Fellow Americans, treating women like cattle and puppy-mill dogs is a crime against humanity. Don't let it happen.
50
The subject is depressing because one clearly sees many women believe it is their right, as if they are God, to kill an innocent baby. Just thinking about it makes me lose respect for women. Don’t women understand that these laws are being created to make them accountable for their behavior?
@Jonathan hilarious! It’s almost as though I’m just going about my day, being a woman, and poof! I’m suddenly pregnant. Now how do you think that happened?
10
@Jonathan Lol, we are not children and do not need to be called to account for our behavior. And having consentual sex is nothing to be called account for, anyway. You have control of this though, with a quick vasectomy.
11
@Jonathan
So, if a woman got pregnant, then she shoulders all consequence. What about the man who got her pregnant? No responsibility from him?
12
The picture from Columbus that accompanies this article tells you all you need to know. A man with a crude, giant sign designed to mute substantive discussion. Let's hope all of his pregnancies are successfully carried to term.
4
All you “pro life” people should be required to sign up for your desire to take on the responsibility of raising, feeding and educating the unwanted clumps of cells that are not a baby. You feel that strongly about it you pay for it.
10
Unsurprisingly, the usual mob of male anti-abortion zealots has landed here, screaming about "murder" and "genocide" and "humanity" and "God's Law."
Any woman who believes that a male anti-abortion zealot cares about her life, or her embryo's life, or the life of any child on earth that he didn't help produce is delusional.
Anti-abortion zealots believe in one thing: female slavery.
13
@camorrista - Or as I tend to call them, "guys who can't get anyone to date them."
4
Conservatives fighting for strict limiting (or altogether eliminating) abortions obviously have a strong desire to create system in many ways reminiscent of Chinese "one child" policy, that was targeted at reducing births. Chinese system involved registering pregnancies, officials checking if the pregnancy was lawful and so called "block committees", i.e. snooping neighbors, helping. Were are our liberties, our famous individualism and our dread of government deciding for us
6
As a supporter of the Federalism I believe was intended by the writers of the Constitution, I applaud both Vermont and Georgia. Not due to the content of either of the bills, but because the regulation of medical treatment should be in the province of the several states and not with the Federal government.
States have different problems, different ethos, and should be allowed to pass different solutions to their problems. The 10th Amendment was added for just that reason, giving the states the right to address any situation not explicitly given to the Federal government.
1
@mikecody - I appreciate your point of view, but this issue goes beyond medical treatment and into the realm of civil rights and those shouldn't be voted on at a state level.
12
When you filter out all the Catholic Agenda that drives this nonsensical abortion debate.......you are left with the practical, sound wisdom already set forth all thru the US justice system....time and time again..........as long as the fetus is attached to the mother......its part of the mother....and the mother has a right to whatever health care she chooses.....no matter what the Pope says.
It is truly sad to watch an overwhelming protestant Alabama allow itself to be so easily manipulated by the Catholic church....(I guess there's more catholics in French heritage Mobile than I thought.) Alabama would normally be focussed on more practical issues, like say education or actual health care and jobs.....but not so this year!
This will become the Scopes Monkey Trial of the 21st Century....and Alabama goes back to being the laughing stock of the nation.
7
If you didn't know, most of the U.S. Christian population is protastant, not Catholic
4
In Vermont, as in the rest of the country, infanticide is always illegal. Enough of this nonsense perpetrated by Donald Trump and religious zealots.
Nobody kills a healthy full term baby. Late term abortions happen because of threats to the mother's life or learning that the fetus has died or has a medical problem incompatible with life. Another right wing lie that is being magnified and now has a sorry life of its own. Pro-life? More like pro-lie.
23
@Nancy Braus
This is simply false. Even in the third trimester, the majority of abortions are elective, not medically necessary.
1
Happy for Vermont but remember New York passed the Reproductive Health Act earlier this year.
7
Bravo Vermont, Utah, & Colorado. U.S. Constitutional freedom of religion does not include freedom to outlaw the behaviour of those who don’t subscribe to any particular religion.
11
One thing is certain this is tragic all the way around.
From a libertarian (little "l") point of view the government has no business regulating what people should do with their bodies. From a human point of view the idea of unlimited abortion on demand is not a good idea after ten weeks or unless there's a risk to life or there are problems with the baby's development.
It is difficult to understand how reasonable and educated people do not see the human side of it. The reply that it is not human to "force a woman to have a baby they don't want" is not acceptable. At some point "pro choice" advocates will have to be willing to come to the table admitting that abortion on demand at any stage is not a human right and that a fetus beyond a certain point has its own human rights.
Until then the only reasonable thing is for states with a large segment of its population that wants to limit all abortions do so until some sort of human dignity is restored to this procedure. If other states populations wish to allow it then it is on their conscience to do that.
The irony is that the very group that most likely despises states rights is now depending upon that.
1
@JR. Do your homework. This hysteria wrapped around "execution of a fetus up to and after birth on demand" is a.ridiculous false statement. You have drunk the KoolAde, and.are the worse for it. No one is walking into Planned Parenthood at 9 months and saying--- Changed my mind, I want an abortion. What WE do see is the human factor, women with a wanted baby that is severely deformed, that died, that has no chance of life, being demonized for no fault of their own. The heartbeat of an adult woman is more.compelling to us than the faint blip of a non heart in a uterus before a woman might even know it's there. Surely this was written by a male, and an ignorant one at that. Educate yourself.
14
How is it that the authors overlooked New York State? NY signed into law the Reproductive Rights Act in Jan 2019 which protects a woman's choice regardless of what happens with Roe. After years of Republicans blocking protection, NY now has a Democratic Governor, House, and Assembly that approved this among their first priorities. Votes matter!
15
I love Vermont. I’ve notice that those websites listing the best and worse places to live in the USA always have Vermont near the top and Alabama at the bottom. Last in education, healthcare, quality of life etc. Oppressive state laws do nothing to improve the lives of its citizens.
18
The most logical and sensible decision that the US Supreme Court could promulgate is to declare that it is up to the individual state to decide I whatever means , legislature or popular vote.
3
@Mark Andrew
No, no, no. Roe v. Wade stipulated that the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment provides a woman's right to privacy, and thus protects her decision to have an abortion. Individual states have nothing to say about our rights. Nor should they. Unless you think it'd be ok if Alabama could still have slaves, or if only white men could vote in Georgia.
3
Message to younger generations
Hey, if you are under 30, this is YOUR future the gop is trying to destroy. You are not living comfortably in your parents's house anymore. Your country is trying to enslave you.
Get out on the streets and make your generations heard, the way your parents and grand parents made theirs heard.
Your futures are on the chopping block with the loss of our democracy.
Oh, please spread the word.
29
This is why we need Federal laws - it is unreasonable for a woman to be able to get an abortion in Vermont, but not Alabama. And by the way, did you see the video clip of the Alabama State Republican? Completely incoherent, inarticulate, and incomprehensible. These are the people who are regulating our lives. VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!
27
Women having control over their reproductive, sexual and health choices includes but goes way beyond abortion rights.
Limiting this legal partisan political sectarian debate to abortion aka choice is the essence of misogyny and patriarchy.
17
Vermont's efforts are commendable, but how do we help women in Alabama and Georgia? What really gets people attention is when you target their livelihood. It turns out that one of Alabama’s and Georgia's biggest exports is chickens—specifically, broiler chickens. I wonder if Costco buys many of its broiler chickens from Alabama. Whole Foods? What if a boycott were organized against Alabama’s and Georgia's broiler chickens?
And if other states, such as Missouri, enacted abortion restrictions we could target their biggest exports with boycotts.
29
@Alberto
What a great idea. Other states that raise broilers are Arkansas, No Carolina and Mississippi. Of course we don't know (yet) where they stand on abortion. Just Costco alone boycotting Alabama and Georgia would put a huge dent in their chicken sales.
8
@Alberto
I don't think boycotting broiled chickens is going to stop them from trying to protect unborn lives.
FYI: NPR reported the following on April 26, 2019.
"The Kansas Constitution protects a woman's right to an abortion, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday. The landmark ruling now stands as the law of the land in Kansas with no path for an appeal. Because it turns on the state's Constitution, abortion would remain legal in Kansas even if the Roe v. Wade case that established a national right to abortion is ever reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court." Anti abortionists will now focus on amending the state's constitution but the high bar for passage makes that difficult but not impossible. Women's rights advocates shouldn't be complacent though. Just wanted to let you know so we don't get overlooked in this fight and allow the religious right to have their way in a state that's already standing up for your rights.
37
as a moderate I find it hard to believe that unlimited late-term abortions partial birth abortions and infanticide after a viable birth qualify as pro-choice
2
@Bummero: These things don’t happen so you don’t have to believe them.
48
@Bummero
'Partial birth' abortions have been illegal across the country for many years.
No infant is killed after birth - no one wants to do it and even if they did, it's against federal law.
However if the infant has grave health issues (no brain, brain outside body, missing organs, etc) such that heroic medical intervention would be required to keep it alive, the decision as to whether to do so is up to the parents as it should be.
64
@Cal: You're absolutely right, the only thing is that I wouldn't call an infant with the birth defects you mention a "viable birth", as Bummero seems to imply. It may be a live birth, but not a viable one when the infant dies shortly after, sometimes after grievous suffering if it is not medicated with strong sedatives and painkillers.
5
As a Conservative this is the best thing to have happened. Finally we could say that liberals are actually pro abortion allowing us to use SCOTUS against the killing by making right to life a federal guarantee limiting abortion in all states.
4
@John Being “pro-abortion” and being in favor of the right to choose an abortion are two different things. And in any event, “liberals” are not just some monolithic bloc but have a wide variety of opinions.
12
Bless your heart! No one is pro-abortion so your comment highlights your not understanding the issue. To explain: women are human beings. And
women have agency to make decisions about their bodies. If you do not want an abortion, then don’t have one.
11
@John you know that’s not what Roe V Wade rules, right? It only said it’s unconstitutional for a state to ban abortion. If it is overturned, abortion laws will still be left up to the states.
6
I will be boycotting Vermont. There are many beautiful New England states in which to still chose to visit. This will be the one I cross off my list. They will not get my hard earned dollars.
3
Think again. Abortion rights in the New England states are some of the most protected in the nation, including three very beautiful states, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. Since I’ve written off the southern states, I’ll divert my vacation dollars to these locations. Fall should be lovely there this year.
74
KMW, better get ready to boycott all of New England, then. The educated populace of the Northeast will never allow anti-choice zealots to control their women’s rights.
79
Your Choice. And THAT'S the entire Point.
63
It's time to publish the facts of what it was like in the years before Roe v. Wade. Tell our stories. Explain the fears and struggles; reveal the ugly; describe the howls and blood and pain; show what we went through, when sometimes we didn't survive. It's time to shove the sights of those days in the faces of the anti-abortion busybodies. And watch them throw up.
32
@Rea Tarr. On behalf of my sister. Lived near Boston. Drove to Albany. At the clinic for an hour or two. It was painless and inexpensive. Paid for it with babysitting money. Back home the same evening. Oh what a horror!
1
@michjas - How nice for your sister. You seem to have missed the fact that it wasn't that easy for other women.
5
Back in 1973, we should have adopted a constitutional amendment creating a right to abortion. This whole ugly debate could have been avoided simply by allowing the people to govern themselves.
18
It is becoming more clear with each passing day that there are many states in our Union who have no respect for the Constitution or settled law. And, it is clear that the politicians leading the governments in those states have no interest in reasonable compromise. In Alabama (no surprise), no abortion exceptions even for rape or incest.
How about if we let those states just vote on seceding from the Union and let them go? All they need do is pay their portion of the bill on the nation's debt and head out on their own. Many of us, especially women, have had our fill with these right-wingers and would just like to live in peace for awhile.
25
@Tom Q
It would be good for the federal budget too. Inmorove health statistics etc
4
Protection of a woman's right to choose is one of the last good reasons to still vote for the Democratic Party. Ann Pugh was formerly my state representative when I lived in South Burlington, Vermont. Given Ms Pugh's iron-clad support for Lockheed's budget-busting F35 fighter jet & basing it in Vermont's most densely populated area, regardless of negative impact to health and home values of thousands of constituents, & how she & other military Keynesians like Jill Krowinski dominate VT Democrats, glad for them to at least be on the right side of this issue.
That said, the Democrats (including Vermont Dems) have purged the Bobby Kennedy '68 Democrats on issues of war and peace and intervention versus foreign countries that never attacked US soil (see Obama's continuation of Iraq; Afghanistan [even after killing Bin Laden]; & expansion of neo-con, intervention-first regime change to Libya, Syria, Ukraine, etc) They have purged the Frank Church Democrats on issues of abuse and overreach of the national security state (see Obama CIA Director John Brennan's lies about spying on US Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee & breaking into Senate computers; & Obama NSA Director James Clapper's lies about mass warrantless surveillance & zero accountability from Obama toward either). And they have purged the Barbara Jordan Democrats on issues of immigration reform, and no longer support any recommendations of the Jordan Commission, with exception of aid to Central America.
2
Fine. Let the abortion-lovers move to blue states, and let red states set their own policy.
2
@JackC5 That's almost right: what will happen is that people from red states will go to blue states to get their abortions. Which is the plan. If the red state legislators couldn't send their wives and daughters on a long "shopping weekend" to New York, none of those laws would have passed.
15
@JackC5 - Newsflash: no one “loves” abortion, but weird old white men and aggressive Christians love to limit the rights and healthcare decisions of others, namely women and the poor.
Abortion rights advocates want what pro-life people ostensibly say they want: fewer abortions. That is achieved through reliable contraception access, comprehensive sex education programs, policies that support babies and families, food and nutrition assistance and housing assistance programs for those in need, and access to quality healthcare services which, at times, can include abortion. All of the things I just mentioned are things that the pro-life camp has consistently campaigned against which, ironically enough, makes abortion rights advocates more pro-life than the pro-life people. But please, feel free to move to a red state if the blue state you’re currently occupying isn’t restricting the rights of others enough to suit you.
10
What happens when tests reveal a serious problem with the fetus where it would result in a baby with little chance of survival or severe health problems? Lawmakers in states like Alabama won't even concede then to an abortion? It's absolutely shocking and appalling that they would force a woman to carry an unhealthy fetus. Women must have the choice in this and any other situation where they feel they cannot continue with the pregnancy.
38
We cannot say "Yes!" to the Abortion for the dramatic cases of rape. Lawmakers have to write a new law about rape and its punishment.
3
Thank you, Sarah, for expressing so well what so many Americans hesitate to say out loud. I will only add the advice for everyone to go back to Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 ‘The Population Bomb’ & realize that the present concern about global warming is by no means recent. The planet is warming at an alarming rate & the cause is without doubt human fecundity. Oops, I was just about to utter a ‘profanity.’ A fetus is a person? I’ll bet it votes for our present executive.
11
& all these anti-abortionist don’t give a hoot about said baby once it’s born. They can’t call themselves Christians or even religious. If you think abortion is wrong don’t get one, but for the love of god, stop trying to force your beliefs & religion down my throat or my daughters’ throats. All women have the right to choose what to do with our bodies. With every other medical procedure it’s called “informed consent”, but they call an unviable clump of cells murder. It’s 2019 not 1920. Thank goodness for states like Vermont & IL who are actively working to protect women’s rights because #WomensRightsAreHumanRights
44
@MollyMarineJD
It's trendy to to try to paint Christianity as a religion that is all about oppressing women and only caring about unborn children, and not those already born. Unfortunately, this theological illiteracy is rampant. However, Christians like me do indeed care about children after birth, and want women to make their own reproductive descisions. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex. It's very simple: actions have consequences. Our objejction to abortion is that the mother's liberty infringes on the child's life.
If abortion is murder, why is it all right to murder a fetus created by rape or incest, or one that threatens the life of the mother? Anti-choice people can't have it both ways.
11
If the anti-choice crowd were serious, they might be interested in pre-natal care for the fetus and the mother, and post natal care for the baby and the mother. But they are not.
If the anti-choice crowd were serious, they would be concerned about rich women and girls going elsewhere for their procedure. But they are not.
The anti-choice crowd is simply interested in their self-righteous tag of being "pro-life". The fantasy matters, not the reality.
36
Much of it is more about Evangelical/Fundamentalist obsession with consequences and what they feel a person deserves for certain actions. I grew up in the thick of Evangelical Christians in the South. The mindset that people should be forced to endure consequences is present whether or not it's stated or even realized. A person has HIV/AIDS? Well, that's what they get. Pregnant? You shouldn't have had (especially extramarital) sex. It goes hand-in-hand with the Evangelical/Fundamentalist fascination with punishment.
23
@Topher S understand something.....the so-called "fundamentalist" has nothing to do with the Abortion Ban. Now...."evangelist"....overwhelmingly a catholic movement.....is all about banning abortions.
Stop and observe what has happened.....the entire abortion debate is being manipulated by the Catholic Church. Block that out, and the ridiculousness of choosing your leadership based on pro/con abortion becomes obvious.
If you disapprove of abortion, then, please, by all means.....dont have one.
7
I would guess Vermont is the most liberal pro choice New England state now with this bill. Massachusetts has a very active and strong right to life committee and has placed some abortion restrictions within the last few years. I am happy to say that the state of my birth still has people who cherish life issues. I happen to be a member so I know this as fact.
1
@KMW - Vermont has a low crime rate, we take good care of one another here and treat each other well. It's one of the better states when it comes to safety, wage quality etc. for women. Those are life issues.
5
@KMW. Then move to where you feel they have "pro life"--- ie FORCED BIRTH LAWS-- that comport with your notions. Free up space in liberal New York for those who believe in freedom, as was fought for here, many times, from 1775 to 1973 and 2019. We don't need you, we don't want you, perhaps Alabama does. Stop benefitting from MY tax dollars and OUR liberal laws and GO.
5
@DR Hear, hear!
3
Hurray for Vermont!
28
I am disillusioned with the Alabama abortion ban and have watched as the abortion rights have been battered over the last few years.
Perhaps with the strength that Vermont is proactively protecting abortion rights, the nation can rally to preserve those rights.
19
@greg Its a free country. there are 50 states and each is allowed to set its own rules. AN interesting note......"murder" is not a federal crime....nor is murder addressed in the Constitution...if Alabama is seeking to outlaw all abortions based on its absurdly out of context definition of "murder'.....then so be it.....Alabama will have to live with the consequences......not the rest of us.
1
Jed Zeplin
Unfortunately if a young girl gets pregnant by rape or incest in Alabama, she will have to live with the consequences. How about the men in Alabama and Georgia get vasectomies!
5
Vermont is dreaming. SCOTUS will not overturn Roe, they will establish when an unborn child becomes protected by the constitution. State constitutions won’t matter.
1
@Jay Nah. My prediction? They probably won’t even touch the cases at all.
1
My, how I love this place, with a citizen legislature that takes "of the people, by the people, for the people" to heart. Freedom and Unity: may the other 49 find their way to it too, and soon.
56
@Jeezum H. Crowbar
Agree! Each state should be free to set its own rules. That’s what democracy is all about. Local population decides what’s good for them.
2
@Jeezum H. Crowbar, haha, a citizen legislature that takes "of the people, by the people, for the people" to heart? Yes, if by "of the people, by the people, for the people," means military Keynesianism uber alles. They are a bunch of military industrial fanatics who support Lockheed's budget-busting F35 fighter jet and basing it in Vermont's most densely populated area, regardless of negative impact to health and home values of thousands and thousands of people. US Air Force says F35 is 4 times louder than the F16's and the F35's new "not suitable for residential use" zone impacts the least powerful, most vulnerable people, like working poor; working class; elderly; immigrant refugees, etc. Very demographics Democrats pretend to care about. Vermont Democratic Party under Peter Shumlin and Shap Smith (and nationally, during Obama's 2nd term) unfortunately has gone off the rails. Sue Mintner and Christine Hallquist both deserved to lose to Phil Scott because both tried to avoid the F35 issue. Their silence on it was deafening. James Ehlers was a better candidate (versus Hallquist). Happen to agree with Democratic Party on the issue of pro-choice but to pretend that Vermont is about "freedom and unity" is silly.
1
My pro-choice position started when I was a teenager, and a girl in my older brother's class, who had just turned 17, couldn't have a safe and legal abortion -- it was 1964 -- so she went to some butcher who got rid of the fetus, but in the process mutilated that poor girl. By the time she got to the hospital, the surgeon had to perform a hysterectomy to save her life. I still remember the shock, grief, and disbelief that went through the neighborhood when the news got out. What should have been, and later became, a simple procedure -- as it was for me years later -- became major and life-changing surgery for her. My heart sinks to think we might go back to those times. Anti-abortion activists must not believe that many women will do almost anything to end an unwanted pregnancy.
80
@gramphil
Several recent episodes of the BBC show 'Call the Midwife' have addressed this topic (this season in the show is 1964) with honesty and sensitivity. All those who want to go back to those days should watch it. All those who don't want us to go back to those days should watch it too. On PBS. Last year, the show tackled the thalidomide issue, which was much more serious in the UK than in the US. Remembering that this was long before the ability to 'see into the womb' via ultrasound, and anomalies might not be suspected until the actual delivery . . .
26
Historically, the possibility of pregnancy has been used to oppress women. It’s the basis of discrimination, inequality, the wage gap, & lack of educational access. Before Roe, they humiliated women by putting them on public trial on the front page of the paper... that is if they were lucky enough to survive. Drs told women they had to sign “Dying Declarations” or I’m (the dr) walking out & letting you bleed to death. The police departments came after drs for saving women’s lives after they had received failed back ally coat hanger attempts. That’s where “Dying Declarations” came from. The police also came after the men who were “responsible for your (pregnant) condition”. Sometimes, as punishment for being “loose” the drs let the women bleed to death anyways after signing one of those humiliating Dying Declarations which btw got really graphic like how far apart were your legs? What devices were stuck where? How many women would still be anti-abortion if they knew the history behind it especially if they knew the plan all along was to control women & make examples out of those who chose to live free?
19
@gramphil And it could have been worse: she could have been prosecuted, and would have been under Georgia's law.
10
Our state is one of the least religious while Alabama is one of the most religious. Just a coincidence, I guess.
42
@Mike
It is just a power (votes) maneuver
3
Aaaaaand, of course, the Susan B. Anthony List God-botherer lady just had to use the term "Democrat" as opposed to "Democratic" as a modifier. I'd laugh at how stereotypically lock-step they are in parroting their GOP/FoxNews talking points if it weren't all so, so tragic and inhumane.
32
Another legacy bestowed by Trump that may permanently divide the country. Somewhat reminiscent of the country in the decades before the Civil War, when opinions became more and more polarized with tragic consequences.
With the selection of two Supreme Court justices, and with McConnell's help, Trump has now secured the unwavering loyalty of his 30% bedrock Evangelical supporters at the expense of the majority views of the US.
27
New resident of Vermont here, and I'm overjoyed with our decision to relocate to the beautiful Green Mountain State.
54
@A
Welcome! May you find peace & purpose in these green hills.
16
@A - Welcome. It's a wonderful place to live.
5
@A Welcome!!!
4
I think all involved in the abortion debate should actually witness an abortion. It's hard to have an informed viewpoint on a subject if you don't know exactly what it is.
3
@David S. Hodes, MD
I don't need to watch a heart transplant either if it saves a life.
25
@David S. Hodes, MD
At which point do you recommend that? Where abortion is legal, the usual time frame is within the first trimester. A fetus is not able to live outside the womb. And, why should anyone witness an abortion? Is this an attempt to make the discussion even more histrionic than it is? Perhaps there should be documentaries made showing the lives of those who could not get an abortion, so the woman had an unwanted baby. A woman who had planned to go to college was at home caring for a baby at the age of 17 or 18. There was no father or support system other than the State. If adoption is an option, the baby has to be carried to term for 9 months. Does the girl live in a home for unwed mothers for 9 mos.? Even if a childless couple pays for the pregnancy and all costs, the girl pays the cost of an unwanted 9 mo. pregnancy and a birth. You will never be pregnant, Dr. Hodes. You will never be forced to perform an abortion; however, you feel free to require that girls and women witness an abortion. How will you arrange that? Will you ask one of your cohort to allow a witness to an abortion?
25
@David S. Hodes, MD
How about those of us who have had abortions share our experiences? I'd volunteer.
21
Go Vermont!
Hope other states follow your example.
26
The states are growing apart, and these laws will exacerbate that. It’s sad to say Lincoln had it all wrong, but it’s never been clearer that we ARE, and always will be, a house divided. Thus divorce is a reasonable, logical course to pursue. We have nothing to gain from this bitterness that is being wrought. It’s not good for the kids, either.
So let’s jettison the red states and let them have it their way for their own. It seems they just need more time to evolve, but there is no reason the blue states have to be dragged down any longer. Enough is enough. The red states have made it abundantly clear they hold us in contempt. We all would be fools to torture ourselves any longer.
29
@Matthew; Well said. How gratifying that you are a fellow New Jerseyan. I have always been mystified at the glorification of President Lincoln. Had he jettisoned the racist, anti-democracy South, we could have had a border wall between the Union and the Confederacy, which would have become a third world country without all the subsidies given the red states by the blue ones. And 600,000 would not have died needlessly, not to mention all the amputees.
5
@Matthew if only!
1
My advice is if your against abortion then don't get one. If your religion is against family planning and abortion then go ahead and have all the children you can produce but don't ask the tax payers to foot the bill, ask your church. Pro life people are really anti baby because once the child is born they abandon it. They want to provide no medical coverage, no housing help, no food help and poor education and no college. What is their point?
86
@Thomas Renner
Your first sentence says it all.
4
Roe vs. Wade will probably not be repealed, although it might ultimately be diminished.
Pro abortion fanatics have brought this backlash upon themselves with their unabashed campaigning for uninhibited taxpayer-funded abortions and their duplicitous "women's health" rhetorical facade.
3
@C Nelson
The Hyde Amendment specifically forbids the use of Federal funds to pay for abortions, except in the case to save the womans life, or if the pregnancy arises from rape or incest.
It's really not so hard to look this stuff up, but the Pro-embryo campaigns keep spreading these falsehoods..
So there is no such thing as "taxpayer-funded abortions" except as noted above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment
21
@C Nelson
I have paid taxes for 60 years; I have no problem paying for health care; I have no problem with my taxes supporting a medically necessary abortion, including psychiatric diagnoses. I would prefer that my taxes do not go towards caring for more unwanted, neglected, and possibly abused children. There are serious medical issues with babies born to addicts. We have enough children whose only decent meal is a school lunch. We have enough female children who are victims of sexual assault. Finally, I went to H.S, with two girls who left school before graduation, pregnant. Their lives were forever changed at the age of 16.
36
@Linda Miilu
Your equivocations are reasonable and should be part of the debate, in my opinion.
As for the rest of your comment, I’m sure most will agree that it’s cheaper and easier to kill our children than to raise them to maturity.
Alabama, Missouri, Ohio...etc. why does it seem like your still stuck in the dark ages?
Since you declared that a women should have no right over her body . I guess you determined women are not capable of making there own choices , effectively removed their right to vote on what becomes of themselves as they reaches puberty.
Why stop at abortion? How about their rights at finances, inheritance or land . Let’s make it illegal for having extramarital sex , Birth control pills , a separate bank account...etc.
10
@cal I think that was called the 1950s. Trust me, these conservative judges and lawmakers will not stop with Roe v Wade. Expect EEO guidelines to be obliterated, same sex marriage, voting rights, etc., etc.
10
I had a dear friend who got pregnant in a mid-west state that barred abortion back in the 70s. She called me in NYC for help. I felt terrible because I do not believe in abortion but her alternative was worse and I arranged for the procedure in an NYC hospital. It is not an easy decision for any woman and can not imagine being in those shoes. I support women's rights across the board.
36
@robert - Thank you so much for helping your friend so many years ago. You helped her in her time of need even though it wasn’t a step you personally agreed with. You did what was best for her. You were a good friend and a good man.
16
@robert
The alternative... of not killing the child?
It should be possible, in every state, for a woman seeking an abortion to get a prescription for RU-486 from her doctor, privately. It is no one's business that a woman has sought and received such a prescription. The right to lifers have no business knowing who, when or why such an event has occurred. Privately, a doctor, or a nurse practitioner at Planned Parenthood, or its like, should be able to prescribe and render assistance, as required, for a completely private transaction. Thus, no snooping busy-body should be aware of this completely private matter, between a woman and her chosen health care provider. No government should be permitted to authorize or not authorize such an event. It is not relevant even how many such procedures occur in any given time period. Complete privacy should be de rigueur. All caring and thoughtful proponents of a woman's right to choose should be working for this policy change. When will this simple solution be available to women in this country? To not have this option means some government owns the right to a woman's body, or a woman's health care options. This is fundamentally not right in a society that promotes freedom of choice, which in many aspects of life in America, is a myth. Someone always wants to tell you how to live, what to do, what to think, and what to do with your own body. Hey Vermont, make this change a part of your program.
36
Sigh. I fear there is never going to be resolution of this issue as long as the two sides seemingly cannot find any common ground on which to have a debate.
For people who are pro-choice, the issue is a woman's ability to control her own body. The law should not inhibit women from making their own health care decisions.
For people who are pro-life, a fetus is not part of a woman's body, and therefore abortion is killing a human life. The law should not allow for a human life in the womb to be killed.
Where is the middle ground in this debate? The two sides seem irrevocably irreconcilable. The so-called "moderate" position is framed somewhat like the so-called "moderate" position on firearms: The right to abortion or to own firearms should be subject to "reasonable restrictions." This doesn't work for the abortion debate any more than it does for the firearms debate. Both sides are dug in, claiming that any concessions will lead to a "slippery slope" in one direction or another.
Woe to the moderates who are able to see both sides and, more importantly, *show compassion* to individuals who have genuine convictions regarding women's rights and the sanctity of nascent human life.
5
@Metaphor. The difference is that the "pro-life" people are using a (religious) belief to support their case, while the other side does not. Hence, they are telling pro-choice people that they have to follow their beliefs.
31
@Metaphor
The middle position is each individual makes their own choice. It’s the Solomonic answer.
10
@Metaphor - The common ground should be sex education and affordable, available birth control but conservatives don't support these things.
4
Why are laws forcing a woman to bear a child are not prohibited as ‘involuntary servitude’ by Amendment XIII?
23
@g m
Because Conservatives do not believe women have rights, that The Bill of Rights apply to a non-sentient blob of cells, but do not apply to women.
22
Roe will not be overturned. The Supreme Court will simply not take any of these cases of restricting or expanding abortions. They, and the federal courts can simply decide not to decide.
Then, it will be left up to the states.
As it should have been in ‘72. This is the only possible compromise on this issue.
Yes, poor women would suffer most, and if as much money were spent by private citizens on helping those women as has been and will continue to be spent on the struggle for reproductive rights, there might be a chance that 10 years from now this issue will have ceased to be the seed for the most divisive political force since slavery.
4
@Cold Eye
Do you honestly believe that the money going to fight these laws is enough to raise every unwanted child in the USA from birth until adulthood?
7
Gratis,
Yes.
We should re-institute homes for unwed mothers to insure pre- and neo-natal care.
Orphanages would be better than what a lot of kids get on the street. It would be cheaper than what we have now, too.
@Cold Eye I’m intrigued. If they don’t hear the cases, that would leave Roe intact, no? And that means, per Roe, it’s still unconstitutional for a state to ban abortion.
3
People need to wake up. Elections have consequences and what has happened in these southern states have been slowing happening for years. When people who are pro choice don't vote they allow politians who are anti-womens' rights to get in office and change established legislation. We hand the ball to the Republicans every time we don't vote resulting in us having to fight for what is our right again and again. We need to regain the Senate and as well as the presidency. We need to get fair and impartial judges appointed. We need to vote in every election for every local, state and federal office all the time, without fail.
18
The Vermont law, H.57, says that "a public entity shall not deprive a consenting individual of the choice of terminating the individual’s pregnancy". The provision has no restrictions. It seems to me that it protects a woman's right to choose to n abort her pregnancy 1 second before going into labor.
2
@michjas
Please cite proof of what the law in Vermont allows.
2
@michjas
Removing a fetus one second before a woman goes into labor would no doubt result in a bouncing baby boy or girl. Rethink.
12
@michjas As a practicing physician in Vermont, I can attest than any late abortions are exceedingly rare and go before ethics committees etc before proceeding. Enough with the fear mongerinf and rhetoric. You know not of what you speak.
17
It's gotten to be at least a weekly - if not a daily - occurrence, but once again I find myself embarrassed to be an American. All the things that are going on in this country and this world, all the things that desperately need fixing, all the legislation at federal, state and local levels that desperately needs writing, and still we're mired in this stupid country in this ridiculous abortion fight. Thank you, conservatives, for wasting everyone's time with your mindless obsession over this issue. What is wrong with a person who would continue - in 2019! - to try and usurp a woman's right to control her body and destiny? How mired in blind fealty to some absurd notion that everybody has the right to interfere in another free American's private life would you have to be to insist on continuing this? Will you people please just stop this madness? You're not going to win, and the best you can hope to "accomplish" - a term I use loosely in this application - is that America will force poor women to have babies they can't care for while women with adequate finances will just go somewhere more enlightened - another state, another country - to get the abortion they have every right to obtain. Do the abortion zealots EVER stop to think about how ridiculous all of this is? It beggars belief that we're still doing this. The very definition of insanity.
118
Check out the words of Mississippi Federal Judge Reeves regarding MS's proposed ban and the one he shut down 6 months ago. Will make you feel better.
2
Amen
3
@Sarah Hear, hear!!! Could not have said it better, thank you.
3
Surely not all the anti-abortion crowd are hypocrites, but those who demand a child pregnant as a result of rape or incest carry the fetus to birth and then ignore the needs of both "mother" (sorry, the word means so much more than having birthed an infant) and child deserve the label as examples of the very definition of the word. Now an atheist, I do remember being taught, by the preachers in the fundamentalist sect I was hauled to 3x/wk, that, if there is one sin God does not forgive, it is hypocrisy.
40
Impregnating a child, whether or not you are related to her IS rape.
12
@Glen
God is all-forgiving. If you wish to attack religion, at least be theologically informed.
@Glen
They are all, each and every one, hypocrites, to try to tell other people how to live their lives. That is the hypocrisy.
2
A states right view of abortion is the path to a divided nation as surely as slavery was before the Civil War. I applaud Vermont and every state that affirms a woman’s choice, but Roe vs Wade must stand because a country divided can’t survive any more than it could in 1860.
51
Red states disagree in exactly the opposite way, so....
3
@Matthew
They should have been allowed to secede. Now, they live with a lot of poverty, poor schools and a continuing need for Federal tax support for families on welfare. We should not be surprised that Alabama and Mississippi want to add more children to an already stressed system. Federal tax dollars for welfare are factored in to their State budgets.
6
@Matthew
So we'll win again. I'm up for it.
2
The term "pro-life" has a pleasing ring; it sounds positive.
In effect, however, it masks ugly coercion.
"Anti-abortion" would at least be an honest description of those who demand state interference in the reproductive decisions of private citizens.
41
@John Briggs Better still, let's clarify that no one wants an abortion- it's not a recreational activity! No one is pro-abortion. What rational people recognize is that the choice must be left to the woman whose body is involved. Hence, 'pro-choice' still works best.
21
I prefer the movement to be named “forced-birther”.
23
I think "anti-choice" is a fine moniker for people who agree with total- or near-total bans on abortion.
Pro-choice individuals may personally, even religiously, be anti-abortion, but they understand that others and other mainstream
religions and ethical codes frame things differently.
The supporters of AL-type bans, however, don't want to give anyone a choice but instead want to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else, contrary to the 1st Amendment and plain ordinary good neighborliness.
12
Thank you, NYT, for covering this story. Next time, please remember R.I., where sponsors have worked for years to enshrine Roe protections and remove outdated laws.
This year, the Democratic House finally did so, defying its own Speaker, but somehow the Dem Senate couldn't find committee votes to do the same. Four Dem men voted "no", and the full story is even worse than that.
There's still hope and sponsors are courageous, but time is running out. Meanwhile, near total silence from the Dem. Senate President, Lt. Gov., Gov., and State Party.
Gotta wonder.
24
I suggest an out of the box solution. Federal law as things currently stand discriminate against women who choose to end their pregnancy and have an abortion regardless of the reason, denying them government subsidies and support that is automatically given to women who choose to carry a fetus to term and give birth. This violates the principle of equal protection under the law by placing the former at a financial and legal disadvantage vis-a-vis the latter. That lawsuit should be brought in federal court and in courts in the states that deny government subsidy to the former while providing it to the latter. In other words, attack the Hyde Amendment as a violation of the equal protection clause. As a back up, Democrats in the House should introduce legislation that denies federal subsidies for prenatal care in states that deny subsidies for women seeking abortions and/or pass restrictive abortion laws that are clearly violate Roe v. Wade. State legislatures in state where Democrats are in the majority should do the same at the state level. Decisions regarding procreation are as much an equal protection issue as they are a freedom of religion issue. Give the courts — and legislators — something else to think about. Backers of access to abortion that’s safe, therapeutic and affordable need to get back on the offensive.
11
@John A. Figliozzi
Yes, the mother who carried to term deserves benefits. The mother who chose to kill her child obviously doesn't have to care for him/her.
@John A. Figliozzi
" As a back up, Democrats in the House should introduce legislation that denies federal subsidies for prenatal care in states that deny ..."
Well geez, talk about punishing the victims!
How I love my little state, caring & compassionate & sensible.
Come on up for some fresh air, a little goes a long way in these ghastly dismal trump days.
145
@moosemaps
I believe Vermont is what most Americans wish their little slice of this nation wish America was, as long as they could stay where they are.
12
@Glen
Have you met your neighbors?
@moosemaps - Indeed. It was tough for me to leave California but I have grown to love Vermont, especially in these troubled times.
3
Yet another reason to move to or at least visit gorgeous Vermont and to buy Vermont products, eat Vermont foods, and do business with Vermont-based companies.
In other good news:
Federal Court in MS poised to strike down its recentabortion law. Just 6 months ago, The Honorable Judge Reeves also struck down MS legislature's 15-week limit on abortion, calling the legislators' alleged interest in promoting women's health via that law "gaslighting."
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/05/21/politics/abortion-mississippi-six-week-ban/index.html
52
Why do we let the anti-abortion crowd get away with calling themselves "pro-life" when they are only truly supportive of life before it's born?
65
@Jeannine Robinson Why do we let the pro-abortion crowd get away with calling themselves "pro-choice" when they are only truly supportive of a life after it is out of the birth canal?
1
@Mystery Lits how does that make pro choice people not pro choice? The analogy doesn’t hold.
4
Federalism at work
4
There may very well be an abortion war between the pro life and pro choice factions. It will be conservative vs. liberal. This is turning out to be the most contentious issue at this moment. This will probably carry over into the 2020 elections. It will be the pro life Republican Party vs. the Democratic pro choice party. This will be a very heated debate and it may even head to the Supreme Court. This could turn ugly and hopefully there will be no violence. It will be anything but dull.
1
@KMW, what is really sad is that the Democratic Party chose to sacrifice this issue; sacrifice the Supreme Court, etc. because Hillary Clinton and the Democrats refused to just go back to the Barbara Jordan center on immigration. They chose immigration as the hill to die on in 2016. Hillary Clinton's awful support for the Iraq War aside, Trump would likely not have gained traction if they had simply been more moderate on immigration.
1
@KMW - Democrats will win. Most of the U.S. is pro choice.
btw, Democrats are the one with a proven track record of helping to prevent unplanned pregnancies and reducing the number of abortions.
1
Good work Vermont. Boycott Alabama. Actually that's not to hard to do.
148
Finally, rational politicians are standing up for women and honoring patient confidentiality! Thank you!
90
To answer the “right to life” lady, there is very much a point in a state declaring its pro choice position. In some Supreme Court cases, the judges look to the prevailing sentiment to find rights, most recently (if dishonestly) to find a constitutional right to own guns. There is every reason for a state to say that there rights are not dependent on Roe but are rooted in its citizens’ belief that the rights are natural and unalienable.
34
If lawmakers threaten to overturn abortion bans, it is only feasible that lawmakers can overturn extreme abortion rights bills. We are bound to have some pretty nasty fights in the courts. Fasten your seat belts folks it is going to be a bumpy ride.
2
@KMW
Please define "extreme"
5
If worse comes to worst, you can drive to Canada.
Our good neighbors in Vermont are,again, doing the right thing.
Go North, young woman, to the true North, strong and free.
106
@Skiplusse
If you're poor, if you're raped and underage, if you don't have a car or even a license, you can't go to Canada. Or Vermont. Back in 1962 a nurse told me about an abortion that was performed in a NYC hospital. It was illegal, but the doctors did it anyway, because the patient was 13 years old and had been raped by her grandfather. What would a child like that in certain Southern states do now?
18
Reproductive autonomy as a right...has a nice ring to it.
68
@CC
The right to life, as guaranteed by Article 3 of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, has a nice ring to it as well.
2
@CC - The KS Supreme Court (with just one dissenter) just ruled that the KS Constitution protects "bodily autonomy" for all, and therefore protects a woman's right to choose. In response, the far right legislature immediately began drafting a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. They say they hope to put it on the ballot in 2020, and seem to believe they'll get 2/3 of the voters to approve it. I'm betting they're wrong.
28
@Anonymous - There is no right to be born.
17
We need legislation that gives a mandatory testing and posting of results of that test for the public to see how Congresspeople do on a biology test.
We have people writing legislation based on their ignorant and lazy interpretations of a local fundamentalist pastor who in no way represents American women, fathers, doctors or healthcare providers. This is back-door state religion which is prohibited by the Constitution.
Also why not a DNA Registry posting for males who are the other half of a pregnancy? Privacy issues should run both ways.
75
The easiest way to reduce the number of abortions is to provide free or low-cost modern contraception (IUD implants and LARCs) to poor women; this solution also has the added benefit of reducing welfare to poor mothers and their dependent children by tens and hundreds of millions when implemented.
Of course Republicans would never support such common sense in reducing teenage pregnancies and reducing abortion rates.
They'd rather thump their bibles and force poor women to bear children and healthcare expenses they can't afford.
Logic, reason, and cause and effect have never been strengths of the rabid, religiously-concussed right-wing.
D to go forward; R for Christian Shariah Law.
Remember in 2020.
146
@Socrates
I am going to assume that you are male and have never had the experience of an IUD insertion, or the panic of a pregnancy due to its failure. The original idea for the IUD came from the Middle East, where camel drovers would insert a smooth, rounded rock into the uteri of female camels (not exactly sure how they managed to get said camels to hold still for that!) in order to prevent them getting pregnant on caravan trips.
Now, IUD's are being strongly promoted but they are not that great, or that safe as they can serve as conduits (via the string that hangs down through the cervix) for infection and they do sometimes fail. Other downsides include very heavy periods, cramping, and the occasional stray IUD that ends up migrating into and sometimes through the uterine wall. Some women tolerate them well, more simply tolerate them, and quite a few women have very bad experiences. I really have to wonder how many males would put up with IUD's (or would even consent to having one inserted in the first place). Being a poor woman does not mean being the equivalent of a camel !
9
@Socrates Or force men to get vasectomies?
13
@irene, IUDs are (1) highly effective, and (2) not for everyone. They're not for me, for example. I had an adverse event from an IUD. But I would never not advocate for their rightful place amongst the preferred options for highly effective medically prescribed contraception. There is risk to all methods of contraception - indeed, there is risk inherent for ALL types of medication. Statistically, more women have success with IUDs than not. If not, then other methods will have to be considered. But even given my own negative experience with an IUD, I still am a strong advocate for their use.
14
There is a total lack of self-awareness that this obscene and totally immoral bill helps the pro-life crowd make it's case. You can now legally abort a fetus that could easily survive outside the womb. What were they thinking?
4
@Erik
In Canada there is no law restricting abortion since the Supreme Court's decision in the Morgentaler case. We would never abort a viable fetus, but would deliver a baby in the case of danger to the mother's life, in which case every care would be provided for that baby.
I believe the situation is most likely to be the same in the US, and that to suggest that near term babies are murdered is yet another lie propagated by the anti-choice brigade, intended to shock
56
@Erik
No, what were the Pro-embryo crowd "thinking" when they kicked over this hornets nest?
Women don't want men, interfering with the most private medical decisions, they make with their Doctors.
Women , particularly victims of rape or incest, don't want the State to force them to become incubators for the State, with no personal decision or input into what happens in their bodies.
Read the Handmaids Tale, where a theocratic Government forces fertile women to become incubators for the State of Gilead. That is what Alabama is heading towards.
19
@Erik
How do you know that. Legal abortions are within the first trimester; the embryo is not a fetus. Legal abortions after that time frame are due to a medical necessity, usually involving the life of the mother. A woman who carries a baby beyond the first trimester intends to have a baby; if an abortion is done, that is not a choice to abort a wanted baby, it is a choice to save a living adult woman. It is also done, rarely, due to a severely malformed fetus, unable to live long past birth. The baby suffers until death.
11
Extremism currently rules in this country – thus making issues like abortion and the right of women to control their own bodies nearly impossible to address – so you have Alabama and Vermont making their stand – along with their ideological allies.
All out war, rather than compromise and respectful governance will destroy us. I'm not sure how long we can venture down this path before we destroy the country. Pitiful fools is what we're becoming. This needs to stop!
8
Some rare good news in this fight. Perhaps a sign that supporters are no longer interested in bending over backwards to define to procedure as "heart wrenching" or "tragic", and are instead making the case that safe and legal abortion is a force for social good.
53
@Anonymous it's high time men started taking more responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancies. These laws only target women-- shall we make it illegal to impregnate a woman that isn't your wife? Sex has to have consequences after all.
31
Without consequences? Abortion is a consequence. Parenthood is a consequence. If you are going demand consequences for carefree intercourse, let’s talk about adulterers. What kind of punishment for those people who made a promise, a vow, a contract to their spouse on their wedding day (sometimes before “god”). When you do, let me know how you’re going to punish Donald Trump. I’d buy a ticket to that.
26
That’s the issue with the religious right. They want to control women’s sex lives. That’s really the issue. They could care less about the child!
14
Regardless of ones view on the abortion issue (and a middle ground appears impossible), I've never understood why the decision is based on privacy rights. It's always seemed like weak legal reasoning. If it were based on personal autonomy, ie individual freedom rights, it would make a lot more sense.
And for better or for worse, the current Supreme Court is going to strike it down.
6