The Europeans think we're nuts . . . and they're right.
42
I always have to sigh when I hear the latest loud mouth in the GOP talk about how we must deregulate everything because we must get the government out of ALL of our business....except - wait! Women - you are not included in that. We must regulate every inch of your sex and reproductive life. It isn't enough that we have to tell you you must carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, we must all attempt to remove any and all access to free or low cost conception to reduce the chance of getting pregnant in the first place. The hypocrisy screams loudly.
59
And liberals still want a single-payer healthcare where government decides everything about a woman's health?
1
leave government out of my personal life darn it; I'm a republican. oh wait a minute.
12
Wait a minute. What happened to the blue wave? Should't the liberals be able to legislate their way to an abortion resolution to their liking? The NYT Editorial Board may not like the state legislated restrictions to abortion, but they're a result of the democratic process. Yeah, just like restrictions on gun ownership. Democracy is a problem only to those who's ox is being gored.
2
If the men putting these laws into effect, and the women that back them really wanted an end to abortion there would be mandatory vasectomy laws on the books. Oh, wait, that would be interfering with a man´s choice, right?
23
Remember the horrors of the Chinese one-child policy, and the horrors of the Romanian system under Ceaucescu? Two sides of the same totalitarian coin, when women's wombs are nationalized for the benefit of 'society'.
8
The heartbeat bill, which the southern Appalachian Ohioans desperately wanted fromyears, was vetoed by Kasich. But tunnels Governor caved—and doesn’t even allow exception at 6 weeks for rape.
Totally appalling.
13
It makes me furious! Do people really think that women who are pregnant do not consider every angle and point before they decide if they want to undergo an abortion? Do they really think women are so stupid or careless?
There may be some women which are not able to make these decisions, but this must be a very very low percentage. Therefore, an impartial, neutral consultation is needed!
But going back 50 years in time never ever helped someone. Abortions always took part and always will, even if they need to be carried out in an unsafe environment. Women - esp. non whealthy women - will pay for it with their health. Is it that what the Authority wants?
18
I fear for my daughter and granddaughter, and yours.
To anyone who wants to block our access to privacy with our physicians, I say, "Keep your stinking hands off us." I'm sick of this.
32
Desperate to prove they “love God” and enjoy oppressing women in God’s name the real death panel, the GOP, is on a tear to make sure WOMEN KNOW THEIR PLACE!
23
If only Republicans cared about life outside the womb as much as they do fetuses...
41
Th problem is technology. Viability ... that's the problem.
You can't abort a person .. and technology is allowing that tag earlier and earlier
There should be government mandated child support tax taken out of every Americans pay check to support all the unwanted babies women will be forced to have. This will shut the GOP up quick.
34
Almost 50 yrs after Roe v. Wade, the abortion wars rage as never before. This is proof that the Supreme Court decision was exactly wrong and continues to harm our nation as we kill tens of millions of babies. What a gruesome business. This isn’t a religious issue, it’s a humanity issue. A human baby in the womb has intrinsic value and deserves to be protected.
1
So what happens when these votes conflict with Judaism's teachings? Judaism permits abortion - even the Orthodox permit it in many instances. Do we Jrws get to have our own "Cake" exception? What about separation of cgurch & state -- or do these people decide that Jewish women must be forced to follow their version of Christianity's teachinga rather than their Jewish teachings?
26
Who pays for prenatal, births and post natal medical care
for poor pregnant women who are denied state and federal
Obama Care? Rich women can have an abortion
anytime.
14
The holier than though pro-lifers are NOT pro-life. They are pro-fetus and nothing more. They could care less about an unwanted child and even less if that child requires governmental assistance. And if you’re a minority, dark-skinned or God-forbid, one of those invading immigrants, forget it. Yet these same hypocrites wear their religion on their sleeve and profess their love for God and Christ, often in public. Such hypocrisy is disgusting and morally repugnant. Good luck to all of them on their own day of judgement.
25
This topic was addressed the other day in a column entitled "Legislators aren't stupid." That's debatable, but there is no denying that the legislators and states doing everything they can to ban abortions do it for Jesus - who is, apparently a Republican.
They are also the people who scream the loudest about how we are in danger of being overtaken by Sharia Law. They may not be stupid, but they are certainly unable to recognize irony or hypocrisy.
12
Here's what will happen: Poor women will be forced to give birth; the ladies of the Republican country clubs will simply hop a plane and jet off to Canada or Mexico — heck, even Ireland — and get their privileged right to an abortion.
Once again, American conservatives target the most vulnerable while turning a blind eye to the actions of the wealthy.
Incidentally, do these people think their hero Trump never paid for an abortion?
22
Silly question, but are sperm alive? If so why don't the anti abortion people turn their efforts to the source, the guys and make them do something about it? We all know that this isn't about abortion, it's about power and control. Someone pass a bill to make guys name the sperm and have funerals for them...
18
The fanatics banning all access to abortion want women to be slaves. It's the last gasp of dictatorial patriarchy, and it won't work. Isn't it interesting that these same fundamentalists oppose access to contraceptives and education?
15
I think the next step for the religious right is to enforce Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred."
6
For related news, please see today’s column on the replacements theory of white supremacy.
Anti-abortion is really pro-male and anti-woman.
12
What happens is those lawmakers will still make their girlfriends, even daughters, go through an abortion under the radar, with all the restrictions they had a had in passing.
9
More (R)egressive identity-politics posturing. In 1968, the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today (flagship mag of evangelicalism), supported birth choice citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as reasons for abortion.
In 1971, the evangelical Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”
In 1973, after Roe v Wade, W. A. Criswell - a top dog fundamentalist of the day - was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person… and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”
Evangelical's pro-choice position did a 180 in 1979 (6 years after Roe v. Wade) after professional religionists (J. Falwell, et al) seized on birth choice as a wedge issue to help defeat the devout Jimmy Carter, who represented a threat to their segregationist, tax-exempt, money-making madrassas.
We've had 40 years of brouhaha created by religionists over money, race and taxes, not abortion.
(R) strategy - Play:
Race card,
Abortion card,
Deficit card,
Religion card,
Fear card,
???…
7
The NYT needs to do more to cover the dearth of abortion clinics in red states. Abortion is effectively already out of reach for man women in Kentucky and Missouri. How many other states have just one abortion clinic?
3
Those who decry "Guvmunt in our lives" are the same ones who want to put a nasty politician between my wife and her doctor.
8
What happens? Babies live.
12
theocratic patriarchy, today's republican party
7
Beautiful hypocrisy. Prolife yet for death penalty. Prolife , yet no childcare. no help, for all you irresponsible people, who can't practice self-control, no help for you. no birth control, no planned parenthood, no nothing. get pregnant and you are on your own. Unless your parents are rich , then it's okay. maybe the poor will wipe themselves out by having babies that won't survive, but then oh, who will be the working class?
5
Why are you all so vent in advocating Abortion: the Killing of an Unborn Child ???
4
My guess they beg the Fundementalist for a few million more for the next election.
3
I think that if we tied mandatory support for anyone who wants an abortion but is not allowed. This would be delivery costs, child health care, support for room and board etc. If we want to force these women to have unwanted children then it would be necessary to support them.I bet this would shut down the repubs quickly. New Taxes? No way. They want to force the births but once they are born they can starve, become criminals, drug addicts etc. because no economic support. Then there are the thousands of children dying in Yemen due to our weapons.
7
What will they do when they run out of abortion restrictions to pass? They will try to ban contraception.
215
But it's a 3 legged stool: one leg is tax cuts for the rich, the other leg is guns, the third leg is anti-abortion. If the Republicans actually succeed in repealing abortion the only thing they have left to sell are guns and tax cuts. A lot of the anti-abortion voters actually have some economic populism in them. With their social agenda secure, they might turn on the Kochs, Mercers, etc. Guns won't hold all of them.
5
As the comments clearly show, there is no reasoning with the lunatic fringe that wants to outlaw all abortions, no matter the various logical reasons based on medicine and science.
Maybe I was under the impression there would be, but all this showed me was there is zero reason to try to argue.
4
The gist here is that the politicians have succeeded, so they are now beating a dead horse. They haven’t got any new distraction to wave in front of voters to get elected. Heaven forbid they turn to helping their constituents instead of stirring animosity.
5
I yearn for a day when people keep their noses out of other people's personal business, especially when it comes to women's most private conversations with their physicians.
Isn't this meddling a violation of HIPAA laws? Can we charge entire swaths of American citizens with these violations or only physicians?
9
As usual the No Choice people are emotional about a heartbeat but cold about a born child without resources. Having participated in enacting a bill to allow women a choice over her own body, I am astounded at these people. Even when the mothers life is in danger they chose the fetus. That says it all.
11
The author misstates significantly the Roe holding: “The court’s action is not surprising. Courts are nearly guaranteed to block these laws — because they’re flagrantly unconstitutional. (With its Roe decision, the Supreme Court enshrined the right to an abortion up to around 24 weeks of pregnancy.)”
Roe does not so hold; Roe expressly allows the state to prohibit abortion post-viability. That time moves as medical science allows for earlier viability. Abortion will be illegal soon, when technology allows anyone to have a pregnancy end by having the baby developing with medical assistance outside the womb.
I wish them great good luck. Women won't go down without a fight and there are more women in this country than their are men.
3
After the righteous succeed in banning all abortions, perhaps they'll work to ban contraceptives, then promote abstinence, then nothing "weird" behind closed doors between two consenting adults, then they'll march onto whatever else they can manage to think up, or down in this case. All this in the name of religion.
5
We are okay with torturing pigs, cattle, and chickens to death. Every single one of those organisms is capable of living independently, and every single one of those organisms is capable of feeling suffering. Those organisms did not want to die, and we killed them regardless.
A human embryo at 6 weeks has a heartbeat, but it scarcely has anything else. The truth is that intelligence is what separates men from beasts. An embryo has at 6 weeks has no such claim. If life is sacred, so be it. But let's do away with the hypocrisy.
8
If only the directions for condoms weren't so complicated.
2
I wonder how many abortions Trump has paid for. I wonder how many abortions some of these same politicians have paid for. I’m livid.
Bodily autonomy is a woman’s right. Period.
3
"What Happens When Lawmakers Run Out of Abortion Restrictions to Pass?"
That is easy: Abortions return to back alleys using coat hangers, and more young women are killed or maimed in the process. It does not stop abortions---it simply makes them more dangerous.
4
Pro life advocates will not stop until they reach Nirvana, America becomes a theocracy, and women are forced to give birth against their collective wills.
4
Yes, in Kentucky we have a problem with logical consistency. We have a governor and legislature that passes a heat beat law to save the lives of fetuses. And they are the same elected officials that, due to fiscal and budget issues, cut the number of social services employees in the state. Those are the people that identify and find care for the abused and neglected children that have already been born. That leads to the crisis of elderly grandparents raising children. In little old Kentucky there are 90,000 grandparents caring for the abused, neglected or abandoned kids, that the parents did not care for. Little old Kentucky ranks first in one sad statistic...the number of children killed by parents or druggie boyfriends. Yes, our state cares for the unborn, but we then decide that we can not afford to protect and help care for those children that have already been born.
34
I would like to propose the following Constitutional amendment:
Only women may propose and vote on any piece of legislation that affects only women.
42
@Barbara Barran As long as this does not involve aborting male fetuses. And as long as men are excused from child support on the ground that children are none of men's business.
2
The issue is one which the politicians have whipped up to get more power. The issue is not abortion but to get voters to swing into voting for the politicians who want more power. The issue is solely about power and making noise so the voters don't see the corruption being practiced by these folk.
11
With the basic assumption by the anti-abortion forces that abortion is murder, it seems clear that these forces will not be satisfied until all women are forced to give birth no matter what their health circumstances are, much less their personal desires and goals.
And clearly the anti-abortion forces have no respect at all for the 60% or so of Americans who do not believe that abortion is murder.
33
@pda What is "clear" to you might not be the truth. Perhaps you have a telescope which looks into the minds of "anti-abortion forces" but in fact all proposed bills preserve SOME right of abortion.
Demonizing one's political opponents is not the best way to resolve a difficult issue.
2
Watch “The Handmaid’s Tale.” That would be their utopia.
8
The next piece the board needs to do should be titled, "What will republicans run on if abortion is actually outlawed?" How will they gin up the very base base to keep voting against their own best interests?
I sometimes think that if Rove v Wade were overturned the Nation might be able to get on with the future. Fixing our infrastructure and tax laws and health care and energy production and making sure we don't burn up the planet. Let the Supreme Court take the step to overturn the precedent the earlier Court set and let's use that to get a real Amendment passed. And get some democrats elected to the Senate and White House.
Abortion is the issue that drove the so called heartland voters to the polls, that and gays and guns.
I would like to see the Democratic Party use the legalization of cannabis to drive the vote from the other side
11
@Bob Laughlin Yes, many will vote for someone who limits their health care, supports big corporations tax cuts, stops food stamps etc. all because they will support limiting abortion. Its the BIG voter turnout for repubs and they will hold onto this.
3
When lawmakers run out of further restrictions to abortion, abortion may become what it was originally intended to be. Abortion might be an extreme procedure only to occur when there are grave medical concerns or very early in the pregnancy or because of rape, rather than as a last ditch contraceptive measure. There are few if any restrictions on abortion and the trend in Blue States is to permit even late term abortions and some after birth. So, abortions restriction legislation is just a good thing, once, of course, it gets through the 9th Circuit lawsuits and the upper courts straighten things out.
3
@The Ancient You do understand late term abortions are rare. They do not occur as a form of birth control. These children are wanted but due to tragic circumstance for mother and fetus viability of of either one or both is at risk. These decision do not belong in our governments hands but with those mostly closely affected, the family and the doctor. I find your comment disturbing it feels like you are attacking the rights of a family to determine its destiny through tragedy. These families are already traumatized with their horrific circumstance, there is no need to pile on.
64
@kah " You do understand late term abortions are rare."
they are hardly as rare as executions. And lots of people oppose capital pubishment.
Since when does one justify killing on the grounds that it is "rare"?
1
@The Ancient
An abortion is "intended to be" an abortion. You do not have the right to tell any woman whether or not the reason she wants an abortion is good or bad; worthy or unjust.
Abortion is our business. Not yours. It's as simple as that. Really.
6
Good
2
It is astounding, as someone who has held newborns in his arms, how desperately and fanatically Liberals will fight—to end the lives of innocent children. And yet, let a child be separated from her parents at the border—housed safely, well cared for and well fed, and you might think the hounds of Hell had been unleashed.
For the Left, two minutes before birth, a child has zero rights—one minute later, entitled to every protection—unless, of course the mother and doctor agree even that’s not a guarantee.
4
@Jesse The Conservative
A strawman argument based on a false narrative. But that's the successful strategy of right-wing talking heads, so why not try it here?
6
@Jesse The Conservative His arms. His. So easy to wax "moral" when you will never be the one risking their life to give birth.
5
The pro life movement was absolutely silent when pregnant residents of Flint, Michigan were miscarrying left and right. That makes any anti abortion legislation claiming to protect life, fundamentally suspicious.
46
@The Buddy No because every group fights its own battles. I am sure many pro-lifers were horrified by what happened in Flint, but it was a battle for everyone concerned with health and not specifically for those opposed to abortion.
What is disturbing is that your posting is not about "how shall we work out our differences" but about "how shall we demonize those who disagree with us".
So you’re okay with killing a human baby with a heartbeat? That’s pretty messed up. Seriously, think about that for a second. You honestly think it’s extreme to try and prevent ending the life of a human being that has a beating heart. Wow.
9
@Mike -- at 6 weeks a fetus has a beating heart, but no eyes, arms or legs (just buds where these are starting). It has no brain at all yet. The neural tube up the spine has probably closed; neural development goes tail-to-head.
Calling something with no brain "a baby" seems unreasonable to me.
8
@Mike: and you're willing to use the coercive power of the state -- up to and including imprisonment -- to compel a woman to bring a fetus to term against her will. Perhaps you ought to think about how extreme that might be for a moment as well.
7
@Mike
Hey, Mike? Will you pay to support all of the babies born to women who can't possibly afford them? Will you increase the amount of money available for free food? Free birthing facilities? Will you clothe these children, and pay for their schooling? And will you cover the cost of daycare so that these economically disadvantaged mothers can work?
No, I didn't think so.
5
When lawmakers run out of abortion restrictions to pass, then one hopes they will all pass heartbeat bills making abortion totally illegal. Only then, will the lives of these unborn human beings be fully protected, and our country can put its shameful history of abortion behind it.
16
@Cynthia Starks
Have you any idea of what we did before we were legally allowed to have our abortions? Have you never heard what we did; where we went; how much it cost us; who helped; how many of us died from botched back-alley and kitchen-table procedures?
The "shameful history of abortion" is the history of abuse and fear and stigma and women dying in agony.
Such ignorance is unbelievable. Such hate is unforgivable.
218
I don't suppose that there will be a commitment to providing funding for families that cannot afford to feed an extra mouth or families where the pregnancy winds up producing a child in need of years of care because a horrible defect, that was detected at 16 weeks into the pregnancy.
Perhaps it's me but I do not understand this desire on the part of conservatives, so-called right to lifers, and others to interfere in the most private decisions a woman or a family make. There is nothing in Roe v Wade that forces a woman to have an abortion. There is nothing in our society however, that supports women, children, or families well enough to overcome the problems of being born into poverty, unwanted, or severely handicapped.
All this accomplishes is a reminder of how little America values the lives of women and children. Women because they can become pregnant cannot be allowed to determine whether or not they want to carry the pregnancy to term. Children because once they are born the caring ends. I was an unwanted child. I was abused. I learned, at an early age, that adults did not have my best interests at heart. I know what it feels like to be unloved. I would not wish that on anyone. Why does the "pro-life" faction want to force women to have children they don't want and let children grow up unloved? I find that to be extremely anti life.
1012
@hen3ry
You ask "Why does the "pro-life" faction want to force women to have children they don't want and let children grow up unloved? " The answer is that their real opposition is not to abortion and their real concerns have nothing to do with children. Their real concern is that the social changes that took place mostly in the '60s do not become permanent. The notion of sex for pleasure is deeply offensive to them and they insist on denying it for others, essentially imposing a Christian tradition on the entire population.
The United States is still culturally puritanical in many, many, ways and the concept of pleasure as a fundamental good is far from universally accepted. Sex and drug usage are both deeply intertwined with pleasure, but that simple reality is essentially banned from entering into any discussion of the subjects and so we all enter into a surrogate argument and ignore the core conflict. People who have arrogated a sense of moral superiority to themselves will not relinquish it easily as it is key to their world view.
250
@hen3ry
One doesn't decide whether a life is permitted to proceed or is ended based upon whether there exists the financial means to support it. This is an emotionally appealing but very shallow argument.
Using this logic, we'd put old people to death because no one has stepped up to pay for their care.
10
@AACNY
Actuallu, we do condemn people to death when they do no have the means to pay for treatment. I will not take "pro-life" folks seriously until they are willing to support universal health care.
It is the anti-abortion side with their inflammatory talk of murdered babies that is shallow. They refuse to consider the complexity of challenges that come along with pregnancy.
294
You do not posit a reason for this insane behavior on the part of 'Conservative' lawmakers. The reason is that nationally without the right wing lunatic fringe that is the base of the Republican Party they have no national standing at all. They have given up being a party of fiscal prudence, of small government, limited interference in the lives of the people, free trade, and the maintenance of international groups like NATO to protect the freedom in the West. They gave it all up to leave themselves under the control of extremists who base their beliefs upon a total and complete misreading of the Christian and most certainly the Jewish Bible. These extremists are the culmination of a war for voters to elect Republicans which began with Richard M. Nixon and was promoted by every single Republican President who came after him.
If the extremists succeed in eliminating the right to abortion they will start another Civil War in this country. Our women aren't docile and they will fight like tigers to keep their rights, because if a woman cannot control their reproductive processes they cannot be a complete functioning member of society.
If the Supreme Court is stupid enough to support these moves its authenticity as an independent constitutional American Institution will be at an end. I hope that Roberts is paying attention to what will happen to the Court if they act wrongly.
26
What will they do when they run out of abortion restrictions to pass? My guess would be that they'd quickly find another constitutionally protected right that doesn't affect white males and pound the heck out of that for a generation in order to continuing fueling the Republican Party with folks all to happy to advocate against the rights of others.
27
Kentucky legislators have been on quite a spree lately. Not only are they doing their best to ban a woman's legal right to an abortion, but they are trying to pass a law to get "In God We Trust" on every public school in the state.
Not that Ohio is much better, but I'm glad I only see Ohio across the river and don't live there. Otherwise I'd have to buy a red robe and white cap.
10
@T SB Of course I meant I only see Kentucky across the river, not Ohio.
Calling the movement to outlaw abortion, and, consequently, harm women, is, as you say, Kafkaesque. From misinformed to intentionally uninformed, those who want to be moral and legal arbiters of women's bodies, particularly their sexuality, have shown the world their true colors. They're sadists. Pure and simple.
25
@Kathryn Ranieri Abortion is very restricted in South Korea and South Korean women live longer than American women. Abortion is also restricted in France, Germany and Italy and those women also live longer than American women.
"Sadists pure and simple" is hardly the way forward on a difficult issue.
1
Stacking the Supreme Court with those who would ban abortion (Catholics, hey from the pedophilic Church), Racist Trump’’s support of white supremacy, so-called Evangelical “Christians” like Pence: this is a plot that could be part of The Handmaid’s Tale. Women, you may not agree on abortion but the idea behind Roe vs Wade was to give a woman the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. Falling birth rates are related to women taking control of their bodies and their lives and usually go hand in hand with economic prosperity. As women get better educated, they no longer have as many babies, usually employing some form of birth control, and not abortion if educated to know how to prevent pregnancy. Limiting or stopping women from birth control is what the males of the above groups want to do. I guess it’s fear that they will be outnumbered by brown people. But do white women really want to be relegated to being baby machines for white supremacists or Trumpites or rabid Catholics or Evangelicals? I hope not.
17
I hope this does go to the supreme court. Women in this country need to see what the GOP really wants for them. A majority of Americans support choice. Let the GOP show women how they want to control them. I triple dog dare them.
9
Gee, I guess when they run out of ways to regulate women's bodies they may actually look to men's bodies for a little regulation!
10
It's interesting how willing some Americans are to impose their belief system on women. One wonders when similar beliefs will promote the prejudicial control of Muslims, or blacks, or Jews, or atheists. Or of opposing political parties.
These are dark times, rendered worse by the righteous machinations of the know-nothings who seem to control much of our politics.
Dark times indeed.
21
The US was always considered to be an enlightened society. While women in countries such as the Middle East are gaining more rights, the women of the US are losing rights and regressing. Maybe they will lose their voting privileges next, and then they will lose..........
7
The desperation to protect the right to kill is astounding.
1
The desperation to not mind your own business and not interfere in private decisions is even more astounding.
4
@Charles Yes, it is astonishing how many support the 2nd Ammendment!
3
Okay, all you young women who belittle us Second Wave feminists. You know, the women who actually got you the right to control your own bodies? The right to never be more than a birthing machine, even if you're raped?
Yes, us. We were the ones you have made fun of for many, many years now. We were too stodgy. We wore those awful pantsuits. You saw no reason to listen to us. Now, it didn't matter that many of us were the first to enter male professions in any numbers (I've been a lawyer for nearly 40 years), and put up with sexism the likes of which you can only imagine. But you didn't think we had anything to teach you.
Well, I suspect this is the final lesson you'll get from us. You've been asleep at the wheel for far too long. And you will now be paying an awful price for your complacency. You will live in a country of back alley abortions. You will live in a country where a twelve year old girl impregnated by her father will be forced to give birth. And you will live in a world where your body is at the sole control of men.
Many of us remember those days. Now, our childbearing years are long over. And it breaks our hearts that you didn't take the forced birthers seriously. That you would so easily give up this right that we fought long and hard for.
Now, you will have to win this right, all over again. And when you start the battle, here's a tip: for once in your lives, listen to those of us who have been there before.
36
The religious hypocrisy exploding this question into
everyone's face is beyond measure.
Let's just pretend that we are true humanists, that we value
human lives, human rights, human well-being above all,
as we should. Now everything is different.
We enshrine the mother, we protect, shelter her, do everything we can to ensure a good outcome, another successful birth, and care for each other through out our lives. Everyone deserves care, housing, food, even love...
But now, according to these religious murderers,
who appear to be so concerned about Jesus' love,
the child must be born into this moral desert,
regardless of the mother's preference, often into poverty,
abuse, prejudice, without love, often condemned to misery,
ignorance, in a world where "the devil take the hindmost."
Blake saw it then as it is now.
"how the Chimney-sweeper's cry
every black'ning Church appalls,
And the hapless Soldier's sigh
Runs in blood down palace walls.
But most thro' midnight streets I hear
How the youthful Harlot's curse,
Blasts the new born infant's tear,
And blights with plagues the marriage hearse."
Maybe Silenus was right...
"what is best of all is utterly beyond your reach:
not to be born, not to be, to be nothing..."
6
The writers and supporters of “heartbeat” laws are so focused on controlling women and our medical decisions they haven’t thought through all the implications. If these control freaks succeed in defining life as beginning with the detection of a heartbeat, as opposed to viability, then they have opened the door to exclusively defining death as the cessation of a heartbeat, meaning brain death might no longer be an acceptable definition of death. This could effectively halt all organ transplantation performed after a person is deemed brain dead but still has a beating heart.
If Catholics and Evangelicals succeed in forcing their definition of life on all by prohibiting abortion then precedent is set for any or all religions to impose their beliefs on all citizens. What would you do if Jehovah’s Witnesses succeeded in passing laws forcing their prohibitions of organ transplantation and blood transfusions on all?
23
We need a Constitutional amendment to make abortion legal. As things stand now, abortion "rights'" were fabricated by the court in 1973.
4
The confluence of faith, misogyny and patriarchy in discussions about restricting the rights of choice of the carrier and nurser of human babies - aka XX women- around their health, reproductive and sexual choices is pretty disgusting and disturbing.
12
They love the feotus - but not so much the child, once it about in this crazy world.
10
Okay, all you young women who belittle us Second Wave feminists. You know, the women who actually got you the right to control your own bodies? The right to never be more than a birthing machine, even if you're raped?
Yes, us. We were the ones you have made fun of for many, many years now. We were too stodgy. We wore those awful pantsuits. You saw no reason to listen to us. Now, it didn't matter that many of us were the first to enter male professions in any numbers (I've been a lawyer for nearly 40 years), and put up with sexism the likes of which you can only imagine. But you didn't think we had anything to teach you.
Well, I suspect this is the final lesson you'll get from us. You've been asleep at the wheel for far too long. And you will now be paying an awful price for your complacency. You will live in a country of back alley abortions. You will live in a country where a twelve year old girl impregnated by her father will be forced to give birth. And you will live in a world where your body is at the sole control of men.
Many of us remember those days. Now, our childbearing years are long over. And it breaks our hearts that you didn't take the forced birthers seriously. That you would so easily give up this right that we fought long and hard for.
Now, you will have to win this right, all over again. And when you start the battle, here's a tip: for once in your lives, listen to those of us who have been there before.
4
Those claiming to be pro-life are seldom found at anti-war demonstrations or outside a prison praying for, a soon to be executed, fellow human being. Nor are their names often found on petitions to our government to rein in the war machine financed in Washington DC. Reality is that the vast majority of these folks are only pro-birthers, who, frankly, couldn’t care less about the lives of those they so fervently demand protection for while in the womb.
10
In addition to what the editorial states, many anti-abortiuon politicians really sing a different tune in private. If their teenage daughter gets pregnant, it really changes the calculus about how you feel about abortion. In addition, some are just plain hypocrites like Rep Tim Murphy of PA who spouted Conservative Christian principles. Then he has an affair with an aid (oops!), gets her pregnant (double oops!), then urges her to have an abortion (triple oops!).
In this type of environment, there are rules for the masses, while certain special people do what is good or convenient for them while the rest suffer under tyranny. Donald Trump himself rails against chain immigration, then his wife uses it to have her parents join her in the US. Wow!
11
The focus on heartbeat is simple. People identify that a life of its own has its own heartbeat. It's an indicator of life that gives people a reference point for when a life is a human being. So, it's not surprising that legislation to protect humans with a heartbeat is gaining traction across the country.
3
@bob Check with women you know. You might be surprised at how many of them had a miscarriage after a heartbeat was detected.
6
Abortion is murder, pure and simple. No amount of rationalization or denial will change that.
4
@Antoine
40,000 gun deaths are all murders. Here’s betting you are against gun reforms.
4
@Antoine: to which, of course, the reply is that denial of choice seeks to use the coercive power of the state to compel women to act as glorified brood mares. And no amount of rationalization or denial will change that either.
3
@Antoine Forced birth is slavery, pure and simple. No amount of rationalization or denial will change that.
2
The GOP/Republicans should no longer give expensive tax breaks yearly to their Catholics and evangelicals . They now need to start paying taxes after all a country who fails to let their citizens or rich people pay fails to exist.
3
Go ahead. Overturn Roe. The tsunami aftermath will make the Trump backlash seem like a ripple.
8
The Board incorrectly states, “With its Roe decision, the Supreme Court enshrined the right to an abortion up to around 24 weeks of pregnancy.” The Court “enshrined” the right up to viability of the fetus. The Court in Casey v. Planned Parenthood clarified that states can pass laws to preserve the life of a viable fetus. Opining on a legal issue requires more thorough legal research.
1
So-called "heartbeats" is a total misnomer that is unscientific and clearly used to provoke. At that stage of embryonic development (no, it is not yet a fetus--this is science, where categories matter) no organs have formed yet. What is heard on ultrasound is the tissue programmed by DNA to spasm that would eventually form a heart. There is no heartbeat. There is no circulatory system. There is only spasming tissue.
10
Anti-choice people are misogynists and/or people who feel so little agency over their own lives that they have to meddle in those of others. Notice how the girl or the woman at the center of it all is never mentioned? Classic misdirection. It's all about the "baby". Sorry, it's about the WOMAN. Her body, her life, her choice. Separation of church and state and freedom from your religion. Mind your own business and tackle a problem that requires real work. Take your pick. But, remember, it requires hard work to address climate change, access to medical care, poverty, gun violence, our poisoned food supply, and all the other real issues that actually would save lives. These people are lazy. They want to control and abuse women, and celebrate policies that will result in abused and neglected children. Strange, and sick.
15
You won't publish this, but: A woman who "chooses" to have unprotected, reproductive sex during the 48 hours each month she is ovulating and capable of conception is responsible for her actions and the possibility that she will become pregnant. There are a variety of "day after" and other means to stop the pregnancy almost immediately.
This is called accountability and responsibility. Just because a women waits until a viable human being exists inside her if is by no means moral (and shouldn't be legal) justification to terminate an innocent human life.
@Red A man who "chooses" to have sex with a woman is 100% responsible for any ensuing abortion. This is called accountability. Just because a male has a sex drive is no justification for treating women like slaves.
17
@Red--do you really not understand that pregnancy does not always result in a healthy baby or mother? That some mothers must make agonizing medical decisions based on conditions which are not obvious the "day after"?
3
@Red
And what about the women who use contraception and yet still become pregnant?No birth control method is 100% effective.
What about women who are raped? How dare you blame them of being irresponsible!
2
Here is what happens next after the fanatics outlaw all abortions. Any woman who endangers the pregnancy of a child through "risky" life-styles (really anything other than laying in bed for 9 months) is also charged with murder.
You see the slippery slope from a legal and constitutional perspective? To make this faulty logic perfectly clear, to fully protect the unborn child it will have to supersede any rights of the mother.
15
As I've said over and over, the US hates its women... We're still 2nd class citizens in 2019! Wake up, work and vote for REAL progressive officeholders and candidates...
7
If this was about abortion there would be comprehensive sex education in public schools and birth control would be affordable and available. . . but the same people seem to fight against that as well.
If the life-begins-at-conception-folks really cared they'd be out front of fertility clinics as well, but they're not.
This is about religion and archaic, misogynist values being forced on everyone else.
12
I've always believed that the anti-abortion fervor is based in a paternalistic and primitive view of sex. It has nothing to do with the pre-human fetus and everything to do with the "bad" women who became pregnant. They must bear the responsibility and the child that resulted from their dalliance.
They think, incorrectly, that most women seeking abortion have engaged in pre-marital sex and should have to endure the stigma of pregnancy as a form of public shame. That is, until it is their wife or daughter. Then, the tune changes.
11
This is where the Georgia election problems mattered. Stacey Abrams would never have done the current Georgia fetal heartbeat bill. Conservatives want to end even the exceptions for rape or incest. Brian Kemp with all of the voter suppression and irregularities and hacking in Georgia elections as well as dragging his feet about having any paper trail for the electronic votes ensured that the current fetal heartbeat bill would come up and out of committee as at present.
Look at the infant mortality rates in this country -- a swath across the deep South, including Georgia - https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/annual/measure/IMR/state/GA
Maternal deaths in Georgia are much higher than the national average and are rising. https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/health-of-women-and-children/measure/maternal_mortality/state/GA
Without the expansion of Medicaid, rural hospitals have closed, and in some cases, while the hospital did not close, the childbirth units closed leaving women with emergencies having to travel far distances.
Zero concern for life. Zero concern for women's rights to determine their healthcare. Every concern to force the religious beliefs of others onto all women.
The GOP just lost suburban women in Georgia in the midterms. Looks like they are trying to lose the women themselves.
8
@SMB
Stacey Abrams would NEVER in a million years take on the black churches. EVER.
She grew up in a deeply evangelical family of conservative black ministers, which are as common as a telephone number among southern blacks.
Let's remember that many girls get impregnated by their own fathers. And now these girls will now need their rapist's permission to abort something the size of a nickel. Sad.
How many women miscarry and then get on with their lives? These anti-abortionists behave as though every acorn must become an oak tree. As though there ought to be investigations and arrests on par with a grown child's death by actual murder. They are unhinged and deranged.
As if the world doesn't have enough horrors happening to actual, living persons, they invent imaginary friends for whom they can mourn and wail. Like morbid adults who fill their houses with dolls.
I long to live in a world where women's power to bring life into the world is given the awe and authority it deserves. Let women decide what does or does not emerge from the female body. We are not fields sown by men. We sow our own fields and thin our own crops according to what is necessary and right.
Anti-abortionists shed crocodile tears because they think it makes them look pious and upstanding. They are not deep thinkers. If they actually cared about preventing abortion, they would support Planned Parenthood and other family planning groups that promote reproductive health education and contraception rather than abstinence and other failed efforts to curb unwanted pregnancy. But what they care about is belonging to a club--the Mickey Jesus Mouse Club. They want to collect all the pins and flags and decoder rings.
13
They can pass laws to make abortion difficult, they can even overturn Roe v Wade. But it won't stop abortions. Abortions have been going on ever since women could get pregnant. They will just become incredibly dangerous again.
9
Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. Problem solved.
Do you preach a belief in the sanctity of life? It continues after birth, an obvious fact overlooked by Evangelicals and Republicans.
11
Has everyone forgotten the Indian woman living in Ireland who was denied an abortion based on a heartbeat? She died of sepsis and her death eventually led to a major change in the law in Ireland.
11
20% of pregnancies end in miscarriages, mostly in the first trimester. Seems like a 6 week beating heart law is going to turn millions of women into murderers.
10
Abortion, the killing of human life in the womb, is a sad event which is sometimes the wisest choice when the fetus is greatly defective or the mother's life is endangered. But if women do not have a legal right to decide for ourselves whether we wish to carry a pregnancy to term, then we can be forced to serve as legal reproductive slaves for men who rape us. This is unconscionable in America. Let us cease this adversarial approach and instead put our energies toward making it possible for women to both bear children and engage in work outside the home, by requiring fathers to support and nurture their progeny, and establishing good daycare for working parents.
7
What these lawmakers know is what the rest of us need to know. The anti-abortion fanatics get what they want because the lawmakers know they pay attention to this issue and they vote accordingly.
The day we outvote them is the day women start getting control of their bodies back.
6
This will never float in New York, California or any other real piece of democracy.
4
Pro-choice and anti-choice advocates will never agree on many issues but we do have an opportunity to work together to reduce the number of abortions while respecting women’s autonomy over her body.
1) Keep abortion legal
2) Provide fact-based sex education
3) Provide free or low cost long acting birth control such as IUD’s etc.
4) Develop long acting male birth control and educate men to take responsibility for not impregnating women who don’t wish to become pregnant.
Men are half of the equation here, or more some would say since they provide sperm each time they ejaculate while women only ovulate a short time each month, yet have almost no skin in the game when it comes to dealing with the responsibilities of unwanted pregnancy.
9
As indicated in he article, this has very little to do with "saving babies" and almost exclusively to get votes.
Things like balancing a budget or rallying Evangelicals around a President who is documented to have cheated on a wife ... or more ... are not longer necessary.
2
This is what happens when Andrew Cuomo and the NY legislative leaders celebrate the passage of an "anything goes" abortion bill with more enthusiasm and glee than they would if the Mets won the World Series.
2
Oh, I don't think restrictions are what we need to fear. After all, pro-abortionists will just find workarounds that allow abortions and ending of infants' lives to occur at any point, perhaps into toddlerhood.
1
Women are not slaves. Women who do not care for abortion are not forced to have them and men who cannot accept that their sexual partner may choose to abort should not have sex, frankly. Even corpses do not have their body parts used for the survival of others without prior written consent. In all my years of reading abortion arguments, not once have I seen one that convinces me that women ought to have less rights than the dead.
5
When does this become state-sponsored Christianity in violation of the Establishment Clause?
2
Let's be honest. The ultra right does not believe women should have equal rights with men. These men feel emasculated. So don't believe it's about the unborn.
4
The restriction is patently absurd. Good luck getting a doctors appointment before 8 weeks. Actually, most mothers will get an ultrasound at 8 weeks but won't meet with an actual doctor until around 12 weeks. At this point, the potential mother is screened for potential genetic defects. Down syndrome for instance. Add at least another week before the mother can even consider scheduling an abortion with test results in hand.
The whole thing smacks of theocracy. You don't hear arguments about viagra, vasectomies, or even hysterectomies. You take a cellular growth growing inside a woman's body though and all of a sudden we have a political issue. Where do these people come from?
Evangelicals are among the strangest breed because they are by definition Protestant. Protestantism routinely advocates birth control as a means to create happy families in the Christian vision. At least among Christians, only Catholicism claims birth control as anathema to the religious catechism. And quite frankly, they've been around long enough I'm willing to let Catholics decide.
Evangelicals on the other hand? You might as well make it up as you go along. That is literally the Evangelical theological interpretation of the Bible. You as a human are made in God's image. You are therefore practicing God's will however you choose to interpret the Bible. I'm not kidding. Evangelicals view themselves as a living embodiment of God.
Why in the world is anything they think impacting my doctors visit!?!
9
Given the horrrific fact of 60,000,000 abortions since 1973, many among us believe it's imperative we forget the restrictions and end them completely.
Killing our own kind in the name of freedom from an unwanted pregnancy is a savage solution. A woman's right to her own body does not obviate the rights of another body, not her own. The DNA differs. The human fetus has as much a right to life as the mother.
Provide more help to pregnant women who need it, both during and after pregnancy. Infanticide cannot be the answer in a civilized nation that prizes freedom for all and a right to life to humankind.
3
@Lake Woebegoner Again, the DNA differing is irrelevant unless you are arguing that the fetus is an individual in which case, fine. It can be expelled and take its chances in the world like everyone else. No need for the forced use of the woman's body.
3
@Lake Woebegoner
You clearly don't understand why there are abortions in the first place. But why argue with absolutists who don't even make an effort to educate themselves, other than the blurbs they get fed by their radical groups.
One of the most disturbing trends among the GOP these days, and there are several, is the myriad of single-issue supporters among their electorate. Long before the current occupant of the White House started railing about so-called "open borders", there were the anti-abortion folks and the gun rights supporters. Virtually all of those people vote Republican, every time, every election, as if they were Pavlov's dogs. We have now reached, and passed, the point of absurdity. They have given us The Donald.
4
Go ahead, do it. Overturn Roe v. Wade. Then people will actually have to vote on more than one issue. Conservatives have had ample opportunity to get rid of abortion, why haven't they done it? Because without that single issue, they would lose on policy. They NEED abortion.
2
This is crazy. I had a molar pregnancy which is a placental tumor that has no potential of becoming a human being. The tumor sometimes has fetal parts however, and mine had a heartbeat, which is not unusual. If this tumor is not removed it can transform into a type of cancer called choriocarcinoma. With these laws, I would have had to wait to have the tumor removed, and then potentially contract a highly malignant cancer.
300
This editorial correctly identifies the major motivation of anti-abortion legislators today: "to show the anti-abortion voting bloc that conservative lawmakers are willing to do anything."
Extrapolating, this suggests that these lawmakers and their voters won't be satisfied no matter what legal restrictions are in place. Does anyone believe that conservatives in Kentucky will sit back now and rest on their laurels? That they'll declare they've won and can rest easy? Even if abortion in all forms is illegal and criminalized, they will propose new, yet more punitive measures. They will look to impose their views outside their communities on other states and countries.
Because being anti-abortion is not just a political or theological position. Controlling people need to control--- everyone and everything--- all the time. And anti-abortionists are first and foremost authoritarians looking to impose their wills on women.
10
@Lew In addition, those authoritarians who wish to impose their will on women are usually men!
There never has been a law in this country which requires women to have an abortion or that all fetuses should be aborted. If you do not want an abortion, do not get one. Otherwise let it go. Just control your own self and let others do what is right for them.
1
After lawmakers in red states run out of abortion restrictions to pass, they will turn their attention to outlawing contraception, sex outside of marriage, civil rights for gay people, women working outside the home, etc. The list is endless.
22
@J. C. Beadles
Add the restoration of prayers (Christian) in schools and sporting events.
2
Here, as elsewhere, the so-called “pro-life” crowd proves once again it’s not about protecting life. What these people want is attention and to feel they have a purpose in life. Dollars to donuts none of these fanatics ever have spent a minute of their time assisting an actual poor family or advocating for any policies that would help a living baby or child. They find it far more satisfying to take advantage of vulnerable women in their most difficult moments by preaching at them. More attention that way.
11
A thought experiment: What happens to support for the GOP when abortion is outlawed?
Abortion is the glue that holds together people with different agendas. The evangelicals are Republican because of abortion. Will they remain with the party whose other actions are not really run-to-the-polls issues for them? Where will the rage be directed to keep the rank and file in line? Anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant? Possibly.
Better yet, will the protestants return to demonizing the Catholics? That would be interesting. Abortion is the glue holding those groups together.
Well, if we know the Republicans, if they have to invent some new outrage they are up to the task. Rage: it's their brand and robbing the commons is their product.
13
The debate on abortion is about taking a life and the competing interest of one life against another. When is life worthy of protection. Making the debate about birth control, women's rights and other deflecting issues is an attempt to frame the issues away from taking a life. Unfortunately the female is the one that gets pregnant. That is basic biology and can't be changed. The real debate should be about when life begins. Some believe life begins at conception, others at viability and still others only after birth. Until this debate is settled, where all parties agree, there will always be those that oppose abortion.
2
@Don
Opposing abortion is fine. Just don't do it and leave people with other viewpoints alone. No one who is pro-choice has ever tried to force abortion on people who are against it. Can't say the same is true on the other side.
As for the sanctity of life, trying taking care of the living first. No death penalty; no wars; support for families; good schools for children; no shaming of the poor and humane treatment of all living entities.
15
@Don
Nonsense. I believe life begins at conception, but I also believe the life of the mother matters. If the pregnancy involves a healthy perfect 7 month fetus, the mother's life still matters. Those who say they would not get an abortion have never needed one. Wanting one and needing one are two different things. One person should not decide for another. My life is my own and I should decide for my life. There are people who choose to not get chemo when they have cancer and others decide to get it. Autonomy. Not giving women the choice to choose is taking away their autonomy.
The so called pro-life groups decide for others what is a good reason or not. Some say there is no good reason and that the mother's life matters less than a fetus.
It is simple, the mother should get to decide, bottom line.
21
@Don, so how would this dilemma be settled and by whom? Personally I am against abortion for my family but feel that each woman must have the right to do what is best for her and her family. We have a teenage granddaughter and I would counsel her against abortion but want her to have the right to make her own choice. Most anti-abortion foes could reduce the number of pregnancies and abortions by allowing sex education and insuring contraceptives are available, but instead they push abstinence and declare sex outside of marriage a mortal sin. So how do we bring two disparate groups with different beliefs and perspectives together. Its not going to happen! And please don't get me started on the double standard of men vs women, child care, poverty, etc. ignored by abortion foes.
8
Nobody “likes” abortion. It’s a difficult, often traumatic, decision. However, if RBG and Breyer were to leave before 2020, the Federalist Society will pack two more hard right conservatives on SCOTUS, most likely including Amy Coney Barrett. Then abortion will be eliminated or severely restricted. If Trump survives the investigations, and is reelected with a GOP Senate, it’s almost a given this scenario will happen. My concern is for the unwanted children, many in very poor circumstances, and how they will be funded for basic humane existence. The hard right is gung-ho to eliminate abortion but strongly against social program taxation. As these children suffer deprivation and neglect, while mom/family struggle to survive, the real world effect of “pro-life” will appear.
19
@Scratch
They won't be funded.
Trump and the Republicans have already offered their new wish-list called a "Budget".
Cut every program that has anything to do with the poor or the middle-class.
14
@Scratch These people also think that people should abstain until marriage, so they will always judge people who have sex and go through with having any unplanned children. There is no pleasing these people because ultimately, they view women one way: As vessels for incubating embryos and birthing babies.
3
Anything that makes abortion difficult or extinct is all right for pro life folks. This is what we have been fighting for since roe v Wade was passed in 1973. We do not want to see the destruction of innocent life in the womb and this puts an end to it. We have already had over 60 million babies lost to abortion and do not need to see any more lose their lives.
3
@WPLMMT
Really? And your concern for what happens to that life after it exists the womb is non-existent. Walk the walk. Take active measures to make sure every mother has all she needs to raise the child. All the anti-abortion people do is force women to give birth, pat themselves on the back, and walk away. Job done. No, job just started. Work for justice for families.
6
@WPLMMT
We want to see people who are 'pro life' admit they are really are 'pro fetus'. It the majority of these pious people who, while shedding tears for the 'unborn', ignore the plight of the 'born' by supporting cuts to medicaid, food stamps, access to medical care for mother and child, education, etc. It seems that when women are pregnant they are treated as daughters of Mary but after birth they are treated like Mary Magdalene.
4
@WPLMMT
That is ridiculous argument. Saying there should be no abortion is like saying there should not be gallbladder surgeries. Sometimes people need one. It is wrong for the government to have so much control over people's lives.
4
Diane,
You certainly are robbing an innocent fetus of life at six weeks when there is a heartbeat. Abortion is wrong at all stages and those in the pro life movement will not remain silent and allow this to continue. We have made great strides in convincing people that abortion is immoral but have not completed our mission. We will nit give up.
4
@WPLMMT
Just as "One swallow does not make a spring", so, too, "A heartbeat does not make a human".
8
@WPLMMT
What is wrong is denying a woman an abortion who needs one. Why do you choose to oppress women? When a person has an infected gallbladder they can choose to get it removed to save their life. Why are you so passionate about not allowing a woman to get an abortion when it threatens her safety? Who are you to decide for another? You are breaching on someone right to autonomy.
7
@WPLMMT
If I understand the religious argument correctly there is no possibility of an innocent fetus. We are all guilty of sin. Is bad logic a sin?
1
I see the same arguments again and again, and again and again, and again and again. I’m convinced of the impossibility of convincing anyone to change their opinion on abortion. I’ve heard only one idea that seems to give an anti-choice proponent pause. Not to change their minds, but to understand there may be merit to the pro-choice position.
Imagine a fire in a fertility clinic. On one side of the clinic there are dozens of fertilized embryos awaiting implantation. These are babies desperately wanted by their parents, who are willing to undergo painful treatments and pay thousands of dollars just for the chance of birth. On the other side there is one live baby in the nursery. You have only seconds to rescue one side or the other before the clinic is consumed. If you instinctively choose one live baby over dozens of embryos, then you do not truly believe that the unborn are equal to the living.
This isn’t a slam-dunk. There’s a difference between deciding who to rescue versus deciding who to kill. But if you can take one step back from the hardline “Iife begins at conception” stance and actually hear what the pro-choice side is saying, then perhaps there’s a reasonable compromise you can accept.
125
@Ludwig So you would be okay with all babies being tested for paternal DNA and a 21 year garnishee on the father's wages/income to support the child (if the couple is not married, that is, and continuing on in the case of divorce)? That may indeed reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and even abortions without any need for restrictions to access. But I can't imagine our mostly male congress or their voters signing up for that one, can you?
89
@Ludwig
I'm not so sure it's a great idea to let states "experiment." If we had done that in the 1860's we would still have slavery.
66
@Ludwig The husband married a person, not an appliance. If he can't respect that his wife has autonomy and rights, he shouldn't be having sex. Most abortions are in the first 12 weeks. Not even remotely a "child." Men need to grow up and realize that they are responsible for controlling themselves, not everyone else.
121
These are all religious laws. Freedom of religion is another Constitutional leg to protect a woman's right to have a different religious view, as many religions do and most all atheist and agnostics do. In 2014, the SCOTUS introduced "freedom of religion" to reproductive rights cases. The "establishment clause" must be enforced against these right wing attempt to steal rights from women.
15
The sole purpose of the GOP stance on banning abortions is to keep minorities and the poor in a cycle of poverty. To force them to have children which will cost them money they don't have to raise. And, while they're trying to do that, to make sure that these same people don't have access to adequate housing, food, health care, child care, and an education.
If you're rich, you can simply travel to some place where abortions are still legal.
Republican politicians, no matter what they tell you, could not care less about being "pro-life."
It's that old joke. All Republican congressmen are anti- abortion...until their mistress gets pregnant.
23
It sure would be nice if the "pro-lifers" would be as zealous in providing for the babies after they are alive and out of the womb. Maternal healthcare? Infant healthcare? Subsidized daycare? NYET. And if you really want to stop abortion, how about free contraception and sex education in schools, not to mention free counseling for underage youth without parental consent? Why not give every 13 year old girl a free IUD and pay her $800 when she graduates from college without becoming pregnant? Give every mother who wants to wait for the next birth an IUD? It would probably cheaper in the longrun.
Let's be honest, the GOP does not give a hoot about women and their children. Their issue is with female sexuality, which should be off limits until marriage and under their strict control. They want to impose their morality on the nation.
18
It is easy (and correct) to point to conservative legislators for pushing increasingly severe restrictions on women's control over their own bodies. The real blame however, lies in the "anti-abortion voting bloc", presumably a large mass of people including many women. This editorial stops short of casting light on the motivations of this voting bloc.
While this bloc of voters clings on to their religious beliefs about abortion and, what is worse, tries to make others live by those same beliefs, this endless debate on abortion will continue. At a time when conservative voters are often baited with fears of Sharia law being imposed in communities, it is ironic that these voters themselves are the cause of laws that impose their religious beliefs on others. Shame on them.
12
Does anyone actually believe that anti-abortion activists are *not* organized?
To say that they have the backing of the 'conservative' GOP is understatement. The GOP is systematically packing the federal court system with anti-abortion judges.
Overturning Roe v Wade is their goal, this is their strategy for doing just that. Sooner or later one or a bunch of these restrictions will make it to the Supreme Court, through a court system engineered by Mitch McConnell.
Spend less time and attention on the foibles of the Oval Office, and more time attending the real long-term threats.
Trump is just a useful distraction, if you let him be.
5
If the fetus is a person at detection of a heartbeat, any woman who can produce a dated positive pregnancy test during the tax year should also be able to attach a copy to her tax return and receive any deductions afforded to born children. Women who have miscarriages (and their families) should be afforded bereavement leave, be required to name the child, the state required to provide a death certificate for the named child, and funeral homes required to provide the same services as for people.
If the state is going to declare fetus personhood, it must do so all the way. Perhaps even declare a newborn to to 9 months old at birth.
11
Time to consider dividing into two countries: The practical/realistic, and the ideological disconnected/insane.
10
Want to live in a truly family-friendly country?
Try any nation in Scandinavia.
Of course, they don't regard Americans as refugees. Not yet, at least.
9
This is another example of minority rule terrorizing the majority. Republicans consistently lose the popular vote but win the Electoral College. And gerrymandering helps them control many statehouses. This encourages them to force Evangelical constraints on a populace that doesn't want them. Polls show that two-thirds of Americans believe in a woman's right to choose, but the GOP keeps trying to ram the wishes of its shrinking supporters down our unreceptive throats.
16
According to Guttmacher and others, nearly 2/3 of U.S. abortion patients are millennials, a demographic who voted at rates of 50% and 30% in 2016 and 2018, respectively. The women in this age group -- those who are most at risk from a post-Roe reality -- may tell pollsters they favor choice, but their behavior on election day suggests they don’t care all that much.
5
@Marty Point taken but the reason for that abortion rate is because they are comprised of people of childbearing age. Gen X is now getting older.
@Marty
You hit the nail on the head. If it is not them they do not care. This will be the downfall of our country.
How is it that the women in these states let it happen? There isn't a adult woman alive who doesn't have knowledge of an unintended pregnancy at the wrong time. Sometimes the impossible time.
All too man men's interest in a child's development ends when they roll over and go to sleep.
7
@Lawrence
Men are not the enemy, discrimination is.
There are many women who are against women being able to get an abortion for any reason, because they themselves have never needed one. There are many men who are able to understand that life is not perfect and want to protect autonomy for women who may need an abortion. The culture needs to be changed.
1
What about the medically induced abortion option? I would think that would become more common if access to clinics becomes impossible
@Adrien
There are fewer abortion clinics than ever before. Many physicians are scared to perform abortion and refer women out. They do no want to suffer the social consequence of performing an abortion. The pro-life (forced birth crowd) makes the erroneous assumption that there is never a valid reason for abortion.
1
@Adrien Ah, there you have all of the religious pharmacists who refuse to fill those prescriptions! You see, "religion" has an answer for every American law!
What Happens when lawmakers run out of abortion restrictions to Pass?
No one will be able to have abortions.
Lawmakers won.
Women lost.
2
@esp
They will not stop there. Just like in the middle east, they passed more and more restrictions on women. First it was abortion, then it was not able to work, then not able to drive, then they had to cover themselves head to toe. It happened like that there, do not think it will not happen like that here is people do not get out an vote to protect personal freedom.
There is a poem about the holocaust.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Some countries offer free, safe, legal abortion on demand, and understand that a woman’s medical decisions are between her and her doctor. Those are enlightened places.
8
In the rush to declare a fetus inside a woman’s body a person, the extreme right denies personhood to grown women.
As we lose the right to make decisions concerning the interiors of our own bodies, we become, legally, little more than suitcases.
8
The best way to lower the abortion rate and teenage pregnancies, is to fund sex education in all schools. One would have thought Republicans would look favourably at a relatively simple way to lower the number of abortions in the US, yet they choose to defund groups like Planned Parenthood, who work to reduce abortions in the US.
6
@Barry of Nambucca
Before Republicans repealed Obama care, it was mandatory for insurance to cover birth control. Birth control was accessible and affordable. The number of unwanted pregnancies dropped by 50%. The proof is in the pudding.
2
@Barry of Nambucca
That would just empower women to get educations and positions of power. Republican men can't have that.
1
Those who want to deny women a choice are just that--they want to deny women any choices. It all arises from the precept that all the choice belongs to men. Surely, it is this precept that leads to the same malevolent persons to attack contraception. Whether a woman is impregnated is the man's choice, not hers. Whether she keeps that pregnancy is a man's choice. Rape is often related more to power than sexual urge. Of course, not all men are rapists, but there is a thread from the rapist's power urge to the men who would deny women a choice. The misguided women who deny choice to other women have consciously or subconsciously bought into this precept that women must surrender control to a man. And finally, the groups that claim religious objections to choice and contraception are drawing from the misogynist biblical passages of that male dominated era, not the Jesus of the Gospels.
5
The repulsiveness of this type of legislation cannot be overstated. Americans need to keep in mind that all of the faux claims of 'socialists' and 'socialism' that will inevitably come from the Republican Party over the next year-and-a-half leading up to the 2020 elections, is just distraction. If there ever was a case to be made for socialism, it would be politicians passing legislation that controls the uterus of a woman during her childbearing years. I rather think, Stalin would be quite proud of these 'socialist Republicans'.
Roe v Wade will stand for the foreseeable future. These states simply keep this issue alive to raise money and keep their religious base engaged. It is stunning, perverted and yes; the true testament to a political party that in the end wants government to control the female human body. It is not about saving the fetus, that is just a convenient story they tell themselves and others.
4
If the fetal heart beat can be detected at six weeks in an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy does that mean that these laws prevent a women from getting the treatment necessary to save her life? Maybe we should prosecute legislators for trying to practice medicine without a license.
7
@McCamy Taylor
Great point.
While we're at it let's make men pay into a national insurance policy that covers costs for the care of women who are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies and also pays for the costs of rearing and educating that child through age 23. We should also make testosterone, Viagra and similar products illegal, or at least all men seeking Viagra should have to register on a public forum.
9
Well, they're still allowing abortions to proceed in the event that the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy. Would it be wrong then for every woman who needs/desires the procedure to claim that her life is at stake? Surely, there must be sympathetic gynecologists out there who'll sign off on such a request. Needless to say, this shouldn't be at all necessary but given the misogynistic mindsets of red-state politicians, why shouldn't they be swamped by hundreds of requests to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds that the mother's survival is involved? What could they do- send all of these women for second opinions even while recognizing that a few of them might genuinely not have the time to receive one? All of these "god-fearing" politicos should themselves take the time to reread that portion of scripture that prohibits them from judging (a pregnant woman's behavior) lest (they) be judged.
post submitted 3/20 at 10:53 PM
4
Perhaps as more women take over the reins of government, suitable laws can be put in place punishing the offending member of the male who dares to impose it unwanted on others. Since government is intent on regulating women's bodies, let's be fair and regulate men's bodies as well.
4
I just did what I always do when I read yet another article about "conservatives" trying to control women's bodies with anti-abortion legislation: I donated to NARAL and Planned Parenthood. For Planned Parenthood, I designated the donation to go to Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky; there are 2 other Planned Parenthoods that serve Kentucky. I am just so utterly sick of the war on women's bodies. They will never give up, but neither will I. Will anyone join me in donating?
6
States that refuse to recognize the right for women to control their health will become even more backward and economically challenged. Will we really have to resort to some kind of Underground Railroad to help women in Red State America carry out their health care needs? Sad!
5
Laws do not change culture. When Roe v. Wade was decided, those who supported abortion rights made the very serious mistake of assuming that decided the issue, essentially going to sleep. Meanwhile, those opposed to abortion stayed in the game, took the long view, developed a strategy, and hunkered down for a long struggle.
Thus, those supporting abortion rights have been looking like deer in headlights for the past decade or so, as those rights have been cleverly, consistently, craftily and, more recently, quite brazenly attacked.
Most people do not understand that if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, it would not suddenly make abortion illegal in America. It's most significant (as distinct from personal) effect would be to further divide our country, as some states would make it illegal and others keep it legal.
Perhaps those who support abortion rights and more liberal Americans in general -- especially activists -- will learn the lesson conservatives understood fifteen years ago that the real focus should be on state legislatures, inasmuch as they make most of the laws that affect daily living and they decide how legislative, including Congressional, districts are drawn.
Liberals ask how is it that fundamentalist Christians can support the obviously immoral, lying sleaze in the White House. The answer is actually simple: they keep focused on their end game, which is the judiciary. Meanwhile, liberals form a circular firing squad, a losing strategy come 2020.
2
Right now it is undecided whether to reverse Roe altogether or simply allow states to gut it out of existence restriction by restriction. The game plan is to make a test case out of Obergefell (same sex marriage), one of the states who resisted until SCOTUS forced them to accept it passes a state law declining to recognize these marriages again, it winds to the Supreme Court where it is upheld by the conservative majority (just itching to hand religious conservatives another big juicy steak). If there is howling loud enough to be seriously heard, then Roe will be allowed to be gutted state by state. If the roar is moderate, the sheep are fairly quiet in their pasture as the wolves are decimating the flock, then the Supreme Court will reverse Roe, returning legal abortion back to the states and most will make it stone cold illegal. We will be able to count on the fingers of 2 hands the states which allow a legal abortion as we knew it 20 years ago.
3
The more I read about these laws and the goals of the anti-abortion crowd, the
more I realize that the underlying motive driving all this isn't Christianity, but a strong desire to control women's bodies and punish the poor.
There is a mean-spiritedness to these people, many of them men, that reveals their intent--not to spend a dime for these children after they have been born, but simply make mothers carry a fetus to term despite the unbearable issues that drive thom to a clinic in the first place.
Issues include threats to life of child or mother, rape, spousal abuse, the list is long, because no woman comes to such a freighted decision lightly or without heavy emotional stress.
15
Heart beat bills will, I expect, put people who do prenatal birth defect screening tests out of work as they are done much later in the pregnancy. If abortion is not an option after 6 weeks, I wonder how many people would bother with testing. Perhaps chromosome testing before conception will become more popular to give advice on whether conceiving is a good idea, which is quite a different thing.
The link is to prenatal testing:
https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?contenttypeid=85&contentid=p01241
If I were a young woman, I would opt for a removable form of birth control like an IUD or a contraceptive implant.
1
@Heather Inglis
And if I were a young woman, I would move to Iceland or get sterilized.
3
The thing that sickens me the most is that so many women continue to vote for the men who are obsessed with abortion. Don't think they'll stop there - next they will go after IUDs and birth control pills. It is so very insulting to women the way the right wing pushes the idea that we all run around having abortions at 7 months so we can look good at the beach. And the states that are passing these heartbeat bills are the states that are the worst places for children to grow up.
7
Abortion is a medical decision between a woman and a doctor , period . Why do all these men feel they have the right to get involved ? Power?
5
The pro-lifers reveal themselves repeatedly with these measures. They know they're futile. They know they'll lose as their numbers fall. What they intend is a display of vindictive malice that feeds their insatiable hunger to feel morally superior to the voter they detest.
The Right needs this passion. It can't ever be satisfied, but its energy transfers like combustible fuel to other issues. These people vote against abortion via politicians; the politicians then vote for tax cuts, environmental degradation, dangerous deregulation, union-busting, etc. They beg to be manipulated against their own interests while they chase the impossible pro-life goal.
5
Laws do not change culture. When Roe v. Wade was decided, those who supported abortion rights made the very serious mistake of assuming that decided the issue, essentially going to sleep. Meanwhile, those opposed to abortion stayed in the game, took the long view, developed a strategy, and hunkered down for a long struggle.
Thus, those supporting abortion rights have been looking like deer in headlights for the past decade or so, as those rights have been cleverly, consistently, craftily and, more recently, quite brazenly attacked.
Most people do not understand that if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, it would not suddenly make abortion illegal in America. It's most significant (as distinct from personal) effect would be to further divide our country, as some states would make it illegal and others keep it legal.
Perhaps those who support abortion rights and more liberal Americans in general -- especially activists -- will learn the lesson conservatives understood fifteen years ago that the real focus should be on state legislatures, inasmuch as they make most of the laws that affect daily living and they decide how legislative, including Congressional, districts are drawn.
Liberals ask how is it that fundamentalist Christians can support the obviously immoral, lying sleaze in the White House. The answer is actually simple: they keep focused on their end game, which is the judiciary. Meanwhile, liberals form a circular firing squad, a losing strategy come 2020.
1
There is so much ignorance, fundamentalist propaganda and political fear built into the efforts to pass and support these bills.
It is not surprising that the Appalachian regions along the Ohio River —in several states—support these bills.
They are disgraceful bills.
5
Good. Enough is enough. Women don't need abortions; they need better choices and less stigma. They need to be free to bear children without dire social and economic consequences to themselves and their other children. They need men to step up to the plate so they don't have to terminate but can instead choose life and love.
13
I applaud your commitment to not get an abortion. You can do so, and I support your choice. Just don’t forcibly impose your personal ideology on the rest of us.
99
@Anne For Pete's sake, Anne. I don't want children and I don't want to be pregnant. Not for one minute, not for 9 months.
Barring a life of imposed celibacy (which I also don't want) what choices do you leave me?
Please feel free not to have an abortion and bear as mnay children as your body will allow. But stop forcing your view on the rest of us. It's literally that simple.
78
@Anne: Fine, you work on getting "men to step up to the plate." After you've waved your magic wand and fixed this problem, you can get back to us.
Meanwhile, stop proclaiming that there's no need for abortions, e.g., "Enough is enough." Obviously, women are not "free to bear children without dire social and economic consequences to themselves"; neither are they free to avoid pregnancy arising from rape or accompanied by severe medical complications.
When you fix all these problems, it's certain that the number of abortions will go down, and you won't even have to put anyone in jail.
57
I am passionate about pro life and will continue to speak out against abortion. We are constantly hearing from pro choice people that the woman has rights over her body and can do with it what she wants. What about the life that is growing within her? Where are their rights? Or do they have rights? Sometimes I wonder.
The selfishness of women to be more concerned with their body than that of the life within their womb is extremely disturbing. We have fallen greatly as a society when we show so little regard for the least among us. This is a travesty and very upsetting to many of us.
8
@WPLMMT
No, the potential life of an embryo does not have precedence over the already existing life of a woman. She does not become a human incubator with no bodily autonomy if she becomes pregnant. The govt should not force women into giving birth.
If you feel it's acceptable to give govt control over these types of issues, where does it end? Isn't it possible that the govt may decide it should make other decisions along these lines? Should the govt be able to force you to give bone marrow to a stranger's child if it will save that child's life? Do you want the govt to make your personal medical decisions?
If the govt can make laws to prevent you from having an abortion, isn't it possible the govt might see fit to force you to do the opposite? After all, the govt has been granted the power to make those decisions, correct?
For example, if there are environmental and population issue in the future, perhaps the govt will decide it has the power to limit births. After all, it has been given the power to make women's personal medical decisions.
The govt shouldn't have the right to make these decisions. Abortions won't stop. Young girls and poor women will die, and politicians will make sure their girlfriends get abortions.
One question: do you spend much time worrying about the least among us who've been born? Plenty of those children could use a hand. I find it upsetting to hear pro-life people profess concern for unborn when there are so many children being neglected.
189
I will always fight for women’s rights to control their own bodies. We are not incubators without a right to make decisions about our bodies and our futures.
However, I’d have a LOT more trouble with my position in this debate if so called pro life voters demonstrated that they supported all life. Too often they are also on the political side of those who are all to willing to reduce or deny poor and vulnerable families’ access to basic necessities to support themselves.
The pro life argument holds no water until pro life voters fight for more funding for WIC/Food Stamps, income subsidies, affordable housing, universal medical care and adequate support for current and former foster children.
106
@WPLMMT In answer to questions about an embryo's rights -- Historically no legal system has recognized that a blastocyst, an embryo or an early term fetus has rights separate and apart from the woman. Under Anglo-Saxon law, which is the basis for US law to this day, you became a "person" with legal rights on the day you were born. Speaking out against abortion isn't the problem; the problem is inserting government into these decisions. If a woman does not have a right to liberty and privacy that prevents government from criminalizing early term abortion, she also doesn't have liberty and privacy rights that would prevent government from compelling her to have an abortion. Enforcing an early term abortion law would require an unacceptably intrusive role for government in policing a woman's biological processes on a monthly basis. That treats the woman as a thing with no privacy who exists only to incubate babies. Use the bully pulpit to persuade against abortion, provide support services, but legally treating an embryo as a person with legal rights enforceable against the woman is a morally and legally abhorrent idea.
66
The "heartbeat" bill in Georgia (HB 481) has passed the house and now goes to the senate, probably in the next two days. Feigning concern for women, the white, male Republicans who are behind this bill consented to add exceptions for rape and incest victims, but only if a police report has been filed. Almost no victims of incest (many of whom are minors) will be filing a police report, and certainly not in time to be able to get an abortion. While more rape victims may file a report, many (most?) will not do so in time.
Georgia is one of the top-spots for the film industry, which generated $2.7 billion for Georgia last year. Film people, please lean hard on GA's politicians on this, and Georgians, call your state senators asap to urge them to vote NO on HB 481!
121
I once read a science fiction story about a world that when a women became pregnant she was immediately taken into state control and placed in a protective, padded room for the 9 months while she was a 'sacred vessel'. Doesn't seem that impossible now.
100
The only thing these restrictions do, other than burdening young women in crisis, is give conservatives a chance to appear pious and moral (falsely of course) by interfering in the most intimate lives of others.
When will we all realize that these decisions can only belong to women and their doctors?
10
@CinnamonGirl
When you show me scientific evidence that a fetus isn't human.
The whole issue is about creating an underclass and cycle of poverty that will continue to vote against their own interest.
8
The religious right is always claiming "religious freedom". I do not understand why women across this country can't do the same in claiming their right to abortion. Abortion is not forbidden in Judaism or the Muslim faith. Do not know about others. In addition, what ever happened to Separation of Church & State? Why are these GOP "Christians" making laws about our bodies based on their personal religious beliefs? How is this Constitutional?
36
@reader123
Opposition to abortion is usually based on science, not religion. Why are abortion rights activists antiscience?
@Joe Public -- Opposition to abortion is not based on science -- that's an absurd claim.
Science has nothing at all to say about the existence of human soul ... other than a suspicion it doesn't exist.
Science actually has very little to say about almost all of ethics -- though ecology provides an informative perspective.
2
This editorial is one of the few, if there are any, that speaks about the piece by piece destruction of a woman’s right to the choose and for all of us, the right to privacy. Kentucky's law is nothing new. People have been too busy making pro Roe vs, Wade placards to pay attention to these restrictive laws. Several have been over turned by the courts. But that takes time and clinics close down and facilities evaporate. Fewer doctors are trained. But be assured, abortions will still occur. For those with money, in hospitals and safe surgical centers. Cases will be posted as abnormal uterine bleeding which is said to turn out to be caused by a missed miscarriage. Or it might be listed as an incomplete miscarriage. For those without money, it is a return to back rooms and basements. Lasting damage to the woman will increase as will maternal deaths. A young physician once told me that the most adamant doctors to support abortion rights were the older doctors. They remember the horrors that occurred before Roe v. Wade. If other articles are written to warn people about this rights eroding action, maybe people will start confronting this process. It won't be easy. But if we didn't take action in the past, we still have now to get started.
26
@Ron Brilliant addition to this article that makes me furious! Thanks!
3
The religious right has been relentless and brilliant in its opposition to abortion. Realizing decades ago that Roe v Wade was unlikely to be overturned, they took the long view and began placing obstacles to abortion services state by state, in some cases making safe abortion virtually impossible. We should not be surprised at this latest volley. By the way, I firmly believe every Catholic on the Supreme Court should recuse him/herself from voting on abortion issues, as their religion prohibits it.
30
Abortion rights will be affirmed in the 'Blue' states rendering abortion and reproductive rights to a state's rights issue. New York state has recently done this. Expect others to follow. So the United States will end up being a patchwork of regressive and progressive realms on the issue of reproductive rights.
The question at that point would be whether women of reproductive age will be allowed to travel freely between such blue and red states if abortion or birth control were available just over the border. That might sound ominous and draconian, but look at the laws these states are passing right now.
29
@JD Ripper
Yes, this experiment of ours, this "Union" is showing signs of disintegration over our inability to compromise, lack of civility and extremism, specifically Trumpism. In a few decades, maybe less, I could imagine a continent devolved into two nations - a big mainly empty red one in the middle, and a slim blue one with lots of people on the coasts. If this happens, will it be without violence? Judging by the noises we hear lately from the right - Steve Young's recent tweet, Trump's threat about the "tough guys" - it's doubtful.
It won't just be abortion that causes this - it'll be guns, identity issues, healthcare, the environment, inequality, etc.
Getting back to your question, it wouldn't take much to imagine a scenario, similar to a Handmaid's Tale, where pregnant women in Red Nation were "protected" from seeking refuge in Blue Nation.
So yeah, the radical right plays the long game, and the end of it is enough to send shivers down the spine.
10
@JD Ripper You are correct, I believe. Once you have shown the base that you can outlaw abortion within your boundaries it is a small step further to prohibit abortion for your residents in another state. Probably some system where doctors have to report to a State authority once a pregnancy is confirmed. You may think this is dystopian fantasy but we are on the path now, and the crazies see no limit to their ability to "protect unborn children" once they win a couple more of these bogus laws.
4
@JD Ripper
You do realize that exactly 0 states would ban birth control if they were allowed to, right?
You do realize that some forms of birth control ARE available over the counter (condoms, spermicide, morning after pill), right? Many Republicans would be happy to make the Pill available over the counter.
I am 73 years old and I remember vividly when abortion was illegal, but certainly continued. Coat hangars, bleach, visits to someone who one prayed knew how to perform an abortion were all used by many women. Some of them died, some were so damaged they could never have a child, etc etc. I, like many other women, are just tired of -usually a bunch of men -passing laws to not just control our bodies but control US! I read in one of the comments that perhaps Roe should be overturned so that the GOP will own all that will happen after it’s repealed. There is a part of me that wishes that too but then I think of the women who are poor who will try bleach, coat hangers etc because they will have no other choice and I can’t go there. But I too am just frustrated that this issue keeps coming up. My body, my daughter’s body, any woman’s body belongs to her and no one should be able to tell her what she can or cannot do to it!
44
Dear @Pragmatic,
The human fetus is NOT the mother's body. It's another human, different from the mother and, like the mother, has a right to life.
Proof: the child in the womb has unique DNA. It's not the mother's body. It's another's body. Destroying it is wrong.
2
A lot of countries, Italy, Germany, France, India have abortion laws with intelligent restrictions. In particular, abortions in the second and third trimester are treated as exceptional cases rather than as constitutional rights.
But in the blue states in the US, abortions in the second trimester are treated as "nothing", and we look away from the fact that a fetus is actually killed, sometimes in a horrific way.
How is that liberals who are generally compassionate, oppose war, oppose capital punishment, have fallen into this trap of endorsing abortion without limits?
Many countries have found the balance between reproductive rights and respect for the life of the late term fetus. It is only in the US that we have these battles, 48 years after Roe v Wade.
Neither the pro-lifers nor the pro-choicers make any attempt to understand that the other side has a point.
2
@Ludwig yes, and those same places have government healthcare, subsidized childcare, unemployment insurance for the mother as she takes anywhere from 1-3 years from work to raise her baby, as well as decent education on birth control and even "free" birth control. Not to mention good education systems and highly subsidized Universities and colleges. Let's be clear, the US has none of that!! When you have all of the available resources that are there for women in France, Germany, and Canada for example, the number of unwanted pregnancies is far far lower, and the second semester issue comes up rarely. Please have the complete facts before you judge a woman who may not have the means to raise a child, or who simply can't afford another one. If the conservatives in the US would allow all of these benefits for families the need for abortion would fall sharply as it has done in Europe, Canada and Australia among others.
8
@Ludwig
90% of abortion occur in the first trimester. The heartbeat bills would cut down on those, not on second and third trimester abortions. Second trimester abortions make up the bulk of late abortions.
There are many reasons for delays into the second trimester, and a prominent one seems to be overcoming the roadblocks placed by the states on the path to abortion.
Last trimester abortions are pretty rare and seem to be mostly about medical issues, either of the mother or of the fetus. Btw, they are subject to regulation under Roe v. Wade since viability is generally reached by this time. If a state such as New York chooses not to regulate such abortions, they are still subject to regulation by the medical associations of the states in which they occur.
Also, do you call a procedure an abortion when it uses abortion style techniques to remove a (second or third trimester) fetus that is already dead? Two women I know have had that procedure, and I don't know how it is classified for statistical purposes. Fetal death is not as unusual as you would like to think, unfortunately.
8
@Ludwig
There are plenty of limits in any state, it is a blatant lie to claim otherwise. And as the article shows, the abortion crusaders are not content with limitations, so what side is there to consider? It is the publicly stated mission to outlaw any and all abortions. You tell me how to find common ground with such radicals.
1
Their aim is clear. Provoke a Supreme Court challenge, where they are confident they will overturn Roe.
9
@Matthew Ratzloff A lot of countries, Italy, Germany, France, India have abortion laws with intelligent restrictions.
In particular, abortions in the second and third trimester are treated as exceptional cases rather than as constitutional rights.
But in the blue states in the US, abortions in the second trimester are treated as "nothing", and we look away from the fact that a fetus is actually killed, sometimes in a horrific way.
How is that liberals who are generally compassionate, oppose war, oppose capital punishment, have fallen into this trap of endorsing abortion without limits?
Many countries have found the balance between reproductive rights and respect for the life of the late term fetus. It is only in the US that we have these battles, 48 years after Roe v Wade.
Neither the pro-lifers nor the pro-choicers make any attempt to understand that the other side has a point.
1
Dear @Matthew Ratzloff,
Roe was based on bad biology. We know today that a human baby has DNA different from the mother, and has the same right to life as any of us. Roe needs to be over-turned with a recommendation that help and support be given to all mothers-to-be and their child-to-be.
3
@Lake Woebegoner Lake, as a fellow pro-lifer, let me oppose your posting. And why?
The DNA of the baby/embryo is already present at conception. Accepting YOUR argument would mean that NO abortions could be allowed, and even some contraceptives would be banned.
That is, Lake, not a compromise position. It demands total victory for the pro-life side and demanding total victory is not good strategy.
Pro-lifers need to come up with some proposal which supports contraception, and is tolerant of SOME abortions, perhaps very early in the pregnancy.
Both sides need to learn how to live with half a loaf.
3
"What Happens When Lawmakers Run Out of Abortion Restrictions to Pass"? Anti-contraception laws. It's already happening by prohibiting coverage by insurance and abstinence only education.
Forcing women and teens to give birth against their will, to occupy the mind of their willfully ignorant base, is their ultimate goal.
31
@Sara G. It is more complex. for a long time I have looked for charitable organizations which promote contraception and oppose abortion, especially late abortions without a medical emergency.
I thought I had found such an organization in the Pathfinders, only to find, - after I had donated - that they do support abortions. I asked them to return my donation but have not heard from them.
Aren't there ANY people in the US who support contraception and oppose abortion? Are you, Sara, such a person?
@Ludwig Why should she be? If contraception fails, are the parties involved supposed to suddenly become eager parents-in-waiting, when they've been attempting to prevent that all along?
7
@Ludwig: It's not complex; and I support both. Forcing a woman or a teenage girl to give birth against their will is inhumane and cruel, and puts them in danger of medical complications and possibly the loss of their life.
7
If heart beat is the criterion how can anyone justify harvesting organs for transplantation. Originally when people were more ignorant harvesting organs from a person who's heart was beating was murder. At Stanford, people at the forefront of developing American transplants were actively concerned about being arrested. Are people willing to give up access to transplanted organs of brain-dead individuals in order to be consistent?
16
The incidence of unwanted pregnancy in the US is close to 40%. People should not be forced to have children they do not want and are not prepared to care for. Why not work to get good sex ed in all schools and make contraception easily available at low cost, wouldn't this be better for society and reduce the need for abortion? Every child deserves to be a wanted child.
33
Okay, let's say abortion is banned. Women will still have them, but now they will be breaking the law. Will they be charged with murder? Will the person who performs the abortion be charged instead? What about the father? Is he held accountable if he did not want a child? What will the punishment be? Prison time, the death penalty? Will juries convict? Will it even be enforceable? People who want to overturn Roe v Wade should consider these things.
28
@PJ They have. The answers are:
yes - women will be charged with murder. Even for accidental miscarriages. Just as they currently are in some central American countries.
yes - doctors will be charged as well
The father will never be inconvenienced
no - he will not be held accountable unless he is the doctor performing the procedure
jail time, possible death penalty, you know the stacked courts will convict.
It's all about controlling women.
29
@PJ Abortion is unlikely to be banned since blue states will continue to make them legal and even red states are likely to stop with (what they think of as) moderate restrictions.
You are offering a false bogeyman argument. Please look at the abortion laws in Italy or Germany and then ask why WE do not have intelligent restrictions on abortion as they do.
@SDC, In some states in the USA, right now, women are already charged with murder if they miscarry, or if they happen to get in the way of a stray drive-by bullet that kills their fetus, or if they are drug addicts and miscarry, or get in a car accident. The Times had a lengthy article on this a few weeks ago.
4
I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know if the Kentucky bill is Constitutional or not, but the lawmakers were ignorant of medical realities.
The bill made it mandatory to resuscitate ANY fetus with a heartbeat. There were NO exceptions for gestational age, the presence of lethal anomalies or family wishes. If a family refused the fetus automatically became a ward of the state. Physicians who did not perform resuscitations would be subject to license revocation and possible imprisonment. There were no provisions for “compassionate care”.
I’ve been practicing Neonatology for over 35 years, 30 of them in Kentucky. But I had no inkling of this bill until a diligent reporter for the local paper wrote an article on it. When I read it my jaw dropped in astonishment - “Are they crazy?”
Fortunately a few influential healthcare professionals are now getting involved in the fray as well. If any version of this becomes law it won’t look the same.
I hate politics and the disingenuousness that goes with it. But some of our elected officials are woefully incompetent and need very close observation and oversight. Sadly the competence of those officials reflects that of the voters. We all need to pay more attention whether it’s disgusting or not.
248
@John Vance I wish legislators would get the advice and experience of professionals like yourself before writing and passing laws that have unintended negative consequences.
41
@John Vance: John, when knowledgable people "hate politics", legislatures like the one that passed this law are the almost inevitable result.
30
@John Vance
The answer to "are they insane?" is:
Yes, not only they are insane, they are criminally negligent and incompetent.
Such politicians ONLY care about using abortion as a level to secure POWER and the power that gets them.
Those politicians should be required to spend a few weeks volunteering in a State institution with the severely disabled before they pass ANY one of those bills. NONE of these bills would EVER make it out of committee much less to the floor of the chamber.
37
Heartbeat laws are what most risk women's lives when a pregnancy has gone terribly wrong and every minute of delay brings the woman closer to death. Truly frightening how many men are willing to throw their wives under the bus in order to protect a partially developed fetus carrying the man's DNA.
22
@Eccl3 If you object to heartbeat laws, you could propose a more sensible restriction. But if you grant that at SOME stage, the abortion of a developed healthy fetus should not be legal, then we can discuss what that stage is.
In France for instance, abortion after the first trimester requires two physicians to certify that continued pregnancy is serious health threat to the pregnant woman.
Would you ECCl3 support a US law like that of France?
@Ludwig Remember that in France most women have access to healthcare, and here most don't. Who pays to have two doctors, perhaps out-of-network, certify that the pregnancy is a health threat? Will insurance cover that? Does the woman have to make two separate appointments, find childcare, time off of work, etc.?
4
@Ludwig Since you are beating the same drum time and again I will too - the decision in France is completely different and much more rare than later term abortion in the US (which is still fairly uncommon). And please don't tell me that the 2 physician sign-off is any real impediment in France. I recall in the 70's when "therapeutic abortion" was the code word for a woman who could or would not continue her pregnancy. "Mental health status" was the indication used - it would cause undue mental distress to be forced to raise a child one did not want. Totally correct.
3
In 1965 the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that government cannot deny citizens access to reproductive services and counseling. In 1973 Roe v. Wade SCOTUS ruled a woman's right to privacy includes access to abortion services.
Yet in 2019 anti-abortion (“pro-life”) zealots still seek ways to make abortions, birth control and reproductive health services unavailable based predominantly on religious interpretations. Pro-life activists decry abortion on moral and ethical authority but their motivations are defacto Catholic and Evangelical Christian theocracy violating the First Amendment. Pro-life activists incorrectly claim abortions kill babies but an embryo/fetus 20 weeks or younger is not a viable human since it cannot sustain itself outside the womb, as defined by numerous court rulings. If any American woman doesn't want an abortion, she may choose not to have one, but pro-lifers cannot deny or limit a woman’s access to contraceptive services including abortions.
America government is secular so it’s fair to all citizens by favoring no one religion or sectarian interpretation. We are Constitutionally guaranteed Freedom of (and from) Religion as well as Establishment Clause protections. In the kindest terms, please keep your church out of our government.
35
@Question Everything
Most people's opposition to abortion has nothing to do with religion, its based on science.
Roe was decided before ultrasound technology was invented so it is scientifically lacking. It has zero basis in the constitution, it only reflect the desires of the 7 judges whom signed off on it.
Zero states would ban birth control if they could.
1
@Question Everything
The very fact that there is viability within the womb should at least lead people to admit that the so-called fetus is a human being at a certain stage of prenatal development. At certain stages, the baby kicks, moves, can suck its thumb and move around within the womb. These are not Catholic, Christian or pro-life stances only. they are the scientific, medical and experiential truths of those who have borne a child. It is not pro-lifers who have made the issue political, it has been the government itself.
1
@SRH -- "viability within the womb " is meaningless. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb.
read here:
https://tinyurl.com/y34yycl7
"For babies born at 23-weeks, the survival rate rose from 27% in 2009 to 33% in 2012.
For babies born at 24-weeks, the survival rate rose from 63% in 2009 to 65% in 2012.
There were smaller increases for babies born at 25 weeks and 27 weeks.
There was, however, no change reported for babies born at 22, 26, and 28 weeks.
The researchers also looked at how many babies survived extreme premature birth without developing major neonatal health problems. They found that the rate of survival without major complications increased approximately 2% per year for babies born between 25-28 weeks. However, there was no change in survival without major complications for babies born between 22 to 24 weeks."
Birth at less than 22 weeks is death, even with modern neonatal technology. Babies born at 23 weeks have a 2/3 ds chance of dying and high rates of severe problems and poor life expectancy if they live.
At 24 weeks babies have about a 2/3 ds chance of living -- complications and defects are still common.
There's a good reason that somewhere in the 22-24 week range is seen as viability.
Here's an irony: there is what I imagine is a significant overlap between legislators who are worried that white people are losing their exalted status and those who want to ban abortion. If that were to happen, people with means, i.e., lots of white women could travel to a state or country that still provides abortion should they become unavailable in the U.S. or state of residence. That will, of course, ensure that that birth rate of white people which is already below replacement will continue to drop. In other words, their stand on abortion will exacerbate their concern about loss of white privilege. Of course, this would require seeing connections among disparate actions which is not a strong point for many of these folks.
23
Forbidding private insurance from covering abortion is an aggressive move, and I’m hopeful it will motivate more middle class white women to get involved, who may have heretofore ignored poverty demographics losing access to clinics.
12
Don't underestimate what a racket human trafficking in adoptions is in the US. That is an unspoken motivation for these laws.
10
The bible equates life with breath, not a heartbeat. This focus on the heartbeat is a political construct, not a biblical one.
But it sure is useful for getting people to vote against health care for all, pollution control,etc. that could save actual lives.
45
@Elizabeth
Opposition to abortion is not based on the bible, it is based on science.
Lack of trust leads to the need for control. It is that simple.
Where we don't trust people will do as we wish we create laws to require them to conform.
The Forced-Birth movement is all about control. Controlling women who can't be trusted to make the decisions for themselves, thus the need for control. Control of women for lack of trust permeates our society, not just in terms of our bodies but it so much of life. (Remember "She resisted"?) But clearly, abortion is a very important point of control of women. Forcing women to gestate and give birth is the manifestation of the need to control.
There is also the self-righteous desire to punish and see others suffer their imagined sins that threads through the Forced-Birth movement. You can read it in the comments below about what she, almost never he, should have done. Pregnancy and birth and child raising are the just deserts and deserved result of wanton behavior.
Forced-Birth is control. And you will never see the same level of control contemplated, let alone considered for law, of men.
57
The US Constitution guarantees that we have a right to be free from religion and that the state cannot establish a religion. People who have a moral objection to abortion are not forced to have one. If such women choose not to abort an ectopic pregnancy or to die from cancer rather than get an abortion and have life-saving treatment, that is their choice and no one—especially the state—denies them that choice. Yet these same people want to deny other women their medical choices by having the state force their religious beliefs on the rest of us, in effect establishing law based on their religion. How is that not prohibited by the Constitution?
49
@BG "The US Constitution guarantees that we have a right to be free from religion and that the state cannot establish a religion." You have that almost right. The Constitution guarantees the "free exercise" of religion and also guarantees that there will be no established state religion, i.e. to be an American, you must be Muslim, or Jewish, or Christian, etc. You will find pro-life advocates from numerous religious and non-religious backgrounds. Including even secular humanists who argue against abortion on the grounds that a fetus has their own unique DNA strand and therefore should be privy to all the rights that every other unique DNA strand (read human) enjoys.
I thought I read something, sorry I don’t know when, about an analysis of Google search data for terms like, “self induced mis-carriage” and found the searches to much greater in states with highly restrictive abortion laws and almost nonexistent in states where an abortion is relatively easy to obtain obtain.
Why these people think prohibition is the solution, I have no idea.
29
@rob "Why these people think prohibition is the solution, I have no idea."
They don't. But they do know prohibition allows greater control over women. Which is the whole point. (Look at any FB thread regarding abortion - comments by those opposing abortion go very quickly from "saving the babies" to the notion that women need to "suffer the consequences" of their sexual activity.
5
We have studied human embryology enough to date the heartbeat to the 21st day of gestation although it might take 6 weeks for us to easily appreciate it with an ultrasound. If our legislators insist terminations are illegal after a fetal heartbeat exists (21 days) and our medical professionals will not perform a termination before an ultrasound can guarantee a pregnancy is indeed intrauterine and not ectopic (42 days) then we have indeed outlawed terminations de facto if not de jure.
I have seen the medical complications from the pre-Roe days and it is ugly. Make America Great Again, indeed.
Guaranteed suffering and death is not a high-minded morally defensible position.
Giving birth to an unwanted child who is abused or suffers a life of immiseration is not a high-minded morally defensible position.
If life begins at conception, it cannot end at birth. We have a collective responsibility for all children, rich and poor, male and female alike.
58
There are two groups of people involved in the effort to ban abortions.
The first is a group who believe that abortion is murder. These folks are not going to be swayed - they are taking a moral position, not a scientific one - that life has grace and value from the moment of conception - which would make ending that life murder. People who believe we are murdering babies, in their heart and soul, are not going to give up.
The second group doesn't actually care all that much about unborn babies - they only care about exploiting the unborn and the base of people who'd protect the fetus in a huge wedge issue that guarantees votes.
So what happens if abortion is banned? Well, people who fight for the right of a women to terminate a pregnancy will go on the attack, and the people using the issue to guarantee votes will go on the counter-attack, and the issue will remain alive and well as a exploitative wedge issue.
For politicians, the outcome isn't the goal - the fight is.
51
The pro-life voting bloc is as reliable as the sunrise. Without that bloc there would not have been a Bush/Cheney Presidency. Certainly, there would not have been a Trump Presidency. There is every incentive to keep the fight going.
We need only look to the Catholic majority nation of Ireland. Last year, they voted to overturn the constitutional ban on abortion. Does this mean they are not pro-life? Are they lesser Catholics? No. It means that they freely weighed the the evidence of some of the horrors that are the result of the criminalization of abortion. Then, they voted that in their civil society, the abortion ban is just not fair.
The minority opinion has an iron grip on the levers of power. They will use their money and their media to fuel the flames on abortion rights, gun rights, voting rights, etc. in order to maintain that grip.
59
@R Ho
As is the most extreme pro-abortion bloc, which will support abortion at any stage without restrictions. I fail to see how this extreme is any better.
1
What an insightful argument against the concept that if there is a heart beat the child deserves to live. One often wonders how the pro choice advocate would feel being on the other end of the scalpel, then again, there is no heart beat there.
9
@George One often wonders how the anti-choice advocate would feel watching the child spend their life in extreme poverty or being subject to abuse/neglect, once the mother has been forced to carry them to full term. Then again, they're pro-birth, not pro-life.
40
@George One often wonders how the forced-birth advocates can stand watching women stripped of their rights and freedom to decide over their bodies by Big Government and being forced to carry to term pregnancies they do not want, sometimes risking their own lives or even dieing in childbirth, then condemning said women (if they survived forced birth) and their children to misery, with no support from a safety net, which is essentially non existent in the USA. At the same time, said forced-birth advocates usually support the death penalty, proving that not all life is sacred to them and demonstrating their deep, immoral hypocrisy. But then again, there is no heart beat, nor much brain, in said advocates.
2
@George Huh? I think you are confused. Pro choice does not mean pro abortion but rathe...pro choice!
The party of less regulation and smaller government seems to have no problem at all extending its reach into uteri of female citizens.
104
@Emile DeVere
Not unlike the party that considers itself the protectors of the poor and downtrodden -- in other words, those who have no real protectors.
1
The result of these heartbeat bills is, in effect, to place women under the control of the state. Even a woman's most intimate discussions with her doctor, her family, her spiritual advisor are interfered with in these heartbeat bills. Even her own human right to struggle with her own conscience and situation is interfered with. With the courts being rapidly packed by Trump/Pence supporters, these laws will end up being reviewed by judges holding a mix of politically preferred ideologies and not by a system committed to fairness, justice and rational thought.
69
Every legislator, federal, state and local, should be asked to declare whether or not he/she believes that an American woman has an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, i.e., does the American creed apply to American women? It's a simple yes or no answer from which voters can evaluate not only politicians themselves, but determine the public policy that logically and legally flows from the belief that female human beings are equal before the law.
19
After years and years of being in favor of abortions, I've changed my mind. Maybe I'm reading the wrong stuff, but I I no longer view the fetus as an entity with no feelings. I now consider it a baby, and the act of ending it a form of murder. Therefore, I don't think abortions should be condoned by the government nor on moral grounds, though, practically speaking, I realize women will seek abortions whether or not they're legal, putting their own lives at risk.
However, what got me then and still gets me, is how those very same bible pounding "pro-lifers" and states vehemently fighting to outlaw abortion, are almost always, in the same breath, staunchly for the death penalty (especially odious given the poor record on putting innocent lives to death), and for freely arming their masses with anything short of nuclear arms.
Lawmakers and pro-lifers simply can't have it both ways: banning abortion while allowing the death penalty and assault style weapons, aimed solely at killing people isn't right. A heartbeat is a heartbeat.
11
@R1NA, if it is wrong to kill an entity because it has feelings, I guess I better give up fishing. Even if we qualify this as consciousness about a state of consciousness (self-awareness), it is not clear some animals don't have it and that a human fetus does have it.
States do not hesitate to kill great numbers of innocent people in war. I assume these victims have feelings. Also, in some places "stand your ground' justifies killing another people who has feelings. Generally speaking, states permit killing others under certain circumstances.
To argue that the life of a fetus is sacrosanct independently of circumstance, but not the life of an adult makes little sense. It strikes me as a religious belief that in a secular society cannot be imposed on non-believers or be sanctioned by the state.
On the other hand, I do believe murder should be constrained by a belief in the secular unique value of human life. However, there is not yet any consensus over just what that value is, and it does not come up in discussions of abortion. It makes no sense to argue in favor of a universal limit or ban on abortions until people are agreed over what it is that gives human live its value. Some religious people appeal to a supernatural value, but this hardly represents a consensus.
12
@Haines Brown
I'm against war and all other acts of violence towards humans no on the basis of supernatural beliefs but because I consider all lives of value simply for having a heartbeat. There are obviously grey areas; for example, if the mother's life is at risk if she doesn't have an abortion. In that case, I think the mother's life should take precedence. And regarding fish, there are plenty of vegetarians who won't eat animals because of the pain they too may suffer in being killed.
1
I agree wholeheartedly. I am a democrat and was for years and years extremely pro-choice: but after personal experiences I have found that I understand the pro-life movement (as another commenter described - those that in their heart believe abortion is murder). These lives in utero have value. As do those facing the death penalty. What both parties should do is stop focusing on abortion itself which they do only to cater to their bases, and rather focus on limiting poverty, reforming the criminal justice system, improving access to quality medical care for life, etc so that the circumstances that give rise to abortions become few and far between.
1
And yet the religious right continues to play the victim card, even as they continue to force their beliefs on the rest of us.
They are not only going after abortion but birth control too. That's what really exposes the extreme nature of their ideology.
60
The conservatives desperately want to make abortion the issue of the '20 campaign. Mostly so they don't have to talk about healthcare.
This isn't the first time they've tried these so called heartbeat bills, and it won't be the last. These lawmakers understand that the mechanism that allows abortions to be legal is privacy. Unless and until, they can prove a woman has zero rights to privacy, then all these new laws are just a bill for the taxpayer to cover while it's being shot down in court.
Of course they hope the base doesn't know that because it's a massive donation issue. You see, it's far more profitable to fight the good fight than to actually win the war.
24
@Colorado -- Messing with access to doctors and a medical procedure is an odd way to avoid the subject of health care. It is likely to be counterproductive with anyone whose opinion might be swayed.
5
@Colorado
And you don't think the law passed in New York State allowing late term abortions isn't about politics? Not sure whose genius idea that was but one has to believe it was cravenly political.
2
I’m so tired of pro-life zealots. How about instead of limiting women’s rights, we provide access to birth control and sex education, which has been shown (in Colorado, for example) to greatly reduce abortion. It seems that pro-lifers are more concerned with controlling women than with doing things to reduce abortions.
128
@SHNYC
When Dr. Gosnell's trial was underway, the media couldn't even bring itself to show up. Its courthouse seats remained empty. Why? The media couldn't face the gory details of abortion. No euphemisms. No privacy wall. No "end of discussion" pronouncements. Just the facts about how those abortions were actually performed.
Many of us are tired of zealots who defend an act they cannot admit actually occurs. Support abortion by all means but let's not pretend it's something it isn't.
1
The GOP abhors government overreach into our personal liberty and freedom to choose. Except when they don't.
76
Any person, male or female, who wants to stop a woman from having an abortion, should sign up to pay child support for that child starting immediately and for 18 years. If you protest abortions, then pay for the care of the child. If you want to intervene into another person's life, the life of that mother and force her to be pregnant, then there is a price to be paid for your decision. If you take away her rights, then you pay the price for what that costs her.
The moment there is a heart beat, men should be forced, by the police if necessary, to take a DNA test. They should pay child support through payroll deduction from 6 weeks embryo age in pregnancy through to the age of 18. They are as responsible for that embryo as the mother. And it should be a matter of public record for anyone to be able to see.
100
Where and when abortion is illegal :
1. Women who can afford to do so, travel to another state or country to end an unwanted pregnancy.
2. Women who cannot afford to travel, have illegal and medically dangerous abortions closer to home
3. And a few women will give birth to a child that is likely to be uncared for and unloved
Is that what we want in this country ?
84
One of my biggest concerns if legislators run out of legal challenges to abortion rights is that there will be an uptake in violence aimed at clinics and providers that provide those services. I think we will also see more harassment of women seeking abortions.
24
If politicians seriously wanted to reduce the number of abortions, they would seek to know why women seek them and try to alter those circumstances. This would probably cost some money - subsidised childcare etc. - but save many women from the 'moralisers'.
It is easier, however, to place women's lives at risk than to face up to social and economic reality.
30
@Philip Brown
Actually, since most pregnancies are unintended and not the result of "access" to birth control but rather not using the birth control they already have, women should be encouraged to use birth control.
Women demand "control" over their bodies. Using birth control is a significant part of that "control."
7
@AACNY, it sounds as though you're a strong supporter of the ACA's requirement that insurance companies cover birth control. It's important that IUDs and other long-term contraception be available to everyone, regardless of ability to pay.
Women, like men, want to make their own decisions about their bodies. We're all in this together, aren't we?
24
@SandraH.
Yes, I most definitely do support birth control, but I also have no problem speaking the truth about its lack of use. Most blame republicans for a lack of "access" to birth control. This is simply wrong.
I wholeheartedly support devices that require no pro-active measures on the part of women (beyond insertion) as I recognize women cannot be relied upon to take responsibility for routine birth control use. Those are the facts.
Too many are arguing against their demons -- ex., men, republicans, etc., and in doing so fail women miserably. Republicans aren't responsible for a woman's using her birth control. She is.
1
Ireland recently removed a strict anti-abortion amendment in its constitution in part because of a horrendous case in which a woman carrying an unviable foetus died after she was denied an abortion because doctors attending her detected a heartbeat. Is the United States intent on returning to the dark days that Ireland has in recent memory lived through -- and decided enough was enough?
65
These anti-abortion bills primarily serve a political purpose - to keep constituents fired up. If these people really want to reduce the number of abortions, their effort would be better spent on improving access to sex education and contraceptives. Let's be realistic - a ban won't stop abortions, it will just make them less safe
47
The reality is that these states are not banning abortion for everyone. They are just banning it for people who don't have means to cross state lines to get one. Who wants to bet that if some Republican legislators young daughter or illicit girlfriend were to get inconveniently pregnant that they wouldn't fly her to a state or country where abortion is legal.
179
They would not have to go anywhere. Their private doctor would perform a “menstrual extraction.” End of problem. “Abortion? I never had an abortion.”
10
Mor,
You say a fetus is not a baby. I disagree with you. Have you viewed an ultrasound? I have and that was all the convincing I needed to know that life exists within the womb at all stages of development. That will never change.
I will continue to defend the least among us and speak out against the evils of abortion. As long as I am given my freedom of speech which is granted under the first amendment, I will continue to do so. People must hear the truth and I will express it without hesitation.
5
@WPLMMT
Whose ultrasound did you view? Your own? If not, do you have an MD? A license to interpret ultrasound results? If not, you have no standing to make any pronouncement as to when “life” begins. Simple-minded feelings can’t be imposed on others, especially if you are a man.
I have not only seen multiple ultrasounds at all stages but also worked as a surgical technician in a high-risk labor/delivery unit. I saw many deliveries and none before twenty four weeks survived longterm. They just aren’t independent entities capable of a separate existence that trumps a woman’s right to self-determination.
Furthermore, those were all “wanted” pregancies that did nothing to change the fact that my own abortion at ten weeks gestation when I was barely eighteen and after being denied adequate sex education and access to contraception was the best decision of my life. Nothing has changed that delicious sense freedom from the imprisonment of unwanted parenthood before my adult life even began. More than ever, thirty seven years later, I honor the wisdom I had to know at so young an age that parenthood was not for me. And I’m proud I had the courage to reject the fear and shame of Iron Age patriarchal mythologizing to do what was right for me. That is the truth and I will express it without hesitation.
If stopping abortion is so important, what are you doing to promote contraception which you must know is far more effective in accomplishing your goal than simply speaking out?
85
@WPLMMT,
Disagree all you like.
It doesn't change the fact that physiologically a fetus is not a baby.
It cannot breathe, take nourishment, or even survive outside the woman carrying it.
Don't be defensive. No one is challenging your right to speak.
But when you advocate "womb slavery" for women you're not going to be greeted with silence.
6
@WPLMMT
A plant is alive, an insect is alive, a fish is alive, an embryo is alive at legal abortion age, but is not a human being. It does not have the abilities of a cat or a dog or a mouse or a bug or a fish. And it is not capable of life outside the womb. This really comes down to science.
I agree about freedom of speech and the truth being heard. Your definition of life is religious not scientific. Life and death in America are measured by science. You do not care how much suffering you cause to fulling living human beings: women, children and men by overburdening their lives, by causing children to go hungry or not have adequate care because of too many children. You can have your beliefs but you cannot force them on others, to do so is un-American. Read the Constitution.
5
I know someone whose period is completely random, coming at intervals that are between 1 week and 6 months. If there is a pattern, it seems to change every few months, along with the length of the period. There is nothing wrong with her; the fact is that human beings are not machines. Can you imagine her trying to figure out an irregularity in that "pattern"?
30
As we see increasing inequities of wealth and power and really deliberate attempts by the Republicans to get rid of the programs that have prevented being poor becoming impoverished and living in want, we see circumstances that drove people to have abortions to save lives looming. There was a time in this country when poor families in cities could not feed and cloth all of their children and it led to ruined lives as well as higher childhood mortality rates.
35
It could backfire, indeed. Considering the growing anger, particularly among women, at this kind of grandstanding, this "more anti-abortion than thou" stance could also get them voted out of office.
40
I heard the fetal heartbeat around the sixth week of pregnancy. Since it was a wanted pregnancy, I was happy at this confirmation that the fetus was developing normally. But it was not a profoundly important or emotional moment because I knew that what was in my uterus at this stage was a tiny mindless clump of cells. Its brain was not sufficiently developed for any kind of self-awareness. Had I decided to abort at this stage, I would be interrupting a biological process but not killing anybody. Chances are, I would have forgotten all about this moment long time ago. The mystical significance that forced-gestation fanatics give to heartbeat is nothing but a pretext to strip women of their human rights.
155
@Mor
When you change the meaning of "life" to "clump of cells", it's certainly easier to dispose of it. Interestingly, it's a "baby" when the mother wants it but a "clump of mindless cells" when she doesn't.
In what other circumstance is life determined so arbitrarily? Based purely on the desires of someone and absent any question of morality? I can think of only laboratories where testing is performed, and the live subjects are just specimens.
4
@AACNY, what is the morality of forcing poor women into back alley abortions?
If you want to reduce abortions, make contraception available to everyone. Give to Planned Parenthood, which has done more to reduce abortion in this country than any other organization.
38
@SandraH.
Contraception is available. It's using it that poses the greatest challenge to women. Planned Parenthood is in the abortion business. I have no problem with this and would donate happily. Just don't expect taxpayers to indirectly fund it.
3
A pretty shallow position statement. Was there really no one on the board who paused to think about the implications of the presence of a fetal heartbeat? Is it really the best the board can do to say, "Sorry, but that doesn't matter, according to Roe"? The board's position is unsustainable. As more and more people learn about fetal heartbeats and other characteristics of the developing baby that point to the immorality of abortion, it will become less and less compelling to respond, "But Roe says...."
7
You're talking about physiology, not morality.
People do know about fetal heartbeats.
And the majority still support the right to abortion.
But even if they didn't, a woman has the right to control her own body, regardless of what anyone else believes.
31
@Just sipping my tea
In response to these bills, a neonatologist wrote that at 6 weeks, the "heart" is not fully formed and isn't really beating as it eventually will. It's making more of a vibration as it forms.
The embryo is about the size of a pea, I believe, and does not appear recognizably human.
8
@Just sipping my tea
Roe specifically mentions the "viability" of the fetus, so it is not the big privacy wall many claim it to be. Much has occurred with respect to viability since Roe was decided. If anything, it is pro-abortionists who are fighting the advance of science and medicine.
Americans may support abortion but they will never support wanton taking of viable lives. For this reason, they will never support abortion after a certain point.
1
I am an active pro life woman who has been taking part in the 40 Days for Life campaign. This has been an ongoing event for over 10 years and grows larger each and every year. We have been successful in convincing women without force of keeping their babies. It has been encouraging when a woman or couple decides to choose life and not end the pregnancy. We never coerce but only encourage them that there are alternatives to abortion. After women have given birth, they are so thankful that they did not go through with the abortion. We are also. There have been over 60 million abortions in this country and this is a travesty. We want this to end.
5
@WPLMMT
I support your movement to GENTLY convince women to not abort, although I doubt that you and I would agree where the line of coercion or force is. I am personally pro life but socially pro choice, which means I don't tell other people what decisions to make. As long as the woman who is pregnant comes to your organization voluntarily, and you do not go to her, then I am with you.
46
@WPLMMT I'm curious about the follow up.
Do these women have income streams that enable them to care for their babies?
If not, does your organization help them apply for the appropriate programs to get aid for food, medical care, etc., either governmental or from private agencies? And for how long?
Convincing women not to have abortions is not a victory if the resulting children are left to lives of poverty and neglect.
20
@WPLMMT
Just curious if you help these women with the costs of pregnancy, access to medical care, ensure that their babies have needs met, support these women when they need to go back to work to support their children, etc...in short beyond the birth? What do you do for these women in the long term? Or do you just want them to give birth?
3
We have lawmakers passing late term abortion legislation and no one blinks an eye. When a lawmaker wants to pass legislation outlawing abortion when there is a heartbeat of a fetus, there
Is an outcry. Whether an abortion occurs at nine months or at six weeks, it still is the taking of innocent human life. It is inhumane and cruel at any time during pregnancy and is immoral at all stages of development.
10
@WPLMMT Repeating the same thing over and over again as if it were self-evident is not convincing anybody. I don’t accept that a fetus is a human person. Prove to me that it is - without resorting to your religion, which I don’t share. I have heard philosophical defenses of the anti-abortion position and found them unconvincing. If you can prove to me that a sixth-week old fetus, the size of a Lima bean, has self-consciousness, I might reconsider. But even if the fetus is a person, the fact that the mother does not want it in her body makes abortion into a case of self-defense. I am entitled to kill an intruder in my home, even though he is unquestionably a person. Why am I not entitled to kill an intruder in my body? This explains why late-term abortions are not only medically necessary but ethical. If my life or health are threatened, I must take any measures to defend myself, even if it means killing.
102
@WPLMMT How would you address the issue of an 11 year-old girl who has been impregnated by rape? How would a child even recognize pregnancy at that age? How would you address the issues surrounding any adult woman who has the severe limitation of a developmental disability, who has the mental capacity of a 5 year-old child, who might also be impregnated by rape? How would any woman with such a severe limitation recognize that she were pregnant? In neither of these circumstances should the pregnancy continue. In fact, there are those of us who would consider anything less than abortion to be abusive to the pregnant child/woman. To use your phrasing, forcing a continuation of the pregnancy in either of these situations would be "inhumane and cruel".
126
@Mor You're all over the place here. Are you saying a fetus is not self-conscious until the point of birth? You say that you'd reconsider, but you support later term abortions also, so I'm confused. Some argue that infants are not self-conscious even until well after birth. Would it still be ethical then? I assume you wouldn't be satisfied with absolute protections for rape and life of the mother (if observed perfectly). I can't speak for pro-life extremists, but most pro-life people like myself absolutely support those protections. What hangs up people like me are laws that protect abortion up to point of birth. Does it really matter if "it never happens"? The infrequency of a certain act isn't a reason for not prohibiting it if it's bad. Also, if late-term abortions are ethical, why is "it never happens" a defense of them. Seems like the consistent defense should be, "ya they happen, so what?"
1
This is a clear attempt to "go around" a Supreme Court ruling that clarified the constitutionality of laws that criminalized or restricted abortions. Restricting access to abortion is a violation of the Supreme Court, and States and legislators who violate should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. That means, Contempt of Proceedings charges against the Officials and Departments who enacted such types of laws--followed by the consequences (fine, jail, forfeiture of property).
The Supreme Court ruled that a woman's right to her body extends all the way to the third trimester--long after the "heartbeat". I really wish some of these so-called conservatives would actually read the Roe/Wade ruling, because it is about fundamental questions concerning the rights of individuals and privacy--things that you would think they value. The current evangelical position which fuels activist laws that attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling grossly overstate the rights of state over those of individuals. Republicans need to go back and take some basic civics lessons. And read the constitution.
79
To be fair, progressives use similar methods to get the law changed. Same-sex marriage for example was helped along by many couples applying for marriage licenses even though it was illegal. That was the only way they could get it before the courts.
To be sure, that was a victimless crime, whereas banning abortion at the state level hurts a lot of people.
5
Norman,
You're absolutely right.
Legislators who deliberately enact laws that are obviously in violation of the Constitution are violating their own oaths to support and defend it.
But to expect politicians to have ethics or to prosecute those who don't is way beyond wishful thinking.
6
@Bruce Thompson,
Same-sex marriage was guaranteed by the Supreme Court.
That rendered all laws against it as null and void.
Therefore it was never "illegal" to apply for a sex-sex marriage license.
2
I can’t imagine any major corporation locating their operations in a State with such draconian laws on the books. The same is true for major sporting events and teams. Perhaps these States will eventually get what they want re. abortion, but they will devastate themselves financially by doing so.
60
@Jack
I can’t imagine any major corporation locating their operations in a State with radically permissive abortion laws on the books. The same is true for major sporting events and teams. Perhaps these States will eventually get what they want re. abortion, but they will devastate themselves financially by doing so.
5
@Jack
This really is going to come down to the states. Just like gun laws. The divisions that are deepening in our country are to the point now where I don't imagine this Union has many more decades to exist in its current form. Sure, it would be a pain to have to cross a national border a few times when driving across the continent, but I doubt our grandchildren will think twice about it. I imagine that the red states welcome such an outcome, but I'm not sure how they will be able to sustain operations with the tax base they will draw upon.
15
@Just sipping my tea
I think you might be a little off in thinking that corporations care much about morality. No matter what type and source of morality it comes from, they couldn't care less.
I also seriously also doubt that New York, California, Illinois and Washington states will ever pass laws that are anything but "radically permissive" from your standpoint, but yet there they are, hosting just about all the major corporations in our country.
6
The ACLU's comment that Kentucky banned abortion buries the truth: no law can ban abortion. They can criminalize abortion--putting doctors and women, some of them mothers, in prison. But that won't stop abortion. Countries with the most draconian anti-abortion laws are countries with the highest abortion rates--most likely because they're also hostile to family planning. But clearly, outlawing abortion does not ban it.
172
@Terry Lowman
Exactly. They're attempting to ban MEDICAL abortion. That is, safe abortion.
No one can ban abortion. It's like prayer. As long as there are math tests, there will be prayer in schools.
Just silent and personal, as most religious leaders (for example, Jesus) have recommended.
38
This is an outrage. Just today on Terry Gross's Fresh Air, the writer and actor Heidi Schrek was interviewed. I will attempt to summarize this insightful discussion, but I urge the women - and men - who read this editorial to google the transcript. The fact is that women, within the Constitution, are underrepresented. (Of course, the same can be said for immigrants, refugees, and people of color.) There is nothing specific in defense of women's autonomy and freedom to choose what and when to do with our bodies that which we are entitled to do. There is one tenet with which to cling...that we all on American soil must treated equally under the law. No one, no state, no religion, no president, no Congress has the right to take our own sacred bodies away from us. Our bodies are ours. Period. Finally, I am here to say that Roe vs Wade is not enough. I will not rest until and I will continue to fight for an amendment to our Constitution which forbids any person or entity to take away my, my daughters', my "sisters' rights to our own bodies, souls, health, security, and welfare.
189
@Kathy Lollock
Kathy, I share your passion for keeping government out of the process of women deciding what to do with their own bodies. However, I do have a question, at what stage of a pregnancy does another life come into play? Is it any time up to when a birth may occur? This is a difficult question I am curious as to how you would respond to this question.
6
@Steve O That is the dilemma which at this point no one knows, only God if s/he indeed exists. Although I am Catholic, I lean toward our Reformed Jewish Rabbi friend’s explanation: The fetus is not a human being until the head and at least one of the shoulders are born. In addition, I hold to the tenet to not judge others and that only those “without sin can cast the first stone.” Most crucially, however, is that a universal moral code allows every human being to account to themselves relative to their personal beliefs.
68
Steve O,
Your question does not take into account that in the real world late-term abortion is extremely rare, and almost always because of unviability of the fetus or to save the life of the woman.
Late-term elective abortion just doesn't exist in any statistically significant number. Before the third trimester a woman has almost certainly made a decision.
30
Well, thankfully I have the means to be able to take my daughter to any country where abortion is both legal and safe, should the need arise. For 50 years I've marched and advocated for a woman's right to choose. I'm tired now, I only care about my own.
50
My thoughts on this important issue... this right, go back to my mother who is passed now 22 years. She was not overly political, in fact leaned often toward the Republican Party has her Dad was a navel officer and conservative influence. But on this issue she was passionate. She told me of a friend she accompanied to provide support, who out of desperation, traveled many miles to have an illegal abortion with some backroom physician. This was in the late 1940tys. She never needed to convince me, but her story drove home the dark consequences. She would be outraged by this slow attack on roe v wade. The most cynical part of this maneuver by right religious opposition is the little support they offer single mothers with new born babies.
3
My friend had a miscarriage at 8 weeks. At the 6 week point she was told her baby had a strong heartbeat!
15
It's not clear to me how this relates to the article. Babies/fetus with strong heartbeats can pass at any time for a wide variety of reasons.
16
You would think the heterosexual men who have grown up in the age of sexual liberty would be grateful for all the "free" sex they enjoyed before marriage, between marriages and sometimes during marriage? All those girls on the pill, with implants and IUDs, took a lot of the fear out of recreational sex and drunk-and-drugged one-night stands. Don't they want their sons and grandsons to inherit the freedom to indulge their passions without getting stuck with child support payments? The same good people who want to ban abortion are also pushing abstinence for teens and all singles as "birth control." If abortion is banned or effectively made inaccessible, generations of sons will have to go to those "day spas" like Robert Kraft did. The "good girls" won't be available any more.
31
@abigail49,
Of course.
But that's the purpose of the rightwing: to keep women — and men as well — enslaved to a system of rigid control that amounts to slavery.
They are all too aware of the consequences of their policies. They are deliberate.
3
I've always viewed support for the right to have access to abortion as the lesser of two evils. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted baby within her body is something I can hardly imagine and yet the idea that a beating heart exists within the womb of a woman also gives me pause in that, well, if a heartbeat doesn't represent life then what DOES it represent? What I have always found unconscionable is that these "right to lifers" seem to care so little for the well-being of babies born to unwed or poor women! In the name of a false religion, they claim to want to protect life, however once lives are brought into this world, they do so little to try to make those lives worth living or at least livable. Poor access to health care, malnutrition, homelessness - these are what await babies born to poor women who cannot afford to care for a child. My views on abortion would change if I thought that there was adequate care for mothers and children born into unwelcoming families. How can any decent person expect a woman to carry a child to term while living in abject poverty? Why should such women have to depend on charity for their shelter? Improve dramatically the support systems required to bring a healthy mother and child into the world and give them hope for a modicum of financial stability and the number of abortions might well decrease dramatically by themselves.
65
In the early 1970’s, at about the same time as Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court was confronted with “death with dignity” cases. At common law anything that shortened life however briefly for the terminally ill, was considered murder.
As states began passing laws to allow palliative use of narcotic painkillers for the terminally ill, even if such care included painkillers that would suppress respiration and shorten life, the question arose whether life was “a beating heart”.
If life is to be determined solely by heartbeat, then narcotics, even to treat the excruciating pain of terminal cancer, couldn’t be given to those who were dying, because the medications might shorten heartbeat by a few hours or days.
The Supreme Court rejected the “beating heart” standard for the terminally ill, and today compassionate hospice care flourishes.
Those who would wish to impose a “beating heart” standard upon the definition of life would do well to consider the cruelty such a standard would impose upon restricting pain medication for the terminally ill.
The Supreme Court, in deciding both Roe and the end of life cases during the same period, realized the connection.
103
@Michael McLemore
Sadly, the theocratic majority of SCOTUS will likely be ready to overturn Roe v. Wade for no other reason than they can. The only likely hold-out to doing so is Roberts and, if his daughters have enough influence, Kavanaugh.
Overturning Roe v Wade will result in an explosion of unwanted births in Trumpland, and the ensuing social catastrophe can be appropriately labelled only one thing: karma.
4
This law has nothing to do with abortion. The southern states called special sessions to make laws that would skirt the Brown v Board decision. The true purpose of these laws is to generate income for the attorneys who make campaign contributions to legislators who themselves are attorneys and presumably know that these laws are indefensible. It is a way to funnel tax dollars into a hopeless cause cloaked in a veil of religious righteousness. Obviously these restrictions only apply to women living in poverty and can't afford to raise another child. Women of means who want to hold onto their figures for as long as possible will book a flight to Canada, Ireland, France or some fun vacation spot outside of the former Confederate States of America and not at all be affected by these misogynous laws.
51
@D. C. Miller -- or go for "do it yourself" Mifepristone (RU-486) / Misoprostol abortions via pills from the internet ... or try Misoprostol only.
The latter is extremely common everywhere across the world among the poor, and is even standardized in WHO advisories
https://www.figo.org/sites/default/files/uploads/project-publications/Miso/FIGO_Dosage_Chart%20EN_0.pdf
one of the facts that outrages right-to-lifers, but is just sad reality. The WHO supports it because it is so much safer than "traditional methods" and children need their mothers alive.
Misopristol is sold over the counter in pet stores.
3
Roe V Wade was decided in 1971... Almost 50 years ago... And if you read the decision you'll find it was about the local government denying a procedure not restricted by federal law. Contrary to your AM radio, abortion wasn't illegal in Dallas county, TX in 1971 if three physicians determined it medically justified and their written opinion was accepted by a county judge.
Then you went to Parkland Memorial with your court papers and scheduled the procedure. Otherwise, it was restricted. Roe sued to challenge the process and local restrictions.
Many women of child bearing age today have no recollection of pre-Roe reproductive rights, much like they have no recollection of segregation or military conscription, but one sure way to revert back to those days is to ignore those who want to take you there.
Considering that today a miscarriage can be induced chemically with a three pill drug combination, do the militant pro-lifers realize their crusade has become all but pointless?
Defund Planned Parenthood. You'll increase the number of unplanned pregnancies and reduce health care options for the most vulnerable of women. Overturn Roe v Wade and the GOP generally and conservatives specifically will see a backlash that spans a generation or more.
Do your best to make abortion pills impossible to obtain. And while you're at it, do the same for illegal recreational drugs and repeal Obamacare... See how that works for you.
63
@BA_Blue
Planned Parenthood needs to separate its abortion business from its health care services. It claims they are unconnected. Let it formalize this separation.
1
@BA_Blue -- one drug, that you can buy over the counter, but it'd not as nice as the Mifepristone (RU-486) / Misoprostol regimen.
The right-to-lifers are getting ready to prosecute every woman with a miscarriage pretty soon ... particularly if they are poor.
5
@BA_Blue
Roe v. Wade was decided on Jan. 22, 1973, the same day Lyndon Johnson died, aged 64. Five days later, on Jan. 27, the Paris Peace Accords were signed, ending U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Busy news week!
2
I am a law student. We just covered abortion in the last two classes of Con Law.
First, Roe is not the law anymore. Casey v. Planned Parenthood is. That case replaced Roe’s trimester test with a viability test.
Second, both cases are simply laughable. The court’s opinions are just rooted in nothing, but personal opinion.
People who are pro choice need to reconcile with the fact that the status quo is built on a house of cards.
8
@SG. From a legal argument, maybe. But from social expediency, “Roe” did not necessarily créate more abortions, just made those that did occurred medically safer.
33
@SG -- I generally don't take legal advice from students in law school ... and I suspect you'll find there are other opinions on the matter as the core of R v W has held since 1973.
40
@SG - is it not the case that ALL legal opinions are just that, opinions? It seems like a sound lesson to learn in your legal education that you are entering into a profession grounded in argumentation and opinions, with all the legal and judicial discretion that entails. It can all be overturned, or, as you point out, knocked down. But that doesn’t mean it should.
There are many reasons of justice, equity, health care, safety, and compassion for abortion to remain legal. And sound opinions to back these reasons up, and argue for them in the courts (and in the comments of The NY Times) if necessary.
39
A true conservative would demand the government stay out of my doctors office. A truly pious person would be more concerned with changing hearts and minds rather than laws.
207
@Adam
And someone truly interested in morality and respect for all lives, as most progressives profess to be, would understand that all life is worth protecting.
I am certain that were a pregnant immigrant to show up at our border and experience harm to her baby because of some inaction on the part of border control that progressives would be outraged that this mother and infant weren't better protected.
The selectivity of progressives' concerns is highly dependent on ideology.
4
@AACNY No, it's dependent on the mother's own desire and agency.
There's no ethical imperative that accompanies a heartbeat anymore than there is when taking someone who is braindead off of life support. It is exactly the same; life, such as it is, is simply an organic machine at that point, unable to live unassisted and without any awareness or thought.
But I wonder how far this concern extends?
How often do pro-life supporters oppose the death penalty? Adopt a child in need of a good home? Help a hungry, homeless child? Advocate for better and more comprehensive access to contraceptives and sex education in schools? Support compassionate economic and health care policies that might make the difference between a woman bringing a pregnancy to term or choosing to end it?
Or do they only care about this one facet of being "for life"? These other facets all empower or help others, while anti-abortion policies simply tell a women what she can't do.
29
@AACNY, I think that liberals (and moderates) support choice out of compassion. As another commenter said, there's no way to ban abortion. You can only criminalize it. I don't support abortion for myself, but I don't want back alley abortions to make a comeback.
Btw, I hope you too would be outraged if an asylum seeker lost her baby because of inadequate care in our border facilities.
14
Is the goal of these bills and laws just political pandering? Or is it really a practical strategy to end abortion in practice? In either case there is going to be no end to the legal drama. It really feels like state taxpayers lose as no doubt the endless lawsuits use up lots of time and money.
36
It's just a matter of when. White, Christian zealots have, for years, made very sure, that, in the poorest states for women and children, ending access to abortion, with clinic closures, and now, "heartbeat" bills would carry the day. In turn, blue states cannot worry about those states any longer. In Democratic states, we must sign into law, stronger bills, that assure women's reproductive health care will remain intact, now. The totality of reproductive injury to women and girls living in red states is without question. This is not about anti-abortion any longer, these laws endanger the lives of women and girls. Their health and safety is in danger, intentionally, in these states, and that is against the law, as long as I am alive. I also believe that the Supreme Court could care less about keeping abortion legal. It's too dense a topic for the male justices. On the other hand, I do think they care about keeping girls and women alive, without prejudice toward a uterus. It's beyond abortion. It's about freedom. The slope is slippery, and ending the right to control our bodies will end our right to vote, own property, attend schools, access other health care, etc. American women will not be oppressed, ever again, because we are women. The Kentucky law is outrageous and very, very wrong.
115
@purpledot
so .. what happens as viability drops and drops as technology allows for life?
2
@GT, there's a myth that viability will occur earlier and earlier, similar to the notion that our life spans can be extended indefinitely. Nature imposes limits on both. Technology can keep a nonviable fetus' heart beating, but it can't create the organs necessary for life.
16
Can they not be held in contempt of the Supreme Court? Should they not be? They took an oath when they joined the State legislature, did they not violate it?
14
@Gerard I dunno - would their constituents have to back it? The evangelical churches hold a lot of sway in those states, with 40 and 50% attendance in some of them. I doubt Californians can force Kentucky to do anything that doesn't violate a federal law.
2
@Andrew, why would Californians want to? Is that the issue?
"Given that these bills are so unambiguously unconstitutional, they might seem pointless." Is that found under the "no life, no liberty, no property" article? Wish I could be as wishful and unambiguously sure. For those who are opposed to capital punishment and are in favor of abortion, consistency of principle appears to be lacking.
5
@farleysmoot One could postulate that you'll have fewer people on death row in 20-30 years if you don't force destitute single mothers (possibly drug addicted) to carry to term. There's an interesting bit on this in "Freakonomics". From what I remember reading, crime was on the rise through the '90s, until it suddenly wasn't. The authors attributed this to single, destitute, and possibly drug-addicted mothers being able to terminate a pregnancy, rather than being forced to carry to term.
21
@Andrew
Some might not consider it a positive that in New York City, black abortions outnumbered black births.
One influence on abortion numbers never mentioned is the increased awareness of viability. Ultrasounds and advancements in pre-term birth survival has changed the landscape dramatically in the last few decades. These advances coupled with the pro-life movement's exposure of the facts surrounding abortion (a/k/a gory details) is likely responsible for the declining abortion rates.
4
@farleysmoot
There is steadfast consistency among Christians who oppose capital punishment and abortion. Many mistakenly believe they do not hold both views.
1
First they said the fetus is a "person" at inception because it has a "soul". Now they link the fetus' humanity with a "heartbeat", presumably because that's when they can know love? They don't give any medical reason for this arbitrary date, just symbolic nonsense that's supposed to tug at your conscience and those magical hearts. The heart is a pump. It develops pretty early to supply blood to the other parts of the fetus. The fetus doesn't experience love, longing or heartbreak. If this passes on some flimsy appeal to emotions and religious fanaticism then we should start inducing birth after six weeks because we're not using the brains nature gives us later in the gestation period.
94
@Rick Gage
A fetus doesn't have to experience love, longing or heartbreak to constitute LIFE.
@Rick Gage - Human heart cells placed in a petri dish will also beat.
7
The Next Step : Bans and “ safety measures “ for birth control. And not just allowing Pharmacists to refuse to fill valid prescriptions, but all sorts of new restrictions and prerequisites.
The goal, to keep Women pregnant. For Men to regain complete control, for Women to be totally dependent and without choices, financially unable to leave even an abusive partner. After all, it’s extremely difficult to keep a Job when you’re pregnant AND already have several children, at home.
Barefoot and pregnant, the GOP dream.
433
@Phyliss Dalmatian I appreciate your comment, Phyliss. Given the prevalence of intimate partner abuse, which I've observed is popular among misogynists, I would add to "barefoot and pregnant", "bruised and buried".
29
This has always been how I’ve seen it as well. At the deeper level, this fight has nothing to do with the rights of a fetus - for male republican politicians it’s about keeping women pregnant, therefore financially compromised, less likely to have time or money to be educated, and therefore more dependent and subordinate to the men around them. Keep ‘em poor, dumb and pregnant and they’re also less likely to vote. I feel sorry for the caring Christians like my family who has gotten suckered into this game thinking that they are just fighting for the life of a fetus, not realizing that the true intent behind these laws cares nothing for the fetus or any child. If it did, it would also be fighting for laws and support to a child once it is born, not only caring about it when it’s still inside its host. They would be fighting for more education, access to birth control and support for women to not have to be pregnant in the first place. No - This is about controlling women (forcing pregnancy) and keeping the wealthy men in power, because they fear they cannot handle a world in which women also enter the game on a fair playing field.
39
@Phyliss Dalmatian. The step after that. Reversing laws outlawing marital/ boyfriend rape. Since they think that men essentially own their women, then men should have the right to impregnate them whenever and however often as they want. Women will lose the right to say no to sex.
12
I still don't understand why the government needs to know which women are pregnant and which ones are not. If a woman is pregnant, only she and her doctor should know.
"Conservatives" pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights get enforced and which ones get the squashed based on their beliefs, not on the basis of the Constitution. Even the Federalists like Kavanaugh disregard privacy in the name of fetal tissue. It's almost amusing watching these people tie themselves in knots to justify the denial of a woman's right to simply be left alone.
Fetal hearts need protection, but not the mother's right to privacy...
156
@Jonny Boy: The US Supreme Court held, in part, that states have an interest in preserving the life of a viable fetus.
@Jonny Boy Next we'll have to start documenting and recording the date of our last period.
4
Putting aside the Constituionality of the “heart beat bills”, and assume they are made law, there is a secondary question that needs some thought from the proponents of eliminating abortion. Is there a political will to fund additional welfare dollars to support these additional children born? Plus, as we learned from “Freakonomics”, there was a drop in crime rates 16 to 18 years after Roe v Wade decision (whether correlation or causation need not be decided). There are unintended consequences to decisions. If the intent is to care about the kids, then society needs to be ready to fund and support these valuable lives.
67
@Drew Of course there is and never will be any effort by the anti-abortion crowd to provide financial help to raise the children, let alone low cost prenatal care to the pregnant woman or the prospective child. The anti-abortion fight is not about the child at all. It is about forcing their conservative religious views on all the rest of us.
239
@Jeff. Exactly. Far too many don’t want to be told they can’t do something (limit on guns, get vaccinations, etc.), but don’t have a problem limiting the actions of others.
128
@Drew! No, the people who push these bills are not pro-life. They are pro-birth. Once the child is born the mother is on her own. Men impregnate and then move on. So do these “pro-lifers.”
5
I keep hearing the slogan: "If a heartbeat is detected, the baby must be protected."
Except that at that point it's not a baby. It's a fetus.
Mothers matter. Abortions are not undertaken lightly, as if that is a birth control method. No one is "pro-abortion."
Most abortions are done for medical reasons, often to the chagrin of the potential parents. No one has the right to interfere.
It's not the government's business and no religious organization should pontificate to anyone outside their own members. Period.
373
@Honey
You seem to have a problem distinguishing opinion from fact.
"Except that at that point it's not a baby. It's a fetus."
Millions disagree.
"Abortions are not undertaken lightly, as if that is a birth control method."
How would you know this. The millions of women who shout for abortion on demand without apology, and who encourage women to be loud and proud abut their abortions, give every indication that they take abortion very lightly. And it there is nothing wrong with abortion, why NOT use it as birth control.
No one is "pro-abortion."
Millions upon millions of people are enthusiastically pro-abortion.
"Most abortions are done for medical reasons, often to the chagrin of the potential parents."
This paper has reported repeatedly from women, both in articles and reader comments, who say they have no regrets about their abortions. They do not appear to be chagrined.
"No one has the right to interfere."
If abortion should be illicit, then the people via the state have an interest in interfering.
"Period."
Fortunately, you don't get to decide when the conversation is over.
2
"Abortions are not undertaken lightly, as if that is a birth control method. " That would be ideal, and used to be my assumption. I think many more women are averse to using abortion as birth control. But CDC data on abortion rate are confounding. To further cloud the issue, radicals on both sides are monopolizing the issue and making the complex problem a shouting match.
1
@JY The fact is, CDC data on the abortion rate is largely irrelevant to this discussion. So is the question of whether women are displaying sufficient levels of seriousness in making their reproductive decisions. What is relevant is that the right to abortion up to the third trimester, for any reason the woman chooses, is enshrined in the Constitution. Full stop. Therefore, these state laws are unconstitutional. Also full stop.
That's really the end of it. It doesn't matter what "radicals" on either side of the issue think, because there actually is no complex problem to solve. Women have sovereignty over their bodies and the right to safe, legal abortion is the law of the land.
40
If the Supreme Court does overturn Roe v Wade -- which seems unlikely, but we've seen unlikely-seeming things happen -- do all these state laws restricting abortion that have been ruled unconstitutional suddenly come into force? Or would they have to get passed by legislatures and signed by governors again?
6
@Dave M it seems that several states have passed legislation that would trigger right after the Supreme Court renders abortion unconstitutional. No further action would be needed by the state legislature or the governor.
14
@Dave M Existing laws on state books aren't affected by Roe going away...but in states where laws haven't been passed to protect the right, it's a coin toss as to whether or not it will be protected if there's no law ready to go into effect because states without their own laws have been relying on the federal law to address the issue.
2
@Dave M With Kavanaugh and Gorsuch on the bench it is very likely that Roe is in danger. What would happen is Roe falls is that Red States will immediately ban abortion. Women in those States would have to travel to NY, NJ, etc and some might try DIY which can be deadly.
1
No one who believes that abortion is wrong is forced to have one.
That's called freedom.
But if anti-choice zealots have their way and manage to outlaw abortion at the federal level, many of the millions of American women each year who do believe that abortion is the right option for their given circumstances will be forced to carry their unwanted pregnancies to term.
That's called slavery.
If our "Trumped up" Supreme Court eventually overturns Roe, we can expect roughly half the states to outlaw all abortions. That will render most of the women of child-bearing age in those states to reproductive slavery under the coercive control of an unholy and unconstitutional merger of State and Church power.
The last time we as a nation declared that certain Americans were "free" while others were "slaves" - things didn't go too well.
497
@Dave
Agreed. And I would like to remind folks that pregnancy entails significant health risks to women, even when they are young and healthy, but particularly when they are past 35 (and often have less regular periods). When there is a healthy, wanted baby after the pregnancy, we tend to overlook the problems some women must live with for the rest of their lives. But the zealots do not care about the ongoing negative outcomes many might endure, including damage to their bodies from strokes, serious hormonal disruptions, birthing side effect, and many other problems. To consign all women to these risks, without choice, is worse than slavery. It's inhuman and could be a science fiction nightmare for many -- and for their partners, parents, other children, and tax payers, who would all pay a price one way or another.
And I suspect that next they would come for birth control and for IVF procedures.
108
@Dave
And not that conservatives care about optics, but if Roe is ever overturned, it will be the decision of five men overriding the votes of three women. What a message.
114
@JB
Maybe Justice Amy Coney Barrett will be the one to write the decision which overturns Roe, which was written by 7 men.
The Republicans have been riding this anti-abortion horse to victories for the past 45 years. Frankly I’d like to see Roe v Wade overturned so the GOP will own this lock, stock and coat hanger. I honestly believe it is the only thing that will get this matter settled once and for all. Clear majorities of Americans support a woman's right to choose but those clear majorities have as yet to vote in pro-choice majorities at the state and even the federal level. So the Republicans whittle Roe v Wade down to a right in name only as they erect one road block after another to women's access to abortion care. It’s past time for the pro choice majority in this nation to step up and elect pro choice legislators, and sadly they will only do that once Roe is overturned.
88
@Christian Draz,
I'm sorry, but the next step on the conservative agenda after the overturn of Roe v. Wade would be a national campaign for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, in every state. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, that's just like throwing red meat to the anti-abortion base.
Not to mention the suffering of pregnant women that it would cause, in all those state where abortion would be banned.
What you are suggesting is a form of Spartacist Communist theory: that making the acute situation worse will lead to making the long-term situation better.
There is no logical or historical basis to believe that making things worse will make things better.
Let's try instead to make things better. Please.
54
@Christian Draz cynical as your comment sounds, I'm forced to agree with your assessment. Nothing will be done to secure a woman's right to an abortion until Roe v Wade is overturned and we see where most Americans really stand on the issue. Maybe it's the only way to get a workable solution in place about abortion, women's rights to choose when and where they become pregnant, and the child's ultimate right to be born into a world that wants, welcomes, loves, and can care for it properly.
4
@Christian Draz, I share your frustration, but let's please not sell out the fundamental constitutional rights of half the population in pursuit of some reproductive utopia. Let's not institute gender apartheid in the US by making women who live in the states that would outlaw abortion essentially government slaves. (May sound dramatic but when the government forces you to grow and give birth to a human being, your body has been enslaved by the government.) Let's not let girl children (or boy children, maybe especially boy children!) grow up thinking that the biological fate of large numbers of women is controlled by male-dominated legislators, even only temporarily. The responsibility of all decent people who believe in the Constitution is to settle this ASAP without sacrificing Roe--thus throwing women to the wolves--in the process.
8
Call me cynical, but I've been convinced since the early 90's that overturning Roe & outlawing abortion is the last thing that the GOP establishment wants. The anti-abortion industry is such a big and integral part of the party's politics; politicians would be loathe to give up on one of the most successful issues they have for distracting voters from the fact that their pockets are being picked. They probably have the Supreme Court votes to do it now, but I bet it will be done in a way that simply pushes the battle lines back a bit.
269
@Martin. You mean kind of like the wall being built? It is more useful as a political talking point than actual living policy.
22
@Martin
Outlawing birth control is the next step. Seems outlandish. But in 1972 so did the concept of outlawing abortion. And we’re there. These people want the total subjugation of woman. Unfortunately more than a few women agree.
20
Of course, completely overturning Roe v Wade would be the equivalent of killing the goose that lays golden eggs. What would ever draw the lemmings to the polls so reliably?
26
I’m thinking if the Republicans want to keep the religious conservatives on their side, they need to at least pretend they can’t ban abortion and keep the fight going. Otherwise they could lose their interest.
The religious conservatives may start to want to tackle social issues like food, housing, affordable healthcare, criminal justice reform...the stuff that Jesus focused on.
175
I know this is going to be a terribly unpopular pragmatic take on this, but...
I think the country, on a whole, might be better off if abortion is decided by the states. Something Trump has suggested and it may actually make sense. Abortion has motivated so many “one issue” voters that it’s allowed for slack gun regulations, climate deniers, excessively wretched excess tax cuts for the 1% and a President Trump.
And maybe, once the decision is sent to the states and the voters in that state...there could be some surprises how that vote goes.
28
@Hugh Jorgen - There are states right now when abortion is legal up to a certain point according to Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that have effectively put abortion beyond the reach of many women. Why do you imagine that allowing this to be decided on a state-by-state basis would result in "surprising" outcomes? At least now, women have some recourse--often not enough, but still, something. Richer women, no matter where they live would not be affected, just as they weren't pre-Roe v. Wade, but things would only become worse for many other women. So, yeah, I think this would be an unpopular "take" and calling it pragmatic doesn't change anything or make it a good decision.
45
@Hugh Jorgen
It could make legal abortions surprisingly difficult to find in many states. Pragmatic? Not so much.
27
@Hugh Jorgen Here's an equally pragmatic question for you: how would you feel about the legality of Viagra and vasectomy being handed over to the states, so that a man's access to reproductive health care varies widely according to where he happens to live? Does that sound cool? Or does it sound like a whole bunch of men would be deprived of their basic human rights to bodily autonomy?
Or if that's too much of a hypothetical, how about slavery? We probably could have avoided the Civil War if everyone had just agreed to let the states decide whether you can legally own another human being. Probably some guy even said something like "the country, on a whole, might be better off if slavery is decided by the states, so that it doesn't motivate so many one-issue voters, forcing my own personal pet issues to receive less attention than I think they deserve."
Would that guy have been you? Because you're being him right now.
23
When legislators act concerned about fetal heartbeats, you can be confident that the real issue is anything but that. Most of them wouldn't know an electrocardiogram if they tripped over it, and none of them (and I'm certain of this) could distinguish a 6-week human embryo from an equivalent-stage chick embryo. Not to mention that the heart begins beating before almost anything else happens, because without that a heartbeat is no blood supply to support growth.
These guys might as well march around Chik-Fil-A, chanting, "Every chicken sandwich stops a beating heart!"
Of course, the real issue is, how to get people to vote against their own interests. You can't approach that directly, so you have to go around a corner and pretend that you are FOR something those people care about (and human life is a safe bet), not how you are AGAINST something those people care about (and a safe environment in which to raise their children is a safe bet, on that side).
Abortion, I would say, is close to being the ultimate wedge issue. It doesn't matter that the policies of Democrats do more to reduce the rate of abortion than the policies of Republicans. This issue is so emotional, it's a guaranteed third rail. Just don't touch it.
221
@Duane McPherson
I feel like saying to my republican reps 'stop voting for more abortions' which they do every time they oppose sex education and health care access.... which they do all the time!
17
To a woman who has irregular periods, going six weeks without another period doesn't necessarily mean anything, because it happens frequently. That woman would not know she was pregnant.
I am so tired of this.
539
Yep- the people making these laws don’t understand how women’s bodies work, or how health care works, or how pregnancy works, let alone the ways all three of these things often don’t work in routine or standard ways.
85
@Elizabeth, I think you’re being very generous here. The people making these laws don’t care how women’s bodies work.
31
@Elizabeth. Oh, I think they probably do. They just don’t care.
16
We were so excited when the home pregnancy test showed positive. I called in right away but my caregiver wouldn't authorize a pregnancy test until I was past six weeks.
271
@cleverclue Yes. I didn't know I had an ectopic pregnancy until 7 weeks (when the pain drove me to the doctor).
17
@cleverclue, soooo? When you are anticipating a pregnancy or when it is a happy surprise, that wonderful. When you are poor, in an abusive relationship, or just need to be prepared for this drastic life-changing event, there is no happiness. Unless this is sarcasm...then, sorry!
5