Why are we letting these deceptive, dystopian "morality police" dictate what is in the "best interest" of women? They have an agenda that is oppressive, based upon lies and false medical knowledge, and advocated by misogynist men who have no right to do so.
When these flaccid men stop making women pregnant against their wishes or their ability to, either medically or financially, support an additional life, and when they themselves must bear the burden of being pregnant, perhaps I will listen to their arguments - such as they are. That is certainly not the case and this is not 1984 (in the Orwellian sense).
Abortion is a multifactorial decision, often involving the survival of the mother. Decisions about it are as personal as they get and should be made BY THE MOTHER and no some Neanderthal politician thinking about golf and lunch, nor by a faux-religious busy body who cannot even prove the rationale of that which he/she worships and uses as a power play to control a flock of zealots.
The SCOTUS must leave laws as they stand and permit INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS, banning any governmental body from restricting the privacy and freedoms of women!
27
Since 30-50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage and since God controls everything (according to evangelicals) the biggest provider of abortions in the world is God. Shouldn’t the GOP be moving quickly to stop all financial support for God and start punishing all institutions who support God? Just saying....
21
As of 9:00 AM on Tuesday, March 3rd, and with 609 comments listed, all ten of the NYT Picks are in favor of Roe vs Wade, even though the Roe, Norma McCorvey, of the case later said:
I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. 'Norma', I said to myself, 'They're right'. I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth—that's a baby! I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception'. It wasn't about 'missed periods'. It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion—at any point—was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear.
Most of the arguments in favor of abortion being unrestricted are
really about whether a woman can be forced to conceive a child.
Why is the NYTimes is so biased against those who question abortions ?
37
As a scientist I am puzzled by those who attempt to lay claim to being "health professionals" while violently resisting common sense measures to empirically inform women of what a developing embryo is.
Intellectual honesty demands employment of science's most advanced tools in discerning the most critical question humans encounter; "what is life and does a life deserve an opportunity to live?"
No authentic "health professional" would argue a developing embryo is not a human being; three-dimensional ultrasound established this fact beyond cogent doubt.
While primitive fuzzy black and white ultrasound has been around since the 1950's, three-dimensional images clearly show unique facial features, unborn children sucking their thumbs and even twins hugging one another.
Beyond establishing the individuality of the child, ultrasound technology offers a host of medical benefits. A Doppler ultrasound, for example, helps us to study the circulation of blood through the umbilical cord between the the child and placenta.
Discarding scientifically established fact in favor of promoting a political agenda is akin to belonging to the Flat Earth society; one simply makes oneself out to be a 21st Luddite.
6
I have a problem with viewing abortion as a right. Right is universal. Can we make killing a universal right, for example? There is also an interesting and gratuitous comparison between having an abortion and pulling a tooth out. These are not the same things. One does not kill life when pulling a tooth out. Finally, the editorial makes constant references to poor women. Should one understand that the editorial suggests that we should limit births particularly among poor women because we do not want them to bring more poor people into this world? Something does not add up in this editorial. We need to rethink our attitude to life, sex and sexuality. The loose and irresponsible sexual morality promoted by elite culture may be the main culprit here.
6
The Democrats must not get any where near the White House. If we ever get a Democrat as President, there will be no safeguards left on abortion. All the limits that were placed by the Republicans, will be wiped away. There will be no protections left and abortions will increase. Abortion on demand and up until birth will be allowed without any restrictions. This must not happen as it would be a travesty. We should all worry.
3
Opposition to abortion is a purely secular endeavor. God clearly is not involved in saving the children or babies. Proof? The infant mortality rate did not budge from 30 to 50 percent until the 1940s when humans invented vaccines and other health improvements.
Roe was decided by Supreme Court justices who grew up before vaccines, who lost baby brothers and sisters to diseases no matter how hard mom prayed for a miracle cure. They were mostly religious, but their life experiences taught them that God didn’t get involved with keeping babies alive. They saw anti abortion laws as an outgrowth of Victorian secular philosophy and nothing to do with God or religion.
6
I fully support the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. It's a life issue of protecting the life of an unborn child. I wish my fellow conservatives would speak to caring for women in crisis pregnancies more and highlight organizations that help families in need after having a child. I don't want the government to do this, but local communities should. Conservatives should be talking a lot more about this and not just about overturning Roe vs. Wade. The lives of BOTH the mother and child are sacred.
4
@Ben W
You don't think my life is sacred if you're willing (eager, really) to treat me as if I have fewer rights than a dead body.
26
Can any member of the Supreme Court even claim to be better educated than the average American? I don't think so and here is the proof that long precedes the current abortion issue: The Second Amendment was never intended to be used the way it has been for a most of the last century. The sole purpose of the Second Amendment was to make certain that the individual states retained a militia that could defend against any tyranny at the federal level. The founders never wanted to leave the states in a position where a dictator or king in DC could take total control of the nation. And you think you can trust any member of the Supreme Court today to have real knowledge and in turn to make more rational and fair decisions? I do not think so.
3
It’s pretty clear that we’re going to lose the right or access to abortion in the red states. We need to focus on how we can transport women who need abortions to blues states when the time comes. And we need to prepare to provide the abortion pill to women in the red states. When you consider all the stuff getting smuggled all over the place, it can’t be that hard to move abortion pills to the red states.
49
@EP
there is a program in Michigan I believe where women can get transportation to a clinic in another state. the women come from Illinois and other states. there are handful of women who have opened B&Bs to allow women to stay in the state of Michigan after the procedure.
there is a pill in Africa called mistoprosol and I cant remember the second drug. women are trying to ship it but many states are blocking women from getting those two pills. they have to be taken in two stages. so women in this country are having a hard time getting those meds.
6
Imagine the outrage if a majority of just five black women were to decide to make Viagra inaccessible or illegal for men (especially those white Republicans in Congress, the Supreme Court and the awful trump administration). That's what this feels like. And I'm mad, really mad that five white men can decide what's best for women reproductive health. We don't meddle in their sexual health and they need to keep their hands off our bodies and stay out of our bedrooms.
18
I am so tired of men calling the shots on women's health and reproductive rights! Get Trump out now!
21
SCOTUS is his court.
5-4 in favor of Trump, again.
5
Trump is not an issue here. With the Supreme Court, you have nine of the sharpest legal minds in this country, all Ivy Leaguers. What you have are six justices who have never had to menstruate on a monthly basis ( and took the eye rolling from the other gender for it), never felt the hurt from loss by miscarriage, or been emotionally devastated by a stillborn, likely never been raped or sexually assaulted, never had to worry if the seed donor would be there to support his child, and have never been overwhelmingly dominated politically (for almost 300 years since America's inception )or in houses of worship by white male culture. So, will these six justices recuse themselves for being so incredibly outside their swim lane or will they choose to keep women in their place?
15
As a follower of the Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer--who was murdered by Adolf Hitler and who opposed abortion--I will never make my point of view acceptable to the cultural left in this country. It is represented thoroughly in this editorial comment and of course ignores all the moral, demographic, cultural and economic consequences of Roe v. Wade. And, yes, that decision has enormous ramifications in all those areas of the life--and death--of the American people.
Meanwhile, the next time I hear the editorial board of this newspaper decry the horrible gulf of cultural and political divisions in this country, my mind is going to ask each of you to look in this mirror. Millions of Americans continue to have doubts about the untrammeled legality of abortion and it is a massive cause of the massive divisions afoot in this country today--and a big cause of the adherence of millions of religious Americans to the Republican Party and, alas, even to this disastrous president. Tu Quoque, ladies and gentlemen.
3
I can not wait for the day when abortion is dead on arrival. I am sick of the left and there no values lifestyle and morals. There are NO Human Rights without the right to LIFE. Women need to start taking personal responsibility for their actions. If you want to have unprotected sex than take the personal responsibility that goes with it. As a gay man if I have unprotected sex and catch AIDS I have no one else to blame but myself and I can't escape the consequences. Women should not be allowed to do it either especially when we consider it is another life that is on the line because of their lack of personal responsibility. If You are raped than get to the hospital ASAP because its not only the idea you could get pregnant you can get AIDS and a whole slew of other diseases. Women need to be educated on taking responsibility for their lives. The immoral lifestyle we are living in the 21st century is destroying our society. Something Must be done.
4
Still the question that the GOP collectively refuses to answer.
If the GOP is successful, in repealing Roe v. Wade, how will the GOP prevent abortion-seekers, from flying to Italy, where even late-term abortions are safe and readily available, in hospitals which offer views of the Vatican?
Two suggestions for the GOP in this regard.
Outlaw the sale of pregnancy tests ( which can only be done by MD’s) and require all positive pregnancy tests to be registered with an office of the governor — with a follow up, to determine an actual birth (and prosecution, if no live birth was recorded).
Two. Pregnancy test all females, of child- bearing age (9-55) any time they leave the state, then retest them upon their return - to ensure they are still pregnant, or with their new baby.
Such a plan, by the GOP, would signal to every voter, that the GOP wanted to deny the option for an abortion, to all females— not just poor females who are the only ones that the GOP currently wants to force to give birth.
As it used to be, prior to Roe v. Wade, the wealthy could always obtain safe medically-performed abortions — only the poor had to abort, using their local plumbers, car radio antennas, coat hangers and bleach.
The GOP, if it must pander to one-issue abortion opponents, must make sure that it treats the wealthy and poor alike.
That’s the USA way.
4
@tom
"Women need to start taking personal responsibility for their actions. If you want to have unprotected sex than take the personal responsibility that goes with it"
You appear to be confused. A majority of women who have abortions were using protection during the month they became pregnant.
Having a child you do not want and cannot take care of is not responsible.
You also appear to forget that men get women pregnant. We do not impregnate ourselves.
How is an IUD failing the result of a woman's "lack of personal responsibility"?
"As a gay man if I have unprotected sex and catch AIDS I have no one else to blame but myself and I can't escape the consequences. "
Oh, is someone withholding drug therapy from you?
23
Except for John Roberts's regard for his place in history, there is no doubt that this court, with five men baptized in the Roman Catholic Church, is the American curia, not the American Supreme Court.
They intend as they have all their lives and throughout their public lives to accomplish that for which they were chosen by the Republican Presidents, Party and its Federalist Society that made them justices for this singular purpose.
They intend to reverse Roe v. Wade in its entirety. Only Roberts would or could temper their religious imperium and stop a complete end to the right of a woman to choose.
Even then, it would be in a compromise with his fellow Roman Catholic born justices to all but eviscerate the right of women to control their bodies and their reproductive choices.
Is this unjust, unfair, intolerant to say? No, it is the plain truth about Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kavanaugh and about Gorsuch above all, who is a baptized Catholic who worships in his wife's high church Episcopal faith but remains faithful in all ways to his born-into religion.
These are not judges but bishops in black robes.
From this court, when it comes to this issue, expect bad, really bad and be prepared to get the very worst.
There will be no civil law in their ruling. There will be doctrine masquerading as legal ruling.
12
All the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute aside, all those who posses a Y chromosone should recuse themselves from this decision. It does not concern them. That includes all the Y-chromosone carrying members of the Supreme Court.
Males do not understand, nor will they. Their biology is different. They are not subject to the burdens or concerns that arise when you realize you are pregnant. Only females find themselves in this unique position, and therefore are the only ones equipped to make this choice. All decisions - including Roe v Wade are invalid due to the participation of males in the decision.
The general population of the US consists of 50% females. Congress, which consists of 535 individuals, is only 17% female. We refer to our government as a representative democracy. But how can we make this claim when it is demonstrably refuted by the facts? Since there are only two choices, direct democracy and representative democracy, and direct democracy is impossible once the populous grows beyond a small size. The only option left is representative democracy, and if it isn't representative, then it isn't democratic.
Grow up. Realize we live in an oligarchy, specifically a patriarchy, and it cannot change unless we change to a lottery based election system. A government of our peers.
12
the question I can't understand is why so many women voted for trump who tramples all over their principles....doesn't make sense to me.
14
I thought is was the US Supreme Court? How deceptive of you to call it the Trump Court when he has only appointed TWO justices.
3
When Texas cut funding for family planning and passed strict abortion restrictions early in the last decade, the maternal death rate rose from 72 death (in 2010) to 148 deaths (in 2012) per 100,000 births.
Just think of any children born earlier to those extra 76 women, ones whose mothers died because of these laws. The anti-abortion crusade is a crusade against women.
16
If TRAP laws were honestly about protecting women's health (not a chance,) they could contain a corollary requirement, outlining objective criteria by which hospitals would be REQUIRED to grant admitting privileges, such as education, board certification, etc. This would satisfy their putative concern for patient safety.
That they do not, instead empowering hospital boards to act as star chambers to prevent abortion access in their communities, tells you these laws are charades.
12
What about the right to life for the unborn baby? I’m tired hearing “it’s my body and my right alone to choose!” These decisions affect other lives, most importantly that of the unborn child! Moreover, many of these no-nothing “right to choose” people have the audacity to declare what’s moral or not in this politically correct society! I don’t think so!
Enough! It’s about time that SCOTUS revisit Roe v Wade, and at the very least get the Federal Government out from under what should be an issue for the States to decide.
3
@Bill Weber Amen! without the right to life there are no human rights!
2
Apparently, Mr. Weber, you, yourself, have the “audacity to declare what’s moral or not.” Well, I, also, don’t think so!
And it’s not an “unborn child”; it’s an unborn fetus. There’s a difference.
15
The hypocrisy here is my biggest issue. The same conservatives who believe that additional gun laws / restrictions won't prevent gun related crimes also believe that placing additional restrictions on abortion (or making it illegal altogether) will prevent people from getting abortions. History has already shown us this is simply not true.
9
Many years ago I made a promise to myself that I would never vote for or against any candidate solely or even partially based on their position on abortion. The subject just was not that important to me at the time and I was more worried about things like Soviet tanks on the German border and the future of NATO. It may well be time to reconsider that promise.
4
Get ready for the adverts for cheap abortions to flourish as they did prior to Roe v Wade. Coat hanger abortions carried out in unsterile back rooms and basements can all come back. Imagine being a frightened sixteen year old who got pregnant after being raped or badgered into submission by her boyfriend going to some filthy back alley to terminate a pregnancy that was forced upon her. It’s quite likely that that girl could become infected, have an incomplete abortion and bleed to death, rendered infertile for life, /or be psychologically damaged for the long term. These are not hypothetical outcomes, they happened often prior to the availability of safe access to registered facilities.
The heartlessness of those who presume to impose their will upon others is monstrous. The smug cruelty inherent in the anti- abortionists attitudes is without compassion. The rule that a woman, girl, child should be forced to watch & listen to an ultrasound & then wait 24 hrs to have an abortion is state sponsored torture. It isn’t unreasonable to ask who pays for these unnecessary roadblocks. The real cost is to the person that must endure this terror, one who may have no alternatives. I know there are those that think that carrying a child and then giving it up for adoption might be the right answer, but that, too, is torture. Simply keeping an unwanted, unplanned for child relegates a woman to a burdensome, 2nd class life. One should never presume to know what’s best for another.
13
It troubles me that so many comments are not so much about legal abortion and the practical/moral questions it raises, but are rants against religion. Many of the comments here go so far as to qualify (in my mind, anyway) as hate speech against religious people, ignoring the fact that the views of religious people are as diverse as those of the general population.
3
@Twisk
When people try to push their religious beliefs on others to the point of dictating the goings on inside of the bodies of others, yes, people get angry.
Religion can be a force for good. Unfortunately, as documented by history, it frequently becomes a tool to legitimize oppression.
18
This just another example of the partisan nature of the current court. Given the fact that one of the recent newly appointed Justices answered during his hearing that Roe v. Wade "was the law of the land", and if the court allows for this to be chipped away, then can a Justice be impeached for perjury before Congress?
I can't believe that the framers (and subsequent leaders), put so many checks limiting the powers of elected officials, but did nothing to prevent an out of control supreme Court.
3
Let’s define what Pro-Choice actually means.
My mother is a devout Catholic and Pro-Choice. Her mentality is she personally does not believe in abortion and would never get one. However, she does not feel that is her decision to make for anyone else. Her choice is to never get an abortion, mine may be different. Pro-Choice preserves freedom.
Ironic how the anti large government conservatives seem to love government intervention in abortion. “Freedom” everywhere but where it matters. The Biden/Sanders argument is irrelevant infighting. Vote blue no matter who if this matters to you.
21
I remember that the Chief Justice said that there were not republican or democrat judges in the Supreme Court, only judges. Why then call it the "Trump Court" in this article? As a veteran, I still have faith in the Constitution and the right of every citizen to act with the freedom that this sacred document has given to them. Trump does not respect any law, the Congress or the Constitution. This should be very obvious by now.
3
This is just the beginning.
Trump’s future appointments to the Supreme Court will doubtless be people of the caliber of A.G. Bill Barr, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Judge Roy Moore.
12
It’s not Trump’s Supreme Court.
It’s the Supreme Court of the United States.
And several presidents have placed members on it.
6
I am old enough (73) to have lived through both periods. The one were abortion was illegal, before 1973, and since. I can say with certainty, legal is better. When a woman needs an abortion, she will find a way to get one. Legal when available, illegal when not. I have friends who nearly died from illegal abortions, and some whose illegal abortions were done without problems. I myself had a legal abortion in 1976, at age 29, when the other party to this situation decided this wasn't his problem to deal with. So I dealt with it. As long as there are unintended pregnancies, there will be abortions. It's just a question of which kind they will be. Legal is better.
25
I think it is time that folks should read "The Cider House Rules" by John Irving for a taste of what the Republicans and the Evangelicals are promoting for the country. I read it 30+ years ago and still remember the graphic descriptions quite well. And the movie, as good as it was did not even come close to showing the barbarity of pre-Roe v. Wade. I have a head full of quandary: the distrust of Bernie and the push to alienate him as a radical and this assault on a woman's right to choose.
8
I hope the justice is consider the effects of a decision to support the appellate court rather than just fine legal points. The amount of morbidity and mortality that will be done will be immense, not to mention the fact that many many more children will be born into poverty and have all the adverse affects of that in their lives.
6
In this time of high medical costs that we, the consumer, are supposed to control, the State mandates an ultrasound. Who pays for that? The ultrasound equipment is being used as a cudgel over the heads of these “bad women” for having gotten themselves pregnant. Now they want to close clinics because they’re not safe. Every step of the way, a woman is punished for being a woman. Being a poor woman is even worse. More power to our female supremes on the court. They’re going to need it.
14
As usual , rich women wont be affected and can travel to a prochoice state.
It will be the poor ones forced to buying pills from the internet.
Don't forget their love of embryos only applies to the ones in women's bodies, there are no protests outside fertility clinics.
21
The abortion rights issue but one more crucial societal issue demonstrating the right wing extremist agenda the Trump administration and Republicans are determined to carry out. While ring master Trump consumes public attention with his daily antics, behind the scenes these retrograde extremist elements are working in multiple ways, here through the judiciary system, to impose onto America a reconstructed America. Their vision of America not one of a secular, participatory democracy but an autocratic Christian theocracy. The mechanism here with abortion rights showing it’s a piecemeal methodology centered on state’s rights. Who said the state’s rights issue was resolved by the 1860s American Civil War? It’s alive and roaring today determined to refashion the United States of America into a piece of geography operating as a confederacy of states.
12
During Roberts' confirmation hearing, he said his job was to call balls and strikes. We'll see if if he does that with abortion or re-writes the rule book. Anyone want to place any bets?
4
The state should not decide what is clearly a woman's choice based on her medical need and religious belief.
16
@Leonard Wood
The people through their elected representatives have a legitimate interest in protecting nascent life.
3
@EGD "nascent": just coming into existence and beginning to display signs of future potential.
IOW, you value potential life more than existing life (the woman).
11
@EGD Your body, your choice. Not your body? NOT YOUR CHOICE.
You forced birth folks are astonishing.
9
This agenda is being pushed by the guarantee that this particular SC will now act decisively to punish women and their children. They do not really give a care about healthcare, education, food, nor shelter, what they do care about is the above punishment. Very little time was needed for these men to follow this masquerade of the religious right. Part and parcel of the dismantling of American Democracy.
11
Counseling, ultrasound, detailed descriptions, 24-hour wait, hundreds of dollars… if they made men go through this prior to every sexual encounter, the anti-abortion fight would simply disappear.
While it’s admirable to have convictions, reality is often inconvenient. Abortions aren’t going away. In reality, the only victory anti-abortion crusaders will achieve is harming women.
24
@Leslie :
Females comprise the absolute majority of people in the USA. Women voters are the majority. That is just a fact.
1
This isn't about abortion. This is about sex. This is about controlling women, not just their bodies but their ability to work and be independent.
This is not pro life. The people who claim to be pro life stop caring about the lives as soon as they are born. Look at all the cuts to programs that support children and families. This nonsense and pain to women, especially poor women, has to stop. We are a better people than this and have a better sense of humanity and love.
21
Anti-abortion is ultimately the victimization of poor women. When abortion was illegal women with the financial means were able to source out safe medical abortions. Coat hanger, back street abortions were reserved for the marginalized, the desperate, those without the necessary contacts and money to make use of them. What we see resurfacing today in 21st century America is the rule of elitist society.
8
Reportedly Donald Trump tried to convince the anti-choice zealots to make exceptions in their rhetoric for rape and incest, but they would not. He will learn, as abortion supporters learned decades ago, that the anti-choice fanatics will never compromise one inch, and never stop. Nothing is good enough for them, and they do not compromise. When abortion is eradicated they will go after contraception. Then divorce. When you accept being governed by a theocracy, this is what you get.
27
Trump's High Court? Oh please stop. Any one who routinely follows SCOTUS proceedings notes one particular notion. Those justices deemed "conservative" can many times vote on the liberal side of an issue. Both Roberts and Kennedy are prime examples. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, while being of relatively recent appointments, have clearly demonstrated a tendency to be receptive to some liberal arguments. This is unlike the "liberal" justices who march lockstep with the liberal mantra. Quite frankly, Sasquatch will parade down Constitution Ave. before Sotomayor, Beyer, and Ginsburg even consider a conservative legal perspective.
4
@Mike : There is a reason for that. it is how liberals read the Preamble of the Constitution. Liberals do not consider inflicting harm on the poor is against "...promote the general Welfare", while Conservatives think hurting poor people actually helps the country.
8
The pro life movement started small and has exploded. There are now many pro life groups and their strength is enormous. There was a need for these groups and it was saving the life of babies in the womb. They have been working endlessly to stop the abortion movement. They are succeeding and want to further continue working towards this end. They have been successful so far and will not give up. Saving babies is their mission.
2
@KMW - Saving babies for what? The anti-abortionists lose interest in babies the moment the babies are born. Yes, a few religious groups will help for a while as long as the mother attends religious services and instruction. But most mothers who gave birth because they could not access abortion are abandoned. Look at the recent cut in programs like SNAP and requirements that recipients have a job or are looking for work with no provision for affordable day care. This is not saving babies. This is forcing babies to grow up in poverty and continue the cycle. What do they not understand that forcing women to have babies they can not support is cruel?
31
Dear Louisiana,
The rationale for your SCOTUS case is supposedly based upon your concern for women's healthcare. If true, then your state's leadership must be apoplectic about Louisiana's 2019 USA health rankings, in which the state came in a disappointing 48 of 50 states (https://www.americashealthrankings.org/learn/reports/2019-senior-report/findings-state-rankings). Women are not the only ones suffering from poor healthcare in Louisiana.
In another 2019 study (https://everytownresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Every-State-Fact-Sheet-Louisiana.pdf), Louisiana ranks 47th in gun deaths, yet it's legislature has passed an open carry law that actually increases the incidence of homicides and suicides by gun.
It may only be a matter of time before the nightly news covers AR-15 armed open carry supporters appearing at the next anti-abortion rally.
9
Why is it remarkable that politicians try to circumvent the rights of citizens established by either the Constitution or through judicial precedent to enact their agendas? The matter at hand is free choice but the strategy itself is frequently used. Hopefully, SCOTUS will not overturn Roe v. Wade or otherwise restrict a woman's right to an abortion. That said, Dem progressives who are unhappy with the 2nd Amendment have come up with strategies to circumvent it. This includes outrageous license fees for gun owners, outrageous taxes on firearms and ammunition, laws and regulations to discourage the ownership of firearms, etc. Biden just announced that if he's elected, his gun control czar will be Beto O'Rourke who has stated that he's "coming for your guns". So, there's really no difference in the way conservatives and progressives seek to implement their respective agendas via backdoor means.
1
@Mike F - Except no one was ever forced to give birth to a gun against their wishes.
3
A wise lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court for womans’ health right to choose, will make the case that without clinics women are much LESS safer.
Consider earlier times when women had to self abort a pregnancy, or higher someone with little professional standing or resources.
Making access difficult to impossible leads women to become far more susceptible to harm than legal clinics staffed with professionals intent upon proving women health care in good faith.
Will this Supreme court cotton to such reasoning?
6
I went through and read all 1500 comments. Nothing new surfaced in any of them. This is what I expected, while still hoping that somebody could point to a way forward. I still have to conclude that the government can't impose laws that are based on a particular set of religious beliefs. Nobody disputes that you can't murder a human being. But calling a zygote a human being is purely a religious belief. So that's where all other arguments finally come to a head.
14
I am the first to admit that this issue is complicated and always will be. But I am so sick and tired of anti-choice zealots imposing their questionable moral compass on the rest of us.
Outlawing abortion entirely or de facto through cutting off access will not reduce abortions, it will only increase the number of illegal and potentially unsafe abortions. Also, the vast majority of abortions in the second and third trimesters are related to medical conditions in the fetus or the mother, and their management should be left to healthcare providers not politicians.
If these moral crusaders were really serious about reducing the number of abortions, they would support universal healthcare, comprehensive sex education, and affordable and unrestricted access to contraception including long acting reversible contraception. These are the only things that have actually been shown to reduce the number of abortions.
Instead they prefer to prevent healthcare workers from providing compassionate, individualized care for their patients, and condemn women to back alleys for their reproductive healthcare, so that they can feel morally righteous. Enough. It needs to stop.
14
Our world is overpopulated. Food and water insecurity is increasing globally. Access to medical care is not a guarantee.
In this scenario, where no checks on population are considered,
the situation can only get worse. The day will come when earth's inhabitants fully realize that our environmental and economic decay is most directly related to our population-driven overconsumption. Our descendants will be forced to consider the best options for relief from this inevitable situation. As much as folks like to stand around the water cooler and talk about population reduction through a pandemic or enormous natural disaster, such a solution is not a way forward and serves only to avoid real and effective progress. Remember the Zero Population movement? Thank anti-abortion, anti-birth control advocates for it's demise.
5
I'm sure there are some very sincere, caring Anti-Abortionists out there as I know there are many sincere, caring Pro-Choice activists; however, I believe both sides, especially Anti-Abortionists, should turn their attention to the turmoil raging in the mind of the pregnant mother.
Has testing uncovered an nonviable fetus? Or uncovered one that may be born, but die within weeks or months due to some physical abnormality?
And what about a child whose birth may have dire consequences for the lives of their siblings? What about the burden of support they pose? So many, many considerations.
But who cares about the mother's state of mind? Who?
This is the person who will be caring for this child if they are born.
7
Meanwhile, we have Bernie bros and Bernie supporters stating they won't vote for Joe Biden if he were the nominee.
I guess I just can't comprehend that line of thinking.
5
I recently read an article regarding abortion and the impact that it has on the lies of not only the women, but their partners as well. Men also benefit from an abortion. Men, whose partners have an abortion, were more likely to go on to secure higher education, and make more money overall, thus bestowing upon themselves an economic benefit. Perhaps it needs to be drilled home to men, that an abortion also spares them the negative conseqeunces that come along with an unwanted pregnancy and the lifetime responsibilities it brings.
8
Except for the fact that men are by and large able to shirk their duties as fathers with few to no negative consequences.
7
Wasn't that the whole point, or one of them, appointing right-wing judges to SCOTUS by our extreme right-wing party still called Republican? Next is marriage equality, environmental laws as unconstitutional... Already the right-wing court has enshrined gun ownership as a basic right of an individual rather than what it says in the Second Amendment. Besides, Republicans have made it abundantly clear that women, brown people, and children really don't deserve support of the nation - they aren't rich enough. Still 30% or more of the electorate deifies Trump.
10
I worked with a woman who was forcibly impregnated by a neighbor when she was 15. This was in the 60's and her father was a doctor. He knew someone who knew someone and the problem was solved. Rich and/or connected women and girls will always find safe abortions. Most others, not so much.
18
While there are some arguably valid points in this column, the fact remains that abortion is always dangerous to the unborn life. I don't think anybody can argue with that.
7
@Rob: If Mother Nature had intended life to be all-important, she'd have made us immortal and able to live off sunlight instead of food that once was a living being, animal or plant. Every life, born or unborn, is always dangerous to another life, born or unborn. Your point is moot.
23
@Rob : Living in this world every day is dangerous to everyone. Anyone can get seriously injured or die at any time. I don't think anyone can argue with that.
9
@Anna
Human lives are not generally an intrinsic danger to each other. And I will stand up for the importance of your life, even if you choose to say otherwise.
1
The so-called “pro-life” crowd, upon closer examination, are really just “pro-birth”. They are the same people who do not support government assistance for free school lunch, health care, housing assistance etc. for the millions of children born into poverty by women or teenage girls who have unprotected sex and become pregnant . Some use drugs during pregnancy, and do not receive pre-natal care. The foster system is over burdened. Absentee fathers abound and many such children wind up in the criminal justice system. Can we just speak honestly about the “pro-life” movement, once and for all?
15
The so-called “pro-life” supporters are effectively anti-(life, woman, Women of Color, poor.)
First, life cannot be conceptualized as intrinsically infinitely valuable while cutting funds and services for children or that directly impact children’s welfare, care, education and upbringing. This would include school funding, governmental programs for parents, child protective services, etc.
Second, if life is intrinsically infinitely valuable, then if enough reliable, rigorous, peer-reviewed studies repeatedly indicate (and they have) that the best ways to prevent abortion is through robust sex education in schools and easy, readily-available birth control, then the “pro-life” movement should embrace and promote both vehemently. Of course, they don’t, quite to the contrary.
This proves, that the “pro-life” movement is not really about saving the lives of unborn children, but a culture war against women.
I have a grandchild whose father routinely quits his job and so no child support. Why isn’t he in jail if he’s not working? Why isn’t the sheriff out there watching and making sure he is mowing the lawn and fixing the house where his kid lives?
And how many times have I heard some male lamenting his child support payments and the males hearing this nod in agreement at the gross unfairness of it all.
The “pro-lifers” should be spending at least half of their efforts targeting men for routinely failing their parental responsibilities, instead of virtually none.
.
24
And please refrain from posts about some male getting the short end of the stick.
The information is readily available that getting males to pay child support is an endless battle (personal, legal and law enforcement) for the *majority* of single mothers.
.
17
Since women's reproductive health is a health care and access to health care issue, can the State control who gets care and who does not?
It would seem that if the State can control the health care of women in regard to reproductive health and/or abortion, then it can certainly control access to health care for the rest of us and for any reason those in power choose.
Either we all get good health care or none of us do.
It should be up to the patient whether to seek health care for whatever reason.
You might argue that abortions are elective medical procedures. There are many elective procedures. What then prevents the State from denying nose jobs or tummy tucks, breast implants or any other forms of cosmetic surgery?
It seems to me we are on a very slippery slop if the State can control our health care.
4
This issue is central to why the US will never be able to negotiate the triage of a viable public health support system.
5
The underlying fallacy behind the abortion foes' argument has been the same for more than 5 decades: they are "pro-life" no matter what the cost of that life to the mother, the father, our society at large or even the children themselves. Is the child's life a mere few years only to die of the consequences of some malformation of the heart, brain, kidneys or liver? Is it in the child's best interest to be born to a mother and father unable or unwilling to care for it? Born in a world where the society is unwilling to care for it once it's born and when those children's lives find a bitter end in desolation, drugs, imprisonment and more unwanted pregnancies to repeat this sad cycle over and over again.
That is the crux of it. So-called right-to-lifers are all "pro-life" until it comes time to pay for it. This hypocrisy has been exposed for as long as their has been a so-called "pro-life" movement.
Hypocrisy will always be found at the bottom of it.
16
the media has been complicit, by using the far right's self proclaimed term "pro- life" to describe these intrusive nannies. starting here the NYT needs to begin calling them anti-abortion. to use pro-life is to imply that those of us who are pro abortion rights are anti-life. nothing could be less true.
7
@karen I call them what they truly are "pro-punishment," "pro-criminalization" or "anti-women's right to medical privacy." But based on the policies they support they are definitvely NOT pro-life. I refuse to use that term.
10
Someone please explain to me why pro-choice organizations aren't focused on debunking anti-abortion pseudo-science? Abortion rights are not being taken away because men want to control women. It is successfully being taken away because half the country has been raised to believe that it's "a scientific fact" that life begins at the instant of conception. Because there is no push back the other half of the country thinks there must be something to it. No, life does not "begin". The reason you heard the metaphor "life cycle" in biology class is because life does not start. Inanimate tissue does not quicken into life, as was believed to be the case in the 19th century. Sperm and egg are alive. Fertilization is just another process in development. Assigning rights to the zygote is arbitrary and not an inevitable result of "facts". Somewhere around a third of zygotes never implant in the uterus and are passed in a normal menstruation. The lack of concern for "babies" being thrown out with tampons shows that facts of development are not of any concern to people who are convinced that the Gerber baby pops into existence at the "instant" of conception.
What the country needs is education on the facts of development. The CONSERVATIVE 1972 Supreme Court got the biology right in their written decision. The compromise they came up with of restrictions at viability is still the best choice. The reasons for that decision should be loudly communicated by pro-choice groups.
13
Life beginning at abortion is a religious stance. Science can’t fight that.
1
I will fight for the right to keep abortion legal, accessible, and safe for every women who makes the difficult decision to have one. No ifs, or buts, nor qualifications. Plain and simple.
16
@Christopher Babick
The facts do not support the common claim that the abortion decision is so very difficult for most women. If it were truly very difficult for most women, then it would not be the case that 25% of all pregnancies are aborted.
2
@Errol
If by the 'facts', you mean how women feel, then yes, the choice to have an abortion is a difficult decision.
2
All of us out there who could not believe Susan Collins voted for Bret Kavanugh will not be surprised how he votes. And will not be surprised when Susan Collins get booted out of Senate.
13
I think everyone can agree that using abortion as a method of birth control is less than optimal. But I sure would like these women to have an alternative, like well funded adoption agencies and world class orphanages. How about it Catholics and evangelicals, are you willing to self fund these ideas? I doubt it. Like health care, y’all want someone else to pay for it.
1
@Harry B: Public health plans provide contraception on demand at no cost because it reduces the cost of running the system.
1
...in the name of protecting women’s safety.
This type of disingenuous oxymoron lie is the hallmark of right-wing tactics for as long as I can remember.
14
@Marie
"In the name of protecting women's safety.... the hallmark of right-wing tactics "
Then you should also condemn the Supreme Court that issued Roe v. Wade since they ruled exactly that states may impose health requirements for abortion procedures during the second trimester.
1
@Errol
An absence of health care - the stated purpose for these measures is to make health care unavailable - is not providing for health care.
6
Nobody gives informed consent to be born. The presumption that a person wants to be born disabled into life of agony is the most appalling aspect of the obsession to ban abortion.
9
Why is it that conservatives oppose abortion, yet won't pass gun laws that would help to prevent mass killings of innocent children such as those in Newtown, Ct. Heartbreaking!
15
@k richards
One is about controlling women. (we must!)
The other is about controlling men. (no way!)
14
Muddled thinking is, unfortunately, the norm regarding abortion.
In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court essentially adopted the principle that rights accrue when a life begins. That makes decisive whatever the answer is to the question: when does life begin?
Most feminists act as though they believe that life does not begin until the instant of natural birth. Prior to that they seem to claim that the fetus is just a part of their body, possessing no more rights than their finger nail. Fortunately, they at least acknowledge that life begins upon natural birth, otherwise they would be insisting mothers have the right to kill their own children regardless how old their children are.
However, Roe v. Wade does not adopt that feminist position. In Roe, the Court essentially said life begins when the fetus is capable of living outside the womb (viability). The Court said that given the state of medical science, that occurred at the end of the second trimester. Therefore, states could prohibit abortion after the second trimester. The Court also essentially found that the abortion procedure was sufficiently hazardous during the second trimester to justify states to impose requirements upon the medical procedures in order to protect the health of the pregnant woman.
The major intellectual weakness of Roe is that as medical science has progressed in the 47 years since, the time when viability is achieved became sooner than it was then.
5
@Errol
Life does not "begin". It's a continuum. It is up to us as thinking beings to make the difficult decisions in our lives with the best information we have at the time. And those who are not involved should keep out of it.
7
@Errol Despite the conservative’s false narrative, women rarely use abortion for birth control. We use it ONLY if birth control or something else goes wrong. 92% of abortions are in the first 12 weeks, during the embryo stage. The remaining 8% are when women are in the medical distress of our lives. Only 2% of abortions are sought after the 20th week and almost 100% of that 2% are for critical medical distress. 22-24 weeks is what is considered “viability.”
We liberals are just “whacky” in our belief that the 8% of women who need to access legal late(r) term abortions should have access just as they do in every other developed nation without being accused of committing a crime for deciding to induce labor to deliver their desperately wanted children who has its brain growing outside of its skull, or will be too fragile to hold or is already still born but she isn’t in labor. Don’t let the GOP and conservatives fool you. There is no liberal plot to rip healthy almost developed fetuses from their mother’s wombs.
Why does conservatives believe they deserves an equal seat in my medical exam with my doctor? Why are your religious or moral beliefs more important than what is happening in the patient’s body? The fact the GOP has run on these lies for so long is astounding. I can think of no man who would tolerate the police state inside his medical exam room ready to criminalize him for making rational life decisions for which he will be solely responsible.
7
Wait!! You said Trump's Supreme Court? Has it gotten that bad? When will the people get their Supreme Court back.
4
There are large blocks of voters in the red state Bible Belt, that will vote for Donald Trump for his opposition to Planned Parenthood and abortion. Make no mistake, Donald Trump owns this issue in that his election means another pro-life Supreme Court judge will be nominated during his second term. This is a sad truth about the segment of the American electorate who see Donald Trump as their savior from abortion, the LGBTQ community and of course no gun control. NONE.
9
Trump’s Supreme Court. This case, and so many others in the pipeline, raise this larger issue. This court had better take a good look at, itself. Do we have an independent judiciary? Do we have blue and red judges? A Trump court, an Obama court, a Biden court, Sanders court?
And larger still is the question I keep asking; can any court ‘find the law’ in a 230 year old Constitution?
In relistening to John Adams, he believed the lifetime appointments would provide the check/balance he thought necessary. And he valued the idea we would be a nation governed by laws, not by men.
This administration has challenged so many norms we thought were widely accepted. Personally acceptable to me, or not, we need to hear from the Third Branch. Are you - the Trump Court?
1
@Jo Williams
The notion that the Supreme Court of the US and the states' Supreme Courts is a myth.
If you want proof, just look at the behavior of the Florida and US Supreme Courts regarding the Bush-Gore election in 2000. As the case ping-ponged between the 2 Supreme Courts, we saw the Florida Supreme Court (majority Democrats) repeatedly and consistently always ruling to favor Gore. Then we saw the US Supreme Court (majority Republican) repeatedly and consistently always ruling to favor Bush.
The people who get appointed to the Supreme Courts of the nation are rarely non-partisan, rarely without connection to political leaders. Once appointed for life, they have no motivation to continue suppressing their partisan biases (if they ever did have any such motivation).
Errol; is an independent judiciary a myth, or a, goal? And is asking any court to determine Constitutionality, from a document from another era, then criticizing it for bias, ignoring our own duty to update those guiding principles?
As a woman, my rights, except for the vote, hang forever on decisions. They can appear and disappear in the blink of an eye, the stroke of a pen. We sit here, waiting for these abortion decisions. For nine people to look to a Constitution for guidance. When are we going to demand from our political leaders, and especially our legal community, an updated Constitution? How bad does it have to get??
4
These laws are not about abortion but about choice and denying a woman the right to make medical decisions for herself. Today it's abortion but what will be tomorrow's oppression. If they really wanted to eliminate abortion, they would fund family planning and free access to birth control.
15
As a staunch pro life woman, I hope the Supreme Court does the right thing and votes in favor of the babies in the womb. I participate in pro life vigils in front of Planned Parenthood and we have seen women change their minds about aborting their babies. We speak in a compassionate and caring way and never coerce them into anything. We just hope they make a decision that they will not regret. Those who have decided to have their babies never are sorry. They have come back with their babies and often join our ranks. If we only save one baby, our efforts are worth it. All lives matter and the babies in the womb are the most vulnerable. Let’s protect them and let them live.
8
@KMW
You talked caring and kindness and decisions.
But all that is just window dressing because what you comment on time and time again is actually forcing women to give birth. No decisions to be made. No gentle counseling. If you trusted women you would allow them to make a choice for what is right. But the Forced-Birth movement does not.
The Forced-Birth movement never advocates for the control or men or medical procedures being enforced upon them to prevent unwanted babies in the first place.
State Forced-Gestation
State Forced-Birth
State Forced-Child rearing
26
In fact, few women and girls who have abortions regret doing so.
The women and girls who get talked into having babies they don’t want, and later regret it, aren’t seeking out anti-abortion fanatics to talk to about their mistake.
(Not sure why this commenter feels the need to keep repeating the same false and misleading claims.)
21
@KMW
A zygote is not a baby. An embryo is not a baby. Your work is not saving babies. It often is hurting women and girls, though.
13
As someone who from college was against Roe v. Wade in 1973, it took our Movement a long time to figure out the best way to 'repeal' this monster of a law. Now we are much better at it: chip, chip, chip, and the building of Pro-Death doesn't have to fall down - it will simply be de facto abandoned as irrelevant and constitutionally unworkable. And, thankfully, MY side of the argument is the one having children, not yours; so, we'll have fighters on our side for generations to come.
5
News for you: abortion isn’t stopping. Not when there are pills and other more discreet methods available now. It’s been around for thousands of years and it will remain.
37
@Mike Not your body, not your choice. I do agree you have a right to do as you please if you do get pregnant. Good luck Mike with that. I have children and grandchildren and want them to control their destiny not you.
19
@Mike it's not because you're pro-choice that it means you won't have children. Having an abortion doesn't even mean you won't have a children later! It's called pro-choice, not pro-abortion. We support abortion being a choice, the last one, but still an available one. You just deny this choice.
People abort because they aren't ready to take care of a child, because they're trying to finish their studies, lack of a father to take care of it because they can run away pretty easily, or lots of other reasons, must of them totally valids. And the reasons are easy to find in the US with the lack of social security net, which Trump is chipping away even more! And I don't even talked about rape or life threatening risks.
As a man, you have no idea what it is to have a fœtus inside of you, and me neither. We have nothing to say about what women do with THEIR bodies.
17
The Supreme Court of the United States stands at the pinnacle of the least democratic branch of our Constitutional republic.
With six Roman Catholic and three Jewish justices in a nation where the Founding Fathers didn't intend for anyone but white Anglo-Saxon Protestant men like themselves who owned property including their enslaved black African men, women and and the lands and natural resources stolen from brown aboriginal Indigenous men, women and children nations to be equal. Only 24% of Americans are Catholic and only 2% are Jewish.
Unless and until there is an Equal Rights Amendment women will not be divinely naturally created equal persons with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on par with men in every phase of civil secular life.
6
We need to make non-surgical abortions easier to access. Terminations for medical reasons aside, forcing women to carrying to term a pregnancy that they may neither want nor can afford and then not supporting them with local or federal aid after a child is born is positively medieval.
Louisiana may need its own WoW, so far that we have fallen in terms of access.
8
Look at us men! If it were us
who’d carry an unwanted child,
there is no way we would discuss
our right to abort. It’s wild!
Men are devious hypocrites
when it comes to abortion.
We say women must have our kids.
It is a disproportion.
More than that. It’s arrogant.
Let women make that call.
Conscientious and intelligent,
they should decide. That’s all!
7
Outlawing abortion is the male way to enforce slavery, servitude and dependency on women again. Religion is the excuse,control is the design.
13
The overt control of women is just another step in the march to fascism. Reelecting our sitting President may very well be the last we take as a free people.
7
To men who are against abortions: Please stop having unprotected sex or stop having sex with women altogether.
To the government: Supply birth control pills free of cost.
Women can very well be master of their lives! If men care about unborn child, then stop having unprotected sex. Easy!!!
14
I have no hope that trumps cronies on the court will rule in favor of half the population. At least we have two courageous women there who won’t sit down and shut up.
6
I worked with an OB/GYN who is old enough that when he was a resident at a large NYC hospital in the days prior to Roe v. Wade. He described their shifts in the ER waiting for the next perforated uterus to be dealt with from botched illegal abortions. As the uterus is extremely vascular, these backroom procedures often led to bleeding to death as was described to me by an older coworker at the time who described a close friend’s death that way. Do we really want return to this? If you don’t want an abortion, no one is forcing you. It’s about personal choice, our bodies.
237
@Alexis Adler Exactly this. There are proven ways to reduce the abortion rate - education and access to affordable birth control have been shown to work. Returning to the days when only the privileged have safe access, and others will end up maimed or dead - not acceptable.
51
@Alexis Adler
The Electoral Majority of America really does want this, very much, and desperately. That is the way the Red States roll.
4
@Alexis Adler
also there is a doc from a red state that says we should intervene when there is an ectopic pregnancy and try to take the embryo out of the tube and implant it into the uterus. I thought is he for real. that has never been attempted before. ever. and it wouldn't work anyway. I worked on a GYN floor before I worked in L&D and before I worked exclusively in the OR. in the 70s and even before many women died from ectopic preg due to hemorrhage.
if miscarriages (scientifically it is an abortion, either a missed Ab or an incomplete Ab, blighted ovum etc)are going to be investigated as many states want (putting ob-gyn docs away for 99 yrs )to also investigate any miscarriages. how are they going to prove that. that is silly and ridiculous. so perforated uteruses are only one scenario but good post.
11
Among leqading moral and social issues it's important to reduce the argument down to a simple declaration. Such was "Separate is not Equal." Ths expresses a mathematical inequality. Is not is the argument.
To remove or nullify a woman's right to choice is to declare pregnant women to be property of the state. Thus the declaration is that "pregnant women are not property of the state." Are not is the argument.
If men could become pregnant there would be no controversy particularly in the Supreme court.
There is a reason why Roe V Wade chose 26 months. It was a monumental and protective compromise. Not a win-lose. The pro-lifers want women to lose.
This is similar to our Dreamers proposals. The conservative "mercenary politicians" want the Dreamers to lose.
6
A man can have sex with 100 women in 9 months and potentially have 100 children. In 9 months one woman can only have one pregnancies that can produce a child - yet all focus is on controlling the woman's body and choices. It begs for much from the imagination to believe that this isn't about curtailing women's reproductive freedom, limit their choices, and put them back "in their place".
I would respect heartfelt annunciations about valuing life in the womb, when I see a similar effort to value life outside the womb. Shown by care for poor families who cannot feed that extra mouth, with resources that are continually be limited, and nothing trickling down.
13
I can't yet comment on this article. I'm still recovering from the report that one out of four American women gets an abortion. What happened to "safe legal and rare"?
1
@John Mark Evans Closing down Planned Parenthood clinics makes regular ob/gyn visits much harder to do, which makes obtaining effective birth control at a reasonable price harder to get. Denying women expanded medicaid means cancers and other medical conditions are not found as quickly, which can lead to unplanned and high risk pregnancies that may be terminated to treat the mother. Pushing for abstinence only education means young women (and men) aren't really sure how the human reproductive system actually works. Pushing for women to work two jobs with no benefits also can lead to unplanned pregnancies that must be terminated to avoid becoming homeless. The most common profile of a woman seeking a termination is a woman in a committed relationship with one or more children already. The most common reason for termination is financial -- usually not being able to afford the childcare, but sometimes not being able to afford the costs associated with pregnancy (time off, etc.).
Remembering that females don't get accidentally pregnant by themselves, where's the male responsibility in all of this?
8
I had an abortion. I never thought I would need one but I did. It was a planned pregnancy but there were fetal medical issues. It was sad. But I’m glad I had access to the medical care I needed.
10
How can Republican women stand this diminishment of their social legal status? As a man, I could never tolerate the state intruding on my person like this.
9
It’s interesting that when abortion is the topic, everyone who generally promotes a welfare state suddenly becomes libertarian.
One thing is certain, the law will be what five US Supreme Court justices say it is.
2
And which Democratic candidate has done the most to defend women’s reproductive rights? Wrong. It’s Mike Bloomberg. Money talks, and you know what walks.
4
Where are the men in that picture in Louisiana? Women don't have unwanted pregnancies on their own.
2
Every man who is about to have sex: stop and think. If the woman you are going to have sex wirh is ready to bear a child? If the answer is no or not sure, please wear condom.
Do the right and responsible thing.
Why make it entirely woman's responsibility?
5
@someone
Of course women could refuse to have sex with men who don't wear condoms if the woman is not ready to bear a child or isn't sure that the man would be a good father.
Responsibility is something that men and women should share.
why not jail the male who won't use a condom and produces an unwanted pregnancy --- seems like the government should step in at the problem's source and level the reproductive playing field.
There were over 850,000 abortions last year, that is a lot of women dealing with a system that fails to protect them. It's about time males are held accountable, minimum 20 years in prison if they refuse to use a condom and an unwanted pregnancy results. And guess what science provides the evidence. why won't Congress act?
And why won't Congress provide funds for the tens of thousands of women who choice abortion simply because they don't think they can afford the cost of raising the child? Care for unwanted children should be the first thing taxpayer money is spent on, not the last.
7
@still a taxpayer That'd be an incredibly expensive solution (I'm thinking about all the court cases that would ensue).
1
@still a taxpayer
Did the man RAPE the woman and/or refuse to wear a condom over her objections?
No?
Then the woman is 50% responsible for the child that could be created.
Women are quite capable of refusing to have sex with men who won't wear condoms.
But often they don't. This lets us know that men are not the only people who dislike condoms.
And to be fair you'd also have to willing to jail women who lied and said they were on birth control when they weren't.
And I doubt you'd be willing to do that. I know society isn't.
1
Two pro-abortion articles today, and one thing they both have in common is "democracy". According to democratic theory the fear of losing a cushy position in the government should deter politicians from passing bills that hurt voters. Yet, though numerous states have passed "heartbeat" bills, I haven't heard of any backlash against the legislatures. Are people docile, or apathetic, or could it be that they actually oppose abortion?
1
@Charlesbalpha Americans, for the most part, don't care what the government does, as long as the government doesn't do it in their backyards. The moment any legislation, court ruling or politician threatens their cushy lives, they react.
React is the key word. As for government and the courts, we must be proactive. Proactive in the sense that they represent the majority of us, not some red-hatted minority of squeaky wheels.
3
Do not use right-wing marketing terms like "pro-life". You give them credibility by doing so. There is nothing pro-life in the conservative movement that takes heath care and promote unclean water, air, and land or denies a living wage.
It is control. Is punishment. You don't have read very deep into their comments to see the undercurrent of "you made your bed honey, now suffer for it."
The so-called anti-government regulation is only "anti" when it is something they don't like, otherwise they have no problem using the power of the state to force and control people to their will. In this case it is to force birth.
Remember it is Forced-Birth. State enforced birth. Forced medical procedures upon women.
The control of women forced-birth movement never speaks of forcing men to undergo medical procedures to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Controlling women. Forced-birth.
31
I know I have made other comments on this thread, but just note this -- the "conservatives" want to control you. The powerful just want more, uninhibited, power. Yeah, what else is new? This is -- the downtrodden, beaten down by the above, see their chance to get revenge, not against their abusers, but against the enemies of their abusers. It's a Trumpfectta!
8
Which has more support in the language of the Constitution: A right to own a weapon of my choice (specifically mentioned in the second amendment) or a right to terminate a pregnancy any time I chose (not mentioned in the Constitution.)
Roe was a perfect example of the Court making its own laws, not interpreting the law. Liberals should not be surprised when a conservative Court decides to make laws they don't like. After all, a liberal Court set the standard.
4
@J. Waddell -
Which has more support in the language of the Constitution: A right to own a weapon of my choice (specifically mentioned in the second amendment) or a right to breath or travel to see my children any time I chose (not mentioned in the Constitution.)?
Specious and disingenuous and ignores the Ninth Amendment.
6
Surely a right to bodily integrity trumps an interpretation of the right of a militia to bear arms being interpreted as open season on assault weapons?
8
More than anything why do the women, who are a majority of the Louisiana electorate, tolerate it?
Every single woman has know another who despite having done everything right found herself pregnant at a time when it was impossible to care for a child.
Where is the empathy?
9
I’ve lived in Ireland for 7 years, now.
While here, they VOTED to make abortion legal.
Hard to believe it’s more progressive than America these days.
Susan
ExPat
21
@Susan Baughman : The USA is so regressive and so unmodern - so behind the rest of the western world in practically every sense. Nothing to be proud of or brag about - its hubris is so obnoxious.
9
@Susan Baughman
The USA is falling apart and falling behind. Another article in the Times today about our train system starving. We should be rebuilding our infrastructure, rekindling science discovery, creating new industries and jobs. The religious fervor trying to chain women to childbearing is just a symptom of our society rotting from the inside.
7
1. Anti-abortion laws are an establishment of religion. We are threatened with the tyranny of a minority.
2. Anti-abortion laws denigrate women, because they deny women moral autonomy and freedom of conscience.
3. Anti-abortion laws privilege an undeveloped fetus over a grown woman, no matter how much has been invested in her or what responsibilities she may have to other children, to husband or parents. They insist a pregnant woman has no right to life.
25
By way of a little historical background and as evidence of hypocrisy from the GOP on the abortion issue, consider the following:
June 14, 1967, Ronald Reagan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act, after only six months as California governor. From a total of 518 legal abortions in California in 1967, the number of abortions would soar to an annual average of 100,000 in the remaining years of Reagan’s two terms — more abortions than in any U.S. state prior to the advent of Roe v. Wade.
Today Reagan would be completely unable to make it through a GOP primary because today's right-wing extremist Republicans would consider him a liberal.
8
How dare men decide what a woman can and cannot do with her own body.
19
Colombia just voted to not legalize abortion in their country. One country with a conscience. This is great news.
2
@KMW Colombia doesn't seem like the best model. Take a look at the statistics relating to gender inequality (which includes measures of reproductive health): https://evaw-global-database.unwomen.org/en/countries/americas/colombia
7
In the interest of promoting a more honest public debate about abortion, the Times and other media outlets should collect and disseminate information about political and religious figures who are publicly opposed to abortion, but who have had them, paid for them or helped other people to obtain them.
13
Here's what's worse than an abortion:
Forcing an innocent child into a family that, given the opportunity, would have aborted it.
A child forced to come into a situation where it's not wanted or can't be cared for appropriately for the many years a child needs care is pure evil.
That is truly a harsh reality.
I recall reading about a Japanese concept, a religious belief, abo how an aborted child's soul goes to a "spiritual waiting place" where it stays till a proper opportunity to manifest as being presents itself.
Why should we let right wing moralists dictate the narrative of abortion?
The narrative of life and human soul.
To me, their need to force a child to be born into a bad situation is the real violence.
For what?
To soothe their conception of the timing of life? The timing of a soul?
Let's promote an alternative view to counter their insult to a child's soul.
A child's soul, the essence of being, is where it needs to be… in its waiting place till the love and welcome of its parents bring it forth.
That's real morality.
5
It's not about abortion. It's about closing all the front line clinics that provide medical and birth control services to the young and poor. It's anti-social mendacious mob rule. It is cruel. And wrong.
Trump is ranting right now, at his comedic community-spread rally, totally made-up nonsense implying that women choose at will for no reason to kill babies. Blame the women? And they cheer him on despite the absurd untruth of that.
Meanwhile, looking quite ill, Trump is clueless about community healthcare.
14
Your answer is in the headline, which belies Justice Robert’s insistence that there’s no Obama court, or Bush Court, or Trump court. But of course there is. With two misogynists on the bench, and one or two or three or four in the White House, what else is expected?
5
"The Supreme Court will decide on yet another bid to curtail women’s rights masquerading as a safety measure."
This sage statement could be re-written, if Bloomberg becomes President. He may have to wait for some SCOTUS justices to retire, and get a complaisant Congress, but he would happily work to have "common sense gun control". This would masquerade as a safety measure, that would restrict law abiding Americans from owning guns. At least the really scary ones. The kind you see in the movies. Used by actors that want to disarm Americans.
I doubt that dream will come true. Didn't Bloomberg tell one of his employees to "kill it", when he saw she was pregnant?
There is no “law” on this planet that will prevent women from getting abortions if that is what they want. And the men who sit on the Supreme Court are there by the grace of MONEY AND PATRIARCHY. Reasonable people do not want them, do not like them and do not support their patriarchal and patrician rulings.
No matter how long it takes WOMEN WILL GET THE RIGHT TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEIR OWN HEALTH AND BODIES. DO NOT DOUBT THAT FOR A MINUTE. Any decision that argues for the “health of the woman” while simultaneously removing from her the right to a safe abortion is immoral and against Nature’s laws — which every day aborts nearly a third of fetuses conceived, most of which are abnormal.
The only thing that these religiously based laws do is to enshrine the religious view of certain Christian sects and the presumed superiority of men to make laws that concern women’s procreative abilities. Haven’t seen men worry much about their fellow men who rape and attack women in order to abuse and humiliate them.
Laws that raise high bars to safe abortion are just another way to deny equality to women. There is nothing superior or “concerning” about decisions that remove the ability to control one’s own bodily health — and pregnancy carries more mortality than abortion today. We note with a wry smile the STRONG OBJECTIONS to proposed laws last week that would have required mandatory vasectomies for men past a certain age or with more than a certain number of children.
10
Just because you pay taxes doesn’t mean you can control what the government uses it for. Your tax money is not your conscience or your morals. Jesus was asked in the Bible if one should pay taxes to Caesar. He responded, “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s.”
Don’t like abortion, don’t have one.
4
So the party of 'less government' has created 450 new laws to restrict the people it governs...
7
The Constitution says nothing about Abortions,
nor does it say anything about Privacy.
The legal arguments for abortion are, at best,
properly applied to the use of contraceptives
not to the ending of a human life.
How very odd that the New York Times Editorial
never mentions that all humans were once conceived
and were once Zygots, Fetuses, Babes in the Womb.
You need not worry the Supreme Court will not hold
up the decision.
1
This editorial is why I subscribe to the New York Times, thank you.
It seems like the only thing that will get through to Republican voters these days, if anything, is people dying. I mean, if the coronavirus kills thousands, hopefully then red state voters will start demanding that the GOP take public health seriously. Same thing with climate change--when the disasters hit, god willing it will wake those folks up to climate science. And god, when red state women start dying from illegal abortions, hopefully their voters will insist the GOP stop attacking safe, legal abortion providers.
...
You know, in the same way all the gun murders caused red state voters to insist the GOP adopt reasonable gun control.
5
When are we going to explicitly call these nuisance laws and anti abortion aspirations what they really are: the imposition of religious morality upon others. Life at conception based on pagan Aristotelian misconceptions of science was adopted by the Catholic Church and passed on to all the Christian Churches despite clear statements in the Old Testiment to the contrary. Don't get me wrong. Any women who doesn't want an abortion shouldn't be forced to have one and there are many 'forces' encouraging this which are despicable. It's simply wrong to impose one's religious beliefs on another. Shall we reopen orphanages? No. There's more ads on TV to adopt dogs and cats than any for children. Outrageous inversion of values!!!
Worse, so many children are born unwanted, unloved, destined for poverty or crime, and mothers condemned to guilty conscience or poverty for life either way she decides. You can't write a new law to successfully upend an ancient truth and less than desirable practice. In an earlier time, if you begot, you were automatically betrothed. Maybe we should adopt my 'old time religion' and impose it on wastrell men.
2
we'll know soon if trump's boys are going to do what he hired them for.
roberts might be the only hope--which is pathetic--to keep roe vs wade.
3
The continued insistence by writers on the N Y Times Editorial Board to conflate unrelated legal points is disturbing, because as the leadership of a widely read media outlet, it has a responsibility to present well thought through and accurate talking points - and not, propaganda.
Roe v. Wade was, in fact, a narrowly focused decision on privacy rights and not abortion, related to a select few laws in the state of Texas.
Which is to say, a completely different legal argument than what is on the docket today.
Thus there is no reason to suggest that Roe v. Wade would suffer a reversal, other than to paint a false narrative for cynical poitical purposes.
1
Another example of why Trump must be defeated. SCOTUS shapes our lives more than any other branch of government at any level We cannot allow Republicans to appoint any more Justices.
184
@Disillusioned
Too late. The Republicans have the majority for some years to come. At best, Democrats can cling to a four person minority.
Nevertheless, a Democratic executive and the legislature would not be without means to scuttle the Russian-Republicans' abuse of the federal courts.
IF Democrats somehow retake the Senate and keep the House, they can enact legislation stripping jurisdiction over tens of thousands of cases from District Courts and dumping them directly on the Supreme Court. The workload would render it extremely difficult for the Russian-Republican jurists to continue dismantling the Constitution and American democracy.
Congress also can take away funding for most of the SCOTUS's clerical staff, security and other perks. (The Constitution forbids Congress from reducing the compensation of sitting federal judges and justices.)
Then, there always is impeachment for corruptly securing appointments and confirmation.
15
@Disillusioned it's too late.....they'll be on court for years. and the next vacancy is likely to be coming in the second term, or earlier, if the monster in chief is re-elected.
i have the pleasure of living in a more civil/civilized country. supreme court justices have to retire at 75. i can recall only one justice who was a controversial appointment. he was, of course, nominated by a conservative. the person nominated was supposed to have a specific expertise but didn't. the PM didn't care. there was such an uproar he backed off.
11
@Disillusioned
Should trump get reelected and Republican retain control of the Senate, we can expect at least 2 more appointments to SCOTUS. This would give the court a 7-2 conservative majority. There's nothing anyone can do until there's openings. Young justices are chosen. They could easily sit on the court another 20-40 years. Yes, it will take 2 generations of Americans to undo the Trump/Conservative damage.
11
Nobody is for abortion. However we cannot dictate what woman should do in their life. I have grandaughters and it would break my heart if they had to make this choice but it's their choice. A safe, legal, clean and medically provided termination needs to be considered. We can't go back to the old ways. It's safe for no one. This is just one of those lousy situations that the government should back away from. No winners here.
200
@karen I am for abortion. And not only because of the right to choose, but mostly becauseI don't consider the fetus to be "alive", at least during the first few months of pregnancy. It is time we approach the problem head-on from this angle, instead of conceding even an inch to the religious propaganda (i.e. that so called 'life' starts at conception). Never EVER concede anything to religion.
34
@karen
I am for abortion. If one accepts the arguments of the 'pro-choice' side (And I do, although I hate the names 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' then one must accept the conclusions. I agree totally about woman getting to decide. But I don't regard abortion as this dreadful thing.
21
@Michael Browder I believe it should be safe and legal and that there probably needs to be some sort of "undue burden" concept for state laws like this. Not sure where to draw the line, but LA is egregious.
5
Abortion is not a HUMAN right.
A right aims at guaranteeing the faculty of a person to act for his/her good as a HUMAN being.
Everything that we recognize as fundamental rights: think, associate, pray, speak, get married are faculties through which every person expresses his/her humanity. These are faculties that animals do not have and that define “human” rights.
Fundamental human rights protect the exercise of these noble faculties, specifically human. They protect us so that every person realizes his/her humanity.
Now explain, please, how a woman becomes more accomplished, more noble, and more HUMAN when she has an abortion.
Abortion has nothing to do with fundamental human rights. Period.
5
@Rose M
"Now explain, please, how a woman becomes more accomplished, more noble, and more HUMAN when she has an abortion."
You are framing the issue incorrectly.
A woman has full human rights when she is allowed to determine who uses her body, why, and when. If not, she's a slave.
A woman has full human rights when she is allowed to make fundamental decisions for herself, such as whether to have a child.
Women are noble and human when they exercise their autonomy.
8
Abortion is not a yes/no affair but more a question of nuance. "When?" "Why?" and "How?" are also relevant questions. A pregnancy lasts nine months and the status of both the fetus and the woman develops over these nine months.
Someone who supports day after pills or early abortion might not support a purely elective abortion at five months of pregnancy. Someone who supports abortion because the fetus is very ill might not support it "because I broke up with my boyfriend."
I think of pro-choice people as better educated and less motivated by religion. They need to take in more humanitarian and more pragmatic concerns. To define themselves by opposition to radical pro-lifers is not the right or moral way.
Perhaps six weeks is too early. But then pro-choicers also need to say what is NOT too early. France, Germany and Italy allow abortion up to 12 weeks, with later abortions permitted only in emergency.
Are those who oppose six weeks willing to say, "but we do accept twelve weeks?" Then we can turn away from this contentious issue towards a compromise, preferably a nationwide one. Louisiana would have to give up its strictness and New York would have to give up its permissiveness.
A compromise on this issue of abortion will allow us to turn to other, more urgent issues like climate change or health care.
5
One important detail was hardly mentioned in this editorial: "A woman who chooses to have an abortion — as about a quarter of American women do —..."
Wait, what? 25% of pregnancies end in abortion in the US? No wonder there's a huge controversy! When evangelicals were not challenged for equating abortion with infanticide, they were allowed to claim a moral imperative to wipe out this practice. That is why we are in the position we are today.
Suppose instead of 25% we were looking at 10%, or even 2%? Wouldn't that take a lot of wind out of the sails of the anti-abortion crowd?
By focusing on whether or not to make abortion legal, we are completely missing the point. The argument that outlawing abortion will result in a much higher death rate from abortions is true; it's also true that it will significantly reduce the rate of abortion, although it will also vastly increase the number of unwanted births, thus overloading our already thinned-out social safety net.
Let's focus instead on how to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies: education, greater access to health care, and universally available contraception. We know this works; we've seen it happen again and again.
Significantly reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies would render cases like this one essentially moot.
1
What to do when the puritanical roots of these “pro lifers” discourage efforts to provide contraceptives and sex education?
5
The bottom line is that legislation tantamount to de facto prohibiting abortion discriminates against woman who lack funds to travel and have an abortion in a jurisdiction where it is legal or pay for an illegal abortion and then run to a hospital emergency room in the event of complications.
1
What if those of us who support a woman's right to make her own reproductive health decisions stopped using the language of those who wish to curtail those rights? Consider, for example, his editorial ... what if its authors, instead of using the loaded term "abortion clinic," had instead written, "Louisiana, with nearly one million women of reproductive age, now has only three women's healthcare clinics"? This express more fully the truth that these facilities provide so much more than abortion services, and that laws which close them down threaten women's health and, like the spread of contagion, the health of the communities which often depend on those women. In fighting against these ridiculous regulations and restrictions, supporters of a woman's right to control and care for her own body should stop using the emotionally inflammatory and restrictive language of our opponents, and start using more accurate, expansive language that more fully describes the danger of these laws.
10
The statement "But the fact that the justices decided to hear the case at all suggests that their decision won’t be so definitive," is technically untrue as it only takes 4 votes to hear a case, but 5 to create precedent. I recognize that is not completely comforting, but one would hope Chief Justice Roberts -- who seems to have a keen understanding of how rulings impact the reputation of the court -- might recognize how the optics of five men making abortion functionally "unavailable" will effectively endorse the expression "keep 'em barefoot and pregnant."
Hardly something that will help stabilize an already unsettled citizenry.
6
I firmly believe that men should be prevented from voting on this issue unless certain criteria have been met:
They have been pregnant as a result of rape or incest, or are facing evidence of serious birth defects, or may die as a result of giving birth, or are facing a severe crisis related to life or career circumstances, or must deal with any unplanned or unwanted pregnancy.
12
Women's health? A law based on subterfuge undermines and degrades the life it's trying to protect. If the State wants the Supreme Court to outlaw abortion, then so be it. But honesty comes first.
1
If you're a big enough girl to get pregnant, then sitting through counseling and watching an ultrasound is do-able.
Also, many people forget that an abortion is a highly invasive surgical procedure. Any other similarly invasive surgical procedure would require the physician or surgeon to have local admitting privileges.
2
The majority of abortions are not surgical. Most are a two step process: take a pill, go home, take another pill later. The woman bleeds the fetus out like a period. It is one of the safest procedures available.
12
If you’re a big enough “girl” to get pregnant, you’re a big enough “girl” to decide, without government intervention, to decide what to do about it.
17
@Eddie ... and pay for the counselling, and lose wages to have an unnecessary medical procedure (which is invasive, as I imagine early ultrasounds are transvaginal, I've had such an US and it is indeed invasive), etc .... These are women, not girls, also.
7
Overturning Roe will not result in the birth of more white babies to middle/upper class families. Long before Roe, that demographic always had access to safe, legal abortion, after Roe will continue to have that access.
The most logical way to reduce abortion rates is to increase access and affordability of birth control, but that means acknowledging that people plan to be intimate, and gets in the way of the next challenge - Griswold.
If the privacy rights of Roe are struck down, there is nothing to protect the privacy rights granted under Griswold.
2
The push to restrict a woman's access to a safe abortion is not about religion, or belief in the right of the unborn.
Instead, requiring people to take a position on access to abortion is a way to sort people into conservative or liberal leanings.
In other words, for those who lobby for these restrictive laws, the motivation is to determine who is among your tribe -- and rule the others out.
Thus, rational, scientific, medical, or legalistic arguments are futile in combatting the resistance.
4
I have never met anyone in favor of abortion. I have met people who favor a woman's right to have control of her own body. I am in the second group. This largely republic driven crusade to end access and by doing so, end abortion is remarkable. The conservative-christian (small c)- republican mantra is that government over reaches. I can't imagine anything more over reaching than ending access. The same folks also want funding and access reduced for Medicaid WIC, SNAP and programs designed to help struggling women with children. There is more zeal than logic afoot here. The make up of the Court as of now is not reassuring. A new cycle of illegal medical procedures could be the very thing to re strengthen laws for abortion access .
8
In a similar vein, we could confiscate all guns and close all the gun shops; after all, the shops do not have the best interests of the buyers in mind. The 2nd amendment would still exist but there would be no guns available.
Very theoretical of course, but it's interesting to consider how the NRA types would react.
19
"Thanks to President Trump’s two additions to the bench, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, a majority of justices are now presumed to be hostile to abortion rights."
Trump made no secret what he would do. Too many women didn't care. Either they failed to vote, wasted votes on third party dreamers, or were really right wing "independents."
Cause meet effect.
12
There is a conflict of rights emerging during pregnancy. At first, the dominant right is a woman's bodily autonomy. Allowing the government the power to interfere with that most fundamental right requires a strong reason. As time goes on the rights of the nascent citizen, the fetus, become stronger such that they trump the mother's bodily autonomy at some point. That point is as hard to define as the beginning of the day. It certainly is not the moment of conception.
Anti abortion zealots refuse to recognize any bodily autonomy rights at any point in pregnancy. They would empower the government to remove women's rights at the moment of conception, essentially 1 microsecond after midnight in my morning rising analogy. That is a governmental power that is utterly incompatible with a democratic society. In trying to define the morning, they condemn us to a perpetual midnight.
8
The hard-to-define moment you discuss HAS been defined — in Roe v Wade: viability.
2
So predictable, that in an election year the subject of abortion is suddenly front and center in the news. If there was ever an issue that simultaneously stirs the emotions of one group, and the righteous intellectual indignation of the other, I don’t know what it is. Every cycle, the same thing. One side accuses the other of legalizing murder, the other says those who deny them the procedure are promoting female bondage and forced procreation, a modern slavery to keep females subservient and poor, the better to be used and abused by the patriarchy.
Let’s be magnanimous and say both sides are correct. If abortion is to be illegal in a state, to protect the child, then the state must always make provisions that the baby, once born, will be guaranteed a life free from hunger, neglect and abuse, at least until the age of majority. In some states that may be age 18 or 21, in others where high birth rates are needed to maintain a cheap and servile workforce, like in coal country or on the plantations, maybe that is 12 or 14, or whenever that child becomes pregnant herself, or if a boy, can push a shovel and swing a pickaxe for 8 or 10 hours without falling over dead. 18 tons, and all that.
Aside from basic medical care and some gruel everyday, rudimentary clothes and some lye soap and a bucket to wash in, the State is doing its job if that unwanted but saved abortion can one day do his or her part and make new workers to replace themselves. Sounds fair to me. MAGA!
5
From the article: "The [Louisiana]law requires that abortion providers jump through the medically unnecessary — and, for some, impossible — hoop of securing admitting privileges at a hospital near their clinic."
When John Kasich was Governor here in Ohio, he tried the same thing. To make sure it was airtight, he passed yet another law that made it illegal for a hospital to grant an abortion clinic admitting privileges.
Then he added similar provisions into his annual 'budget' -- just to be sure.
5
The Editorial Board and most commentators here are crying for the fate of Louisiana's women. I would like to point out that these women are also voters. Today both Louisiana senators are Republicans and so are five out of six Congressmen. Also, at the state level the Senate is 27 R vs 12 D and the House is 68 R vs 35 D. Based on this overwhelming conservative representation I would argue that majority of the voters in Louisiana are supportive of this legislation.
15
@Alex Or, perhaps the odds will go in a different direction if this bill passes?
It's possible that many poor people are not even registered to vote yet.
@Alex
Yep - this fight is for Louisiana. If they are unwilling to use their votes, they get to live with the consequences. Enough of the Blue states sacrificing political capital and will to fight the battles that red staters are too cowardly to do for themselves.
1
The voters can always get abortions outside of the state. The ones who are not able to do so are the ones who have been prohibited to vote.
2
Setting aside the duplicity of conservatives advocating for less government intrusion in all but the most intimate matters of health and medicine - all while actively trying to abolish the Affordable Care Act - it is a mistake to get mired in the minutiae of the abortion debate because, at base, the right to choose is about the right to privacy. And, as such, the defense of Roe v. Wade involves nothing less than the preservation of privacy rights for everyone, not just women.
I almost wish SCOTUS would go ahead and strike down Roe - if for no other reason than to spur the arduous processes of weeding out the theocracy that’s taking root in the halls of government and enshrining privacy rights in such a way that no Federalist Society approved jurist will ever be able to chip away at them or overturn them again. Don’t like the idea of your privacy rights being infringed by a strict-constructionist judge - a judge who doesn’t believe you have any right to privacy in the first place, because the term “privacy” isn’t in the Constitution? Then vote blue in November, from the top of the ballot all the way down to the bottom.
20
What has helped close abortion clinics is pro life vigils occurring outside facilities that perform abortions. Women often have a change of heart when they see people quietly praying and talk to someone who takes an interest in their wellbeing. I have friends in the pro life movement who have experienced this. Their compassion and kindness has had a positive effect on a woman who decided not to go through with the abortion. Their whole attitude changed and they were so relieved that they chose life. They never for a moment regretted their decision. They were blessed with a beautiful little girl or boy. It is so heartwarming to see and hear stories like this. Life is beautiful.
4
@KMW ‘They never for a moment regretted their decision.’ Unless they all became friends and stayed in contact for the rest of their lives, how would one know this?
15
Sure, that’s why parents never abuse or neglect their children. Unprepared parents are always won over by their children.
8
@KMW : And the women who choose to have unsafe abortions because there are no safe alternatives simply do not count.
10
Readers should be similarly concerned about the anti-choice crowd's lesser known, but equally important goal: Overturning Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (State statute banning use of contraceptives violated right to privacy which can be inferred from several amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.
18
@Richard
Yes, Griswold should be overturned as well. Though I will admit, I do not see nearly the interest and effort here, as I would like, or that you seem to fear.
1
Since abortion laws are so asymmetric towards punishing women. We need an equally asymmetrical approach with say - sex. It would be illegal for a man to have sex. If a couple (traditional couple defined as a biological man and biological woman) is found having sex, only the man would be punished. There now, the laws are even.
24
@Pro-Something
There is nothing asymmetrical about abortion laws, anymore than there was about men being subject to a military draft but not women.
In fact, if a man could become pregnant, the anti-abortion laws would apply to him as well.
Think that can't happen? Well, with all the gender-bender bizarre theories floating around these days, I imagine it will only be a matter of time before some male will be able to get himself outfitted with some uterine apparatus so he can go through 'pregnancy'. Assuming he still even thinks of himself as male.
@Rob If we men could get pregnant, this wouldn't be an issue by now.
1
Why can't we go the way of many European countries like France Germany, Italy and also India which allow elective abortion only for the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and after that has to be justified by the emergency? Late abortion should be allowed only in case of emergency and the emergency has to be objective.
8
There seems to be no penalty for states such as Louisiana that does not create abortion clinics that fit their laws. If Louisiana does not do so their laws obviously are meant to restrict the right to an abortion. Safety has never been the goal of states erecting these obstacles who only seek the power to take away a woman's right to choose.
7
If you are in support of pro life, then I strongly encourage you to be in support of expanding the social safety net of Medicaid/Healthcare, making affordable childcare a national priority, creating a living wage with real benefits, decreasing the costs of college education, and supporting any other measure that further reduces inequality. In other words, I’m implore you to support life from the miraculous point of conception all the way through the tender years of retirement.
Because one thing is true: poverty is very real and very damaging. Not surprisingly, most family decisions today (even among the well off and highly educated) have now come down to a simple calculation of cost economics. In sum: If we going to argue for life, then we must also fight for improved economic conditions that make supporting life a life easier. And if we are unable to make that argument, then we are unable (and should not) to decide what is good for someone else and their body.
35
It baffles me that people who feel so strongly against abortion are so incredibly misinformed. If you want to learn more, talk to people who have actually had abortions. What was their experience like? Why did they choose an abortion? These women exist. They are sentient beings.
40
For me, it’s not about supporting abortion. It’s about defending a privacy right secured by the Constitution.
3
I have to ask; what medical decision for a man does the state make? How many times in his life does a man go through drastic hormonal changes? How many pills do men take to avoid pregnancy? What are the side effects of the pills men take in order to have sex as often as desired? Why are men so afraid of women having the final say regarding what happens in their own bodies?
66
A woman’s right to an abortion is a guarantee of her freedom. You CANNOT force someone to carry a child any more than you can force someone to give up a kidney or die early to benefit their heirs. This issue is not complicated at all. People must have control of their own bodies.
72
These cases do not belong in the Courts. A woman’s right to choose is not the business of government. The Courts should state that emphatically and forever. Then get back to more pressing matters, like removing Gorsuch, a stolen seat, and Kavanaugh, a poor excuse for a Supreme Court justice, after his theatrics and the credible accusations of Christine Blasey Ford.
52
The pro-choice are probably gone lose again regardless if Roe V Wade till they admit that abortion has to be argued all over again based on equal- protection rather than privacy!
1
You can bet that women of means will still find their way to a safe, legal abortion, just as they did before Roe vs Wade. Only the young, poor, or uninsured are hurt by these new restrictive abortion laws. Leave women the right to control their own bodies.
39
And once Roe v Wade is overturned,women will be nothing more than walking reproductive systems. As children do not always hinder women’s lives, a woman’s future, mental, physical, and emotional health must now take a back seat. No matter her age, no matter her mental state, she will be forced to “do what she was born to do”.
I’m often a masochist in these debates, as i want to see this law overturned, and i want to see how the country deals with so many lost mothers and babies who WILL HAVE AN ABORTION NO MATTER WHAT WE SAY. It will not be safe, and many will go wrong.
All the more, i really hope this turns out great. I hope women (who are apparently the only ones responsible in getting pregnant) take more control and suppress their urges to have sex (again, keep dreaming). Or maybe someone can point me in the direction of that 100% effective birth control?
6
“Overturning Roe v. Wade, a step that a majority of Americans have long opposed” - The NY Times has long forgotten that this country is not a Democracy, it is a Republic and just because a majority thinks it is OK to end a child’s life and along with it the responsibility to raise the child to adulthood, does not mean it is the moral and legal thing to do.
2
@Mark Actually we are a democratic republic. The distinction between a republic and a democracy is a canard that people like to bring up when they wish to deny majoritarian rule or just claim they are more learned than they are.
Republic just means that we don't have a hereditary aristocracy. If we are just a republic, then how would we differ from the Islamic Republic or the Iraqi Republic when it was under Saddam Hussein?
Let me reverse your other point. The founding fathers had no objection to abortion. If the state now wishes to force a woman to carry a child, then the state has the responsibility to raise the child or at least to guarantee a basic standard of living that would include quality medical care, education, shelter, diet etc. These are not things that the state of LA is not known for. LA doesn't even provide an acceptable level of legal representation for the poor. That is why their prisons are filled with the sons of single mothers.
I am not sure that this morality thing is such a settled matter. Slavery used to be moral and legal. Then Jim Crow was moral & legal in the same places that are now adamant about abortion being murder. All of the former were justified by religious precepts. So, if you have some religious objection to abortion, don't have one. If you really want to be legal and moral, go join ISIS. They are very sure that god talks to them and they will legally kill you if you disagree.
25
Louisiana wants to reduce abortions which is a good thing. What is wrong with wanting to save babies from an horrendous act. As a pro life woman, my dream is to see abortion come to an end. Roe v Wade was one of the worst Supreme Court cases to have passed in the court. I pray that it will be overturned. We have had over 60 million babies lives come to an end and if that does not make you sick nothing will. I hope the Supreme Court votes in favor of the babies.
4
A truly horrendous act is that of forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will. The inherent dangers of gestation and birth far outweigh those of abortion procedures. At the end of the day, you, nor anyone else, has any right to force your beliefs on others.
52
Roe may be overturned or eviscerated but abortions will continue to happen.
What makes me sick is people trying to force their religion on others.
13
@Danielle
Yes, Danielle. I've been saying we have to stop using their language and marketing and brand what they want for what it is: Forced-Birth.
It is nothing but the application of state force upon a woman. Funny how these so-called pro-lifers never feel it is OK to force men to have a reversible vasectomy to avoid unwanted births in the first place. I mean if you can force women to under pregnancy and medical procedures, why not men?
Forced-Birth.
6
The Times needs a continual reminder: it’s not Trump’s Supreme Court. Trump nominated two of the current justices, as did Obama, GW Bush, and Clinton.
Is this an attempt to fan the flames of tribalism?
3
Obama nominated three justices. Trump stole one and nominated one.
1
Look at the way he got to appoint the seats and then tell me who fanned the flames. And let’s talk about the qualifications of the last appointment. Kavanaugh should never have been appointed.
4
Reading the comments here, I have never been more thankful that I am past childbearing age, and never more saddened at the outright hubris of those who would attempt to force their beliefs on others.
43
If you don’t agree with abortion, don’t have one. As with many other laws pertaining to personal freedom, keep your nose out of other people’s business, when the business is between those personally involved and medical professionals with a responsibility to keep their patients’ best interests in mind. There are many reasons why abortion may be an appropriate choice, and while I see a distinct difference between contraception and abortion, I can never be sufficiently in another person’s shoes to make such a highly personal decision for that person. If you don’t like another person’s decision, that’s your problem, not theirs.
60
“The Supreme Court will decide on yet another bid to curtail women’s rights masquerading as a safety measure.”
Abortion can NEVER be a right. Indeed, a right aims at guaranteeing the faculty of a person to act for his/her good as a human being. Everything that we recognise as fundamental rights: think, associate, pray, speak, are faculties through which every person expresses his/her humanity. These are faculties that animals do not have and that define “human” rights. The fundamental rights protect the exercise of these noble faculties, specifically human. They protect what every person realises his/her humanity in. Which means that by exercising these fundamental rights, man becomes more human.
But can one say of a woman that she is more accomplished and more human when she has an abortion, like she does when she gets married or when she speaks?
Between a fundamental right and abortion, the difference in nature is obvious. Thus abortion can never be a fundamental right.
3
But your argument depends on a specious definition of “rights.” Why should I accept that premise?
11
@Awells,
Answer to your question:
Marie’s idea of ‘human rights’ is as valid as your idea of human rights.
If I accept yours, you have to accept mine and Marie’s.
Simple notion.
1
@Rose M Well no, I am not obliged to accept Marie M's position just because she thinks it. (What a strange notion! If someone thinks that 2+2=3, do I have to accept it?) My point is that Marie M based her argument on a very peculiar notion of rights -- a notion without much precedent, as far as I can tell. Moreover, the argument seems circular: Marie has simply defined "rights" as something that could "never" include the right to an abortion, and she then concludes that abortion is not a right. The conclusion is contained in the premises, and so I don't think the argument has much force. But I'm certainly open to counter-arguments!
10
I, for one, am without doubt as to how the SCOTUS will decide. Surely, this will come as no surprise to many who have become accustomed to the Court's clear ideological bent - justices selected not on the basis of sound legal minds, but ideological purity. And I have even less doubt as to how Kavanaugh will decide - he of the statement that Roe v Wade is settled law when asked a pointed question by Senator Collins (her naivete continues to astonish) . . .
14
We need to cut to the number of justices down to 7.
1
Republican Tim Murphy, although no longer a member of Congress, is perfectly representative of the true objective of Republicans as related to abortion.
Republicans in private have no desire to stop utilizing abortion services. In fact, should abortion become illegal in the United States they will continue to fly women in their circles discretely to other countries to acquire the medical procedure. Republican men have no intention of actually fathering who they believe to be illegitimate offspring.
Their Republican public opposition to abortion has only to do with power. They want to be the ones who get to say who can and who cannot access the service. It has nothing to do with arguments about life or rights of a fetus. Those are all just red herrings.
Again, it is evident in their actions that they don’t actually believe any of their own propaganda. Otherwise they wouldn’t be utilizing the service. It has everything to do with keeping women, especially poor or minority women, “in their place.” Nothing more.
45
This won’t stop those with the means to get an abortion. That list will include Catholics, conservatives and republican donor’s mistresses. This will fall most hardest on the working poor. The government now knows what’s best for your family planning. I thought republicans “wanted government out of our lives”?
39
The proposals in Louisiana do not go far enough.
Abortion is murder. Murder should never be legal.
4
@Poor Richard
About one in four American women will have an abortion by age 45. Do you really consider a quarter of American women to be murderers? Should a quarter of American women be incarcerated for murder?
Or maybe, just maybe, are you willing to accept that this issue is more complicated than that, and that is why we have been debating about it for decades?
7
I recall hearing that Fred Trump's wife had an abortion. She named it Donald, but the fact is that we've had to live with her poor decision ever since.
43
I will never support discrimination or the government having the right to make medical decisions for anyone.
That being said, I have zero confidence that the supreme Court will uphold my right of sole dominion over my body. They will relegate my life to nothing more than an X chromosome to be force bred at the will of others.
26
As someone who has worked in reproductive health on and off since 1976, I can only hope that SCOTUS does the right thing and strikes down the draconian rules associated with the Louisiana rules and shows its commitment to retaining Roe v. Wade. Women must be able to control their reproductive choices ALWAYS. This is something men will never face and given Trump's desire to return America to the dark ages, the 1950s when women knew their place, this decision becomes even more crucial. My Master's Thesis showed the interrelationship between a woman's ability to control their fertility and their economic viability in terms of earnings during their lifetime. Some people will always be able to afford to obtain an abortion while others, poor women, will not. It will continue to create a cycle of poverty that will affect women located in rural towns and our poorest states. Every form of birth control has a failure rate, even hysterectomies have a rare failure rate. For those who don't want an abortion don't get one. For those who need it as the last choice that right should not be taken away. Only women will suffer.
407
@Glenn Strachan
You are correct that women are entitled to reproductive choice. Why is it that no Planned Parenthood or other abortion provider has ever persuaded a woman not to have an abortion that she is pressured to have by her boyfriend?
Perhaps an abortion should not be the first choice?
1
@ebmem First choice? Hardly. I spent years in family planning clinics including Planned Parenthood and I do not remember any case of my or anyone with whom I worked saying birth control beginning with abortion and you should consider other forms of "birth control." What I told people was that there are many forms of birth control of which abortion should be the very last solution. I also told the men that their say in a women's choice comes prior to having sex not afterward.
124
@Janus.face - The neural connections to transmit pain signals don't connect until at least week 27, which is beyond the time frame allowed in Roe v Wade. So no, an embryo or fetus does NOT suffer during an abortion. Furthermore, no woman owes it to a childless couple to carry a pregnancy for them and suffer the health and economic consequences of it.
59
It's not about babies.
It's about control.
If it was about babes, all babies would be taken care of after they are born.
White men who have lost control of most things will forever keep their feet on the necks of women.
559
@Philly Burbs Agree. If we are talking about controlling women, then let's start talking about controlling men. I think that every man should have a reversible vasectomy starting at age 18.
68
@Philly Burbs - The sad truth is there are about as many women as men who think they should have the power to dictate the reproductive decisions of women they don't know and will never meet.
70
@Philly Burbs
@DaveC
Yes, this what I was going to add. You know it is about control of women because all the efforts of the so-called pro-life group and laws are singularly focused on women. Men's actions are never controlled but in some cases they are grant parental rights, even when they are rapists.
37
A 2019 Gallup poll indicated that only 21% of Americans polled were of the opinion that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.
In the same poll, 25% thought it should be legal under any circumstance.
The remaining 53% said it should be legal only under certain circumstances. This POV is consistent with Roe v. Wade, which establishes restrictions based on a trimester structure.
So it's fair to say that 78% of Americans favor access to abortion; the majority are in favor of some restrictions. We already have some restrictions, and I think most Americans are well aware of that fact.
191
@BothSides Right now we do not have enough restrictions I think the restrictions in Louisiana are too strict but on the other hand restrictions in New York are too lax.
If pro-choicers are unable to make any compromises they're going to go down in defeat.
4
Precisely, you are helping to show that the real power of pro lifers is actually the power of the politician who used that issue to divide. If there were ever to be another civil war, it’s origins could partially be traced to the manipulations by politicians of this issue. It’s the division that matters, not the issues
13
@BothSidesNow
Reading all these comments I get the impression that many Americans don't understand Roe vs Wade. They think "overturning Roe vs Wade" is equivalent to "banning abortion". What an overturn would really mean is that the democratic process will determine when abortion is permissible. Most of Europe follows this rule now
6
We have had abortions for hundreds of years. We will have abortions in the future.
The issue is whether abortions should be performed by trained medical personnel or whether abortions should be performed by non-medical personnel in seedy hotels and back alleys thereby increasing the health risk to women.
The effort to overturn Roe v. Wade is misguided and wrong-headed. Time for another Women's March.
677
@treabeton Actually, women used pharmaceutical means to terminate unwanted pregnancies since the Roman empire, and probably before. It was always known what herbs might induce a miscarriage. Like the sign in the photo says: abortion happens, keep it safe.
78
@Joy
Precisely. Even the Bible promotes it in Numbers 5:11 as a means test for adultery. Some sort of herbal water is indicated for this use.
4
@treabeton
Sure, but really it's time for a blue slate of winners come November 2020
3
Abortion is a religious issue and to impose the Catholic Church's views on the issue (cataloguing the number of conservative Catholics on the Supreme Court is dismaying) contravenes our freedom of religious belief. Catholic women have abortions too, just the way they have divorces, which also contravenes the Catholic Church's dogma. To make all of us hypocrites, not just Catholics, is not a just outcome.
Catholicism and other religions believe that each child is created by God, but far more people believe that children are created scientifically with ova and sperm. To force those who believe in science to behave according to someone else's religious belief goes against the most basic of American principles -- freedom of religion.
521
@annabellina
For many people it's not a religious issue at all but a matter of control over one's own body.
73
@annabellina Thank you! The fact that this issue is based on religious beliefs is not mentioned enough - if at all. Under cover of "political" issues we are moving closer and closer to a theocracy. Everyone should be able to practice their own religion, but no one should be allowed to force their religious beliefs on others.
And let's not forget: this law would not effectively ban all abortions. Only for those that are too poor to travel to another state where the Constitution is still upheld. Middle class and above women will have no problem.
103
@annabellina This kind of bigotry towards any other group but Catholics would be dismissed out of hand. Here, however, it's even recommended.
19
President Trump must be re-elected so he is able to appoint more conservative Supreme Court justices to the bench. There is bound to be at least one and possibly two more appointments that he will be able to make. This would guarantee more conservative decisions made towards the pro life cause. This would be be wonderful and a dream come true.
2
Donald Trump must be defeated so that we can restore our democracy, and he can be brought to justice.
31
@KMW Ugh. Let's hope not. A minority trying to impose their will on the majority will only lead to more fracture.
25
@KMW . Whose dream are you referring to? Is it your business in New York to decide what woman in Louisanna must do for their reproductive health? I am amazed at people who think it is their right to make these decisions. Mind you, have you ever been in the position of having to decide for another person. God forbid if Trump is elected for a second term.
27
I don't understand why the medical community - gynecologists, medical schools, and hospitals - doesn't just band together and offer this service to women. If every ob/gyn practice, every surgical center, and every hospital performed safe, legal abortions it seems like it would close every loophole invented to prevent women and their doctors from having full and private control over their care.
29
@cgg That would be great, but there are several (intentional) barriers. First, institutions that provide abortions cannot receive federal funding, which most rely on at least in part to keep their doors open. This also includes not receiving title 10 funding to help offset the cost of caring for uninsured/low income pts. Additionally, physicians and institutions are rightly worried about the target on their backs and the backs of their patients if they become abortion providers. Doing so would jeopardize the healthcare access and safety of the rest of their pts, and would incur a huge cost for security. There also aren't that many docs trained to do abortions--it isn't a part of regular medial training, and not every obgyn learns it either. Finally, there ARE docs and other healthcare workers who are against abortion an would put up stiff resistance to their institution providing it.
7
If those opposed to abortion rights were Muslim (or Hindu or any religion other than Christianity) would this case even be considered by the Supreme Court?
If the answer is “no,” which it invariably is, wouldn’t we all agree that it runs crossgrain to the separation of church and state?
40
Parading this out as safety measures means this is an example of the Right’s version of the nanny state. How else do they want to tell us how to live?
36
Before reading more about this case, let me predict: Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Roberts will vote to limit opportunity for abortions, because that's what they were selected to do.
Now I'll go back and read and see the details of the case, which will not matter in the pre-judged decision.
18
No argument, no amount of words, can disguise the fact that an abortion takes the life of an infant. One is entitled to any set of beliefs about life or its beginnings, but no one may go about taking the life of another on the strength of personal beliefs. The rights of the mother and the child are intertwined, but that doesn't mean that the child in the womb has no rights. Using disparaging language about that child (e.g., "clump of cells") cannot obscure the fact that the child is one of us (as we were once ourselves children in utero), has an interest in life, and wants the opportunity to live his or her life. The mother's rights may be stronger, but even one with stronger legal rights may not make arbitrary decisions about the life of another. To the extent that we differ vehemently on the point, that is what government of the people is all about in a democracy, not government by court fiat. Roe v. Wade is one of the worst decisions ever visited on this country by the Supreme Court, for moral as well as political reasons. I look forward to its demise.
11
And government BY the people, the majority of whom are pro- choice.
15
@Tom Wolpert - My state's Republican majority are demanding that the state put a constitutional amendment banning abortion on the ballot, or else Medicaid expansion will never be allowed out of committee. What's interesting is that even in my red state, I don't believe a ban on abortion will pass.
5
@Tom Wolpert What should happen is that sex education should be offered in schools since parents abdicate their responsibility to do it and are so woefully uninformed about it, and that young people ought to be able to get contraceptives when they want and need them. That's what cut the abortion rate so low in France and other European countries like Sweden. But the very same people who campaign against abortion rights are the same people who campaign against sex education and contraception. So I am going to presume that you are going to advocate for sex education and free contraception in schools for young people. We want to stop unwanted pregnancies, and this is the only way to do it, not some stupid programs on abstaining from sex, which clearly has never worked.
11
Lots of folks here discussing how women's autonomy is violated by abortion regulation - an important point!
But I also want to examine how insane the premises of the pro-life movement actually are. The pro-life argument states that at conception, a zygote becomes a "human being" that is as morally valuable as a living person. That is an insane premise. Why are human lives valuable in the first place? Philosophers argue, but generally agree people have experiences, desires, emotions that make their life valuable. But the pro-life view ignores all of that - the sole factor in the value of human life is the change in the squiggle of DNA that occurs at conception. Why is the zygote morally valuable, but not a human skin cell? As far as I know. the pro-life response is always to robotically repeat "A zygote is a human life."
Scientifically, we know that experiences, thoughts, and the other qualities that actually make human life valuable are not present without a cerebral cortex, which is not even developed until the third trimester. There is NO moral reason think of abortion as a kind of murder before that point. There is no reason for a woman to be ashamed of first or second trimester abortions, or even to avoid them, or even not to use them as birth control. The pro-life philosophy isn't simply woman-hating. It profoundly fails to grasp what it is that makes our lives valuable in the first place.
89
@ksj - "Philosophers argue, but generally agree people have experiences, desires, emotions that make their life valuable."
This is a point of significant contention. Peter Singer at Princeton is arguably the leader of the school of thought you subscribe to, which makes personhood contingent on consciousness, rationality, and power/autonomy. This is the growing mainstream in the platform of the Democratic Party. Of course, this school of thought also justifies infanticide and euthanasia of the unfit. Which is why Dems are slouching towards unlimited late-term abortion, and will have few intellectual defenses against infanticide and euthanasia as time goes on.
The Judaeo-Christian view, which has descended into the West through the secular politics of the Enlightenment, is that human beings have inalienable rights and freedoms as human beings that the State cannot take away, no matter how "unfit" they may be. So successful is this philosophy that we don't even think of it as a religious idea anymore; we just assume it is true. Hence the Civil Rights movement and the abolition of slavery, and someday, the abolition of the licensed violence of abortion.
@James
That old "slippery slope" argument is baloney! There is no push for euthanasia. Some older or very ill people want "right to die" legislation because they are tired of living strapped to machines or in incredible pain. That is not the same as wanting to decide for someone else, although that actually does happen now when a spouse kills their partner and then themselves. Happened to some acquaintances of mine just last summer. And the children born during late abortions are usually so badly deformed that they cannot live outside the womb and are sometimes dead before birth. When born alive, they are kept comfortable until nature takes over, but not killed. These are children who cannot be saved even with heroic measures and are never going to be truly alive, only existing with being strapped to machines and tubes that replace the womb.
2
@James the problem with your argument is “of course”. There is no logical progression from Singer’s position to elimination of the unfit. Remember that Singer is also the founder of animal rights movement. A newborn has some self-awareness, as do most higher animals, and it has to be respected. A fetus has none. As for euthanasia, brain-dead patients are routinely taken off life support, no matter that they are biologically human, and nobody objects. The idea of “inalienable rights” only makes sense in a religious context. Rights are assigned by society. And talking about slavery: how does a fetus have the right to use my body against my will? Who is the slave here and who is the master?
2
Abortion is not in the Constitution and is a completely made up con law “right” courtesy of an activist court.
It’s should up to the states. Period. End of story. People need to start reading the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. They’re pretty important, yet, the left is great at giving them short shrift.
12
Conservatives love to argue for States’ rights, until a State tries to do something the federal government doesn’t like, e.g., emissions standards. And when it comes to something as important as a woman’s right to direct her own reproductive life, it shouldn’t matter if she lives in a Blue state or a Bible-thumping one - especially since the latter are generally home to poorer women who won’t have the resources to terminate an unwanted pregnancy elsewhere, just perpetuating the cycle of poverty.
72
@Cjmesq0 That thought process leads to a wide variety of issues such as gun control in Chicago, where the laws are strict but where Indiana's lax gun laws have wreaked havoc on the city's ability to control firearms. If everything should truly be left up to the states, why not simply have 50 separate countries? We have a Federal government for a reason, some laws need to be universal.
33
@Cjmesq0
The Ninth Amendment says this "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
In other words, not all rights are listed in the Constitution. It does NOT say "anything not listed here is a matter for the states."
2
The poor will always be hit hardest by the religious right's political influence. Wealthy women will always get what they need or want.
87
@Rank N File Bingo. So it's class oppression, as much as anything. "Pro-life"? Not so much.
5
Everyone knows that if you show up at an ER you will only be treated if an affiliated doctor sends you there...
This is obviously nuts except to those looking for an excuse to do an end run on SCOTUS precedent. With a shamelessly political Senate, the justices, while imperfect, seem to be our last best hope.
9
In some states men decide what women should do with their bodies. Women in these states should refuse to sleep with men until this situation changes. The woman should report a rape anytime a man who holds such views touches her. Then we will see how long this lasts.
33
“The real transgression occurs when religion wants government to tell citizens how to live uniquely personal parts of their lives. . .
“Some questions may be inherently individual ones, or people may be sharply divided about whether they are. In such cases, like Prohibition and abortion, the proper role of religion is to appeal to the conscience of the individual, not the coercive power of the state.”
Ted Kennedy 1983
Why can’t abortion be taken out of politics? Because it is the most successful republican wedge issue ever.
68
When you read the Constitution, you discover that most rights you take for granted aren’t enumerated. For example, there is no constitutional right to own property or marry. That doesn’t mean those rights don’t exist—just that the framers knew it would be impossible to list everything. They established broader rights, like the right to privacy, which is what the Court relied on when deciding Roe.
12
Roe was a bridge too far at the time it was decided, and it is and always has been the principal cause of the horrific political chasm that grows more pronounced with every passing year. The resulting rightist backlash has been enormous, and the emotion-laden issue outweighs, for millions of voters, all other considerations. As a result, we've been led by such stalwart mediocrities as George W. Bush and now (My God!) Donald Trump.
Roe was great public policy but miserable judge-made law, and it was born a generation too soon -- maybe two. With respect to the women whose rights should be of enormous importance to all of us, we'd have been better off without Roe v. Wade.
2
@gradyjerome - Roe was the compromise decision, allowing abortion to the stage prior to viability, and prohibiting it thereafter with certain crucial exceptions. Why can't those on the right settle for the compromise decision instead of insisting on forcing all of us to live by their religious beliefs?
35
@gradyjerome, Conservatives would like nothing more than to control women. First thing Trump did when he took office was repeal the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Now, Trump’s SCOTUS is going to see how far it can go in taking away a woman’s autonomy and freedom!
11
Another op-ed asks "Will the Courts Hand Trump more Unchecked Power?" The answer is yes. It's almost stupid to believe that anyone's rights are safe in Trump's America, much less the rights of women and people of color.
From completely unqualified judicial appointments (how many Trump judicial nominees have never tried a case? or failed to get a recommendation of qualified by the American Bar Association?), to Clarence Thomas' clear conflicts of interest, to Gorsuch giving speeches for organizations using his speeches to fundraise at the Trump Hotel, to the whole Kavanaugh of it all, I don't trust this bunch as far as I can throw them. PS - I fully expect the decision dismantling Obamacare to happen after the election. Why? Oh, just convenient timing.
24
An abortion clinic is not the only place a woman can get an elective abortion.
The abortion clinics would have standing to sue if they acknowledged their true motivation. They want to maintain their cash flow and profits. It appeals to them that a woman can get an expensive abortion in a single visit. There's no need to even inquire if there are better options for The only choice abortionists want women to have is the choice to kill their unborn child.
The reason abortionists have difficultly obtaining hospital admitting privileges is because they are rarely residents anywhere near the locations of the clinics. They are highly paid itinerant workers who fly in for a day or two to perform abortions and then return home. They cannot obtain admitting privileges because they have no intention of being available for follow up care.
What laws did Pennsylvania impose after the Gosnell tragedy that involved hundreds of felony convictions. Does Pennsylvania now require health department inspections of abortion clinics. Gosnell's clinic was never inspected by the health department or any other governmental agency interested in preserving the lives of women.
7
@ebmem - Abortion costs PP more than they charge for it. They charge on a sliding scale according to income. The rest of the costs are made up through donations. It is a money loser, not a money maker. An abortion in a PP clinic costs about $600, compared to about $6000 in a hospital, where several someones make a profit off of it.
14
The US has remarkable contempt for women, families, children and the poor.
Roberts has no passion for any of the above but having his fingerprints on a ruling denying a wealthy white woman an abortion might cause discomfort. Nothing an antacid can't relieve.
28
The religious-zealots in the minority have been quietly dismantling Roe v Wade, with their weird laws and rules. We, will see IF the Supreme Court is run by a bunch of Trump sycophants or IF they are working for We, the People!
This is why there is NO EXCUSE for not voting on November 3rd 2020! Vote! Our freedoms, our choices, our very democracy is on the line!
Vote Democratic!
33
It has baffled me for quite some time why some people are so concerned and have invested themselves in the privacy rights of women they don't know so deeply. Open heart surgery is not something everyone could watch with detachment. But we don't force heart patients to view videos of the procedure to convince them that they shouldn't have surgery . The problem is, the more power we invest in superstitious beliefs, the more the superstitious want. This is the tip of the anti-science iceberg. Don't be surprised when they try to take away your right to medical care and insist that you pray instead. There are those that already believe such things. The recent best seller called "Educated" by Tara Westover starkly illustrates where this is going. Because if you think they will stop at abortion, you do not understand that abortion itself was never the issue. The real issue is American Sharia law only based on the Christian bible. And this in the modern world. We are sliding back to annihilation and religion is the grease making the slide faster and faster. Just remember Armageddon can't happen soon enough for these nuts.
59
It has baffled me for quite some time why some people are so concerned and have invested themselves in the privacy rights of women they don't know so deeply. Open heart surgery is not something everyone could watch with detachment. But we don't force heart patients to view videos of the procedure to convince them that they shouldn't have surgery . The problem is, the more power we invest in superstitious beliefs, the more the superstitious want. This is the tip of the anti-science iceberg. Don't be surprised when they try to take away your right to medical care and insist that you pray instead. There are those that already believe such things. The recent best seller called "Educated" by Tara Westover starkly illustrates where this is going. Because if you think they will stop at abortion, you do not understand that abortion itself was never the issue. The real issue is American Sharia law only based on the Christian bible. And this in the modern world. We are sliding back to annihilation and religion is the grease making the slide faster and faster. Just remember Armageddon can't happen soon enough for these nuts.
9
Let’s just cut to the chase, GOP. Declare ALL Females to be legal Property Of their Male Relatives. Father, Husband, Brother, Uncles, even Cousins. Any Male Relative will do, if none available, a Court Appointed Male Guardian will suffice. In other words, treat us as livestock, and as Breeding Stock, at your whim and fancy. That’s the path of this particular blood red Road.
NOVEMBER.
36
Perhaps all these babies that are born to women who may be drug users, mentally challenged, impoverished, rape victims, minors, and so on should be turned over to pro life groups to feed, clothe, nurture, educate and otherwise raise them since they are responsible for their birth and they really care about them. Right?
46
@A. L. Brown They'll just warehouse them as they do now. Have you ever looked at the lists of children available for adoption in any state's system? They are children who have serious health issues or serious behavior issues. Those who adopt these children are truly doing God's work.
4
@A. L. Brown I appreciate your ironical tone, but anti-choice, religious fundamentalist groups are themselves the cause of quite a lot of our society's horrors.
3
"Thanks to President Trump’s two additions to the bench, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, a majority of justices are now presumed to be hostile to abortion rights."
No matter what one may think of Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch is an illegitimate usurper and does not belong on the SCOTUS.
So, Chief Justice John (stare decisis) Roberts, what will be your legacy?
17
Slowly but surely it's becoming dangerous simply to be a woman in the States.
35
@Rachel - It's always been dangerous to be a woman in the U.S.
2
Are we in 2020 or 1920...
It's hard to believe we are back to
discussing and debating this issues.
I just watched AXIOS on HBO, they were filming his recent rally in NH, it's simply terrifying to see.
Huge crowds, total adulation for a Con man, that's incomprehensible, feels like you're transported to a different planet, they formed huge lines in any weather, stay overnight, bring their little kids, what you witness is a mass Psychosis.
Is this him or half of the country just doesn't function in a normal way.
Do they spray the air with some kind of
delusional narcotics?
What's going on???
24
@faivel1 - Since Trump assures his cultists that the Coronavirus is a hoax, they'll doubtless continue to gather in large, tightly packed groups regardless of the risk. But maybe they can pray away the virus.
13
Stop killing fetuses. Overturn Roe v Wade
6
@PJ
Overturning Roe will not stop abortions, it will only stop safe, legal abortions and more women will die as a result.
5
“...last year the Trump administration took a sledgehammer to the nation’s family planning program, making it harder for poor women across the country to get birth control and cancer screenings.”
Utter stupidity. If you’re against abortion, then the only logical civic/social course based in science is contraception. If you’re also anti-contraception, then you are anti-science because you are basing your view on something other than science, almost always religion which does NOT belong in the public debate. Want to practice your religion? Fine but keep it out of other women’s lives who don’t follow your belief system. The First Amendment protects me from your primitive mythology.
I had an abortion 36 years ago and it was THE BEST decision of my life. If I was in the same difficult circumstances again today, I’d do it again. No regrets. I will utterly defy these Iron Age zealots to my grave and support any cause that helps women get the care they need, even if it’s illegal.
41
Take a pill in the privacy of your own home.
F3
8
Capitalism requires ever-expanding supplies of labor as well as consumers. If immigration is shut down birth rates among citizen-women must be forcibly kept high to keep capitalism functioning. Moreover, lesbians and gays must be forced to marry and reproduce. All of this administration's policies are of a piece: making more white babies to work in coal mines, on oil rigs, and shopping at Hobby Lobby.
12
The rich will always be able to secure an abortion even if means flying to another country. It's everyone else who deserves this same right.
22
The leader of the anti-abortion movement in Lousiana is an African-American Democratic state congresswoman from Monroe named Katrina Jackson. Not that you'd ever see her featured in the NYT; it would mess with The Narrative.
There's nothing feminist about redistributing the violence of poverty and misogyny onto babies. One unborn human being in New York City is deliberately killed via abortion for every two live births in the Abortion Capital.
Like gun control, legal regulations cannot prevent all violence - but we can certainly save many lives and testify to the value and dignity of every human being no matter how weak or unwanted or burdensome.
3
@James - So how much time have you spent thinking about the fate of those unwanted, unaffordable children born to women who'll resent, neglect, abuse and sometimes torture and kill them? Our foster care system is packed full of unwanted children, and statistics show that 1/3 of the adult prison population started life as unwanted children.
13
@James - If right wingers feel so strongly about it, why aren't they promoting sex education, affordable health care and contraception?
8
@MegWright - All of the time. My love for unwanted and unaffordable children is the same as my love for unwanted and unaffordable migrants or unborn babies or homeless people or incarcerated felons. They all deserve love, support, and protection. Everybody matters.
Abortion for:
Rape
Incest
Save mom's life.
Not an elective contraceptive though.
Safe and effective contraception works!!
2
@DAWGPOUND HAR it has never ever been a contraceptive solution, period.
Not a single woman in the world tell herself "oh, no worries, I'll just abort it"!!
It is a traumatizing experience and they always think what would have happened if they kept it.
They need a strong reason not to keep it.
Saying otherwise makes me feel sick.
1
“If men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament”
Florynce Kennedy
27
Why must the Times Editorial Board play into Trump's hand of making everything about him?! It is the United States Supreme Court, not Trump's Supreme Court.
3
The Executive Branch (President)of the 3 branches of our government appoints Justices to the courts including the Supreme Court. Therefore, President Trump through his appointees controls the agenda in these courts through the Conservative judges he appoints. That is why they are Courts of Trump.
1
Three separate, and equal branches. The Judges serve to protect the Constitution, not the President. The President is transitory, the Constitution is eternal, even if somewhat malleable to allow for unforeseen developments. Judges aren’t there to promote or deny any particular agenda, they are there to judge the legality of laws enacted by the other two branches. Just because a particular judge is appointed by a certain president does not mean the he or she can ignore that duty, in order to favor them. Even if that is where we are today, we should not be, and we should take steps to correct that. The Court has to be independent and impervious to the vagaries of any particular administration, to insure a truly free democracy. If we only have one man at the top making all the rules, we are not living in a democracy.
"When Abortions are Outlawed, Only Outlaws will have....
Oh who are they trying to kid. "God wants me to have everything and you to have nothing." That's where they're coming from.
11
There is no such thing as an "unborn newborn." Which is one reason there is no such thing as an "unborn child."
12
Susan Collins must be holding her breath as Kavanaugh certain to vote for eviscerating Roe incrementally. Fooled again.
7
This is scary. How can your country be moving so far back into the middle of the last century? I assume the women of your country will take to the streets if this passes? The rest of the world invites you to flee America before things get even worse (although hard to imagine how they could get worse with your criminal joke of a president). Courage! And please no matter what, vote out your awful uneducated illiterate president.
25
Stopping the hearts of the unborn is the left’s number 1 priority, a litmus test for Democrats. And you wonder why we vote for Donald Trump and the judges he will put on the bench.
5
Freedom from coercive reproduction is a basic human right. So far Federal judges have done a good job of protecting citizens from it. If the Supreme Court undoes Roe, which Democrat candidate is most likely to focus on restoring it upon winning in 2020? That is what I will be thinking when I cast my votes.
8
After taking the Presidency and the Senate, Democrats need their first order of business to be increasing the number of justices on the court by two – liberal ones – just like Mitch McConnell made up his own rule to stack the court with conservatives by not filling a vacancy for a year. It is possible to change the number of justices, and most emphatically, necessary.
On another note, anti-abortionists could make men accountable to the same degree that women are for the unwanted pregnancies they create. Maybe then men would come up with effective male contraception, reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions altogether. But don’t hold your breath since anti-abortionists are entrenched in patriarchy.
9
@Antoine Let's not be disingenuous about the importance of life. So much extremist, religiously inspired rhetoric, and so noble a cause, but you might want to think twice when you get on that bandwagon, because the defenders of unborn fetuses care absolutely nothing about the killing of civilians in any war, including an unjustified war. And what about torture of our enemies, what happened to human rights there. It is so tiring to listen to the righteousness of the religious right, when it so clearly is selective when they rise to the defense of human life. It really is nothing more than the height of hypocrisy deeply embedded in extremism. You can't terminate a pregnancy, but they will be first in line for war and capital punishment, the good old eye for eye mentality, give me a break.
I have no idea where the Supreme Court will come down on the 'Abortion Case,' but given the conservative majority one might assume they will band together to dismantle the essence of Roe v. Wade. I fear we are helpless given the programmed make up of the Court designed to do just that.
6
The US teeters on the brink of becoming a theocracy as oppressive as Iran's. State's rights are liberties to enslave, and the states war on each other culturally and economically.
24
Trump must be defeated, the Senate must become Democratic,and the Supreme Court must be expanded. Otherwise the United States is doomed, although the name will probably be kept.
10
What is wrong with these Southern states? Seriously, why would ANY woman choose to live there when the local governments clearly have no respect for women, their health, their autonomy or their equality. Further, why do so many women choose to be with men who believe they should make laws according to their own personal beliefs? Kavannaugh and Gorsuch are supposed to be impartial judges but of course, they are not. Talk about unConstitutional...
10
I've just read Theodore Dreiser's An American Tragedy, and while it's not the main theme, the novel shows the tragedy that can sometimes happen when abortion is illegal.
Roe vs Wade cannot be overturned because the SC would have to rule that it is irrelevant today. Never has it been more relevant.
8
Conservatives oppose abortion, oppose contraception, oppose the HPV vaccine and support abstinence only sex education.
There agenda seem to be more along the lines of objecting to women having a sex life.
28
Ask a mother, especially one who has had to go through the agony of an abortion for medical reasons.
She will tell you that Roe v. Wade is all about the life of the unborn and nothing to do with women's rights.
My opinion is shaped from speaking with those who really matter:
Don't overreach. Leave this issue to the states. Federalism works. By forcing your ideas on the entire country, you will come out worse than what you began with.
5
Many of us would be willing to bargain on specifics of availability, etc. if reasonable restrictions involving late-term abortion were not consistently rejected by the Left. My way or the highway makes us all losers.
1
All male and Catholic Justices must recuse. That leaves Bryer, Ginsburg and Kagan to decide this case.
20
@Cowboy Marine Thank you. Abortion is not a male's issue; never has been.
2
Federal regulation of the nation's uteruses.
Brought to you by Trump, the Republican Party and old men who love to control women's bodies.
November 3 2020
Vote in record numbers.
33
It’s just absolutely abhorrent that pro-choicers always ignore the fetus just because they argue “it” is not a full-fledged human being since there is no sensation of pain or capability to think independently at the fetal stage. Astonishing how low they set the bar to meet the threshold of humanity. Yet, at the same time they argue about how they’re the most compassionate side, which makes them think they deserve to be on the moral high ground.
The irony is just staggering. They know full well what the fetus eventually becomes. Even if you ignore this perspective, just because the fetus cannot feel pain or think independently doesn’t negate the fact that he or she is innately human because all the DNA and genetics have been established at conception. But instead, pro-choicers like to dismiss the fetus as some failed science experiment that they can easily throw away into the bin.
7
@Ted - So once that cherished fetus exits the birth canal, it's no longer cherished but subject to having any of the safety net programs - the ones that might give him half a chance at a decent life - slashed or eliminate while he's viewed as a little moocher and taker and not deserving of food or shelter or health care.
26
@Ted wrote:
"pro-choicers always ignore the fetus"
The same could be said about pro-lifers [sic] always ignoring the woman, who is an existing person who already has rights and in whom society has invested a lot of energy.
Roe v. Wade is a rough compromise between giving absolute rights to a fetus at the expense of a woman, and giving absolute rights to a woman at the expense of a fetus.
7
@MegWright
Actually, I am very much a proponent of the government stepping up more to support whatever program that helps those kids. But I suspect pro-choicers often use this argument just because it diversifies their arsenal, not because they actually care about the merit behind it. Because if some administration comes in and decides to boost support for such programs, then they don’t get to use that argument anymore and instead revert back to parroting their usual nonsense about “woman’s choice” and whatnot
Roe v Wade protections will exist only for the rich in Louisiana and other states if these people have their way. And then it's back to back-alley abortions, hardly a way to "protect" women's health. Such hypocrisy.
9
You know, it's funny. I thought this was the UNITED STATES Supreme Court, not TRUMP'S Supreme Court.
3
This is a woman's issue and if they want this right, all they have to do is quit voting Republican. As women out number men, seems to me that this right should be safe.
Except white women, the biggest voting block in the country, would rather vote against their intrests and support white supremacy and patriarchy.
White women are the only group of women that supports policy detrimental to their health and well-being. So when this right disappears, and it will, own it.
13
I just don't get it.
If you are opposed to abortion, then you should not be forced to get one.
If you want to have an abortion, then you should not be prevented from having one.
Math.
25
As Ruth Bader Ginsburg points out, it's only poor women who will lose access to abortion and control over their lives. Affluent women and rich men's girlfriends will always be able to have an abortion.
And it won't end with access to abortion. Next will be access to birth control, then punishment, including the death penalty, for women who have abortions.
23
Trump’s cohort’s evil cunning knows no bounds. Depriving women of a Constitutional right — in the shrewdly disguised premise of protecting their health — is heinous on myriad levels. Trump has threatened to work to overturn Roe v. Wade, and this is an insidious way of acting on his pledge. It might be interesting to know how many abortions Trump himself is responsible for, in light of his cavalier dalliances with countless women over the years. One more reason to vote for a Democrat this fall.
7
Six to three, seven to two.
Conservative majority on the S.C.O.T.U.S.
Say goodbye to it all.
Or vote Democrat.
If you want to save Roe.
5
Why should I care? I support choice but the people of Louisiana voted in the politicians driving this. Vote for change and influence others to vote for the change you want.
3
You know for a long time I thought Roberts was right, that Justices did their best to transcend their human biases. Even after Bush 2 being selected. Then came Citizens United.
Looks like the right wing has achieved its goal of putting in theocratic judges but I will still reserve judgement until the fate of the ACA is determined (remember Roberts was the previous deciding vote) and the abortion issue.
7
Anybody but Trump. My body, my choice. Stay out of my reproductive decisions.
For those that didn't live through the 60s and 70s, guess what, there will still be abortions, regardless of their legality. But they won't be safe! And those in opposition say they care about life. No they don't. Only before birth, apparently.
Once your born, good luck with health care, education, day care, employment, retirement. Then you are on your own, regardless of circumstances.
24
Trump’s court? This is a bogus headline. Look at which President appointed the current justices and you will see that Trump appointed just two (Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) out of 9 - the same number as Obama.
1
The pro-life [sic] movement is not just about controlling women's bodies.
Forced-birtherism is essentially a form of religious tyranny by people who worship miraculous Conception as a central symbolism of their theology. They desire to force their religious beliefs down everyone's throats using the power of secular law. Otherwise the cognitive dissonance inside their heads between their various allegories and metaphors and the modern real world of science and facts is too much to handle.
Roe v. Wade is already a compromise between two legal thresholds: making abortion illegal anytime after conception and making it legal anytime before birth.
The law, with its discrete words and thresholds, is ill-equipped to handle the continuum of gestation between conception and birth. To honor the core meaning of freedom and free will, we should therefore leave it to women to decide for themselves whether to end a pregnancy or not. The vast majority of all women who have had an abortion say it was the right thing to do.
28
Why not? Government restrictions on our Second Amendment rights are already masquerading as safety measures. The Constitution is not a buffet where one may enjoy some rights and ignore others.
4
@Larry It is unclear from the words in the
Second Amendment what "right" exists. To have bear-like hands? But if you go into the Founders' meaning/intent, then the "well-regulated militia" is clearly explained. So only the national guard would qualify in a state.
9
@Larry .. Roe v. Wade is the safety measure enacted to save the lives of women. None of these impediments to that law have anything to do with safety.
10
The train left the station on this issue when Trump was elected. Abortion will be either outlawed outright in many states or virtually outlawed by allowing so many "requirements." We're stuck with an extremely right-wing, political, activist Supreme Court for at least a generation. It will get worse if Bernie and the bros and "pure" "progressives" divide the party again and help Trump be reelected.
8
@jas2200 It is 8% of Biden supporters who said they'll stay home if Sanders is the nominee vs. 3% of Sanders supporters. According to 538.
So the bigger share of blame falls on the moderates IMO, just like 2016 and 2008, where far more Sanders supporters supported HRC in 2016 than HRC supporters supported Obama in 2008.
3
@RamS : Read the reasons 538 says that's not an accurate poll.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-wholl-support-biden-but-not-sanders-probably-really-do-mean-it/
And then take a gander at the comments coming in from the bros since Pete and Amy dropped out. Bernie went ballistic when he heard the news, and his surrogates are all on TV saying it's a conspiracy.
1
As of 2019, 74% of Americans believed abortion should be either restricted or altogether illegal, according to Gallup. Any unified, pragmatic approach to reducing unwanted pregnancies — the goal of both sides! — must begin with the refusal to demonize those we disagree with.
Pro-lifers believe life is sacred and see abortion as murder. Not all of them are heartless misogynists. Not all of them are even Republicans. To categorically dismiss their perspective is insulting and unhelpful the discourse.
There are empathetic, intelligent people on both sides of this issue, and a far more interesting conversations to be had on the other side of tribalistic, us-versus-them pieces like these.
9
I would be interested to learn what measures abortion opponents would support to make abortions less necessary.
For example, do they support paid family leave when a new baby is born? Subsidized universal daycare? Increased funding for Title 8 housing? Increased funding for food stamps?
11
@SandraH. I think all of those are valid! I would also suggest free birth control, offered as a matter of routine at doctor's appointments. A lot cheaper and easier to implement than the bigger government programs that most fiscal conservatives dislike.
3
@Melinda At least you're being honest about your wish to throw people in prison in order to drive down the number of abortions. You describe it as murder - which means that murder statutes should apply, up to and including the death penalty in death penalty states.
3
My friends on the left who favor no restrictions whatever on abortion know exactly how I, a law-abiding gun owner, feel about restrictions on my right to buy, keep and bear arms. Welcome to the oppression.
6
Except that there has never been a time in this country, including now, when abortion has been available with zero restrictions.
10
@Tench Tilghman How much does a bear arm cost?
Ba-dum-tish!
Seriously, I'd trade these for each other except that both sides would say that it isn't fair (equitable). You are equating a fetus to a gun in a practical sense. Since I'm against all oppression I'd support your desire to own a gun but I still think even if you equate a human fetus to a gun, it doesn't cover ALL "arms". Do you think you should have the right to buy, keep, and bear nuclear weapons? Stealth planes? Missiles? Where do you draw the line? (I am okay with it all BTW - kill 'em all and let the devil sort them out !)
2
I’d like to hear why the abortionists just don’t get hospital privileges at the local hospitals if SCOTUS votes against the abortion clinics in this case. It does make sense that the person who takes care of a patient continue to do so when a complication requiring hospitalization occurs. My suspicion is that some of these doctors may not have the credentials to get hospital privileges or that the hospitals aren’t interested in having an abortionist on their staff.
2
@DLP No one can force a hospital to extend admitting privileges. Hospital's choice, not clinic's choice.
10
@DLP (1) If a patient requires hospitalization (an extremely rare occurrence), they'll be admitted; requiring a physician to have admitting privileges does not add *anything whatsoever* to safety.
(2) Hospitals are under no obligation to grant admitting privileges to doctors that are 100% qualified. And if there's community pressure on them to not extend admitting privileges, they won't.
It's 100% about caving to pressure from loud people in the public, and 0% about whether doctors are qualified.
13
In part, because many hospitals are Catholic and will not grant those privileges to abortion providers simply because they are abortion providers.
6
The rhetoric always claims it's about a women's right to control their bodies. Problem is, if she's pregnant it's now two people, not just one. Yes, it's often said that a "fetus" is not really human, but that argument has often been used to destroy the unwanted, born or unborn. Let's face it, abortion really is murder no matter how it is rationalized. I think the unborn child should have his or her human rights respected. And if we hold one supreme value it should be human life, the one true miracle.
8
@Antoine I consider my views very progressive and, while I don't have anyone on tv or political party leaders do my thinking for me, I usually always align with the democratic party.
But, I very much respect your point of view and agree with it. This topic of abortion is one on which many good people disagree. I understand the perspective that a woman should be in control of her body. But I also believe that once life starts, it is a life and we cannot take it. Certainly, not after there is a heartbeat. Mine is not a popular view with many of my fellow democrats.
2
@Antoine How do you feel about capital punishment or war? Destruction of human life as well. But, ya know what, Antoine? Put on a condom and make sure women don't get pregnant, that's where it starts!
14
If we care about this second person so much we should guarantee food, shelter, an education to university and medical care to this second person. The trouble with conservatives is that they really really really care about the unborn person, but dump him/her the moment the baby is born. Hypocrites all of them.
Look at the gun violence in these states. Conservatives have no problem with these same kids dying of gun violence as long as the kid has been born. Hypocrites all of them.
21
It's hard to take the Board entirely seriously on this in the absence of a forceful call for liberal justices to have resigned during an Obama presidency, before they turned 80. Few people in the world are entitled to lifetime employment into their 90s; those that do have an enormous responsibility. The goal of the hard right to nominate 40-year-olds in order to ensure a conservative court for decades has been apparent for some time. This paper should not validate the hubris of liberal justices who seem to think they, not their seats, are indispensable.
7
@Blair - The problem is that if a liberal justice retires during a Republican presidency, then their replacement will be a far right Republicans. THAT is why people stay on long after they'd probably prefer to retire.
2
@MegWright You missed my point that two current justices needed to retire during _Obama's_ first term. An aging, ailing justice should not be clinging to her seat.
In the end, let the states decide but with a caveat. If a state wants to chose to curtail or end abortions, fine, as long as it is the will of its people. However, there should be a detailed audit beforehand of the federal aid presently provided to the state. As more children are born and more services needed, including: Medicaid, welfare, education, special services, child care, and other services, all new costs must be picked up by the state. The upgrade in costs driven by one's state's decision to ban abortion, should not be the responsibility of other states. If a state wants to make this decision, the people of that state must assume responsibility of all new additional costs.
37
Why is it the totalitarian right wing that successfully employs sly tactics to undermine widely held decent values? Is it because they have almost infinitely more money to pay for institutes and foundations and lawyers and propagandists and "grassroots organizations" and all the other necessities of shaping the pubic debate?
21
The Supreme Court is busy hearing cases which will have a huge impact on people’s lives.They are about to hear a case which could completely negate Obamacare and they are hearing the Louisiana abortion provider case.One should be fearful,that we will left with diminished reproductive rights and no health care which is affordable and covers pre-existing conditions.If these twin horrors do not frighten voters to get out and have their voices heard then there is nothing which will get them out to the polls.The time is now -elections matter!
39
I am 71 and I’ve been working in support of a woman’s right to a safe, legal abortion for more than 50 years. When I started, abortion was illegal in my country. Women died from botched illegal abortions or throwing themselves down stairs to bring on a miscarriage. The law was changed but immediately opponents started chipping away at women’s’ right to reproductive choice. And here we are again. Not in Canada - not yet but for our sisters in the south, taking slices off abortion rights is going to kill them.
We know what happens when safe abortions aren’t readily available. Why do some people, women and men, hate women so much they would rather women risk death than allow a medical procedure that is thousands of years old?
This fight will never stop. More women will die. It is insanity.
117
@MJM Yes. Making abortion illegal will not stop abortion.
It has been for the ages. It will drive the poor to the alleys with loss of life or lifelong complications.
Talk to any ER nurse or doctor before Roe.
The well connected will find safe abortions here or in other countries.
What is needed is provision for effective birth control made available at affordable cost.
The abortion rate is in decline already with improved contraception.
23
@Mary Elizabeth Making murder of non-fetus humans illegal since the Sumerian Code has not stopped that practice either. It has however curtailed it.
@Dan
But in parts of the US we have "stand your ground laws" which actually encourage it. Made easier with the newly broad interpretations of the Second Amendment and development of guns like AR-15s.
1
Men telling women what to do with their bodies. Same as it ever was. And worse too those TRAP laws are hiding the religious bigotry that is often behind them. So much for separation of church and state: don't share my religious beliefs – too bad I'm imposing them on you anyway. And who here thinks that our current Supreme Court with two men accused of sexual misconduct occupying two of the seats, will uphold a woman's right to choice? The right wing has been targeting Roe vs Wade for decades. Preventing women from having access to safe medical care and procedures will not stop women from getting abortions. It will drive them back into the alleyways. Vote Blue No Matter Who and help demand reform of our federal judiciary that is being rapidly transformed into a highly partisan branch of the Trumplican Party.
61
@Twg Yes, as a female, I am enraged by all attempts to control my body, my particular belief system, and my "pursuit of happiness". The fact that this attempt is now being lead by a court which includes at least 2 sexually offending males, and a president who is gleeful about his ability to assault women, is so offensive, I have no words.
3
@Twg
We also need to be working very hard to roll back all of the public intrusions of private religious beliefs into daily society. People can practice whatever religion they want in this country. But their free practice stops at the border of interfering with everyone else's right to be free of their religion.
No more public money/support of any kind to any religious institution of any type, no more "religious exceptions" to public law & rules, revocation of tax-free status for any religious entity that publicly politicks - back to strict separation of church & state.
3
There is no constitutional right to abortion, and the sooner we admit that and get the courts out of the business of writing fiction, the better it will be for the rule of law.
4
@Michael Thank you for the stupid man's point of view. The court upheld a law that was written by others. The Court just deemed it to be constitutional. Please learn about the topic before writing idiocy.
11
@Michael There are rights to privacy and property. The "right" of abortion prior to the fetus being self-supporting is a non-issue. If the fetus cannot live on its own then it is a parasite of the mother.
9
American descent into fundamentalism is nearing completion.
There is another case the SCOTUS is deciding on (in April?) that could force states to give scholarships to religious private schools even though the monies are not allowed to go to non-religious private schools.
Vote Blue No Matter Who
36
Just another blatant attempt by the Forced Birthers to deny women bodily autonomy. Long ago, there was a group of people in this county who regularly forced women to bear and give birth to children they didn't want: they were known as slaveholders. Any surprise then that this attack, as well as the ridiculous "heartbeat bills," are coming from the former slave- holding states? This is an affront to the basic human dignity to which all women (like it or not, GOP) are entitled under the law.
77
This re-litigation of a previous case is outrageous. Coupled with the closing of clinics that provide birth control makes my head explode.
Per usual the poor have no voice and the wealthy have the ability (money) to receive the abortion that saves their life or terminates the life an unwanted or non-viable fetus.
I'm getting more comfortable with people calling me a "baby killer", as the anti-abortion contingent is so comfortable with killing children daily by not backing legislation (money) requiring proper care and resources to sustain these children.
I consider their anti-abortion insistence almost sadistic ... watching children undernourished, living in poverty and ultimately
living a life they never asked for is the ultimate horror.
31
@Kathleen Cox It's not at all about being "pro-life"--they are anti-women. They want to punish women for having sex. The fact that there was a male involved is irrelevant; they don't care about holding him responsible. And it's clear from their unwillingness to support proper sex ed, make birth control available, or provide decent help and support to parents and children once born, that they're not even "pro-life" in any humane way, they are only pro-birth.
15
The anti-abortionists do not understand that by making it harder to obtain a legal abortion will simply move procedures underground. "Back street" abortions have always existed and they will proliferate. Unfortunately more women will die from infections and blood loss, but they don't care. They are only concerned with the fetus. The mother is disposable, like her rights. What "good christians", ha. I will increase my donations to Planned Parenthood.
34
@Joanne Klein
Dear Joanne, You give the anti-abortionists too much credit for concern about women and children. They know full well that closing women's clinics lead to many negative consequences for women and their families. Those identifying as "pro-life" do not bear the consequences of their view or their actions. Their view is "corporate' in the sense that they escape their responsibility by blaming others and intellectual dishonesty.
12
I remember when I was in college in Boston in the 60s and had an apartment down the hall from (unknown to me at the time) a back-room abortion provider. I remember finding a young women, about my age, collapsed in our common hallway. She was weak and bleeding and my roommate and I took her to the City Hospital (where she didn’t want to go as abortion at that time was illegal). Do we really want to go back to those days? Think about it!!!
46
This is the same Supreme Court which didn't even have the basic decency to reject unConstitutional gerrymandering last year.
After this Supreme Court said they could do nothing about gerrymandering, three state judges on a North Carolina trial court did what a majority on the United States Supreme Court said was impossible — apply well-established legal standards to strike down the most egregious partisan gerrymanders in the country.
This Republican Supreme Court has abandoned basic civil rights protections of American citizens in deference to cheap right-wing, radical Republican ideology and Grand Old Power at all costs.
The Republican hijacking of the Supreme Court started with the stolen 2000 Presidential Election, thanks to massive vote and voter suppression which added two illegitimate Republican ideologues to the court.
It continued with Mitch McConnell's suspension of the Constitution in 2016 for President Obama and Merrick Garland.
The 2016 Russian-Republican election of Donald Trump helped complete the theft of American civil rights and establish the firm establishment of patriarchal oligarchy as the law of the American land.
The endless Republican war on women continues.
If Republicans had any serious interest in reducing the abortion rate, the #1 way to accomplish that is to provide free IUD/LARC implants to poor women.
But the GOP doesn't care about abortions.
They only care about political power and greed.
Elections matter.
Vote in historic numbers.
244
@Socrates You write that the GOP doesn't care about abortions. I'd add, they also don't care about the poor.
26
@A
I'd add that they don't care about anyone who is not wealthy. Their pet policies prove it. They're just using the abortion issue to do what they always accuse the Democrats of doing -- buying votes with free stuff. In this case the free stuff is anti-abortion laws. They don't really care about abortion. Or "religious freedom." Or their supposed constituents. Or anything else that an average American of either party might want.
I have a Republican "representative" who refuses to meet with constituents -- he has NEVER held a town hall -- unless they are part of a business group. But talks a great game about being "pro-life." It's people like him who ensure that no one who labels themselves pro-life will ever qualify for my vote. Yes, I'm talking about you Brad Wenstrup.
28
@pedigrees - Our Republican representative also refused to meet with constituents. So we began holding our own town halls, with a cardboard cutout of the representative standing there in front of the crowd. And in the next election we replaced him with a Democratic woman.
31
? The editorial fails to mention that this supposedly "burdensome" requirement of admitting privileges was in fact obtained by three of the doctors who are plaintiffs in the case.
It also fails to explain why vulnerable women in the middle of an abortion complication should have to re-explain their entire medical condition to emergency staff at a hospital. Admitting privileges remove the legal wall between the clinic and the hospital, allowing them to more easily transfer patients who have complications. Admitting privileges also provides an extra screening process to prevent substandard doctors like Kermit Gosnell from practicing abortions on women in vulnerable situations.
Why does the NYT editorial board care more about political rhetoric about abortion than about actual women's health?
5
@CM - Emergency Departments are set up to handle whatever comes through the door. No other emergency situation requires the patient's physician to accompany them to the ER. In fact, many doctors today don't have admitting privileges. I'd say even most do not. For over 20 years, many physician practices contract with "hospitalists," who will see those doctors' patients if they're hospitalized. Those other doctors never step foot in the hospital.
4
Anyone’s who truly cares about women’s health will want to eliminate TRAP laws like the “admitting privileges “ sham. It’s only purpose is to deny vulnerable women the right to a safe, legal abortion.
As you undoubtedly know, many clinics depend on doctors from out-of-state because local doctors who perform abortions are literally risking their lives. Hospitals, bending to community pressure, regularly deny admitting privileges to doctors who work at abortion clinics.
It’s a Catch-22, and it’s meant to be. It’s meant to put desperate women in the position of having no legal choices. If you’re old enough to remember the days before Roe, then you’re familiar with the gruesome deaths women suffered.
It’s more honest for those who oppose legal abortion to simply say they don’t care about the women.
2
@CM
What MegWright said. Exactly that.
That is exactly what happens in real life when a medical emergency occurs at an outpatient clinic. And we have outpatient clinics because hospital care is not needed UNLESS there is an emergency.
No other type of outpatient clinics are subjected to these constant attempts by ignorant lawmakers & equally ignorant citizens to restrict their practices. Why is that? Where is this overwhelming concern for "patient safety" by all of these ignorant folk when these other outpatient clinics have the occasional emergency and take that patient to an emergency room? At the nearest hospital. Where they DON'T have admitting privileges.
Currently a descent game not the dark ages is possible. I pray that RBG and her close colleagues remain healthy. And that the blue vote is triumphant.
16
Must be comforting for America’s women, only some of whom are Catholic and none of whom are men, to know their very personal rights are dictated by Catholic men on the Supreme Court.
How is this consistent with the long history of proscribing the establishment of religion?
How is it the Catholics and others opposed to abortion elevate the putative rights of potential people above the actual rights of actual, living people?
49
@Pottree Catholic and Baptist and other Christian women get abortions too. And take their daughters to get them. But pretend they are holier than thou and help pass laws that restrict them.
12
"POTUS has accomplished so much and is just getting started. The best is yet to come!” So says daughter Ivanka Trump.
Yes, with newly appointed conservative Supreme Court justices, yet to come includes taking away women's rights to terminate pregnancies, a rollback of marriage equality, the intrusion of mining and drilling into our National Parks, the degrading of our air and water.
Proud of your daddy? Good going, kid.
20
If I were the GOP, I would want my state of loyal voters to keep producing more loyal voters and secure my future power.
What a shameful means to an end.
4
If I were the GOP, I too would want my state of loyal voters to keep producing more loyal voters and secure my future power.
What a shameful means to an end.
1
"The abortion industry vociferously argues that it should be granted an unmerited exemption from standards routinely applied to other facilities performing invasive surgical procedures, as well as an exemption from the comprehensive inspections to which such facilities are routinely subjected.?"
If it is not murder then why would anyone have a problem looking at an ultrasound of the baby and receiving counseling?
Abortions are certainly not the safest procedures, and are increasingly becoming less safe with fewer regulations. There really is no way around the fact that you are murdering another unique human being. Just because the baby resides in the mother's womb, does not make it her property! How do you look at yourself in the mirror?
@Janus.face Semantic shifting does not turn a fetus into a baby. Anything that cannot live outside of the female body is for all practical purposes part of her body. Until an artificial womb is invented, the mother has complete control. How about a law to compel you to adopt a starving child from some far away place. If you don't do it, is that murder?
18
@Janus.face
The baby "resides" in the womb? You make it sound like the kid could simply up and move out if he or she felt like it, or the mother could move it over to the father for part of the gestation to make things fairer.
This idea that a zygote, blastocyst, or embryo is equivalent to a human is even more ridiculous.
Finally, something about which I remind many anti-abortion activists: either god or nature, depending on whether you're religious, is the most prolific abortionist of them all. Studies suggest a majority of all pregnancies miscarry, with the woman completely unaware in most of those cases because the miscarriage happens so early in the pregnancy. If you're truly primarily concerned with protecting as much life as possible, and you believe life begins at conception, you could do far more good by going back to school, becoming a researcher or physician, and striving to save even just a tiny fraction of the more than half of all pregnancies and 15-20% of known pregnancies that end in miscarriage.
By doing that, you'd be helping those who want a pregnancy but have it tragically taken from them. In the long run, given your apparent beliefs, you'd ultimately save more "unique human beings." So, overall, more "babies" saved, fewer individuals/families suffering the trauma of losing a wanted pregnancy, and less inappropriate interference with women exercising autonomy over their own bodies and lives: win-win-win.
2
@Janus.face - Abortion is 14 times safer than childbirth. Well over 600 women die in childbirth every year in the US, while in all the 40+ years since Roe was passed, 600 is about the total number of deaths from abortion.
2
Well women across America, what's it gonna be then eh? Your right to choose or their right to choose? If you want your right to choose then do not vote for Trump and republicans in your state running for U.S. Congress and Senate, and republicans in your state running for your state Congress and Senate. If you want your right to choose then vote democrat!
27
@Gaston Corteau
I will vote blue-no-matter-who from president down to local sanitation workers/school board/dog catcher. For supposedly "non-partisan" offices, I make it my responsibility to find out what candidate "leanings" are so I make the right choice.
1
Abortion is the gift that keeps giving for the GOP -- always there when they need a wedge issue to focus the angry know-nothings and motivate them to get out and vote.
34
There goes abortion rights. Which would be terrible but sure would inflame votes against Trump, that's for sure.
4
Time to call the Supreme Court what it is. Not just a Trump Supreme Court but as centrally a Church of Rome Supreme Court. The Five Republican “justices” are Roman Catholics, who have no problem following the lead of that woman degrading, pedophile harboring institution. That institution holds that abortion is sinful and immoral, but has for centuries harbored, aided and abetted the world’s longest running pedophile ring. That institution holds that woman are unworthy to serve in its priesthood. To which, that is the only break it has ever given women.
38
@William Colgan Plenty of catholic women have had abortions, it's a cafeteria style religion . . . you just pick the rules you want and keep on making the sign of the cross!
6
If the right cared about children instead of controlling women's bodies (and punishing those naughty tarts for having ess-ee-ex) they'd be pouring money into research as to why so many fertilized eggs (in their minds "totally developed future capitalists") never develop into children.
But they aren't doing that, because it's not about the kids.
They could make sure no child ever goes to bed hungry, but they're slashing programs for the poor because it's not about the kids.
They could teach sex education to young people besides "don't do this thing you are biologically programmed to do guys, seriously cause Jesus said so!!!" but it's not about that either.
It is, for review, all about control.
33
To think this is what these horrible Supine Court injustices live for. Unleashing state terror to control women's sexual and reproductive lives. Make sure that it is hard to get decent affordable health care. The Reactionary Five have a chance to bring massive social misery to millions of people. Picking us off one by one. Well someone can't afford medical care. Too bad for them. A woman dies from a botched abortion. That's how it goes.
18
As a woman my blood boils at these stories...the idea that men orchestrate and implement this stuff is sickening. They should all recuse themselves until they can give birth.
30
@Sharon - I'd settle for allowing them to have a say on the issue if they prove they can have a bowling ball surgically inserted into their intestines and then pass it naturally.
This is an attack on people who lack the financial means to do something about unwanted pregnancies. Pure and simple. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are nicely educated, privileged Christian fundamentalists. They know nothing about abortion or the sociology surrounding access to abortion. You don’t learn that stuff going to Sunday school in some leafy green, toney neighbourhood.
21
Or is it a safety measure masquerading as women’s rights? Hmmmmmm.......
2
I'd be much more understanding of the government's position if our President was Pence or some other zealot that has lived the lies and hypocrisy for decades. For Drumph to be the face of this is just too much. He is not religious, no less evangelical. Hard to believe that none of his mistresses or relatives have not made use of the right to abort. Thrice married himself, multiple affairs and his son, DT Jr just left his wife and 5 kids for a Fox News reporter and on and on. This man only cares about being reelected. Rich people do not care about Roe v Wade, without it they'll just have to take a holiday elsewhere to have the procedure. It wouldn't surprise me if those woman denied the right to end their pregnancy still voted for this loser. He is Jim Jones.
16
And once again I wonder why any males at all have any rights whatsoever to decide any of this.
30
Women actually don't have a right to kill their unborn children. It should not take a moral sage to realize this, but I suppose if you obscure the real issue with euphemisms about choice and "reproductive rights," it is possible to fool many otherwise intelligent people.
3
Who cares at this point. Corona, brah.
Meanwhile, Democrats are infighting. Vote Blue No Matter Who - there's just too much at stake!
9
If women’s uterus’ could shoot bullets,
they would be less regulated.
29
Just the expression 'Trump Supreme Court' is enough to give a person the Heebe Jeebies.
12
The GOP and their evangelical buddies are the Taliban of the West in their deprivation of women’s rights. They are in an unholy marriage.
31
Welcome to the Dark Ages. Next public shaming, the stocks, witch trials and stoning. Who needs sharia law when we have our own Spanish Inquisition?
26
I don't know why you have to conceal an anti-abortion agenda.
3
The Republican party should get a Nobel prize for this. They have proved that time can go backwards.
12
Since scotus belongs to trump, mcconnell and the rest of the lick spittle gop the ruling is merely a formality since they all really want to keep women barefoot, ignorant and pregnant.
12
Remember that were it not for progressives and lefties "voting their conscience," we would be in our 27th consecutive year of Democratic presidencies and there would be 8 Democratic nominees on the Supreme Court. There would be an abortion clinic in every town and Roe vs. Wade would be the 28th Amendment.
Remember who is to blame for this uncertainty. It's not Republicans, it's not conservatives. They are doing what you would expect them to do. It's liberals who just can't bring themselves to vote pragmatically.
3
@Mike And liberal justices who have trouble viewing aging realistically.
1
This stunning hypocrisy of the Right is to force women to have unwanted children and then deny healthcare and sustenance to the the very neonatal they claim to protect by cutting Medicaid and SNAP programs.
668
@Ron Absolutely correct! The Handmaid's Tale must be their favorite show as it portrays their dream nation.
50
@Ron This is very much a rich vs. poor issue. The wealthy will always have access to abortions, regardless of the laws in any particular state, or in the U.S. at large. Money will buy just about anything, despite the law.
24
@Ron - Next generation of poor, unwanted children will
be underfed, under educated, sickly, abandoned,
homeless, abused...and lots of them.
23
Women will have abortions regardless of various legalities. They always have. Do anti-abortion people not understand this? Sometimes I think it's more about shaming women for having sex. "You did it, you pay the price." Some of us remember the days of illegal abortions - and that Roe v. Wade was passed to insure the safety of the procedure. That this self-righteous, sanctimonious interference in a woman's life in any way protects women is nothing other than false, smug piety.
Talk about government overreach!
422
@kbw Perhaps I can shed some helpful light here, as I am a pro-life person whose motivations are not about "shaming women for having sex," nor does my perspective come from self-righteousness, or sancitimoniousness. Rather, it stems from recognizing something basic: in pregnancy, there is another genetically unique, biologically human life to consider. I consider all human lives valuable, regardless of how small or powerless or voiceless they may be. The logic is the same for every single pro-life person I know. I have never met a pro-life person whose goal was to shame women. Rather, it was to care for both the mother and the child, as best as possible under difficult circumstances, rather than simply eliminating one of them to eliminate the problem. I know it's convenient in the NYT comment section to make caricatures of the people who disagree with you, but in doing so you miss entirely what's actually going on.
8
@Scott - If you vote for Republicans, you're voting for the very party that works assiduously to slash or eliminate all the safety net programs that might give that unwanted, unaffordable child half a chance at a decent life. Don't tell us you care about the child when you lose interest entirely once it enters the world.
111
@MegWright- I agree with your point completely here, so you assume incorrectly that I vote Republican. I tend to vote Democrat for this reason, among others, but it's not an easy decision for me. Neither party seems to have a consistent ethic of valuing life.
7
“It’s an absurd argument, meant to paint abortion providers, falsely, as money-grubbing opportunists who endanger — rather than advance — women’s health.”
I’m strongly pro-choice, but this sentence set off an alarm bell in my head. Abortion providers do not generally advance their patients’ health, except when the pregnancy is a physical danger to the mother. In most cases, removal of the fetus does not make the abortion provider’s patient healthier. I think words matter for sensitive subjects like this.
3
Health depends on many factors. If a woman faced with an unexpected pregnancy and has no or inadequate health insurance it can cause grave economic consequences for her and her family. A high-risk pregnancy or complicating factor like diabetes or heart disease may limit her ability to work and/or care for her other children. If the child is born into a poor family, it forever changes the economic equation for the everyone, leaving limited resources for food, medical care and education. This lack can indeed lead to poorer health for the woman and her family. Look at the big picture.
14
@Rebecca
What, the brain is not a part of a woman’s body? You still think mental health is something that needs religion? Stunning, absolutely stunning that people still believe that mental health is somehow divorced from overall health.
I was extremely compromised by my radically fundamentalist evangelical baptist upbringing and being trapped by an unwanted pregnancy at 18 would have been a mental health disaster which would have destroyed my life and than of the fetus if delivered full term. How dare you minimize that mental health emergency and make an ignorant pronouncement that my abortion provider didn’t save my health and well-being. I was denied contraceptive education and had no idea about it when my hormones and those of my boyfriend overwhelmed our ignorance. I would have spiraled into a long history of poor health, as other girls I knew did when their parents prevented them from ending their unwanted pregnancies, if I was forced to have a child I categorically did not want.
Mental health IS HEALTH, period. If getting an abortion is what’s needed to address a mental health crisis, then the abortion provider IS advancing a woman’s health. If you care about choice, then educate yourself on the mind-body connection and while you’re at it, read up on the longterm mental and physical health plights of women denied reproductive autonomy.
26
@Rebecca
What about mental health? Anxiety is sometimes as damaging to a person, if not more so, than a physical ailment.
I think only the pregnant woman is the one to decide if a pregnancy will impact her health, be it physical or her mental well being. It's not up to anyone else to make this decision for her. HER body, her life, her choice.
Almost 1/2 of pregnancies are unplanned yet far less than that are aborted. Not every woman who has an unplanned pregnancy chooses to abort her child. Again, her body, her life, her choice.
6
I struggle to understand the reasoning of the editorial board. Since the decision of the fifth circuit court of appeals upheld the Louisiana TRAP law, it would go into effect permanently in Louisiana unless the Court took this case. Second, it takes only 4 votes for the Court to accept review of a case. You are making two simultaneous and inconsistent arguments. The Court cannot overrule the fifth circuit without taking the case. Accepting the case tells us no more about the outcome than the Court granting review in any case would.
1
We will see if stare decisis means anything or if our courts are as partisan as the other two branches of government.
3
Planned Parenthood was always about community health clinics. That's what it was designed for in the beginning.
Google Margret Sanger, she saw women exhausted & overwhelmed by childbirth with no choice to plan & responsibly limit their family's size. MS also saw clearly the need for the general health of vulnerable young families.
We have many more modern pioneers we should listen to now. Please NYT interview and spotlight them.
Men need to choose as well & we should honor that by giving young men full access to clinics as well. Invite them in for birth control and health monitoring. It's not just for women.
PP is/was a safe place to go to diagnose pregnancy, fetal health, maternal health, family support, STDs, reproductive systems anomalies, (such as I have with PCOS), etc...
It has been the first line of defense in community spread diseases. And it's helped, through caring donations, for the most part, millions of families when our government has failed to implement a non-profit universal healthcare system that gives a care to, especially young people.
Evil people attack our fundamental community health services for prejudiced mean reasons. Anti-social people are our biggest threat.
Trump's anti-trade war with China cut trade with China. We may need Covid-19 tests & vaccines from China in the next year or 2. Meanwhile, we close clinics & have no plan to isolate the virus sufferers in safe free separate clinics.
5
Just in case anyone among us, the majority of us who are horrified and disgusted by this administration needed a reminder THIS is why we must vote. Encourage everyone you know to vote. There is no negotiating with this version of the GOP. Vote them all out.
74
@Long Time Fan And vote them out no matter who heads up the Democratic ticket. Your life may literally depend upon it!
4
As if we needed more context to the November election. If Trump wins a second term and Republicans maintain control of the Senate, rest assured that a woman's right to choose will go by the wayside. Given the plurality of people who believe strongly in reproductive rights for women, this would seem to portend a large voter turnout in November.
30
@Janus.face..... And a nice day to you as well!
1
I don't agree with the principle of abortion. Unborn child has right to exist & live life, they do.
But I do realize the consequences of outlawing abortions all together means increase the risk of killing both the mothers and the unborn child.
So I will oppose outlawing abortions, but do support laws that aim to persuade the women to avoid abortions (ultrasound screening, counseling, wait period, etc...) .
3
@Tri P
I think that the (ultrasound screening, counseling, wait period, etc...) should be voluntary and for the purpose of providing the woman with all the info she needs to make an informed and carefully considered decision.
Not to persuade her.
20
@Tri P I really appreciated the perspective of Christian and pro-life writer Rachel Held Evans, on why she supported progressive candidates: "...progressive social policies that make healthcare and childcare more affordable, make contraception more accessible, alleviate poverty, and support a living wage do the most to (reduce unwanted pregnancies), while countries where abortion is simply illegal see no change in the abortion rate." Vote for a society in which women have reproductive choice and equal rights and everybody wins.
22
@Tri P
It is remarkable how many people are more concerned about an unborn child's "rights", essentially a non-existent person, than a living breathing, walking, talking, existing person who's skin color is different than theirs, who's religion is different than theirs, whose economic status is different than theirs and, whose gender is different than theirs. Those people have no rights, but the fetus does? Once again, religion is causing more harm than just about any other institution known to man. When will mankind mature out of its infantile, superstitious beliefs. It's looking like never. It's looking like superstition and all it breeds will destroy mankind before we have a chance to evolve fully.
15
White women voted for Trump. Black women couldn't bring themselves to vote against Trump in anything near the numbers that supported Obama.
Women will have the Right to Choose for as long as they can keep it. (They are, after all, more than 50% of the electorate.)
Based on 2016, women may not be motivated enough to keep this right.
9
@BC don't blame this on black women. They voted 98 percent against Trump, saved Alabama from electing another racist to the US Senate and threw Biden a lifeboat.
It's white women that are the problem. They routinely vote against their own interest to stay adjacent to white supremacy and patriarchy.
10
@BC And just why is that we have "keep" the right? Do you have to protect your access to viagra? Yeah, thought so.
4
@BC Grrrrrr. Of course, if abortion rights are lost, it's women's fault. Men have zero responsibility. Just like with unwanted pregnancy.
13
Going to be interesting to see how much individual freedom Trump's court really believes in. Fortunately, the same standard can then be applied to those who wish to purchase a gun. Enjoy all of those mandatory classes, gun owners...
61
@Steve Acho
Good luck getting a carry permit in NYC unless you are a celebrity and rich. They're just following the tactics of anti-gun crowd.
@Steve Acho Only if the Democratic ticket is successful all the way up and down. And I'd be delighted to see mandatory training, licensing, insurance, etc on firearms....
8
A practical means of dealing with the abortion issue would be to take a page from the appeal of prohibition. Once alcohol was legal to consume again, small temperance movements emerged in mostly rural areas and the 'dry county', where it was illegal to sell alcohol, came to exist.
Doing this with abortion would hand the political right boosters a victory, and in the same time take a lot of social pressure off the matter. The counties that would vote for adoption of the measure are far from likely to have ever had any abortion clinics located there anyway... residents of those counties seeking the procedure now have to drive hundreds of miles to obtain one, so nothing would change. Not impossible to imagine pro-life people who feel as strongly on the matter moving to those counties, as we can imagine this might be the case with modern day temperance supporters moving to 'dry counties'. They would just feel safer living there.
Strategically it would be a big boost for future political campaigns looking at the most efficient means of allocating their demographic-sensitive resources. Pro-choice based campaigns would just pass those counties on by, saving time and money.
There would be a need to find a more appropriate euphemism than 'dry counties'.
1
@Illuminati Reptilian Overlord #14 - Why should our rights depend on where we happen to live? How does anyone expect a united country when we have 50 little fiefdoms. And no, people don't move to another country or state just in case some time down the road they might need an abortion. No one plans to want or need an abortion. That's totally different from people who want to be able to drink every day, or whenever they want to.
1
There is only one long-term solution:
A Democratic president
Democratic majorities in the House and Senate
Expansion of the Supreme Court to enough members to reflect the will of the people.
228
I hope that no Republican daughters have an unwanted pregnancy.
57
@turbot
Oh I'm sure they do all the time, and their family usually assists them in getting the abortion services they desire. It's just for _other_ people that abortion should be illegal
30
@turbot Or mistresses
16
@turbot
Rich and well connected people will be able to obtain abortion on demand for themselves, their wives, daughters, mistresses, and one-night-stands. They always could, they always will.
24
Not surprisingly the NYTimes editorial board is less interested in sensible guidelines to protect women's health, than in advancing its predictably left-slanted perspective on abortion. (The editorial board is certainly outside the mainstream of U.S. perspectives on this issue.)
As an editor, I also find it ironic that the NYTimes editorial board insists on using politically-charged "anti-abortion" wording, since from a purely linguistic standpoint its converse would be "pro-abortion." I'm assuming that's a phrase the NYTimes would never use, so maybe it's wise and more logically consistent not to insist on using its converse?
7
@Wesley
Interesting question! Personally, I'm pro-abortion in the same way that I'm pro-coronary artery bypass surgery. In both cases, prevention would have been far preferable to the procedure; but if preventative measures didn't work, or weren't adhered to, then the procedure is the back-up plan!
168
@Wesley No, "anti-abortion" is not "politically charged", it very simply states precisely what the...anti-abortion advocates seek. Its analogue is "pro-choice", since that's precisely what the other advocates seek. You might be thinking of the *actual* politically charged terms, which are "anti-choice" and "pro-abortion".
37
@Wesley. Anti-abortion seems to be an accurate description for those who are trying to make any and all abortions illegal and even criminalize it in some states. Those of us on the other side are “pro-choice,” which is accurate. Women have the moral and intellectual capacity, and their own faiths, with which to make serious life/health decisions. Pro-choice leaves it to each woman, her doctor, her god, and her family to make such decisions. By contrast, the anti-abortion forces seek to compel all women to submit to their religious views, and to invoke the power of the state to dictate that women must comply with the religious belief that any and all abortion should be outlawed.
133
If any of the old men who sit on the Supreme Court had any experience of what it feels like to face an unwanted pregnancy, the right of women to choose would be sacrosanct. It is easy to make pious pronouncements about the choices of other people when none of the consequences are visited on YOU.
302
@ Suzanne
Yes but men get the women pregnant. If men think life is so precious why are men letting their sperm create a child they don’t want. It takes 2 to create a child not one.
16
@Janus.face - More sloot-shaming. Totally expected. Married women also have abortions. So do women in long-term committed relationships. Women deserve the right to control the timing, number, and spacing of their children, and children deserve to be born when their parents are ready and able to support and nurture them and welcome them into the world.
14
@Dean Jarmel Au contraire - as a lawyer, I understand exactly how the Supreme Court works and one its most important principles is that of stare decisis - let stand that which has been decided. The legality of abortion at the federal level has been the law of the land since 1973. Overturning it now would be a political decision, not a valid application of legal reasoning.
6
Although it's been said before and has become a cliché it bears repeating:
Elections have consequences.
In the past 50 years, there have been only 4 Supreme Court Justices appointed by Democrats.
And while a few of the many Republican appointed Justices have been moderates, in recent decades the Court has moved to the extreme right.
If Trump wins again in November there is a good chance that he will appoint 2 more Justices, for a total of 4.
I am pleading with all Sanders supporters to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who he or she is.
409
@Kevin Rothstein
Sadly with all the strategic manipulations and shenanigans we're reading about toady by the DNC to help the election go to Biden I think the Sander's supporters will once again stay home. Can you really blame them?
If they didn't want Sanders they could have refused him a spot. Now, instead of letting the election play out they are toying with what people believe is supposed to be a democratic process. If they don't want the Dem voters to elect the candidate of their choice they should just choose the candidate and stop pretending that the voters have a say.
We have 6 confirmed corona virus deaths in the USA and are reading horror stories about how expensive the mandated testing costs, how financially devastating the mandated "self-quarantining" is to the working folks. Maybe Bernie has the right idea of Medicare For All. Obviously the system we have now is beyond pathetic. How many of the sick won't get tested or "self quarantine" knowing the will face financial ruin since the trump government is refusing to pay the freight.
We've been told when the vaccine becomes available many will not be able to afford it. Reproductive choice, control over one's body and life, and now the ability to not DIE due to a lethal pandemic are just more luxuries that only the wealthy and financially secure can afford.
Easy to understand why Sanders has so much support. The little guy is tired of getting shafted by a government that serves the wealthy and little else.
15
@Kevin Rothstein
I know many Democrats that will not vote for a candidate that is pro-abortion. I don’t know any republicans that will not vote of a candidate because that candidate is pro-life.
2
@Kevin Rothstein
During the last 50 years, Democrats have been president for 20 years and Republicans have been president for 30 years.
O'Connell, Kennedy, Roberts and Souter have been left leaning more than moderate, and the four appointed by Democrats have consistently been pure leftist ideologues. You would be hard pressed to identify a moderate justice appointed by a Democrat.
Of the existing justices, the longest sitting justice is Thomas, appointed by Bush senior. Then there were two appointed by Clinton, two appointed by Bush, two appointed by Obama and two appointed by Trump.
You assume that the Democrat establishment will be successful at selecting an establishment Democrat for the Democrat nominee for president, as they did in 2016. If Bernie gets the nomination, are you going to vote for him?
3
It’s amazing to me how so many so-called religious people are just fine with lying. None of these laws have anything at all to do with safety, and the Bible is pretty specific that the end does not justify the means.
275
@S Turner The goal is to make others suffer. That might not be what Jesus espoused, but it fits in well with much of modern Christianity.
132
@S Turner The bible is also pretty specific about the worth of a fetus--not at all as much as the mother's life.
18
@S Turner "and the Bible is pretty specific that the end does not justify the means."
The Bible is even more specific about killing babies. If you want to talk about the Bible and all.
3
One more great big reason to Vote Blue, no matter who.
469
@ElleJ
Yeah, even if it's Bernie!!!
11
@ElleJ
Yes. Ruth Bader Ginsburg can not live forever, as much as we would like her to. And word is that Justice Thomas is looking toward retirement.
17
@ElleJ If Democrats take the Presidency and the Senate, they can proceed immediately to increase the number of justices on the court by two, from nine to eleven. It is constitutionally possible, just like Mitch McConnell made up his own rule to not fill a vacancy on the court for a year.
21
This country is time-traveling backward under this president and administration. This is why we have to get a democratic ticket that can win. I fear that Bernie Sanders will hollow out the middle and we will have four more years of an administration that could care less about poor people or women. This is the most important election of our lives.
121
@thewriterstuff ~
"This is the most important election of our lives."
I agree with you and only wish that more voters had realized how important 2016 was before withholding their vote or voting third party. Too many forgot about the Supreme Court and women's right to choose.
99
@Mary Ann Donahue Too many citizens, including women, think that democracy operates by divine will and continues no matter how vile the President or the Legislators.
3
It just shows that real political shifts are happening when enough people swallow an ideological narrative and acquiesce in seemingly small changes that have huge consequences. Too many people in this country apparently feel queasy about an ordinary surgical procedure and have to hide behind excuses and euphemisms. None of these absurd law would pass if enough voters actually had the courage to call themselves pro-abortion. A fetus is not a human person; abortion is just contraception by other means; and calling a smudged sonogram “a baby” does not make it so. Abortion is a necessary part of healthcare for all women as a fallback in case contraception fails (as it often does). What’s next - regulating your dental appointments?
78
@Mor - the bottom line is that abortion will always exist one way or another and the most conservative, anti-choice people will find a practitioner should they or a female relative need one, no matter the cost or the distance travelled. The reasons modern Ireland finally had to incrementally decriminalize abortion is because the need and hypocrisy became completely undeniable and recent, avoidable deaths from childbirth were, finally, too unacceptable. Ireland!
8
@Jenny The rich always have abortion access, something that the hypocritical Right will never say out loud.
3
If we get it wrong, seven trump justices on the court.
A Handmaid's Tale.
Possibly with a Bernie win and a slaughter in the Senate a majority on the court, growing stronger due to attrition curtails abortion rights.
The election is all about who can save the court and swing the Senate.
55
@Lawrence Even if the Supreme Ct bans abortion, it will change nothing. Abortions have always been a part of humanity. No law will ever change that. Free and widely accessible access to contraception WOULD change that. But the Christian zealots aren't interested in that. Instead, they have weaponized one single issue - abortion, which Jesus never said a word about and which was legal in Roman Palestine - as a means of retaliating against, and imposing their will upon, the vast majority of thinking people in this country that oppose their beliefs and don't want their lives governed by their ideology.
It's one thing to pass a law banning abortion. It's completely another to enforce it. For one, our criminal justice system doesn't operate at nearly the scale it would need to if an entire gender was essentially criminalized, but due process would still need to be given to every woman charged with aiding/undergoing abortion. It would take a massive tax increase to pull off (I'll bet the Christian zealots never thought of that). And even if you could charge them all, where would you put them? There aren't nearly enough jail cells in this country to hold all of those family planning criminals.
Instead - and I suspect Roberts gets this, even if Kavanaugh and Gorsich don't - the worst thing that the Supreme Ct can do for its own legitimacy is to overturn Roe. Roberts knows what would happen next: the Court, and his job, will be the very next thing to go, right along with Roe.
5
@Lawrence Swinging the Senate (and keeping the house) is more important than winning the presidency.
2
Anyone who thinks that their vote doesn’t count, or that they won’t support a Democratic nominee who isn’t their first choice, needs look no further than the Supreme Court. Trump has already put two conservative ideologues on our highest court; and he will place more if he gets a second term.
Every woman deserves the right to make her own medical decisions safely and with dignity, no matter where she lives. Keep legal abortion the law of the land.
363
@NM A Democratic "house" divided will not stand.
For the sake of all that is decent, I beseech all Sanders supporters (I may in fact be one but am still on the fence)
to vote blue no matter who.
90
@Kevin Rothstein
Thanks so much for replying and your message of unity. I also pledge “to vote blue no matter who.” That’s catchy! Take care.
12
@NM And that is the root: "Every woman deserves the right to make her own medical decisions safely and with dignity..." This whole abortion question should not even be part of our national dialogue, and certainly no one's business, particularly a government's. It is so wrong to impose one's judgment and control - indeed power - over a woman's personhood and individuality. For those many who dare to say we are amoral or "murderers," I say to them that they have no right to attempt to destroy who I am and what I am about.
12