The NYT has a habit of not publishing the comments I submit if they don't like them. Nonetheless, I will try to participate.
It is wrong to kill a living, growing, innocent, helpless and defenseless baby in the mother's womb. Moreover, Almighty God commands that we love our neighbor as ourselves. That baby living and growing in that mother's womb is her closest neighbor.
3
I repeat: The craven Repubs will put party (and their hearts' desires) before country and will do anything to protect the bill signer in chief.
3
Male, I hesitate to think I have a right to speak on this issue.
But, I have seen over many years in schools that children
of lower and middle class status have to have babies they don't want or can't care for because they haven't access, money, or supportive family members who blame them for getting "knocked up."
But, the kids from the posh part of towns have a weekend in Japan or Switzerland, or a special arrangement with a doctor, and that's that. They get to go on to college. Especially if they have messed with a high school athlete from the wrong class or color. The issue is as much social as religious. I cannot credit the thinking of those who want un-wanted kids in the world at the sacrifice of young women who make a mistake. It seems to me the self-righteous among the pro-lifers want to punish the "girls." "Let he (or she) among you who is without
sin cast the first stone (or vote)." And punish the poor, who, ironically, they otherwise say have too many babies.
Women should decide this issue with their doctors and the
busy-bodies should hole up somewhere.
8
Does this apply to just human life or to all mammals?
If just human, then, given advances in medical science, ought anyone not keep a person alive by any means possible, regardless of cost? Should every possible scientific means be used to prevent all human deaths?
An abortion is an amputation. A fetus does not own itself, it is owned, like a leg or an arm or a tooth is. It's mine, not yours to amputate as I see fit. Someday we will be able to communciate with each cell the way it communicates with the brain. Would be be wrong to make going out into the sun illegal because the living skin cells didn't like it? Stuff and nonsense.
1
I wrote a comment earlier today that still has not been posted so I will try to write another similar to the original. I do hope it is printed this time.
Soon there will be another 40 Days For Life campaign across the country and around the world. We stand in front of abortion centers and pray quietly that abortion will one day end. We are devoted folks who not only hope the woman has a change of heart on having an abortion but also help her before and after birth. We will find her housing and provide job training or employment if need be. Members help the woman and baby any way that is needed and we do not leave them on their own. This had been one of the criticisms and rightly so that pro life folks did not assist them once the baby was born. All that has changed and there are many good and generous men and women who are there for them as necessary. This was one of the reasons in the past that women decided to have abortions. They did not think anyone cared. All that has changed.
Many return to help with pro life work and they are so grateful that they had the baby. It has been proven that women who have abortions never get over the loss of the baby. There are also organizations that assist these women too. We never judge any woman who has had an abortion because some of them were in desperate circumstances. They need healing and guidance and we supply that also. I have met some of the finest people during my pro life work who are extremely dedicated.
1
Pro choice is pro abortion. Repeat pro choice is pro abortion. I think those who say they are pro choice do not want to admit it is the taking of an innocent human life in the womb. I think it makes them feel better and they do not want to admit pro choice is another word for abortion.
This political maneuvering by Republicans to back Democrats into a corner to vote on abortion during an election year is disgusting. Women's health and their choices shouldn't be used as pawns in their game to leverage power with their base. Abortions as you state done after 20 weeks are rare and frequently done for medical reasons. The GOP is a male dominated group who clearly has little respect for women expect to manipulate them for their own gain.
5
"The Gathering Threat to Abortion Rights" is not a gathering threat. It is an ongoing, relentless assault on women's rights. Republicans have targeted abortion since the day Roe V Wade was determined. There are too many reasons to list for why Republicans and their pro-life movement support chiseling away at women's rights to abortion and right to chose. For many its moral objections, religious objections, and a total rejection of a path for women to be independent. Women in their view should be home, barefoot, pregnant and illiterate. Its a man's world. Just ask the men who support this legislation.
There's an election coming this fall. Hopefully the Democrats and maybe even a new generation of moderate Republicans will take office.
We're at a cross road in America. Donald Trump is president. The Republicans hold at least 38 governorships, most of the state legislatures, and the House, the Senate and the White House. But if Republicans believe that they own the world they better think twice.
The baby boomers are not done voting. Their children and grandchildren are now on the scene as well. Ultra-rightwing conservatism is as morally repugnant as Ayatollah led conservatism of the Mid-East. America is not a theocracy. We are a Democratic Republic.
The Democrats need to mobilize their constituents and make clear their message. Women's rights are here to stay. Republican conservatism not so much. The backlash against the Trumpists is just beginning.
7
This bill would place the lives and health of women in danger. It allows no exceptions for women facing conditions like newly diagnosed cancer, MS, or other diseases requiring aggressive treatment. A doctor performing an abortion on a woman beginning such treatment would face prison. Conversely, no doctor is going to prescribe medications associated with fetal damage to a pregnant woman. She would simply have to wait out the pregnancy before beginning treatment.
7
The problem wish this legislation is that it has precisely nothing to do with fetal viability, or its ability to feel pain. The spurious regulations regarding clinic facilities or physicians' hospital privileges have nothing to do with the safety of women. All of it is to undermine Roe v Wade.
I once read an article by a physician in JAMA suggesting we just allow Roe v Wade to fade away and watch the resulting carnage. He said of course that he was not being serious, bit it makes the point.
In fact the 20 week rule is not unreasonable. I was an abortion provider for many years in Alberta Canada. Here, a pregnancy may be terminated upto 20 weeks on the grounds of a woman's free choice. Following 20 weeks the pregnancy may be terminated for lethal fetal anomaly, and at any gestation for the safety of the woman. This represents the guidance of our College of Physicians and Surgeons, but is meant as guidance rather than regulations written in stone.
Finally because of the scientific evidence, and the method abortion, I am absolutely convinced the fetus feels no pain.
6
Historically, women complain, and the men try to please them. Sometimes the men have to go to war, and whether they win or lose determines whether their women are pleased.
But we may be evolving into an entirely different situation today which women are tired of criticizing their men to make them more responsive to women's needs, and are taking "The Bull by the Horns", and deciding their own future can be determined by the results of their own actions, without needing to support and control the actions of their men.
Personally, I am supporting them, so that I can retire and the women can support me.
1
It’s about time. America voted for the conn artist because this is all they care about, criminalizing abortion and then birth control. It’s about time we jail those nasty women for thinking they can control their reproduction.
Does this mean that we will make similar laws concerning a man's right to a vasectomy? Will we also hear of proposals for all children to receive an education in good schools that are in excellent condition, for all citizens to have access to decent affordable housing, and other items that help children grow into productive citizens? Will we provide an allowance for each child a family has so that no one goes hungry, is thrown out on the street, will be able to receive appropriate medical treatment when it's needed (including instruction on reproduction, how to avoid it, etc.)? If not all this is is the same garbage being visited upon women and families in the name of religion which has no place in the decisions women make about their reproductive lives unless they themselves want it there.
Keep your religious beliefs out of my reproductive life and out of my family's life too. There is enough anguish in deciding not to carry a pregnancy to term without the interference of self appointed moral policemen.
11
If you're against abortion, then don't get one. But you don't get to tell me what to do. And personally I wouldn't have an abortion unless medically necessary, but that's just me.
8
Please encourage education on how to Prevent Unplanned Pregnancies.
3
So a woman isn't even to be allowed the humanity of self defense? How about if a fetus is threatening her health-and-well-being and she shoots it? I'll never understand the guns=good abortion=bad crowd.
6
Keep women - your wives, mistresses, and girlfriends - barefoot and pregnant. It's the Republican way.
After 20 weeks this bill does NOT allow abortion for rape, incest, or the life of the mother (eg severe pre-eclampsia), nor for ectopic pregnancies (where the
fertilized egg implants in the fallopian tube or another place where it cannot grow to term and will harm or kill the mother - and ectopic pregnancies can be discovered later) nor for a molar pregnancy (where the fetus is no longer human but has been subsumed by a mole) nor for one of the conditions that results in a baby with no brain.
Of course Republican Senators are all rich so they can afford illegal abortions for their daughters for any reason, or for no reason at all.
4
I'm a huge pro-choice person but I just have to say this; most European countries have laws that ban or limit abortion after the first trimester.
It's hard to argue that late-stage abortion is morally okay, and I personally believe that its none of my business nor should it be anyone elses but come on, terminating a fetus that looks fully developed, thats a hard pill to swallow.
2
I am so tired of using the word abortion which is a word which has many meanings most of which are menacing. What is happening here is forced birthing. Making a woman, every woman, complicit in the denial of the evolutionary urge to have loving sex by elevating a ridiculous concept of Mary and the Virgin birth - making it a sin punishable by hell. Just so all children can be born in the image of "god the father." Making a fertilized egg with an inchoate soul (if there even is one) more important than a living breathing woman's right to live a life where she controls her body. Just like men do.
5
In the end, God will have the final say in the abortion debate.
2
Which god? There are thousands of them. I am rooting for Odin.
6
Stop calling them pro-lifers. They are anti-choicers.
11
They are gestational slavery advocates.
5
Religion was created in the ignorant primeval past for the goal of power and control. The goal has not varied. Religion has been the source of more human misery than any other man made contrivance. Christianity? Christians have hated and murdered different flavors of Christians for centuries, Biblical values? Slavery, polygamy and genocide. Read the Bible. God is a narcissist psychopathic genocidal monster. There is zero evidence for any supernatural phenomena. There is, however, ample evidence for one universal god. Her name is Mother Nature, who has bequeathed us with a beautiful home which we are vigorously trashing. Are we ever going to grow up?
10
You can sure if men had babies, things would be different. It's amazing how many conservative Bible-toting Christian Republican men have found Jesus, so to speak, when their mistress becomes pregnant. Lo and behold, all of a sudden, these self-righteous holier than thou men Republicans become two-faced hypocrites. And if they're not caught, then none the wiser.
Women, wake up. You're more than half the population, act like it. Good God, if only men could vote, which was the case until the last century, Trump would have won by a landslide. So please, get organized, speak up, and get to the polls this and every November to come.
DD
Manhattan
11
But Trump already won by a landslide... in the electoral college. Even with Russian 'meddling', he still won by a landslide.
1
It just never ends. It just never ends. What a backward country. Religion is the scourge of our time. The more it's clear that it's all nonsense the more they double down. Seventy percent of Americans favor abortion, how do the thirty percent, the flat earthers, think they can forever force their dark ages mindset on the rest of us?
At some point they are gonna get slammed. Hard.
8
Unfortunately Democrats are way too enthralled with "Dreamers" now to worry about such critical progressive issues as reproductive health, the right to bargain collectively and federal guarantees for social services.
Democrats are too busy with their "civil war" over a $12 versus $15 per hour minimum wage or over universal HC versus medicare for all to worry about such minor things as the confirmation of Supreme Court judges.
Democrats need to focus on 50 states and not, right now, on 800,000 non citizens.
1
I don't understand your post. Are you suggesting that Democrats have no other issue right now than Dreamers?
The last I heard Democrats are supporting a range of issues, including women's health. Why try to pit one constituency against another?
7
Most opposed to this restriction seem to be ok with playing roulette on the pain of the (take your pick) fetus/living matter/unborn baby. Whereas the Republicans play loose with environmental science, liberals play loose with the science of fetal/human development. The argument seems to be that, well, the fetus/living matter/unborn baby at 20 weeks probably doesn't feel pain, so let's roll the dice. Pretty calloused. It's as if they don't want to even contemplate a scenario that doesn't match their comfort zone of reality.
Likewise, there seems to be a rationale from some that you can't legislate morality. In reality, when there are victims involved, most of what we legislate concerns moral standards. Individuals who are genuinely pro-life feel abortion is the taking of a life. So, of course, they abhor abortion when they feel life has indeed developed. To them, the fetus/living matter/unborn child is not an extension or property of the woman over which she can choose any treatment.
The morally safest course is to allow science and not lawyers and activists decide when pain is felt by the fetus/living matter/unborn child. As it's true that some extremists on the right may want to use this to enact more restrictive, unscientific abortion laws; this can't be the reason to not enact a law that is scientifically and ethically sound.
1
How about a late term abortion because the fetus is found to not have most of their brain?
4
@mpc, scientists are the ones determining when the fetal neurological system develops sufficiently for the fetus to feel pain. No one else.
You say you'd like to ban abortion. I'm old enough to remember all the abortions my classmates underwent pre-Roe. How are you going to ban those abortions? Abortion is thousands of years old, and in the end it will always be the woman's decision. What we're arguing is not whether there will be abortion, but whether it will be legal or back alley.
7
What about the pain women feel when their pregnancy goes horribly wrong? What about the woman with a stalled miscarriage - in severe pain, bleeding, at risk for significant complications? What purpose is served by making her wait for a natural miscarriage? Or the woman carrying a fetus with severe encephalitis, who won't survive infancy and cannot be delivered vaginally? Or the woman who learns that the fetus she is carrying is severely deformed and will die during childbirth?
5
So the senate bill contains exceptions for rape or incest. Then the Republicans have a problem with the conception. They believe a life conceived in the violence of rape or incest is not as valuable. They are the "pro birth" party. Once the child is born, they do not support family leave, minimum wage increase, health care, subsidized childcare, preschool..I could go on and on. Leave the choice to the woman and put policies in place that support all women and children regardless of manner of conception.
The Republicans throw a bone out to the Christian right, but their family policies are not support of children or family.
5
As soon as men can become pregnant, we can have a say in the matter of abortion. Until such time, no vote allowed. Men deciding on what a woman can do with her body is nothing short of harassment. One little sperm is far different than nine months of incubation.
8
Anyone who tries to erect a barrier that would prevent a rape victim from terminating a rape pregnancy is a sadist.
Personally, I would put a bullet in my head before birthing a rape baby, as I'm sure many other women would agree.
9
If you don't like abortion THEN DON'T HAVE ONE. But don't tell me what to do. Vote or not.
9
Women are not things to be used by any person or anything.
This is writing a particular religious belief into law. A person who believes in reincarnation of souls into animals could use the pain standard to legislate against eating meat.
But in fact we actually know more about the lack of conscious pain experience in fetuses than we do about how animals experience pain. That is because we have every reason to think we developed from fetuses
and have no memory of any fetal pain. We can't say what it is like to be a cow or a pig being slaughtered though can we?
3
For those who have not read Justice Harry Blackmun's opinion in Roe v Wade, it should be read, especially by the NYT editorial board. His reasoning, humble, methodical and impeccable recognized that nobody is in favor of infanticide but where does abortion cross the line from abortion to infanticide? He reasoned that until the fetus could survive outside the womb, it might be thought to belong to the mother, but there would come a time when it could be supported outside the womb and then society had an interest in protecting it. So the first trimester (12 weeks) was not an issue, but the second trimester got dicey and after 21 weeks it was up for discussion.
Even those of us who do not want to see a descent into the bleak days of back alley abortions realize there are some limits which are appropriate. We do not hear God's voice on our special cell phone to Heaven. We take in the data, the science but we realize at some point, there comes a point where a fetus looks a lot like a baby, not on ultrasound but outside the body.
2
I hope this bill does not pass because I am a firm believer in Pro-choice.
#Pro-Choice
4
Roe vs. Wade was about whether the government has an interest in private decisions about healthcare. Until a fetus can live unassisted outside the mother and is an actual citizen, the government has no interest whatsoever. Except for religious folk who have not learned about the separation of church and state.
10
A woman's body might be her own, but the growing human isn't--assuming it's not a slave to her caprice.
2
If a woman has cancer, do you deny her lifesaving drugs because they might harm the fetus? That's what the House bill would do.
Is this law what you would want for your daughter, or would you try to circumvent it to save your daughter's life?
Most women don't have abortions out of caprice but out of necessity. No amount of legislation is going to prevent abortions, regardless of how you feel about the issue. Tijuana was an abortion mill prior to Roe (and abortion was and still is illegal in Mexico.) Young women in every school in the country could easily hook into a line to an illegal abortionist. The moral issue is whether we return to the age of illegal abortion mills.
3
A woman's body "might" be her own??
3
If you are against abortion, for whatever reason, then DO NOT HAVE AN ABORTION.
The government, along with the sanctimonious christians "pro lifers" and the voters have no right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body inside or outside.
7
Democrats just got rolled and you don't even know it.
As we have been told forever, the US should be more like European countries with their socialized medicine.
This 20 week rule is the law in most European countries.
Now Democrats will be forced to look like extremists.
Who knew that only democrats get abortions?
3
Then it sounds as though most Americans are extremists, in your view.
You're getting your information from the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which is an arm of the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony group. No Western European nation (except Ireland) limits the ability of a woman to have a late-term abortion under special circumstances, such as health or well-being of the mother, fetal abnormality, or in some instances economic circumstances. In this respect their laws are very much like our own (except that we don't allow for economic circumstances as a reason).
If your pregnant daughter were diagnosed with a life-threatening disease, would you want her to be treated, even if the medication might harm the fetus?
4
Nothing unites the broad and fractious conservative base like fighting abortion, even relatively trivial fights like a post-20 week ban. The Left would be wise to downplay the issue if they wish to poach center and center-right voters repelled by the current government.
1
So, after 20 weeks, one of the basic reasons why a woman might seek an abortion is BECAUSE HER OWN LIFE IS IN DANGER. That choice belongs to the woman and her family and with whatever faith-based guidance they may obtain. It is absolutely, positively, not the right of government to dictate who gets to live in this situation and intrude on such a fundamentally private decision. This is a violation of religious freedom, pure and simple. It represents people with one set of religious beliefs trying to impose their values on others. Not all faiths or denominations or religions would counsel against a medically necessary abortion if the life of the mother were in danger. The religious arrogance behind this bill is dangerous, and makes it very clear that its proponents believe that women fundamentally have no right to life at all.
16
It seems odd (and negligent) that this editorial does not mention the fact that the entire point of this bill is to force Trump state Democrats (Manchin, Heitkamp, etc) to go on the record with a "yes" that enrages the Democratic base or a "no" that shows them as out of touch with their own state median voter. The sponsor of the bill (Graham) is a smart man who has no expectation that this particular bill has any chance of becoming law. The Times should at least MENTION this important subtext to the bill being taken up.
8
It's a terrible thing to watch as our constitutionally guaranteed rights are slowly chipped away by federal and state governments that are controlled by people who do not respect the law or the Constitution. Kind of reminds me of that Second Amendment thing. Nobody cares about the Constitution in that case, why worry about this one?
4
Like many folks, I have a hard time with abortion. I personally am pro-life but I’m not a woman and it is not my place to make moral judgements for other people. That’s why I find it difficult to support any kind of abortion law that limits a woman’s right to get one.
7
I am a 65 year old man and thus highly unlikely to become pregnant. I have spent my adult life amazed at the anti-abortion movement's constant fight to control women's bodies. These same "pro-life" advocates are unlikely to vote for socially responsible policies like healthcare for all, state-supported children's healthcare, economic subsidies for poor people to support and raise children, or for other social programs which aid the poor. Ostensibly the great majority of the "pro-life" movement are "Christians", yet they refuse to support state policies which would extend healthcare to children once they are born. Their Christianity is limited to Sundays, when they can crow about being born again, and not extended through their politics to the rest of the week. As a friend of mine says "the Christian right believes life begins at conception, but seems to end at birth". Let women control their own bodies and let us acknowledge that with 7.3 billion human beings, we might want to take a look at unrestrained population growth. Enough already.
15
To our great-grandchildren:
Many if not most of us are deeply sorry for the 50 million and counting babies that were slaughtered by abortion. Yes, we know how ridiculous we look. In the 1700's our ancestors decided black people were not "persons" and we enslaved and murdered them. In the 1940's, Hitler decided Jews, homosexuals, mentally disabled, etc., were not "person" and had at least 6 million of them murdered. And in 1971, the US Supreme Court decided babies in the womb are not "persons" and we have slaughtered them in numbers that dwarf slavery and Hitler's purge.
We know you have stopped this horrific practice. Please know we tried to use the legislative process to stop this. Some even stooped to violence but we are not a violent people. We apologize for not trying harder. We know you are ashamed of us. You should be.
The people of the 21st Century.
3
To whom are you writing???? Within two or three hundred years, there will BE no Humans left on this planet, due to overpopulation. Grow some brains, before you attempt to encourage others to grow more unneeded
Humans. Exponential Growth means DEATH, and sooner rather than later.
You and your kind pose a clear and present danger to the human species.
5
A woman who votes GOP is like a death row inmate voting for his executioner.
12
Abortion after 5 months is rare for a reason.
2
I have three children ages 23, 25, ad 27, my youngest was born with Down Syndrome and diagnosed with Autism when he was 2yrs. My entire life, as well as my husband's has been dedicated to the care of my son. I have not been able to work outside the home and never will because my son is priority. We have been very lucky to have family resources to help fund the never ending costs to care for a person with special needs, yet we still struggle financially. Every time I hear Pro Lifers condemn others for letting people make their own decisions I want to say, spend a day, or even an hour in my life and then make your judgements. There is so much neglect for the already born children, lack of funding and programs for the kids alive, why don't these pro lifers volunteer their time to see what a real parent does, and step into the shoes of someone who doesn't just talk the talk but walks the walk.
21
Cheryl: because actually TENDING to the needs of children is, soooo, way down their list of things to do.
Hello to your family and our best wishes to all of you!
I regret that all that money went to the 1%er's.
So many in this nation could have used it to actually improve the lives of those that they love.
8
This election will be, in part, a federal election, since there is a law up for the vote which will effect our country, whether one is for or against abortion. We must get as many people as possible out to vote, whichever side they're on.
In the past non-presidential elections have usually brought out way less than 50 percent of the electorate. It shouldn't be that way.
Question 49 on the nationwide test for citizenship reads: "What is one responsibility that is only for US citizens? There are two correct answers. One of them is: "Vote in a federal election." In case anyone has forgotten, a responsibility is something we have to do. Voting in a federal election is a civic responsibility. But we should go even further.
Every American citizen should be required to vote, just as at least 22 other countries require. Only then can we say "The people have spoken."
4
I am all for a vote on a new law on abortion rights, with a simple caveat: only women of reproductive age should be able to vote on it! No more male-only anti-abortion law drafting panels!!!
18
What about people that lived because abortion was illegal in their state when they were born? Do they not count?
1
I'm 70, Al.
I left the reproductive category long ago, but this matter is critical to me.
Awww, please, please, let me vote!
1
Sorry, you're not alive because abortion was illegal pre-Roe. You're alive because your mother wanted you. She had plenty of opportunities to end her pregnancy.
4
Easy way to solve the abortion issue. Women assume 100% financial and legal responsibility for their children. If a father wants custody or joint custody if living with the mother she can grant it and and can even ask for support. But no more of this heads I win tails you loss nonsense of the woman unilaterally killing the baby without the father or society's input BUT after babies are born demanding support from the father / society. If a baby has two parents when it comes time to pay for food and diapers then a baby has two parents when one of them wants to kill the baby.
1
But only one parent donates her body and risks her health and life for that baby. I agree with you men should not pay for baby without custody, but he should pay the woman damages for risking her health and life no mater what outcome of pregnancy pregnancy will be, including abortion.
5
I agree completely. But I doubt most of the NYT faithful will. They need an underclass to give welfare to in return for votes.
I read an article once about Ireland. Young Pakistani migrant was dead. She had critical medical condition in her pregnancy. While doctors decided how legal is to help her she died. I thought I would not want to be pregnant in such country. I would not want to be a doctor in such country.
Now it arrived to this shore. "Pro life" people can very well find themselves in pro death position. Their position is coming from illiteracy among other things.
=================
Rich women will be spending pregnancy in Canada and Australia, just in case.
Upper middle class women, if need abortion will travel there to be safe.
Poor women will subject themselves to rusty scissors. Their lives will be at risk.
8
The fetus died in utero and then went septic. The Irish doctors refused to take the dead fetus. The young woman died, as you point out, while they were arguing about it.
Her death is the basis of the upheaval in Irish reproductive laws.
How I regret the loss of her.
6
We will end up having it here if this hysteria does not stop.
Georgia passed the law that requires woman to deliver dead fetuses.
http://msmagazine.com/blog/2012/03/31/at-11th-hour-georgia-passes-women-...
Ohio governor signed the law requiring carry to term Down syndrome babies.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ohio-gov-john-kasich-signs-down-syn...
Texas woman was forced to carry slowly dying fetus
https://www.thedailybeast.com/texas-forced-this-woman-to-deliver-a-still...
5
Lets not forget that 53% of White women voted for Trump and 65% of white women voted for Ray Moore in Alabama. Clearly white women do not consider Choice to be a major factor in their voting decisions.
6
Anyone ever stopped to consider the pain and suffering as a result of having to be brought into this world? Seems like a pretty a pretty bogus argument.
7
Have you seen a baby at 20 weeks of gestation? He or she is a baby, not a fetus, not a lump of cells. You can determine sex, watch blood flow from heart to all the organs, read brain and nerve impulses in response to stimuli. The person in the womb is a person at that age. It is disgusting to anyone that has seen a baby at that age on still or video (4D) ultrasound to think that a prestigious paper like the NYT would opine that these infants should be voluntarily killed by their own mothers, with physicians assisting.
3
Personhood is a subjective determination. Some think that zygotes are persons from the moment of conception. However, medical science makes no judgment on anything but viability.
SCOTUS based its decision in Roe on medical science. I appreciate your passionate belief that the life of the fetus is worth as much as the life of a girl or woman, but I don't share it. If it came to a choice between my daughter and her pregnancy, I would choose my daughter.
2
As a strong pro-life person, I despise the pro-life tactic of focusing on pain. It's unscientific and the exact opposite of what the pro-life platform stands for. The whole point is that it doesn't matter if you are black or white, male or woman, strong or weak, feel paint or don't, an adult or a nascent embryo. All human being have the absolute right NOT to be killed.
5
Spoken as someone who has never gone through childbirth...
5
The right *not to be killed* does not mean you have the right to use my body to live. You don't have a right to use my body to sustain your life-- or for any other purpose. If you are inside my body and using my bodily resources without my consent, I may evict you. Doesn't matter if you're black, white, male, female, strong, week, sentient, or not. If you disagree, please explain to me why we do not force people--even corpses-- to donate organs or tissue against their will?
Do you believe a woman should have fewer rights than a corpse? Why or why not?
9
Rapists don't deserve to breed.
Would you want to take care of your wife or daughter while they are pregnant due to a rape? Do you want to pay for their OBGYN bills while they're out of work, suffering from PTSD, wanting to commit suicide? Would you want to help them pay the bill after they give birth to the rape baby? Are you going to adopt the rape baby?
4
I am nearly past childbearing age and don't intend to have more children. If I did, however, I would lie about the date of the last menstrual period to give myself more time for a legal abortion if the pregnancy went wrong, as the odds are higher that it will at my age.
12
Reminds me of the joke, "Doctor, do you think i should be having more kids after 35?"
"No, Ma'am I think 35 children is plenty enough.'
2
You can't really fib your way out of an unwanted pregnancy. They would do an ultrasound which would show how many weeks along you are. So unfortunately were it not for Roe v Wade, your only option would be to go to another country, if you had the resources.
The "forced childbirth" society will never give up until their hypocrisy is framed in such a way that they are forced to the far margins of our culture, where they belong.
11
Pure evil in your words.
Here in Germany abortion is completely forbidden, BUT will not be punished up to the twelfth Week AND confering with Two Doctors is obligatory . This was a historic compromise after decades of discussion. it was VOTED UPON IN OUR PARLIAMENT and not imposed by liberal judges dreaming up new " rights" out of thin air
It saddens me to observe that abortion rights are all but gone, and flatly, women deserve at least half the blame. Single women are among the demographics that vote the least, and the last presidential election, a majority of women voted for Trump. Is anyone really surprised that things are going in this direction?
10
@Pamela Fitzsimmons, let's put the quote in context. Hillary Clinton said that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." By that she meant that universal access to contraception should steeply reduce the need for abortion.
I agree with her. In fact easier access to contraception in states like Colorado does reduce the number of abortions performed.
Anyone who really wants fewer abortions should be an ardent supporter of Planned Parenthood.
1
The rancor between the pro-choice and anti-choice groups is understandable. The pro-choice side asserts that women alone must be allowed to control their bodies. The anti-choice side asserts the necessity to preserve the life of humans, whatever stage of development, even when they are preborn.
The problem I see is the lack of agreement of common understanding and terms between the groups. The pro-choice group fails to acknowledge that abortion is the elective killing of a genetically unique human life in the woman's body, whether the proverbial "clump of cells" or a day away from full-term development at 40 weeks. There is no getting away from that. Piling on that is the unprovable contention that each fetus has its own "soul," which will enter the afterlife inevitably, at some point, and perhaps accuse those complicit in losing its life.
Ultimately, however, one must also recognize that the fetus shares the woman's circulatory system, totally dependent on the woman. What the woman swallows, affects the fetus. At the same time, pregnancy and birth are intrinsically dangerous, and indeed at times fatal.
The woman must be accorded complete independence to determine what happens to and inside of her body, and the decision to terminate her pregnancy should involve solely her and her doctor. The alternative would constitute the state-affirmed invasion of privacy and loss of rights of citizenship.
8
Victor,
I loved your summary of the two sides. As a pro-life person, I think you gave a succinct and accurate perspective of the pro-life position. Which is rare. However, given your clear understanding of the concerns of the two sides, it feels like your conclusion came out of left field.
Argument: Pro-life advocates and Pro-Choice advocates both have valid concerns and don't understand each other.
Conclusion: Adopt a fully pro-choice position.
doesn't make sense to me.
I don't have any problem admitting life is being ended. I do have a problem with people who equate an embryo with an adult person. I also do not believe that human life is more sacred than other forms of life. That belief is a religious one. In order for women to have autonomy in the world, abortion must be kept safe and legal. Considering that there are over seven billion people on the planet, the idea that each genetically unique person must be saved seems ludicrous.
5
Pro-life people should support the research for developing fetus outside the human body and then fight for the fund that will support all these unwanted children until adulthood.
1
First there is the mother of 4 who cannot feed the children she has.
Second there is the unwanted child.
Third there is the planet struggling to survive the persons already on it.
Fourth there is an America where every fourth child goes to bed hungry.
Fifth there is an America where there is minimal health care for the poor among us (thank you GOP).
For these reasons and many others in these responses, restricting abortion is cruel and unusual punishment (plus the insult to women).
12
So you believe in Eugenics, where the poor among us should be encouraged not to have children, because they cannot raise them properly. Thank you for your elitist opinion.
1
@Above My Paygrade, a better question would be whether you believe in universal healthcare and a strong social safety net for every child born. Or do you believe that taxpayers owe nothing to the child whose family can't afford to support him adequately?
The real elitists hold libertarian views like the Koch brothers.
1
"An expected procedural vote in the Senate on a 20-week abortion ban highlights the need for the public to vote in November’s midterms."
Are you sure that's what you want? A Quinnipiac poll last month found that only 21% of registered voters nationwide think abortion should be legal under any circumstances. Maybe ultrasound is becoming the enemy of unlimited abortion policy.
The Medical center I work with just got a new 4D ultrasound. it is amazing, you can see your baby at 20 weeks of gestation sucking his thumb, reacting to your voice and to touch. it makes some incredible lifelike video you can share. gone are the days of the old fuzzy wedge of an ultrasound.
Hope it passes!
1
Holly. If it passes please adopt or foster a child.
That’s what’s called following through on your beliefs.
OTOH: So much time and energy is wasted on fighting a forty five year old law. Better to spend it on strengthening young families, especially the lives of young girls and women so that the abortion rate plummets to zero. Better to educate young people so that they see there are real choices and can better support themselves and the families they eventually choose to have. I choose the better life.
7
Women, rather poor women, will be reduced to "back alley" abortions. This is not a governmental decision and the republicans are hypocrites. How can we stand for this second class citizen standard for our sisters?
18
This is a human rights issue, not a partisan politics issue. Protect the babies, believe the science, outlaw this wickedness that is more reminiscent of Roman Empire infanticide than how a 21st Century First World Country. How this "procedure" ever became a "healthcare" is a mystery.
1
Agree!
1
Why should you, a man (or so I assume), have ANY say over what ANY woman chooses to do with her own body? We are not baby factories at your command. Yes, it is a human rights issue - the right of *adult women* to make the important decisions concerning their own bodies and own lives.
If you don't like abortion - you don't have to have one. But don't tell me I can't if that is the best thing for me and mine.
5
Abortion has been practiced since the beginning of time.
5
Stop the war on science. If a lifeform can feel pain at 20 weeks then they are more intelligent than a blob of jello. Err on the side of life.
1
A pregnancy is about 9 months, or 39 weeks. So a trimester is about a third of the way through. It is hard to make a case for healthy women, who consented to sexual intercourse, terminating the lives of healthy unborn babies. Exceptions for rape, a mother's life and serious health issues, and serious fetal impairment are reasonable. But society should not encourage healthy women to kill healthy unborn babies. Maybe high schools and junior high should have remedial classes for boys and girls to explain, once again, how babies are made. And by the way, if we are going to execute the unborn baby of a rapist, let's execute the rapist.
problem is...about half the states have a pro abstinence or no sex education policy. Schools should teach the science of STDs, contraception, pregnancy, and childbirth. Parents have to step up and teach the morality.
1
She consented to sex, not to the pregnancy. For pregnancy to occur there should be two people, why only one should pay price by risking her life and her health for unwanted pregnancy.
4
The "pro-life" supporters are so cute. Until the baby is born. Then they become ugly and non-caring. These are the same class of individuals who don't believe in gun control. Can you spell hypocrite? Better yet, can you define it?
15
The chipping away at a woman's right to choose has been very successful at the state level where the GOP have the majorities and governorship. The Pro Choice movement is virtually asleep at the wheel, as there needs to be more challenges to these arbitrary and capricious laws design to take women's rights away!
6
No, not at all. The republican war is not at all on women but for the rights of infants who have no say so in whether they live or die, especially after they reach the stage of development when they can live on their own. But even before then, they are still real people. Women should certainly be allowed to exercise their rights but should not have nine months to make up their minds, as seems to be the position of most Democrats.
1
You are definitely confused. How long do you think 20 weeks is? It is NOT 9 months! Also, we are not talking about INFANTS! An INFANT is a living, breathing child that has already been born! No woman is walking into Planned Parenthood at 9 months pregnant and getting an abortion! Stop being so naive or ready to believe anything that supports your views. A FETUS at 20 weeks is NOT viable! And by viable I mean it cannot live outside the womb without being in the NICU! This is not a political issue, abortion is LEGAL and the woman who is pregnant has the LEGAL right to terminate the pregnancy. Since Republicans want to take away that right from women, then yes, there is a war on women! GET A CLUE!
5
I have copied some stats from the Bureau of Justice Statistics regarding how many rapes are reported. Clearly, most women never report the rape and to use this as the measure for "permission" to have an abortion is a further assault on the woman.
"The majority of sexual assaults are not reported to the authorities.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports that the majority of rapes and sexual assaults perpetrated against women and girls in the United States between 1992 and 2000 were not reported to the police. Only 36 percent of rapes, 34 percent of attempted rapes, and 26 percent of sexual assaults were reported. [3] Reasons for not reporting assault vary among individuals, but one study identified the following as common: [4]
Self-blame or guilt.
Shame, embarrassment, or desire to keep the assault a private matter.
Humiliation or fear of the perpetrator or other individual's perceptions.
Fear of not being believed or of being accused of playing a role in the crime.
Lack of trust in the criminal justice system."
8
The pro-life contingent doesn't care. Their zeal for protecting fetuses is in large part due to their desire to enforce "God's punishment on women" by forcing us into situations that promote painful and repetitive childbirth.
They want women to suffer from pregnancies, and they're often ignorant of biology and think pregnancy is an enjoyable cake-walk. They rejoice at the idea of a woman's life being destroyed by giving birth to children they can't care for. They relish the thought of a girl being thrown out of the house by family members, a "lowly" single mother being ostracized by peers, or by forcing women into going through nine months of pregnancy to give birth to a rape babies.
1
Thanks, J. It reminds me that anesthesia was very controversial when used in childbirth at the end of the nineteenth century because it was thought to violate God's curse upon Eve that "I will make your pains in childbirth very severe. With painful labor you will give birth to children."
The controversy surrounding anesthesia in childbirth seems quaint now, but it was pretty heated at one time. It fact it springs from some of the same Biblical beliefs about women in general, and about sex being for procreation alone.
1
The first issue is whether "our bodies are our own." The answer to that is clear: as members of civilized society, our bodies are NOT our own to do with as we please. For example, all males in the United States must register for the draft on the day after their eighteenth birthday, and historically millions have actually been drafted, sent to war and into combat ... almost all against their will. So personal sovereignty over our bodies is at best limited.
The second issue is, what do other civilized countries do? The information I've found shows that other civilized nations generally allow legal abortions prior to viability. Sweden, for example, allows abortion on demand up to 18 weeks, and with permission of a national health board, up to 22 weeks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Sweden#Current
If everybody in society has an interest in the welfare of everybody else in society, then society has an interest in the reproductive process. The question is, how intrusive is that right in a civilized society? It seems to me that Sweden has answered that question pretty well.
3
We do not force people to donate their organs even when they are dead, and yet some people are OK with forcing women to donate their whole body for somebody whom this people consider to be a human being.
8
"The answer to that is clear: as members of civilized society, our bodies are NOT our own to do with as we please."
What? Yes they are. You can think of one example-- the draft-- which is a concept more than a concrete fact of life in this society and moreover does not involve literal use of a person's body-- and you determine that our personal sovereignty is "limited, at best"? That's ridiculous.
Why are you ignoring the fact that we do not force people to donate organs against their will? To donate blood? To undergo medical treatment against their will? We don't even force people to donate their bodies to science or organ harvesting after they die. We don't force people to have sex with other people against their will.
You ignore all of these examples, but the type of bodily sovereignty at issue in these examples is far more analogous to the type of bodily sovereignty implicated in pregnancy.
You will also be pleased to know that fetuses are not viable at 20 weeks.
5
Yulia,
Our society has demanded that millions of men give their lives to defend our freedom to have this discussion. That is the nature of a society where we are all responsible for and to each other. Sweden has this right, the United States of America has it wrong.
It seems like this procedural vote is being held just to put Democratic senators on the record, especially those who are up for re-election in states that voted for the president. Once this vote happens, I hope the NYTimes lets its readers know which Democratic senators in danger stood up to this idiocy and, therefore, may need support from around the country.
5
If Republicans, their voters or their "president" had any real interest in the welfare of American children, CHiP would have been fully funded months ago. There would be universal health care to keep parents and children healthy. There would be family leave, guarantees for continued employment of pregnant women, reliable and safe child care options. There would be good public schools, overseen by someone other than a wretched, ignorant political hack whose family makes millions by privatizing public schools - with disastrous results (see: Michigan).
Instead, Republicans ruthless exploit children for political advantage, by attacking a woman's right to decide when and by how many to expand her family and by demonizing those children as the parasitic failures of "ghetto welfare queens".
Their base loves to have someone to feel superior to, and to have their interpretation of religion translated into oppressive, bitter legislation. The rest of us are disgusted.
12
If infanticide is immoral and abortion is moral, what criteria should we use to differentiate which is which? Viability seems like an appropriate compromise. If not 20 weeks, maybe 24 weeks. I am not sure of the exact cutoff, but society is becoming more aware that the baby in the womb has some rights as well, which is a good thing.
1
To me is very easy, the fetus should be considered infant when he/she is outside of mother's body.
6
My feeling about Abortion changed when I was Pregnant. I thought it would be terrible to be pregnant if I did not want to be. It is a private decision between a women, her God and her Doctor. Everybody else stay out of it, especially if you are not capable of being pregnant.
16
There is an even more insidious threat to abortion rights pending before the Florida Constitutional Revision Commission, an every-20-year process that proposes amendments, good, bad and purely wacky, to our state constitution. We actually have a good privacy article that has been interpreted by our courts to prevent significant limits on abortion: " A person has the right of privacy from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life..." The advocates for change, positioning themselves as both pro-life and pro-data privacy, want it to read: "A person has the right of privacy from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life with respect to the privacy of information and the disclosure thereof..". Perhaps innocuous on its face, but clearly narrows the right of privacy in Florida and eliminates the basis for freedom of choice based on a right of privacy. People around the state are opposing the proposal, which, fortunately, has a long road to a ballot in November, but I invite other Floridians to actively oppose this insidious proposition.
3
There should be no legal time restriction on abortion, period. As has been made clear, the vast majority of abortions are performed way before 20 weeks. For the remainder, the decision should be left to the woman and her doctor. At it's core, this is a debate about the right to control one's own body. End of story.
7
I noticed no mention of punishment for the father of the aborted child after 20 weeks. The woman not only must bear the child but the prison time as well? This is all so highly disgusting to me. I also find the logic to be hypocritically applied. So, if the woman must absorb the cost of the act, are you admitting that it was entirely her decision in the first place? Then, in saying this, shouldn't the decision to carry or terminate be entirely hers? "A Right to Choose." What a novel concept!
I believe that a woman can be trusted to make the right choice for herself. If she needs guidance than a trained medical professional with whom she trusts can be consulted for advice of a non-judgmental nature. End of story.
People must stop trying to save their souls by telling others how to live. The religions of the world all seem to have one thing in common: an unhealthy focus on a woman's reproductive system.
10
I am pro-life. But, I don't consider abortion murder; I consider it a civil rights violations. I think there should be penalties, but not prison. And I think these penalties should apply equally to mother and father. Thought it was worth pointing out that not all pro-life people fit your mold.
Barry - who's civil rights does abortion violate? The FETUS? You mean the civil rights of a clump of cells that cannot live outside the womb supersedes the civil rights of a living, breathing woman?! Do you know that women have DIED in HOSPITALS because a failed pregnancy was occurring, but the doctors refused to abort the fetus on "moral grounds". I think death is a pretty stiff penalty to pay for the ignorance and abject morals of others!
4
I consider ban on abortion to be violation of the civil right of woman to have control over her body. We don't force even corpses to donate their organs despite of saving other human being lives, and yet we disregard woman's right to decide who should use her body.
4
Motherhood is the most momentous decision AND responsibility a woman will make in her life. It is NOT the Governments business to be making that decision for her (over 40% of pregnancies are unintended).
6
the idea is not to force parenthood, the idea is that *killing ones offspring* is not a permitted method to avoid parenthood.
Just change a perspective , it is not about killing, it is about denying to donate your organs. We all have such right, right?
3
We're not brood cows--we're women who understand how deep and lifelong the commitment is to raising our offspring. Again, it's not the Government's business to make that decision for us. I've wondered whether DNA testing of every American male that then tied their responsibilities to fatherhood (enforced by the Government, of course) would float among men? Financial, emotional, time investment, inheritance rights would all be decided by Government--they'd have no choice in the matter. If the tables were turned, would men accept this?
2
I hav a friend who had to terminate a pregnancy in the fifth month because the fetus died. She lived in Colorado and it took her nearly a not to find a doctor and facility that would perform the procedure. Not only was it heart wrenching for her but she is Jewish and had the pregnancy gone to 6 months, by Jewish law she would have had to have a funeral. Her family was almost forced to go out of state - which they were fortunate enough to afford - but it is unconscionable to put any women and her husband though this agony when this was a medical decision made be her physician, Plus, had she been less educated, and of limited financial means, it is not clear that she could have gotten the procedure. This proposal is simply barbaric.
11
In 1972, I worked in an organization devoted to women's reproductive freedom. I attended the oral argument of Roe v. Wade at the Supreme Court. After the ruling came down the following year, I was initially optimistic that we wouldn't have to deal with this issue forever. Over the intervening 45 years, however, I've watched young women grow up taking for granted the [not unlimited] rights that Roe gave them. Failure of vigilance and activism now will doom young women to repeat the struggles of their elders.
7
I think there's an alternate explanation regarding young women taking the freedom's granted in Roe "for granted". Perhaps they are responding to the realities that technology is increasingly able to reveal. It was easier in 1973 to look at an ultrasound in 1973, note the grainy resolution, and say "abortion should be legal." It's much hard to do so when you look at a 4D ultrasound. With this technology, women and men, are starting connect the language of equality and oppression they've grown up with to the plight of the unborn, and starting to realize that the oppression they have shed has simply been displaced to someone more vulnerable, weaker, and voiceless than them. And many of them are standing up to that. Good for them. America is quickly socially liberalizing on many issues (e.g. gay marriage), but it is not liberalizing on abortion. There are reasons for this, a small part of which is the pro-life message gaining steam among non-traditional groups (atheists, feminists, liberals etc). I predict a non-religious driven revolution on this issue in the next decade.
That won't happen. Scientific breakthroughs can make 24 week old fetuses survive, but all that is useless if the pregnant person in question can't afford a NICU bill.
There are still huge negative economic, social. and physical side effects that occur to a woman both during and after pregnancy, even when it's planned. Plans to continue education stop, employment opportunities cease to exist, poor marriages are made, abusive relationships continue "because I have to take care of baby".
The US is being driven into this "you're on your own" attitude. Our country is largely anti-sex-education and anti-healthcare-for-the-poor which will only make unplanned pregnancies explode in greater numbers. There is also a weird subculture of men out there who believe it is their right to rape women, and they're growing in number. There are also many people out there who insist that the majority of rape claims are either false, or that the victims deserved it.
The non-religious revolution will not happen.
3
Barry,
What you cite is merely anecdotal. Show us your facts. Just how many young women and men have you specifically interviewed to arrive at your conclusion that the majority of them are anti-choice? The data on record from the Gallup poll of 2015, the most recent comprehensive, non-partisan objective poll on record reveals otherwise: 50% of Americans identify themselves as Pro Choice; 44% identify themselves as Pro Life.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/183434/americans-choose-pro-choice-first-tim...
4
Maybe people should go back to re-read the SCOTUS decision in Roe v. Wade, especially the trimester analysis of the Court. Roe v. Wade supports both sides of the abortion issue, and gives neither side a complete victory. Roe v. Wade supports the pro-choice side, earlier in the pregnancy, but also supports the pro-life side later in the pregnancy. The moving issue is the point in the pregnancy when the Court's analysis tips the balance to the other side.
2
I'm not for abortion.
From my high school years long ago, I recall the tragedies of 13 and 14 year old classmates: one a widow at 14, another attempting suicide, a number dropping out of school. Other classmates, undoubtably, had abortions, and I shudder to think what those illegal abortions may have been like. No happy stories to tell.
Our sex education consisted of some gibberish about zygotes and gametes and a blushing young biology teacher becoming aware that during his explanation he was pushing his index finger in and out of the circle made by his other forefinger and thumb.
I'm not for abortion, and that's one reason I so strongly support Planned Parenthood. I want to do whatever will actually lower the number of abortions: sex education, not in vague terms, but clear enough to act (or not act) upon. Half the children in our city schools have STDs, and Planned Parenthood can change this also.
Support Planned Parenthood and lower the number of abortions.
And provide healthcare to a demographic that doesn't get equal healthcare: women.
11
Evangelicals have no moral high ground now that they support Trump no matter what he does. They are the only group where the majority believes that abortions should be illegal in most cases (http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/).
For a senator, opposing this bill should win more votes than it loses.
7
I do not believe this bill would pass the Senate, for the simple reason that the GOP needs abortion to remain a “hot button” issue, guaranteed to turn out passionate voters who don’t look hard at candidates. I know “pro lifers” who would fervently support a Pol Pot or Josef Stalin if they promised to criminalize abortion. When this issue is “won”, what happens then? Will these same people march and vote for “More Tax Cuts!” Will they rally for “More Toll Roads! More Privatized Prisons!” No, most of them will not. The GOP will lose one of their biggest blocs of single issue voters. They will lose elections. So, the strategy is to send the anti abortion movement enough tidbits to keep them agitated but also ensure that the abortion controversy stays front and center for the next election cycle.
8
aem: you are sooo cynical - and sooo right!
I heard this last year or the year before, and thought, That is so cynical!
And then came the election of trump by the evangelicals. After watching that loopy perv show I now accept that reasoning completely.
I no longer credit ANY person of religion with anything other than a lust for control over others and a fixation on tax exemption.
Yes, it's gotten that bad.
4
The same man who has suddenly empowered the anti-abortion industry savagely beat his first wife, repeatedly committed adultery each of the three times he's been married, and has won the hearts and votes of fundamentalist anti-abortion terrorists. One wonders how many abortions he's paid for.
Here's a handy rule of thumb: If Donald Trump is against it, sensible Americans should be for it.
8
The hypocrisy of the religious right is proven here for two reasons. First, they say that abortion is killing but not one of them, and I mean not one of them, will commit to adopt any of the unwanted which are born today let alone the millions which would result from banning abortions. Second, and what many of us find even more amazing, is that the religious right claims to be opposed to killing while at the same time totally supports the US military’s, along with the CIA’s, killing of as many anti-Americans as supposedly required to protect us, as long as the killing does not take place in the domestic USA. An even worse part of this support is that it has cost the rest of us trillions, yes trillions, and not simply billions starting with the very dumb war in Vietnam. Over all of this time you would think that we would have learned from our own errors, but we have not. Now, all of you who claim that your god supports you, need to come forward and explain why you do not either “turn the other cheek” or even less “give up your cloak” whenever possible. Hypocrisy seems to be more prevalent that ignorance within this group, right?
5
If you are a woman, and you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one.
But if you are a woman, and you do want to have an abortion, and you let any man--lover, husband, father, brother, legislator, minister, judge--prevent you from having any abortion, you are promoting slavery. You have defined yourself as a man's property.
Any man--lover, husband, father, brother, legislator, minister, judge--who wants to control your reproductive life wants to own you; anybody who wants to own you is your enemy, and should be treated as your enemy.
6
Religious people believe that their God is all powerful. If this is the case then why not wait for this god to act against abortions and those who have them? Do they really believe an all-powerful god needs help? Maybe this God of theirs does not really exist outside their heads?
2
This coalition of theocrats and kleptocrats is well on the way to destroying our nation.
4
Every time an abortion occurs our society is deeply wounded. Supporters of "abortion rights" are guilty of supporting murder.
There is no justification to murder an innocent child. The inconvenience of an unwanted pregnancy does not give anyone the right to commit murder.
The reason for the pregnancy and the circumstances around the pregnancy are all irrelevant. If the pregnancy is the result of a crime, the child is just as much a victim of that crime as is the mother. Both victims are entitled to equal protection under the law. If the mother has health issues, it is society's burden to care for both the mother and child. If the child has health issues, it is society's burden to care for the child. Innocent children deserve and are entitled to statutory protection under the law.
4
"The reason for the pregnancy and the circumstances around the pregnancy are all irrelevant."
You heard it here first, folks. Women are irrelevant. Our lives and bodies are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the fetus.
As I've said before, an "inconvenience" is when you run out of milk and have to run to the store. Having a baby is one of the most profoundly life-altering experiences a woman will ever go through. Let's take birth alone- do you think that undergoing major abdominal surgery is simply an "inconvenience"? How about having your perineum cut open? I'd love to give Mitch McConnell an episiotomy and then just write it off as "an inconvenience."
Fetuses are not entitled to use my body. Full stop. End of argument. The Equal Protection Clause does not give anyone this right. Why do you want to give special rights to fetuses?
7
And yet you judge those who need CHIP, welfare, food stamps. I was in no place--financially, professionally, personally, mentally--to raise twins. You call it murder as though it was a thoughtless decision. I think about them every day. I have no regrets.
Your opinion is nothing to me. I am not worried about my soul.
I came into this world because my biological mother, at 19. chose to give me up for adoption to a wonderful family that was more prepared to care for me than she was.
I made the decision I made at 25 because it was right for me. I did not hesitate. It's been more than 10 years and I regret nothing. It was not murder.
You, stranger, unkowing. uninformed. You do not get to judge me or anyone else.
5
Your argument is heartfelt, and on its face cannot be refuted. Except that you are WRONG on the science, and you are trying to force your religious views on all the rest of us.
A better strategy for you would be to keep abortion legal, but make it rare by attacking the circumstances that lead women to want abortion -e to agree poverty, lack of childcare, lack of medical care... We should all be able to agree on this. Of course, if you still want to impose your version of Sharia on all of us, then there is not solution.
4
I have watched as women I care about agonize, weep, meditate, pray, over their own decision as to whether to have an abortion or not and I have shared their anguish.
I have yet to see any woman deal with abortion cavalierly, indifferently, flippantly: no man can possibly understand how profound, wrenching and deeply painful a choice this can be for a woman.
Hence, no man has any currency in this realm.
When I see Plastic Pence smugly addressing his followers, my soul shudders.
47
And how many of these "pro life" people have adopted unwanted children, especially those with disabilities. Wouldn't this be the "christian " thing to do. This is not about life. This is about controlling women.
34
We did and I know many others that have as well, even with disabilities. It's not about controlling women. It's about being accountable and recognizing there are other options, even millions of people out there willing and ready to adopt the 600k+ humans aborted annually in our country.
Very difficult to find Christians among the "Christians." But you are dead wrong about "controlling women." How about, saving the lives of the children?
2
And how many children are currently in foster care, never to be adopted?
2
Those who oppose abortion - don't have one. Simple. Your opposition is yours to own, however, do not foist your belief system on others, as you would not wish to have them foisted upon you; you will not be forced to have an abortion, but your attitude might force me to term and delivery.
Fetal anomalies and dangerous problems with a pregnancy for the mother don't often show up until after 20 weeks. The 1% abortion rate for this low, but how anyone can in good conscience force a woman into carrying to term a child who will suffer when born with tubes, ventilators, etc., or put a woman at risk of death when she may have children at home who need her is beyond comprehension.
35
Good logic. Let's see how your advice would have worked in past cases of human rights abuse:
1800's: Those who want to free the slaves: don't own any.
1940's: Those who are opposed to Hitler's murder of the Jews: leave Germany.
1950's: Those who don't want segregation: move to a desegregated neighborhood.
Human rights are for all humans and our grand children will look back in horror on the 50 million and counting babies slain.
Such babies are evidently useful props for people with Munchausen-by-Proxy Syndrome.
1
To D - no, human rights are for all human PERSONS. A fetus is not a person, legally or morally. The fact that it can grow into a human person is as relevant as the fact that any of my cells contains my entire DNA and may, with appropriate technology, be grown into a genetic copy of me. And I am more that tired of the cynical misuse of the Holocaust to justify reproductive slavery. My grandmothers’ entire family was slaughtered by the Nazis. These were not blank fetuses but people with dreams, desires, ambitions, memories, each of them a unique and irreplaceable personality that has been created by the lifetime of experiences. Both Hitler and Stalin outlawed abortions, at least for their own populations, and this prohibition indicates exactly what is at stake in the anti-abortion crusade: control of female bodies to serve a religious or ideological purpose. It has nothing to do with “human rights”.
2
One of several reasons I am no longer a Republican is the fact that the party has capitulated to evangelicals. These folks are zealots who,if given the opportunity, would impose their morality on the rest of society that would rival Sharia law that they constantly rail against.
41
Here's a deal that's a win-win for Pro-Life and Pro-Choice advocates... The morning-after-pill becomes broadly available throughout the land (clinics, pharmacies, schools, health providers) free or at minimal prices in exchange for 20 weeks with broad exceptions to be decided by the woman and her physician.
Let's flood the land with morning-after-pills and stop talking about Roe v. Wade and religious versus independent choices. Let's relegate abortion to the 21st century dustbin. Or are we trying to legislate something else here--like morality?
13
Problem is: a woman doesn't know "the morning after" - and may not know for a few weeks - if fertilization has occurred.
But yes, I agree with Nestor above: "no man has any currency in this realm."
1
But God prescribes pregnancy to deter sex, doesn't He?
I wonder if most of those posting comments here have any idea that the U.S. is a relative outlier in allowing abortions as late as it does in the pregnancy. Search the web for "abortion legality weeks Europe" (omitting quotes) to find an article in The Atlantic that details these. Even with a 20 week limitation, the U.S. would be very liberal on abortion restrictions.
9
Most European countries don't also have our equivalent of a vocal, financailly/politically powerful Christian Right, which ties abortion (at all stages) to morality.
7
In Europe there are no angry mobs at clinics deterring early access to them, and theirs services are covered by a public health plan.
9
You also need to account for available health care, contraception, and access to early abortion before being able to make that comparison, however.
4
I wish all politicians supporting this ban could be individually asked their thoughts on author/journalist Patrick S. Tomlinson’s hypothetical scenario: There’s a fire in a clinic and, as you’re running for the exit, you see the following: A container labeled “1,000 viable human embryos”; and, in another room, a terrified five-year-old. You’re starting to choke on smoke and you don’t have time to grab both. You have three options: A) Save five-year-old child B) Save the 1,000 viable embryos C) Save neither (everyone dies)
So, are you going to grab the embryos over the child? He argues that of course you’d grab the child—morally, ethically, logically, biologically and so on it should be obvious that a human child is more important than 1,000 embryos. Does anyone disagree?
23
This is an asinine hypothetical. In what mixed-up liberal world must you have an abortion to save a 5 year old???
Love how so many have embraced this hypothetical with an almost orgasmic zeal. Alas, it's not the silver bullet so many claim it to be. Despite Tomlinson's claim that he's never received an adequate or honest response from a pro-lifer, a quick google search will reveal that they are legion.
America already has a "maternal dearth rate" on par with several third world countries so this is suppose to make it all better, is it? Somehow America has to join the rest of the civilized world and start electing a greater and greater proportion of female legislators, other wise, dinosaur politicians like Mitch McConnell will continue to enact laws that will further erode the rights of women.
America is still the only place in the group of western industrialized nations where women's rights are still in peril.
12
Late-term abortions cannot be compared to any other type of abortion and for anyone who supports a ban at any stage, including after 20 weeks, I URGE you to read the Jezebel interview of a woman who made the decision to have such a procedure at 32 weeks.
Before becoming horrified at the thought of someone having such a procedure at 8 months, please stop to think about the horrifying reason a would-be mother would make such a decision.
For this particular mother, her would-be child -- the baby she desperately wanted, was eager and overjoyed to be expecting, and would give her own life for (a real, legitimate risk) -- was diagnosed with multiple, bizarre abnormalities in the womb. Still, the couple persevered. Then the worst one came at 30 weeks, that the "baby" could not swallow and would choke to death shortly after birth.
And there wasn't anything the doctors could do. The infant could survive the birth, only to suffocate and die painfully soon after.
How horrifying. How horrifying for the mother, both parents. To be happily expecting a child and eventually told his little body was literally "incompatible with life."
So, this heartbroken woman chose an insanely expensive procedure to spare her baby that outcome. He was allowed to die in the womb. But at least she had that choice, to spare her son the pain of suffocation. A CHOICE every woman should be free to make, if needed.
https://jezebel.com/interview-with-a-woman-who-recently-had-an-abortion-...
25
The pro life movement lost their credibility by supporting Roy Moore in Alabama. Shame on them.
25
The abortion issue is to the right as spinach is to Popeye. It makes them stronger. Like the Israelis and the Palestinians, having each other as sworn enemies invigorates both and keeps them viable as separate entities.
Were Roe v. Wade to be overturned it would turn out to be far worse politically for the conservatives than for the liberals. The right would lose a rallying cry where as the left would simply gain abortion rights on a state to state basis.
The right's constituency is well know for its proclivity to vote against both its economic and political self interest.
6
Banning abortion is the cutting edge of the sword of theocracy, and a rallying cry for procreation by rape.
1
All women's reproductive rights are under siege. Bill by bill, state by state as the Pro-Life movement chips away at women's rights to control what happens to their own bodies. Sadly the minority may someday win and when they do all their focus, money and commitment will turn to restricting and then eliminating access to birth control.
18
The most important part of this editorial is the statistic, that only about one percent of abortions are performed after 21 weeks. This bill, for all the controversy and lawsuits it will generate, is addressing a non-existent problem, which is why people rightly question what its sponsors' motives are. Anecdotally speaking, I have known a few women who had abortions at this stage, and all were because a previously undiscovered severe fetal abnormality surfaced. Do we really need a piece of legislation to force these women to carry a child to term, even if it's clear the child will live a short, tortured life? I think not. Give women and their families credit for being able to make the choice that best adheres to their medical needs and moral or religious beliefs. Enough already!
17
There are a lot of financially comfortable guys out there (including senators) who think this will never affect their beloved daughters and granddaughters because they could hop on a flight to New York, or even Europe, if necessary. I just say, make sure you can afford a private chartered jet to Europe with nurses, in case your very pregnant granddaughter has a sudden medical issue. Let's hope she feels well enough to make the trip.
15
They would be foolish to do so. When it comes to abortions, our country is far more liberal than nearly every European nation...
1
I am embarrassed for my fellow old white men who think, for no obvious reason under heaven, that they have the wisdom to make decisions for all--ALL women facing a horrible choice.
Arrogant sowers of discord, servants of Ignorance; Satan's toys.
19
Every woman's health is her own; plain and simple, and cannot be denied. This legislation is about the subjugation of American girls and women into second class citizens, period. No man in a million years would allow legislation dictating any part of his body. This is about vicious control of the female body, after many cruel and despicable years of Republicans shaming reproductive care in the name of dangerous and vile beliefs. The abhorrent dishonesty of this legislation is cynicism finally bowing to sadism; eager to derive pleasure by inflicting pain and death for girls and women, from coast to coast, who are viewed as non-believers and whores.
22
Right. The basic American freedom to murder babies in the womb. And of course the obvious stance of godless fishwrap like this one. They love science these infanticiders - but when science tells them a fetus feels pain and is viable at 8 weeks, well hell - these lovers of human rights can't let that get in the way of their conveniences. They are low. Editorials supporting their crimes are below that.
Children who have been born also feel pain. They feel pain when they are hungry and their parents do not have enough food to feed them. They feel pain when they are neglected or beaten or raped because their parents never wanted them. They feel pain when they are forced to live in unsafe neighborhoods because there are too many children in their home and their parents are unable to afford to live somewhere safer. They feel pain because they are alive, not fetuses about whom the science you so self-righteously dismiss is clear. When you use your energy to support legislation that makes all of the real pain real children experience daily in this country a thing of the past, instead of increasing as it has been shown to be in the last several decades, then I and others might be more inclined to believe you really care about the lives of children.
8
Opinion qualification re: women's reproductive rights
Do you have a vagina?
"Yes"--you may express your opinion
"No"--keep your mouth shut
20
Thank you, SIR. I've been saying this for DECADES.
4
To the Republicans: either ban sex or keep abortion. You have short memories about back room illegal abortions and their infections, filthy medical tools, doctors of malpractice, etc. No one thinks abortion is a wonderful procedure, but it beats daughters dying from bleeding to death or from infection. Stay out of women's lives, and men in government (that includes our dear leader): save your penises for your wives.
You are all hypocrites.
20
Oh, I think they absolutely remember the back room abortions, and relish their return! Additional punishment for having sex!
3
I'm a little tired of all the high-pitched hysterical fear mongering from both sides of the abortion issue.
In my mind, the sane people have long understood that abortion simply isnt a Federal Issue any more.
The Supreme Court ruled that women have a right to seek abortion as a health care issue.....
The Supreme Court did NOT say that the Federal Govt has to pay for it...........NOR did the Supreme Court opine that the Federal Govt must regulate abortion and punish people for NOT offering abortion services!!
The DNC,INc has managed to manipulate public opinion to support their now giant Political Slush Funds thru the micro-management of Health Care and Abortion services...
The RNC, Inc has managed to manipulate public opinion to support their own giant Political Slush Funds thru hysterical billboards featuring dead babies with their brains sucked out..........
Its ridiculous. Ms. Richards is paid 500k/year by the Federal Govt to essentially do nothing except contnribute $$ to the DNC,Inc!!
Meanwhile,, out in the real world, if one hospital doctor refuses to perform abortions because of religious/moral beliefs.....there's always another one down the street that will.....no Federal intference required.
....
All told, the main reason why Health Care is so expensive....is Federal micro-management of abortion services.!!!
4
You are incredibly misinformed. I suggest you Google Planned Parenthood to find out what Federal dollars are spent reimbursing which services. Hint: not one goes to fund abortion services.
3
The rights to use contraception and to terminate a pregnancy have rightly been considered women's rights. It's rare that we talk about these matters as sexual but let's bring that word into the discussion.
Why? To remind everyone that it all starts with sex, with an egg and a sperm, that it takes two to make a baby. In the majority of cases, both the man and the woman decide to use contraception, and when there is an unwanted pregnancy, they both decide to terminate it. (I know this is oversimplifying things but I'm just trying to make a point here.)
The religious right has been successful in making it more difficult for women to have access to contraceptives and abortion. Our rights are in extreme danger. We need to marshall all our resources. We need men to join the battle for reproductive rights. If our husbands, lovers, and partners speak up, those who feel comfortable controlling women's bodies might be forced to think differently. How can you call a woman irresponsible, how do you slut-shame a woman when she is walking next to her man, any man, carrying a pro-choice sign?
90 years ago my grandmother had an illegal abortion. Luckily, it was a safe one. My grandfather was involved in every aspect of it. Together they made the decision, found a place to go, went there together. It was about their family, their future, the health of their children, and the health of my grandmother. Her body, their lives.
12
So there will always be those critical of the right to abortion at 20 weeks. Sounds pretty generous to me but then I am not a flaming liberal who approves of every cock eyed idea in the world to allow people to do as they please even when human life is at stake. I have always found Democratic ideas a bit cock eyed on the abortion issue. While standing as the protector of so many “rights” how can Democrats somehow justify removing the rights of an infant, the “least” of those among us even when they cannot allegedly “feel pain.”
7
THANK-YOU for calling attention to the urgency of this issue, and for clearly stating the call to action: "VOTE in the midterm elections". WE MUST VOTE to give meaning to the marches, slogans, hashtags, and pussy hats. Activism without voting is just showy and hollow.
8
The Republican War on Women marches on.
18
Abortion should always be safe, legal, and none of anyone’s damn business but my own.
15
Eliminating abortion and gay rights will always be the knee-jerk voting positions for the religious right, so are the two major issues which ultimately divide the nation.
Make Congressmen accept the same health plans they're pushing on to everyone rise, and require them pay for their own viagra, for any potential change to occur...
7
Has anyone noticed that IRELAND is doing away with their anti-abortion laws?
That nation has had enough of the Catholic Church running it.
But they weren't quick enough for the 700 dead babies in the septic tank in Tuam.
They weren't quick enough to save the boys in the orphanages from being raped and beaten for all those centuries.
Now, we, in our great ignorance, are taking up the slack in power that Ireland is chucking off.
Since the Catholic Church can't rule them anymore, since their numbers of members is crashing, since their collection plates are coming up empty, since the young adults are waving away the bad smell of patriarchy and hypocrisy and openly stating that they are atheist, then the Catholic Church has thrown all it's might at the USA.
The Catholic Church owns 1 in every 6 hospital beds in this country.
In those hospitals, patients are denied sterilization whether they are male OR female.
Females are denied the legal medication of the "morning after pill".
They are refused abortions on ANY grounds and BIRTH CONTROL IS FORBIDDEN!
Now, we have a CHOICE.
We can either be the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OR we can accept FOREIGN RULE.
We can become the "New Ireland" or the "New Papal States" and fall under the rule of the New Testement, rip up that Constitution that DEMANDS separation of Church and State and let Hobby Lobby, the Catholic Church and let Newt Gringrich rule us...
OR we can tell that foul Senate to keep their noses out of our vaginas!
ERA NOW
14
Thank God that the RCC is one of the few institutions large enough and powerful enough to speak the truth to power: abortion is legalized murder, plain and simple.
Tell that to the 700 dead infants in the septic tank in Tuam, Ireland. Please research that matter before you start "thanking God". How is it that God allowed the RCC to do that? Or does the RCC maintain that God had nothing to do with it?
You can't have it both ways, Tea-sipper.
4
Abhorrent bill. Just flagging for NYT editors there IS an exception for the health of the mother in current bill language.
3
Sounds like the Mitch Ceausescu knows what's best for women. Fatalist natalists.
4
the day a man becomes pregnant, the next day, abortion will become legal, and if its a white christian southerner, probably the day before.
8
"Abortion foes."
Please - go mind your own business.
11
I am so sick and tired and disgusted and exhausted by old white men trying to dictate laws regarding women's bodies. They should shut up and mind their own business.
14
When the white male GOP and its ladies' auxiliary finish their holy work there will be no more abortions. There will only be D and C's, and they will be performed only on rich women.
9
Republicans hate women. As a matter of fact, they hate anyone who is not white, male, heterosexual, and christian.
15
Abortion is not merely a private right, it is a public good.
Republicans should support the voluntary termination of unwanted foetuses because in most cases that unwanted foetus will become an unwanted infant, that will become an unwanted and uncared for child, that will end up an unwanted and uncared for teen in the juvenile justice system.
It is a fact that most African American and Mexican American gang members are born to very young single mothers. It would have been better for them, for their mothers and their gang victims had they never been born at all.
4
They just can't stay out of our wombs.
5
They're going after Roe? Whooda thunk it?
2
It's a shame these guys can't get pregnant.
8
It wouldn’t be happening if men got pregnant.
3
Ah, the Dems, the Libs, once the party of the powerless and the poor. No longer. They still continue their terrible tautology of "We're only pro-abotion if someone wants an abortion, otherwise we're, well, still pro-abortion." They are still stuck in the sticky wicket of Blackmun and the boys who failed Biology 101 and declared a human fetus "not human" until they said it was "human." And that point in fetal development became whatever the pregrnant woman said it was. Forget the doctor. Forget the slaughter of Fifty Millions of humankind. Eschew the help for pregnant women oftered by caring prolife groups everywhere.
Folks, it's time for a gatherting threat to abortion rights as it's just, plain wrong! Let's work together and fund more ways to help pregnant women deliver and raise their child. The barbarian practice of abortion, like the holocaust, must be seen for the tragedy it is. Vote for the Right to Life. All life!
3
"The Senate bill contains exceptions for rape and incest IF the women reported the abuse to law enforcement and sought counseling 48 hours before the abortion. But there is no exception to protect the health of the pregnant woman."
There we go.
The Senate of the United States of America says: "Die".
trump said that there MUST BE penalties for women who seek abortions. That they - and their doctors - must PAY.
How sad that 16 years into the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq that this country still doesn't get who the Taliban are, who ISIS is, and that they are simply American Fundamentalists with a different wardrobe.
But their song is the same..
and they sing it loud and they sing it shrill -
"I can't be a MAN unless I am SUPERIOR to a female!"
Paul Ryan demands that Medicaid be slashed.
Donald Trump wants women jailed!
Mitch got his $1.5 TRILLION - what does he care?
And that nice Susan Collins and Angus King - they'll both vote for any restrictions on any woman in this nation.
There isn't one shred of evidence that any Republican gives a fig about any matter concerning females.
But they sure do want female's tax money.
In fact, they now NEED those women's tax money.... to give to their Masters, to give to their Most High and Holy Leader - donald trump, to pay for that TRILLION.
Sorry, but this is all just wayyyy tooo Catholic for me.
I'm atheist. Not one of these people makes it ethically.
You boyz want a theocracy?
Move to the Papal State and kiss the Pope's.... ring.
7
“Twenty-week abortion bans...violate the Supreme Court’s standard that abortion can be restricted only when a fetus is viable outside the womb.”
Standards change. Laws evolve. Remember gay marriage?
“Many, including the one being considered by the Senate, are based on claims not supported by most scientists about when a fetus feels pain.”
So when technological advancements inevitably (and soon) convince the majority of honest scientists that the 20-week mark is an appropriate cut-off, the Times will alter its editorial stance?
“Only about 1 percent of women seeking abortions do so after 21 weeks....”
So then it’s not a severe curtailment.
Your leftist zealotry blinds you to the obvious. Science will develop ever more sensitive instruments, which will show fetal pain clearly and early. You really are on the wrong side of history—the side of sheer barbarism.
3
Every civilized European country stops abortions at 12 weeks
Banning them at 20 weeks is supported by 70% of the population
Get used to the idea
4
The real goal is to punish women for having, and especially enjoying, sex.
Susan Guilford
Orange CA
714-585-0984
10
I never comprehend how you can be 'pro-life' on abortion and not pro life on gun regulation, pro life on your obscene Military/industrial/Pharma budget, be pro life on Universal Health care.
Perhaps because you are not practicing what you preach. You preach it to all and sunder. All and Sunder see you are hypocrites. Therefore your religion is against life.
Hoping you recover and come back from the Dark Place.
7
According to the editorial, the Senate bill contains exceptions for rape and incest but not for the health of the mother. If you are anti abortion because you consider the fetus to be a living, unborn child, this is exactly backwards to what you should be supporting. It is not the fault of the child how it was conceived. If you support self defense as a mitigating factor in a homicide, then the exceptions in the senate bill should be limited to the safety of the mother.
Let's be clear on this: If you consider abortion to be murder, then you must advocate for punishment of all parties involved; the doctor, the woman and all who facilitate in the conspiracy to commit. Since abortion in virtually all cases is premeditated, then you must consider it to be murder in the first degree with all parties subject to penalties ranging to life in prison and death. If this is your position, then bring it on....let's have the national discussion and stop pussy footing around the issue. Of course, we can also consider the stoning of adulterers (or, adulterous women, to be specific). If you think this is beyond the pale, then admit that anti-choice is a religious stance and has no place in a multi-cultural society whose makeup consists of many differing religious and non-religious citizens.
5
They scream like mashed owls about Sharia law, then do this. Irony is always first thing to go when you turn into a conservative.
11
"Mashed owls?" That's a good one.
A mashed owl does not give a hoot about Shaia law...
Don't want an abortion?
Don't get one.
That goes for you, Gorsuch.
9
This view is so foolish. Don't want to rob a bank? Don't rob one. Don't want to commit murder? Don't kill anyone. Society isn't made up of individual beliefs and we are not laws unto ourselves. There really is such a thing as right and wrong.
2
Of course society is made up of individual beliefs, Antoine. That's not only how societies are "formed" it is also the mechanism for how they "change".
Yes, there is such a thing as "right and wrong", and dictating, forcing a female to bear "children" because someone - any one - says they must is just plain wrong.
You don't believe me? Then tell me this: My childbearing years were from age 11 to age 48. I had 37 years where I could have borne a child, one a year, every year.
That's 37 children.
Now, you tell me: Exactly what number is it that you think it was your right to tell me to bear? 20? 15 (the amount my paternal grandmother had?)? 18? 10? 2? 26?
Sure, go ahead: pick a number, any number.
Tell me - and all the women out here - exactly how many you think should be borne.... at your dictate.
And, since you are dictating how many I will be forced to bear, then tell me how much you are going to kick into the kitty to pay for their diapers, their food and medical care, their dental needs, their college education - or were you assuming that not only do you get to force-breed me every year, but that I will carry the cost of all of that?
So sorry, but YOU are the one footing the bill!
My uterus = your money.
Okay, so what's the magic number?
Don't be shy now!
Number, please!
4
Super comment. Right on. Force women to reproduce with no medical care, no maternity benefit or leave etc.
2
Black lives matter ... except when we want to kill them. Almost a third of black babies are aborted (420 abortions/1000 live births, 2013, CDC), so clearly their lives don't matter.
We will never solve the problem of humans lives not mattering while our party platform is based on the retail murder of babies.
2
You missed the memo, John.
The new message is, "All women's lives matter."
We're tired of being the scapegoat for men complaining that we are mouthy, irreverent, taking men's jobs, demanding the men stop stealing our equal pay for equal jobs, that we are snarly, don't kiss fanny enough, don't smile enough - and then we're to pop out 20 or so unaffordable bambinos...?
It's never enough, is it, John?
You see, John - ALL lives matter, but did you miss that in this Senate bill that there is no provision for the "health of the pregnant woman".
None.
Doesn't matter if the woman is black or white : She's a female so that makes it open season on her.
So, you tell me, John: Why isn't THAT murder?
You see, that wording means that there IS medical help for the pregnant woman - but they're just not going to give it to her.
Ha, ha.
Guess they got her, didn't they?
And, this new bill sure guts that nonsense of "rape and incest". Roy Moore and that Dugger man have got to love that part. We know that trump does and even the Pope is backing this -.
So, you see, John, maybe the abortion rate in the black community has something to do with the fact that this is a racist and a sexist country - gosh, just like it might also be a factor in the Anglo community.
Well, you get back to me, John and let me know why withholding medical care isn't murder....
"Retail" or "wholesale", I'll take abortion over "forced breeding" anyday... and if you had ever been a female - so would YOU!
4
. . . and sought counselling 48 hours before the abortion. . . But no counselling necessary, if you're a maniac buying a gun or two . . . to kill humans. . . even though you're "pro life" . . .
9
This is where faux-centrist faux-Republicans like Graham and Kasich drive me bat-crazy
On the one hand, they want the feds to subsidize opioid recovery centers on every inner city block in their state as a way to revitalize their economy - and then they blow this "conscience-driven" dog-whistle, nibbling at the term limit on abortion
The technology exists for any - and every - woman to know if
> She is pregnant, within 1 week of uterine implantation
> If her baby is healthy, to varying genomic and imaging diagnostic insight, anywhere from 2 to 24 weeks into the pregnancy
...so make these technologies available to everyone - and privately and anonymously
And - allow abortions up to 2 weeks after any definitive test that shows a fundamental abnormality, regardless of term
........
Gov Kasich - lookin' in your direction again
This law comes as close to a modern-day lynching of certain pregnant women as has been seen in a while
*ttps://www.cnn.com/2017/12/22/health/ohio-governor-signs-down-syndrome-abortion-ban/index.html
AG - you asleep or something
Your paper actually had something quite sensible to say about this travesty, a couple of years back
*ttps://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/opinion/abortion-and-down-syndrome.html
Going forward, are you going to be faux-silent, in the face of this faux-centrism???
If you don't remember what faux-silence sounds like - listen to this
*ttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/opinion/kasich-bush-immigration-salvadorans.html
4
When Doug Jones (who will be voting FOR this bill) was running for the Senate, a curious factoid popped up.
It was, that in the State of Alabama, that the State-average for the number of children in a family, is LOWER than the National average.
What that means in concrete terms is that families in Alabama are availing themselves of the uses of birth control AND abortion in numbers great enough to be in the bottom percentile.
Check your own State.
Are you above or below the national average?
Here's another question for you: Did your State ever pass the Federal Equal Rights Amendment? Did your State ever pass your STATE'S ERA?
And, question Three:
What reproductive laws has your State passed against MEN?
Are they forbidden condoms?
Are vasectomies legal in your State?
Are penis implants legal?
Does your State do mandatory DNA analysis of babies?
What is the % of payment in your State of child support?
What is your drop-out rate?
What is your opioid use?
What is your rape percent?
What is the percentage of incest cases?
How many women in the last year died in your State in childbirth?
Find out.
Find out what the numbers are, because either there ARE NUMBERS or there are NOT, and these Senate Cultists are blowing smoke up your nose.
Doug Jones is anti-abortion and he is from a State that has a LOWER AVERAGE than the National norm.
Does he know that?
What does Doug have to say on that matter...?
4
This should NOT be a legislative issue. Abortion should be discouraged by all involved, and is SHOULD be a question for a woman and her doctor, with consideration from her family and faith. There are just too many outlying medical and mental circumstances that can occur at any stage in pregnancy that a blanket regulation of any kind is appropriate. This is a MEDICAL issue.
6
Not.
What will become of fetal surgery if we legislate that fetuses can "feel" at 20 weeks? If a fetus feels pain, one would think that all procedures that don't involve sedating the fetus would also become illegal. What about procedures that "partially birth" a fetus, should they also be illegal if they cannot guarantee that the fetus will feel no pain? Will choice be limited, even when the choice is to help the fetus survive and thrive?
5
Time’s up for the GOP. The party against women must be demolished in 2018.
13
Yes, the GOP must be abolished. But it''s not because of abortion.
2
These medieval intrusions of a purely religious sentiment into human rights in America is the most egregious example of fascism. Laws like this are nothing less than tyranny; attempts to drive the American public into slavery
10
“The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act?!”
Words fail me. Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump and the rest of the GOP- you truly have no shame.
12
we will give you the $$ to fly to England, as we had to do 40 years ago.
3
The editorial babbles in the second paragraph about "gutting" Roe v. Wade and efforts to "severely curtail abortion access nationwide" while conceding in the fourth paragraph that "Only about 1 percent of women seeking abortions do so after 21 weeks".
And "Abortion providers"? Is that the term for what used to be known as "abortionists"?
This editorial is a rather biased and thoughtless discussion.
2
No, this editorial is correct. You simply do not understand the issues.
The anti-choice legislation mills and their related advocacy groups are advancing these bills (numerous similar ones have been passed by states) in order to present a challenge to Roe v. Wade. Most of the legislation they propose is designed for this purpose. If they can convince SCOTUS that banning abortion before viability/the third trimester is appropriate in some cases, that eliminates a major component of Roe's protection for abortion rights. But they can't just ask SCOTUS to reconsider; they have to pass legislation and have it challenged to get the issue before the court.
The fact that it only affects 1% of abortions is *helpful* to the antis- because people think that it won't affect them, they don't think it's a huge deal, they don't protest.
PS- "abortionist" isn't a real term. That's the term that idiot antis use. Like "pre-born child" or "pro-aborts." .... we see through you....
6
The term is "physician". No charge for the correction.
Isn’t advocacy for reproductive rights “White Feminism”? Sorry, but I can’t get on board unless you provide evidence that you consulted with at least three Women of Color in your office while writing this editorial. And so help me God if one of them isn’t trans...
Why are these 'ol white men having the say on what a female can do with her body? Have many of these pale faces are using Viagra? Women of America have a right to know what you good 'ol boys are doing with our tax payer dollars. We PAY your salary & we PAY your health insurance. We demand to know exactly what you are doing with your bodies! It is our right!
Did you ask our permission to obtain Viagra? We think we need to pass legislation to address the issue of what you are doing with Viagra. Are you giving it to your girlfriends? What's going on, guys? We will have to deny you the right to have sex via Viagra. We need to monitor your body & your sexual activities.
You cost us, the taxpayers, far too much.
11
REGISTER & VOTE! That's the takeaway. Trump is out to gut the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The midterm elections are the one chance to cut short his madness and abuse.
10
Abortion rights are nowhere to be found in the constitution. Roe v Wade is bad law. It must be reversed. The invented right to "privacy" led to the right to kill your baby. There are no universal rights to privacy except those embodied in the 4th amendment. Any honest Judge that can read on an eight grade level knows Roe is bad law. Society was just fine pre 1972. America in many ways was a better place. Many of the millions of babies that have been slaughtered in the aftermath of Roe were black and brown babies. Rich white babies are rarely aborted. This is the dirty little secret. America is killing off the next generation of minority leaders at the end of a surgical vacuum. It is an outrage.
Are you kidding? Society was not just fine before 1972 - remember back-alley abortions?
4
Images to convey my revulsion toward this cruel legislation: a flag-draped eagle carrying a bloody coat hanger; a bloody coat hanger dripping on the flag.
8
At the risk of repeating me-self: if you don't approve of abortion, don't have one. Otherwise, sorta keep it to you-self, gents . . .
9
And when the Democrats in the Senate come up one vote short of stopping them, will Kristan Gillibrand apologize for facilitating the Fox News pillaring of Al Franken?
1
He's been replaced by a Democrat, I believe.
1
Google the book “Red Clocks”
2
Can you be a "liberal" and be anti-abortion? I think you can. Those who believe that abortion is murder might think it far preferable to build a viable social safety net that would ensure that all children arrive to find a welcoming world where they would be cared for and allowed to thrive, whatever the circumstances of their birth. Abortion is simply the expedient out-of-sight, out-of-mind solution, very similar to the European holocaust. If we believe in the sanctity of human life,as we often claim, the elimination of so-called "abortion rights" is a good place to start.
3
Nope. It doesn't matter what kind of support you provide- there will always be women who don't want to give birth. Forced gestation is slavery. There's no way around that. Having a social safety net doesn't change the fact that banning abortion subordinates a woman's rights to that of a fetus- which is not equality.
5
Let me make this plain: If I do not want to remain pregnant, no "safety net" will change my mind. All pregnant women who want to continue their pregnancy and raise the child should be provided all of the services and assistance she needs. All pregnant women who want to gestate to term for the specific purpose of willingly surrendering the issue for adoption should be handsomely compensated. All pregnant women who do not wish to be pregnant should be able to conveniently and affordably obtain a safe and legal pregnancy termination. And all pregnant women who face a tragically compromised pregnancy with health threat to her, the fetus, or both, should be able to obtain a safe and legal pregnancy termination without interference or obstruction. My rights to my body are not negotiable, and women's rights are not erased upon conception and pregnancy.
1
Abortion will soon be safe and available if you have money.
If you're poor, not so much.
6
Violence against women? Tearing away a fetus is an act of violence.
It should be renamed "Unplanned Parenthood."
1
Is any medical procedure then "violence"? Yes, by your tortured logic
2
Please, please, please STOP using the term 'anti-abortion' and call it what it is, either 'anti-choice' or "anti-women's-rights." I know of no one who is 'pro-abortion,' the putative other side of the 'anti-abortion' coin. No one is out there saying, "by golly, we really need more abortions out there"...well other than a few eugenicists.
Call it what it is! And, don't even get me started on 'pro-life.'
10
One question for the "abortion is murder" crowd: Who else dies with the fetus? So many are guilty of pre-meditated murder in your biblical new world order - the mother, the doctor, his assistants. They must face the gallows for violating the Christian equivalent of Sharia Law the GOP is so willing to put into place. What about the husband or boyfriend pressing for pregnancy termination? Will they go to the chair too, or just spend their lives in prison? How many breathing human beings have to die to protect the "rights" of an unborn clump of cells? You are welcome to keep your religious beliefs in your church, your home, and your hearts. But when you chose to wheel them out into the public square and impose them on the rest of us in our secular society, then expect a pushback.
11
Wait, did the Times just endorse a Democratic Senate obstruction of a pro life candidate to the Court? In the middle of Trump’s first term? Has the Times sunk so low that revenge for Garland is seen as more important that the constitutional process? If so, as it seems, we will never again see a justice of one party approved by the other. That’s striking but I suppose inevitable.
3
The language needs to be reframed. "Pro-life" needs to be renamed "pro-forced pregnancy." Perhaps that will get the message across, but not likely.
13
And please add amendments banning any and all treatment for prostate cancer and require vasectomies for any unmarried man.
https://condenaststore.com/featured/the-senate-committee-on-womens-healt...
;)
9
20 weeks has been the grey line in the sand for some time now. It’s a compromise that voters thoroughly support. All McConnell is doing is formalizing a practice nationwide that many states have already done within their jurisdictions.
Politically, it’s a no-brainer. The American people are sick of rewind-replay of old issues that, in their minds, 20 weeks settles nicely, thank you very much. Unless and until Democrats ditch/reverse/bury stale positions on abortion, immigration and “climate change”, as a party they’re bound to continue their march into insignificance. It’s endangering their health, no question about it. Last person, please re-flush.
4
The far right will not rest until they criminalize ALL abortion and legally define women as carriers and not human beings. Leaving out an exception to save the life of the mother is one more step toward seeing women as only containers who 50% of the time bear a human being, a male, and 50% of the time fail and only create another container. The irony is the same right wing loons rail against Islamic fundamentalists with Sharia Law...but share the same view on the rights of women.
11
So a thrice married serial philanderer who paid a porn star $130,000 to keep quiet and has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault is taking the "moral high ground" and standing with Evangelical "Christians" to gut abortion rights? I think that can be found under the dictionary definition of "hypocrite."
9
It is time to end the slaughter of innocent children.
I agree. No more war in Afghanistan.
6
1. All children, ever, have already been born.
2. A fetus is neither innocent nor guilty. It lacks capacity to be either. I'm quite sure you would not consider a fetus that caused the pregnant woman's death in a tragically compromised pregnancy to be "guilty of murder".
3. Innocent female US citizens' sacred civil, human and Constitutional rights to the protections of the 14th Amendment are inviolable.
From now on let's call it what it is: the fight for birth control rights. No government or religion should have any authority to force a woman to breed.
8
Another bow by the venal GOP Congress to the Mercers and the Wilks, etc, their “Christian” billionaire backers, out to make the USA their own little Theocracy.
7
Pain, not merely a biochemically triggered reflex, requires consciousness, and the unborn have no consciousness. Ergo, they cannot feel pain.
All those Bible-thumping, subordinate-humping Republicans seem unaware, as Blackmun's Roe v. Wade decision is indifferent, that the definition of life and its commencement are religious beliefs, not scientific, ones. Even the Catholic Church has changed its traditional view, from Aquinas's view that it begins at "ensoulment" (or "quickening"). Differences within religions--Different Christian denominations have different definitions, from the moment of conception (variously defined) to quickening to breach at birth. Jews are united in believing life to commence at breach.
So where is the much vaunted respect for freedom of religion and freedom from an establishment of religion? You'll find it when you shop at Hobby Lobby, not in Congress.
5
10,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, 200 years ago this conversation would never have happened.
There was no reliable birth control.
There were no safe abortions.
That's why the Holy Books say nothing about birth control or abortion.
Not the Old Testement, not the New Testement, not the Koran, nor the Analects, nor the Bhaghavad-Gita, nor any of them.
It appears that those Gods couldn't tell the future.
They couldn't foresee Big Pharma and universal health care coming in the 20th century.
But, along came the Pill and safe abortion and wouldn't you know? Those pesky women somehow slipped the leash.
This War has been fought now since Margaret Sanger and Roe v. Wade.
And, you need to remember: This isn't the War your Grandmother and Great Grand-mother fought.
This is a new war: Same bodies, true - but the Pharma and health care is new.
No, those religions have nothing to add to the conversation.
A hundred years ago they should have been sharpening their arguments on the definition of the "soul", on when "ensoulment" occurs.
The Supreme Court should have been sharpening up their definitions on "What is a 'religion'?", and, "What is separation of Church and State?"
Neither the religions nor the Courts did that.
They thought that "old-time religion" was good enough.
Well, it's not.
This is a new war, fellow women.
But the men don't realize that.
They are using out-dated laws to decide how many you will bare.
Let them know that you've heard tell of "The Pill" and abortion!
5
If the NYT holds that "Twenty-week abortion bans ... violate the Supreme Court's standard that abortion can be restricted only when a fetus is viable outside the womb", and that many such state bans "are based on claims not supported by most scientists", then will the Times supply its own standard? The Editorial Board must see the dead end in which it - and advocates of abortion-on-demand - are heading. Instead, the US should move toward the standard that applies in many other developed countries, and ban outright, except when the mother's health is at risk, all abortions after a gestation period that "most scientists" would judge sufficient to sustain life outside the womb.
3
Now, this is getting interesting.
This is about the 10th comment I've read where the person is demanding that we be held to the standards of other nations.
What's curious is that these are the same folk that demand that we NOT be held to FOREIGN STANDARDS on "laws (religious or secular"), on the military/industrial complex, or on the safety net for all persons within our borders.
Now, where were these people when Health Care was being argued or when our Glorious Leaders were swiping 1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS from the general kitty? None were screaming "European Standards" then!
Now, if we follow this argument to it's logical end, then we will be begging to put this nation under Sharira Law, because we all know that ISIS and the Taliban have got this "woman thing" covered and NO woman there has any say at all in what her Manfolk wants!
In fact, why don't we just follow the "Foreign Standards" of the Papal States?
Oh, that's right - because there are NO women in the Papal State! It is all a male-only work association and those women members have to live in Italy.
5
There are so many misstatements in your post that one hardly knows where to start. I made no "demand ... that we be held to the standards of other nations", nor am I in any way one of the "same folk that demand that we NOT be held to FOREIGN STANDARDS" in areas other than abortion rights. My point in referring to other developed countries concerns how the abortion issue has been handled and, mutatis mutandis, how it has largely been settled. That is, in, say, most of Europe, the issue has been legislated - not decreed by courts - and therefore was made susceptible to a normal parliamentary process. If the USA had gone the same route we would, today, probably have many different "standards", from abortion on demand in some states to an absolute ban in others, with a third group, in the middle, adhering to rules governed by viability, with exceptions. These standards could change over time, would have the legitimacy that other laws do, and might eventually lead to a national consensus. Instead, we have now two opposing absolutisms, each identified with ill-assorted other issues: if you're pro-life you must be anti-immigrant, and similar nonsense. I, for one, am at the left end on most political issues, but rather like the late, great Nat Hentoff I see the "right to life" as an essentially liberal position.
There are only two naturally procreative biological DNA genetic evolutionary fit one human race species genders. There is the generally unknown human male testicular sperm donor gender. And there is the always known ovarian egg donor uterine fetus carrying mammary gland nourishing female gender.
Birthing babies has never left any doubt about human maternity. But until the DNA era determining human paternity has been based upon faith. By defining and dividing the rights to individual human procreation, sexual and health choices down to either "abortion rights" and the "right-to-life" you simply perpetuate American innate inhumane mythical male misogyny.
The enduring evil threat to female rights as divinely naturally created equal with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness persons is the root problem.
2
The last rage of the beast, the born again and the other Christian groups lost the battle for the moral control of the American society, as all former majorities which became a minority, they are violent, intolerant, racist, striking ln the weakest. in the mail of their beliefs, they cannot be neutral, cannot tolerate for the other the freedom they claim when the cook a wedding cake.
6
GOP= party of forced pregnancy.
7
The Democrats should offer an amendment to the bill that would make the Federal Government 100% responsible for medical costs associated with the birth of children with fetal abnormalities. Let's see how "Christian" the anti-abortion folks are.
9
Lindsey Graham’s “The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” would be more accurately titled “The Keep Them Darn Women Barefoot and Pregnant Act.” It has nothing whatsoever to do with the welfare of children.
10
Look, if Lindsey Graham cared that much about kids he would have had a few.
He cares nothing for women and nothing for children. Check his voting pattern.
Leave it to Lindsey and you're on your own!
2
Her own body? Different DNA from conception.
1
Remember-- the pregnant woman? That slab of meat surrounding your precious fetus? Don't forget that the fetus is using her body to sustain itself and her body is pregnant because of the fetus. That's what we mean when we say that the woman has the right to make decisions about her body.
7
Dear NYT: On twitter, you announced your article on Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood as follows: "Depending on whom you ask, Cecile Richards is a national 'hero' or a 'deeply evil woman.'" Glad you're presenting them as equally valid options, when abortion is indeed under attack, and abortion providers have been killed.
7
Those evil men and some women who call themselves pro life are a bunch of women haters who just want to control woman and what they do with their bodies. They are certainly not PRO LIFE, they are PRO BIRTH.
Most of them don't give a darn about protecting born infants and they are the first to rush to kill any assistance for the million of children they allegedly want to protect. Hypocrites are what they are.
8
" A Womb of Ones' Own ". Best sign seen at the latest Women's March.
Until and unless you are capable of actually giving birth, you have NO skin in this game. As for actual females that have been programmed and brainwashed into being " pro-life ": Why do you distrust and hate other Women ? Is this something your pastor or priest taught you ??? Is this how you want YOUR Daughters to be treated ?? Think about it. Then, think some more. YOU can end the cycle. Stand up, and Vote.
10
Dare I say it?
I'm looking forward to when all of these old southern white guys are gone and we can move on to living in the real world.
I used to be more tolerant to their nonsense, but they are methodically destroying this country.
7
Imagine that...a major American newspaper, no less than the "Paper of Record"--the New York Times, calling on American voters to go to polls to vote to protect abortion rights. The DNC no longer needs to to publish a newsletter--its members can just come here. Breathtaking bias and partisanship.
3
Churches do the same thing. And they are subsidized by my tax dollars. The NYT is not.
4
Churches don't claim to be even-handed--journalists do.
Abortion restrictions are stage one. Stage two is restrictions on birth control for women. Thar's the ultimate goal.
8
I do agree that abortion after 20 weeks should remain illegal. It's doesn't matter what you think. Human lives do develop in the womb, day by day, week by week. At some point it is a clear murder. There is no doubt about that.
1
L'homme,
I agree with you, in part; abortion only when it has been determined medically necessary by physician.
1
I fail to understand why i should listen to anything a religious person says. The religious have different sects, different Bibles, competing views on who is God. They can't agree on anything and i am suppose to believe that a single being has created the universe. From what i can see with my own two eyes is that they [ the religious ] kill each other to dominate the conversation of who is God. They can't follow there own laws [ the ten commandants ] , love they neighbor, treat others as they would want to be treated, and the best of all do not kill! When they can follow there own laws that is when i will respect them. Until that happens they are nothing but a bunch of liars.
So how is someone able to claim a threat to there religion [ hobby lobby ] when they do not follow there religion to the letter.
The religious have become Trumplicans and by doing so have no sense of shame ,not that i ever thought they ever have.
8
I'm 64 & have always been pro-choice, remembering the bad old days. However, a five-month fetus is not a clump of cells anymore or an alien looking creature. I feel so sorry for rape & incest victims. But in my opinion, the only exceptions should be for the life of the mother or because the fetus is so genetically impaired, it would suffer more from being born.
2
Well, then you're not really "pro-choice" then, are you?
3
It doesn’t matter what I think of abortion. It is none of my business to legislate what someone else is doing with her/his body.
9
Maybe all the $130,000 for 'Stormy Daniels' wasn't just hush money.
7
GOP believes that the right to life starts at conception and ends at birth.
No surprise their policies come at the expense of a living woman.
9
A GOOD medical facility would ALWAYS consider the needs and right s of the patient first! Anyone who is against abortions should spend one year on an ob-gyn floor and see the painful decisions with which patients are faced. My neighbor -many years ago- was forced to carry a dead fetus for months - for religious reasons! I was a young mother and felt that this was abhorrent!Sylvia c
11
If only the anti-choice folks were as concerned and supportive of the baby after birth as they are of the embryo and fetus before birth. Just saying...
5
I want to see Donald J Trump swear that he accepts the Lord Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.
If we're all forced to see this farce out, we might as well get the biggest laughs that it can provide.
4
Someone we know and love wanted a baby desperately and she and her husband used fertility services to achieve a pregnancy. They were ecstatic, until the 20-week ultrasound--which showed an "anacephalic" baby, with no functioning brain tissue. (This is far more severe than the "microcephalic" babies possible after a mother's Zika infection.) This baby might survive until birth but could not live more than an hour outside the womb. The couple maintained the pregnancy, hoping for a miracle, and the mother underwent a C-section to make it easier for the baby. The baby died about 40 minutes after birth, since the brain was insufficient to maintain breathing or a heartbeat. The mother suffered deep depression after the birth.
That was their decision, one they made with care, and they did have an abortion option. But other parents, getting news like this after the 20 week abortion cutoff in many states, would have no choice in the matter.
12
This is a terrible development. It will take the US back to the time limitations on abortion that exist in Europe.
3
I fear we will one day look back on abortion as we now look back on slavery -- an economically expedient institution that was at its core a thinly rationalized crime against human beings.
1
I'm just waiting for the story of one of Trump's flings being paid/pressured to get an abortion and then sign a non-disclosure agreement about it.
6
When will the USA catch up to the rest of the first world nations and come to the realization that women are perfectly capable of deciding health issues by themselves, without any consultation with government agencies. This issue has long been decided in all of these nations, and we have moved on. It's certainly no concern for a bunch of old white guys who think it's their business to dictate how women may live their lives.
4
In most Canadian provinces medical abortion is free subject to time limitations to legal residents and in BC women can self refer to clinics for early abortions. They require an ultrasound...not to ram down the woman's throat..just to confirm the dates. The procedure is performed at the time of the visit...none of this return in a few days garbage which is the law in many USA states.
2
The hypocrisy of a party that preaches limited government while telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies knows no bounds. And Evangelicals who profess to care so much for the unborn are even worse. A pox on both your houses. Those of you who are "pro-life" would be more believable if you were pro-health care, pro-education, pro-women's rights, pro-programs that help the poor and pro-regulations that clean up our planet.
7
Government (mostly a group of old white men, but whatever) has no business intruding its nose into woman's private business concerning her own body.
5
There are very few countries that allow abortion after 20 weeks. Very, very few. The US is an outlier, joined by North Korea and China and four others. Banning abortions after 20 weeks is hardly a 'threat to abortion'.
http://wapo.st/2wDDd1Z?tid=ss_mail&utm_term=.c96e01b673f0
The Pinocchio Test
This statistic seemed dubious at first, because it seemed extreme for just seven countries out of 198 to allow elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. But upon further digging, the data back up the claim.
3
Will it improve the world if millions of babies are born every year that were not wanted by their mothers for various reasons?
3
Lindsey Graham sponsor a bill regarding women and pregnancy?
That makes as much sense as having the current tenant of the White House write a sequel to James Baldwin's Native Son.
Next, we'll hear the white, male GOP Congress belt out a rousing version of that Feminist anthem "I am Woman!"
I have a friend who has to repair his irony-meter weekly ever since the GOP, led by The Beloved Leader, captured DC.
2
Any time a forced-birther uses the word "innocent" it's a sure bet their motivation is religious. In their mythology, once you are born you are no longer innocent.
3
GOP used to say less government. Guess those days are over.
3
My life began when I first breathed air, when I exited my Mom's womb. So did everyone else's. No one remembers life before birth. If my mom had needed to abort me, fine, cause I never would have known! To say that life begins at conception is a fantasy promoted by those who wish to keep us women in a subjugated position in society, with no respect whatsoever for my life. To force me to birth an unwanted child is enslavement. My body and my life belong to Me, it is not up to a bunch of patriarchal religious zealots and politicians to control me.
9
Years ago I read a European study that followed the children of women denied abortion. They had many problems including severe psychiatric problems. When a woman is forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy she will probably not take her vitamins or eat properly or avoid noxious substances or attend medical appointments. That horrible story about somewhere in your cry the beloved country where the cops were going to shackle and jail pregnant women who abused substances. How will that turn out...more severely abused kids.
2
The pain issue for limiting abortions to 20 weeks is medically bogus since cortical development allowing for pain transmission in a fetus doesn't occur until about 29 weeks. Given that only 1 percent of abortions occur after 20 weeks, however, a compromise at 25 weeks with exceptions for undue medical delays, risk of death to the mother, rape, incest, and life-threatening problems with the fetus should be allowed. It's time for liberal Democrats (like me) to take tbe abortion, political wedge issue off the table.
2
You really think agreeing to 20 weeks or compromising at 25 would take the issue off the table? I don't think you've been paying attention. The anti-choice/anti-women folks are never going to let the issue go. And once they've gotten enforced pregnancies for all women enacted, no matter the circumstances of conception, no matter the health of the fetus nor the woman, they'll go after all forms of birth control and anything else that allows women to control their own lives.
2
Any legislation which fails to comport with the 3-trimester rule enunciated by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade is illegal from the outset.
You're against abortion? Don't have one!
5
It's all about power, especially political - just look at trump and Murphy. Times Up for the men passing perverted laws to violate women's bodies and health choices.
Women need their own NRA (National Right to Abortions) and a gun to defend their bodies and reproductive rights from those who want to tread on their bodies and privacy. It's not enough to out men bullying women into sex and unintended pregnancy. We need to tell McConnell and Graham to keep their laws off of women's bodies.
3
The GOP has no problem yelling about how abortion is murder yet trying to do away with Obamacare, threatened rollbacks of Medicare and Medicaid, environmental protection rollbacks etc etc would kill proportionately many times more people. The hypocrisy is just stunningly unbelievable.
5
The hypocrisy of the religious right and the GOP is so laughably/tragically transparent. "Protect" the unborn, but fail to help children and women who are already here and struggling. This is an attack on women's sovereignty over their own bodies...period. Be afraid fellow females and start organizing the vote for 2018 & 2020.
6
It was reported just a few days ago that Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, was resigning. I guess she realized it was time to flee a sinking ship. The organization is being investigated for wrongdoing and she probably wants to depart before they are found guilty.
1
More likely that she's planning a run for office. It would be nice to see her unseat the malevolent theocrat Abbott.
Suppression of women's rights goes along with other suppressions, including the suppressing of minority voters, worker security, and taxes that fund education. All very convenient for the worshippers of the 'great men' version of history. Unfortunately, most of the great men don't have time for family life because they have important crises and disasters to envision. Abortion providers, along with a free and independent news platform, are 'enemies of the state' in the view of the Great Man we have, although at times he looks like a ratings puppet. Meanwhile, the minions are busy gaming Congress and Melanie is upstairs crying. All the world's a stage. The great man theory prefigures a Shakespearean...I want to say climax, but that's not it.
Here in Tennessee, the abortion issue is commonly used both to rile people up and divert their attention from more salient issues. For example, if someone points out that a local politician used campaign donations to pay for a new boat, or that they have illegal aliens minding their children and tending to their landscaping, all they have to do is scream, "We've got to save the babies!" and the crowd will roar approval. In other words, most voters have the attention span of a goldfish, but they all love to hate. Bonus points if you can hate and pretend its love.
7
The right doesn't want to fund birth control, womens health initiatives, child health services and education, and in the end public assistance for over burdened women.......but hey, long live Viagra and Cialis at the publics expense.
Birth control should be handed out for free, to prevent any of these problems, but it's ever so much easier to just chastise the one partner in a conceived birth.
5
One might have some sympathy for these anti abortion/ supposedly pro life supporters, if they showed any compassion for infants once they are born.
Where is their support for better and cheaper healthcare, a much higher minimum wage, better education for these new horns, stricter gun laws to stop infants and others being shot dead, support for environmental and consumer protection?
They support the sanctity of life from conception until birth, then show zero concern and compassion. Not really a very Christian attitude.
4
FIFTY-MILLION women did not vote in 2016.
TWENTY-MILLION women between 20 and 30 years old, who use abortion most...NEVER vote.
Why should progressives lose election after election to defend the most irresponsible citizens in America?
If the Democrats run more pro-life candidates they will wipe the Republican Party off the face of the earth. Perhaps a few years without reproductive rights will wake up these fools who think "Dancing With The Stars" is more important than voting. They don't vote anyway and they DON'T CARE.
1
The government does not belong in my uterus.
End of story.
6
The Trump GOP--yes, it's his now--is playing the last hand it has in this ugly game. They will cruelly manipulate the pro-life community, cruelly persecute the pro-choice community, and hope that the passions that arise never actually do anything to serve either side. All they want is divisiveness and useful rage. They can use that.
Passion is like kerosene for the Republicans. They won't burn it where they create it. Instead they'll use Right-wing rage to fuel destroying the middle class, lowering taxes on the rich, decimating public education, etc. Those issues are the ones they care about. Abortion is an endless well of that volatile, transferable energy. So they pillage the Red State economies, lie to Red State blue collar workers, block Red State voters, all while they promise the impossible to the Red State pro-lifers who never, ever understand how their hopes are being mocked and their pockets are being picked.
This can't go on. They'll make sure they never get what they say they want, but the next generation of men and women in America won't inherit their parents' bottomless stupidity.
2
One certainly hopes not, but as long as the Fairness Doctrine is gone and mouthpieces like Fox News continue to spread their wicked propaganda and all these tax-free evangelical churches preach anti-choice/anti-women's rights, it appears to me that each new generation may indeed inherit the bottomless stupidity of their parents.
2
Years ago a Christian pastor naively put two sign-up sheets in front of his congregation, one to protest in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic and another to agree to adopt one or more children. The first had a full sheet of signatures, other second had none. Why am I not surprised. Hypocrite, they name is Christian.
We MUST take back the Senate this fall or see our country devolve unspeakably into a Christian-shaira theocracy.
10
This topic distills the schizophrenia that ails the US to its essence.
If women do not have discretion to terminate any pregnancy because the father is a deadbeat or worse, you will have the proliferation of hit and run daddies that is the root cause of so much poverty in the US today.
5
Easy way to solve the abortion issue. Women assume 100% financial and legal responsibility for their children. If a father wants custody or joint custody if living with the mother she can grant it and and can even ask for support. But no more of this heads I win tails you loss nonsense of the woman unilaterally killing the baby without the father or society's input BUT after babies are born demanding support from the father / society. If a baby has two parents when it comes time to pay for food and diapers than a baby has two parents when one of them wants to kill the baby.
1
It is my understanding (perhaps faulty) that men currently have no legal obligations toward 'their' fetuses until after birth. Their rights and their obligations both begin at the same time. How is this not fair?
2
"The Senate bill contains exceptions for rape and incest if the women reported the abuse to law enforcement and sought counseling 48 hours before the abortion. But there is no exception to protect the health of the pregnant woman."
Actually Senator Lindsey Graham's page states that "The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would make it illegal for any person to perform, or attempt to perform, an abortion without first making a determination of the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child If the post-fertilization age of the unborn child is determined to be 20 weeks or greater, an abortion shall not be performed, unless – It is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman..." And so it does the Congress' website (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/36) and WikiPedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain-Capable_Unborn_Child_Protection_Act).
Then please do not blame others if they claim "Fake News."
1
Saving the life of the woman and preserving her health are not always the same thing. Given the "life-saving" requirement, a doctor would have to ensure sufficient evidence exists that not performing the abortion would definitely result in her death. If the doctor is wrong, he or she could be jailed. This removes the physician's discretion from the picture, and also forces women to continue pregnancies even when they might impact their future fertility or health. Unacceptable.
2
You realize that a woman may face a health risk that is not an immediate risk to her life?
3
The irony of this hypocritical and ridiculous GOP legislation is that it is not actually pro-life with exceptions for rape and incest. All life has value--children conceived in loving marriages with affluent two-parent households do not have any more value or right to be born than children conceived by a single mother in an abusive relationship. We do not need the government interfering in women's lives making the determination through "counseling" of whether a woman was raped.
2
The Right is unwilling to see the plight of most women in a crisis pregnancy. The Left is too willing to deny the unborn their inherent dignity as persons, and this editorial is mostly hot air, since it concerns a very small % of abortions in the US. Rather than pitting the rights of women against the rights of unborn children, how about we find a new way? Let’s stop throwing arrows at one another, which only obscure the truth, and move in a direction that supports mothers in bringing forth the children in their wombs through social supports; and not advance senseless laws that continue to dehumanize the voices who cannot speak for themselves.s
1
Mitch McConnell is not stupid. He studiously avoids floor votes that he knows have no chance of passing. The only reason he is bringing this legislation to a vote now is as a cynical ploy to help galvanize the Republican base for the 2018 midterm elections. Republicans insist on ignoring the First Amendment as they attempt to establish and impose a State religion based on Evangelical Protestant and Catholic orthopraxy on America's secular culture. It's time for "we the people" to elect leaders in both parties who don't constantly seek to divide us and deepen the chasm of distrust between religious and secular America to further their political interests. Even with leaders who seek to united us rather than divide us into increasingly warring factions, it's not clear whether America can regain its vitality as a constitutional republic. That will require both sides to sacrifice their idealized political goals for America and find some middle position that makes room for others who see things differently.
5
Why does even the New York Times refer to the opponents of abortion as "pro-life?" Like everyone I know of who supports women's right to choose, I am not "anti-life." The two sides should more accurately be described as "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion."
10
The media really needs to settle on some proper terms. I rebel when I hear them calling someone like Pence a conservative when he is actually a right wing reactionary. I completely agree with you on your proposed terms: I for one am not FOR abortion (never had one, very unlikely I would have, too late now) but I am certainly Pro-Choice.
4
The Republicans and evangelical Christians seem to be extremely worried about the fetus and the need to ensure its survival till birth. After that they do not care if the child is to have a miserable and possibly short life because the mother cannot cope through poverty or other circumstances
4
Pro-Life, Pro-Life, Pro-Life. Easy to hold up a Pro-Life sign, not so easy to know what your talking about!
We still have the DEATH penalty. How Pro-LIFE is that?
In a capital murder trial we have prosecutors
that still withhold evidence from the defense that could
result in the DEATH penalty. How Pro-LIFE is that?
Unfunded social safety nets for children that could
result in their DEATH. How Pro-LIFE is that?
Under-funded and under-trained police officers
that in a routine traffic stop use a gun which results
in the DEATH of of the driver. How Pro-LIFE is that?
And don't get me started on the abortion issue because my disgust for those who are so Pro-Life that they cannot show even the tiniest concern for women and their health issues is a very sad commentary, indeed.
9
If Americans were required to watch the abortion of a 20-week old fetus/baby, almost no one would be for it. It is barbaric and illegal in almost all countries, even those will very liberal first trimester abortion policies.
I encourage every reader to look at 3-D and 4-D ultrasound images of a 20-week old fetus/baby. You will a perfectly formed human being yawning, stretching, and moving purposefully. All he/she is doing at this stage is growing.
Skilled surgeons now perform amazing surgery on 20-week old babies and return them safely to the womb. The consensus of most anesthesiologists is that both patients (mother and baby) need anesthesia.
How can a 20-week old fetus be a patient in one context and a victim of abortion in another?
2
The only times abortions are performed after 20 weeks are when the much-wanted babies of loving families are found to have tremendous and insurmountable ailments. These are not perfectly formed humans. Their parents are seeking to reduce the suffering for their unborn child. The alternative is birth into a harsh world, a few hours or days of painful interventions, and inevitable death. Plus a massive bill. Will the Republicans be willing to fund the NICU costs for these babies? I didn't think so.
3
There are no reliable statistics on why abortion is performed after 20-weeks or at any time in pregnancy. Abortion is shrouded in secrecy.
In any event, you are making an argument for involuntary euthanasia of children, not for abortion. Suppose a "severe and insurmountable ailment" is only found after birth? Your argument is one for infanticide as well.
Look up "Aktion T4 Program" on Wikipedia.
1
JMBaltimore, I 'encourage' you to ask someone who has had a 20 week abortion the anguish, grief, tears, heartache, etc. Then, preach.
Is abortion birth control?
Those religious leaders and Republican politicians who want to corner the market on the population that believes fertilized human eggs are souls, scream murder to exploit. They want to ban “the pill” because it prevents fertilized eggs from implanting. These opponents of abortion and the pill rely on convincing Americans to ignore very basic biology and confer personhood and ensoulment on fetuses. Preventing and cutting funding for sex education and subordinating science to veiled dogmatic religious constraints are essential to the GOP and Trump’s support. Mistakenly, those who support sex education, birth control, and a woman’s right to decide have failed to identify the primary flaw in their opponents: the establishment clause that prohibits religious primacy or preference in law.
Science and medicine compromises have eroded our political processes and culture. Today, demagogues and opportunists like Trump need only support unscientific religious beliefs that fetuses are all ensouled flies in the face of truth. There is no scientific evidence of a soul. Fetal responses to pain is common to all vertebrates. In the absence of religious beliefs who would oppose abortion and why?
Those who believe that women are equal to men need to restore rationality. Banning abortion denies equality and imposes religion on the entire population. Those politicians who champion inequality and theocratic rule are anti-American. Abortion is birth control.
2
Why is it that concern for human life stops at birth if you are an anti abortion proponent? Isn't it time for them to consider their responsibility in such a decision? Every one of the 'Pro-Life' (as if everyone isn't 'pro life') exponents should be prepared step up and take care of every unwanted baby until it reaches adulthood. Provide a loving home (maybe their own?) and full funding and take responsibility for all the abused unwanted children in this country.
Five children DIE everyday in this country as a result of child abuse. More than three out of four are under the age of four and a report of child abuse is made every ten seconds.
As a vegetarian, I too hate the thought of taking a life, any life but not every one of the tiny minority of women who seek abortions after 20 weeks maybe able to do so. Some maybe teens to terrified to admit to strict parents that they are pregnant, some have been raped by a family member, other's cannot assemble the funds in time, there are a host of reasons.
I am pretty certain that if it aspen's bodies that were under discussion there would be a very different attitude. As it is, should this bill pass, we can look forward to a resurgence of the back street abortionist and more deaths. Ah, the good old days.
2
Restrictions on a woman's right to make a private decision on reproduction. No restrictions on someone's right to buy guns that can be used to kill school children, church goers and concert attendees. Please, explain.
7
This is merely a byproduct of voting in ( with a minority vote from the overall population ) a fascist republican administration. There are a whole host of human rights being rolled back or new legislation brought to bear that is completely at odds with given and reinforced law.
The premise is that the government of the top 1% will do what it wants and take its chances with a radically right leaning SCOTUS. You, the plaintiff can spend the huge amount of money, time and effort just trying to get there. ( which is not a given at all )
On the flip side, when a massive Democratic majority gets voted in by the midterms and in 2020, there probably won't be enough time, effort or political capital to entrench those rights back that have been eroded or completely taken away.
That is the sinister modus operandi of the current GOP.
5
If you have already been pregnant for five months, how can you still think of abortion? I support choice, but that choice should have been made long before 20 weeks !
1
Because it is only at that point in pregnancy that the terrible ailments that lead mothers and their doctors to choose abortion in these sad cases can be seen and diagnosed!
3
It is telling that neither the AMA or the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology support a 20-week ban or the junk science of fetal pain. The 20-week ban movement is supported by those who would exploit it to gain political power: Republicans. It is not a movement centered on protecting children and it sure as heck is not a movement centered on protecting, empowering or championing women.
3
Oh, that pro-lifers valued life outside the womb as much as within! Look at the arm-twisting it took to fund CHIP and the lack of support for universal health care. Imagine deporting a mother and her children to face certain death in Central America. Where is the support for quality child care for working parents? No wonder we have so few immigrants from Norway, whose society goes so much farther in supporting parents and children.
5
"An expected procedural vote in the Senate on a 20-week abortion ban highlights the need for the public to vote in November’s midterms."
Are you sure that's what you want? A Quinnipiac poll last month found that only 21% of registered voters nationwide think abortion should be legal under any circumstances. Maybe ultrasound is becoming the enemy of unlimited abortion policy.
Making abortions illegal will not eliminate them. I remember a time when they were illegal, but, nevertheless abundant. if people who call themselves Christian want to do something, perhaps they should step up to the plate and offer to adopt children from women who might otherwise seek an abortion.
3
Calling in liberals to defend *every* right diminishes some of the most important ones. Take this for example.
if you cannot figure out if you want to keep a baby by 20 weeks, I weep for you. 20 weeks (5 months) is all the time in the world to determine whether or not you were raped or whether or not your life is currently in danger.
While I support the right of an individual to make choices closer to birth when either the individual's life or child's life is at risk, making discretionary choices about whether or not to keep your child after 20 weeks borders on silliness.
When it comes to you child, do your thing or get off the pot. And do it within 5 months.
You assume a rational actor and an unchanging context. Now add to the decision making process mental health challenges, relationship chaos, sudden economic hardship, unforeseen life events, etc. As stated, abortions post 20-weeks comprise less than one percent of procedures, which suggests it is rare and likely due severe circumstances you are not considering.
2
Oh my GOD. Surely you understand that medical conditions that were not pregnant at week ten can arise by week 20.
Moreover, most women who abort after 20 weeks do so because they've discovered a severe fetal defect.
Do you really think a woman would bother to go through 5 months of pregnancy, have everyone know about it, and then have an abortion (that costs thousands of dollars and insurance likely won't pay for) for no reason? You think she wants to answer to everyone who asks her what happened to her pregnancy? She'll just say "oh no, changed my mind." Yea, right. In no universe. You're attacking a straw man- a flippant woman who just can't make up her darned mind and then goes to have an abortion when she's 26 weeks and showing.
Or ...do you think a woman would probably only undergo something like that if she had a good reason? Which makes more sense to you?
5
What a ridiculous comment! Many serious fetal conditions do not show up before 20 weeks gestation. Also, severe health complications for the mother can and do develop later in a pregnancy. Leave decisions about a woman’s pregnancy to the woman, her health care providers, and any family that she decides to include.
3
Old white men will continue to make health decisions for women because enough women want it that way. Evangelicals have installed Gorsuch on the Supreme Court to lead the attack on Roe vs Wade, and lead it he will when trump installs just one more running dog for the Koch brothers. Fantasy to think the Democrats will win the Senate in 2018. The electoral map is against them, and then there is the problem of their incompetence. For sure we will have a trump Supreme Court for the next 30 years. The patriarchy will rule, with the acquiescence of lots of women.
1
The abortion wars cannot be 'won' politically by either side because neither will ever admit defeat and surrender to the other. Reducing abortions to a fraction of their current numbers is possible if sex education to prevent unwanted pregnancies were more extensively taught, and contraceptives more freely available.
However, conservatives oppose those measures because they regard it as a satanic liberal agenda to legitimize sexual behavior outside of marriage. Religious fundamentalists constitute a substantial portion of Republican party and are most intent at mandating civil law be compliant with their religion.
Although fundamentalists abhor what they categorize as the murder of fetuses, they gleefully anticipate vaporizing 25 million North Koreans at the nearest opportunity. Their wish-list of who should live, and who should not, is extensive.
3
They betray their own aims by having an exception for rape and incest. If the pain of a fetus were the true motivation of this bill, there would be no exception for rape and incest because fetuses conceived that way would be equally capable of pain as fetuses conceived consensually.
Exceptions for rape and incest just prove that the motivation for these bills is to control women. Not to care for fetuses.
8
America slips farther into medieval nonsense. What next? The ducking stool? The blazing stake? Meanwhile, in "priest-ridden" Ireland, a referendum is to be held this summer on the issue of choice. At present, a woman having an abortion in Ireland faces a sentence of 14 years in prison. Or she can fly across to GB and have an abortion there without penalty. The Taoiseach (prime minister) has said he'll campaign for a relaxation of the anti-choice law. And yet, the Irish bishops rant and rave about euthanasia. What they don't get is that abortion is as old as humanity, and that there has never in history been widespread agreement on the fetus as the property of the government. What the bishops don't get is that religion, too, is a choice--but their history shows they have made it mandatory in the past, and would go on making it obligatory given half a chance. For them and their ilk, there is no choice, only blind obedience. And I do recall the words of Trump on the issue: “There has to be punishment.” For me, the crux is that a sanctimonious gang would take it upon themselves to re-establish women in second-class status in America. They should be free to own as many guns as they wish, but not to regulate their own physiology?
5
There will never be a time when there is no abortion. If it is not safe, legal and accessible, it will be the opportunity every manner of organized crime will take to create a grey market.
5
One more reason for women to turn out in record numbers to vote in this midterm election.
At 65, I'm no longer concerned about pregnancy for myself, but women of all ages must stand together on this issue. Men cannot do this to us. And it is men .
Donald Trump - of all men - and Mitch McConnell - my god - do not have the right to tell me how to live my life, or what to do with my body. I am free and over 21. I will do exactly as I desire. If men got pregnant it would be legal, and free, and available on demand.
You may be able to impregnate her, but you cannot force a woman to be pregnant, and give birth. That is an unspeakable thing to do to a woman. Only a man would do such a thing to a woman.
4
It's very simple. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. No one is being dragged off to a clinic & having a fetus removed. If you're not the pregnant person, her partner, or her doctor, it's none of your business.
7
I wish America could be more like when it comes to abortion. Almost all countries in Europe ban abortion after 12 or 13 weeks. Sweden allows it until 18 weeks, 3/4 of the UK allows it until 24 weeks although Northern Ireland bans it entirely.
Abortion laws ought to be based on science, not the outdated beliefs of 7 long dead old men sitting on the Supreme Court 45 years ago, before ultrasounds were invented.
This article forces me to think about a possible future where Roe v Wade is reversed and abortion becomes a matter of state law. Then I wonder how Indiana and Texas could pass a law banning abortion in all circumstances when neither could pass a transgender bathroom bill because of a revolt by large corporations doing business in their states. I find it hard to believe that a large corporation will be able to attract large numbers of qualified women to work in a state where all abortions are illegal. Red states, be careful what you wish for!
3
Time to up my monthly contributions to the ACLU. And I wish good health and longevity to Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer. And chief Justice Roberts, surprise us again with a rational, compassionate decision. Women are counting on you to protect their rights. Please do not let evangelical beliefs dominate American policy - our country should not be an evangelical Christian caliphate.
3
As a liberal, I wonder whether the NYT editorial board realizes that all this does is mobilize so called pro-life voters. The principle is valid but the strategy is self-defeating.
Did Hillary really lose because pro-choice women didn't vote? If anything, for every pro choice voter, she enraged several determined pro-lifers.
Identity politics at its best, or worst.
There is no exception for the health of the mother or in cases of catastrophic fetal abnormality? Are they serious?? In both cases (serious health problems of the mother and fetal disorders), it is common for these conditions not to be diagnosed until later in pregnancy. This is why late term abortions occur.
This leaves me aghast. All I can say is, wait until it is your daughter, or wife.
5
This says it all. What is wrong with Republicans?
"Only about 1 percent of women seeking abortions do so after 21 weeks, and they often make that decision because a fetal abnormality has been found or because their own health is in danger. Twenty-week bans particularly curb access for poor women, who often struggle to find the money and time for the procedure".
4
The issue of fetal pain is a red herring: one need only be sedated for their abortion, no pain for woman or fetus. Problem solved.
3
A tactic would be to search for genetic information in utero that can predict future LGBT tendencies. If such markers can be found you can bet that the religious right, especially evangelicals, will demand the right to abortion on demand, regardless of trimester.
3
Republicans want to ban sex education in schools.
Republicans want to ban access to contraceptives.
Republicans want to ban abortions.
And then, when all of those babies are born, Republicans won't fund welfare, healthcare or public education for these babies (the majority born to teen moms in red states!) Apparently, the goal is to create a controllable 3rd world country inside our country.
We need detailed oppo research on GOP congressional and presidential-related abortions.
Start with Stormy Daniels, shall we?
4
I'm pro-choice, but I would support a ban on abortion if it included free access to any kind of contraceptive a woman (including minors) choose to use (or man, should we ever get beyond condoms as their sole method), and free vasectomies or tubal ligation for those who opt for that route. This trade-off would not only put this culture battle behind us, it might start in a direction heading toward zero or negative population growth.
The only problem would be a woman who was not using contraceptives that became pregnant due to rape, or a woman whose life was endangered due to pregnancy. Contraceptives are not 100% reliable.
Rich people will be able to get abortions somewhere or somehow no matter what the law says, so in essence Republicans are screaming that they want to force the poor - people they scorn - to reproduce.
Then they will scream about the cost of healthcare, education, and social services for the resulting offspring.
Can someone please explain the logic of this?
4
I’ve known women facing the problem of a fetal abnormality after 20 weeks and it’s an extremely painful personal crisis. Her decision to abort must be kept between the woman, her doctor, & her partner. The government and religion should not be allowed to decide for her.
Where is the empathy for these women as they make one of the most agonizing decisions of their lives? I know the answer. The republican party doesn’t care about anything except riling up their base and taking money from their corporate donors. It’s all a money game for them, while women are left to suffer the consequences.
5
Playing politics with the abortion issue is, of course, an old Republican stratagem, but they play with it because the screamers on the feminist left in this country have failed to deceive the whole American people with this lie that the right to an abortion is the supreme test and expression of a woman's freedom.
If this becomes law what will the next step be? Catholic hospitals refusing treatment even when the pregnant woman's life IS in imminent danger?
3
Of course abortion is the destruction of new human life in the womb. It is a sad event. And of course females must be allowed to choose what to do with our own bodies; otherwise, we can be raped and be legally used as reproductive slaves. If you care about babies and mothers, work to create a child-friendly culture which requires fathers to do their share of childcare, and mothers to have our own careers in the world of work. Stop wasting energy on this war.
2
Here we go again. Old white men who just can't seem to help themselves when it comes to women making their own health and body decisions. They have this ingrained need to show they have control of this issue to prove their God-like image of themselves to their base who, in turn, insist on turning this secular Republic into a religious state. They certainly have a right to their religious practices, but no Constitutional right to force them on anyone else.
2
If every currently serving Republican who has behaved like Trent Franks or Tim Murphy were to be hounded out of Congress and replaced with a non-hypocrite, we would likely not see abortion bills of any form brought forth.
If you need any confirmation that the Republican Party is the home of hypocrisy, Wikipedia has an interesting page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_...
Your suspicions are correct.
Since 1990, Republican legislators (of both genders) have been involved in sexual scandals (and abortion at its core is about sex, and "illicit" sex at that) at twice the rate of Democrats, by my count in reading the above, leading by 34 to 15, with Trent Franks's case too recent to be on the list (so let's update that to 35-15. Abortion was at issue in only a small percentage of these scandals, but as I said, if abortion wasn't about sex in the first place, it would not be an issue at all.
1
Two beliefs fueling the White Christian Fundamentalists who seek to destroy modern, medical reproductive healthcare:
1." A female will only get pregnant if her body has a " positive physical reaction"--- in other words, an orgasm.
By this reasoning, any rape resulting in pregnancy will be the female's fault. This old medieval belief from Western Europe was/is very important to the American Slave drivers and, later, the 20th century Jim Crow Boss Men, Prison Cap'ns and Southern landowners who controlled the bodies of millions of incarcerated and servant Black and Native and Melange and Mestizo females.
2. "God gave AngloSaxon Protestant American men spiritual and physical dominion over all females, especially the women of color, in the United States territory".
Currently, the powerful legitimate (all Anglo) children of those Jim Crow Boss Men and Southern landowners are funding the anti-women's healthcare movement. They sincerely believe that they have the Divine Right to control the bodies of non-AngloSaxon, non-Protestant females. Their family wealth, family religion, and family legacy are built on this belief.
I spent my teenage years patrolling women's healthcare clinics in black neighborhoods. The deacons and pastors that organized our group were part of the network of the Bob Jones and Rollof Ministries. They continually talked among themselves about the importance of these two beliefs.
1
The Republicans say they want to ban abortions to protect the lives of the unborn. But the bill has exemptions for rape and incest; why are those innocent lives not worthy of protection? Surely this is not a craven political decision because of overwhelming public support for abortions in those cases; would those highly moral politicians be so cynical?
1
Few news articles point out that the right-to-life marchers are bused in by Catholic and evangelical secondary schools as public relations cover for right-wing legislators. https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/march-for-life-organizers-cope...
For many schools, student attendance at the annual march is mandatory. Christendom College, a bastion of ultra-conservative pre-Vatican II orthodoxy, boasts that all of their students attended the on its Facebook page. Concurrently, the school is under attack by its own graduates for its callous response to female students sexually harassed and raped by their male peers. The old double standard is still intact in so-called "conservative" bastions. http://www.nvdaily.com/news/local-news/2018/01/some-alumni-call-for-pres...
3
How would anyone know that the reaction of a fetus to any stimulation is pain?
If experts are able to agree that there is pain, then why couldn't it be ameliorated before the abortion procedure is begun?
Is there anything more ridiculous than the mouthful, "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act?" Each word, on its own and every one in a row: From the minds of nematodes.
1
Not one man, no matter who he is, has anything credible to say on this issue. So I wish all men would shut up and leave this to women to decide. We women may differ, but we are the ONLY ones who have a right to even comment about abortion. Period.
1
When Roe v. Wade was decided, a seven month fetus had a 50:50 chance of survival. With improvement in technology, a fetus at 20 weeks has a 50:50.
Per Roe v. Wade, a viable fetus has the right to life equal to that of the mother.
Doesn't this law just conform Roe v. Wade to current technology?
They aren't pro life, they are pro the enslavement of pregnant women who don't want to be pregnant. If they were pro life they would support feeding programs, health care programs, like Planned Parenthood does. Not pro life, pro female slavery.
3
The revelations about sexual abuse throughout society should wake the "pro-fifers" up to the fact that there are many women, some of them minors, who have sex forced on them by rapists. Sometimes those rapists are people in authority over them, and sometimes they are even members of their own families. What about the lives of those abused women? They should have the right to save their own lives from the consequences of what was forced on them. A fetus is not a person. The women who don't want their bodies taken over by a fetus ARE persons.
2
The position on abortion should be amended and Democrats should lead the fight. It is reasonable that we should protect fetuses in the womb who have a heart beat at 20 weeks and are close to being viable? 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive. A baby was born prematurely in Hawaii at 21 weeks 3 days gestational age and lived. As medical breakthroughs increase, it is reasonable to believe that more babies will be saved at 21 weeks. So a woman’s right to choose can be amended to say they can choose up to when the fetus is viable. We can place limits on abortion so that it can remain an option up to a point. Otherwise there is a strong case to be made that what is happening with abortion after 20 weeks is murder.
Little, if any, policy emanating from the GOP White House or Congress is "supported by most scientists." Science-supported policy is anathema to the political interests of a Republican Party that has become so retrograde that it appears to function in the 19th, rather than the 20th or 21st, Century.
In his presidential campaign, then-candidate Trump vowed his affection for "the uneducated." Well, the uneducated love him back, with bonus interest. Hence, we have a ruling Party that hates education and the communal intelligence it generates.
Let's turn our watches back 300 years. It's the livable thing to do.
2
Among the religious people I know there seems to be only one commandment anymore: Thou shalt not be pro-choice or vote for any pro-choice political candidate. That was enough for some people I know to vote for "holy man" Trump over Clinton.
2
This editorial's assertion that this legislation will provide liberals with "another good reason to flock to the polls" assumes that liberals will vote Democratic. Although I regard myself as a liberal and I support abortion rights and find this legislation deeply offensive, I will probably vote Republican again in November because Democratic support for porous borders threatens liberal causes, including abortion. Moreover, I have insufficient incentive to vote Democratic as long as the Democrats, like the Republicans, remain in denial about so many hazards, including overpopulation, the growing militarization of American society, and loose monetary policies.
1
People have known since the dawn of time that pregnancy ends in the birth of a child. Nothing in medicine in the last 50 years has added to people's awareness of the humanity involved.
People have also known for many hundreds of years how to end a pregnancy, but most methods were extremely risky.
Today abortion is safe and that is the crux of the problem. The woman will not suffer, and possibly die. Her sin of engaging in sex will go unpunished. The Christian religion (and probably others) have a real hangup about the sex act. The taboos against engaging in or enjoying sex that have haunted women for centuries are no longer effective.
If people really objected to abortion, they would be in the streets pushing for reproductive education and birth control. But that is not their objective.
4
Many serious birth defects are not detected until late in pregnancy. Microcephaly due to prenatal Zika virus exposure is a growing problem in the US, and we're not even close to peak mosquito season yet. This condition is not detected until late in the 2nd trimester or early in the 3rd trimester. The timing of this bill could not be worse for women in the US.
5
Republicans are all for individual rights, except when they aren't. Every fetus has a right to be born, but then it's on it's own. Republicans want to spend less for food stamps, children's health care and education.
But in an age when Evangelicals support Trump by a margin of 68 - 32, who can be surprised? Their moral code has more twists than a pretzel, move even than a strand of DNA.
3
Every woman should have the right to her own life, her own liberty, and her pursuit of her own happiness. These rights should have been specified in the Constitution as a bulwark against state interference in and violation of these rights.
If a pregnant woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy, that she can better support her right to her pursuit of her happiness, and if she can find a doctor and staff to accomplish this act, then no one in America who believes in their own rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness will attempt to deny her these rights.
However, no one in America who believes in their own rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness has any right to force anyone else to pay for someone to terminate their pregnancy. Only people who believe along fascist lines of thought are determined to use the power of the state - either to deny a woman her rights to life, liberty, and happiness by preventing abortions, or to deny anyone else their rights to life, liberty, and happiness by forcing them to pay for abortions. You cannot have it both ways.
3
Abortion was prohibited in Nazi Germany.
As Cécile Richards steps down from Planned Parenthood....
Well, how much can a woman take?
She deserves thanks for her service.
Would I ever get an abortion? No. But what man or woman has the right to take my bodily function away from me - or any other woman? Not any. Not Donald Trump, not any member of the Supreme Court, not any member of Congress, no nun or priest or pastor, no one.
They care about babies and moms? Then why did they try to take away the Affordable Care Act, defeat Medicaid? Why did they use CHIP, disabled kids and their moms, as budget hostages? What about WIC funding?
We have a president who clearly shows disrespect for a woman’s body, including the part that he thinks is funny to grab. Maybe legislators should concentrate on protecting that aspect of our bodies, rather than their other ideas about our bodies!
6
There's a video that's been on TV of an interview where Howard Stern is asking a younger Donald Trump whether he would ever run for president. He responded with a wan smile, "You know my history with woman." with the message being it would be impossible.
How much would one guess that Trump has shelled out for the inadvertent consequences of such "affairs" over the years. As he said in the Access Hollywood tape, "When you are a celebrity you can do anything."
I am disappointed to hear that Lindsey Graham supports this, as he's shown rare flashed of independence from the Leader. Maybe a term like that, "leader" is more palatable than "President" as this occupant has defiled the meaning of the title, "President of the United States" to what we should never have to accept. He won the election and has the power, but no citizen, this includes members of congress has to show the current occupant the deference of office that he has so degraded.
1
One of the more overtly misogynistic bills of this administration. No one will be made to have an abortion. Pro-life, then have the child. Similarly if a woman and her doctor decide that an abortion is appropriate or medically necessary, then she should be allowed to decide. The pro-life community is, generally, not really pro-life, they are pro-birth. Until every congress person who votes to limit or forbid abortions adopts one or more children and assumes the financial and emotional burdens of raising them, they are not pro-life.
4
I could imagine medical technology dialing back fetal viability to 20-22 weeks in the coming decade, so adjusting abortion limitations accordingly seems appropriate. If you concur with this reasoning, then anti-abortion advocates serve their cause best by supporting neonatal medical technologies--in addition to promoting the notion that pregnancy is a phenomenon of two bodies: one mature and imbued with agency, and one nascent, possessing precious value.
Things Pro-lifers ignore: 1) high maternal death rates 2) Infant mortality death rates 3) Taking birth control for a women who is 20 to 34 actually reduces your risk of dying because they are so good at preventing pregnancy. 4) prenatal and postnatal care is mostly ignored by pro-lifers.
6
I'm going to state something that I hope makes sense. People have a right to be secure in privacy and control their own body irregardless of gender. We've been arguing all these years about a right to abortion when the real argument is do women have an equal right before the law to privacy and their body. Legal and safe abortion is something you can have a problem with, but your body your choice. That is the ONLY issue before the law.
2
The GOP is intent on revoking a woman's right to privacy, and to make medical determinations about their own bodies, as a sop to Evangelicals. Why is abortion the only issue seemingly of concern to Evangelicals (slight correction, many, including administration amateurs within Trump's cabinet, include access to contraception)? During the time of Eugene Victor Debs - himself a man of deep Christian faith - Evangelical Christians were deeply engaged and supportive of the American Socialist party and its platform of social and economic justice. Today's Red States were once Socialist populist states. But what about any other issue of Christian faith? If you're "pro-life", why support war, gun ownership and zero programs to take care of those children you insist be born? Why support anything that doesn't protect the environment (as Noah's Abrahamic Covenant contracts with God)? The sad irony is that aside from restricting women's civil liberties, the Republican Evangelical base should have little in common with the Republican party.
2
I am both Pro-Life AND Pro-Choice. I would love to see REAL dialog and working together on this most divisive issue. I at least respect the handful of "Pro-Life" advocates who also advocate for Life outside the womb--drastic reduction in income inequality so that children can be fully supported to grow up healthy, happy, and well-educated; reverence for Life on earth, so that we stop destroying our environment and feeding people poisonous junk; really good sex education and education for emotional intelligence, so that people make wise choices about their sex partners and prevent pregnancy when they are not prepared to take care of a child, etc.
But this is not the world we live in. I see the vast majority of the hypocritical "pro-life" crowd doing everything they can to prevent us from moving in a true Pro-Life direction.
Another thing I do NOT see is ANYBODY on that side recognizing the simple biological fact that it takes a biological father to create a new Life. WHY aren't they calling on the fathers to step up?
If, because the Sanctity of Life suddenly justifies government interference in people's private lives, WHY aren't they demanding that the government keep a data bank on men's DNA, so the biological father can be determined for every pregnancy, and the father required to support the child financially until age 21? And if the father is unable or unwilling to do this, the gov't gives him a vasectomy, so he cannot spawn more inadequately cared-for children? WHY?
1
If you want to know what happens if a law like this is in order- look at Ireland
All that needs to be said is one womans name: Savita Halappanavar.
She was in the process of miscarrying at 17 weeks but denied an abortion (danger was to health not life of mother) until the foetal heartbeat stopped. Those three days of waiting, along with a lack of diagnosis/treatment of infection progressed to sepsis and death for Savita. If this had happened in the US at 22 weeks would she have been in the same position if this law is passed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
And if the mother gets cancer? Does that mean no treatment for the mother in case it damages/induces an abortion in the foetus?
No good options but at least let there be options.
4
The biggest threat to abortion will come from the medical community. Advances in pre-natal healthcare, including surgery, are revealing the truth: fetuses are functioning human beings, capable of reacting to surgical inputs, pain, and medicines. This represents a challenge to the Hippocratic Oath.
Actually, "the fate of the ban and other anti-abortion matters" are NOT in The hands of the voters. The specific purpose and effect of Roe vs Wade was to remove abortion from the voters. It was a theft of American self-government. It is remarkable that voters, however, won't be denied, and insist that elected officials hear them on the question.
What I never hear in this argument of 'for the life of the baby' are the babies, sons and daughters, that would be lost if woman are not able to choose on their own. The majority of women who have late term abortions do so due to dire circumstances and typically much wanted children. They also want children after this anguished experience.
If you force a woman who finds out via ultrasound (typical in pre-natal care at about 20 weeks) that her baby is 'incompatible with life' or will die within weeks of birth or other hosts of other medical issues, or the possibility of maternal death or injury, if you force that woman to deliver a still born full term baby, or a baby with expensive issues that sadly passes within the first year, or a woman who after the forced pregnancy can no longer conceive, you are condemning in all probability all future children. The physical and mental anguish forcing a woman to do somehting they don't have to do, is condemning a family (including most likely other young siblings) to grief, anguish, expense, pain and much more. After an experience like that how likely is it that they will try again for a wanted child, after being forced by a government to do something against their will? Senator Graham, talk to woman who have had a late term abortion before you do anything.
2
Those so-called "pro-lifers" are usually the same bunch that supported a stop to CHIP funding, resulting in millions of children not having access to health insurance anymore.
There's nothing "pro-lifers" about these zealots.
3
The loss of a fetus can be traumatic to both parents whether through an automobile accident, abortion, or other natural cause. The policies since Row v Wade have focused only on women’s rights or the right to life of the unborn and have ignored the rights of the father. It is common for lawmakers and the courts to ignore matters which cannot be proven but the technology of DNA testing has rendered paternity to be an inexpensive slam dunk. This leads to the potential mandate of sampling the DNA in any abortion where the father has not consented and giving the father a right to recover against the doctor for loss of a fetus.
Under such a system, women loose nothing since, with the exception of rape, they effectively consent to a risk of pregnancy at the outset. Any doubt about the man’s position on abortion should be clear at the beginning just as a man must ascertain his partner’s consent to intercourse. After all, the destruction of a child wanted by the father can be at least as serious as the rape of a woman.
The consequences of giving rights to men and knowing in advance how they feel about having and supporting children has no genuine downside.
1
What is the latest actual science on this?
If a fetus can feel pain at a certain stage it its development then we need to accept it. We should not pick and choose scientific facts.
What we do about it is a separate issue.
1
I can't exactly tell what this bill says. The article is muddy.
Is there an exception for a situation where the abortion is necessary to save the mother's life?
Is there an exception for a fetus who is not viable outside the womb? Many very late abortions deal with situations where, for example, the baby has formed without a head, or without a brain. This often cannot be diagnosed with certainty until after 20 weeks. What is the point in forcing a woman to carry such a pregnancy to term?
I suspect that the bill contains both exceptions, because this piece of advocacy would certainly have mentioned it if it didn't. But this isn't news, this is a flyer.
1
Let's say I'm a soldier in war. My commanding officer orders me to shoot a visibly pregnant woman he believes to be a terrorist. Do I have the moral or religious obligation to refuse the order to avoid killing the unborn child in her uterus? Will military law and courts uphold my right to refuse a commander's direct order? Of course, pregnant women and unborn children are killed in war all the time and called "collateral damage" and their deaths regretted as unavoidable "civilian casualties." But patriotic Americans honor the soldiers who are fighting for a higher cause, which is usually described as "protecting our rights and freedom." That brings us back to the central question of the abortion debate, Whose freedom? Whose rights? It is a hard question to answer and should never be made easy by ignoring the circumstances of women's lives. Legislating a 20-week limit on abortion does that.
As a pro-choice old codger in his late Seventies, I implore women to please get to the polls and vote your interests. Ironically, the only segment of female votes who voted in the majority for Trump were White Women. What were you thinking? When did a candidate not win his or her very own demographic? You must remember this: every vote counts. You saw what happened in Virginia, one vote turned into a tie, which then turned into a coin toss. Can you imagine if Trump won on a coin toss? In a way, he did. The archaic outdated Electoral College elected the person who received three million fewer votes. Do not let this happen this November and all the Novembers to come. Remember, there are more women than we men. Show US how it's done. It's about time.
DD
Manhattan
4
What is it commonly known as when something is repeated over and over again basically in the same manner, yet expect the results to change?
Insanity, stupidity, wishful thinking or perhaps desperation.
Whatever a person chooses as a definition for such actions, if the thought ever crosses their mind to determine an alternate plan, could be said for both sides of the abortion argument, however the seed being planted with expectations for this issue to be a game breaker for mid-term elections in 10-months may be a classic example.
With the announcement of resignation from Cecile Richards last week, people should ask how this will help. After hearing about this announcement, one thought came to mind in light of the # Me Too movement; are there or will there be any news of accusations against any Planned Parenthood doctors or staff of inappropriate sexual activity?
Time will tell, and to think that Planned Parenthood would be exempt from this deviation of behavior by any of their staff in the past or now would be at best plain naïve.
Seven nations, including the US, permit abortion after 20 weeks. What do they know that we refuse to accept?
1
Not one word from the editorial board that we are talking about the killing of the most innocent of human life, a baby. Since the editorial board thinks that this is just an unviable tissue mass, maybe you should start telling women to not mourn miscarriages, as they were merely unviable tissue mass. Also, After all, that is the logical conclusion of your position.
I mistakenly thought that liberalism was about the protection of life. I guess that some lives are just more valuable than others in your eyes.
The most innocent?
Why does the fetus deserve credit for being innocent when it cannot make any choices?
Why is the woman less innocent?
7
How many unwanted babies have you adopted, Ron? How many of those have severe disabilities?
So in forty years, not one Trump paramuor volunteered or was payed to have an abortion? Impossible. Now all we have to do is find her.
2
Huffington Post has an article about this new department of sky fairies could deny the State of Illinois federal money for the gamut of social programmes including Food Stamps because some retired doctor did not want to advise a patient where she could obtain an abortion. I thought the USA was not supposed to have established religion.
1
What will happen if Mike Pence becomes president.. someone no one voted for...why is he so protected?
1
This 20 week ban would be illegal in that it violates the criteria set forth by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. If they pass it a court would immediately throw it out. The Senate should stop wasting its time with this wishful thinking nonsense. Do something constructive. Go pass a budget bill. We'll be needing one again in a few days.
If you're anti-abortion don't have one, but don't tell me what to do.
4
I'm all for banning abortions when we ban all male performance enhancing pills.
3
And sex.
1
No exception for the health of the woman? Why does the life of the fetus matter so much more to these sanctimonious hypocrites than the life of the woman who is already a living breathing essential part of the fabric of our lives? Why is the GOP to pregnant women pro-death?
4
It is fine to blast the Republicans for failing to look to science on the climate change issue. But it is abhorrent for Democrats to look to science on the abortion issue. When does life begin? Might science offer us a clue? No, I will believe what is convenient. Sound familiar?
Getting a woman pregnant and forcing her to give birth is a way of preying on her. Anti-abortion men belong in the same boat as those who sexually abuse women.
4
It is too hypocritical for Trump and other Republicans to talk about respecting life. They adore the death penalty, chip away at healthcare even for children, push for guns everywhere, close doors to those fleeing violence, and trash our one planet.
This is not about creating any culture of life, this is about writing laws around women's bodies.
1
Hospitals that refuse to provide the care pregnant women need when their pregnancy is in trouble whether it's for abortion, or for any other legitimate reason should not receive or be allowed to ask for federal funds. They are not practicing good medicine and they are discriminating against patients based upon a medical condition and their sex.
Abortion is not yet illegal in America. Abortion providers are not murderers. They are allowing women who do not want to have a child for whatever reason, to terminate the pregnancy. The decision to have an abortion or a child is a private one and should be respected by all. The decision to have an abortion when the fetus has a problem that is incompatible with life is tragic and difficult and ought to be left up to the parents, not the Church, not the hospitals, and not our politicians.
Too many women and families suffer because this country provides inadequate support for families and children. The cliche that the GOP and others stop caring once the child is born is true. Just look at what's going on with CHIP. Look at how little we do for our vulnerable citizens. If our politicians truly cared about family, people, family planning, health, etc., we would have better measures in place to help all patients regardless of sex or pregnancy status. Women do not become feebleminded when they are pregnant. But our politicians do and so do others who are against abortion and family planning.
15
The very same conservatives that are so "Pro-Life" are also the first to cut funding to Medicaid and other social welfare programs. They're the first to say that people don't have a right to health care , rights to affordable housing or a living wage. They're the first to attack anyone that is on government assistance as "takers."
Not everyone is emotionally, financially, or physically capable of raising a child at every point in their life. Not everyone is equipped with the capacity to raise a special needs child. If these so-called pro-lifers truly were pro-life they'd provide ample resources so that every woman would be financially able to raise a child. They'd provide support so that women who are feeling overwhelmed are able to get through the difficult times. And they'd provide assistance in the form of nannies, babysitters and the like to help women who may themselves have medical conditions that prevent them from raising a child. But I'm not going to hold my breath on any of this. Because this isn't about the "life" of the unborn, it seems more and more it's about controlling women.
23
And those same Republicans are pro war and pro death penalty. They are also against adequate healthcare for children and adults. The message is that they want more babies born so that the Government can kill them later. Hypocrites one and all.
1
It is time for #Equal Rights Amendment to OUR U.S. Constitution Right Now.
Women and socially conscious men MUST take action right now to Constitutionally insure that "NO law will be passed by any government at any level in the United States of America, or any of it's properties, that discriminates based on gender."
This preposterous suppression of women MUST stop now.
24
In France and later in Germany, in the 1970s when it was illegal, some 343 very public and even elected women signed a petition saying that they had had an abortion, and a petition signed by a 331 doctors in favor was also issued. In 1974, Parliament voted to make it legal up to 10 weeks, recently extended to 14 weeks. Fast forward 2018 in America, although thanks to seven men on the Supreme Court abortion has been technically vaguely legal since 1973, it is harder and harder to readily obtain one. To top it all, it is customary for a Republican President to speak in support of the annual anti-abortion march. Are American women ever gone see abortion rights secured and private?
10
As a man i will never know what it's like to face an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. I can't even imagine the soul searching and stress that women face when needing to make this difficult decision in their life.
But now you have an administration that's determined to control what people can do with their own bodies. I recall a photo from last year where a meeting took place discussing women's health issues and everyone at the table were men. As our Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said about this issue,,"The days when old men get to decide what a woman does with her body are long gone.
This same group is also trying to pass legislation that would allow religious people to openly discriminate against people in the LGBT community.
This year the women's and gay rights movement need to stand strong together and vote these people out of office.
An old political slogan still resonates today. "Keep your laws off my body!".
28
We should also add...keep your hands off my wallet.
When u don’t want the pregnancy abortion not an agonizing decision at all but the most natural and liberating thing.
1
I support the editors’ perception that a serious threat is gathering (and has been for some time) to women’s reproductive rights, and that something needs to be done by the people about it. I disagree that the solution is to seek change in the ideological makeup of a majority of Congress, because Congress had precious little to do with this question since 1973 and Roe v. Wade.
This has been an issue managed entirely by the federal courts, and it will continue to be … because it’s ALTOGETHER too hot an ideological and religious issue for Congress EVER to materially engage.
The effort to scale back Roe protections clearly is an attempt to incrementally destroy Roe by its opponents in the states; and this despite the fact that Roe, while providing a guarantee of a woman’s right to obtain an abortion for any reason during the first trimester, also sets up conditions by which a state may regulate her access during the second and third. Roe was a brilliant compromise that balanced the legitimate rights and interests of individuals and the state, but it was a compromise forged by the U.S. Supreme Court and not by Congress or the president. That brilliant compromise must be preserved in its current form to remain effective at securing its goals of balancing legitimate interests, but it must be the Court that does it – because Congress, under EITHER party … won’t.
8
Yet the U.S. Supreme Court might. John Roberts has proven himself HIGHLY attuned to “ripeness” of an issue and the weight of public support for it, in order to protect the perception of legitimacy of the Court in the people’s regard. The people need to unambiguously demonstrate that they are overwhelmingly in favor of preserving Roe without changes and to enforcing its existing compromises in the states. If they do, then we might turn this concerted effort to incrementally destroy it, and by doing so prevent a basic injustice to women and the inauguration of a holy war on our soil.
5
Seriously?? Who confirms the judges?!! We already have a new RWNJ judge in the supreme court, and we don't need anymore.
"Piffle" is thy middle name!
3
wanderer:
Gorsuch is hardly a "right-wing nut job". And if Anthony Kennedy follows through on his intention to retire and it happens before the Dems even have a chance to take the Senate, then you WILL have another conservative on the Court -- this YEAR. So, better deal with this Roe issue BEFORE Roberts and Kennedy cease to be the possible win-votes on this issue.
For those who don't recognize this nation's backward slide into obscurity, and a return to white male supremacy -- time is running out.
At this rate, it won't be long before Jeff Sessions totally dismantles the U.S. Justice system to reflect this president's conservative and neanderthal way of thinking when it comes to preserving a woman's reproductive right to choose.
Aside from the fact that this very same president and Republican Congress have done everything to repeal any form of government support from those who might need it -- which includes their foot-dragging reluctance to further fund the Child Health Development Program (CHIP), lies the fact that the jobs aren't coming back, and most Americans have nothing to look forward to but more taxes before death.
This is not "winning".
26
This country isn't yet banning abortion, but clearly we're on the verge of scaling back a woman's abortion rights. To say everything hangs on the thread of the 2018 midterms is an understatement.
To women of my generation (I came of age in the late 60s), this is a profoundly sad moment. Abortion rights to us aren't about loving abortion, but rather about a woman's freedom and autonomy. They are the final frontier in the long, hard battle we fought to free ourselves from unjust control men and the State have historically had over our bodies and our lives.
Let's be clear: Curtailing abortion rights means the State gets to step in to decide things about a woman's life. It's a retraction of rights that's based on the idea that a woman's rights are not as important as the life of a fetus. Curtailing these rights means stepping onto the slippery slope of ascribing legal rights to fetuses--actually, a step that many anti-abortion crusaders have already taken.
The saddest part of curtail abortion rights after 20 weeks is its manifest lack of trust in women--as if it's common for women to end pregnancies for trivial reasons.
Anti-abortion rights people claim they're "protecting" fetuses. They should at least admit the fact that to do this, they are willing to control women.
23
Gathering threat to abortion rights... gathering threat to women's health.
Consider the GOP assault on the individual mandate. "Healthy people do not need to buy insurance." No, healthy men may not need insurance. Every young woman needs health insurance. And medical examination of their reproductive systems.
The oppression of women is across the board. Women are the majority in this country. They need to act like it.
(I am a 67 year old man who had a strong mom and has a daughter)
19
If anti-abortionists put half as much energy into supporting sex education and birth control as they do trying to pass laws denying reproductive rights, there would be far fewer abortions.
But they don't. Nor do they support a robust safety net for poor women who have children.
The hypocrisy of the anti-choice side runs wide and deep.
36
Regrettably, the view points are irreconcilable.
In 1973 the Supreme Court made a decision weighted toward biology and the rights of the individual woman. Today's anti-abortion movement is religious based and contemptuous of the rights of the woman.
The anti-abortion efforts, at their core, seek to use the power of government to impose the religious beliefs of a political block of certain Christians on the behavior, body and choices of all women, and by extension, all of our society.
The extremists on the religious right make no secret of their belief that America was founded as a Christian nation, and that it should be governed accordingly. Their beliefs, however, are not the same as knowledge, as they are ignorant of both our history and our Constitution. What they do understand is power, and they have determined to cultivate, grow and abuse their political power to impose their beliefs on others, and failing that, to at least make the behavior of others conform to their beliefs.
The religious right are not honest actors, and their anti-choice efforts are a toxic combination of Christian zealots and political opportunists. The cynical manipulating the faithful and vice versa, so that Republicans can gain and hold power, and so that Christian theocracy can gain a stronger hold on its power.
19
When and only when anti abortion forces support robust and long term medical and financial support for women who would seek an abortion should any attempt to limit abortion be viewed as a morally acceptable. If the anti abortion forces would show the same passion for post born children as they do for pre born they would probably carry the day politically but then they would have to spend money to support people that they don't like and lose a powerful political wedge.
12
This is a link to an interesting article that recently appeared in America Magazine (a Catholic publication) - with the title:
Catholics are Just As Likely to Get An Abortion as Other US Women -Why
https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/01/24/catholics-ar...
I am not at all sure that the link works or not - but the article can probably be found using a decent search engine. Nothing new or startling in this Catholic publication, except the discrete and grudging nod to the realities of human existence. People get abortions usually because they cannot afford to have the child. If Roe v Wade is overturned, people will continue to have abortions. If abortion is criminalized, people will continue to have abortions. People have had abortions for thousands of years and will continue having them.
19
Thank you.
Yes, the link does work!
1
Ultimately the decision of whether or not to have an abortion is up to the woman. I volunteer at a clinic as an escort to make sure women can enter the clinic safely. Every day there are anti abortion zealots who scream at women and their companions. It is perfectly acceptable to be against abortion for yourself, but please stay out of women's reproductive health. It is not a black and white issue, every situation is different. Please let the woman decide.
21
For too long we allowed these extremists to callback themselves pro life. We should call the morning what they truly are Anti Choice.
Pro life includes a multitude of issues that have to do with life, starting with health care for children and adults as well as prenatal care.
Women may feel more comfortable to vote I need November if they do not feel guilty about being called anti life. Their vote against the anti choice.
14
Why is it that so-called religious people - notably Evangelicals - have such an obsession with laws regarding sex - abortion, marriage equality, bathroom laws etc. I don't see them demonstrating against the death penalty, wars, or harsh prison sentences. What is it about sex they are so afraid of - like our V.P. not having a meal with women unless "Mother" is present.
We need more agnostics/atheists in Congress, and less religion in our law making.
28
I have a question I wish I could get advocates for outlawing abortion to answer. It’s a simple question: if you want to require a woman to give up her body for nine months to preserve life, do you also want someone with a matching kidney to be required to donate that kidney to preserve someone else’s life.
Or someone with matching bone marrow? Or even someone with a rare matching blood type?
But isn't it much more dangerous to donate a kidney than carry a pregnancy through to birth? Well, no, it doesn't seem to be.
Dr. Erik P. Castle, from the Mayo Clinic, says that "Your long-term survival rate is about the same as that for people in the general population who aren't kidney donors," whereas the U.S. has the highest maternal death rate in the developed world, with 12.7 deaths per 100,000 live births.
12
While the rest of the modern world addresses front burner issues like the environment, infrastructure, trade and migration, the US is mired in outdated social policies that have been settled elsewhere.
The GOP demands that women bear children at all cost, but are unwilling to provide financial help to women and newborns. The GOP has allowed CHIP to expire, refuses to mandate paid maternity/paternity leave for all American parents, refuses to mandate paid sick days, refuses to raise the minimum wage, vows to cut Medicaid, eliminate Planned Parenthood and already obstructs access to free contraception (both of which ostensibly prevent the need for abortions).
It is odd that the GOP pursues policies that kill thousands of innocent humans of all ages (loosening gun laws) while also decrying abortions which will not harm a single body already outside of the womb, which otherwise can not live on its own. The GOP embraces the science that artificially impregnates women and rejects the science that later highlights environmental threats to their well-being
19
This is the issue of all times, since banning abortion rights will completely control women; the goal of arch conservatives such as Pence, Sessions, Steve Miller, the Koch Brothers among the most famous. Controlling women leads to controlling people of color, voting rights and any other democratic rights we have. All people, especially the young, should heed the dangers here and come out to vote against these impossible restrictions-Remember the days before abortion rights and you will come awake.
10
Ironically Republican policies on birth control, healthcare, and even economic policy create an environment where the choice to have an abortion will occur more frequently. The assault on abortion rights, especially when coupled with the rest of the Republican agenda, is an assault not just on women's rights but also human rights and social justice.
8
When the federal government grabs women by their private parts, as described in the Access Hollywood tape, is that not sexual assault?
In the era of Me Too, there’s never been a better opportunity to turn the tide against intrusion into abortion rights. The anti abortion lobby is one of the most energetic grassroots movements in history, but I believe now it’s “Times Up”.
A new day is coming where people will unapologetically stand up for private physical autonomy.
9
"Pro life" what a cynical phrase. None of these pro lifers care about life. If they did they would support universal health care, fair wages, and end to war, just to begin with. Instead their "pro life" claims are all about controlling women.
13
As usual, the lives of women and fetuses are being used as a political football. Instead of arguing about when exactly it is no longer ethical to abort a fetus, wouldn't it be nice to see intelligent legislation aimed at preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place?
6
"You can't put those lefty beliefs in our schools - sex education belongs in the home." - Trump's GOP
1
We move one step closer to a theocracy in this country when bills like this are considered. The pro-life movement in this America is anything but that. If it were there would be provisions for universal healthcare for all Americans, reasonable and safe adoption laws, adequate and responsible sex education for both boys and girls, childcare provisions. We have so far to go in order to say that we value life in this country. Laws that require the birth of a child without provision for its welfare as a breathing human being are a waste of our time and energy.
9
“But there is no exception to protect the health of the pregnant woman.”
Fortunately, there are outstanding organizations here in the US whose mission is to fight this battle on behalf of women everyday. Go to www.reproductiverights.org to learn more.
7
Poverty is one big reason for abortions. Reduced poverty would be a step in the right direction if it is really about life and not to punish women.
6
One of the strongest statements from the Bible is the counsel not to judge others. Yet that is what we do when we ban abortions. Abortions will never be stopped - only safe abortions will be stopped. Women who have lives of relative security do not understand women who are without physical and psychological security. When, as a women, your own world is terribly out of control a baby can become a threat. In the end, an abortion can literally be an act of defense because too many elements are out of control in a women's life. Let a women, her doctor, and her spiritual adviser make the decision whether to abort or not when the baby is still not viable. The last place the government should be is in the middle of this very difficult and personal moment.
5
20 weeks seems reasonable to me with possible exceptions for deformities and health of the mother. Most civilized western countries have limitations on abortion whereas the US has lawful abortion on demand. Time to end this gruesome practice.
1
How many has your uterus popped out lately, George?
You don't want an abortion - then don't have one.
And, a BIG PS: The Senate bill the article refers to specifically omits any consideration for the "health of the mother".
You want to talk "gruesome"?
How about the forced-breeder who only gets a break from popping out "babies" when her uterus finally ruptures?
The world, world-wide has had enough of men demanding force-bred women.
Your only option, George, is to pray that reincarnation is real and that you get to come back as a woman next time.
When you do, have as many as you please.....
2
Gruesome to whom, exactly? Your husband, your pastor, your governor, your president? Any other rich white Christian men I failed to mention? Time to end the gruesome practice of putting the government in a woman's womb and mind.
2
More oppression of the poor. Were this to become law, the rich will just go to civilized Europe for the procedure over the weekend. They can tell everyone they had the procedure but there will be no legal action. The poor will just have to go to some place illegal, or suffer the burden of raising a kid with no money.
Perfect. The very definition of Conservatism.
6
That country would be Ireland, what was once the most Catholic of nations.
They are re-writing their laws on abortion, recognizing that it is an illegal burden placed on women.
The Church has crashed and burned, big time, in the last couple of years.
700 dead babies in a septic tank will do that to a nation.....
1
Perhaps the real conflict in politics is not between left and right, but between people who have simplistic views and people whose views are more nuanced.
Imagine a community where there are only two color words in their language, for dark and for light. Some other communities only have three words, dark, light, and red.
"If a culture has three color terms, the third is red. If a culture has four, it has yellow or green. Berlin and Kay posit seven levels in which cultures fall, with Stage I languages having only the colors black (dark–cool) and white (light–warm)."
Berlin, B., & Kay, P. (1991). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Univ of California Press.
But such a community is going to have a hard time dealing with blue and green, Is blue the same as red? As dark? As light?
So what kind of conversation can take place between someone who has seven color words and someone who has only three?
Similarly for politics. Many people here assume that "choice" is good and that opposition to abortion is "bad".
But what if it is more complicated than that? What if some abortions are necessary even if some others are bad?
Progressives and the Christian right are going to have trouble dealing with this situation.
OK, fine, but should the rest of us follow in their footsteps? Why let THEM drive the agenda?
1
What, pray tell, is a "bad" abortion? I'm sure every woman struggling with such a decision would love to know.
1
Why is the GOP so intent upon limiting women's rights?
4
At the very least, there should be an exception for severe fetal abnormalities and for the life of the mother. Some chromosomal disorders are not discovered until the second trimester.
I would add that there's an underlying assumption in this bill that women are mindless and selfish people who opt for late-term abortions without giving a thought to the fetus and that a paternal government (Father Knows Best) must step in. This is incredibly insulting to women!
11
This isn't about abortion, nor is it about religion. It's about Republicans demanding unconstitutional control of our most vulnerable citizens.
6
We should give government officials voting on abortion a test. Have they ever heard if PPROM? What is CVS? How long to get genetic test results from amniocentesis for single gene defects? I don’t think they would pass. I got my amnio results at 21 weeks for an incurable disease. Stay out of these ultra complex issues please and leave me alone with my doctor to discuss.
15
If only Republican politicians could learn to Leave Women Alone! in their reproductive rights, they could probably rule for years to come. Immigration is important too, but it is abortion that is a single issue for so many women. Just leave us alone, and leave the medical limitations to the docs...I trust the medical community far more than the fools in D.C. to determine fetal viability issues.
4
I am weary of this fight about how women make medical decisions for and about their own bodies. And I find it hard to believe that this is about anything other than pandering to a block of voters. I no longer trust the "religious" right to actually walk their talk...they are documented to be hypocrites and liars when it comes to social issues.
We are all "pro-life"...I choose to focus on the ones who are currently suffering from hunger, lack of education, mental illness, substance abuse, poverty, sexual/emotional/physical abuse...and not on what a woman decides to do when faced with an unwanted pregnancy. We would be better served if they paid actual attention to the above issues.
If this basic right, to control our own bodies, falls we can only guess what will fall next...banning us from working? From voting? Some folks may feel they are doing the righteous work of a god but for me it is all about power and control.
270
Your right, and if they focused on hunger, education, mental illness, substance abuse etc. there would probably be fewer abortions. We already know that in good economic times abortion rates fall. So let us relieve more social problems and be pro life in all stages of life.
14
The notion that restricting contraception from being covered by some employers on their health plan, or the notion that contraception is not covered, period, also plays into the difficulty in controlling one's destiny. All of these issues defy logic for those who oppose abortion.
3
Darby you are so right. Did you watch the TV adaptation Handmaid's Tale? It's all about the erosion of women's rights (supported by many women and their husbands) and was originally written in the 80's- but so little has changed that it continues to be a cautionary tale of how insidiously women's hardwon human rights are dangerously in peril and this issue is just part of a slippery slope we don't need any part of.
2
For women who cannot afford to travel to places where there are less restrictive laws on abortion this can be a death sentence. Women will obtain abortions in whatever way they can, which will take us back to filthy rooms, filthy instruments and the very real threat of infection and death.
11
Such high minded and articulate comments while trying to rationalize the murder of a child. I am against all abortion and believe this legislation is a good place to start to restore the rights of an unborn child.
What you believe and reality are two different things. If you don't "believe" in abortion then don't have one, Jim, although from your name I'm guessing you are a male and will never have to make that terrifying decision. How can we "restore" the rights of a lump of cells that didn't have any rights in the first place? Keep your religious beliefs in your home, your church, and your heart. But when you push them out into the public square you'd better expect a pushback. You cannot make laws in this country designed to make me believe what you believe, and that is what the anti-abortion crowd is all about.
3
May your daughter's life NOT be threatened by a pregnancy that she wants but that might kill her. If she were in that situation, your beliefs and this abominable bill would choose the child (who might not survive her death) over her life (which could continue with the termination of the pregnancy,)
3
With all due respect, you're not being honest about your position. You wish to take away the rights of women in an effort to "restore the rights of an unborn child." Thankfully, our Constitution forbids that.
3
Abortion should not be legislated. It is a woman's right to choose how to live her life. People that want to dictate how another person lives should step in, give the mother money for delivery and other medical care and take the child - in for a penny, in for a pound - otherwise keep your mouth shut and out of other's lives and stop judging others - there is biblical scripture about that, too.
10
When Roe v Wade was decided, the Catholic Church was alone in its opposition. But then televangelists like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and the other charlatans discovered that opposition to Roe v Wade served their two main goals - making themselves rich on donations from the rubes, and subjugating women to male dominance. They have been riding this horse ever since and now they have a complicit Republican Congress, and an unfit misogynist in the White House that they plan to use to achieve the big win in their anti-women agenda.
11
Be sure to read "When She Woke" by Hillary Jordan, author of "Mudbound", now on Netflix. Unnerving. Fiction, of course. Women who get illegal abortions are sentenced to "melachroming"- their skin is dyed completely red by an injection for an easy identification of their crime. A modern version of the scarlet letter.
Anyone in the TV or movie industry looking for important new material should read this book, and buy the rights.It could be as important as "The Handmaid's Tale."
5
The Constitution means nothing to these creatures intoxicated with power. Freedom of the individual, freedom of choice - that's the good old honorable America. This is the NEW Trump/Pence radical Bible Rule America - working to establish the right to criminalize gays with the unfolding of the Trump/Pence/Kelly/Miller "Religious Liberty" legislation that allows providers to refuse services to customers and patients whom they personally dislike - legalizing discrimination to over turn any hint of civil rights in this land. This is the Trump/Pence cabal that works to put women back in the kitchen, and chained to the bedpost. This is the cusp of a new Third World Dark Age America for non-whites and women. Trump and his band of women-hating, gay bashing fiends make their own rules. For them, the Constitution is on the ash heap of history.
7
This bill has no purpose other than to ignite the Christian Right in time to energize them for the 2018 election. The bill is unconstitutional so it has no purpose other than that . Republicans resurrect these meaningless bills every election and again it will make single issue voters activists.
Informed voters, pro or choice know this and ignore these costly charades.
32
"The bill is unconstitutional " That is YOUR opinion, but the decision rests with the Supreme Court.
There are lots of countries in the world which limit elective abortion to 12 weeks. Abortion after 12 weeks is permissible in case of a medical emergency but that emergency must be justified by two physicians who are INDEPENDENT of the woman seeking the abortion.
You should actually welcome this bill because America needs a consensus on abortion. And the current limit of 24 weeks is far too permissive.
"the current limit of 24 weeks is far too permissive"
That is "your opinion," as well, Aruna. Where you are mistaken is that you ignore the fact that the Supreme Court has already endorsed that position, and rejected yours.
1
"And the current limit of 24 weeks is far too permissive."
Says who? Conservative white men?
2
Not everyone believes that's god is involved in this discussion and, please remember people, they don't have to believe in god in this country. The reason women and sometimes couples make the decision to abort a pregnancy is deeply personal and private. Women and families should be able to make this very personal decision with their own physician. Thank you editorial board for addressing this issue.
73
God has nothing to do with why some people oppose capital punishment. They oppose it because it involves the taking of a life.
And God should not be brought into a discussion of whether it is permissible to take the life of a fetus which is, after all, a human being.
The "gathering threat to abortion rights" is the growing awareness of the pre-born child's humanity. With advances in medical technology, people have become increasingly aware of the child's abilities and needs. As a result, it's increasingly difficult to uphold unjust laws that treat the child as disposable property.
34
Dear Terry,
The unborn child does not become less human after she/she is born.
I hope you are equally vocal in your support of safety, health care, day care, early education, nutrition, etc for children already among us.
16
It's not a child at 20 weeks gestation; it's a fetus. The anti-choice movement uses inaccurate terminology to confuse the issue. Don't be fooled.
21
Terry
I take note of your term, child's humanity, but a fetus is certainly not a child yet, only forming cells. The bigger issue, what happens to this child after birth. A mother or father (if available) or family that may be unable to provide the needs and love of this child.
Society at this point, yourself included, no longer wishes to provide financial aid, healthcare, education, shelter or food for these struggling families. I will ignore the different dynamic for yourself and society if this child is black, brown or an immigrant. So, what do your words do for this child's humanity?
20
Pro-life requires a social structure that supports women who have children, as well as every other citizen in this country.
Pro-life means lifetime medical care for mother and child. Pro-life means women receive equal pay for their work, and the waitress and CEO have equal access to high-quality child care. Pro-life means free public education at superb schools for every child from pre-school through high school, followed by low cost college or technical training.
The current radical Christian movement is not a pro-life movement. It's a forced pregnancy movement.
203
This is true, but even if these societal norms were in place, it is still unconstitutional to force a woman to carry a pregnancy she does not want to term.
3
No, it's not. Millions of women don't receive equal pay for their work; or have access to high-quality child care or can go to college, etc. Everyone has access to free public education.
What is available to women who have little access to these things have Pregnancy Centers who provide FREE pregnancy tests, prenatal care, ultrasounds, counselling, baby layettes, and information & help to place her baby for adoption, etc. Ongoing support is available for as long as is needed.
A woman should be able to decide by 20 weeks whether she wants to carry her baby or not.
I thoroughly understand the emotional & painful decision this would be. Abortion is not what any woman really wants to do. But there are options for her if she is informed & chooses to carry her baby.
1
One Nation Under God. How can a nation live according to God’s word, God’s love, and endorse abortion? Any abortion. I can understand how women feel that the good old boys are making decisions about their bodies. The optics have been there for a long, long time. And the emotion those optics generate are real and they’re strong. Stronger than ever. I hope and pray, with tolerance, that women can move to accept the incredible gift God has given them to bear life. The world assigns no value to that gift. In fact society largely considers pregnancy an inconvenient nuisance. But when a woman has a relationship with her God, she can find gratitude for the gift in her womb. Trust in God’s Plan for one’s life is so contradictory to society’s catechism.
6
Your belief in what God wants is just that...your belief. Your religion teaches you "God's word" but my religion (or lack thereof) may say something entirely different. So keep religion out of it, as the Constitution requires.
Further, it is ridiculous to state that "society largely considers pregnancy an inconvenient nuisance." That suggests that most pregnancies are unwanted, which is untrue. Where do you get this twisted view of society? Learn the facts.
11
Great for you and your version of God.
Mine is a bit different.
My God tells me that every woman should be able to choose. The US Constitution says that both gods are equal and that mine does not trump yours - nor does yours trump mine.
Instead of attempting to force people to conform to your version of the what is acceptable, why don't you focus on improving the life of those born to poor undereducated, underemployed, underpaid kids and their families?
Imagine how much more welcome a baby would be if the life of the mother and her ability to care for the child were improved.
4
While you're at it, John, you might pray that God would speak to elected officials about the need for universal healthcare, including prenatal care, to ensure that all babies will have a chance to flourish once they are born. A comprehensive and sustained attack on poverty should also have a place in your prayers.
As Myrasgrandotter stresses, a pro-life agenda requires a comprehensive approach that would ensure that the baby, once born, has a chance to lead a full and meaningful life.
9
Gen X and millennial women take the right to have a safe abortion for granted. We take birth control for granted. If you ask a woman from these generations about Jane, they would assume that you are asking about a woman named Jane rather than the underground program women used to have to use when abortion was illegal.
We can never assume that our reproductive rights are protected. Generations of women fought for the right to decide when and if too have children. There will always be those who want to take us back to the days when women were expected to be barefoot and pregnant with no say about the number of children they had.
The right to have an abortion allows women agency over their bodies. If you don't believe in abortions, great don't have one. But for those of us who believe that women get to decide what happens to our bodies, vote like your life depends on it because it does. Failure to take this threat seriously could open the door for roe vs wade to be overturned.
104
Contraception and abortion are not the same thing, as contraception does not involve the taking of a human life.
I DO blame the Catholic church because by opposing contraception, they have conflated two issues which are morally very different.
4
"...as contraception does not involve the taking of a human life."
Nor does abortion.
4
I wish this was a topic that we could discuss without having to be either completely for or against it. As a woman and as a voter and as a person who is generally pro-choice, I would like to explore whether abortions at 20 weeks (other than harm to child or mom) should be allowed. But to even raise that as an issue is to infuriate voters from both sides. I wish we could simply talk it through.
15
I hear you, but this is a choice for doctors to make with their patients. Not for me, not for you, not for the Senate.
7
Typically, a later term abortion is to save the mother's life or prevent an unborn child with an life threatening abnormality from experiencing a horrible birth and instant death. Basically, the kind of situations where a woman and her doctor need every medical option available. But anti-choice people don't really care about the mother. Nor children who are born and suffer and die horrible deaths. They only love the fetus.
1
I know a woman who was denied an "abortion" at 24 weeks at Swedish, which was once proudly secular, but which is now part of a Catholic hospital system. She had very much wanted a baby, but it was dying within her. She was in the ICU and she was told she'd need to be transported to another hospital if she wanted an "abortion" to end the pregnancy. Basically, what was really happening is that she was miscarrying - and she had to wait for days until the miscarriage was complete. She was traumatized in multiple ways. She couldn't grieve the end of a much-wanted pregnancy, she had to worry about whether the dying fetus was poisoning her (a risk that was secondary to whether it had a fetal heartbeat), and she really just wanted to be home with family. What should have been a private decision was taken away from her. If this law passes, women will be treated as incubators, even when the fetus they're carrying cannot survive.
146
Remember the woman in Ireland who died as doctors could not remove the Sepsis-causing fetus under Irish law, which forbids removing a fetus with a beating heart. Mom wanted this baby too. Mom did not have to die and did not have to die in such a horrible way. The church puts the life of the fetus before the life of the mother. Horrible.
4
Perhaps someone should propose a friendly amendment to the bill: For every child that is born as a result of this bill, the government will automatically assume full responsibility for all of their living expenses (food, clothing, and shelter, as well as education and medical) up until, and including four years of college.
You're not allowed to say life is precious and sacred if you plan on throwing the babies and their mothers to the curb once the child is born.
128
@Bieu Bayou: I agree, except the signers of this bill should be supporting these children, through jobs not paid by the taxpayer not the government.
3
You are still forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term and go through a painful labor, which she may not want to do. I would not want to, regardless of what happened to the baby afterward.
1
What mother's and babies survive, that is. Later term abortion is often a doctor's decision to save the mother from a dying fetus.
1
Pro-choice IS pro-life because safe and legal abortions protect the lives and the health of women.
Pro-choice keeps the state out of what ought to be a private decision. If the state can tell a woman that she MUST bring a fetus to term, what stops the state from telling a woman the she MUST NOT bring a fetus to term?
The Bill of Rights reserves power to the people that are not given to the federal government or to the states. Women ought to be free to exercise power over her own body. However, we are not accustomed to speaking about women and power. It is time that we change this way of thinking.
83
It is simply a matter of a woman's right to choose. How much simpler can the issue be. And yet, a coterie of men, mostly white and old, have been attacking that simple right in all kinds of ways.
It is time for "We the People" to choose our representatives at the ballot this November sending them a resounding message that the choice is ours and not theirs.
57
There are two groups of people registered to vote in the US, those motivated by tradition and religious ideology, and those motivated by reasoned judgement. How we are governed is determined by how many from each group show up at the polls on election day. One group will never convince the other to accept their way of viewing government and its responsibilities. They are, in effect, from different planets.
28
This is much more serious for 2 constitutional reasons. First, abortion is a right found in the right to privacy by SCOTUS in 1973. Curtailing abortion is the same now as removing a right from the constitution and sets a dangerous precedent such as for freedom of speech or of religion. Second, because the issue is so tied to one religious tradition it sets up a state sponsored religion which is prohibited by the First Amendment. An anti-abortion amendment has been tried and failed. It would be the only way to legally curb the practice and its advocates don’t have the votes. This argument goes to the heart of our democracy.
197
Agreed! Excellent post!
1
Have you read Roe v. Wade, the SCOTUS decision in 1973? It doesn't recognize an unlimited right to have an abortion.
There is no "right of privacy" either in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, it was an invention of the courts in the Griswold Vs Connecticut decision. Moreover, in his prescient dissent, Justice Hugo Black predicted exactly what we are seeing today. The rise of judicial power to impose their moral views on the voters over the past 50 years should be feared by all, but particularly by those of a liberal political bent. The rise of the Federalist Society and the current packing of the court by the Trump administration is the fruit of relying on unelected judges to impose their personal views on the rest of the population. Had the question of abortion been addressed by legislative means back in the 70's it would have been a non-issue by now. Judicial fiat has had the opposite effect. The reason Hillary lost last year was because of the courts. Will Trump lose in November because of the courts? Maybe, but this is not how the Constitution was designed. We should not be a society ruled by judges and the fact that we now are is a pox upon both parties and the citizens of the USA.
1
The double-edged sword of Griswold v Connecticut is now fully exposed. We have become a land where rule by judges is now the rule so whoever wins the Court rules the land. So we must now go our and vote for judges who will rule on our behalf (we hope). Rather than a political system of checks and balances that forced compromise of legislators and the executive office, we have now become a polarised mess, where it is winner take all in a Judicial three card monte.
11
Except Federal judges, where real law is determined, are appointed by the President. And he's packing the courts with white, conservative men.
The problem is that those who oppose women's rights are so deeply passionate about their beliefs that they seldom miss an election, while those who support women's rights are much less passionate, and so much less likely to worry about missing an election. Same goes for encouraging others to vote: many who support abortion rights can be manipulated into supporting vehemently anti-abortion candidates by advancing religious or humanitarian arguments. "Fake News," like the bogus investigation of Planned Parenthood, also plays a part.
Bottom line is that no matter how secure abortion rights advocates may feel, women's rights are definitely at risk, and unless every American educates him or herself to the political realities of the day, America will continue in it's regression toward, well, the sort of regressive society we had in the '50's.
30
I'm pro-choice, but I feel some things needs to be made clear about the proposed law in question that I suspect most people do not appreciate. The proposed deadline is two weeks later than you might think. The article says the bill "would ban abortion at 20 weeks of pregnancy.". But specifically, the ban is at 20 weeks post fertilization. Pregnancy is most often measured "LMP", from the first day of the last menstrual period, which is on average two weeks prior to fertilization. So the bill is not quite as bad as it could be. Tests for fetal abnormalities which can be done at 20 weeks gestation (LMP) would still allow some time for an abortion if the news is bad.
The article also says such bans "violate the Supreme Court’s standard that abortion can be restricted only when a fetus is viable outside the womb." This is not altogether clear. 22 weeks LMP (20 weeks post-fertilization) is now the extreme border of viability -- survival is possible, though not common.
As for pain capability at this stage of development, some of the statements about fetal pain in the bill are outright false, and this article is probably correct that most scientists don't accept that the fetus at this stage feels pain. But the situation is complex as is the phenomenon of pain itself. Difficult questions like the relative roles of cortical and subcortical structures iare unsettled. If fetal pain really is a concern, one solution would be to remove pro-life obstacles to earlier abortions.
64
The problem isn't really about if the child is viable at 22 weeks or not, since the vast majority of abortions this late are because the fetus is not viable at all, now or ever. They know that. This a foot in the door to end all access to abortion.
11
Many woman do not have normal periods, thus LMP is hard to gauge. Also, most woman who find out at 20 weeks gestation about fetal abnormalities are in anguish and grief. Now they will be subjected to 'hurry up and decide', 'exactly what is your gestational date', etc. Why should the government even be in the conversation at such a painful and difficult time?
1
There is no doubt that Mr. Trump supports the legislation as a move to reinforce his political base. Nothing in his past points to a pro-life belief. It is odd, however, that the editorial board howls at the notion of any restriction on abortion before 21-24 weeks. Many liberal European countries place limits at 12 weeks, require counseling and waiting periods, etc.
2
So what? Those "European countries" you mention aren't governed by our Constitution. They have nothing to do with this debate.
1
Many European countries allow the Catholic Church to dictate law. Is that the path we should be on? Evangelism over the Constitution?
1
Its not just abortion rights that are in grave danger from this bunch of closet misogynists, its reproductive rights in general, and ultimately women's health overall. Planned Parenthood funding is in grave danger, and their services simply won't be replaced any time soon in many of the thousands of communities they service. Also, contraceptives will be taken out of many health plans if laws in the works now are ultimately passed giving health care providers broad lattitude to remove them and other reproductive health services, if they have "moral objections" to these hard-fought rights.
44
I used to be passionately actively involved in abortion rights politics but not anymore. If women themselves can't be bothered to go out and vote for politicians who will protect their right to choose, I've moved on to other priorities too.
6
Every woman I know is passionate about this subject and fights on a daily basis to keep women’s reproductive rights safe. It appears that the women who “can’t be bothered to vote” are tethered to the patriarchy and a Old Testament world view, particularly in the Midwest.
4
It’s not just federal law that permits/restricts access to abortion. We need to elect pro-choice people at every level of government - in state legislatures, county commissions, city halls, and school boards. These positions can regulate local access and funding. And they are the pipeline for higher office. Vote pro-choice up and down the ticket in every election.
25
Nobody is "pro-death," as if that were the logical alternative to "pro-life." Can we all agree that the goal is to minimize the number of abortions performed?
Then the logical thing to do is keep abortion safe, legal, ...and rare. Best way to do that is to ensure ready access to quality reproductive health care for women of all ages and demographics. Let's be honest (I know; hard for anybody in this GOP Congress), but wealthy women (including mistresses) will ALWAYS be able to get an abortion. What the GOP is trying to do--with quite a bit of success right now--is make it more and more difficult for the average woman to access not just safe, legal abortion procedures, but all of the health care that should go before, during, and after EITHER an abortion or a child birth.
And doesn't everyone want births to far outweigh abortions? Then fund PP and all other providers of reproductive health care and family-planning services.
38
It's pretty sad that the current government has put so much and effort in anti choice legislation that is, in truth, entirely politically motivated, and that seriously undermines women health, well beings and lives. When political gains and argument matter more than woman's lives, then you know your government is treading in some seriously questionable waters.
15
A lot of countries limit elective abortion to 12 weeks of pregnancy. The US, allowing it for 24, is an outlier.
And the decision to allow abortion so far into the pregnancy was not made by the American people. It was made jointly by lawyers and activists.
The American people need to be brought back to the table to decide how FAR into the pregnancy a purely elective abortion should be permitted.
35
How about we let the woman and her doctor decide that? We are an outlier because we have allowed science to dictate policy, not the Church.
19
And who decides what a "purely elective" abortion is? The problem is assuming that judges, or the old white men in Congress have any idea of the medical consequences of either abortion, or attempting to carry to term. It's not an issue to be settled at a legislative table, it's to be decided by a woman and her doctor.
11
Aruna, It should be noted that most European countries, which are the ones I think you may be referring to, also provide comprehensive healthcare and social services to residents. Women can make decisions about their lives without fear that they won't be able to access medical treatment. They don't have to jump over a succession of barriers erected by state legislators who give no thought to women's rights and needs. And they also are largely free of the vilification and hectoring that's often directed at American women who favor reproductive rights. As to "the American people" making decisions about whether to allow later-term abortions, you seem to assume such treatments are frivolous. Statistics would dispute that assumption; most late-term abortions occur because of significant medical issues for either the woman or her fetus. It might be worth asking yourself if you would like to have "the American people" weighing in on your own medical and health concerns.
16
Abortion like any other medical procedure should be decided by a competent medical doctor and his or her patient. Senator Lindsey Graham is not a medical doctor or a woman unless I miss something. In Canada we have no legislation about abortion and this is the way it should be every where. And if your religion forbid abortion, fine, I respect that. But do not use the state to impose your religion on other people.
49
Notice that none of these restrictive laws apply to women wealthy enough to travel to other countries where abortion is provided safely and at reasonable cost. These laws have the effect of compelling poor women to beget the next generation of workers and soldiers.
12
Easy access to abortion is essential for a well functioning, low crime society.
Can you imagine being forced to parent a child you don't want or can't afford to raise properly?
I can't think of anything more stressful for a single mom or a financially strapped family.
Very unfair to bring a child into such circumstances.
The result is often tragic.
Neglect, resentment, difficult upbringing, potential for trouble.
There are so many pregnancies and children that are wanted, who land in supportive homes, nurtured to full potential with love and care.
Focus on doing the best for them.
Leave others alone, let them make their own decisions.
Society is better for it.
Better for fully wanted children who have a chance of being healthy, law-abiding adults.
9
"Pro-life" activists would do well to read about the case of Savita halappanavar in Ireland, which has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the west.
Ireland is holding a referendum on its eighth amendment this year, with the likely result an ending of its abortion ban.
8
This is the beginning of a slow (or maybe not so slow) erosion of abortion rights whose ultimate purpose is a cultural, as well as legislative, change. With every such incremental victory, forced-birth proponents manage to convince enough gullible people that there is something inherently wrong with a procedure. What comes after a 20-week ban? A 10-week, a 8-week, a 2-week? And after that, is contraception next? After all, if you believe in the oxymoronic idea that there is such a thing as an “unborn child”, why to stop at abortion? Contraception does the same thing: a child that could have been born is not born because his potential mother used artificial means to prevent his birth. Late-term abortions are necessary to prevent the birth of children with severe and life-threatening disabilities. They are necessary to save the lives of women whose pregnancies go awry, which happens more often than most people realize. If American women don’t stand up for our basic right to control our bodies, all the rest of our rights can also be taken away.
12
Thank you for laying out the slippery slope of abortion regulation here. The irony is that it mirrors the same picture painted by a vast majority of the conservative religious right when it comes to gun control. But there is apparently no irony in being "Pro-life", pro-gun, and anti-Obamacare.
4
If Americans want to preserve women's rights, then there is a simple solution. Vote for every Democrat on the ballot in 2018 and 2020. That means local, state and federal offices. What I resent more than anything is the idea right wingers have that they should be able to force their religious beliefs on the rest of the population by making their religion the law. If they want to spread their religion by putting ads in newspapers and on TV, creating billboards, holding demonstrations etc. — all that is fine. I defend their right to do so. But don't try to make it the law of the land. Let us keep the separation of church and state in America!
15
Not all Democrats are pro-choice. My state senator, a Democrat, is staunchly pro-life.
Vote for every pro-choice Democrat on the ballot. There are Democrats who are anti-choice, particularly those who follow Catholic doctrine to the letter.
1
The Republicans are adamant when it comes to funding any form of contraception .They don't want the government to spend any money which helps women acquire medication which will prevent pregnancies.If a woman accidentally becomes pregnant they then want to deny her choice.Women who care about their health and choice need to flock to the polls in November.
11
Up until the early 2000s, I staunchly supported abortion. I look back at that time as one when I was duped by the liberal establishment. I have since come to realize that abortion is nothing short of murder, systematic, unadulterated murder. And for what reason? To terminate a life because it is considered inconvenient? I realize abortion may me medical necessary in some cases, but I believe those are exceptions, and for the most part, abortion is a fall back for the failure to use birth control and exercising personal restraint. Unfortunately, many Americans see the right to an abortion as a sign of social progress; I did. I no longer see it that way, but rather a sign of social and moral decline. Abortion is the 20th-21st century equivalent of human sacrifice to the God of modern liberalism. Thank you.
4
This is America, you're free to believe whatever nonsense you want. What you're not free to do is control what others choose to do with their bodies.
5
Until science makes it possible for men to have babies, you have no say in this fight.
4
Stop with the strident statements..."terminate a life because it is considered inconvenient". If you really supported abortion in the past, you'd know that abortion is about finances, family situations, limiting family size, a women's health or age (too young, too old), and career and educational pursuits. And yes, inconveniences. So what? I doubt you'd want to be forced into giving birth at the age of 14. Or 49. Or if you were being beaten by your spouse (that would be my mother's first husband) and knew another child would be her family's death warrant.
As well, birth control fails. And sometimes people forget. Or don't care. So what. You're stance is vindictive and punishing in nature rather than empathetic and humane. I guess you're perfect and have never forgotten something or done something without consideration.
5
If I thought for a second that any time limit placed on legal abortion would settle the matter once and for all, I could accept a 20-week compromise. But it would not end the assault on women's right to make decisions about their own bodies, their own health, their family size and their own futures. The anti-abortion crowd will not rest until all abortion is banned because they do not recognize women as fully human, equal citizens with fundamental human and legal rights. They ignore the woman and see only the contents of her uterus. So, yes, this bill must be opposed.
253
It's a constantly moving target, isn't it? When that "uterine content" should be considered dear. Well, most would agree that it is more and more dear as it develops. Almost all who debate the issue recognize this, but obscure that recognition because it diminishes their vehemence.
I agree with you completely (about not letting the camel's nose under the tent) but it's the same argument that citizens that support reasonable gun ownership use to oppose reasonable restrictions
2
"The anti-abortion crowd will not rest until all abortion is banned because they do not recognize women as fully human, equal citizens with fundamental human and legal rights. "
Actually they do - but they also think that the preborn should have rights as well
1
We must remember the NRA's main point - the "slippery slope"- meaning, that any attempt to curtail is the slippery slope to forbidding...whatever. We have to use their argument to stop this assault on women. Women, remember - when women vote, women win.
12
Of course the true argument is the right of the mother vs the rights of the fetus.
If the fetus is indeed viable after 20 weeks then you are depriving a citizen of her right to life.
If not, then the pro choice advocates have a point.
2
No court in this country accepts that a fetus is a citizen.
2
The editorial fails to mention that a majority of Americans support a 20-week ban. Last month a Huffington Post/YouGov poll found that the support was 59% to 30%. It's a smart tactic. A lot of people aren't fanatics either way and support reasonable restrictions on abortion. They won't go along with a near-total ban. But a 20-week ban looks very reasonable to a lot of people.
5
In my experience, most who support a 20 week ban are not very informed as to the reasons why Late Term abortions are sometimes necessary.
4
Following your reasoning, I can only assume that if a "majority of Americans" supported the revocation of your citizenship you would go quietly.
3
Quite perplexing. The GOP is loosening rules on the environment and safety and finances for corporations while tightening them on women.
Why, it's almost as though the GOP is intent on giving corporations more rights while stripping humans of theirs.
18
The government needs to stay out of the bedroom. The 20 week thing is not scientifically credible. Threatening to imprison physicians women is even more draconian.
The current congress and much of the supreme court are hellbent on reversing court decisions of the past 60 years. That must not happen.
7
Leave it to the states....
As a nation we can't continue to cede national power to the fringe over this issue.
2
As usual, this is to get people to the polls to vote Republican. The statistics are skewed and religion comes in and the resulting hysteria. No one encourages abortion but making it difficult or illegal will not erase the need. We have seen that and that hurts everyone. Get out and vote. Women and families have the ability to make these crucial decisions. These are the same people who want to do away with contraception. Government meddling in our lives for votes for Republicans.
4
1.3% of abortions are preformed after 20 weeks. This is when a woman and her doctor make an informed choice based on the specific personal and unique circumstances of the situation. The "deep state" has no place in that discussion. Period!
6
I am always amazed at how widely the term "pro-life" is used, even by writers who support reproductive choice. So it's refreshing to see that this dishonest term did not appear in this article. The editorial writers here used accurate and honest terms such as pro-choice and anti-choice. That this is even worth commenting on just shows how much the people who value fetuses over children have hijacked our language. People in favor of reproductive choice are certainly not anti-life. They know that children have better lives when they are born to a mother who is at a time in her life where she is ready, wiling, and able to raise an infant to adulthood. What could be more pro-life than that? The contempt with which the anti-reproductive-choice contingent views women has long been obvious. What needs to get much more attention is their lack of concern for children. Without the ability to control the number and timing of children born, the U.S. will turn into a third-world nation.
12
No exception for the health of the woman and the mandate that rape or incest must have been reported to law enforcement show the bias against women's lives here as well as the ignorance of science. Maternal deaths in Texas soared to third world levels when Texas closed women's health clinics.
Trump just said in an interview that he was for men and was no feminist. The GOP might as well say the same. Every policy is for white men, preferably wealthy.
This is a medical issue. Women and their doctors are the only ones who can and should be involved in addition to whoever the woman or girl trusts.
In November, every single person able to vote must do so. Be certain that you are registered, that you know your polling place, that you vote in advance or by absentee ballot if needed. Do not throw your vote away on third party long shots or write ins. Make your vote count if you value women and girls, or minorities, the disabled and sick, or the poor, or fairness. If you care about healthcare, the environment, safe conditions in the workplace or consumer products. If you care about a hostile foreign power interfering in our elections or about American democracy. It is all under attack now. Run for office or encourage good candidates and vote. This matters more than ever. Never Trump.
24
The *gathering* threat to abortion rights?
The right to an abortion has been under full assault for decades, and other than keeping Planned Parenthood alive, little has been done to stop the Republicans from hacking away at it.
Are the Democrats ready to fight for abortion rights, or are they going to continue to appease the radical Christian right's lobby and let them slip away, little by little?
If they want a big turnout in November, they need to answer in the affirmative and start putting words into action.
10
I had the same reaction you had to the term "gathering". Contempt for women has a long, long history in conservative and anti-choice circles; they've been very successful in making sure the well-being of women and girls remains marginal, as the name of this bill demonstrates. It's past time for Democrats to give up threading the needle on reproductive rights. Democrats aren't to blame for the unjustified restrictions in the states or for this bill in the Senate. But attempts to hedge on choice and placate conservative voters help embolden those who would set back women's rights. Women have been the mainstay of the Democratic Party. We've earned the right to full-throated active support for our rights from our party's leaders.
4
I believe the courts will protect us from this intrusion into our most personal decisions.
Remember, Neil Gorsuch is no more strident an abortion foe than was Antonin Scalia, and the rest of the court has repeatedly upheld abortion rights with Scalia on the court.
3
Abortion - the one "values" issue the left will never win until women are valued over the unborn. Why does a woman seek an abortion at 23 weeks? Serious fetal issues or maternal health. But as long as the Patriarchal Right continues to view women as incubators who's lives they can order around - there's little hope for ProChoice.
11
The Bible never mentions abortion. No one except the wholly male dominated Roman Catholic Church and the Mormon Church, The anti-choice movement is the result of a meeting held by Republican operatives who met in the late 1970's to decide on an issue that could be pushed and would provide a regular revenue stream for Republican candidates or incumbents. Their target audience has been
8
Thank you, NY Times for taking a stand on this issue. It is appalling how the Republican party puts so little import on the humanity and autonomy of the pregnant woman. The party's continual attempts to chip away at women's reproductive freedom in this country is astoundingly backward.
13
Opposition to abortion rights will soon be irrelevant: currently 31% of abortions are done using the RU486 drug, with doctor assistance via telecommunication. This rout will progressively improve so that abortion clinics will be totally unnecessary. Based on the total failure of the "War on Drugs (narcotics) I can't see any way that distribution of RU486 can be disrupted
4
In the fall of 2016, I had dozens of conversations with young women who were diehard Bernie Sanders supporters and were disdainful of Hillary Clinton's feminism, warning them that if they didn't support her in the general election, their reproductive freedom would be threatened, a freedom which they took for granted having been born well after the Roe v. Wade decision. I said a President Clinton would appoint judges who would uphold Roe and would veto any attempt by a GOP Congress to curtail abortion rights.
Some listened. Others did not.
12
It’s worth pointing out that Clinton was the only candidate (running for any national office) who clearly and unambiguously voiced her support for a woman’s right to choose an abortion. She even said the word during that famous debate. It’s beyond unfortunate that so many woman thought, with no basis in fact, that she wasn’t ‘good’ enough to vote for...thanks to berniebots and the Russians for #notmypresident and his coterie of congressional and judicial sycophants.
3
I hate to point this out but if I honestly believed that millions of innocent fellow humans being murdered in my own country, I would not use that honest belief to raise money and activate the base. While at the same time promoting policies that act to increase real numbers of those murdered. I would act and willingly lay my life on the line.
We are told again and again by conservatives to look at actions and not words. Actions show that conservatives only care about money, and power.
7
When did we stop caring for innocent life? We only view the world in terms of how it affects us personally. Babies, newborn or in the womb, are life, and life is precious. Twenty weeks is five months and life is viable. Is life now that disposable? Have we lost our minds?
I don't want the government to tell me what to do with my body either; however, I realize that I am not the centre of the universe, just a part of it. Moreover, I have agency. A baby does not. Thus we are called to protect the weak.
I say this as someone who identifies as neither left nor right. I say this as a teacher who works with teenage parents and some young moms who have given their children up for adoption. My colleague, who is smart and beautiful and a wife and mother, was almost aborted. But her teenage mom refused and raised her daughter, my colleague, and a son with love. Love is, by its very nature, sacrificial. Life is not meant to be easy. It's meant to be meaningful.
And please stop pretending that abortion is a woman's rights issue. It's a human rights issue.
2
Whether you are willing to acknowledge it, or not, your position boils down to one in favor of privileging the supposed "human rights" of fetuses over those of women.
4
Life is precious? Do you eat meat? Then you feed on the lives of being who have more sentience than a 20-week old fetus. Babies are precious? Take a walk in the old cemetery and look at the tombstones of endless babies who died of preventable diseases when a couple of weeks old. Before science gave us the ability to regulate our reproduction, women bred like animals and like animals, watched their offspring die. Your anecdotes about an “almost aborted” woman have as much validity as my musing on the children I could have had in addition, or instead of, my two sons. If the genetic lottery turned out differently, I could have had a beautiful daughter instead of a beautiful son. So? But everything I have achieved as a woman and as a human being turned out on my ability not to have more children than I wanted. When you are trying to take this away from me, you are not speaking as a fellow woman but as my enemy.
4
Uh... no one has the right to use my body. I may choose to allow it, or not. This really isn't complex. When it comes to consenting to use of my body, I *am* the center of the universe. I don't have to consent to any bodily usage I don't want to- that's why we've outlawed slavery, we don't permit forced organ donations (even for corpses), I can refuse sex or it is rape, and why I cannot be forced to undergo medical procedures against my will.
Fetuses are not viable at 20 weeks. Please get your facts straight.
4
These acts that chip away at Roe v Wade, are but a cynical attempt to build support from the only group with sufficient political muscle to defend DJT (and his congressional co-conspirators) against impeachment.
2
Why this is even an issue I will never understand. Shouldn’t this be something decided between a woman and her doctor? What male health issues do the government interfere with - none!
21
I don't wish to comment here on the contentious issue of abortion. But I cannot help but observe the ironic juxtaposition of two editorials on this page: the present editorial entitled "The Gathering Threat to Abortion Rights" and another piece entitled "The White House Puts the Bible Before the Hippocratic Oath." In the latter column, the Editorial Board of the Times uses the presumed authority of the Hippocratic Oath to criticize purported policies of the Trump administration.
It is remarkable that the Times would choose to use the Hippocratic Oath as a source of moral authority in this context, and on the same page as the present editorial. The Hippocratic Oath (the original version, not the politically sanitized versions often recited today) has strong words regarding the practice of abortion. As usually interpreted, the oath forbids or severely restricts abortion. In the most common translation, the instruction to a physician is: "I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion."
1
This is true. But I would like to point out that the Hippocratic oath was written by a male at a time when women were property and ownership of their bodies was held by men. Preventing a woman from aborting a fetus was merely to protect MALE fetuses. Had the ancient greeks been capable of identifying the gender of fetuses in utero, I strongly suspect the translation would have read "I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause a MALE's abortion." Even today, female babies/children are considered disposable.
3
Yeah, um, that version is 1800 years old. You know things changed a little since then, right?
5
The blatant hypocrisy of the Conservative movement is exposed in the halls of state legislatures and Congress when budget measures and bills are being deliberated to improve or initiate services for children with severe to profound developmental disabilities. Guess which side of the aisle is opposed or apathetic to these proposals which include the broad scale Medicaid appropriations and Medicaid expansion? Not only do antiquated and irrational ideas about abortion trample a woman's right to choose, but they end up causing harm to children who are born and live with debilitating conditions. Forget the issue of freedom of religion, this country still needs freedom from over-zealous fundamental religious hysteria.
7
We continue on our march towards The Handmaid's Tale.
27
At it's most basic, the procedural measure will smoke out those red state democrats who pretend to be sympathetic to the pro-life movement. It is important for voters in 2018 to know who actually stands with them.
3
Any woman who votes for Republicans has a serious problem. It's comparable to the proverbial chicken who votes for KFC or the turkey who votes for the Pilgrim with the hatchet. Granted that people vote against their own self-interests all the time, but why would a woman support a political party that denies her self-respect? It's one of the great mysteries.
10
Many serious and life-threatening fetal abnormalities cannot be detected before 20 weeks. Anti-Choicers know this very well. They want to deny parents the choice of not bringing horribly deformed or otherwise seriously compromised fetuses to term. They would also deny the right of a couple to choose the life of the mother over a fetus who may or may not survive, often a mother whose already-born children need her to live.
These same “pro-lifers,” once that medically compromised child is born, are all too ready and willing to deny that family any financial, medical, or social support. Shame on them.
23
'Grab them by the midterms.'
Never has voting by all eligible people in the US been so important. The US Constitution is loosing power if GOP stays in their positions of deciding what (their own) priorities (i.e., their donors' priorities) are.
11
Why are the Republicans so passionate about ensuring that our healthcare system protects us only up until the moment we are born?
14
If the right to an abortion is such a wonderful thing, why not let its parameters be decided by the America people? To say that this procedure is protected by the Constitution is a farce. When life begins and should be protected is not a question that is easily answered. Why not trust the people to make the right decision? What does the left have against democracy?
Tyranny of the majority?
1
"To say that this procedure is protected by the Constitution is a farce."
To deny that the Supreme Court has found the opposite to be true is a lie.
"Why not trust the people to make the right decision?"
Why do you wish to deny the right to make that decision to the individuals involved?
2
Not the American people, Dino. American women. I repeat: Let the American women decide whether they want abortion to be legal or not.
And, even if by some ugly twist of fate, there's a majority against, then we'll just go back to the way it used to be. Kitchen tables, hush-hush "clinics" and flights to Puerto Rico and wherever on earth we can afford to go to find help.
1
I don't think the Mr. Trump has shown concern for ANY life but his own and perhaps the lives of his family.
7
"But there is no exception to protect the health of the pregnant woman."
This one sentence, tossing women under the bus - literally and figuratively - is all you need to know about Republicans' heartless, craven attitudes towards women. Their health, their autonomy and their lives are literally disposable in the interest of ever more votes and power.
14
If republicans truly cared about preventing abortion, can someone explain to me why they are obsessed with shutting down women's health clinics that provide CONTRACEPTION!
Because news flash; that's how pregnancy is prevented. And sex education in school ,
Leave the moralizing out: humans including
teens are sexual beings.
In the meantime, no tired old white rich politician has the right to control any woman's body or choices whether or not to have a baby.
A clump of undifferentiated cells is not a baby.
No one is forcing anyone to have abortions
but it is essential to have as an option.
13
I will go to my grave not understanding how the right can whip themselves up into a frenzy over the "unborn" while at the same time denying the right of the born to flourish in life. Schools that are safe and inspire intellectual growth, access to health care, nutritious meals, support for families, a healthy biosphere—all these things are too much to ask. But compelling a woman to carry a fetus even if it has no chance to develop into a child and even if it threatens the mother's wellbeing … that somehow is "pro-life." Nauseating.
If you care so much about little children, there are plenty of existing ones that could benefit from all this fervor.
259
It's actually pretty easy to understand. They regard abortion as a crime. Failing to provide safe schools, etc., is not a crime. Not saying I agree with them, but I don't find it hard to understand their point of view. They aren't demonic.
2
It appears that you as well as I are more pro-life than those with the signs claiming to be pro-life but not supporting the care and development of the living.
6
C Wolfe, I think that if the right had lots of innovative ideas about how to improve the nation, they would spend less time focused on abortion. But unfortunately, forward thinking proactive folks don't appear to be how one would describe most on the right.
4
"His concern for fetal life cannot be fairly measured, but his sensitivity to the needs of women, or lack of it, is well known."
Hearing Donald Trump 'protect' women from the ability to carry a fetus past 20 weeks if genetic abnormalities are found is the rankest of hypocrisy.
This man, who has slithered through life doing whatever he pleases with women, now is jumping on the evangelical bandwagon just to keep his base happy.
Politics over women's hard won rights. The GOP, and now the obedient Republican president, move to further treat women as chattal, people without lives and minds of their own to make their own private decisions in consult with physicians.
I love the hypocrisy of Congressmen found to have urged lovers to have an abortion. Only Trump know, but did he to force his numerous lovers to terminate a pregnancy?
We're in Elmer Gantry territory wih this legislation. The GOP preaches, dictates, and humiliates women caught in the worst web of life challenges. But in private life, they do as they please, using the law to get rid of unpleasant problems.
No concern for women's emotions, the difficulties that lead to use legal services, and shaming of the women in question.
Abortion today is legal but for how long?
154
Way to go Christine, as always, SPOT-ON. You call it like it is and in this case it's for woman's rights again the Republicans are after,,, also seniors, poor, middle class, gays, transgenders and immigrants,
. Please vote out all, anywhere Republicans in 2018, 2020 and any future election until most of these immoral hypocrites are in the dust bin if history !
5
The anti-abortion Republican stance is a clear reflection of their patriarchal mysogynistic mindset and desire to be governed by the evangelical beliefs that often conflict with the modern age. The argument of sensitivity to the fetal life is simply a ploy to deny women their rights and control over their body and choice.
189
Perhaps you are not aware of the killings of millions of FEMALE fetuses in India? THAT was not misogyny?
Thoughtful people should not be using vague and incendiary terms like "patriarchal mysogynistic".
They are for the crowd. Not for us academics who need to provide a route into a more complex language to address our complex reality.
1
How do you know the sex of aborted fetuses in India, Aruna? Have you data for us? And what was the number for male fetuses, by the way?
As an academic, you must have citations, right?
2
Rea, what I said is very well documented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion
Now YOU could have Googled just as easily as I did. Why did you not?
I once counseled with a young woman who had terminated a first pregnancy. It was a much wanted 1st child for a married couple, but a late ultrasound (past 20 weeks) revealed that the child had a rare genetic abnormality. The parents were told that he would have severe craniofacial abnormalities requiring many painful surgeries as well as profound developmental disabilities. His future would be life in an institution. What right do politicians or others have to make this painful decision for a baby and its grief stricken parents?
432
I feel it is appropriate that women and families are able to make these decisions in appropriate way rather than to use inappropriate anti-abortion law to confuse the situation. However, there should be laws in place to provide adequate financial support to families who give life to children who require increased support for their disabilities because these can occur without evidence prior to time of birth.
9
My brother was born with a severe craniofacial abnormalities as well. He has gone through seven complicated surgeries ever since he was born. He is in his mid 20s now and is enjoying life more than ever. He knows my parents didnt give up on him and is thankful for the chance he's been given, regardless of financial instability they were going through at the time.
Parents should NEVER give up on their children. Giving up a child through abortion because they're afraid of the responsibilities that comes with a sick child is a cowardly act.
1
The fact that SOME late abortions are permissible should not be made into an argument that "anything goes" as far as abortion is concerned.
You give a case where thought was involved and an ultrasound revealed an abnormality.
But YOUR case is different from cases where a woman aborted a fetus because, "I broke up with my boyfriend." And cases of THAT kind are far more frequent than the kind of case you are talking about.
Abortion is the taking of a human life. Such a decision should not be made lightly. And people other than the pregnant woman MUST be involved to see that the decision is treated with the seriousness which it deserves.
2
Viability is arguably somewhere between 23 and 27 weeks, so it make sense that very few abortions will be stopped by this bill. Two thirds of abortions take place by 8 weeks, and most of the rest by 13. It's possible that any change in statistics making abortions happen later would be the result of states putting roadblocks up for women to hurdle.
The bill would be totally unremarkable, if they recognized medical necessity.
No abortion bill should exclude medical necessity. Congress does not have the right to decide if a woman needs medical treatment, if a person needs to continue a pregnancy with a non-viable fetus, or continue a pregnancy at her own risk. Congress does not have the right to risk a person's life.
As it happens, I am a Catholic, and generally against abortion. But I recognize that my reasons are moral, and morals are not legal standards. Women have the right of agency, the law reflects that and should continue to reflect that.
It is just past time to stop trying to pander to the base on incremental changes, and put our efforts towards reducing abortions that are necessary for reasons we can affect. Put childcare, paid family leave, medical care, job security on the docket - give women who might give a pregnancy a chance a reason to give a pregnancy a chance. And leave the moral decisions to the people who should be making them.
669
Cathy, you are a voice of sanity. Thank you.
24
"No abortion bill should exclude medical necessity. "
True as long as we do not permit a situation where the real reason is "I broke up with my boyfriend" or "I decided to wait to have a child" and medical necessity is GIVEN as the reason for abortion.
Medical necessity must be certified by physicians who are independent of the woman seeking the abortion.
1
I am a Catholic, and generally against abortion. But I recognize that my reasons are moral, and morals are not legal standards.
Not moral. Religious. While the State does have a legitimate interest in protecting life, the Supreme Court has ruled that a fetus is only considered alive after it is viable outside of the womb. What passes as pro-life restriction on abortion is in most cases the imposition of religious values and practices on a secular nation. One wonders why the First Amendment allows the establishment of a de facto State religion by such enforced orthopraxy.
159
The bill makes exceptions for rape and incest, but not severe fetal deformities. A healthy woman who learns at the 20 week ultrasound that the fetus she is carrying has no brain or some other severe deformity would be forced, by law, to carry that pregnancy through to term and deliver a stillborn baby. How convenient, that Republicans would ban abortions at precisely the moment when a woman would learn that the fetus she is carrying cannot survive.
Also, exceptions for the life but not health of the mother, this law endangers women's lives. There are serious conditions - like PROM - that are not immediately life-threatening, but are one or two steps away from a life-threatening emergency. When a woman's membranes rupture prematurely, she usually goes into labor, but about 10% of women do not. That 10%, if labor is not induced, are at significant risk for internal infection. That's serious but not life-threatening - unless the infection enters her bloodstream, and she develops sepsis. Right now, women and their MDs can decide when to intervene, either with a conventional abortion or by inducing labor - which, if the fetus is not yet viable, is legally considered a form of abortion. Under this law, however, the MD who induces labor on a woman with PROM and infection at 21 weeks pregnancy has committed a felony. Pro-lifers would force him to wait until she develops sepsis and then pray that he's able to act in time.
206
The Christian religion does believe in severe punishment. The reproductive act is a sin if it is not for procreation even for married couples, it must be punished. To force a woman to carry knowingly a non-viable fetus to term is real torture, punishment she will never forget.
3
"then pray that he's able to act in time." And when she dies of sepsis despite all that evangelical praying, they will chalk it up to their sky fairy having "worked in mysterious ways" and the outcome was as "God intended" all along.
5
Which is why more and more people have deserted Christainity.
1
The same people who claim to be pro life are the same people that want to limit immigration. The two issues are linked because many of those that are fleeing chaos, drought and climate change are from over populated places.
We are 50 years passed the time it was smart to discuss active family planning and ideal population size by available resources. We do not have unlimited resources and it would be wise to offer long term family planning freely to everyone after birth.
99
Deirdre, You're absolutely on target with your comments. I would love to see every paper & politician in this country start discussing these critically important inter-related subjects!
2
"long term family planning freely to everyone after birth." Planned Parenthood has done exactly this, including medically sound education about abortion, for free or at modest cost for decades. Because PPs services are medically comprehensive some of their clinics perform abortions and all will refer women to a legal provider. Problem is that 6 states have only one provider in the entire state, in or near a large urban site, leaving women who do not live there with essentially no access to care. Many states with Republican controlled governments have enacted laws mandating various medically unnecessary procedures, e.g. ultrasounds (that the woman must look at) and/or regulations requiring medically unnecessary facility upgrades, e.g. being outfitted as an ambulatory surgery center, and/or requiring that the MD have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital which they can not obtain. Most of these egregious anti-choice laws have been challenged successfully in federal district courts but it is certain that one or more will make it to SCOTUS sooner rather than later, where the final decision will rest in the lap of Justice Kennedy. He will likely vote to strike them down but shoule he retire or die, we'll get another Gorsuch and all bets are off. Tighten your seatbelts, this ride is going to get even bumpier than it already is.
5
Another attack on the right of women to decide for themselves how to treat their own bodies.
As we have seen over the centuries it is the authoritarians and religions fanatic who oppose abortion. they are free to do so, we just say to them don't have one, although we would all be better off if their mothers had done so.
Just leave others alone and mind your own business. We see some of the most vile people around engaged in the anti abortion movement, even wiling to murder doctors who provide them, while calling abortion murder.
They are psychopaths, justifying their murderous characters as being good for society.
243
I am neither an authoritarian nor a religious fanatic, and I oppose abortion on demand. I also believe that the death penalty is wrong, most wars are immoral, and all children must be fed, clothed, educated, and receive health care. Oh, and that comprehensive contraception education would go a long way to reducing abortions.
As is always the case with bigots, you lump all pro-lifers into one bucket, denigrating us all based on the actions of a small minority (no sane person thinks killing doctors who provide abortions is a good idea). Stop stereotyping us.
It appears you’ve been granted the green light by the nyt monitors. Wow.
You state those holding a different opinions than yours should have been aborted. Further, they are psychopaths.
“a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.”
It’s hard to see how this furthers the discussion. There are some great, thoughtful comments here. Perhaps you can read them and absorb information from more temperate, considered opinions.
Mr. Underwood: Totally agree with you. A few years back, here in red, red eastern Idaho, I had to laugh when I saw a bumper sticker that read, "Focus on your own damn family."
4
There is a reason why today's 'conservatives' not only oppose abortion but also family planning and contraception. Behind this lies the patriarchal belief that a woman's place, first and foremost, is to be in a married state, to maintain the household, to care for the children and her husband.
If conservatives are so concerned about the health of a mother and her unborn child, why does their enthusiasm for the child vanish when it is born, and if financial assistance is needed, they wash their hands of it? Why the fight against education advising women and men on how to avoid unplanned pregnancy, and curtailment of access to free contraception and through work, employer funded contraception?
I remember when delivering newspapers at age 12 in the 1960s in Idaho, the hushed gossip about the people in a nice corner home having a 16 year old daughter who became pregnant ‘out of wedlock’ and the ‘shame’ this brought to their family. I never once saw this young woman leave that house.
Is this really what we as a developed nation want, a return to the anachronisms and cruelties of the past?
437
This is apparently exactly what will make America great again.
1
I think the conservative attitude applies in part to both sexes, if you can control something as personal as people's sexual behavior you can control their spending, their vote etc.
3
Conservatives are clearly NOT concerned about "the health of a mother," since the bill contains NO provision to permit an abortion in order to protect the health of the pregnant woman.
4
I was recently in Washington for the March for Life rally and I can attest to the fact that there were just a smattering of pro abortion protestors compared to the number of pro lifers in attendance. There were over 100,000 supporting the pro life march since it started way back in 1974, a year after Roe v Wade was passed.
It has withstood the support of many people who feel fighting for the unborn is a very important cause. The only difference today is that many young people are getting involved in the pro life movement. They have bounds of energy and will carry the torch into the future until abortion comes to an end. Hopefully that day will be sooner than later.
20
Most people that support a woman's choice for an abortion do not want or need to attend pro life rallies. Although many people support a woman's right to choose, we may also appreciate a woman's right to support a cause with which we disagree. Maybe you think that we want to disrupt your rally, that is not necessary, contrary to what we see in today's polarized society. I would also like abortion to come to end, but I believe that birth control and sex education based in real life, not abstinence, is our best hope. Every woman deserves options.
11
I strongly disagree with you. I doubt I can say anything that would change your point of view. So here is my prayer for you or your daughter of child-bearing age. May you never have the pain of carrying a fetus to term that you have known for months has a medical problem incompatible with life.
16
If only these people would fight as strenuously for the rights of people once they’ve actually been born maybe I might take their cause of fighting for life seriously. If they actually fought for family leave, if they actually valued the life of the mother more than the potential life inside her, did not fight so hard for her to be able to get affordable contraception, took her seriously when she was raped or when she was being forced to carry due to abuse. Their apparent lack of concern for the baby once it’s born demonstrates that they are not pro life, they are only pro fetus. Once they start fighting for universal healthcare then maybe we can start taking this seriously.
16
And there is no exception to protect the health of the pregnant woman. . . .
In the face of the torrent of revelations of sexual predation by well known men who have used their power to make sexual demand of female subordinates; and tragedy of US gymnasts decades of molestation, this feels like a big conservative male counter-attack on the right of women to have the final say over their own bodies and on their right to privacy in the most personal parts of their lives. The timing is exquisite. The message is clear. Women's own experiences and values do not matter enough to allow them to make decisions.
But they are so generous, these old senators: a pregnancy due to rape or incest may be terminated IF the victim - the VICTIM - accepts state mandated counseling and follows through with a police report.
Were they were listening to a word of what the young women gymnasts were saying a week ago about how difficult it is to do just that?
People who are opposed to these legal reversals must vote. especially new young voters - - if they not can not see this as an issue affecting their lives, we will go back to a time when women's sexual and reproductive lives are not fully their own.
583
I find young peoples' disengagement from the abortion rights issue because they don't see how it might affect them, true with so many social issues. With all the social media added to what already existed, American society has realized Edward Bernay's propaganda utopia.
Bernay's, a nephew of Freud's, and often called the father of PR, developed a practice describing the methods of propaganda and why it was essential to the smooth operation of democracy.
He took his extraordinary ideas and successfully applied them to public relations with incredible results.
According to Bernay's in 1928
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."
"Universal literacy was supposed to educate the common man to control his environment. Once he could read and write he would have a mind fit to rule. So ran the democratic doctrine. But instead of a mind, universal literacy has given him rubber stamps, rubber stamps linked with advertising slogans, with editorials, with published scientific data, with the trivialities of the tabloids and the platitudes of history, but quite innocent of original thought. "
"The group mind does not think in the strictest sense of the word. In place of thoughts it has impulses, habits, and emotions."
2
Assuming it takes a victim eight weeks to determine she is pregnant, she still has another 12 weeks to decide to abort.
First off, let's stop referring to folks on the right as "anti-abortion" (just as we wouldn't regard Chinese citizens supporting THEIR government's policies as "pro-abortion"). The issue is simply that of choice; Americans- AND Chinese- are either pro-choice or anti-choice.
That aside, what the anti-choice crowd in this country doesn't seem to comprehend is that women who want to terminate their pregnancies will continue to do so whether Roe is scuttled or not. Those who can afford to have it done properly will have no difficulty finding the means to do so. Those who can't (i.e., the indigent and the "minorities") will go back to doing what they did before reproductive choice became the law of the land: they will find back-alley abortionists who will do the job on the cheap without the use of sanitized instruments or they will pull a clothes-hanger out of the closet and do the job themselves. The fetus will die and, in many cases, so will the mother. And living children will be left without a parent, in desperate need of foster care and/or government subsidies. Is this what the "pro-life generation" wants? Draconian laws whose only real effects will be entirely negative?
513
It is especially heinous that anyone is even allowed in the 21st century to propose laws that are blatantly unsupported by established science. It is an absolutely humiliating time (politically) to be a citizen of this country for anyone who understands science.
57
Actually I think the science is on the side of the anti-abortion movement. A fetus is a living creature that contains all the DNA of a human being. It may depend on its mother until it's born, but not unlike a person undergoing heart surgery depends on the instruments keeping their blood pumping and enabling them to breathe. When that fetus creature can be regarded as a human person is a subject of current debate, but any time/definition that relies on a set of accomplishable tasks is dangerous because it could define certain human persons (such as those in a coma or with dementia) as "non-human". Inconvenient though it may be, if we abort a fetus, we commit murder against a human creature. Republicans, together with all US citizens, need to be OK with better sex education, free birth control, and vastly increased resources to help pregnant mothers carry their babies and give their new children the best shot at the American dream that they can.
1
@Concerned Scientist: Inconvenient though it may be, prisoners on death row are also human creatures. And yet most "pro-lifers" tend to support capital punishment.
18
Democrats have longed complained that the Supreme Court has legislated from the bench. Abortion is one of those instances where it too was legislated from the bench, with Roe v. Wade. Now, Congress is doing their job by openly debating and legislating abortion. However, this action, is seen as a threat to a woman's right to choose. What Congress is proposing is a compromise, and making the procedure legal up through the 20th week of gestation; or 19 weeks short of full term.
Both sides of the debate, won;t like this bill. Liberals things it limits their rights, and conservatives feel it legalizes murder, as they want a complete ban. In another age this would be called a "compromise". Especially, if the 20 week limit is lifted in the case that the bother is in danger of dying, or the unborn child would be born with life threatening issues.
Abortion is been a wedge issue since 1973. It is time to finally deal with the issue and end the debate. It the time fro Congress to do the job they should have done in 1973. It is very troubling that we have to have a political Supreme Court, and federal court system, because Congress doe snot do their job. That is the vain of this post, it is meant to address the ineptitude of Congress and deferring its work to the Judicial Branch; and, then create wedge issues to divide the nation and retain power by using these issues as a political campaign device.
15
Yes, and immigration law falls into the same category to a degree. DACA is the executive branch agreeing not to support immigration law perhaps because enforcing them may seem cruel to many. In spite of all legislative powers being vested in congress, (first clause after the preamble) and the President having a duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, the last two presidents have through executive order decided to "defer action" and legislated from the oval office regarding the immigration law and children. Trump was on course to let his extension on DACA expire, and a Federal Judge ordered it not to be repealed. In other words, the Federal Judge order that the President NOT enforce the law and also legislated from the bench.
The courts, and executive branch both legislated in this case, by blocking enforcement of Federal law.
I agree with your point that Congress should act. Not just with abortion law, but with immigration law. I certainly do not see a general right to abortion in the Constitution, and agree that the right was legislated from the bench whether or not it should be there.
8
@John: Nor does the Constitution stipulate that a woman should be forced to carry a fetus to term. Face it; there are some issues that our all-too-human founding fathers simply did not address, primarily because civilization in the 18th Century was somewhat different than it is in the 21st.
218
It's much more the case that Republicans complain about "unelected judges legislating from the bench." Most Democrats recognize that in a common law system such as ours, it is the role of judges to interpret laws and to ensure they conform with the Constitution and that this will entail overturning laws, and potentially enumerating rights, such as the right to privacy between a woman and her doctor in making health care choices, some people may not like. It's not a deferral responsibilities, but an inevitable result of the operation of our government, like it or not.
76
The Board states that second trimester pregnancies are often a result of fetal abnormality. That is not true. The largest abortion provider in Britain gives an account that is much more realistic. The say that some of these abortions involve very vulnerable women, including victims of domestic violence, young teenagers and women who already have children in care. Then there are those who were actively trying to avoid pregnancy: these women had decided not to have a child, obtained contraception then assumed they were not pregnant. Finally, a small number of women who had been aware of their pregnancy delayed making a decision because of complex personal situations.
The British analysis rings true and and makes it clear that much of the discussion about later abortions ignores the reality of women’s lives while focusing on the fetus. Women do not aspire to have abortions, particularly not later abortions. And when they seek a later abortion, it is mostly because their decision is complex.
The Board tries to whitewash the truth, claiming that late abortions are mostly about fetal disabilities. But the reality is so much more compelling -- women are making deeply personal decisions that are right for them. The Board, like Republicans, focuses on the fetus. That is a peculiar way to protect women's rights.
344
"That is a peculiar way to protect women's rights."
The Board is not seeking to protect "women's rights." Its focus is on fetal rights.
This does not break down politically as men vs women either. Many women are concerned about fetal rights. Many men who claim to oppose abortion are even more concerned about a "woman's right" not to have his own kid when he does not want her to do so.
It is messy, politically, and on the facts. Both sides want to simplify, to the point of departing reality.
We need better birth control availability. We need better care for children once born, and pre-natal care too. Then we can get back to the debate about legal, safe, and rare.
45
You speak of British statistics; I wonder if you can provide any links to similar data in the US? I’m not questioning your point, but given that the basic laws are different and abortion is readily available in the UK, I wonder if the number of, and motives for, later term abortions are the same?
16
The “facts” are not messy at all.
2