Opinion

States’ move toward abortion extremism heats up ‘cold civil war’

People from the “Yes” campaign react after the final result was announced in the Irish referendum on the Eighth Amendment of the Irish Constitution at Dublin Castle, in Dublin, Ireland, on May 26, 2018. Ireland appeared to move away from its conservative Roman Catholic roots and embrace a more liberal view as voters repealed a constitutional ban on abortion. (AP Photo/Peter Morrison)

(RNS) — The average European country limits abortion to exceptional cases after 12 to 16 weeks’ gestation. This fact may come as a surprise to many Americans living in states like New York, Massachusetts, Delaware and Washington, each of which have recently passed abortion legislation that is far more permissive than even deeply progressive and secular European countries like the Netherlands.

New York’s recently enacted Reproductive Health Act dramatically expands abortion rights in a state that already had the highest abortion rate in the country. Gov. Andrew Cuomo has pushed for many years for more late-term abortion access. Last week, he got his wish: State law now allows abortion for any reason (including on the basis of disability and gender) through 24 weeks, beyond the time a baby can live outside her mother.

An abortion can also be performed until birth for unspecified health reasons, even though the Supreme Court already grants women the right to abort viable babies for reasons of the mother’s health, defined as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.”

Furthermore, New York took concern for the prenatal child completely out of its criminal code. Now, not only will a physician suffer no criminal penalties for performing an illegal abortion; a man who assaulted a pregnant woman would suffer no criminal penalties for killing the prenatal child. Remarkably, the RHA also repealed a state law requiring that babies born alive after abortion be treated just like other babies born alive.

Other states are entertaining more extreme moves. Virginia is debating a proposal to remove every single restriction on abortion in the state. Pressed on whether her bill would permit abortion of a 9-month-old unborn child for reasons of mental health, even as the mother was about to give birth, the primary sponsor of the radical legislation, State Delegate Kathy Tran, said, “My bill would allow that, yes.”

For the social-justice-minded individual who is interested in using the government to protect the vulnerable from violence, this kind of radical libertarianism in the face of horrific violence is something to behold.

These shifts in abortion law, brought about by fear that the Supreme Court may overturn Roe/Casey and send the matter back to the states, stand in deep contrast to what other states are doing. Before these new state laws expanding abortion, the overwhelming majority of changes over the last several years have significantly limited abortion rights.

Anti-abortion advocates demonstrate in front of the Supreme Court on June 25, 2018. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Iowa, for instance, recently passed a law banning abortion after a baby’s heartbeat can be detected, which is around six weeks of gestation. Ohio has passed more than 20 abortion restrictions since 2011, including a ban on prenatal child dismemberment, the most common abortion procedure after 14 weeks.

And Ohio is not alone. It has been joined by Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal back in 2013, Dan Henninger called abortion our “second civil war.” Now it appears this debate, as bad as it is, has been tied up in what some people are calling our broader “cold civil war” over politics and culture more broadly. The assumption is that we are just too divided on fundamental issues to do anything other than fight — either metaphorically or literally.

But this is a profoundly mistaken way to look at the views of the American people. A 2018 study of political affiliation in the U.S., “Hidden Tribes,” found that most people “do not see their lives through a political lens, and when they have political views the views are far less rigid than those of the highly politically engaged, ideologically orthodox tribes.”

Indeed, two-thirds of Americans belong to what the study described as an “exhausted majority.” These folks “share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation.”

Something similar is true of the abortion debate. It cannot be divided into a simplistic life-vs.-choice war. On the contrary, one needs to ask very specific questions in order to determine what the public believes. When we do, we find lots of common ground.

Overwhelming majorities, for instance, want abortion restricted (with exceptions) after the first trimester — very close to the view of most Europeans. A recent Marist poll found that only 14 percent support the no-limits approach of Virginia, while only 7 percent of millennials support the extreme Democratic platform on abortion.

There are many opportunities on the “demand” side as well. Republicans are thinking creatively about how to get paid maternity leave for women, a policy goal they share with Democrats. Some conservatives, like Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, said they only voted for the GOP tax bill because it increased child tax credits for overburdened parents. Everyone from President Trump to the conservative American Enterprise Institute is pushing for more child care assistance.

Common ground on abortion is substantial, in other words, if we only took time to look. Some of it is even painfully obvious. If confusion and political tribalism continue to dominate our exchanges and current trends continue, we risk replacing these common sense solutions with a debate that has the capacity to split the republic.

(Charles C. Camosy is on the board of Democrats for Life and author of Beyond the Abortion Wars. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily represent those of Religion News Service.)

About the author

Charles C. Camosy

Charlie Camosy, though a native of very rural Wisconsin, has spent more than the last decade as a professor of theological and social ethics at Fordham University. He is the author of five books, including, most recently, "Resisting Throwaway Culture." He is the father of four children, three of whom were adopted from the Philippines.

218 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • One can only wonder why the late Harry Andrew Blackmun, who is probably undergoing repeated abortions as a fetus in Hell for eternity, the architect of Roe v. Wade and self-appointed smartest man on the Court thought his cockamamie trimester scam was going to end the abortion debate forever.

  • A women’s “right to choose” becomes a “women’s right to murder”.
    What a slippery slope we have traversed; no further to fall.
    Soon we will be no better than the Chinese; killing babies because of their gender.
    The future?
    Killing babies because they have a trait linked to cancer.
    Killing babies because they are missing a finger.
    Killing babies because they don’t have the right build or color hair.
    Killing babies because of gender confusion.
    Killing babies at the moment of birth because the mother is afraid.
    Killing babies AFTER birth…. because I CAN.
    Sick.
    Sad.
    Deranged.
    Ave Maria; gratia plena….

  • just a sad addition to your comment Parker, India kills female babies also. Makes one want to cry.

  • OMG mercy Jesus: “New York’s … state law now allows abortion for any reason … [and] who[ever] assaulted a pregnant woman would suffer no criminal penalties for killing the prenatal child.”

    On 2nd thought, make that no mercy, Lord.

  • Abortion is an individual right of the individual person who chooses what to do with her own body!!

    Not your body? Mind your own business!

  • For what’ it’s worth, Governor Cuomo would most likely agree with you — IF that no-good, Commie-Brain, infanticide- happy Necromonger actually had enough guts to DARE show his maladjusted moniker in this forum !!

    ( And that no-good Twilight-Zoner Nancy Pelosi too!! )

  • Hell? there is no hell!!
    That is just one of the many pathetic threats by theists to kill and to murder the non-believers of their imaginary gods….

  • AGREED. For if God & Jesus are “imaginary”, then New York’s state law now allows Brien to schedule abortion for any reason. And should Brien assault a pregnant woman, Brien would suffer no criminal penalties for killing the prenatal child.

  • ”For if …., then…”
    is not a logical causational statement ie it was absurdly infantile…..

    Mention a god – Prove your god!!
    [until then – all you have are lies
    (now there is a causational type clause…)]

  • Childish !!
    ‘murder’ is a subjective opinion – only – subject to change depending on the prevailing opinions of a society !!!

    Now try proving your god’s existence for your opinion to be relevant….

  • Comparing Europe to America is a false comparison. In Europe, women can obtain abortions for free and at every hospital. In the U.S., abortion clinics are hard to find and an abortion is expensive.

  • Your god drowned the whole world,including pregnant women and children. DOn’t hold him up as a moral standard.

  • Murder is subjective? Interesting statement. Most would argue that the concept of murder is universally understood across all cultures for all of history.
    I know God exists as do you. But for whatever reason you choose to deny your creator; most likely because you fear your conscience.

  • ‘murder’ is a subjective opinion – only – subject to change depending on the prevailing opinions of each society !!!
    [have top understand what ‘subjective’ vs ‘objective’ means….]

  • Whatever happened to you? Weren’t you born & raised where, according to Planned Parenthood’s Guttmacher Institute, “abortion [is] prohibited altogether [with] no explicit legal exception”? Where was it, again?

    Andorra?
    Angola?
    Congo-Brazzaville?
    Congo-Kinshasa?
    Dominican Republic?
    Egypt?
    El Salvador?
    Gabon?
    Guinea-Bissau?
    Haiti?
    Honduras?
    Iraq?
    Madagascar?
    Malta?
    Marshall Islands?
    Mauritania?
    Micronesia?
    Nicaragua?
    Palau?
    Philippines?
    San Marino?
    Sao Tome & Principe?
    Senegal?
    Suriname?
    Tonga?

  • Yeah – you said that before…
    and No, you did not ! [it was your standard rants and deflections –
    Nothing in the way of proof …!!!]

    So – no gods here….

    [http://bibviz.com/?fbclid=IwAR1lE2rjyNb0eTJvW7xLODLdNN-Eb0c1n1SGAELUYREAbhw4pwSXoXIrV0M

    The Bable and all of its truths….]

  • AGREED. For “you don’t get to decide [to decide for me that I don’t get to decide] why a woman chooses an abortion.”

  • Want to base your opinion on your beliefs in a god??
    Prove your god First!!!

    [until – then there are no gods – just lies; and the opinion is useless!]

  • How so that my proof with Friendly Atheist is “nothing in the way of proof”? You have 48 hours to back up that claim. GO.

  • You are wrong. The law allows abortion into the third trimester until birth.
    While these late term abortions are “reserved” for the “to save the life of the mother” cases, some practitioners have gone on record saying that they will perform these abortions for any reason.
    Why Edna? Why?

  • “The whole world”, Magna Skeleton? NOPE, not here: Andorra, Angola, Congo-Brazzaville, Congo-Kinshasa, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Madagascar, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Nicaragua, Palau, Philippines, San Marino, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Suriname & Tonga.

  • No, you tried that idiocy before on another site……and you are still required to prove your god – You didn’t do it anywhere else either – just the same crap lies that we have had to listen to for centuries… just crap!!
    NO – you did not prove any gods…..

    Prove your gods….

  • Almost the entire pre-Christian world killed babies. Not surprising to see a post-Christian world returning to barbarism.

  • A woman not ever choosing abortion is a commendable thing (or maybe just a series of fortuitous circumstances). A woman inserting herself into eliminating other women’s choice in OTHER circumstances is a person of questionable judgment and motive. This is probably the missing piece in the debate. We are not talking enough about the busy-body nature of females of the “pro-life” community.

  • Infanticide, then? “Remarkably, the RHA also repealed a state law requiring that babies born
    alive after abortion be treated just like other babies born alive.” On a federal level, I’m thinking this could be challenged, because it looks like the Born Alive Infant Protection Act just went out the window, in New York.

  • Very good point. When I was arguing with Spuddie a while back (about ML King being used by Planned Parenthood), I noticed that he had made the same point about infanticide in his letter from Birmingham jail. Christianity stopped slavery. Christianity stopped infanticide. Right now the left is having issues detaching MLK from his Christian convictions. Therefore, we are probably back on the road to slavery. Most will not recognize it at first as it will not be of the racial type, but of the classical pagan variety.

  • We can’t judge him. I prefer to think he’s in need of prayer for invincible ignorance, which would indeed be a penance to him. But heaven help us! Most of America is not behind this, but will I pass the test for doing everything I can to stop it? We just get tired, sometimes. Thanks for not getting tired, Mark.

  • Many today are slaves to federal and state governments because they (the people) are dependent on them (the state) for their income, housing, education and healthcare.
    The more you depend on the state, the less liberty you have.

  • Perhaps you did NOT read the article?

    “The average European country limits abortion to exceptional cases after 12 to 16 weeks’ gestation.”

  • A person who writes “A woman inserting herself into eliminating other women’s choice in OTHER circumstances is a person of questionable judgment and motive.” apparently has a “special” definition of the word “choice”.

    One does tire of hearing non-thinking sloganeers.

  • So, if the omnipotent creator of all that exists is not a moral standard, just what do you propose as a moral standard?

    Das Kapital?

  • In fact we do.

    We do so with the Constitution, which we created and which we can amend.

    We do so with laws.

    You don’t get to decide what laws you can void.

  • This article reminds me of these timely & timeless words sung during the film, SWITCH (from China Film, Pegasus & Taihe Ubiquitous, and Media Asia Film in 2013, written & directed by Jay Sun, and starring Andy Lau, Zhang Jingchu and Lin Chi-ling):

    “When we were young and the world was younger too,
    “People got married before having babies.
    “People still wore clothes in photographs.
    “Fathers needn’t check their child’s paternity.
    “Gays never kissed, let alone married.”

  • I had a discussion with Spuddie about abortion a couple of years ago in which I pointed out that conditioning human rights upon personhood with no grounding in natural law would eventually lead from acceptance of abortion to acceptance of infanticide. As usual she called me a “liar” and did not believe me.

    And of course, here we are. And in her own state, no less.

    I’m only surprised that we got here this fast.

  • Interesting how the writer considers protecting an already established right, extremism.

    No, the majority of Americans do not want the abortion ban fetus worshipers are ultimately aiming for. No compromise is necessary here.

  • “Furthermore, New York took concern for the prenatal child completely out of its criminal code. Now, not only will a physician suffer no criminal penalties for performing an illegal abortion; a man who assaulted a pregnant woman would suffer no criminal penalties for killing the prenatal child. ”

    Holy crap! What a load of dishonest nonsense here. “Prenatal child” is not a real term. Children are born. What the NY Criminal code did was make assault on a pregnant woman (“an abortional act”) a crime AGAINST THE MOTHER. As it should since she is a person and her body is under assault.

    Camosy is all upset that a mother is given consideration under the law concerning acts against her. This is a perfect example how fetus worshipers are utterly hostile to people. How immoral and nonsensical their position. How can one pretend to be concerned with the unborn when they are completely indifferent to the existence of the women bearing them

  • Its funny how people completely hostile, malicious or indifferent to the lives of others are somehow expect to be taken seriously when they sputter dishonest garbage about their alleged concern for the unborn.

    If you can’t be bothered to concern yourself with the lives of people, the born, you are just spewing bullcrap about your concern about the unborn. Its all just an excuse to act holier than thou and act like a horse’s posterior.

  • So a woman is not a person, her body belongs to the state and nosybodies like yourself. You are advocating slavery.

  • So what you are saying is undeveloped countries, places your average Trump supporter would call “shthole countries” are ones which ban abortion completely. Doesn’t say much for them.

  • So you want women with doomed pregnancies to be injured or die. As usual, your concern for life is complete and utter nonsense. Such indifference and flat out dishonesty concerning the lives of others show how immoral and ridiuculous fetus worshipers are.

    BTW the author is still a lying sack of crap who misrepresented the law in question.

    “some practitioners have gone on record saying that they will perform these abortions for any reason.”

    Citation please. You are lying.

    Nobody performs “late term abortions” unless there is a serious medical issue. Women undergoing such procedures are ones who had already decided to keep their pregnancy.

  • Nope. The law’s “standard of care” does not reflect current, evidence-based clinical practices, but instead sought to legislate undue burdens on women’s health providers. That is why organizations such as the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists strongly oppose this bill.

    These backdoor de facto bans never hold up in court because the medical rationale used to justify them are always bullcrap. They never hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

  • The Guttmacher Institute states otherwise – most 1st and 3rd term abortions are made for the convenience of the mother.
    You have embraced the culture of death.

  • Just think about all the females that never saw the light of day because they were forcibly removed from the womb.
    What a sick position to take.

  • Stop slutshaming….
    Her favorite statement.
    Too bad she can’t get past the fact that human life should be valued.

  • That’s nice but, your concern for life apparently does not extend to the born. Meaning your concern for the unborn is a sham. You are giving me the usual “holier than thou” aphorisms because your position is just that ridiculous.

    Think of every women of childbearing age who is reduced to the status of property because you want to get involved in decisions concerning their bodies you have no business in.

    Its funny how “protecting the unborn” always means showing complete and utter contempt for the lives people.

    You are a sick, dishonest and immoral person.

  • Wrong. You have lied about this before and never bothered to support your statement.
    1st and 3rd term abortions are made for vastly different reasons and under different conditions. Late term abortions are always done by mothers who intended to keep their pregnancy but could not due to medical conditions.

    The fact you have to lie to support your views shows how immoral and disgusting it really is.

    “made for the convenience of the mother. ”

    Oh by the way, your approval as to why abortions are done is unnecessary. I could not possibly give a crap if you like or do not like the reasons it is done. It has no bearing on the right to make such choices. Convenience for the mother is sufficient because its her body and she bears 100% of the physical burdens of a pregnancy. Her body, her decisions. She has the only say in the matter. You don’t like them, tough luck.

    All you are telling me here is how indifferent and contemptuous you are of people making decisions about their bodies without your approval. Narcissistic immoral garbage.

  • It is infanticide. You said to me babies are born. Nurses testified to babies being left to die, after leaving the “magic birth canal (Thanks Mr. Conelly)” when the infant protection act was put through.

  • You were absolutely right. It’s a sad day for NY. Infanticide and late term abortions are like the extension of slavery to the territories. Maybe it will finally wake us up.

  • Not at all. There are already laws covering the protection of alive newborns. This was a pretext to attack medical providers with a nonsense standard of care having zilch to do with medicine, professional ethics or facts. A protection for a fictional situation which just happened to involve additional restrictions to access to abortion.

  • Absolutely. It will begin in the metropolitan areas, with people thinking they are getting security, but they will actually lose their freedom.

  • So” fictional” nurses saw these” fictiona”l situations? Beware! There are now cell-phones available everywhere. The medical profession will start to wear body-cameras.

  • We can judge his thinking and behavior by the results and the objective morality that should guide decent men.

  • You may want to change your handle to “Sputter” as you sputter while your favorite folks move all the way to the position everyone except you and your friends could see they were heading.

    https://www{DOT}americanthinker.com/articles/2019/02/infanticide_is_legal_in_the_united_states.html

  • It began 50+ years ago. Our inner cities are comprised of slaves.
    People who have lost their liberty to the state; NOT, to produce for their master, but to be placated in exchange for their vote.

  • Nope. The institute and its studies prove otherwise. Interesting how you ignore verifiable third-party studies that go against your barbaric positions.
    Wait until we can test a fetus for gender confusion; just think of all the innocent lives that will be terminated.
    After all, it’s the mothers right to kill – no?

  • Frankly given the outright lying done by anti-abortion advocates, I have zero reason to believe there was any factual justifications for the law. You have zero credibility.

    We already know fetus worshipers have engaged in making fake “gotcha videos” to further their cause. Project Veritas got itself into some trouble over such things. Floydlee still pretends they were true.

  • “The institute and its studies prove otherwise”
    So you have no link to a source and continue to lie. What else is new? Lying is done as a matter of course by anti-abortion advocates. You have zero credibility.

    If there was a prenatal test for homosexuality, bigoted Bible thumpers would be the first in line to advocate abortion.

    Again, I fail to find the part where you have any say in the matter here. Your faked disgust here means zilch. You advocate turning women into chattel property. You are an immoral person.

  • Go to the institutes website and you can search their data in a variety of ways.
    I think as technology progresses, there will be a way to identify all types of traits and conditions; which will enable parents to either abort or genetically modify the child. A very dangerous moral and ethical issue.

  • So still nothing there. OK. Whatever. You really didn’t want to appear credible anyway. Typical fetus worshiper.

    Of course it still misses the point. Your opinion about why abortions are done still doesn’t translate to having a rightful say in the decision.

    All I see here is a narcissistic nosybody who thinks a self-styled sense of moral superiority and declarations of phony piety allows them to reduce people into their property. Upset that others deign to make personal decisions without your input. A very immoral and disgusting position.

  • Your position is phony and your need to lie in support of it shows how immoral it is.

    Its not murder. People are murdered. The born.
    Pretending you have a say in the personal and intimate decisions one makes with their body is immoral.

    Since you are so hateful to all women bearing a pregnancy, your concern for a fetus is phony. A pretense to attacking people for your own amusement.

  • The democrat party is in complete spin mode today trying to avoid commenting on what their colleagues in NY and VA legislated and are attempting to legislate.
    Most know it’s wrong while others are silently gleeful at the ability to kill without recourse.
    If only we allowed police to do the same.

  • The only spin I see here is the flat out misrepresentation of laws by the author. (Already discussed in this thread).

    The need to lie and exaggerate to further the fetus worship agenda is just more proof of how immoral it really is.

    “Protecting the unborn” is nothing but a euphemism for reducing women to chattel property out of spite and narcissism (both of which are abundantly clear in your screeds)

  • Putting an end to the constant abortion verbiage: Practice safe sex and the abortion issue would basically disappear.

  • Like the South before the Civil War, Blue states are moving to increase their legal support of their fundamentally immoral institution. It’ll be interesting to see if Lincoln was wrong when he said that the nation cannot survive half slave and half free.

  • Every media outlet was talking about this yesterday; except CNN, MSN, the NYT, etc.
    how convenient for you it never showed up on your radar.
    You need to get off of boingboing.

  • Every media outlet being?????
    Fox, Newsmax and WND?
    Are you going to quote Qanon as well?
    How about we just go with Russia Today.

    How convenient I rely on sources which are known for sourcing their articles in a credible fashion and generally passing fact checks when given.

  • OK. Given that, do you think it is worse now they have documented people who are not citizens (Was it in the Dreamer’s best interest to fill out those forms?), and are courting them? This makes a group of people who are theoretically not under the 14th Amendment, voluntarily become vulnerable to exploitation.

  • Good News Edna. God sent his own Son to free us from the effects of sin, and by baptism, be adopted into his family.

  • If “Health of the patient” can be defined as broadly as mental health or financial circumstance, and there is no legal consequence to performing an abortion on a flimsy definition after the 24 week cut off… isn’t it de facto unrestricted abortion?

  • Free speech, gun ownership, lawful search and seizure… all such individual rights are necessarily mediated and limited by the public. No one is an island.

  • The exception for late term abortions “for the health of the mother” is too vague to mean anything. It is de facto un-restricted abortion.

    The current policy also allows for aborting fetuses with defects, and as gender selection.

    It is outside the norm, and goes beyond the stated concerns that motivates it.

  • “The average European country limits abortion to exceptional cases after 12 to 16 weeks’ gestation. This fact may come as a surprise to many Americans living in states like New York, Massachusetts, Delaware and Washington, each of which have recently passed abortion legislation that is far more permissive than even deeply progressive and secular European countries like the Netherlands.”

    If we could agreed to start with that approach, I think we would have a chance at compromise. What is being reacted against – what has carried the pro-choice side so far, are the attempts to eliminate any abortion choice, including abortion up to 12 week or 16 weeks or even 20 or 24 weeks. That attempt includes such stupid things as trying to defund Planned Parenthood, one of the organizations that has probably done more to reduce the number of abortions than anything else.

    Also stupid were steps taken by legislators to do such things as require “probes” of women’s bodies. They imposed waiting periods out of concern that women would rush into decisions and needed time to think it over. Poor, simply minded women. Of course, they also made it difficult for women who had to travel for an abortion – making it more costly and taking more time away from work and family.

    They required doctors to have admitting privileges at hospitals and imposed facility qualifications that are more strenuous than those for other out-patient procedures that are equally or more dangerous in terms of potential harm to the woman that could require special facilities and staff like hospitals.

    States moving to make abortion more available are also reacting to the stupid restrictions being imposed in other states – like the heartbeat rule in Iowa or the 20 new restrictions in Ohio.

    So, are you willing, Comosy, to work toward a compromise here in the U.S. that would be similar to what many European countries are doing? I agree that we need to find places to draw lines and we need to provide real help to women who face difficult circumstances – like a child with a fetal defect. We need to find a middle ground. Are you willing? Or are you just complaining at the extreme reaction of some states to the extreme actions taken in states like Iowa or Ohio????????????

  • I agree that we need to draw some lines around abortions that occur after some time period – 16 weeks, 20 weeks, “fetal viability.” We need to talk about having a birth rather than an abortion once fetal viability is reached. We need to talk about the government that wants to deny an abortion then paying for the hospitalization costs of the woman and child when she gives birth. If we deny an abortion for a fetal defect, then should the government assure health care and some subsidy for any special needs to the child?

    I think both sides have extreme elements – the “never” and the “always” sides seem to be all that exists. I think there are many who want a middle ground found and would support it.

  • Considering anti-abortion advocates are looking to turn all women of child rearing age into property of the state, I would say your analogy is directed at the wrong people.

  • And this is a problem because?????

    I can’t think of a reason for limiting abortion except under conditions where a live birth is possible at the time. Anything else is simply none of the business of the state.

    Fact of the matter is anti-abortion advocates only have one goal, elimination of abortion altogether. So even minor restrictions are a step too far for that crowd. No middle ground is possible because there is no reasonable arguments expected from that crowd.

  • … but live birth is possible after viability. If you agree that these new regulations do equate to a de facto allowance for abortion on demand, then it violates that good reason for limiting abortions.

    I would love for abortions to not exist. But sometimes they are medically necessary. I just think New York went way overboard in trying to carve out that exception.

  • Viability is a medically recognized benchmark. A finding by an expert in the field It is far different

    “If you agree that these new regulations do equate to a de facto allowance for abortion on demand, then it violates that good reason for limiting abortions”

    I do not, because you are framing the right of access to abortion in the wrong way. It is not an allowance for abortion, it is a right to have access to it. Abortion on demand is already the default. Those choosing to limit that right have to justify their actions.

    “I would love for abortions to not exist. But sometimes they are medically necessary.”

    Its not just a matter of being medically necessary. It is a right and a decision which is protected for the mother and her alone.

  • It is an entirely appropriate use of the word “choice”. And you call someone a non-thinking sloganeer right after copying and pasting someones post back at them: “You are a sick, dishonest and immoral person.”
    You are a dumb ass.

  • Vlad: hey Orange1 we teach this Mark Connelly good at Research Academy yes? He so good at twisting and make fake diversions yes. And he insult womens good just like you haha. Maybe he is a pssy grabber too just like you.

    Donald TRump: yeah Pootie Baby, Mark C is a useful peasant for new Russiamerica. Now I got BIG problems. I got no money to build big wall and now I so scared of strong Nancy Pelosi. She WHUPPED my ass in my shutdown and now I also got big MEAN Mueller on my tail too and he already got Stoned Roger in jail. Now I need escape to Moscow. You can save me and I put my small hands on your big bare chest again.That would be TERRIFIC and AWESOME.

  • Vlad: hey Orange1 we teach this li​ar Mark Connelly good at Research Academy yes? He so good at twisting and make fake diversions and many fake names he use yes. And he insult womens good just like you haha. Maybe he is a pssy grabber too just like you.

    Donald TRump: yeah Pootie Baby, Mark C is a useful peasant for new Russiamerica. Now I got BIG problems. I got no money to build big wall and now I so scared of strong Nancy Pelosi. She WHUPPED my ass in my shutdown and now I also got big MEAN Mueller on my tail too and he already got Stoned Roger in jail. Now I need escape to Moscow. You can save me and I put my small hands on your big bare chest again.That would be TERRIFIC and AWESOME.

  • Vlad: hey Orange1 we teach this Mark Connelly good at Research Academy yes? He so good at twisting and make fake diversions yes. And he insult womens good just like you haha. Maybe he is a pssy grabber too just like you.

    Donald TRump: yeah Pootie Baby, Mark C is a useful peon for new Russiamerica. Now I got BIG problems. I got no money to build big wall and now I so scared of strong Nancy Pelosi. She WHUPPED my ass in my shutdown and now I also got big MEAN Mueller on my tail too and he already got Stoned Roger in jail. Now I need escape to Moscow. You can save me and I put my small hands on your big bare chest again.That would be TERRIFIC and AWESOME.

  • The default under the law is unrestricted abortion. The government has the burden to justify restrictions. In most cases restrictions concerning medical personnel and facilities are based on spurious or entirely fictitious motives. It is why organizations representing the medical profession are usually the first ones to object to them.

  • QUESTION FOR BRIEN THE DANDELION: Just how many out there on Twin Planet Ashiesm & Eggnogshtickyism that are like you who, while even reading abortion news, go around: (1) Calling yourselves “the non-believers of imaginary gods”? (2) Demanding, “Prove your god – first!!! … for your opinion to be relevant”? (3) Bottomlining, “No gods here” except “the same cr*p lies that we have had to listen to for centuries”? Then (4) babbling, “The Bable says, The Bable says, and all of its truths”?

    ANSWER FOR BRIEN THE DANDELION: (1) According to “sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera’s review” in 2017, “atheists and agnostics [make up ONLY] 7% of the world’s population”! (2) “The 2015 Pew Religious Landscape survey” found that “of the American population … atheists made up [ONLY] 3.1%”! (3) “The World Factbook” of 2013 reads: “Non-religious people [in the U.S.] make up 9.66%, while [ONLY] one fifth of them are atheists”! (4) “The Encyclopædia Britannica” put it out there in 2013 that ONLY “2% of the world’s population self-identify as atheists and the average annual global change for atheism from 2000 to 2010 was −0.17%”! (5) “Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project” in 2009 determined that “in the United States, ONLY 5% of the population did not have a belief in a god and out of that small group ONLY 24% self-identified as ‘atheist'”! (6) As “a 2004 survey by the BBC in 10 countries” discovered, ONLY “8% of the respondents … consider themselves to be ‘atheists'”! (7) And in 2004 “The World Factbook” concluded that “of the world’s population … [ONLY] about 2.4% are atheists”! (8) Today the most famous agnostic is Neil deGrasse Tyson, and most famous among atheists are David Silverman, Lawrence Krauss and Al Franken – all thanks to #MeToo victims for speaking out!

  • Sputter
    Cruddie
    Tater

    Calling him all that with affection will only worsen the non-person that he has been

  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4173112/?fbclid=IwAR3I9qs-NJYyWhtuvAXn4gehdGoBPS-AzZM8efJoti-LDSk6n_qQp5GIpts

    Religious delusions are common and are considered to be particularly difficult to treat.

    ——

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cogs.12138

    ”…exposure to religious ideas has a powerful impact on children’s differentiation between reality and fiction, not just for religious stories but also for fantastical stories.”

    Keep the Lies about gods away from children!

    ——-*********

  • That’s right!! Our choice!!

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4173112/?fbclid=IwAR3I9qs-NJYyWhtuvAXn4gehdGoBPS-AzZM8efJoti-LDSk6n_qQp5GIpts

    Religious delusions are common and are considered to be particularly difficult to treat.

    ——

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cogs.12138

    ”…exposure to religious ideas has a powerful impact on children’s differentiation between reality and fiction, not just for religious stories but also for fantastical stories.”

    Keep the Lies about gods away from children!

    ——-*********

  • Nope. Her country has single payer insurance, highly developed economy, easy access to abortion and an envious standard of living.

  • BOAST OF THIS FAMILY LEGACY TO HER, THEN, CRUDDIE:

    “[Throughout] the biopolitical history of [U.S.] occupation … the threat to Japan’s ‘racial purity’ was becoming permanent at home. Rapes were a never-ending source of tension between US occupation forces and Japanese authorities. The Japanese government, at the request of the Americans, opened special ‘Recreation and Amusement Authority’ (RAA) centers – essentially, licensed brothels like the now-infamous ‘comfort stations’ provided for Japanese forces during the war. Yet mixed-race children continued to appear, both from rape and from fraternization. The occupation press code prohibited Japanese media from reporting on crimes committed by the US military, but American brass were plagued by how to cover up evidence of rape. A solution was hit upon: the infamous 1948 Eugenics Protection Law. This law was the first to recognize the legal right to abortion, although only in ‘exceptional cases’ – a clause which could be taken to mean abortion on demand, without restriction. The Japanese government got to keep their population racially pure; the American government got to minimize the negative publicity of thousands of mixed-race babies. The Eugenics Protection Law was, in effect, a complement to the laws and rules already in place prohibiting American servicemen from marrying Japanese women and bringing them back to the United States. Subsequently, women from across the globe flocked to Japan for abortions.”

    Source: Jason Morgan, “Tokyo pro-life march and Asia’s dark history of eugenics: Abortions were once common in Japan, many aimed at cutting down the number of mixed race children, but things have changed”, Asia Times, July 26, 2018.

  • That would not even be the worst thing in her family history, let alone her nation’s.

    Remember former Axis power, rather large empire. Not remembered too kindly as occupiers.

  • Trump’s late-term abortion warning in 2016 debate against Clinton goes viral. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-late-term-abortion-warning-in-2016-debate-against-clinton-goes-viral
    “With what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby,” Trump said. “Now you can say that that’s okay, and Hillary can say that that’s okay, but it’s not okay with me.”

    He continued: “Because based on what she’s saying, and based on where she’s going and where she’s been, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, on the final day. And that’s not acceptable.”

    Hillary Clinton accused Trump of using “scare” tactics in response.

    “Well, that is not what happens in these cases and using that kind of scare rhetoric is just terribly unfortunate,” she rebutted.

  • That is not the default under the law. The government asserted the authority to limit abortion once viability has been reached.

  • The medical procedure for removing a fetus when viability has been reached is called “birth”.

    “Late term abortions” are invariably done when a woman has already decided to keep the pregnancy but medical conditions prevent it.

    Bans on late term abortions are typically dishonest in nature. They typically encompass periods which viability is not even remotely possible, but are somehow “late terms”.

  • viability is possible as early as 20 weeks, though not necessarily probable. In the third trimester, viability is quite high.

  • No right is absolute. Whats more, what rights we have are governed by our society. Even bodily autonomy is not an unlimited right. If I go under for a surgery and the doctor has to make a call to save my life, even if its a procedure I professed disagreement with, that doctor is empowered to override my autonomy. Roe v. Wade enshrines a government right to override autonomy at viability, not just a “viable birth.”

  • Viability means the ability to live outside the womb. There is no distinction to be found here. Late term abortion bans typically involve pregnancies which have not reached viability.

  • If viability is probable by the third trimester, I don’t think we can honestly say late term bans involve pregnancies that have not reached viability.

    Some of the extreme ones like fetal heart beat based bans certainly don’t meet viability, but they are not claiming to be concerned with viability.

  • What do you mean by “far below viability”? Do you mean “with no possibility of viability” or “not a significant enough chance of viability” or “a chance of not being viable”?

  • Meaning typical “late term abortion ban” laws try to ban abortions far before when viability is likely. Usually by the 2nd trimester. They are written by politicians with an eye towards as close to a total ban as possible. Not by medical professionals with an eye towards ensuring a safe birth or a healthy woman.

  • The consensus of the medical community is that viability is a 50/50 chance at 24 weeks, and rapidly rises after that. That is near the end of the second trimester, and most bans in the US hang on that, as does Roe v. Wade. Not “far before viability is likely.”

    Some do try to push earlier than that, when the chance is only 20% or so, with things like fetal heartbeat bills or fetal pain bills. But viability doesn’t have to be a 100% chance, or else we would allow abortion up to natural birth.

  • So a “Yup” that it’s “not surprising to see a post-Christian world returning to barbarism”, is a “Yup” to “advocating slavery”?!

    So a Nope to “barbarism” is a “Yup” to “slavery”?!

    Cruddie, Cruddie, Cruddie – Poster Boy for Ashiesm is what you are.

  • Barbarism is pretending you are “saving a fetus” when in reality you are just enslaving women. You are nothing more than an narcissistic clown trying to impress others with phony displays of alleged concern. Slavery is also your position.

  • “The consensus of the medical community is that viability is a 50/50 chance at 24 week”

    Making 24 weeks hardly a sane benchmark for viability if the goal is the likelihood of a live birth.

  • Once a Slave, Never a Slaver, is my motto. On account of Christ.

    Always a Slave, Same-Same a Slaver, is yours. On account of your Ashiesm.

  • What would a “sane” benchmark for viability be then? If a 50/50 chance is cutting it too close (with that chance rapidly rising afterwards), then how can any chance of viability be deemed reasonable? It seems like begging the question, since you haven’t offered a means for establishing a benchmark.

  • I see you are left with sputtering nonsense to make yourself feel better about a position of enslaving women. Oh well.

    How can I possibly believe you have concern for the unborn when you show so much contempt for the rest of humanity?

  • ” then how can any chance of viability be deemed reasonable?”

    75-80% of surviving outside the womb at least is reasonable enough. Or better yet, just leave such issues to the medical professionals.

  • Why is 75% so much better than 50%? If the government has an interest in protecting viable fetuses, then there isn’t really a reason to hold out for more than an even probability.

    Also, the difference between 50% and 90% is 24 weeks as opposed to 26. It would not represent much of a shift to meet your chosen cut off. It would still be in the second trimester, which you have already said is far too early for viability.

  • Your Ashiesm & everything natural born nasty a non-person about you shall prevent you from ever discovering and experiencing what this means in Matthew 18:27. It’s much too late now!

    Σπλαγχνισθεὶς δὲ ὁ κύριος τοῦ δούλου ἐκείνου ἀπέλυσεν αὐτόν καὶ τὸ δάνειον ἀφῆκεν αὐτῷ

    (splanchnistheis de ho kyrios tou doulou ekeinou apelysen auton kai to daneion aphēken autō)

    “And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt.”

  • Are medical professionals imbued with special moral insights?

    How do you deal with the fact some medical professionals perform abortions right up to the moment of birth – and of course some kill born children, while others march each year against abortion being legal?

    Doesn’t that mean that medical professionals are just ordinary people with personal opinions?

  • I am sure the fact “the ‘never” and the ‘always’ sides seem to be all that exists” is quite a puzzlement if you have a cut-and-paste moral system where the issues are simply matters of taste and personal judgment.

  • The government has no inherent interest in “protecting viable fetuses” over and above its interests in human life in general and of the lives of citizens in particular.

    The entire cockamamie “viability” nonsense sprang full-blown from the fertile imagination of Justice Harry Blackmun, who spent the rest of his life watching it unravel and trying to defend the undefendable.

  • Barbarism is pretending you are “saving women” when in reality you are just ending a human life, often in horrific and painful ways.

  • It is settled law, as much so as all of Roe v Wade. And it does not assert a value on fetuses “over and above” human life.

    It is something of an arbitrary cut off, but there was always going to be some limit. Full access to abortion at any point would just be repugnant.

  • No, it is not “something of an arbitrary cut off”.

    It is completely arbitrary cut off.

    And Roe v Wade apparently was not settled law since further Federal court decisions have almost completely eliminated the entire trimester concoction, rendering the state’s interest in the unborn during the third trimester academic.

  • One would have assume at least a 50/50 shot.

    It’s telling you’d go for abortion to end a human life even if the odds were in its favor.

  • Women of child bearing age who don’t get pregnant don’t have a problem.

    All of us have to comport with laws that are made by the people through their representatives and no one claims that as a result they are property of the state.

    So, you need new slogans for your propaganda campaign since your current ones all simply look silly.

  • That is an important piece of information. Thank you. Closing clinics endangers women more and costs them more.

  • No, a cut off is necessary if the state has some concern for the fetus’ life at some point (as Roe v Wade codifies). There is never an unlimited right to abortion in that ruling or any of the related decisions following it.

    I have yet to hear of a single ban that starts later than 26 weeks (the line between the 2nd and 3rd trimester) and a cut off in the 2nd trimester has been affirmed numerous times, as has viability.

    Our laws are still more liberal than most European bans, which operate on the basis of the state’s need for procreation over personal autonomy as early as 16 or 19 weeks.

  • No, Roe v. Wade does not “codify” that.

    It suggests that as a dicta, but since then additional rulings have made it moot.

    There actually is an unlimited right to abortion through the “health” loophole.

    As many of the state and Federal courts have interpreted “health”, if having a baby makes the potential mother unhappy, that affects her mental health, and is sufficient grounds for an abortion right up to the moment of birth.

    The cure is a constitutional amendment returning this matter to the states, which is where it belongs.

  • Mark, I have Spuddie blocked, but I assume from your response that there was the usual “forced birther” argument. Of course, those that advance that argument ignore the fact that, like the antebellum pro-slavery supporters, they utterly deny the common humanity that prenates share with their mothers, just as slaves shared with their owners, and so bless the power of the mothers/owners to do as they wish/wished with their prenates/slaves up to and including murdering them.

    The truth is that most people are more comparable to the Utah slave code that recognized the slave owners’ property rights but placed real restrictions on them. Slave owners had to provide basic education; and adequate food, shelter, and clothing—if they failed to do so or abused their slaves, those slaves would be taken away from them. Furthermore, no slave owner could sell a slave or take a slave out of Utah Territory without the SLAVE’S permission. Also, while Utah had an anti-miscegenation law, the penalties of jail time and/or fine applied only to the WHITE partner.

    Likewise these days a large majority supports abortion in some form. But most of those supporters also support restrictions AT LEAST more serious than Roe v. Wade permits, many of them much more serious. For instance, when asked if elective abortions should be legal, a majority regularly says no. (Mind, there are very few polls that ask that question, perhaps because those commissioning the polls usually don’t want to get that answer.)

  • If the Supreme Court was doing its job properly a constitutional amendment wouldn’t be needed. Going forward, we might finally have a SC that is willing to reverse the constitutional travesty that is Roe v. Wade. After that, it’ll be a state-by-state fight to protect the most innocent and helpless of all human beings.

  • The “health” loophole is not about rights, but about preservation of life. It is a recognition of a no-win scenario, not a positive assertion or rights.

    The spirit of the law in states with such an exception is based on more than the potential mother being “unhappy.”

  • “The spirit of the law in states with such an exception is based on more than the potential mother being ‘unhappy.'”

    I regret to inform you that is not true. Every state leaves the health decision to the abortionist, who has a vested interest in performing the procedure.

    As a result as practical matter a woman who wants to use the health loophole WILL get an abortion.

  • Possibly, but that is not what proponents of the exception have argued. They may well have lied, but I won’t go out of my way to accuse them. But the language is too vague to be useful.

  • I am against reversing the judicial fiat of Roe v. Wade with another judicial fiat. The current conservative SCOTUS majority supports stare decisis

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

    and have committed to honoring this pillar of judicial objectiveness.

    Having had a series of zany justices for the last several decades kick the pins out from under the plain words and meaning of the Constitution, our last remaining bedrock is the notion that a matter decided remains decided.

    The opponents of the Constitution already consider the SCOTUS a super-legislature, and if the proponents of the Constitution join them, the last several ridiculous nomination battles will look like grade school picnics.

    The damage has been done. Rather than do more damage, the solution is to repair the damage.

    The way to do that is remove SCOTUS jurisdiction of a number of matters that belong to the states by amendment, and to eliminate by that same amendment any “interpretation” based on “penumbra”, letters from Thomas Jefferson who was not at the Constitutional Convention, and so on.

    In short, if it is not specified and/or enumerated in the plain English of this written Constitution, it is not in the Constitution.

  • I usually have Spuddie blocked as well, but recently took her off “blocked” to deal specifically with her usual sloganeering at the expense of morality, commonsense, and her usual targets.

    Yes, the polls fail to provide the questions that were asked and the methodology used to analyze the answer because then it would become obvious that support for abortion is eroding.

    Of course as the last Presidential election showed, truth wins out in the end.

  • I go by what’s done, not what proponents have argued.

    What’s done – and this by judicial fiat – is that if there is a health exception, and the courts will void a law which lacks one, there is no barrier to an abortion right up to the moment of birth.

  • At the level of the Supreme Court, “stare decisis” is no more than an excuse given by the current Court that lacks the courage to reverse the abuses of previous Courts. If “stare decisis” were a true rule, Separate But Equal would still be the law of the land. Nor does the constitutional amendment mandating how the Court has to rule be of any use, because that’s what the justices claim they are doing already. An amendment that WOULD be useful is one that gives 2/3 of the states, through legislation or referendum, two years to overrule a Supreme Court decision and tell the justices to try again.

  • kronzypantz should be called krazypantz–they’re a catholic, no doubt with no science background.

  • Re: “Apparently you have NOT read the New York law.”:You certainly haven’t, doofus. No one is aborting healthy fetuses up to birth. Get a grip.

  • The public very much supports abortion access, dear–especially the non religious and well-educated.

    PerryUndem Research Communication poll: Key findings include:

    • Large majorities of voters say they want the experience of abortion to be safe, legal, respectful, supportive, affordable, accessible, and without shame.

    • Since January of 2010, states across the country have passed 318 laws restricting access to abortion.1 Slightly more than half of voters (55 percent) are unaware of this recent trend. Once informed, a majority says these laws are going in the wrong direction. Voters are less likely to vote to re-elect an official who favors these restrictions.

    • A majority of voters support proposals for laws that help ensure safe and affordable access to abortion care that is driven by standard medical practices and medically proven data.

    https://www.nirhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Memo-NIRH-Poll_Final_3.pdf
    —————-
    So many polls:

    A NBC poll states that 70% of the American populace want to see Roe v Wade stay in place.

    “What’s more, seven in 10 respondents oppose Roe v. Wade being
    overturned, which is the highest percentage on this question since 1989. “These are profound changes,” says Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted this survey with Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart and his colleagues….McInturff adds that the abortion-related events and rhetoric over the past year – which included controversial remarks on abortion and rape by two Republican Senate as well as a highly charged debate over contraception – helped shaped these
    changing poll numbers.”

    From Mark Murray: NBC/WSJ poll: “Majority, for first time, want abortion to be legal”.

  • You mean American Nonthinker, you doofus! Snort

    “Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on
    extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience,
    use of poor sources and failed fact checks.”–mediabiasfactcheck

    “According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, American Thinker has published Anti-LGBT articles, as well as those by prominent white nationalist, Jared Taylor. Further, American Thinker routinely publishes conspiracy theories, such as those by Pamela Geller, who is also on the SPLC’s hate watch list due to anti-Islam positions: Report: Obama said ‘I Am a Muslim’, which has been debunked as a false claim. They have also promoted conspiracies

    about the Seth Rich Murder and they have published numerous articles
    that are not supportive of the consensus of science, such as this one: The Hoax of ‘Climate Change’”

    Your choice of reading material says a lot about your lack of judgment.

  • The last presidential election demonstrated that we intelligent people have to live among imbeciles.

  • The Southern Poverty Law Center is a discredited hate group.

    That you cited says a lot about your bias and gullibility.

  • Apparently you’re unfamiliar with the legal environment into which that law was placed, and also apparently you failed to read the exchanges that preceded your outburst.

    No abortion law which does not contain a health exception will survive legal challenge in New York (and several other states).

    As the courts interpret that, the sole determiner of the application of the health exception is the medical practitioner performing the abortion.

    Voila!

    Yes, healthy fetuses can be and are aborted up to the moment of birth.

  • “Stare decisis” is a fundamental pillar of Anglo-American jurisprudence.

    The same thought process – the imaginary living Constitution – which led to the bad decisions also led to the disposal of stare decisis.

    For example, Separate But Equal fell to Chief Justice Earl Warren, a left wing political pundit who never met a zany idea he didn’t he could incorporate into a decision.

    Fixing Problem A by compounding Problem B does not strike me as a wise long-range solution to SCOTUS legerdemain.

  • As you say, soo many polls. The CBS poll from January, 45% want abortion generally available, 32% want abortion available under stricter limits, 21% don’t want it available.

    A Quinnipiac poll from a few years ago asking if voters would support an abortion ban after 20 weeks in their state found people split 46% to 46%.

    Gallup sometimes asks if people think abortion should be be always legal, sometimes legal, or always illegal, and “sometimes legal” is always at least a plurality if not an outright majority. That isn’t the most useful way to ask that, though, because of how broad “sometimes legal” is. CNN used to take it it one step further by asking those that choose “sometimes legal” if they think it should be legal in most circumstances or a few circumstances, and the last time they asked they got 29% always legal, 15% legal in most circumstances, 38% legal in a few circumstances, and 16% always illegal. That’s 44% for the pro-choice side and 53% for the pro-life side.

    That’s about as close a question on elective abortions as you can find in the past six years, you have to go back to 2013 for an NBC News poll that found 26% that thought abortion should always be legal, 19% that thought it should be legal most of the time, 42% that thought it should be illegal except in cases of rape/incest or when the mother’s life is threatened, and 10% that thought it should always be illegal. Again, that’s 45% effectively pro-choice and 52% effectively pro-life.

    You have to go all the way back to 2007 for a poll on the various specific reasons, though. Fox News found that only 21% opposed permitting abortion for rape/incest, 15% opposed abortion if the pregnancy put the mother’s life at risk, 28% for the mother’s mental health, 30% if the baby has a fatal defect, but 50% opposed permitting abortion if the baby isn’t wanted—only 39% supported abortion under that last circumstance.

  • “Stare decisis” is indeed fundamental to US jurisprudence. So yes, courts are bound by prior decisions of higher courts—THAT is non-negotiable. But when it comes to prior decisions of the same court or other courts on the same level, those decisions must be considered but are not binding. And since there is no court higher than to Supreme Court, it certainly isn’t bound by precedents set by lower courts nor is it bound by its own precedents, though those precedents have to be given serious consideration. And this is as it should be, because there is no other generally effective means for overturning a decision when the Supreme Court gets it wrong, and any legal doctrine that would lock in Plessy as the law of the land in perpetuity is a BAD doctrine.

  • I am not sure you understand the implications of what you’re arguing.

    If the First Amendment as written, for example, prohibits the establishment of a state church along the lines of the Church of England, and the SCOTUS finds – through “interpretation” – that the Federal Government may issue a list of proscribed religious beliefs, we both agree that it has stepped outside its boundaries and has simply fabricated its conclusion.

    Where we differ is in the solution.

    If we take your suggested approach, pack the Court with folks who see it our way, and reverse the previous decision, we “fix” the problem. We “fix” it until the other viewpoint packs the Court with folks who see it their way.

    At that point the Constitution as written has become essentially irrelevant. The nomination process becomes THE means to “amend ” the Constitution. Article V becomes a dead letter.

    One our justices described the result this way prior to his appointment to the Court:

    “But rather than use the judiciary for extraordinary cases, von Drehle recognizes that American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.”

    “This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there’s little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose. In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programs — real-world laboratories in which ideas can be assessed on the results they produce — are not possible. Ideas are tested only in the abstract world of legal briefs and lawyers arguments. As a society, we lose the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide.”

    “At the same time, the politicization of the judiciary undermines the only real asset it has — its independence. Judges come to be seen as politicians and their confirmations become just another avenue of political warfare. Respect for the role of judges and the legitimacy of the judiciary branch as a whole diminishes. The judiciary’s diminishing claim to neutrality and independence is exemplified by a recent, historic shift in the Senate’s confirmation process. Where trial-court and appeals-court nominees were once routinely confirmed on voice vote, they are now routinely subjected to ideological litmus tests, filibusters, and vicious interest-group attacks. It is a warning sign that our judiciary is losing its legitimacy when trial and circuit-court judges are viewed and treated as little more than politicians with robes.”

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2005/02/liberalsnlawsuits-joseph-6/

    Neil Gorsuch, “Liberals’N’Lawsuits”, National Review, February 7, 2005

    It is the cure worse than the disease.

  • I know exactly what I’m proposing—not that we seek for Conservative judges, but ORIGINALIST judges. If a judge is truly an Originalist, then his political opinions are irrelevant. The only reason why Originalist judges look Conservative is because of how badly the Liberal Perfectionist judges have abused their power for generations. What I reject is the theory that the Supreme Court is incapable of fixing its screw-ups.

  • What I reject is that flipping decisions like burgers is a long-range solution that will make things better rather than worse.

    Justice Gorsuch calls it correctly.

    We need to return to a written Constitution and the rule of law, not men.

  • I am not sure you understand the implications of what you’re arguing.

    If the First Amendment as written, for example, prohibits the establishment of a state church along the lines of the Church of England, and the SCOTUS finds – through “interpretation” – that the Federal Government may issue a list of proscribed religious beliefs, we both agree that it has stepped outside its boundaries and has simply fabricated its conclusion.

    Where we differ is in the solution.

    If we take your suggested approach, pack the Court with folks who see it our way, and reverse the previous decision, we “fix” the problem. We “fix” it until the other viewpoint packs the Court with folks who see it their way.

    At that point the Constitution as written has become essentially irrelevant. The nomination process becomes THE means to “amend ” the Constitution. Article V becomes a dead letter.

    One our justices described the result this way prior to his appointment to the Court:

    “But rather than use the judiciary for extraordinary cases, von Drehle recognizes that American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.”

    “This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there’s little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose. In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programs — real-world laboratories in which ideas can be assessed on the results they produce — are not possible. Ideas are tested only in the abstract world of legal briefs and lawyers arguments. As a society, we lose the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide.”

    “At the same time, the politicization of the judiciary undermines the only real asset it has — its independence. Judges come to be seen as politicians and their confirmations become just another avenue of political warfare. Respect for the role of judges and the legitimacy of the judiciary branch as a whole diminishes. The judiciary’s diminishing claim to neutrality and independence is exemplified by a recent, historic shift in the Senate’s confirmation process. Where trial-court and appeals-court nominees were once routinely confirmed on voice vote, they are now routinely subjected to ideological litmus tests, filibusters, and vicious interest-group attacks. It is a warning sign that our judiciary is losing its legitimacy when trial and circuit-court judges are viewed and treated as little more than politicians with robes.”

    https://www{DOT}nationalreview{DOT}com/2005/02/liberalsnlawsuits-joseph-6/

    Neil Gorsuch, “Liberals’N’Lawsuits”, National Review, February 7, 2005

    It is the cure worse than the disease.

  • No. You are being a pit bull, hanging desperately onto a fallacy that for some reason you want to be true. No doctor is going to abort a healthy full-term fetus. Federal law protects viable fetuses.

  • ” No doctor is going to abort a healthy full-term fetus. Federal law protects viable fetuses.”

    Unless, of course, the abortionist (may or may not be a doctor) decides it would protect the mother’s mental health.

    Gosh, she or he makes his living doing abortions.

    Voila!

  • Mentioning Europe without revealing the fact that abortions are available at any public health clinic and covered by insurance, makes any comparison to the United States meaningless.

  • Oh, brother. Did you know Martin Luther King, Jr accepted an award from Planned Parenthood? Christians stopped slavery? BAloney! How many christians fought for the Confederacy? The Southern Baptists came about because they endorsed slavery.

  • Get a dictionary. Infanticide is AFTER birth. THis bill states absolutely no such thing. Go read the actual law instead of spouting lies.

  • Oh, no. That was a rather clumsy fictional novel. I am citing the teachings of the Catholic Church on distributism, socialism and capitalism, as seen through the lens of Hilaire Belloc’s book The Servile State.

  • A book which is vilified, but greatly appealed to Northern Christians at the time was Uncle Tom’s Cabin. It is a much better book than 1984.

  • From the ARTICLE, that we are supposed to be discussing:”Remarkably, the RHA also repealed a state law requiring that babies born
    alive after abortion be treated just like other babies born alive.” This goes against the Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Mark Connelly somewhere has the text of the law, in which they apparently just went through crossing out abortion for various cases. He also has a discussion about the trimesters, etc. Now you will go with Spuddie, and one other (whom I have blocked), and say that the testimony for that Federal Law was a lie. But I’m not buying it. Good night, Edna.

  • Snort. The SPLC is rated very high for factual reporting.

    What’s the matter, Mark? Are you homophobic as well as a misogynist?

  • Moral analysis by dictionary.

    Every abortion law – thanks to Federal and state court decisions – must contain a health exception.

    Those health exceptions have without exception been interpreted to mean that if the woman will be unhappy if she has the child, her “mental health” is at stake.

    Voila!

    Abortion right up to the moment of birth.

    I would, were I you, get your facts together before calling someone a liar.

  • Dr. King did NOT accept the award:

    http://www.civilrightsfortheunborn.org/martin-luther-king-unborn.htm

    “In 1966, Martin Luther King, Jr., a non-violent supporter of natural family planning, was offered the Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger Award. In the acceptance speech, delivered by Mrs. Coretta Scott King, because Dr. King didn’t attend the ceremony, Mrs. King points to the benefits of family planning among Negro families and the ‘kinship’ between the civil rights movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts. This speech did not include the word abortion. There is much speculation regarding who the real author of the speech was. During her lifetime, Mrs. King, unlike her husband, supported abortion and a more liberal view on marriage and human sexuality.”

  • Except that Europe places MUCH greater restrictions on abortions than the United States, including essentially banning late term abortions.

    Of course since Europe’s moral compass is bent, that’s small comfort.

2019 NewsMatch Campaign: This Story Can't Wait! Donate.

ADVERTISEMENTs