The language of the Second Amendment does not create an individual right to gun ownership. That’s clear on its face. And the founding fathers did not believe that the Constitution created the right to abortion. In 1789, the opposition to abortion was overwhelming. Both these rights are legally far fetched. And the Supreme Court’s decisions are nothing but politics void of any legal or logical support in the law.
Consider the fact that there should be no - NO - circumstances in which a woman does not have to take accountability for her actions. Is sexual intercourse, so important, SO necessary, that we have the right to sacrifice human lives merely for the sake of avoiding sexual abstinence? If one is so incredibly hateful towards having a child, and raising a family, then don't get involved in sexual activities. Your actions, your consequences.
Humans need to get over themselves.
One human life is not more valuable than any other plant or animal.
1
People controlling other people through legislation? People in power, mostly older white men, deciding the role that women play in their own lives.
It's time for a change, hence the legislation that will cement their tired old views for future generations.
Not so much right to life as right to control your lives.
SAD
3
Given the fact that almost, if not all, other medical regulation is in the hands of the several states, I see no reason why this procedure is so special that it needs Federal protection. Each state should be allowed to legislate according to the will of the people of that state; a one size fits all approach has many drawbacks and few advantages.
Roe should be overturned; not due to any pro-life/pro-choice determination but because it is based on a so-called right to privacy which is found no where in the Constitution but was made up, whole cloth, by a liberal activist Supreme Court.
1
The next generation of women need to understand that their uterus is public property and that any man raping them has an absolute right to have his child be born and for their entire lives to be destroyed.
HOW STUNNINGLY UNFAIR IS THAT?
4
Correction: The Supreme Court on Thursday TEMPORARILY blocked a Louisiana law that its opponents say would leave the state with a single doctor authorized to perform abortions.
They blocked it only until the heat is off and they hear the case. Mr. Roberts did not have to choose to hear the case - they heard and decided a similar case from Texas not long ago and found AGAINST Texas attempt to further invade on women's rights to choose what they do with their own bodies.
Mr. Roberts is a tricky one. He will bide his time until the heat is off and continue to pick away at Roe v Wade. It's in his catholic/corporate DNA and now he has two more men who will help him attack women's inalienable rights.
The only answer is for WE THE PEOPLE to hire/elect Socially Conscious Women and men who will amend OUR U.S. Constitution to say that NO LAW will be passed by any governmental body in OUR United States of America, or our territories, which discriminate based on sex.
Thanks to state lawmakers who are taking steps to prevent this ridiculous discrimination but it's not enough. Every single woman in America must be protected.
1
I am no Constitutional Scholar. If a fetus have rights, does it mean it also have a right to American Citizenship if conception occurs in U.S. soil?
A woman conceives a child in American soil, resides in the U.S. during pregnancy and gives birth while visiting a foreign country. The child should have Citizenship right even if the the woman is not a U.S. citizen, even if she's illegal in the U.S. because she is a resident (even illegal) and was denied the option to terminate her pregnancy as the fetus has living rights.
2
I expect my great grandchildren (none so far) will be arguing about this issue. Will the NYTs editorial and op-ed pages be fussing with this during their lives? Probably so.
I favor a woman's right to choose. That said, abortion has been the most stable yet divisive modern issue in this country. We do not need a checkerboard of regulations, state by state--but it appears that is the best we can do for the foreseeable future.
Assertions abound, certainties are articulated on all sides. Misinformation and disinformation are abundant features--mostly for the anti-abortion group. For all the arguments about separation of church and state, that cannot be done for this issue.
I an a New Yorker, despite my current address.
I urge my fellow New Yorkers (that's you, Andrew Cuomo) to do whatever it takes to make it easier to buy Misoprostol and Mifepristone over the counter. There is no real reason why it should not be possible to do this.
Now is the time.
2
One thing is clear. Anti-abortion supporters are also supporters of capital punishment. The end game is execution for women who have abortions.
2
@The Weasel
Actually, no. Capital punishment is barbaric and an utter abomination. I deeply resent that my government kills people in my name when a life sentence is suffucient to protect public safety. I also favor a good many more restrictions on abortion than the majority of commenters here likely support, though I think there are certain circumstances where it qualifies as self defense and is regrettable but should remain legal. My convictions regarding abortion and the death penalty come from the same place and are informed by a pro life philosophy. I am also a woman.
1
"South Carolina, state lawmakers have introduced so-called personhood legislation, which would establish that the “right to life” and the rights of due process and equal protection “vest at fertilization for each born and preborn human being.”"
As @MSW points out in a comment below, the US Constitution protects (or should) should mitigate against such legislation, as the legislation directly contradicts the long-established tenants of some religions, including some major world religions.
Particularly under the legal precedent set by the Hobby Lobby case and CO cake shop case, government cannot compel a person or business owned by a person to act contrary to that person's sincerely and deeply-held religious beliefs. Millions, if not 10s or 100s of millions of Americans' religion clearly place the value of life for the born above that of the so-called "pre-born" and have long held that a fetus, before it is born into the world, is more akin to an animal than a full-on human being. Also, major religions also have long-established beliefs that if and when a woman or girl's life is endangered by maintaining a pregnancy, the fetus at that point is akin to an assailant positive g an imminent deadly threat and can be treated as such, as in the woman has the right to defend herself from it, including use of deadly force (ie aborting the pregnancy even if doing so would end fetal life). This is fact. Where are the defenders of strongly held religious beliefs? Hypocriting?
1
Restricting access to reproductive health care is a major part of the Republicans' agenda for maintaining power. The US fertility rates are dropping (meaning less women are choosing to have kids). Most industrialized countries with this problem either provide incentives to have another child (like a stipend) /remove disincentives (like subsidizing daycare expenses) OR you make up the difference with immigration.
Since the GOP hates welfare programs benefiting anyone but the wealthy and hates immigration, they decide to increase the birth rate by limiting access to contraception and abortion. I sure hope the antichoice and apathetic people wake up to what's actually going on. You're all pawns.
1
In forty plus years very few people have had a change of heart on the issue of abortion. Your position is what it is, and you are not going to change no matter how many marches for life or law suits get into the press.
Almost all "pro-life" folks are affiliated with religious organizations, almost all of them some christian denomination or another.
Our problem since Roe v Wade is that the pulpits have lost. The flocks are not coming in on Sunday morning, the faithful are a smaller population than "none of the above" or other religious traditions. So the conservative leaders have given up trying to convert non-believers from within their parishes and congregations, and are using state and federal government to do what they cannot due from within the church.
So although they don't want government interfering with their religion, they have no hesitation with their flavor of religion interfering with government.
Their tickets to eternal life with their personal savior will come from living their christian lives and truly loving all living souls, including the brown people who they "save" from abortion who live in squalor or grow up poor and uneducated with little chance of a quality life.
6
Where is the legislation that would help provide for orphans, or to children born (through no fault of their own) to parents who cannot care for them (adoption and foster programs)? Or legislation to fund education -- including sex education -- at a meaningful level, which might reduce the need for abortions? Or programs such as Head Start, or breakfast and healthcare for the poor?
If *pro-life* proponents looked reality straight in the eye and actually walked the talk, we would have seen this type of legislation long before now.
5
life is winning.
To all the "pro-lifers are only pro-birth" commenters, let's point out the fact that crisis pregnancy centers outnumber abortion clinics 5:1.
3
I am drawn to the sign that says "PRAY TO END ABORTION." I think it's safe to say that millions, billions probably, of prayers have been said to end abortion. And it's still legal. When do those who really believe in God finally decide that legal abortion is in fact His Will?
5
I grew up in a very Catholic, conservative, "pro-life"(anti-abortion) household. My mother is essentially a single issue voter on the subject, she attends pro-life rallies and volunteers at and regularly donates to a "crisis pregnancy center". As a child/teenager, I could not understand how someone could support abortion. It was so very clear to me that it was the taking of another human life and that could never be acceptable. It was not until I was a sexually active woman of child-bearing age that I understood the potential impact of an unwanted pregnancy. I now feel strongly that anyone who is not a member of this demographic should have no say in the matter.
15
Consider the fact that there is no - NO - other circumstance under which any person in America can be compelled to provide his or her body or body part to sustain the life of another. If the anti-choice crowd have their way, only pregnant women will be required to forego this freedom of bodily autonomy as well as risk her life and well-being in order to sustain life for a non-viable person.
Fathers of the fetus cannot be required to donate an organ to save the life of the non-viable person. They can't even be compelled in any way to donate even a pint of blood or a fingernail clipping to save the life of either fetus or pregnant woman.
But she can be required under penalty of law to risk her life and well-being in order to sustain the life of another person who happens to be non-viable. Think about that.
How in the world does this even make sense?
51
Apparently reading these comments it isn't possible to be pro life yet also opposed to the death penalty or in favor of social assistance. That's sad.
1
If you don't want an abortion don't have one. Don't tell others how to handle their reproductive lives unless you are prepared to spend the money particularly if you are more interested in protecting an embryo or a fetus rather than a woman who may have children and can't afford any more, or a woman whose life is in danger because of her pregnancy.
It's very easy to say all life is sacred. But when it comes to paying for it I've noticed that very few in the "pro-life" group are willing to support single mothers, supportive housing or services for severely handicapped children, or services that help out all families.
Ask any person who was unwanted how they felt when they realized that fact. As one such person I can tell you how I felt and still feel: like I'm not worth anything. Unwanted children are more likely to be abused by their parents. Abused children do not always grow into happy adults. I've never met a "pro life" person who understood that it takes more than being born or tolerated to grow into a successful adult.
I was not my parents little miracle. I was an event that occurred too early in their marriage. I knew one person whose parents had too many children. She was placed in foster care and physically abused by her foster parents. I know too of families that have had severely handicapped children and didn't know. Sometimes the families are ripped apart.
Again, if you don't want an abortion, don't have it. But don't make your decision mine.
19
They are not 'pro life,' only 'pro fetus,' once that baby pops out it better brush itself off and pay its own through life.
No welfare for the baby, or its mother.
That's socialism.
9
@Chris
"They" doesn't help anyone. Everyone has an opinion. There is less debate about abortion than there is the fact federal dollars are given to Planned Parenthood.
@Ronald: The very existence of Planned Parenthood seems to offend people who deny that it is possible to overpopulate the Earth to catastrophe.
3
@Steve Bolger
The name PP does strike a cord with many who believe their mission is abortion, which I know isn't true. I simply said "they" doesn't help the rationality of the conversation.
That Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, along with a not insubstantial number of the Evangelical Right, are staunch supporters of capital punishment is proof that they are not "pro-life" — BY DEFINITION.
7
@AJ North: These folks literally believe that death is just a transition to a better place if one has lived as they prescribe.
1
Meanwhile, in Idaho:
" Two Republican lawmakers are preparing a bill to repeal the section of Idaho’s homicide law that excludes abortion from prosecution and assert that the state has a right to nullify any federal laws or court rulings making abortion legal."
From:
https://www.idahopress.com/news/local/scott-green-propose-bill-to-nullify-roe-v-wade/article_93ebd54e-65bc-587e-807a-c1abb1e4100a.html
4
Such a law in Idaho would be an affront to the 1st Amendment's Establishment clause and a blow to the notion and legal argument of free religious expression. A number of religions dictate that full human life does not begin at conception and/or that protecting the life and limb of the already-born is a higher obligation than protecting that of an embryo. Indeed, according to some religions, denying a woman an abortion when her life or limb is at risk is a grievous sin against her and God.
Is the religious right going to demand that the government allow Hobby Lobby et al to refuse to provide 3rd party insurance that helps pay costs of birth control because of its owners' "strongly held religious beliefs" and at the same time incarcerate or rescind the medical licenses or otherwise penalize healthcare professionals or women for adhering to their own "strongly-held religious beliefs" by seeking and providing pregnancy termination services? Are they (the RR) really prepares to have a government that orders its citizens to sin? I thought preventing such government overreach was the whole point of Hobby Lobby and, for that matter, the US Constitution.
2
The benefit of Roe to the people who say they oppose it has been plain for decades. It's the issue that galvanizes them as a mobilizer and a fundraiser, but more important, it permits them to cloak cruelty and malice under self-righteousness. Practical considerations about science, economics, etc., don't engender any passion. but accusing pro-choice people of being evil, vile, venal, etc., etc., is thrilling, especially for people who feel otherwise marginalized by modern society in 2019. Hating is their vengeance, and this is the sharp weapon for that in any debate: yes climate change is real but you hate babies. Yes the GOP embraces racism but you're a murderer. Yes the wall is stupid but you have blood on your hands.
What happens if they lose that?
8
People are against abortion until it's them or their daughter. Then they count on NY or CA to keep it legal so they still get a safe, legal procedure. Call yourself pro-life? Then do something about the people who are already here, the sick, hungry, poor, you know - the ones Jesus told you to take care of.
16
@Kilroy71
I agree with your statement. I also believe there are quite a few pro life people who do the exact things you state.
Sadly the debate is so polarized at this point there can be no rational discussion. The comments I read here demonstrate this.
2
In 2020, the Democrats will find out just how repugnant the fine line between abortion and infanticide is with middle Americans.
1
@Descarado
The fact you believe there is a fine line between abortion and infanticide means you don’t comprehend what each is.
There can be no rational discussion about abortion. I understand and agree that it's a medical decision to be decided between a woman and her doctor. I also understand that at some point it stops being a fetus and becomes a baby.
A significant number of citizens believe it is a medical decision to a point. The most vocal arguments have been over PP receiving federal money. I know about the Hyde amendment but still believe PP could not operate without federal money despite their claims.
R vs W will not be overturned despite the cries over the left. There is no will in America do stop abortions completely but rather stop the funds to PP. It has sadly become a fundraising issue.
Mike Pence defunded PP I’m Indiana and HIV spiked. PP does more than just abortion.
7
@Laura Reich
I agree. Pence's decision didn't stop federal dollars. I am confident if PP didn't receive any federal money they would receive even more in donations from those who support the mission of the organization. The foolish stance of Pence doesn't change the fact PP has a public relations problem with respect to aborting kids.
@Ronald
There is no "abortion of kids". There is abortion of pregnancy, or a mission, but not of kids.
Makes me wonder if you are "pro-life" or "pro-lie"
3
To take things to a new perspective for you pro choicers.... I feel you need to physically connect to the discussion in a new way instead of staying in your safe zone and reading only the newsprint of articles.
I dare to boldly challenge you pro choicers to hold in your arms a newborn child. Look at them as you are holding them. Listen to them as they coo. Feed them a bottle of infant formula and burp them when they are done feeding.
What are your feelings and thoughts that are going through your mind?
Imagine if you will a table next to the chair you are seated in as you are holding this new born child. On that table are the blunt instruments for late term abortion. Could you use them to end the life of the newborn child in your arms?
Just my guess but I guess would be you could not conscientiously end the life of the newborn you are holding in your arms. Now you see why so many of us pro lifers are fighting so strongly to end abortion.
2
@FL Milstone
What a maudlin, facile attempt at argument.
Here, I'll respond to your "bold" challenge. I held a newborn child (my niece) a few months ago. I totally love her. I love feeling her sleep on my chest. I'd give her blood. I'd give her a kidney if she needed it (and it would fit her.) I'd throw myself in front of a bus for her or my nephew.
And yet, when my sister developed life-threatening complications with BOTH of them, I would have supported her decision to protect her health.
Thankfully she was under careful medical supervision during both her pregnancies. Imagine hearing that your sister is in the hospital with potentially life threatening complications at 27, 28, and 29 weeks with baby 1 and at 34 week with baby 2. Thankfully they were able to catch and manage her complications before she developed full blow ecclampsia, which kills women.
I'm really glad I'm not mourning a dead sister. I'm really glad my nephew isn't going to grow up with a dead mother.
You appear to be very confused about the NY bill. Abortion of new born or almost born babies is not permissible. An abortion must be medically necessary to preserve the woman's health or life. Abortion on a healthy woman of a healthy viable baby is not NECESSARY to preserve her health--the baby can just be delivered. No wonder you're "pro-life"-- you don't understand what's going on.
22
Now imagine a woman who had been happily expecting a pregnancy but the fetus had died inside her through no fault of her own. The fetus starts to decompose and poison the woman’s blood causing her to become sick. The woman dies painfully because of such bans on late term abortion. She was a wife and a doctor and a potential mother to someone else.
As a pro-choicer, I would always advocate to explore all other options until none are left. But ultimately, this decision should fall on the people that will live with the consequences, meaning the woman and to whomever she trusts to help her during this time.
I have a son who I would gladly die for. But if I were the family in that situation, I dont think that you or anyone else should decide what to do for me.
7
@Chris M
Hey, you don't even have to imagine that! It happened.
Her name was Savita Halappanavar. Just FYI for those who are unaware.
8
This nothing less than a massively funded campaign to enforce Christian zealot religious beliefs on all of us.
Ironically, these are the same people who are always crying about their religious freedom and the war on Christmas. Sadly, they are not going away. Look how effective they are at indoctrinating their youth, who will be pushing for this type of legislation long after most of us are gone.
8
@Paul
"These people" have typically not been polled about their beliefs on Christmas or religious freedom with respect to abortion. Young people age and some become more conservative over time.
A Google search I did found polls in the states whether a citizen was for or against abortion being legal. I counted 28 states with majorities for legal abortions and 22 with majorities to make it illegal. With the appointments of anti abortion justices to the SC, it’s now clear that a woman wanting an abortion will likely have to travel to the 28 where abortions will likely remain legal. In the 22 other states, women will just have to stop voting Repub if they want to keep abortion legal or make it legal again.
If it wasn’t clear before, it’s crystal clear now that SC decisions are based on politics alone and the law means nothing if it doesn’t conform.
6
I was a nurse 30 years I took many medical histories of women asking if they had any abortions. I found very few women who used it as birth control and many had compelling reasons I had never imagined...I also spoke recently to a family practice physician in her 80’s who still had a full practice and had also taken medical histories of women much longer then I had.
People forget or never had an understanding of why abortion needs to be legal . If a woman told you she had the abortion because she was the breadwinner of her family the only one at the time to have a job...she aborted the 6th child because her husband left her when she discovered she was pregnant with the 6th. She knew if she had the baby she would have lost her job and her 5 children to the orphanage...that’s why she used a stick ...that’s why she bled out and was hospitalized. That was reality for many women and still is...
It’s so ironic to me that all those that decry a women shouldn’t have choice do very little to ensure the welfare of the children they insist are brought into the world .
11
@Jane
I am curious why it was asked the reason why an abortion took place. I am "pro choice" but wonder how that became a relevant part of a medical conversation about medical history beyond a checklist of past procedures.
1
I am pro family which means I am pro choice. Being pro family is
Affordable and quality health care
Affordable and quality education
Free, easy access to birth control
Again pro family is pro choice.
13
@Oliver
I agree with what you've said. Why is there a perception "pro life" people are against such things?
@Ronald
Pro-lifers are a large block of the Republican party. If they truly cared about those things, it be reflected in Republican politics.
I consider abortion 'N, contraception to, be long, settled healthcare issues; ...I consider ANY-/-EVERYONE with a 'forced birth' approach to others, immoral, by definition, because...abortion / contraception are personal decisions, NOT 'community' decisions for some, (pedophile protective), bishop / other 3rd party, to make!
NO 'faith_person' has the wisdom to make such personal decisions for me / mine!
Physically, I vaguely resemble an 'older' version of James Fields, (who murdered Heather Heyer in Charlottesville); I want so, called conservatives to visualize me, in all my caucasoid_male splendor, and realize: I DON'T support forced birtherism!
IF that 'U.S. Voter_Visualization looks good to / is what Republicans, assume will win them the W.H. in 2020, well...
good luck with that!
3
Isn't it ironic that fervor to ensure that every fertilized egg becomes a new human being comes at a time when climate change is threatening the foundations of all human existence, which many of these same "pro-life" activists probably ignore? How does creating more humans to be fed, housed, employed and kept healthy make sense, practically or morally, at a time of ecological crisis? Assuming many of the activists are motivated by their Christian faith, they should learn from the story of Noah. Then there's the irony of Americans who support Donald Trump for his anti-abortion stance also supporting his anti-immigrant and border security mission and tactics. Have they considered that some of those migrant women in the "caravans" are pregnant? Do they think that unborn life is only sacred inside our borders?
10
For women that have had an abortion regardless of the stage of pregnancy (from conception to full-term), where your life was not at risk, and where the pre-natal child was alive and developing at the time of abortion:
1) Did you and/or the father use birth control to take responsibility for preventing an unwanted/unintended pregnancy? If not, why? What were the obstacles in preventing an unwanted/unintended pregnancy?
2) Why wasn't adoption the choice? What were your obstacles with adoption?
3) Why was abortion your choice?
Please help us to understand the root cause of unintended/unwanted pregnancies that end in abortion. Maybe we can all find a solution by addressing the root cause.
1
@Elaine Mizzoni
Good grief. There is a WEALTH of public-health research on ALL of these questions. Google it! You can't possible be asking this question in good faith. (Especially if you think that women have abortions at "full term").
I'll address your second one, as you appear to be falling victim to the fallacy of being unable to distinguish between a fetus and a born baby.
You do realize that adoption is a solution to an unwanted BABY, not to an unwanted pregnancy.
Wow, I sure want to gestate an unwanted baby, put my health on the line, suffer morning sickness, fatigue, weight gain, and many many other health effects, then go through labor and delivery, have my perineum shredded, have to take time off of work, suffer permanent changes to my pelvic floor, and deal with questions and judgment when I explain to people that no, I'm not keeping my baby, I'm giving it up. Gee, what fun!
13
@C's Daughter
It's genuine. This is not a religious concern nor women's rights issue to me. Hearing the heartbeat of a developing fetus, as early as six weeks, leaves no question to me personally that this is a living, vulnerable, individual, human being.
Judging, telling people what to do or not, is not the intent. Regardless of where people stand on this topic, data shows that we can reduce abortions by preventing unintended pregnancies in the first place.
My initial question above is why are there so many unintended pregnancies resulting in abortion? Is birth control not available to the mother and father? Do they not take prevention of pregnancy seriously? Are they uneducated? Can't afford birth control? Don't have access to birth control? The heat of the moment makes them not care? What is the problem?
There are over 600,000 abortions in NYS alone each year. Where is the accountability?
The majority of women that have abortions and the fathers involved, are old enough to drive, to legally consume alcohol, decide to go to college or not, serve in the armed forces, even recognized as adults in our legal system. etc.
Why the breakdown in prevention?
1
@C's Daughter
It's genuine. This is not a religious concern nor women's rights issue to me. Hearing the heartbeat of a developing fetus, as early as six weeks, leaves no question to me personally that this is a living, vulnerable, individual, human being.
Judging, telling people what to do or not, is not the intent. Regardless of where people stand on this topic, data shows that we can reduce abortions by preventing unintended pregnancies in the first place.
My initial question above is why are there so many unintended pregnancies resulting in abortion? Is birth control not available to the mother and father? Do they not take prevention of pregnancy seriously? Are they uneducated? Can't afford birth control? Don't have access to birth control? The heat of the moment makes them not care? What is the problem?
There are over 600,000 abortions in the US each year. Where is the accountability?
The majority of women that have abortions and the fathers involved, are old enough to drive, to legally consume alcohol, decide to go to college or not, serve in the armed forces, even recognized as adults in our legal system. etc.
Why the breakdown in prevention?
1
The issue is whether or not women have ‘personhood.’
All legislation that gives more rights to her body to a fetus and the state than she herself has, leaves women less than human under the law.
11
Do states such as LA require that doctors who perform outpatient procedures such as oral surgery, removal of teeth, colonoscopies, removal of intestinal polyps, excision of dysplastic nevi, fertility interventions such as IVF and placement, vasectomy, etc. have admitting privileges at the hospitals nearby their offices or clinics or outpatient surgery centers?
Do those states prohibit hospitals and their administrators and boards from discriminating against medical doctors and related providers who do or might provide abortions or who have provided abortion services in the past?
What are the fees and costs associated gaining and maintaining admitting privileges at hospitals?
4
I just received an email from a pro life group in which I have been taking part for a few years now. It was such a welcomed relief after reading so many comments from pro choice folks from the two articles that are in today's paper.
I have become involved in this wonderful organization because of the kind and caring manner in which the pro life women and men treat those women who find themselves in difficult circumstances and pregnant. They have never for one moment judged any of these women and treat them with the utmost respect. These women are often afraid and have no where to turn in their dire circumstances. Many have been ostracized by families and have been shunned from boyfriends who do not want them to have their babies. They have even strongly encouraged them to end their pregnancies.
They have felt so alone and had no where to turn until these pro life folks came into their lives. They have not only given them shelter but have found them employment and offered job training when it has been necessary. These pro life people are some of the most dedicated and compassionate men and women I have ever encountered. Those women who have chosen life have told us later that their final decisions to keep their babies was because someone gave a darn about them and their babies. Many have returned and have become active pro life advocates. Who better to convince others that they do have an alternative to abortion. They too have made a positive difference.
2
In a 2014 SCOTUS case "Hobby Lobby" the Court unleashed The "freedom of religion" right in a reproductive rights case for the first time. In that decision the Court also held that a belief that life begins at conception is a "deeply held religious belief".
All reproductive rights advocates have to do is to claim "freedom of religion" for every person in the Country that has a different belief, religious or not, like three fourths of the Country. Also the "establishment" First Amendment right precludes any religious based laws in this Country.
2
You guys never mention that almost every European country has abortion legal only until the 10-12th week. That was even true in Ireland, but you never mentioned it. You do your readers a disservice by not publising this important information.
The Democrats want abortion legal even the week before birth--horrific--and the Republicans want no abortion at all. These extreme positions, all or nothing, are an American tragedy. And they contribute to 'one-issue' voting that allows extremists-like our president-to be elected.
In my opinion, the answer is simpler: easy contraception and abortion until the 12th week, then no abortion unless it threatens the health of the mother. Simple. That is what our European friends have been doing for years.
A tragedy that we can't agree on this reasonable compromise. And it would help if the NY Times at least acknowledged that such a compromise is viable.
3
@Steve
They actually discussed this in the Argument earlier this week. The reason abortion is heavily regulated in European countries during 2nd and 3rd trimesters is because it's so much more accessible during the first trimester there. In the US, the hurdles placed on women seeking abortions (money, waiting periods, etc.) often cause women to not be able to get the procedure early in the pregnancy.
It's also worth noting that the bills in the US relating to 2nd and 3rd trimester are for health risk to the mother or fetal abnormalities. not just for any random reason.
There are certainly reasons women get abortions that not everyone (myself included) will agree with, but it's my personal belief that it doesn't matter how I feel. This is a decision that should be between a woman, her doctor, and any family she chooses to include. It isn't my place to judge and we should trust women to make the correct decision for themselves.
7
One of the main reasons women have abortions past the twelfth week is that it takes them longer to come up with the money to pay for the abortion. We need federal funding for abortions to return.
4
You and I (an unabashed conservative)could have a conversation.
The only thing I would say is contraceptives are easy enough to get and inexpensive.
But I thing you’d like the government to pay for it ?
1
The bad news is that the Gorsuch/Kavanaugh Supreme Court either will overturn Roe V. Wade, or so eviscerate the law that the Constitutional right to an abortion will be meaningless.
Each state will decide for itself, and half the states will forbid abotion. Their next steps will be to forbid sex education; to limit birth control to white, married women; to strip gays of all civil rights--including the right to adopt or marry; and to restore violent capital punishment and the whipping of truculent children.
The good news is nobody has to live in those states, or do do business with them, or work in them, or visit them. If you do wish to live in those states, or do business with them, or work in them, or visit them, whatever harm is done to you, don't way you weren't warned.
5
I imagine, way back when, some Southerners took the position, in effect, "Hey, if you don't like slavery, then don't own a slave. But don't impose your moral views about slavery on me."
1
So why would anyone now insist on, essentially, enslaving a girl or woman who doesn't consent to remaining pregnant?
11
@Djdjue You clearly missed the point of my comment.
1
The Constitution forbids laws based on the idea that people have souls. So those who want law based on keeping flesh and soul together can't do that without resorting to attempts to match biology to the task – so the attempt to say legal "life" is when a human egg is fertilized.
Trying to pass "human life" laws that are based on a soul attaching to a fertilized egg puts us in conflict with nature, since nature (or God's nature) is fairly savage in how many -lives- are taken without any adult's action, or even knowledge, in most cases.
Estimates of natural loss vary enormously, this study finds that ranges from 25%-70% are normal for post-fertilization loss https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443340/
So laws requiring funerals or other burdens on women can't even be consistently applied.
And how can such laws address the fact that it is NOT the intention of nature that all fertilized eggs will survive? Laws with no chance of affecting nature do not have a place in our system.
People looking to reduce abortion should focus on cleaner air and water. They should fight for a much more restrictive view for new chemicals, since so many of them also disrupt biology. They should be pushing to spend what it takes to make women healthier, to provide birth control and also support after the desired child is born. They should be fighting to figure how to change the violence in many men that endangers the women and children they aim to control.
3
It's nice that liberals have a newfound appreciation for the democratic process, rather than relying upon a bare majority of 5 unelected judges to impose their will on the rest of the population.
So go for it. Pass laws in your state making abortion legal on whatever terms the majority is in favor of. If that means unrestricted abortion anytime prior to birth, fine. If a majority thinks a viable fetus has rights prior to birth, incorporate that into the law. If a majority thinks abortion is equivalent to infanticide, make that the law.
We are finally back at the point where we should have been in 1973, when the democratic process was short-circuited by a Court that found a right to abortion in the "emanations and penumbras" of the Constitution.
2
@J. Waddell
I appreciate your comment. I agree, let the states pass their laws with respect to abortion.
All these states seeking to limit or outlaw abortion: I wonder how many of them have introduced companion legislation providing for pre-, peri- and post-natal care of the mother and infant? I wonder how many have expanded their MedicAid programs? I wonder how many have programs in place to provide shelter, job-training ... for the new mother?
Yeah. **crickets**
7
Know your facts: No laws, current or proposed, allow “abortion to the point of delivery” as a means to end unwanted pregnancy. Late-term abortions—where they haven’t been banned for emotional vs scientific reasons—are to save the life of the mother, or to end a failed pregnancy. Would you really force a woman to carry a dead fetus, at risk of her own life? Or force a fetus to be born into certain agony, until it shortly dies? History shows us there is nothing crueler than forcing non-factual, personal beliefs on others, and the wide-spread damage it does: religious wars, “witch” burnings, and forcing women into unwanted reproduction—even if it will kill them.
14
An allowance for late term medical emergencies used to be a standard concession from even the most unbending abortion opponents. Now, they’d have us believe pregnant women would go through 3 trimesters of discomfort and ailments, dreaming of starting a family, only to gleefully pull the plug on the delivery table. Don’t be taken in by the propaganda.
8
@The Buddy
I know a woman, who at 19, tried to ignore her pregnancy, and then had an abortion 3 weeks before the baby was due, because she was emotionally freaked out. She regrets this action, and will feel guilty for the rest of her life. In my opinion, this was a crime that never should have been allowed, both for her sake and the baby's.
Most people go into a 7 Eleven and don't shoot people. The proportion who do is tiny. But we still make it illegal.
@Steve
Yeah right. I don't believe this for a hot second, because there are literally no doctors in America who perform abortions that late.
8
To the young women pictured at the top, sorry, you are not the "Pro-Life Generation."
You may be pro birth, but don't call yourself pro-life until you are anti-war, anti-death penalty, and willing to accept responsibility for the lives of the embryos who will grow up unloved or deformed or in awful poverty, leading the ugly lives of the rejected. And how can anyone can themselves "pro life" when they know that their arrogant intrusion in other women's bodies will lead multitudes of desperate women to untimely deaths from botched abortions.
Moreover, you don’t speak for your generation, which is more pro choice than any other generation polled. http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
Finally, and I'm sure this will come as news to you, your generation is also the first polled that views socialism more favorably than capitalism. Unlike my Baby Boomer generation, they are not going to sit back and allow themselves to be robbed by crooks, liars, and plutocrats. So get on board, or you're in for a bumpy ride.
13
Any states licking their chops to outlaw abortion should remember Ireland. The church kept it illegal until the people finally had enough and voted to legalize. Conservative states may initially make abortion illegal, but then they will face an electorate that really wants it to be legal, and they will all be voted out. Humanity is not "marching backwards". The signs are everywhere that, in spite of Trump and his Luddites, society is continuing to liberalize and move into a better, more humane future.
6
The no choice people will protect a fetus with their own lives…until that child is born,when they lose all interest. They don't feed, clothe, vaccinate, educate, protect, nurture, house, inspire, enrich or love it. Then the tiki torches come out, the death penalty Is made legal & guns are everywhere . With those people it's all about the timing.
6
Whatever one's views on abortion, as a matter of law Roe v. Wade is terrible. And if I were to guess as to the mindset of the Founders, I'm pretty sure their conception of privacy would not remotely stretch toward this. So perhaps its good that states are moving in their own directions on this matter. I know this is probably heresy to those on both sides of the issue, but matters that the Constitution doesn't address should be left to the states or local governments.
1
@ Jim R
The signatories to the US Constitution also never would or could have contemplated nuclear arms; does that mean that, under the 2nd Amendment, the federal government (or states for that matter) may not and should not prohibit American citizens from attempting to make or keep such arms, along with their assault rifles, shotguns, pistols, swords, etc?
2
These nation-wide actions demonstrate the total lack of regard for ‘self rights’. What is going on inside another human is of concern to the state only in so far as it is ‘contagious’, or otherwise able to cause mass epidemic, possibly causing society to collapse. Not abortion, but gun proliferation could cause society to collapse. Death is death. Abortions are performed in clinics with every comfort and opportunity to soul search before you do as God is gently nudging you to do in either direction. A gun strapped to an individual’s body that he may carry liberally throughout society and use at the discretion of one...himself...is seizing the power from God. Because God makes us to be together for the most important decisions and a man or woman with a personal gun that he or she can fire at will does not ‘fit the bill’ of self-rights as God intended. How? Because, when a gun owner goes to shoot, he or she will not have passed first through the counseling session where one sits face to face with another who sums up one’s life and suggests that a life does not have to end. A person intent on shooting a gun does not have this intervention but for what he is telling himself in his own mind and that mind could very well be impaired to make any kind of judgement attached to deadly force FOR ANY REASON. But THAT is a prevailing U.S. self-right! A woman wants an abortion? I don’t need to know why or try to stop her. She will have her moments to think of everything. God makes it so.
4
I often wonder how many people would still appose abortion if they knew that, unless a certain woman got an abortion, they or their son would have to pay child support for the next 18 years.
6
This Supreme Court move by Chief Justice Roberts is cautiously reassuring. Trump is an empty vessel, utterly blind to his own duty to the entire American population, gleefully appointing partisan hacks to obliterate any balance on the Supreme Court.
But, is Robert's willing to send the legacy of his Court into the same ugly place?
He may well be the Justice Kennedy replacement on the Court, appointed by the partisan bragging of Trump to his Evangelical base.
My past doctor had a very important statement "if you don't believe in abortion, I strongly recommend you should not have one".
I do not personally believe in abortion, particularly after viability. However, I cannot walk in others shoes.
I strongly suggest that instead of trying to use laws to force others to your way of thinking, anti-abortionists consider passing laws to put "your money where your mouths are"
Paid parental leave (under Canada's unemployment insurance plan) covers one year for either parent. It can start in late pregnancy. This is jointly paid for by payroll deductions from workers and employers 0f most employees.
Consider offering subsidized daycare for the needy- at least by making it tax deductible.
It seems to me the very same people who profess to care about the unborn, and don't want them aborted, cease to care about those children once they are born. Why?
No, it won't stop abortion, but it just might save a lot of babies, and improve their lives .
12
This is such a dangerous and slippery slope. If the old white guys running the conservative movement are successful at terminating the rights of women on this issue, what's next? This is no different than their anti-democratic attempt to control voting rights, gun ownership rights, immigration, healthcare, etc.. They are snake oil salesman with their smarmy Bible-thumping, fear-mongering message to the masses that it's all in the name of "God's work" when it's nothing more than the last ditch effort to cling to some ridiculous notion of white male dominance. To be dominated by and living in such fear must be exhausting.
It truly saddens me that so many in this country line up like lemmings behind so many spurious, sleazy, ignorant people and it will be at the cost of their own personal freedom. The war in this country is not on religion, abortion or anything else, it's on our very freedom to choose - for all of us.
10
The most advanced nation on earth...
3
As one commenter said in a recent Michelle Goldberg column, “And then we have states like Ohio, which recently banned abortions if the fetus had Down Syndrome, followed by a vote rejecting aid or support for parents who are raising a child with Down Syndrome.”
The GOP plan is: ban abortion for the religious base, then shrink taxpayer funded support for the resulting children for the anti-tax base. According to a report released by the US Department of Agriculture, a middle-income, married couple with two children is estimated to spend $233,610 to raise a child born in 2015. This covers birth through age 17, so it doesn’t cover college expenses. So how about this: let’s have a national vote on abortion. If abortion is outlawed, everyone who voted to ban it will be put on a register and then taxed proportionally to cover the reasonable expenses those hundreds of thousands of unwanted children need to have a minimally decent life. Isn’t that what being “pro life” is all about?
13
Many of my contemporaries and myself erroneously believed that, when pro-choice was made the law of the land in 1973, it was settled law. In retrospect, the pro-choicers went passive, and let the anti-choice people take the offensive, and they were focused in their determination to gut the law. Sad commentary, but accurate.
4
If Roe v Wade is overturned, women of means who want an abortion can go to a clinic in countries where they can get a safe procedure. Women who can't afford this option cannot. How does this help society?
As far as I'm concerned, the abortion issue is simple. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.
7
I think there would be “Go fund me” sites set up to help people without funds to go to another state.
2
It always makes me chuckle when they call themselves "Pro-life".
4
Except it’s not funny.
4
@Zejee
Agreed. It's straight up hypocrisy. But I gotta laugh or I'll spend all my time crying.
7
In the poisoned politics of the U.S., the denial of equal medical rights to women in crisis only applies in practice to the majority who lack sufficient economic resources and social connections to simply bypass the issue.
Those with sufficient wealth and the connections that provides to the de facto power base do not need abortions. Instead they have cooperative doctors who perform a "D&C" to "remove that nasty growth" and any associated stigma.
The great irony of this national hypocrisy is its reliable fallback value for demagogues who have seen their approval ratings decline for their performance on the broader issue of national healthcare. If opponents to Roe v. Wade were to prevail, that would take the heat out of their habitual political hot-button.
3
While many pro life advocates can empathize with a women faced with an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy, it is hard to believe that the US is embroiled in fight over whether or not it's legal, moral or right to take a baby's life at the moment of delivery. Though it may not be common place the idea that state legislators want to keep that option open is barbaric.
As Ralph Northam awkwardly and graphically explained, if an botched abortion were to happen a "discussion" would take place.....a discussion on how to let a possibly disfigured baby should be killed or left to die. With all of the issues our country has to deal with is human life really this cheap ?
Please explain how Nancy Pelosi can pontificate on the immorality of a border wall and stand by while her party advocates for late term abortions.
I consider myself a moderate slightly right of center, voting my conscience and for what is truly best for the country I love but after the actions and comments of Andrew Cuomo and Ralph Northam I will never vote for a democrat who does not not condemn third trimester abortions of this type and there are many who feel as i do...
2
Late term abortions —which are rare—are performed when the fetus is not viable. It’s not your decision to make.
7
@JAC “until the moment of delivery” is right wing hyperbole. I suggest you read some stories by women who have had a late term abortion. You can start here https://slate.com/technology/2019/02/late-term-abortion-support-group-lessons-trust-myself-women.html
10
I have a brother who cannot feed or otherwise take care of himself and a grandparent suffering from Alzheimer’s
They aren’t viable either. Your argument needs work
The upside – there will be state-level clarity on this issue...
Unlike the relatively minor topic of bathroom access – this will be as profound as the delineation of states by whether they are free-states or slave-states...
And – just as I'd always made sure that my appliances and snowblowers (have had many and several, respectively) were all made somewhere in the central US...
May soon start leaving things made in Ohio off the list...
Or made by companies HQ'ed there...
There are a large number of HQs and businesses in Ohio – just scanned the list...
3
If I see one more dolt yelling that the religious fantasy that human life begins at conception is a scientific fact, I may just scream. Not real fond of the dolts trying to pretend that their clever little laws are aimed at protecting women, neither.
It’s simple, kids. Your argument rests on your religion. You don’t get to shove your religion down everybody’s throats, which is why you try the phony science route.
I can at least respect the Pope’s religious views: no abortion, no capital punishment, no murder.
He has the decency to tell the truth about why. You should try it.
17
In 2020, Republicans will attempt to keep control of the Presidency, the Senate and Legislatures in “red” states trending “blue.” To insure a large conservative turn out, we can expect candidates who support abortion restrictions, the touchstone of conservative politics, and ballot initiatives involving: religious liberty; Second Amendment protections and attacks on marriage equality. God guns and gays, the “holy trinity” of modern Republican politics.
5
Pro life? They love fetuses, real children are expendable. DO something about gun violence if you are really pro-life.
18
Sadly many of the pro life advocates are NOT pro life, they are anti-abortion. If 1/10th of these folks spent that time preventing unwanted pregnancies (prevention for drug addicts, available prevention for the poor, education to children, holding MEN accountable for their part, etc) then they wouldn't be standing there.
Don't shout pro life then walk away with out doing anything other than holding a sign. HYPOCRITES.
9
The sign should read
"I am the republican, Force Women to give birth generation"
10
In 1968, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, supported birth choice citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy.
In 1971, the evangelical Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”
In 1973, when Roe v Wade was handed down, W. A. Criswell - one of the top dog fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”
Evangelical's pro-choice position did a 180 in 1979 (6 years after Roe v. Wade) when professional religionists (Jerry Falwell, et al) seized on birth choice as a wedge issue to help defeat the devout Jimmy Carter, who represented a threat to their tax-exempt, segregationist "religious" madrassas.
We've had 40 years of brouhaha created by religionists over race and taxes, not birth choice. La plus ca change…
19
@Miss Anne Thrope
Thank you for the research.
We should also remember that Falwell, and his look-alike hucksters, are the ones who successfully monetized the alt-right religiosity movement Moral Majority in 1979.
6
If you are pro-life don’t have an abortion. That’s very simple. That does not give your religion the right to control my body. Control your own and keep your out-dated male centric third century religion out of politics. I have freedom to my own religion and very to have reproductive freedom.
7
Oh! Please the "I AM THE PRO-LIFE GENERATION"
Don't be ridiculous.
Be wiser and put your time on things that really, really matter... I can give you a list... a LIST of things that you can do to make a change if you really want to make a change....
For starters, gender equality needs your help. Fight on that and I can assure you that you won't need to be there fighting to abolish the only right that actually a woman could use without being fired or sued or hushed with a settlement....
4
The power elite of white men desperate to keep hold of their control of 'lesser' species - women (and people of color) - in the face of the future as it evolves. Control of women has served them well as a key to keeping their undisputed and way too often undeserved ranking for a long time, but things, we can hope and believe, are changing fast. You would suppose, if they were as smart as they want us to believe, that they would be nicer to the people who are taking over the world.
6
If Trump's presidency proves to be illegitimate does that constitute a removable of his supreme court justices?
7
It is fantastic to me that pro-life supporters think they're doing God's work by making women have babies. In reality they walk away once a child is born and if they were truly pro-life they would make sure that child was healthy and happy but they don't. The hypocrisy of all this, that from birth to the age of five a child is killed by their parents and that's a statistics I can't live with.
2
I would like to add to my comment: How many men are concerned with birth control, contraceptives, or whatever you want to call it? How much do they pay for theirs? Where do they obtain it?
Now, think about women’s contraception. Some companies, such as Hobby Lobby, won’t even pay for their employees’ health insurance coverage for contraception. And in addition, how many men support their workplace insurance paying for fertility coverage for those women who want it and need it. That’s right - there are women who can not easily conceive. Would men be willing to pay extra in their healthcare premiums so some women could more easily conceive? Especially those men who oppose abortion...
This isn’t just about going out and holding signs. This isn’t just about shouting and hollering “baby killers” at will hither skither. This isn’t just about getting legislators to vote against abortion for the sake of declaring themselves anti-abortion.
This is also about someone like Trump appointed Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, who has no degree in education. declaring war on public education - every child’s right.
This is also about children growing up in the best way possible, child welfare, education, children’s healthcare.
But it all goes back to - a woman’s rights; not a strange, protesting man, nor the government.
5
"Pro-Life?" I disagree, the list of requirements that you are against is long enough to say that you aren't really pro anything.
Lets begin with medical care for pregnant women who cannot afford it and do not have medical insurance. How about safe affordable housing for the parents and children? Nutritional assistance for families with small children. Good schools for all children regardless of where they live. Ongoing medical care for children and their parents. Decent well-paying employment for the parents that doesn't require more than one-job per adult in order to survive. A safe infrastructure that provides safe water, streets, towns, schools, et cetera. Access to higher education regardless of your economic situation. An unbiased workplace that doesn't have arbitrary rules that bar people from well-paid work just because,... And what of the Death Penalty...
All those things mentioned above are generally what most self-proclaimed "Pro-Life" people are against. Frankly, you could care less about the child once it is born because you are off to "protect" the next unborn.
Until you are Pro the entire life you are nothing more than an empty gong.
4
This is the fifth article within three days about abortion/pro life issues. This is such an important hot button topic right now. A lot is lying in the balance. Fetuses/babies lives are at stake and hope the courts take into account the seriousness of the matter. We do not need any more lives lost to abortion and hope states see the importance of the least among us. Babies rights are no less valuable than women!s rights.
1
I said once and I repeat. Most aren’t pro-life, but pro-birth. Were they pro-life they would subscribe to better and free health care, wouldn’t cut funds for education, and wouldn’t put restrictions on food stamps.
98
@BWCA To take your analogy a step further, just because someone is opposed to parents killing their unruly child doesn't mean they are obligated to support every social program for children.
1
@J. Waddell Your logic is faulty. A living breathing "unruly child" is not the same thing as a non-viable fetus that threatens the health of the mother.
The original poster's point is entirely valid. Many who blindly tow the pro-birth line do so because they personally believe that life believes at conception. Then, in a circular fashion, they cite their personal belief as the basis for depriving women of the right to make their own healthcare decisions. The hypocrisy is that after a forcing woman to take on the consequences of their pro-birth beliefs, they disclaim any responsibility and smugly retreat to pat themselves on the back for their imagined virtuousness.
22
@BWCA
I agree with some of what you said but "most" are not opposed to such things as they are to irresponsible behavior. There is really no such things as "free" healthcare either. I agree the Pro Life crowd tends to focus on the fetus rather than post birth but the wrath typically comes from using federal or state dollars to fund planned parenthood.
It is nice to see that young people in the pro life movement are making a positive impact on saving babies lives. They have bounds of energy and lots of determination. They have been moved to act due to the devastating effects of abortion on our society. We have already lost 60 millions lives to abortion and they want this destruction of those being aborted to stop. These young people will continue to speak out against the evils of abortion and will work diligently to see abortion a thing of the past.
1
@WPLMMT What "devastating effects", exactly? Pray tell. On the contrary, the "devastating effects" happen from overpopulation and from children being born unwanted and growing up to be juvenile delinquents from lack of love and proper care, wrecking havoc and bringing crime all around us. You have it completely backwards.
4
How do you know that it wasn't 60 million women's and girls' lives saved by their ability to get a safe abortion of the pregnancy?
Even if the woman's or girl's life wasn't at imminent risk at the time of the abortion, you don't know that she might have been seriously injured and/or died later in the pregnancy, during labor and delivery or in the post-natal hours, days, weeks or, in the case of severe post-partum mental health difficulties, even a year or more later.
The unitary focus of your comment says it all.
And let me bet, you're also a supporter of "stand your ground" laws and of use of force in self-defense generally -- unless the threat to life, limb, welfare, or property is an embryo.
4
The pro-life generation should understand that their beliefs should be theirs and if their conscience or religion dictates so, so be it, but NOT everybody has that mentality and NOT them, their religious beliefs or whatever beliefs they have should be imposed on ANYONE.
I am a mother and I am PRO-MY DAUGHTERS life and if the CONSTITUTION gives them the right to a safe abortion, if needed, it's none of their business to abolished it just because it doesn't make them confortable or because it doesn't appeal to their very often hypocrite secret lives.
Leave the LAW ,for women who want to make use of it or not, ALONE and continue with your lives.
How about these these two proud young women, on the picture, start thinking about adopting one or two children, specially black babies who are mostly left behind and who would really that need a home. How about your parents?
How about that for a change?
5
The U.S. will have a group of states that at least endeavor to provide a measure of equality to their citizens, and others that will continue privilege white men at the expense of all others, with some form of "Christian morality" as a philosophical basis. And the first group will financially subsidize the second, through federal taxes.
2
@maggie Thank you! Your use of words just triggered a thought: the new CSA is the Christian States of America. Wonder how that will work out.
Can somebody explain why this is so urgent now? Why to overturn the already made judgement long ago? We don't have anything to do?
1
What bothers me most of all is all of the people who are anti-abortion in the most rabid sense had a mother; some must have wives and daughters -- and in the old days people with enough money and contacts did have abortions -- for which the technique now is much better than before. In fact, possibly fewer abortions are performed than is desirable. Many children born have been harmed by parents' behaviour often in the earliest stages of pregnancy -- e.g. fetal alcohol syndrome, leading to all kinds of later difficulties. It's naïve to believe that being born even in decent circumstances means that life is going to be good for that person. Unwanted is another huge burden; and of course some are wanted at the end. And there will always be abortions even in the states with laws prohibiting abortion.
What other nefarious nonsense is this noise intended to distract people from? Think about social justice in its many forms.
37
@Make America Sane
Also, the majority of the loudest antiabortion spokespersons are middle aged white males dripping with disdain for women. I think it is time for men to step out of this discussion altogether.
10
I understand that late-term abortions represent a very small percentage of abortions overall. I also understand that in most cases, late-term abortions take place either because the mother's life is in danger or the baby has severe abnormalities. Let's cast the rhetoric aside about the heartbreaking decision that no mother would want to make, etc. Just the facts: (1) Is it true that a woman could decide to have a late-term abortion for mental or emotional health reasons? (2) Is it also true that as with the Virginia bill, for example, a doctor would not have to be present? I've always been pro-choice, but let's be honest and acknowledge that there's a big loophole here and that technically, while perhaps unlikely, a woman could get a late-term abortion even if the fetus were healthy and the woman's life were not in danger.
8
@Anonymous - The proposed law in Virginia and the current law in New York support your conclusion, because they seek to protect not only the life of the mother but also her health. But that's no loophole, they are specifically designed that way. I can't imagine that you--or anyone else for that matter--want a woman to be on the very precipice of death before she receives medical intervention.
I have no idea what the answer to (2) is, but I'm not sure it's relevant assuming the appropriate and requisite medical and legal requirements are met before, during, and after the procedure.
Again, (2) is as vague as it is irrelevant. Women don't "decide" to have late-term abortions. They confer with their doctors and move forth with the best option having weighed all factors. If a woman's "life or health" is in jeopardy, an abortion may be discussed. I can't imagine a more sensible litmus test.
12
@Anonymous
"Just the facts: (1) Is it true that a woman could decide to have a late-term abortion for mental or emotional health reasons? "
Not really, or at least, not in the way you're probably imagining, which is that a physically healthy woman 34 weeks pregnant decides she's depressed and that she wants an abortion. Basic statutory interpretation shows us this:
A risk to the life/health of the mother is a necessary condition under this law for a third-trimester abortion to be permissible. However, it is not a *sufficient* condition for abortion to be permissible under this law. The abortion must also be *necessary* to protect her health. Put another way—it’s not enough that the woman’s health is threatened by the pregnancy. Abortion must be necessary to preserve her health before it’s legal. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant in her late third trimester, an "abortion" (ie killing the baby) at 8 months is not necessary, because the fetus can just be delivered. Therefore, it is not permissible under the law.
"a woman could get a late-term abortion even if the fetus were healthy and the woman's life were not in danger. "
This is completely inaccurate, as shown above. AGAIN, the abortion must be *necessary* to preserve her life or health. Do you know what the word "necessary" means? There is NOT a "big loophole" here, you just don't understand who to read the bill.
I hope that clears it up for you.
14
@Anonymous may I ask what business it is of yours if a woman could get a late term abortion with a healthy fetus? It's not your decision. On the other hand, no reputable doctor would grant that sort of request without compelling evidence of one or the other. Late term abortions are rare but occasionally necessary.
4
The rich will always be able to get abortions. It is the poor, the ones that can least afford to have a family that will not be able to get them.
Think about the long term implications.
4
@Robert James cheap labor for the wealthy elite! No more need to offshore!
2
It is endlessly fascinating that small government conservatives want the federal government to dictate what a woman should be able to do in her personal medical and procreative choices.
I look at the young women in the photo and I wish them well. That’s all. Good luck once you get your way.
4
This could very well turn to be one of those "be careful what you wish [legislate] for..." moments. The only thing that carries more weight than the religious right in these United States is the almighty dollar. Already we've seen the NCAA, in 2016, pull out of North Carolina over the so-called "bathroom bill" and Hollywood threatening to yank $9.5 billion in movie making money from Georgia over that state's anti-gay adoption law.
When Roe v Wade is overturned --- and is there anyone who has lived through these past 2 years that still believes it won't be? --- and abortion rights becomes a free-for-all among state legislatures, they would do well to remember that the majority of Americans are opposed to this repeal. If states like Tennessee, South Carolina and Arkansas want to end up with no businesses except Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby, and no residents except the religious right, they should go right ahead.
The regressive Republican machine may be hard at work to deny the right to vote at the ballot box, but they'll never control the right to vote with our wallets. I suspect those collection baskets in church on Sunday are going to come up just a bit short in supporting the economy when people and companies start bailing from these backwaters.
Be careful what you wish for....
12
Luckily, the rise of female legislators has arrived and will continue. Bad, immoral, suppressive legislation can be reversed. With efforts led by women like Stacey Abrams , the rural, minority female vote will not be suppressed. Female numbers in local, state and national legislatures will continue to rise. This is a dark time in America, as the immoral majority grasp for their last handhold on female suppression. But, I believe the light is soon to shine through the darkness.
2
The infant mortality rate was extremely high for the entire length of human existence. Something like 30-50% of all babies died before the age of five until modern medical science reversed that trend in the 20th century.
God did nothing to reduce infant mortality over the millennia. Science has saved more babies in the last 100 years than all the prayers to God for the last 2,000 years.
I'm not saying there is no God. I'm saying that God, obviously and with extensive historical evidence, has no interest in preserving the life of a fetus or a baby, born or unborn, inside the womb or out.
Women, unlike God, are extremely interested in prenatal care and preserving the life of their wanted babies. But if the pregnancy is unwanted, I do not see why women should be held to a higher standard than God.
17
@DB aw, go ahead and say it. In fact I would prefer to say “there are no gods.”
4
@DB
"I'm not saying there is no God. "
OK , I will say it. ALL religions are based on foundation myths. There are no gods.
Maybe Roberts, like Earl Warren before him, will surprise us and assume responsibility for keeping the Court from becoming a rubber stamp for the right-wing. We can hope.
4
It has been through hard work and determination that the pro life side has made a difference in saving innocent lives from abortion. They have seen the tremendous support come from the Republican Party and especially President Trump. This has been so encouraging and heartening. Having pro life advocates in your corner is a real boost. We can also thank the many wonderful and dedicated people within the pro life movement for assisting lawmakers for enacting more restrictions on abortion on the state level. They have been working day and night to help get these important laws passed. This is where they have made a huge difference. They have been energized and will not stop working towards their goal of ending the barbarism of abortion on the state level. This is how and where it will end.
1
@WPLMMT: Do you ever give one minute's thought to the women who are harassed outside clinics all over this country by the "wonderful and dedicated people within the pro life movement"?
Do you want to talk about barbarism? I was screamed at; implored not to "kill [my] baby;" told I had "darkness in my soul" and that I didn't believe in God; and my passage impeded while trying to enter a building in which a Planned Parenthood clinic is located in my city. I was going to a meeting at the office of another organization in the same building; I was in my early 60s at the time (not likely to be pregnant!) - but that's not the point. How is it the right of strangers to take it upon themselves to intrude on the privacy rights of anyone in this vulgar and highly personal manner? Sure - these people "have made a huge difference;" their behavior has galvanized the determination of those of us who support women's legal rights to fight with with all our strength to protect them.
13
Olenska
It is the pro life folks who stand in quiet vigil across the street from Planned Parenthood in Manhattan who are harassed and have obscenities hurled their way. It is a small but very vocal pro abortion group that do this whenever the group gathers. We have had a police presence for our safety which has been very much needed. The only difference after many months of their protests is theirs have been drastically reduced and the pro life folks have grown considerably. I guess they have grown tired of getting up early when they have made absolutely no gains in deterring us from appearing. The pro life group has truth on their side. And yes they have been successful in reducing abortion from occurring even in liberal progressive Manhattan.
1
@WPLMMT - did you know Catholic NUNS are having abortions? The NY Times wrote about it early this week. They get raped by priests and then they get pregnant so they abort. No woman, not even the most religious among us, wants to be pregnant against her will. And so they will do everything to ensure that they won't be. This will never change.
5
The decision on Roe was not about abortion. It was about privacy. A women (and a man) have the inalienable right to make their own personal, medical decisions without the intrusion of government - state or federal. That is settled law. The counter argument is that the fetus also has rights, and that those rights supersede the rights of the mother. I’m not a lawyer, but I am a scientist, and I can tell you that there is a big difference between a two cell, newly conceived embryo and a nearly full term viable fetus. That distinction led to restrictions on the procedure in late gestational age when the fetus was potentially viable, and most would agree if there is not a medical reason to protect the mother’s health or life - or the fetus has issues that will restrict it’s viability ex utero - there is a compelling argument to complete the pregnancy. And most, if not all, medical professionals will counsel their patients accordingly which is supported by the incredibly small number of late term pregnancy terminations. Assigning rights before the period of viability is a ridiculous argument in my opinion, and controlling a women and her ability to make a personal medical decision when she is the only viable, thinking, feeling part of the equation is not the role of government. At any level, state or federal. This argument is about privacy, and that is a constitutional right.
25
Interesting to note that those who scream the loudest about a fetus’ right to life do not want to hear about either the baby or the woman once that baby is born. They do not advocate for healthcare for either, any type of free child care while the mom is at work, nor any kind of educational programs to keep the woman out of poverty and provide a good life for said baby that they are so concerned about prior to its birth. So really, they are simply pro-fetus, not pro-life.
12
Now that we are fresh off the 2018 midterms, women and the men who truly care must redirect our energy towards this issue in the states in which we live, if those states are seeking to limit access to all appropriate reproductive health care for women.
We will not be able to rely on Chief Justice Roberts to continue to vote to keep Roe v Wade as protected law, or to continue to side with the more liberal justices on the court.
Zealots who work tirelessly to abolish Roe have already come up with a thousand different ways to flaunt their ideology before the Supreme Court. Women’s rights advocates must work just as tirelessly.
52
@Katherine S.
u r right, the battle is now in the states. Hope most people realize this.
4
The truth of this discussion is that it is about the persistent and stalwart refusal to credit women with the capacity - intellectual, moral, and otherwise - to make informed decisions (in consultation with doctors) about the most intimate and personal aspects of our lives. Therefore, politicians, "religious leaders" and even ordinary citizens feel it is their obligation, as self-designated superior and wiser beings, to step in and make those decisions for women who are complete strangers to them. They have undertaken to turn our bodies into ideological battlegrounds: "We know better. We are the arbiters. We make the rules for you."
Leave us alone.
11
I grew up in a religious home. Both my parents were and still are devoutly Catholic. I can remember going to pro-life rallies with them and standing on sidewalks holding anti abortion signs. As a young child I believed what my parents told me. I’m adopted so I believed it with even more fervor. I believed I was one of the lucky ones who managed to escape abortion and it was my duty to speak out against abortion. All throughout middle school and high school I was still devoutly pro-life. It wasn’t until I experienced an unplanned pregnancy I understood why women choose abortion. I had the abortion and it was as if the veil had been lifted from my eyes. I cried and cried for all the women I had condemned. I realized the error of my ways and have remained staunchly pro-choice ever sense. It is not my place to tell a woman her future, that is her choice and I respect it. Women deserve their autonomy and the right to their futures. Women are capable of making their own choices, we need to trust them to make the best decision for themselves and their families.
124
@Cathrine Warren Thank you for sharing your brave story. I'm happy that you were free and able to achieve the results you sought. No one should be in control of your future but yourself!
7
Roe is going away. Inevitably. And soon. Probably without being explicitly overruled by the Supreme Court, but by being undercut in so many ways that it becomes meaningless.
Then, things may get very, very weird. In those states that succeed in passing laws dictating that fertilized eggs have full rights as legal persons, it will be a strange new world. Can a fetus that is miscarried at 4 months inherit property, if it is named as heir in a will by someone who dies during the fetus' time as a legal person? Can a pregnant woman be charged with child abuse if, in the judgment of her local sheriff, she fails to eat properly, get sufficient rest and regular prenatal care? Will we see photos of police busts of illegal stashes of morning-after pills?
Maybe strangest of all will be the inevitable attempts to prevent pregnant women from leaving an anti-abortion state. Will South Carolina subject every woman to a pregnancy test before she exits at the border, lest someone 9 weeks pregnant be on her way to New York to obtain an abortion? The mother has the right to travel; but what if she is "kidnapping" her fetus in order to later murder it?
The anti-choice folks are rushing to enact laws with very little thought of the consequences. Strange days ahead for the American Republic.
108
Or that's exactly what they want. The thought makes me shudder.
5
@J
Sounds like you should be offering a college philosophy course on the moral, legal, and logical implications of fetal personhood. Where can I sign up? Better yet, where can our congressional representatives sign up?
9
@J As they say in French, "n'exaggerons rien." (let's not exaggerate, here.)
1
The question is who is protecting who?
Who do anti-abortion men think they’re kidding? How much do men participate in child care - I mean on the whole? Are men going in to get the food stamps that a poverty stricken mom needs to put food on the table? Are men taking babies to doctor appointments and keeping track of immunizations? Are men giving up their jobs to take care of disabled babies and children? Are men taking time off work to participate in special education conferences for their kids? Are men going in to schools and advocating for their kids during the day? Are men out there buying clothes for their kids - how many even know what size their kids wear? Are men faithfully helping kids with homework, applications, providing transportation for kids’ needs? Are men making sure their kids have their medications and know off the top of their heads the dosages and frequency?
Sure, some are and do. However, as a nurse, as a once school nurse, a once Head Start Coordinator, a mother, I say look around. Pay attention to who still most often cares for children in most ways.
Men legislating against women’s rights is ludicrous. And women legislating against women’s rights is even more astounding. No one knows anyone else’s capabilities in child care - from infancy to adulthood. It should be the choice of the individual.
Planned Parenthoods have been closed, restricted, dismantled. How many men had their hands in that? And why? Think who’s losing out.
163
As a society we are focused on the wrong things. There are so many issues like climate change and racial justice that don’t
get the attention they need because for 46 years abortion has been kept alive as an issue that’s sure to draw voters’ attention. Large majorities of people don’t want to revert to pre-Roe days but dishonest politicians right up to the President continue the inflame the issue while hand picked justices provide cover. Teach your children your values but protect the Constitution.
109
@Denis Really true, Denis. Abortion from the beginning of the debate has been a politically orchestrated issue. So distracting. Thanks for calling that out. If only people got this bent out of shape over the destruction of our planet, our home. SMH
12
@Denis
So true, but this issue amps up their base and subsequently campaign contributions. I honestly think the Republican leadership really don't want to completely do away with a woman's right to choose; once they nail that coffin shut, everyone will take their signs and pitch forks and go home. They'll have to find some other hot button issue to misinform and rally their lemming voters.
You can already see as they are chipping away Roe v. Wade, Immigration (and can we just call this what is really is - a racist policy against anyone south of the border) is gearing up to take its place.
7
@Denis Absolutely. At the moment, arguments are being stoked over Roe Wade, cases and suits are being brought to generate headline news, citizens are being turned against one another over this dependably controversial issue. At the same time, 2020 elections are also very much in the news. Coincidence?
4
The #1 way to reduce abortions is to provide free sex education in public schools and provide free/low cost long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) such as IUD implants to poor and middle-class women.
This also saves societies and states money as it reduces Medicaid welfare expenses by tens of millions of medical costs to poor mothers and their newborns.
The radical right wing never supports this reasonable, economic and moral policy because they'd rather tear the country apart with medieval Christian Shariah Law while dumping the US Treasury into their back pockets.
Decent Americans don't fall for such Machiavellian destruction of the United States of America.
Decent Americans don't let other Americans vote Republican.
Remember in 2020.
147
@Socrates
The two worst scourges to ever plague this country:
Religion and republicans.
(there is also Donal Trump, but he's not the subject of this article)
11
@Socrates Haven't you ever noticed that our country is overrun with people who care more about how animals are treated or how fetuses are treated? Caring about how real live people are treated is beyond some people. Unfortunately for us, quite a few of those people have way too much time on their hands.
4
@Doremus Jessup...agreed, but while TrumPutin may not be the subject, he's a projection of the breathtaking idiocy of the "pro-life" mentality.
2
South Carolina’s so-called Personhood bill would grant more rights to fetuses than to normal children. A lot of women would end up in jail for having miscarriages, a difficult, but also very common occurrence. The pro-forced birth movement is so desperate to control women’s bodies. Why would any sexually active woman stay in a state like that if they could leave?
144
Why would anyone stay? Finances? Family? Not everyone has the resources to move.
23
@Barbara K and to their mithers, woman are nothing but vessels to have babies, they are not human being in their own rights. Why should a woman be forced to carry the seed of a forcible rape to term , she gets a longer sentence than he probably did .
26
This rush to control women's bodies at a time when women are gaining greater political power is no coincidence.
193
@MS
Bam, nailed it.
11
I am not sure what to say? This issue, one of many at the center of America's ongoing culture war, is being exacerbated by the involvement of the Supreme Court. The right to abortion in the Constitution was totally invented by that branch of government.
Putting aside the historical fact that the Legislative branch never even considered the issue outside of the normal democratic process, it seems that the most practical solution is to leave the matter to the states, where it was originally thought to reside.
5
@Matt
So your two-pronged solution is:
A: Female 'free states' where women control their own bodies
B: Female 'slave states' where the state capitals control female bodies
How ingenious !
How provincial !
How Confederate !
One of the purposes of a federal government is ensure that civil rights are accorded to all regardless of local medieval customs, practices and Flat Earth instincts.
93
Actually, my solution is to let the people- men and women- of each state vote on the matter and find a compromise that works for local groups rather than the judicial branch imposing a nationwide mandate that every state MUST have abortion. Never mind allowing the Judicial branch to usurp it’s vested power, which is more dangerous than any policy on abortion. Why do you think the Supreme Court confirmation process is such a political mess?
I’m not a social conservative by the way (nice try!), but I do recognize that the way forward is not people from the south or north generally trying to impose their social views on each other.
@Socrates
As usual, your comment is spot on, thanks. Maybe the pro-choice side needs to start organizing economic boycotts of the neo-Confederate states.
1
The irony of the anti abortionists is that they claim the sanctity of human life yet are in favor of the greatest abortion provider of all... Nuclear Weapons. How rediculous is that?
19
And restricting health care to said fetus once it is born.
2
So let’s abandon nuclear weapons and see what Russia and China do then. Talk about ridiculous? That would be ridiculous! There is a clear difference between having nuclear weapons and using them.
@Confused, we shouldn't have nuclear weapons and we shouldn't ever use them. If we get nuked, it gives us no right to kill millions of innocent citizens out of anger.
1
There is no such thing as equal protection of the law in this land of infants striving to make death a better place.
2
I support abortion through the third trimester, and based on the same logic and rationale I support the death penalty. A woman has a right to choose, just as a society has a right to choose, but I fully acknowledge that killing is killing, especially once the fetus has passed the point of viability. I find it intellectually odd that so many who are pro-abortion are against the death penalty, and so many who are anti-abortion (so-called pro-life) are for the death penalty. Similarly, I find it bizarre that so many who are pro-abortion are the most strident about climate change and the reality of science, yet don’t acknowledge the fact that life begins at conception.
8
@Len319 Your logic is flawed, and analysis is more focused when birth is used as the moment of life in this world. One's age isn't based upon when you are conceived, but born. A person willfully walking into a school and shooting it up, killing many, is far different from a fetus at 9 weeks that while has the potential for a life, has no capability of surviving on it's own. At that point a woman knows her life, her other children's (if she has some) may be dramatically changed if she were to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. The greater good speaks louder than the fetus, as it should.
3
@Len319. People are inconsistent. I find it bizarre that anti-abortion people are often against the AOC, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.
3
@Len319 [[I find it intellectually odd that so many who are pro-abortion are against the death penalty, and so many who are anti-abortion (so-called pro-life) are for the death penalty.]]
I am pro choice (or pro abortion, if you will) because it is none of my business why and/or if a woman chooses to end a pregnancy. I am anti death penalty because the process is biased and broken. Just google “wrongful conviction” in your state.
The government should not be able to tell a woman that she must bring a child to term and the state should not be able to kill people.
4
It is truly amazing that a decent safety net or basic medical care for everyone is world ending "socialism", but controlling a woman's uterus is just fine.
76
This is all very healthy. Matters like abortion belong in the legislature and done on a state by state basis. This is federalism. Whether you like Roe v Wade or not, it was the wrong means to have it decided by Supreme Court. I truly hope 50 states make decisions consistent with their cultural norms.
4
@Dady: Aha - so women's rights should vary by zip code? So "very healthy."
11
@Dady
Healthy? Cultural norms? How about the (GOP, white, male-dominated) Wyoming Legislature stays out of my medical exam room? Why should they have any say in my medical decisions if they are being performed to the highest of medical professional standards?
3
Civil rights shouldn’t be left to states, otherwise we would still have slavery.
5
The far right GOP-driven War on Women, seeking to deprive women of their 1st, 8th, and 13th Amendment and Liberty rights, to render them reproductive slaves and government chattel, continues.
57
@Jennifer Hoult, J.D.
That is the most ridiculous and inflammatory comment I've read on these pages. The recent uproar relates to allowing abortions beyond 24 weeks.....does anyone on the far left care that a baby can hear you talking at 24 weeks and has a fully formed face (hair, eyelashes, etc.). A full throated support of abortion beyond this point in time is questionable at best....and that is coming from a person that is pro-choice.
2
Start telling our true stories as commentators
We all know someone ....
Abortion is a right!
Give the reasons it should be legal Your Truths in 1500 words.....
If the law is overturned under challenge
Do not underestimate the women of America.
22
Notice that all the states trying to limit abortion access mentioned here are in the South, where the sole purpose is to keep the black and minority population in a cycle of poverty that they can never get themselves out of.
32
@J oe, no, Michigan is not in the, Kansas is not in my the South , there are 18 states so far with legislation to prevent abortion , there are 10 southern states, there are almost as many states in the north taking women s rights
as in the South and more to come
6
I have often wondered if that is an unspoken reason the republicans push so hard against abortion. I wouldn’t put it past Mitch.
The only reason these anti-abortions evangelical woman haters are out there with their "prayers" is not because they care the most about other people, it is because they are the most credulous and easily manipulated people. This whole anti-abortion movement is nothing more than the cynical misdirection of political will by unscrupulous players on the American political battle field. The problem is not that the fetus is a loser, that is inconsequential before the fetus is born. The problem is that every woman in America loses her dignity and that is not acceptable and most certainly not inconsequential. I am deeply offended by the anti-abortion movement.
73
If those against abortion, were truly against abortion, they would support free birth control. They don't. Free birth control would reduce abortions.
They seek to limit birth control in every way possible. They don't care about stopping abortion.
They only want to control women and to control women's sexuality and women's bodies. So incredibly Creepy.
If they truly cared about "life" they would support free prenatal care of pregnant mothers. If they truly cared about children they would support and fight for government programs that fully provide for women and children - especially the poorest and most vulnerable ones - such as single mothers.
Of course the "Pro Lifers" care nothing about life. They just want to force their restrictive religion on women. The constitution supports separation of religion. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. Don't force your religion on women.
147
@Dem in CA Many pro-life people and groups do support access to birth control, programs that support women and children, etc., but you'd never know it from reading the New York Times, which prefers to demonize religion instead.
9
@Diane
There may be some that support birth control, but the ones I hear are the ones that try to put Planned Parenthood out of business.
It does seem to me that the New York Times keeps opinions on their editorial page and even there does not demonize religion. All religions have had major problems throughout the ages and criticism should not be considered a demonization. Without criticism we would never challenge our assumptions.
13
@Diane
No, you'd never know it because there aren't many of them and they aren't vocal.
I'm very familiar with the landscape of "pro-life" groups operating out there and the loudest, most noxious voices in the room are from those who do not support access to birth control. That's the section that has the national platform, too. Remember hobby lobby?
I do not get my news on reproductive justices issues from the NYT. I get it directly from primary sources (as I am a lawyer and can actually interpret legislation and court opinions myself) and from pro and anti-choice groups dedicated to this area. The NYT is almost always behind, with the exception of their recent work on decriminalization of poor pregnancy outcomes, does not dig deep into the issues.
10
Republicans in these Southern states are driving women into the arms of the Democratic party. Proceed.
48
@John again , yes the South but not only the South with 18 states .Michigan is not in the South but still willing to take women s rights . It is estimated that 30 states will.enact legislation to curtail.abortions in the next 2 years .
3
@catherine powers
Estimated by whom? Sounds more like alarmist propaganda than reality. Nothing wrong with that, the pro choice lobby needs to get women's attention but consider me skeptical about whether it will actually happen.
The religious opposition to abortion seems like pure bad faith. Isn't God going to judge everyone appropriately ? Laws against abortion appear to infringe on constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion and forcefully impose fundamentalist Christianity on non believers.
48
Jump the hoops, square the circles, bend the light rays and upend all logic, scientific, moral and otherwise -- destroying children is destroying children, and the majority of people are repulsed by it.
7
As am I, but I would not judge a woman’s decision. And I certainly wouldn’t want the government to decide her fate either. I stand firmly with a woman’s right to choose.
49
@Ken
If women choose to become pregnant or if they choose to terminate that pregnancy or if they have become pregnant inadvertently , it is still their absolute right to determine what shall be done with that pregnancy.
At no point in the entire process does any other individual who is not carrying that pregnancy have the right to determine what shall be done with that pregnancy.
Women are not slaves or breeding stock.
47
I’m pro-choice and I feel like I can speak for us saying we don’t like abortion. We aren’t hoping for woman to have abortions. It’s a difficult situation for any woman. I would like to see over the counter birth control and free prenatal care. I am a realist though. I know that sometimes an abortion is necessary and I have no right to tell a woman to carry a child for 9 months and either keep it or give it up. Not everyone has the luxury of putting a child up for adoption. It’s a tough choice but a choice that should be respected and cherished. It is a right that I have autonomy over my body and what goes on with it. If you’re against abortion you should be pushing for free birth control and free neonatal care. These are 2 things proven to reduce abortions.
7
The wonderful thing about this country is that if you disapprove of abortion, you do not have to have one, unlike another country which enforced a one child policy. But if you propose legislation which makes it harder for women to make this already difficult decision, and you oppose day care and funding for other social programs which would make it possible for a woman to even consider keeping the pregnancy, you need to get your hands out of women's underwear and focus on other things. You have no skin in the game and no awareness of the reality of women's lives.
185
@Karen "The wonderful thing about this country is that if you disapprove of abortion, you do not have to have one" The majority of people who "disapprove of abortion" feel that you are killing a person thus it's murder. So try changing your sentence to "If you disapprove of murder you don't have to commit it" that sounds repulsive doesn't it? People aren't arguing against abortion out of convenience or preference but morale standing. Just my 2 cents
2
@DB A fetus is not a person. So we disagree on this.
But we would all like to eliminate abortions. Do you support sex education for boys and girls? Do you support providing free birth control to everyone, so unwanted pregnancies can be avoided? Do you support free healthcare and free daycare for all children? If not then you "moral standing" sounds pretty hollow.
11
@DB You can also describe it another way. Your religion may even consider some forms of birth control as the equivalent of murder, while mine may allow abortions until a certain term. How about you don't impose your religious beliefs on me and I won't impose mine on you.
14
I have always supported the right of women to terminate a pregnancy for whatever personal reasons they have to do so. It is often a heartbreaking decision for them to have to make. However, I'm afraid I am appalled by very late-term abortion, when the foetus is in fact a near perfectly formed baby. After a baby is delivered, then surely the termination of its life should constitute murder. The recent pro-choice laws in NY and Virginia seem to allow this possibility in certain circumstances. I do remain on the woman's side in this terribly emotive issue, but how I feel for those unborn babies so close to life.
8
Do not be misled. Abortion proponents traffic in deception and exaggeration. Killing a healthy baby, born or about to be born, is illegal. It’s murder in all 50 states.
“Late-term” abortions occur in rare, terrible cases. Either the pregnancy becomes life-threatening, or the fetus is discovered not to be viable, or is severely malformed.
Every day, a baby is born that suffers from a catastrophic birth defect, such as a missing organ. Every day, parents decide against taking heroic measures to keep the baby alive. That’s not murder, and is also legal in 50 states.
Enter abortion. If the birth defect is discovered late, but before birth, what to do?
The anti-abortion crowd cries senselessly about ripping from the womb and, on these pages, infanticide. They insist the fetus is a person deserving the full protection of the law. Wittingly or not, they would enslave the mother to support the fetus, to give her very life for it if need be.
The rest of us think the decision should rest with those affected and in full possession of the facts. We trust mother and doctor to do the right thing by their own lights.
43
@Philip Roberts those women are devastated because that decision usually has to do with viability, babies to be born without spines, or with a certain disease that is extremely painful for the few hours they live. Sometimes they are close to death but still have a heartbeat. In other cases the mother can not carry to fill term and receive medication for cancer to save her life. In no case can a woman short after 22 weeks without a doctor saying it is medically necessary
6
@Philip Roberts
"I'm afraid I am appalled by very late-term abortion, when the foetus is in fact a near perfectly formed baby."
You will be relieved to know that this never happens then.
Hope you feel better!
"The recent pro-choice laws in NY and Virginia seem to allow this possibility in certain circumstances."
They do not.
A risk to the life/health of the mother is a necessary condition under this law for a third-trimester abortion to be permissible. However, it is not a *sufficient* condition for abortion to be permissible under this law. The abortion must also be *necessary* to protect her health. Put another way—it’s not enough that the woman’s health is threatened by the pregnancy. Abortion must be necessary to preserve her health before it’s legal. Considering the fantasy scenario where you have a healthy fetus and healthy mother who simply doesn't want to be pregnant, an "abortion" (ie killing the baby) at 8 months is not necessary, because the fetus can just be delivered. Therefore, it is not permissible under the law.
Even if the mother is less healthy but delivery would accomplish the goal-- ending the pregnancy and preserving her health-- without endangering her, abortion would not be permissible.
8
The dirty little secret is that the NYS law protects the mother's right even if her health issue is an emotional one. Until that's change, I, a pro-choice woman, will not rest. And to those who deny this, if it's not prohibited it is legal.
13
@AACNY
You're not pro-choice.
Mental health is health.
"And to those who deny this, if it's not prohibited it is legal."
No. The law allows abortion after 24 weeks ONLY IF the abortion is NECESSARY to preserve the woman's life or health.
A risk to the life/health of the mother is a necessary condition under this law for a third-trimester abortion to be permissible. However, it is not a *sufficient* condition for abortion to be permissible under this law. The abortion must also be *necessary* to protect her health. Put another way—it’s not enough that the woman’s health is threatened by the pregnancy. Abortion must be necessary to preserve her health before it’s legal. Considering the fantasy scenario where you have a healthy fetus and healthy mother who simply doesn't want to be pregnant because she's "emotional", an "abortion" (ie killing the baby) at 8 months is not necessary, because the fetus can just be delivered. Therefore, it is not permissible under the law.
7
@AACNY "...even IF her health issue is an emotional one." (emphasis mine) Attitudes like this continue to contribute to the stigmatization of mental illness. The "even if" is terribly demeaning.
And by the way, if a woman IS desperate enough to risk her own life in a back alley abortion, that makes her suicidal in my opinion. That is not "just" an "emotional" problem.
And what about that slippery slope between emotional and psychological?
Can't we just leave it up to the woman already? Rome is burning...
3
@AACNY Ah, so the mother's mental and emotional health is allowed to be compromised for the sake of a being that cannot breath on its own and is using another person's organs to stay alive? Tell me, would you be okay with stripping the organs from an already dead human to save another human, even if doing so would cause the already dead human's relatives mental and emotional distress? Or is it only pregnant women who are allowed to be mentally and emotionally distressed when their organs are used, against their will, to keep something else alive?
5
Anyone who denies scientific fact has no right, and certainly no basis, to legislate medical rights.
72
@Suzanne Moniz
It is the pro-life cohort who now have science on their sides. They are not the ones claiming it's not a "life." Technology, specifically imaging and neonatal advancements, have forever changed the abortion debate.
13
There’s a difference between alive and a life. There is, simply, no scientific definition of a life, and no scientific basis to declare when a life begins.
Roe recognized viability as a deciding factor. Yes, viability is a function of technology, and what’s viable has changed a bit since 1973. But not very much.
The antiabortion argument hasn’t benefited a whit from that change. For them, life is god-given and begins at conception. They won’t rest until we all accept their faith, or at least live under it.
17
I couldn’t agree more. If the premise of such a law is Christianity, how could it be constitutional?
4