed. However, for reasons sufficient to her, B doesn't want to give A her blood. By what authority can she be forced to donate her blood to A?
4
Last session Republicans in the Ohio state legislature introduced a personhood bill that gave zygotes all rights of living people, criminalizing all abortion and making the woman and her doctor subject to murder charges for abortion. There were no exceptions for rape or the life of the mother, and very limited exceptions for ectopic pregnancy and cancer treatments that might harm a fetus. Ohio now has a new governor who is an anti-abortion zealot and who has said he will sign such bills into law. The Handmaid’s Tale has come to Ohio and will harm countless women who will be denied contraceptions that certain faiths deem abortifacients even though they are not, and will deny women their equal rights as citizens and humans to make their own medical, religious and personal decisions.
27
Anti-abortionist Americans want to restrict reproductive health care for women. They demand pregnant women have no right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Setting aside discussion of personal liberty and pursuit of happiness aspects for brevity; let's discuss the law.
Roe v. Wade (1973) and Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) are landmark SCOTUS cases guarantying women right of access to medical reproductive advice/services. Decades later pro-life advocates seek to overturn SCOTUS rulings and deny women choice over managing their body.
A majority of the anti-abortion movement is rooted in Catholic and Evangelical Christian religious interpretation. Our First Amendment's right to freedom of (and from) religion nullifies a religious entity requiring all Americans to conform to their dogma. In response, the anti-abortion movement avoids a First Amendment conflict by rewording their message. They deny women access to elective or therapeutic abortion on moral and sectarian grounds. They seek legal prohibition or restriction of safe medical abortions.
Making an argument that their tax dollars cannot be spent contrary to their religious tenets is ludicrous. If SCOTUS ruled that a valid argument, then I refuse my taxes be spent on war and production of weapons since that violates my pacifist tenets.
The religious right demanded a SCOTUS seat for Kavanaugh to overturn Roe v. Wade. He must recuse from any case in that light or risk de-legitimizing SCOTUS.
23
@Emile I am glad you wrote about your daughter's sad experience because my daughter had the same experience but in a different state. In our state which which has severely restricted access to abortion(or D&C) insurance companies have refused to cover any of these procedures even when necessary to protect the mother's health. This means not only to have to deal emotionally with a lost pregnancy but you have to have cash. Over $2K cash had to be paid upon check into a hospital surgical center to get healthcare for the mother of a dead pregnancy. The anti-choice cry and laws have actually lead to the punish women reality.
14
As has been argued elsewhere, the so-called "pro-life" movement is not really "pro-life" at all. It is "pro-birth." I think pro-choice legislators should take advantage of every opportunity where "pro-life" legislation is advanced to attach as many true pro-life amendments as possible. This should include those relating to child nutrition, day care, education, housing and health care. After birth, pro-lifers lose interest. If you're going to be "pro-life," then BE pro-LIFE, not just the first nine months.
37
@SurlyBird
People make dozens of choices every day. Using choice as a euphemism for abortion is ridiculous twisting of the English language. In an abortion argument, "choice" really means "I'm afraid to say 'abortion' out loud."
1
No it doesn’t. It means that a woman has the right to make choices over what to do with her body. It means that a woman should never be forced to give birth against her will. Period.
2
@Charlesbalpha Your bias blinds YOU to a simple truth. Abortion is a medical procedure. No one advocates we have more of them. That's like saying we should have more heart valve replacements. We should only have as many as are necessary. And the people who need the procedure should, with their doctors, be able to decide without the interference of others. HAVE THE CHOICE. Not twisted. It's not even complicated. Fundamental to our democracy actually.
4
The horrible fact is that women will suffer and die because of these new draconian laws aimed against their reproductive health. Sadly, most will be poor, and/or not white, so their stories may not be told.
As in the opioid crisis, when increasing numbers of middle class girls and women start showing up in E.R.s in critical distress, or find themselves in jail for trying to self-abort, or bleeding out in seedy hotels, or leaving unwanted babies in dumpsters, while their male counterparts remain free and anonymous, perhaps there will be a change in this country as happened in Ireland.
The shame is not in women having abortions, but in creating a world in which their suffering is inevitable. Part of our task going forward is to make sure that their stories are told. All of them.
29
Over 800,000 abortions are performed in the US each year, making it the leading cause of death (yes, even greater than heart disease or cancer). How many women might suffer compared to the 800,000 who are killed? @KHL
1
Stop equating embryos and fetuses to living, breathing, already-born people. If there was a fire in a fertility clinic and in one room there were 1,000 embryos and in the other was a five year old child, and you had to choose between saving the embryos or the child, which would you choose? The answer is obvious and demonstrates the fallacy in your argument.
5
As long as the debate is a legal one, what the editorial board should do is enter into the conversation about abortion with an eye toward exactly when in the gestation period that the (fetus? unborn child? developing life?) is viable and worthy of protection (unless you think that is never the case). Then consider to what extent law will ever satisfactorily respond justly to the legitimate concerns of all. Neither the aggressive Red State so called Pro-Life politicians nor the similarly aggressive Pro-Choice groups tend to engage in this way. There are realities in the moral landscape that cut both ways. Is too much to ask you to reflect that in your perspective?
5
@Horsepower There is no issue to discuss here. As long as fetal tissue is within the life system of a woman's body, any decisions regarding that tissue belongs to her and no one else - no ladies strange to her body, life, and family, no men in black robes with no regard for her life whatsoever, no screaming marchers or others who occupy their lives trying to force their preferences on perfect strangers. No one else. If one believes in a higher power, one must believe that the woman's decision is an expression of "his" wish as well, and that "he" has other plans for that tissue.
34
@Horsepower
While I wholeheartedly agree that the science needs to be debated, no, as far as the facts of human development and genetics go, the moral landscape does not "cut both ways". One side is definitely claiming moral certitude based on dishonest misrepresentation of the science. But hold on! The science needs to be discussed because an understanding of it makes plain that the science CAN NOT determine "the moral landscape". See Carl Sagan's statement: http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
Sagan gets the semantics wrong referring to the beginning of "human life" (would be clearer if referred to as beginning of human rights), but the essentials are there. The problem of when we treat a developing fetus as a person is a problem of philosophy, law, and religion. The objective science DOES NOT produce moral certitude that a baby pops into existence at the "instant" of conception, or that rights exist only at birth. There has been no new science that corrects the discussion in the RvW decision. Viability remains the best compromise.
3
@person46 Let's be clear when we are talking about this: We are not talking about "fetal tissue." We are talking about a human baby. The union of a human sperm and a human egg results in a human baby. Consult any biology textbook. All the euphemisms in the world--fetal tissue, tissue mass, etc.--won't change that. You may still decide that the human female in whose body that human baby is growing has the "right" to destroy the human baby--and since Roe v. Wade a woman has had that "right" in the U.S.--but don't try to fool yourself that you are doing anything other than destroying a human baby. Call a spade a spade.
1
This article made a lot of sense. First it mentions Alabama, West Virginia, and Florida have recently passed laws to make abortion even harder to get in their states. Those are states.
And yet your article seems to imply "states can take critical actions" I guess to protect abortion rights. I bet it is less than half of the states that are interested in "taking critical action." So what happens in the states that are trying to eliminate abortion?
The states that are trying to eliminate abortion are all gathered together. There would be no surrounding state those women could go to to get an abortion.
And the next step will be that the Supreme Court will make all abortions illegal in all states. And then what?
3
@esp
"And the next step will be that the Supreme Court will make all abortions illegal in all states. "
Why would they do that? All the talk has been about restoring abortion law to democratic control.
1
Pro Choice advocates should simply beat a hasty retreat. Save their money and energy to simply transport women needing their help to states that are Pro Choice. There are states that are never going to be friendly to their cause, write them off and move on.
10
Those who might accept abortions in cases of rape, incest or medically necessary must surely know the these reasons are a minority of the many reasons women choose abortion. What about women whose contraception fails them? All contraceptives have a failure rate of a few percentage points. I have known women who got pregnant using every sort of contraception available. Most of them were students or young professionals trying to get established in life and jobs, maybe in a good relationship with a man who might take responsibility and maybe not. And for those not using any contraception and who realize a bit late that this was not a good idea? Are they and the child that will eventually result if she has no choice to be punished? Yes, that is what anti-choice people want.
32
@Margaret
According to Guttmacher Institute, about 50% of all pregnancies are unintended. Buried deep within its data is one reason: Women have a poor relationship with birth control. That's another way of saying that they have it but don't use it.
1
Those who accept those conditions warrant that the mother has rights over a fetus. It’s just a political ploy to say otherwise. Ah, the hypocrisy of those that want to impose their religion on others.
2
I'm rather tired of so many campaigns and elections hinging on the abortion question. As the article states in many states abortion is essentially unavailable. If this is what these states want and women from these states are not going out in droves to vote for something different, just let them go their own way on this issue. Again the article suggests, as with the Rhode Island legislation, that overturning Roe does not mean abortion would be banned nationwide, just not protected. As long as the states that want abortion to be available can ensure this, then let it go. It seems silly to fight for the rights of these generally red state women when they clearly don't want the right. I know I'll be slammed for this point of view, but I'd rather concentrate on universal healthcare (even if it means abortion might not be included in this), gun control, raising the minimum wage (addressing poverty in general), and the big one that was almost completely ignored in the last election -- the environment!
6
@Ilona Those who favor reproductive freedom classify access to an abortion as a right that should not be vulnerable to a shift in majority opinion. Do you think we should also ignore the suppression of other rights, such as that of gays to marry, simply because an electoral majority finds them distasteful?
Your reasoning, moreover, assumes that every election accurately reflects the opinion of most voters. Voter suppression laws, however, combined with economic obstacles faced by low-income citizens, raise serious doubts about this notion.
Finally, you overlook the connection between the right to an abortion and some of the other issues you care about. Unwanted pregnancies certainly play a role in the perpetuation of poverty. Many opponents of abortion lose interest in the welfare of a baby following birth, as indicated by their hostility or indifference to an adequate social safety net for families.
24
Why do a small group get to impose their out of touch view about something most of them don't have the physical capacity to experience? I do not understand how they are able to enforce a personal opinion into law, when that law is based on ideology. This religious ignorance has no place in the medical arena. A group of people who argued the world was flat in the face of science should not be taken into consideration.
55
They have the same right to impose their view on abortion rights as they did on the marriage equality rights. What goes around, comes around. We can’t pick and choose.
3
They didn’t take away rights in that case. The case granted rights even short of marriages because Republican led states didn’t allow those rights like health care proxies by civil unions which might have taken away Kennedy’s 14 th Amendment argument. Hate is a lifestyle choice.
10
@Wonders Never Cease
" I do not understand how they are able to enforce a personal opinion into law, when that law is based on ideology."
It's called democracy.
2
Sorry, but I cannot let this lie. For all those who feel that we shouldn't collectively assist those in need (e.g. gov't funds assisting "an avoidable outcome"), shouldn't we, in the interest of fairness and equality, also include all of the other medical issues that are due to avoidable personal choices? For example, such things as liver diseases (alcohol and diet), cancers (alcohol, diet, hazardous working environments, etc.), type 2 diabetes (possible diet), and a host of other maladies?
In the case of reproduction, heaven forbid that we provide support for prevention as well, since we *know* that these people who require assistance should simply know better and make all the right choices. After all, most of us are perfect and make no mistakes, right?
28
Great post and the mother’s future has so much more potential than the other lifestyle illnesses.
1
That's exactly what we should do, Medicare for all
1
We women have allowed this to happen to us. Yes, I am victim blaming. Yes it is our fault.
We have fallen for the lies of the religious right. Fallen into the trap of acting against our own self interest. Bought the whole nine about a woman being second to the man.
So what did we expect when the men made adverse decisions about what is in the best interest of our minds and bodies when it comes to pregnancy.
We have gotten exactly what we deserve and we will continue to have it served up to us day in and day out until we start standing up for our rights, electing people to office who respect our rights, and who stand shoulder to shoulder with us against those forces who oppose allowing us to own our own bodies, minds, spirits, wombs, and uteri.
31
There is no justification for putting all of the responsibility on the female for unwanted pregnancies. Enforce equal responsibility on both sexes for the lifetime of the child and on the state that has forced an unwanted child to be born. Cradle to grave support that insures a quality life free of deprivations of health, education, or employment that provides a living wage.
If you cannot assure this then allow the termination of the pregnancy in the safest way possible.
30
There is a way abortion rights groups could probably get more support from men, and definitely steam their opponents. Print some signs along the lines of “Do you like sex? Support a woman’s right to choose.”
Of course it will be condemned by those who would restrict sex if they could, but it will also demonstrate the actual nature of their motives.
18
The Constitution makes no mention of abortion or reproductive rights. Rather, a woman's "right to choose" is based on an interpretation of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
From that, there is an implied right to privacy, and from that right to privacy is implied a right to abortion, at least in the first trimester. The mental acrobatics needed to arrive at abortion rights are always going to put Roe at risk of a different court arriving at a different conclusion. With the Court shifting to the right, and Ginsberg's questionable health, the risks are rising.
Unless and until reproductive rights are explicitly enshrined in the Constitution as an amendment, this issue will continue to fester, and overturning or undermining Roe will be a real possibility.
14
@Roger
Whatever side of the political fence one is on, Griswold and Roe were poorly reasoned decisions woven out of whole cloth. Leave abortion to legislatures and let's not have courts make up "rights" that the Constitution clearly does not provide for.
@Roger
Exactly what "process" was involved when the 1973 court said that abortion laws violated "due process"? Based on history, it seems that the amendment writers were trying to make a distinction between slavery vs convicting somebody of a crime and sending them to prison. The criminal trial was the "due process" .
One can also see the implications in Amendment III( home is my castle), IV, IX,X for privacy.
The onus should be placed on an individual avoiding unwanted pregnancies as opposed to governments remedying (at significant cost) this avoidable outcome.
3
@Dr. Sam Rosenblum
Agreed, male castration to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
There is no justification for putting all of the responsibility on the female for unwanted pregnancies. Enforce equal responsibility on both sexes for the lifetime of the child and on the state that has forced an unwanted child to be born. Cradle to grave support that insures a quality life free of deprivations of health, education, or employment that provides a living wage.
29
The difference today at pro life rallies like the Washington March for Life is that there are far more young adults in attendance than when it was first organized in 1974. You have student groups such as Students for Life who are organizing and getting many more students on board. They are the pro lifers of the future and this is so encouraging,
5
@WPLMMT Sooner or later, many of the young woman currently attending the pregnancy-enforcer rallies will realize that they painted themselves into a corner.
The young men at the rallies are ecstatic that they'll be able to force any women they impregnate to carry the pregnancy to term (while the man goes his merry way, voting to ensure that no government aid is permitted to help mother and child survive).
It will eventually occur to these young women, as access to contraception shrinks and abortion becomes impossible to obtain, that they succeeded in ruining their own lives.
All it will take is one accidental pregnancy at the wrong time. Goodbye, college. Or goodbye, quality of life for her other children. Goodbye, health--or even her life.
She will have to suffer the devastation she's brought upon others, but that will be no consolation to them.
25
Don’t be ridiculous.
I attended a Co ed Catholic High School in NJ (1978-1982) and every January the entire student body was forcibly bused to DC for the Right to Life March.
As students we treated it as a fun field trip. (We were clueless pawns in a Catholic arms race that rewarded congregations who brought a large turn out). The only excuse to miss the trip was for athletes who had a game. (Oh the irony).
Based on my observations (social media, personal conversations) at least half of these students (myself included) now as adults are staunch supporters of the right to choose. A small minority are staunch right to lifers. The rest seem to be uninterested.
As the Covington Catholic episode reminds us-don’t assume the Right to Life marchers are stalwarts of the movement. They are student pawns of their parent’s and school’s ideology. Some are right to lifers. Many I suspect would be the first to expect their girlfriends to get an abortion should an inconvenient pregnancy risk derailing their goal of becoming the next Judge Kavanaugh.
17
@WPLMMT
"The more you know."
It's no surprise young people would hold a more nuanced view on abortion. They have access to so much more information. Ultrasound, alone, has forever changed the abortion debate. They know how early life becomes viable.
They are also incredibly moral and unlikely to subjugate their morals to ideology.
2
This article opened up an important theme that has been neglected for a long time, namely the role of states in regulation abortion. I support abortion rights, but I am also against Roe vs. Wade. How is that possible? because I believe in states' rights and that the abortion issues should be dealt with by the states. If people of Alabama want to ban abortion outright, so be it. If people of New York want the strictest laws that protect women's right to choose, so be it. This is not a civil right issue like racial segregation, which had a clear right vs. wrong answer. This is a complex issue that involves not only a woman's right to her body, but many religious and philosophical aspects, and hence should be decided "locally".
3
@Henry K. Sorry, Henry, but the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution) establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. The 14th Amendment provides for equal protection of the law and due process of law required to abridge anyone's rights. Howver, the federal government can not prevent states from passing laws that violate these provisions and it is the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court to decide whether state laws are constitutional. Most of the hundreds of state laws that restrict abortion are not in force because federal district courts have placed injunctions on them. In sum, this IS a matter of civil rights.
12
@Henry K.
It should not be decided either locally or in DC. Unless a man's right to procreate is legislated also, then there should be no legislation on a woman's right to her own body. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Period.
So reality (“ a woman’s right to her body”) vs. fantasy (“religious and philosophical aspects”) should be decided at the state level? If that’s the case, I suggest we start legislating how, when, and under what conditions a man can “exercise” his sexual desires. Got erectile disfunction? Sorry fella, this state law prohibits you from seeking relief from this condition or even being given information regarding your options.
2
This is cause to celebrate for the pro life crowd. The states have been placing restrictions on abortion for a number of years and it is with the election of President Trump they have only felt more emboldened to go even farther in their restrictions. This is great news for the life in the womb. President Trump vowed he would appoint more pro life judges if he was elected and he has not disappointed. The two Supreme Court justices are solidly pro life and if he is allowed to choose a third they are most likely to follow down this path too. This is a new dawn of a new day for the pro life movement and it is very exciting. It took a while to arrive but it is so wonderful to see.
5
@WPLMMT
If you believe that abortion laws in the '50's are the dawn of a new day, you are not old enough to have an opinion. Perhaps we could resurrect McCarthyism and have Hearings on abortion rights, voting rights etc. It is so exciting to think about deaths caused by illegal and botched abortions performed in back alleys on kitchen tables by mid-wives. Of course flying to Europe or Japan would be a bit cheaper now. There is that.
3
@WPLMMT. "great news for the life in the womb" I'm seriously concerned for their lives after the womb.
3
In my view, women's rights supporters need to start looking beyond the courts and the politicians for answers. The right-wing politicians and their appointed judges will continue to chip away at Roe until it is gone entirely. But this is an issue that can be taken directly to the people in the form of referendum. Look to the recent vote in Ireland. Right up to the election, polling showed the issue coming in at a dead heat. Reproductive rights passed overwhelmingly! Why wait until Roe is overturned?
26
@Bill B Wouldn't be so sure that a referendum on abortion would pass but the main flaw in your argument is that federal law does not allow for national referendums (thank goodness).
1
@Bill B Great idea except the US does not have a national referendum.
@Bill B, I am ONLY referring to state referendum. I am confident it would pass in the majority of states and protect the vast majority of women. For those women in states where voters reject women's rights, supporters will have to continue working through the courts and legislatures.
The anti-abortion movement ignores a basic fact: when abortion is illegal, underworld criminals take over on a cash basis, and the procedure is performed by non-medical personal. The victims who suffer are indigent women and minor girls. Another fact is that supporters of legislation to prohibit abortions typically intend such laws and regulations to apply to everyone but females in their own family, who usually have the funds to travel and pay for the procedure in a jurisdiction where it is not banned. It is appalling that prohibiting abortion is deemed a major issue to be heard by the US Supreme Court once again.
46
Since the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment in Harris v. McRae, abortion has ceased to be a "right" in this country, and is merely a "privilege" to those who can afford it. Since Harris, the abortion "right" has only become more of a privileged procedure: in many parts of the country, legal obstacles require women to travel to a clinic hundreds of miles away and have multi-day waiting periods to get an abortion. Travel and accommodation expenses push abortion further out of reach for increasingly more and more women.
The Religious Right wants to force poor women into motherhood. Yet they in no way want to support them or the children they are forced to bear. What then, is their solution?
53
After Roe v. Wade, those who supported the decision largely went to sleep, thinking the battle won. The opposition stayed awake, stayed in the game, and developed a long-term strategy. Meanwhile, N.P.R., P.B.S. the Times and most other media that claimed high journalistic standards started calling anti-abortion "right to life." Words matter. Game over.
Read Roe v. Wade. It is important to understand that it is based not on the right to an abortion but on a privacy right, a right the Justices elicited from the Constitution, not one enumerated.
The Editorial advocates a playbook on how to maintain the right of a woman to have an abortion. Unfortunately, their prescription lacks historical and other context necessary for understanding the political struggle. As bad, it exacerbates the geographical divisions within America.
How about for a playbook starter everyone tells whatever piece of media they subscribe to or organization they support that they will not get one more penny until they call the anti-abortion movement by its rightful name, anti-abortion? How about endless demonstrations at the offices, golf clubs, and homes of Members of Congress who oppose a woman's right to decide whether to have an abortion? How about doing some of the many things the anti-abortion movement does to their foes, though not, as some do calling for assassination in the name of "life?"
Forget the hypocrisy of "right-to-life" people supporting capital punishment. It's about political pressure.
47
@Steve Fankuchen
There's no hypocrisy in being opposed to the killing of innocent fetuses or babies, but being in favor of executing the most heinous murderers.
1
In addition to supporting women's healthcare choices within your state, financial pressure should be put on states which limit their choices.
Boycott all anti-choice states. Don't travel to those states and don't do business with companies within these states.
Further, find out who funds anti-choice initiatives and boycott their wealth generating businesses.
30
@XManLA I already do that with Hobby Lobby. I would love to have a list of businesses that are anti choice. I would happily boycott all of them.
2
The wealthy will always be able to get abortions when they need them. It is the poor whose numbers will increase and whose desperation will erupt into crime as it did in the 60s. It will be worse now, because there are fewer opportunities to rise out of poverty now than there have ever been in America. The extremely wealthy have aggregated to themselves most of the benefits of economic growth; everyone else is in deep trouble. This is how revolutions begin.
22
@Mr. Little
Yes, the wealthy like their access to abortion, which they use rarely and sparingly. This allows them to ignore the crisis in the African-American community. In New York City, more African-American babies were aborted than born.
One could argue that what is good for the wealthy is not necessarily good for everyone else.
1
The many pro life marches, rallies and quiet demonstrations have finally paid off for those in the movement. The perseverance and determination that they endured for years has had quite an impact on society. These people never gave up hope that abortions would finally be seen as immoral and something to fight against. Sometimes it seemed as though no one was paying attention but the quiet demeanor moved more hearts and minds than was realized. More and more people are seeing that abortion is wrong and that an innocent life is being terminated. The work is not over but the impact that has been made keeps the pro life movement alive. It gives these people hope that one day abortions will be a thing of the past and countless lives will be saved.
6
@WPLMMT Pro life demonstrations and actions are anything but "quiet". Women entering abortion clinics are typically yelled at and accused of murder while navigating a gauntlet of protesters. Abortion clinics have been bombed, burned and shot at and physicians have been assassinated. All that will happen if abortion becomes illegal is that illegal and unsafe abortions will kill or maim women and the unborn will still die.
6
@WPLMMT And, of course, like a true forced birther, you conveniently and cruelly discount the lives lost of those women who will be forced to seek unsafe methods by which to exert the control over their own bodies that is the inalienable right of any adult--just not one with ovaries, in your tired and despicable dogma. For shame.
5
@WPLMMT You are wrong. We are strangling the patriarchy. You can control one body: your own. If that's not enough for you, too bad! We are not human incubators and we will make our decisions about our lives and our futures ourselves.
7
It's a moral issue for some but not all Americans.. About 20 percent of pregnancies end in miscarriages, many more are not realized by women but thought of part of a menstrual cycle. Day after emergency pills are not counted by anyone and may or may not involve a pregnancy.
It is the decision to abort after pregnancy is known that is the issue. No one really addresses the fact that forbidding abortion has no effect on women who are well off and it never has been. They can go to were abortion is allowed. For a long time, they also had abortions defined clinically as a dilation and cuterage and no one the wiser.
But poor women and the younger women who think they cannot afford to raise a child or who want to keep their choice to themselves in the interest of privacy are the one who will be affected where ever abortion ends up illegal.
Who will police this and what the penalties will be for the women is a good question. With out access to abortion in safe conditions they are likely to harm themselves, sometimes fatally.
It is easy to sit outside of their situation and judge them. The men involved get off scot free no matter what we decide. Boys will be boys, is our universal excuse for them.
Left to voters, abortion would remain legal, left to politics it won't in Red states.
55
First, full disclosure: I'm pro-choice -- fully respectful of a woman's freedom to manage her own body.
Second, precision of language matters: the polar opposites are best described as "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion". Appealing to "life" is essentially an equivocation that adds no value to the discussion.
That said, Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, because the subject is not treated in the Constitution, and the judge-made right was fabricated out of whole cloth (resting on a "penumbra" of privacy).
Two possible ways to secure abortion rights are: 1) a Constitutional amendment declaring so; 2) state-by-state legislation that reflects the regional sense of value on abortion.
Choice 1 is not likely now, due to legacy religious / mystical / supernatural beliefs prevalent in many of the states. Choice 2 is both realistic and a way forward. In this method, some states (e.g. Massachusetts) would likely stay pro-choice; other states (e.g. Utah) would likely remain anti-abortion for a long time. However, the patchwork of "free" states would provide a network for those seeking an abortion.
Funds currently accrued for political lobbying (plus benevolent contributions) would have to be applied for proper care of low-income women in the "red" states. This would include transportation, housing, after-care, counseling, and perhaps wage supplements.
Yes, a one-size solution would be great, but the reality of our polity requires alternative solutions.
9
@Joel Sanders
You are right about Roe being a wrong decision, but it was the only way to get the results that group of justices wanted.
The state by state plan is a non starter, I figure only about 18 states will uphold safe abortions, all of the North East and the West Coast States, maybe Michigan, less likely Wisconsin. That means poor women all over the South and middle of this country will have no access. Its all good when you have money to go where the right still exists, but when you don't, a safe abortion might as well be in Zanzibar or China.
8
@William S. Oser. I believe Colorado would vote for the right to choose. We've already defeated personhood attempts.
4
@Joel Sanders
I believe this argument (state by state legislation that reflects the regional sense of value) was once used to justify the existence of both slave states and free states. You are talking about a woman’s right to life and control of her own body. This is not a concept that depends on “regional values”. It is a right conferred on her by the US Constitution. It is valid throughout these United States.
33
My understanding is that states would be able to control abortion within their boundaries if Roe v Wade is overturned. Some states are going to have very sensible laws relating to continuing to allow abortions most likely using the same terms that Roe v. Wade used. They will be safe and reasonably accessible in those states.
3
That is certainly what you are hoping for.
I support abortion, voluntary or not, as means of population control. Other countries have implemented it successfully.
It may be the only option in a low information, low responsibility population.
14
@Dolfie
I disagree. No one should be required to have an abortion. Just imagine how the standards would be set!
I believe in population control and we are below replacement level, excluding immigration.
If we want to have a serious impact on world population we should be supporting well understood means of promoting birth control. Education for women, access to birth control for women, lowered child mortality rates.
8
I agree with Sharon. Mandating abortion is a horrible concept.
2
If a state legislature votes to eliminate abortion I think they must set aside a huge fund that clothes, feeds, educates, provides medical and psychological care, etc etc.,throughout the lives of those they have forced to birth.
55
Indeed. Caring for these children is conveniently ignored in the popular argument.
22
Roe is practically dead anyway, so a Supreme Court decision overturning it will have little actual effect. But one observation: abortion should be provided for free at government expense. Any woman who cannot afford an abortion, and who doesn't have family who can lend her the necessary funds, almost by definition cannot afford to raise a child.
43
It’s disingenuous to label abortion as ordinary course “healthcare” as if it’s analogous to a flu shot or appendectomy. Be pro choice, I am, but show a little humility and understanding that many people believe that unborn humans are people, abortion is therefore murder, and societies have every right to regulate and punish murder. I disagree with that conclusion, but I respect it and don’t pretend that view is the only legitimate one.
15
@DRS If these groups were simply anti abortion they would lobby and march for contraception and sex ed, but they don't.
They want to have a pretext for their true agenda, which is to roll back the advances women have made since effective contraception was made available.
Compromise on abortion would only embolden them to push for the outlawing of contraception, as Rick Santorum proposed.
29
@Cal
I'm all for birth control and I'm an atheist, but abortion makes me uneasy, especially as viability keeps getting pushed back. I think there are lots of people who have a problem with abortion who have absolutely no problem with contraception and sex ed.
1
I don't see all these "caring" folks volunteering to pay to raise these children.
Since about half of pregnancies are unplanned, perhaps an approach to the abortion question that would please both sides on this issue is to offer every woman the means to avoid unwanted pregnancies. And start education for both boys and girls early in school; the respect, knowledge, and responsibility of taking care of the human body. We should work toward having every pregnancy planned and wanted.
19
@PhilipGMiller
Birth control isn't 100% effective. A 99.9% effective rate means 1 out of a 1000.
Abortions are greatly reduced when long term birth control methods are made readily available.
There is also the issue that some of the anti abortion folks are also against birth control.
16
That’s sensible, but too often those who oppose abortion oppose contraception. I conclude there’s little will in the anti-abortion community to prevent pregnancy; they just want to end non-procreative sex.
2
@PhilipGMiller
According to Guttmacher, one problem is that women don't use birth control correctly or at all, even when they have it. This is why methods that don't require any action other than the initial insertion are the only methods of birth control that will actually help this population of women.
3
The simplest way to reduce the rate of abortion is robust public sex education and providing free modern contraception (IUD implants/LARCs) and free access to the medical staff to implant them.
These are simple and inexpensive solutions that dramatically reduce unplanned and unwanted pregnancies and also reduce state welfare costs by tens of millions for every progressive state (e.g. Colorado, Delaware) that has tried it.
Conservatives almost never support these logical common sense solutions.
One has to conclude that conservative/Republican states have no real interest in reducing abortions, but rather have a perverted interest in forced religious birthing.
Sick, illogical and deeply disturbed GOPeople.
246
@Socrates
If you insist on blaming anyone, why not blame the women who don't use their birth control? Yours is just an irresistible potshot at conservatives.
2
@AACNY
"blame the women"
Isn't that rich ?
Have you ever been dirt poor and lived in abject poverty ?
Those are the conditions that produce most American abortions.
Easy to blame poor people for getting pregnant instead of trying to help lift them out with simple solutions that have worked spectacularly in Colorado and Delaware to decrease the abortion rate and that also decrease the public welfare rolls.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/upshot/set-it-and-forget-it-how-better-contraception-could-be-a-secret-to-reducing-poverty.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/colorados-push-against-teenage-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html
The truth isn't a 'potshot'.
The truth is real.
The truth is that conservativism is intellectually, morally and economically bankrupting.
30
@Socrates Agreed but in my view there is another reason for right wing fundamentalists to oppose abortion and it's twisted. They oppose sex education, availability of birth control and any other solution to preventing abortion before it becomes necessary, then oppose the procedure itself because having to carry that fetus to term and have that baby is punishment for having sex for any reason other that procreation. And it better not be out of wedlock!
By the way, AACNY blaming the women is a perfect example of part of the problem. With the exception of the virgin birth, there has always been a man involved .
10
I am a Christian. My husband is a pastor. We have been married 45 years. We have eight children. Six of our children are adopted and considered, 'Special Needs'. In my lifetime I have seen all of the Christian beliefs that have been codified into law in this country completely reversed. When I was a child the government had laws that prohibited any commercial activities on Sunday. Today, Sunday is the busiest shopping day of the week. In my grandmother's day, the government was not involved in marriage. If you wanted to get married you met with your clergy and set a date. Now marriage is licensed by the government, and they have the right to define it. The same will be true of abortion. A GOVERNMENT THAT CAN DENY ABORTION, CAN DEMAND ABORTION. Why would our government demand it? Our Legislators are committed to NO NEW TAXES. How do these law makers propose to pay for education, medical care (many babies will be born with severe birth defects) and foster care, for all of the babies now being aborted? The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. As a committed Christian I never want to live in a country that would demand that a woman have an abortion, but as a student of history, I believe that that is exactly what we will get.
9
@Ann Paddock
With all due respect, after reading your comments, I am not certain about what you are advocating & what you are opposed to. I am assuming that you would concur that couples should be able to celebrate their marriage & obtain their license without any religious clergy or institution, if they so wish, & such a preference would bring the marriage ceremony under the domain of government to provide a civil as opposed to a religious wedding, as with a Justice of the Peace. Not all citizens of these United States are Christian. Nor should non-Christians be expected to conform to Christian doctrines, dogma, practices & rituals in these United States. Agnostics & atheists are not second-class citizens in this nation. Neither are Jews or Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists, & many others as well.
I also ponder about those who call themselves "pro-life" but who devalue women's control over their own bodies as part of the equation. Once babies are born, that "pro-life" stance withers away into a fundamentalist Christian Darwinian "survival of the fittest" -- hardly "pro-life"!
While you mention other developments that have transpired since the 1950s, I am able to concur with you about quaint & peaceful memories of the effects of the Sunday Closing Laws (exempting Jewish store-keepers, whose Shabbos begins on Friday evening & ends on Saturday evening). Over the past 60 years, our nation has been transformed, socially, politically, economically, religiously & technologically.
27
@Ann Paddock
I believe that Ann's position is that if government has the right to deny abortion, it is taking the position that government is in charge of a woman's fertility. It is in the state's interest to see that a woman carries an embryo to term. However, if the government is in charge of fertility issues it a fairly small step to deciding that some should NOT be fertile and have children. Therefore the state decides who carries to term and who doesn't.
2
@Sharon Simply don't understand your logic... (the government gives, so the government controls, therefore the government can take away..) i.e., the U.S. Constitution (government) gives me the right to privacy. So, it would be a small step for the government can take that away? We should have no laws ensuring the protection of our rights, because then, they can be reversed?
5
If anti-abortion advocates really were "right to life," wouldn't they have an annual march to make war illegal? Wouldn't they have a march to make capital punishment illegal?
137
@Linda
And to promote gun control and better healthcare for everyone? Just kidding.
9
@Linda
Clever but wrong. They are against capital punishment and war.
2
@Linda, And wouldn't they demand health care for all.
3
The Editorial Board claims to be promulgating a playbook on how to maintain the right of a woman to have an abortion. Unfortunately, their prescription lacks historical context, context necessary for understanding the politics of the struggle.
For starters, how many people have read Roe v. Wade and understand that it is based not on the right to an abortion but on a privacy right, a right the Justices elicited from the Constitution, not one enumerated?
After Roe v. Wade, those who supported the decision largely went to sleep, thinking the battle won. The opposition stayed awake, stayed in the game, and developed a long-term strategy.
Meanwhile, N.P.R., P.B.S. the Times and most other allegedly responsible media that claimed high journalistic standards started calling anti-abortion "right to life."
Game, set, match.
How about for a playbook starter everyone tells whatever piece of media they subscribe to or organization they support that they will not get one more penny until they call the anti-abortion movement by its rightful name, anti-abortion? How about endless demonstrations at the offices, golf clubs, and homes of Members of Congress who oppose a woman's right to decide whether to have an abortion? How about doing some of the many things the anti-abortion movement does to their foes, though we should not emulate the call some of their people make for assassinations?
Forget the hypocrisy of "right-to-life" people supporting capital punishment. It's about votes.
24
When Roe v Wade was enacted, IUD’s were not widely available. Now, they can limit unwanted pregnancIes to approximately 10,000. Between charitable giving and states where abortion is legalized, I would think that a very small number of women would be unable to secure the abortions they want.
2
Maybe you would think that, but you would be wrong. I don't have the time in one letter to say what a poor woman goes through just to get reproductive care since the anti-choice forces are also going after Planned Parenthood which provides healthcare for millions of women in this country. If you care enough to research this you will find out that a poor woman in a state where abortion is difficult or impossible to obtain very often winds up giving birth to a child that she does not want and cannot take care of. If things go back to the bad old days, we will again find dead women who tried to self-abort.
2
@michjas
You mean back in the day when it was illegal for many to even purchase contraceptives?
2
@michjas .... And you would be dead wrong. Visit West Texas and talk to women there. .... "I would think" does not constitute actual thinking.
3
If this isn't a religious issue then why is the church leading the anti-abortion legislation? If it's a "life" issue then why does not the church promote legislation to protect all life? Death row, immigrants, existing children. Seems like a great deal of life that is not important to these people. Could it be that protecting those other categories is not a path to raw political power, and that power to control other's lives is the real goal?
69
Fetuses are innocent souls who haven’t committed the sin of being born yet.
@Martin
Churches have always been involved in moral issues which the government didn't want to touch. Look at the civil rights movement. Religious involvement in an issue wasn't considered a problem until abortion became an issue.
1
Science, based on models, using variables, predicting climate change is reason enough to change laws and policy according to a lot of people. This was not a concern in the ‘70’s or ‘80’s. It seems the possibility, or probability of earths warming is a risk most people don’t want to take. Medical advancements and science has dramatically changed since the 1973 Roe v Wade descision. Why is the question of when life begins not being asked? Blackmun’s majority descision used ancient history, and limited scientific evidence to conclude when a life begins, and is guaranteed constitutional protection. When scientists and doctors are able to convince the courts a human life exist before birth, Roe must be overturned. Abortion laws should be based on current knowledge, not what was unknown 46 years ago.
9
@Jay Climate change is another factor supporting keeping Roe and making effective birth control even more accessible. The earth is way overpopulated.
25
@Jay
The question is not and never had been when "life" behind. That is a red herring. The question is and always will be what power should the government have in a woman's reproductive life, and why.
Roe v Wade recognized that a fetus at some point becomes entitled to protection under the law sufficient for the government to intervene on its behalf. That is not under dispute now; the point of when is the only issue worth talking about. Anti-abortion zealots want to use "beginning of life" arguments to muddle the question and push that "when" back to the point of fertilization. In other words, the government gets a new authority to intervene in a woman's reproductive process as soon as an egg is fertilized in her body.
That is a ridiculous expansion of governmental authority. Government should be restrained until it is completely obvious that fetal rights have run well past a woman's rights. To do otherwise makes a mockery of personal bodily autonomy in the face of governmental intervention.
61
@Jay
The majority decision did NOT conclude when a life begins. The majority decision did not define "life" and concluded they did not know when it began. In high school debate, the first task is to learn how to define terms. In Roe, this did not happen. There are two critical definitions - biological life and "legal" life. Biological life begins at conception. "Legal" life or a person begins with first breathe. Prior to the existence of a person, the fetus has no rights. It is the state that claims the right to interfere with a woman's right to privacy by claiming an "interest" in protecting developing potential life. I belief the real target of the right wing is the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Right now, a woman has a civil right, however tortured, to an abortion and that right is federally protected under the14th amendment. If Roe is overtunen and returned to the states, the federal protection for all civil rights, based on the 14th amendment, is endangered, in my personal opinion.
26
Perhaps I have been reading things incorrectly, but it seems to me the GOP establishment never ever really wanted a repeal of Roe. It was an electoral issue that served to get out votes.
Then comes Trump, who more than votes wants to be a savior. Give him a bill that can be touted, he will sign it.
Trump has long since cast his lot with the Right. He found evangelicals especially fawning.
Trump will give anyone who agrees to applaud him whatever they want. So, we got these judges.
What I wonder is, as a whole, just how can our judicial system actually effectively serve this particular petition?
When the Law hits the road, in other words, just how in jeopardy can be reproductive rights? Even just thinking of the Supreme Court, I am not convinced even this court would radically overturn Roe.
If I put myself in the position of being a judge, I immediately think of stability and consistency. Overturning Roe would throw both of those ideas aside. I am not sure the Court will have that.
2
@pjc
It wasn't that long ago that contraception was illegal, even for a married couple. The more extreme anti-choice crowd would be there for that fight after they finish off abortion. They won't quit until sex is for procreation only and they have cameras in your bedroom to enforce it.
For those of us who had ( I am now well past child-bearing age) irregular or unpredictable cycles, the laws specifying weeks beyond conception are an abomination. There is no way to know one is pregnant, even when regularity is the norm. MEN cannot be allowed to make these rules for women--we WILL NOT GO BACK.
157
@arjayeff I was just thinking that the maker of home pregnancy tests must be funding the six week cut off laws for abortions. Really a woman would have to take a test every month at least to be safe if she was sexually active and did not want children at that time.
10
@arjayeff
There are plenty of women on the anti-choice side too. And men on the pro-choice side. This isn't a gender issue. Women's rights are human rights.
12
@cheerful dramatist: OR she could use contraceptives every single time she has sexual intercourse.
All of this brings Justice Ginsburg's foolhardy decision not to retire during the Obama administration squarely into focus.
Although the positive attention the now "Notorious RBG" gets is well-deserved, the arrogance and judicial narcissism underlying her decision is astounding. She obviously convinced herself that her liberal position on the court would be assured indefinitely, either by an appointment of her replacement by a future president or by her immortality. Neither assumption was reasonable at the time, and that is proving true now, though it should have been obvious to her then.
My point is NOT to speak ill of the ill. I hope with every fiber of my being that Justice Ginsburg fully recovers and resumes her rightful place on the high bench quickly and maintains her health throughout the rest of this nightmare of a presidential administration. Once that is over, two things should happen. She should retire immediately, and we should re-think the meaning of "lifetime" appointment.
In the event she leaves the bench before Trump (or, maybe worse, Pence) leaves office, however, her legacy will be marred greatly by the fact that she alone will be to blame for giving the anti-woman/anti-choice/pro-zygote movement a sixth vote on the Supreme Court. I have no doubt this weighs heavily on her mind. I just wish it had weighed a little more heavily three years ago.
16
@GBarry
I disagree with your claim that a zygote is not
as human, and thus a person as the rest of us.
12 year limits on being a Federal Judge seems
to be a better idea than "Lifetime" Appointments.
@GBarry
Although I had also considered that her retirement may have been useful to my positions, I had to acknowledge that her reasoning - that her oath required that she not act for partisan interests, was the superior and correct position to take. And let me remind you, Obama was not allowed by the Republican hypocrites to make his legal appointment. Kavanaugh is an illegitimate justice and it is impossible to believe even now that we the people allowed this to happen. The seat was stolen. period.
2
Your statement makes glaringly apparent the fact that Justice Ginsburg is an ideologue whose judicial votes are predetermined by a fixed ideological position. Is that judicial temperament?
1
I am male and I support the right of women to make their own decisions about their health. If Roe is rolled back the wealthy women will be able to talk their private gynecologists into getting a D and C. Poor women will have to seek their own procedure in the back alleys and black market. That is not a good outcome. I checked our revised statutes and found that abortions are regulated by our State Laws. So, we do have abortions rights covered under State law and they should be amended to protect them against the possibility of Roe v. Wade being struck down. It has been a long struggle, I believe the Editorial Board is correct, it is high time this issue is put on the ballot.
27
I think another way to put it might be:
"Abortion rights are under threat from the approximately 40-50% of Americans who don't believe in unrestricted abortions."
You can't segregate the issue to the Supreme Court. Huge numbers of Americans disagree with you on the merits. You shouldn't simply pretend they don't exist.
8
Even if it were 70% of Americans, their opinions would count for nothing. The Supreme Court follows the law, not public opinion.
If you want the people's opinions to count, you have to move the debate out of the courts and into the legislatures.
10
@Captain Obvious
So if 60 percent think slavery is beneficial, just, and moral, should it become law? The Constitution limits the power of government to interfere in citizens private affairs. It is hard to imagine something more private than pregnancy. We should now empower the government to insert itself into the decisions women must make with respect to their bodies. Only individual women should decide what gets inserted there.
27
They exist, but, if they're male, they don't matter. Not their issue, not their problem. They should have no say about it.
How about using the DNA databases to identify fathers and automatically collecting child support if they are not providing it without the trouble and cost of court proceedings? This is completely with the power of the various states.
23
@Tibby Elgato
Should fathers also have some say in whether or not the pregnancy goes forward? What are their rights?
@Tibby Elgato
What data bases are you talking about?
1
@hotGumption
No, and none.
:D
800,000 thousand federal employees are not being paid Many of them are becoming despondent because they don't know how they'll buy food for their children, keep paying the rent or mortgage payments to keep a roof over their children's heads, or buy the things that make life comfortable for children like cough and cold medicine.
The shutdown that is making employees fear for their families was started by Donald Trump, who also has border patrol rip children away from their parents.
This weekend Trump spoke to the anti-abortion crowd and pretended he cared about life. That's the thing about so many of the anti-abortionist crowd--they only care about kids before they are born. If you can't feed them or give them a home after they're born...oh well.
319
I'm sorry to be saying this, but I've been pretty much done with this country since 2013. My wife and I are moving to Canada or Ireland in 2021. The inmates here are in charge of the asylum.
101
@J Darby I grew up in old Woodinville long ago on Waggy Road and it was very rural and except for the power lines in back of my the five acres my family owned I think there was very little pollution. I used to go swimming in Cottage lake and trout fishing with my Dad in Bear Creek. I took a school bus to the Bothell schools from first grade all the way to 12th grade. We would hear the coyotes at night and pick wild blackberries, the little ones which cannot be domesticated. I have pictures of winter with at least two feet of snow. Only two or three cars went by a day. People were still logging then and used horses. Well that was when I was about five years old. I do know that life was a bit easier then, because even a large family could live comfortably on one salary. Folks where I lived mostly built their own houses one way or another. And except fearing the bomb and hiding under our desks, there was not the fear I see today. And the decimation of the middle class. I applaud you leaving, if I could I would too. Canada would be my choice, just because there are so many different places to choose from. And are there fir trees in Ireland? I still miss the fir trees of Woodinville.
16
Gosh I wish you all the best and admire you both.
6
It's called democracy.
2
I think one powerful piece of stunt legislation is to require men running for Congress to divulge if they've ever paid for an abortion. They would of course scream that this was an invasion of privacy, without even realizing what an intensely private and personal decision it is for any woman to make. At any rate, submitting to the test would reveal which politicians are anti-abortion only to secure conservative votes.
92
@Vexations Another would be to require men to wear condoms, if requested, during intercourse and in the event that any adverse economic, emotional, and/or physical consequences accrued to his female partner as a result of his not doing so, he would be held legally responsible to her for damages. This legislation could be called “The Male Personal Responsibility Pregnancy Act”.
42
@Vexations
Here's the final nail to end this discussion; men only get to have sex for reproduction. Once achieved, they have to wait for the next opportunity / invitation. License required from the government.
7
"It is easy for women with means to get an abortion, while poor women are at the mercy of statutes that restrict their rights. That’s because only 16 states allow women who rely on Medicaid — in other words, poor women — to use that coverage to pay for an abortion."
I venture to say that wealthy women have always had the ability to go to their gynecologist for a D&C long before abortion rights were even a speck on women's ideas about having greater control over their bodies.
Abortion rights, like so many, had to be hard fought for. And yet, as this paper's recent harrowing series made clear, existing laws on the books even in blue states that punish women who miscarry naturally--not to mention new laws designating a fetus a person at the moment of conception, putting greater value on its life than that of the mother--threaten the longstanding right of women to medical privacy.
What is often left unsaid is how religion, not science, is driving this--a clear violation of the separation clause in the first amendment.
Also left unsaid is how new laws protect the fetus in utero, but do nothing for a newborn--which begs the question, is this really about Christian belief in life or rather, control over women's reproductive choices?
292
@christineMcM
What you have ventured to say is actually untrue. Pick up one of the astounding histories of the abortion rights movement. Before Roe, many wealthy women could not find access to abortion procedures, even when they had the cash.
Hospitals are big, complex institutions. Before 1973, folks weren’t having surgical and surgical-like procedures in doctors’ offices, like we do today. ( This is with the exception of the back alley abortion providers, who used less than ideal facilities. Of course many of their patients died due to infection.) Hospital boards didn’t like abortion procedures and many wouldn’t allow them to take place in their facilities. Of the the policy was that a board would vote on each and every abortion before it was approved.
We need to stop pretending any of this about health or about the sanctity of life. It is about controlling women, plain and simple. If we cared so much about poor women and their children, pro-life activists should also be organizing to babysit for poor women when they go out to work, building free daycares, and gleefully paying their share of taxes to support local schools.
34
@Academic: my point wasn't that women of means were having official abortions in hospitals. It was that if the pregnancy was early enough, wealthy women could see gynecologists, who likely charged plenty, who would prescribe and perform D&Cs, that in early pregnancy were in essence abortions. My room mate in Italy, of all places, had this procedure in a fancy clinic in Milan. Of course doctors catered to women with enough money to carry out a procedure often prescribed for
uterine fibroids and other menstrual problems. They weren't negotiating hospital rules, because attending gynecologists had privileges at the hospital to perform this commonly prescribed treatment.
13
I'm an older guy who has lived both sides of the issue. We need more democrats from democrats making a good argument better. Young people should know I don't believe in controlling others lives, but I can tell you, it would be wonderful to have a child you love and will love you all your life as many relationships come and go. The child will be there in your later years to care for you when you need care. That is the natural order of life. The Republicans unfortunately need to rule others lives to mold them to what they want, in a fashion amounting to slavery. They will tell you to have a baby against your will as they make efforts to deny you the financial needs you require when dedicated to caring for the child.
22
@PATRICK "The child will be there in your later years to care for you when you need care. " Many nursing home residents will tell you otherwise.
4
@PATRICK
"The child will be there in your later years to care for you when you need care. That is the natural order of life."
You think an unwanted pregnancy will result in a loving, competent, caring mother/family once the bonny, bouncing babe arrives?
And this ideal family arrangement will later result in a caring adult child having the time, money and resources to care for a parent. They also live in the same country, state or county. Equally rosy picture, this person has no spouse, children, in-laws or difficult job or unemployment or a health problem of their own making demands on their resources.
This is the real world, not Leave it to Beaver.
Wouldn't we all be better off if we stopped worshiping the Constitution? With every passing decade it's proving itself to be more trouble than it's worth (Citizens United, Bush v. Gore, Janus v. AFSCME). Since conservatives have perfected the art of gaming the system and stacking the courts, it's time to move on to a system that better reflects the will of the majority. Look at Ireland. They just have a national vote on the big social issues. First gay marriage and then abortion. Irish women from all over the world flew in to cast their votes and legalizing abortion won by 66%. No agonizing over judges, constitutional interpretation, heartbeats or personhood. No debates over this amendment or that amendment. And no electoral college to deny the will of the majority. After abortion was made legal, the Irish health minister declared that abortion would be free so as not to discriminate against the poor. And England provides free abortions to women from Northern Ireland in addition to all English women. Isn't it time to recognize that some of the "wisdom" of our founders is no longer relevant in the modern world? It's time to upgrade to America 2.0.
80
@Craig Willison
My problem isn't so much with the Constitution as with the spaghetti logic legal practitioners (e.g. Scalia) who twist it to mean what ever they want. Keep the Constitution, dump SCOTUS.
7
@Craig Willison
Perfectly stated.
1
@Craig Willison
Very nicely put !!!
1
I tend to prioritize birth control over abortion rights. The two things are obviously interrelated. However, I think an opt-out federal birth control program ultimately side steps the conservative rallying point. You won't ever need an abortion if you can't get pregnant. When you decide you want to get pregnant, no more birth control. Consider it temporary sterilization.
For those who might object to the gender burden, you might want to ask yourself why there are no male fertility inhibitors. If you can invent two dozen versions of the pill, I'm sure scientists can figure out the male equivalent. Why aren't they trying? We've already proven the suspect reliability behind condoms. If backed by federal dollars, I'm sure research will find a way.
18
@Andy. They have and are trying. But getting men to take up these methods has been slow because...men.don't. get pregnant.
2
Re male birth control: it's very difficult to suppress sperm production, which is 24/7, in contrast to ovulation (28 days). Moreover, very few women would trust a man to remember to take a pill.
4
@Andy condoms are very reliable when used consistently and properly.
2
It is a critical action to publicly, as widely as possible, debunk the pseudo-science of the anti-abortion movement, but this is not being done. Instead the Pro-Choice movement focuses exclusively on women's rights. The typical naive voter, judge, or legislator isn't being swayed by a desire to restrict women's rights. They are being confused by the anti-abortion movement's pseudo-science that falsely claims an objective certainty that the Gerber baby pops into existence at the "instant" of conception. They truly are convinced that babies are being murdered by legal abortion and that there is no objective science contradicting that belief. Why would they not want to criminalize abortion? The public needs to be educated on the realities of development and brought up to speed on the scientific, philosophical, legal, and religious problem of when to recognize rights in development. In 1973 a CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court came to a rational conclusion based on the biomedical knowledge that hasn't changed much since then.
43
@Mike Holloway Do you really think any Republicans who support Trump believe in science? They think the world was created in 4004 BC and if it snows at the North Pole that disproves global warming.
3
Why isn't this being argued on the basis of separation of church and state? Why are laws being passed that are trying to force others to live by the rules of someone else's religion.
388
@Judith
That's not what's happening. The opposition is convinced that they have absolute scientific certainty that the Gerber baby pops into existence at the "instant" of conception. They've honed their pseudo-science over decades.
13
@Judith
Abortion is simply about when a life, protected by the constitution exist. Religion has nothing to do with the legality of abortion. Religious people don’t agree on the subject.
5
Yes, Judith, the ONLY answer to stop these religion-based attacks on Women's Right To Choose What They Do With Their Own Bodies and Lives is to pass the Equal Rights Amendment to OUR U.S. Constitution.
No state should have the right to dictate what a Woman can do with her own body/life - no government should.
7
One place Blue States can go in protecting abortion rights - in addition to the steps set forth in the editorial - is to put pressure on at least nationwide employers to make reproductive health services of all kinds (including access to abortion) promptly available to employes under it’s insurance plans. And this can work where employers are required by federal law to make the same plans available throughout the country.
Of course, a Red State employer could try to contest this in the federal courts of its home state, but as a matter of federal pension law as it now stands, it’s worth the shot.
19
I find it refreshing to see both sides of an argument contending that their point is the most constitutionally sound.
1
@Chris
I find it distressing that one side of an argument is promoting pseudo-science propaganda.
2
For too long this conversation is centered around women's rights and restrictions - how do we reframe the conversation to include full accountability for those states who seemingly want to punish women who get pregnant - for example, providing the legal obligation on all men who participate in an act of conception to be immediately and legally co-responsible for the cost of care, feeding, medical care, for the aforementioned fetus - and if that means having to support the woman, then I guess that's just an unintended consequence of their actions, eh? We now have the ability to confirm paternity via DNA testing, yes? (and if a man wants to dispute, he can but he has to cover the costs of the dispute, and only if he is found to NOT have donated, then can he seek restitution). Would adding this kind of legislation potentially change the discussion? I don't know. I do know that the conversation over the past 30 years doesn't seem to be helping anyone.
59
@Gracie
Also if a woman is prosecuted for obtaining an abortion; or a medical care giver is prosecuted for facilitating an abortion; the male who contributed the sperm that became the fetus must serve the exact same term of punishment that the woman or provider does. Except in cases of rape, where he must also serve a second, non-concurrent sentence for that crime as well. After all, without his contribution, there would have been no abortion.
50
@Gracie I've never met even a divorced woman who didn't have to keep fighting her ex husband for child support payments. Wealthy men usually already have an attorney on retainer. Those who aren't well off disappear or are paid under the table.
Women need to realize the prospects of receiving 50% of the costs to raise a child to age 18 from an ex are very, very low.
18
@aem. Why? The male didn’t kill the baby.
The McConnell-Gorsuch-Kavanaugh supreme court may overturn Roe v. Wade, but if they do they will do extraordinary violence to the authority of the court.
There is no objective reason, no new fact, to enable such a decision. Brown v BoE rested on the obvious: "separate but equal" was grotesquely unequal and everyone could see it.
The court would make it obvious to everybody that law played no role in such a decision at all; only religious belief to impose a new American Sharia had overtaken the court.
At this juncture there is nothing that can be done to undo McConnell's violation of the clear intent of the constitution (refusing to take up the Garland nomination) , or Trump's election, or the Kavanaugh appointment. Further, if RGB dies or resigns Trump or Pence will appoint yet another right-to-lifer.
Three things can be done:
1. Attempt to further reduce unwanted pregnancies -- this means particularly fighting states that attempt to restrict family planning and sex education.
2. strengthen state protections for abortion access in those states where this is possible
3. expect (and prepare for) more women traveling interstate to obtain abortions
53
@Lee Harrison
Dear Lee,
I think you already suspect Chief Justice Roberts will provide the fifth vote to retain Abortion, or you would have added his name.
So, we go another 40+ years with this festering sore that has no resolution.
Neither side is 'Right', both sides have legitimate points which is why it should be a legislative resolution, and not a judicial one.
5
@Lee Harrison They will never overturn Roe vs Wade. They recognize the incredible value it provides to motivate right wing evangelicals and other anti-abortionists to vote Republican but they will vote to increase restrictions to the point that the majority of women will not be able to get a legal abortion. That is how the GOP works these days.
23
Brown v. Board of Education was based on a constitutional text, the Equal Protection Clause, which on terms is quite clear. Where is the constitutional text that supports Roe v. Wade?
1
If you think that criminalizing abortion will make "life" better, think again.
73
A strong argument, but it's a policy argument, not a constitutional one. It should be directed to the people of the several states.
4
@James Ribe No, rights should not be decided by popularity. And rights should not be different in different states.
16
And the Bill of Rights protects those rights. Where is abortion in the Bill of Rights?
1
Overturning roe v wade has at least two obvious consequences: 1) more women's health will be imperiled seeking to end unwanted pregnancies and 2) more children who are unable to be supported or who are unwanted will be born. Both of these will cause a huge burden on society from many dimensions in the name of what, some misguided pursuit of "high moral ground" by the same ilk who have separated immigrant children from their parents? These "conservatives" are among the biggest problem this country has.
228
These, too, are policy arguments appropriately directed to the state legislatures and to the people, not the Supreme Court.
8
@Paxinmano
Those who want to restrict abortions, now legal under the "right to privacy" foundation of Roe, should be forced to give up their own rights to privacy. Perhaps men who want vasectomies should be required to provide psychiatric as well as medical reasons to a medical Board.
34
The "pro-lifers" have a simple model to follow. They merely have to convince the courts that "reasonable restrictions" on the right to have an abortion are okay just as the courts believe "reasonable restrictions" on the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment are okay.
This should be easy -- abortion isn't even an enumerated right that "shall not be infringed".
7
Right to privacy, 14th Amendment. Which includes the right to privacy in personal medical decisions. You know, the same right to privacy in medical decisions that you have, BOB.
37
Why should it be the courts? Why shouldn't the people be allowed to evaluate these policy issues in their state legislatures?
3
James This is not a "policy debate". This is the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy including the right to bodily autonomy. How would you like a vote on whether someone could harvest your organs without your consent? Do you really need two kidneys? If someone else could die without a kidney, people who say they are pro-life might insist that the rest of us donate our organs involuntarily to keep other people from dying. I am being sarcastic here, but that would be a logical extension of what you just proposed.
4
How about making the need for abortion practically a moot point. Educate the young about the ways of birth control. Legislate free birth control and make them accessible no questions asked. Promote that there's no shame in carrying a conception to birth, AND that there are plenty of willing parents available to adopt. Legislate more financial aid that if the state is going to force a woman to have a child, in light of not providing contraception, they can't have it both ways. Either help prevent unwanted pregnancies or assist for the oopses.
36
@Our road to hatred. Moderate conservative here. Agree with you. The "fight" against abortion does not need to be in the political arena and in fact may be far more effective the way you suggest. Another way to reduce demand for abortion would be to ramp up financial consequences to males by requiring DNA paternity verification before longterm public resources are approved; educate males from a young age how paying 18 years of child spupport child support will affect their lives. Also, make adoption regulations more favorable to adoptive parents.
8
@Our road to hatred Most abortions after the first trimester are due to the discovery of fetal defects - some of which are truly nightmarish - or problems with the woman's health. Fear of fetal defects was actually the deciding factor in my decision to remain childfree.
2
@Our road to hatred Your suggestions here are terrifying and show your complete disconnect from reality. When you say, "Promote that there's no shame in carrying a conception to birth, AND that there are plenty of willing parents available to adopt" you're completely ignoring the toll pregnancy takes on a body, not only during pregnancy, but sometimes years after and even for the duration of a woman's life. Your ignorance is alarming when you suggest there are plenty of willing parents to adopt. Have you considered the outrageous number of children currently in the foster care system and what their quality of life is like? And let's not even get started down the path of how we will try and remedy things for women, such as "[legislating] more financial aid" should the state "force a woman to have a child". The solution here is clear: KEEP ABORTION LEGAL AND AVAILABLE FOR ALL WOMEN, EVERYWHERE. Even if outlawed, abortion will ALWAYS occur. The only difference will be whether abortions are provided safely and the number of women who die trying to protect their future. Educate yourself. You're either a privileged woman or a man who feels entitled enough to interject their opinion onto an issue that does not concern them.
4
I don't believe in abortion. However, I think that women choose abortion when their backs are against the wall financially or physically.
First, I believe that the woman has an absolute right to life, and that if carrying a pregnancy to term means physical damage or death to her, she has the right to live and to choose treatment that saves her life. This right also applies to victims of rape and incest.
Second, I believe that states where abortion is prohibited MUST (1) require all employers to offer PAID maternity leave and contraception as a benefit, and (2) have rescue cradles in State Office buildings, Capitol Buildings, State Legislative centers or buildings, schools, hospitals and nursing homes. Women who have unwanted children should be allowed to leave them in the care of the state.
Next, all laws that give rapists parental rights must be absolutely abolished. Women who choose to keep a child resulting from rape MUST be free of the fear that their abuser can come back into their lives. Unbelievable as it is,
in some states RAPISTS HAVE PARENTAL RIGHTS. That travesty must end.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/17/health/parental-rights-rapists-explainer/index.html
Finally, states where abortion is prohibited MUST prosecute absent or deadbeat fathers, pursuing them and making them pay for the support of the children they fathered but do not want, right up through college.
75
Reasonable arguments all. But are they constitutional arguments or legislative arguments?
6
@Elizabeth Moore
"I don't believe in abortion." That's a pretty funny statement, because abortion is real. I don't believe in Santa or unicorns, but as far as I know, abortion is real. Perhaps what you are saying is that you don't believe abortions should happen?
3
@Elizabeth Moore Abortion must never be prohibited. It's ghastly to think the state can prevent any woman's access to comprehensive healthcare. It is not my right to make such a decision for you and your life; each of us is in control of one life: our own. What decisions about your body and your life are you willing to cede to others? If the misogynists get their way, do you think they'll stop at forced birth?
10
It was only a matter of time before it got this far, especially since right-wing conservative Christians have been gunning for Roe v. Wade as diligently as Donald Trump has been gunning for "his" wall.
That's also why it will ultimately depend on every individual state in the Union to take matters into their own hands just like many have already done to ensure certain environmental protection measures remain in place despite an administration that refuses to heed the very scientific evidence placed before it.
No doubt any legislation about this will have to run a gauntlet of Republican opposition and quite possibly the Supreme Court, but if Roe v. Wade is allowed to go down it will only be the first of many more civil rights fights to come.
We, the People must be ready to stand and deliver, because that's the only way we'll make America great again.
28
Don't worry. Once abortion is outlawed, anti-abortion advocates will take all of their time, money, and energy, and begin advocating for better public schooling, free childcare and subsidized health care for children, and a baby bond so that no child grows up poor.
Don't you see, they just want to make sure every baby gets born first, so it's worth the effort to fight for a better life for them.
Definitely.
49
@Roarke
How arch to presume that every individual opposed to abortion freedoms is also lax, uninterested or uninvolved in trying to make life better for children.
2
@Roarke Nah. They believe life starts at conception and ends at birth. Children's health and welfare after that...well, they're on their own.
6
@Roarke -- sarcasm and parody is wasted on the religious right.
9
The rights of a woman to control her own fertility should be enshrined in the Constitution. It is nonsensical that we are dependent on increasingly partisan Judges to guarantee this right to citizens.
The Supreme Court ruling that the words of the Constitution could be interpreted to protect a woman's right to choose were a fudge. A welcome fudge, to millions of us, but no way to guarantee fundamental rights.
We need to go back to the drawing board. The Constitution needs to be amended to guarantee that no women ever again will be forced to carry an unwanted or unviable pregnancy to term.Some states will still squirrel their way out of making it easy, but st least they will not be able to put us in jail for seeking a termination.
Good grief, we are now behind Catholic Ireland in this matter!
130
In this age of numerous ways to PREVENT conception in the womb, why does this discussion always focus on killing a fertilized zygote (i.e.incipient baby)AFTER its conception? Women who protect themselves with medically-proven birth control seldom experience unwanted pregnancy. I lived a wonderful 25-year life of childless intercourse thanks to the marvelous IUD.
14
Congratulations on avoiding an unwanted pregnancy, but IUD’s have uncomfortable side effects for a lot of women. The argument is about women having the right to choose what is right for them, independent of the government. Yes, prevention should be the first line of defense against pregnancy, but women must have the ability to make their own decisions or we are simply not equal members of society.
57
@Margie Moore
Is that so?
One of my staff had three, count them 3, tubal ligations.
No matter what the process or procedure there will always be exceptions. She kept those 2 additional children she'd actively tried to prevent, but many women wouldn't.
4
@Margie: BIRTH CONTROL DOESN'T ALWAYS WORK. I'm a case in point example of that. I got pregnant on the pill. I took it at the same time everyday. I still got pregnant when I didn't want to. Even if it did work all the time, that's still no reason to force women to gestate a pregnancy they don't want. It's outrageous to say that a mistake should doom a woman and fetus to a life of misery.
10
Completely agree that the States need to begin preparations. A good starting point would be rapidly moving to outlaw on-demand abortion outright so that we can save as many children as quickly as possible should the Court return the issue to the States rather than ruling comprehensively.
2
@Jonathan Stensberg: On-demand abortion does not exist. Although it should since it's a legal medical procedure. If you're against abortion please abstain from sex or only have sex when procreation is the goal with a partner who also wants a pregnancy as a result. Then you'll never be responsible for an unintended pregnancy.
169
@Jonathan Stensberg: Do you support quality education for those kids? A safety net? Services if the child is born with disabilities and require lifetime care? Do you support food programs? Universal healthcare?Diapers for low-income moms? Do you support forcing the biological father to be the primary hand-on daily care-giver (because we always expect it to be the woman who takes the brunt of an unintened pregnancy).
4
@Jonathan Stensberg
On demand abortion? Mind blowing terminology my friend, where do you hear abortion referred to this way?
No doubt not it will not fall to the taxpayers through a very inefficient and inhumane (at least current) government, these extra children to feed, clothe, house, educate, provide healthcare...not for your unwanted children, no question, but for those less fortunate than you. The ones you pretend don't exist. The ones you do not want to take care of now.
4
If Roe vs. Wade were overturned, then it would back to the states. Democracy, instead of judicial fiat, would be the decider. While the factions are, well, factitious, some sort of compromise would be reached in most states.
Everyone would be more likely to accept whatever laws are passed, and admit they were outvoted fair and square. There is little likelihood of please everyone, and neither of the two factions is going to go away.
6
@Jonathan
>> Democracy, instead of judicial fiat, would be the decider
The judicial fiat is there to tell you that abortion is an issue of privacy for a woman and that it is not a democratic decision. There is no democracy about a woman's body and mind. There is just she by herself. Not a state full of voters, not a city full of voters, not your neighbor, not another woman or not another man should intervene (under the pretext of 'social values' or 'religious values' or 'both') into the private life of a woman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
>> There is little likelihood of please everyone, and neither of the two factions is going to go away.
The woman does not have to please anyone. There should be no factions.
37
@Jonathan It's doubtful that women would "would be more likely to accept whatever laws are passed, and admit they were outvoted fair and square". It's far more likely abortions will continue to happen, just as they did before abortion was legalized.
46
@Jonathan: Unfortunately, if you left certain issues up to the states - like school segregation - the voters would likely choose an outcome that is less than desirable. Without federal intervention, African Americans would still be prohibited from voting, still attend inferior, "colored only" schools, and still be sitting in the back of the bus in some states.
9
Here’s some tangible advice for any sexually active woman who does not want to be pregnant within the next year. Get an IUD. I know, I know... some people can’t use them (but most can). They’re expensive (true, if you’re paying out of pocket, and most people aren’t. In any case, they’re cheaper than an abortion, which is less likely to be covered by insurance or Medicaid and much more difficult to obtain.) Be motivated to find a way to get an IUD as if your life depends on it. Because it really may.
8
@Cyn: I am the loving mother of three children. After the birth of my third child, I had an IUD for four years. Unfortunately, I had a lot of problems with it, in particular very heavy bleeding that went on for two weeks. I ultimately needed to have it removed on the advice of my gynecologist - who then convinced my husband to get a vasectomy. Yes, I would recommend to my daughters to try an IUD, but it does not work for everyone, even for those (like me) who had multiple pregnancies.
8
@Cyn. Unfortunately there is no one answer for everyone. I would expand your idea and say : any woman who doesn't plan to have a baby in the next year - have a plan - use a reliable method of contraception. Know how to get an abortion in your area - where, how much it would cost, how long it would take. Have references on hand, who to call, where to go. Have savings that would pay for it.
2
@Cyn
As long as you recognize that the IUD works, among other effects, by preventing implantation of a fertilized embryo and could be banned as an abortifacient by some right-to-life advocates
4
In 2014, the SCOTUS, in the Hobby Lobby case based its holding on Hobby Lobby's constitutional right of "freedom of religion" to win over the Government's law. The Court found that Hobby Lobby's belief that life begins at conception was a religious belief, indeed a "deeply held religious belief".
Freedom of Religion is a right, that has existed since the Constitution was ratified. and applies to everyone. It applies to all religions and and the right to have no religion. Our laws are secular as is our Government.
If religion beliefs become law, they are in violation of the "establishment" clause" of the same First Amendment.
Although the Hobby Lobby decision was a "right wing" victory (5-4), the unintended consequence is that "freedom of religion" and the "establishment" clauses are now connected to every case involving reproductive rights including abortion, like Cantwell v. Conn. (1965) led to Roe v. Wade (1973).
12
@Newman1979 Hobby Lobby was perhaps the worst Supreme Court decision after Bush v Gore.
5
I thought we are supposed to call people by their preferred names/pronouns/etc.
So stop saying "anti-abortion". Those with whom you disagree prefer "pro-life".
6
@Tourbillon "Anti-abortion" is absolutely the correct, politically neutral term. Abortion is what they are against. "Pro-life" is ideologically untenable in an inclusive debate, since the moment when "life" begins is a matter of huge debate and is partly an individual philosophy, and since abortion rights advocates are not "anti-life". On the other side, calling anti-abortionists "anti-choice", as some abortion-rights advocates do, is equally wrong, since it's (usually) not the aspect of choice that they're against per se.
103
When life begins is a matter of settled science, not debate. Life begins at conception. The debate can only start after we all acknowledge that fact.
3
@Tourbillon
They should receive that courtesy but not when the chosen name is a patently false descriptor of what they support. A movement cannot claim to be pro life if its concern for that human life end at the conclusion of pregnancy.
These same anti-abortion advocates actively oppose funding for Planned Parenthood--relying on blatant lies and falsehoods to rationalize their antipathy towards the organization--which is often the only medical care available to poor women.
They stand idly by while their supported politicians roll back Medicaid for the poor, food programs for women and children, and try to destroy public education in areas that serve black and brown people.
Thus, when the movement supports all stages of human life, they can claim the title of pro life.
172
Perhaps the single biggest issue of the 2016 elections was the Supreme Court knowing the next President would get at least one and maybe 3-4 picks
With Roe in the balance along with a host of women’s issues the majority of white women voted for Trump.
Presumably the majority of white women want Roe overturned, contraceptives to be less available, access to treatment of women’s health issues to be curtailed, Title IX ended and much more
Many women who were eligible to vote apparently thought it wasn’t worth it to protect these rights.
Well, we got Trump. He picked two justices already and may get one or two more.
38
@Blue
I blame the DNC for putting forward a flawed candidate in 2016, not fully appreciating the risks. I fear they may do so again. It is critical we get a candidate that can pull from the middle.
8
the most qualified candidate was flawed? bc she was a woman.
6
@Blue Pray for Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
2
Fifteen years ago, I worked at a non-profit. One of my co-workers was part of an underground who were training to assist women in getting abortions (hands-on assistance with the procedure) in case things ever came to this. At the time, even though I too was a young feminist, I was surprised. I couldn't imagine in my lifetime Roe would be overturned or so threatened. I'm glad other women were more prescient. And I hope that underground exists so fewer women die if Roe is overturned.
162
For too many Americans, complacency takes over until the moment that one or several of their rights are taken away. (or find themselves under the crushing weight of laws that discriminate because of just who they are)
Even discuss any rational for limiting (even a fraction) the 2nd Amendment, and response is swift and fierce. Try to do the same with the 1st, and it is almost on par.
However, try and subjugate women, and there is a shrugging of the shoulders (even though women make up more than 50% of the population) It is a right to have dominion over one own's body, but in so many states (almost all republican controlled), the right gets chipped away at or done away with altogether in reality.
There is no real uproar because for a tipping point, reproductive autonomy does register until the services are needed. Even then, for many, they just travel to another state and so on. However for the vast majority of poor people, they do not have that option. This is where the complacency sets in.
People need to fight for this right (men and women) regardless if it is not an issue that is front and center. It goes to the heart of all other rights, that if we are to be free, then it has to be 100% and not something less.
Time to end the subjugation of women altogether.
238
Now that the State Senate has flipped in New York we need to add a pro-choice amendment to the New York State constitution. The opportunity we now have to enshrine the right to choose in a way that renders it bullet-proof as a practical matter should not be allowed to pass.
105
as painful as it is for me, I am ,at least
in principle, a supporter of Roe.however,
while I understand a woman's right to
control her own body, I am appalled at
the so called late term abortion. after
a certain time frame, three months, say,
abortion should be legal only on an
emergency basis. too many women use
abortion as a form of birth control and
that is an abomination to me. abortion
should be safe,but extremely rare. I know
that as a man,it can be too easy for me
to pontificate about what is good for women,
but I believe that I represent what many
Americans feel about this procedure which
has haunted America's conscience for
what seems forever and will not cease
to do so, irregardless of any court decision.
8
@Frank: Late term abortion is rare and already quite restrictive (the fetus is non-viable or the woman's life is in danger). No one is having late term abortions lightly. Most women want to have an abortion as early as possible but anti-choice people put up barriers in many places to make that difficult or impossible.
371
Frank, here's the deal, as a man you can always walk away. You can be 50% of a person's DNA and yet walk away, no physical/financial/emotional requirements made that are enforceable. Change those 3 things and feel free to opine. If ever a time comes when you are considered an incubator above being a person who can incubate, feel free to weigh in, until then step back.
538
I am tired of people who clearly don’t know why women have abortions after 12 weeks suggesting this time limit on other women. I had an abortion at 15 weeks due to fetal abnormalities. Many times later term abortions are wanted pregnancies and the choice to terminate is heartbreaking. Other times it’s women who are in really bad situations who were prevented from having an earlier abortion.
412
The Roe decision clearly had no basis in the Constitution. If you can find a right to abortion in the "emanations and penumbras" of the Constitution, you could find almost any right you want. (The right to own nuclear weapons, perhaps?)
And remember, overturning Roe doesn't make abortion illegal, it merely turns the decision over to the citizens of each state and their representatives - where it belongs.
The controversy over Roe shows that the abortion rights crowd has done a poor job of convincing their fellow citizens of the rightness of their position. Had they done so, Roe would be irrelevant. So stop relying upon unelected judges to make the laws you want and get out there and elect representatives who will vote for abortion rights. But don't complain if you don't get your way through the democratic process. Even with Trump we are not a dictatorship.
7
@J. Waddell: I have a right to privacy per the constitution. I believe this inherently includes the sovereignty over my own body.
308
@J. Waddell 70% of the American public supports no restrictions on first term abortion. Once again, the minority conservative movement is imposing its tyrannical will on the majority.
115
@J. Waddell
Two rebuttal to your constitutional argument: 9th Amendment.
2
This anti-abortion fever runs rampant in the Trump administration, from the 'boss' to all of his right wing cohorts, capping decades of anti women’s rights rhetoric. It hearkens back to the dream of evangelical conservatives to put the 'little woman' back where she belongs, just as she supposedly was in the 1950s. No more going to work for women, following the commandment to honor and obey one's husband, staying home, fixing all the meals and raising a family.
Barefoot and pregnant, that is the ultimate goal.
One understands the hypocrisy of pious talk about the preservation of life, as it is all about the patriarchal fantasy of complete domination and utter subjugation of women.
353
@Tim B Absolutely spot on Tim B. You have written an excellent summary of the abortion issue. You are so correct about the anti choice - primarily religious groups. Keep men and their antiquated church in control. Head back to the 1950's as quickly as possible and be quick about it. Too bad these folks aren't readers of the NY Times and have no exposure to counter beliefs from those who support choice.
14
@Tim B
That's just talking past them. They aren't focused on keeping women barefoot and pregnant. They really are convinced that babies are being murdered by legal abortion. They're convinced by pseudo-science, but no one is bothering to debunk it.
6
@Tim B
The power of anti-abortion to fuel votes runs rampant in the Trump administration. The man himself would have no issues telling any of his mistresses to have an abortion.
20
I'm so angry at the anti-choice religious extremists for imposing their beliefs on the rest of us. We are becoming a theocracy.
605
@Somewhere. I don’t come at the abortion issue from a religious perspective. Rather I think of the unborn child’s life that’s being taken. Think of yourself or the people you know and love. They are here because someone made the choice to let it be. I hate to think about missing the beautiful people I meet each and every day not being here. Unfortunately there are many who have been cheated out of the wonderful experience of life. Nothing to do with religion and everything to do with allowing people to have their right to enjoy what you and I have been privileged to have had.
8
@Somewhere,
Yes, be angry. But also vote responsibly.
Don’t throw it away on third party candidates like Stein and Nader.
Don’t sit home and complain about the outcome
And most importantly don’t think it doesn’t matter and vote for Trump again like 53% of white women did.
We need the minority vote to come out big and the majority of white women to vote, and to vote in their own best interest.
184
@J
This is the comment that always gets me. Someone 'made the choice to let it be', which is very admirable... so you then decide to take that choice away from all other women.
171