New Abortion Restrictions Drive Women Back to the Black Market

CytotecGuineapigmomTexas isn't the only state where lawmakers are pushing to tighten restrictions on abortions. The American Civil Liberties Union calls 2013 "one of the most the most regressive years yet when it comes to taking away access to safe, legal abortion services." Not everybody agrees with that assessment, of course. Americans have a range of opinions when it comes to terminating pregnancies, and those tending toward a more restrictive stance may look in favor on new laws they see as protecting life. But as "Hatpin Dolly," Frank Sinatra's mother and a provider of illicit abortions, demonstrated decades ago, when there's demand for an illicit or tightly regulated medical service, underground suppliers will arise. Tight new laws around the country may be bringing back the black market for abortions.

Reports Bloomberg:

At an open-air flea market outside McAllen, Texas (BEESTX), near the Mexican border, shoppers can buy a goat and get their car windows tinted. Tables with handwritten signs touting Viagra (MDPSVIAG) are stocked with herbal remedies promising to burn fat and boost breast size. You can also find pills to end a pregnancy.

Bazaars like this have become home to a thriving black market, where women too poor to afford an abortion at a clinic or deterred by state mandates such as a 24-hour waiting period can buy drugs to induce a miscarriage on their own, a dozen area residents and doctors said in interviews.

Hundreds of miles north in Austin, the capital, lawmakers may inadvertently increase this illegal trade. Rules set to pass as soon as this week might result in the closing of most, if not all, abortion facilities in the state. If the law -- promoted as a way to improve women’s health -- makes legal abortion unavailable in Texas, more women may turn to markets such as the one near McAllen and risk their lives.

“You’d be amazed at how many people, young people, are taking those pills,” said Erlinda Dasquez, a 29-year-old mother of four who has done so herself. "I probably know 12 to 20 people who have done this. My cousin just went to the flea market a few months ago."

The specific medication available at the flea market for terminating pregnancies is Cytotec, which is available in Mexico without a prescription for treating stomach ulcers, and smuggled from there to the United States for other purposes. WebMD provides the following warning for Cytotec:

Do not take this medication if you think that you may be pregnant. It may cause abortion, premature birth, or birth defects. In rare cases, serious complications (e.g., uterine rupture) have occurred when misoprostol was used to start labor or when used in combination with another drug to cause abortion after the eighth week of pregnancy. These complications have resulted in harm to the unborn baby and mother.

Not surprisingly, the Bloomberg article goes on to detail misuses and medical complications that comes from using black market abortifacients according to instructions handed along a not-so-reliable grapevine.

And yet the demand for terminating pregnancies exists, as it always has, for a variety of reasons, personal and economic. As tighter restrictions force legal abortion providers that don't meet stringent new requirements to close (the two serving the Lower Rio Grande Valley near the flea market in the Bloomberg piece are expected to have to close their doors), the demand for black market alternatives can only grow.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tak Kak||

    If one considers abortion to be murder I don't think it matters whether there is still a demand for it.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Yeah, people who seem to recognize there are two sides of this issue still can't make the full leap to understand the thinking in the anti-abortion camp on this. It's like saying to them because you've outlawed killing your neighbor you are just driving people to do it on their own outside of a clinical environment.

  • SugarFree||

    It degrades the argument that abortion restrictions are at least in part motivated by a concern for women's health.

    It might be better if the argument was more honest: "Fuck you, slut. We don't care if you're pregnant, do what we fucking say or you can go poison yourself."

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    You're hilarious and clever, SF, but on this issue you go full Amanda Marcotte. That's not close to an honest characterization of the argument, and you know it.

    If you believe -- at any point in the pregnancy -- that abortion is the killing of a human being, then you have to consider steps to protect that life in just the same way that infants are protected under the law. At that point it doesn't matter how reasonable you think you are, you are of the same mindset as a pro-lifer. Yet, I highly doubt that your motivations stem from a hatred of women or "sluts". (FWIW, most women seeking abortions are married/cohabitating, according to the Guttermach institute. Say what you will about sluts, they know contraceptives exist!)

    Opposing abortion is not based on a hatred of women any more than opposing slavery was based on anti-Southern animus.

  • SugarFree||

    Who cares about contraception? If it fails, you still think the abortion should be illegal, right? It's still murder if she was raped, right?

    Bitches be having sex they shouldn't be. Sounds like sluts to me. If they poison themselves, at least they won't be having anymore abortions.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Who cares about contraception?

    ???

    Is this in response to me, or the pro-life movement at large?

    Polling indicates that ~90-95% of all Americans support contraception being legal, and that ~25-30% of Americans support abortion being legal and unrestricted in all circumstances. The maximum overlap between people who want restrictions on abortion and contraception are a miniscule percentage of the US population and of the pro-life movement. Americans who support restrictions on abortion are not fanatics who want to dominate people's sex lives or Nehemiah Scudders yearning to set up their own version of the Handmaid's Tale.

  • SugarFree||

    Say what you will about sluts, they know contraceptives exist!

    So you support abortion being legal in case of contraception failure?

    Americans who support restrictions on abortion are not fanatics who want to dominate people's sex lives

    Vince aut Morire| 7.11.13 @ 1:52PM |#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    In a free society people would and should be responsible for their actions.
    If your equation helps you rationalize murder then so be it. I cannot rationalize ending a child's life because of 5 minutes of fun in a back seat when I knew the outcome of my actions could mean insemination.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    So you support abortion being legal in case of contraception failure?

    Do you support partial birth abortion in case of contraception failure? I don't see why "slutty" or non-"slutty" behavior should be a basis for any sort of distinction on an act that you believe is the termination of a human life. Establishing when that human life begins is not borne of a desire to control someone else's sex life.

  • SugarFree||

    Establishing when that human life begins is not borne of a desire to control someone else's sex life.

    Then maybe your cohorts and comrades should stop fucking bringing it up. You can see numerous examples of that thinking on every thread.

    Do you support partial birth abortion in case of contraception failure?

    After viability? No. Before? Yes.

    But, once again, those are just a tiny fraction of the abortions that Texas is attempting to make impossible to obtain through regulatory burden.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Then maybe your cohorts and comrades should stop fucking bringing it up.

    That's a fair cop, and I agree that it is obnoxious.

    After viability? No. Before? Yes.

    Presumably that belief doesn't change due to the circumstances of the pregnancy, though. That's the point I'm trying to get at with that question.

  • SugarFree||

    No, I think a raped woman can scrape out the filth a rapist left in her at any point. I'd be happier if it was before viability, but I'm never going to use government force to insure a woman has a rapist's child.

  • Duke||

    I know that I cannot fully appreciate everyone’s positions based on these comments alone, but as far as I’m concerned, this shit needs to be called out:

    If sucking the brains out and pulling apart with tongs an unborn child from the womb does not bother you, and you are ok with it from a legal perspective, you do NOT value human life, because that little baby with a beating heart and a functioning brain IS a human life, even if it can’t do fucking calculus. My 10 month old can’t do calculus, does his life not matter?

    I think we can all agree that some laws should exist to redress commercial and criminal grievances between the people. It follows then that the protection of the unborn citizen who cannot defend herself should also be considered in our legal construct. If you care anything about the unborn child, you do so not because you hate that woman who wants to kill it, but because you actually care about that child. THAT is the fucking argument pro-choice (the ultimate euphemism) needs to see. And the rabid pro-choice crowd sounds crazier, meaner and more evil each time this issue is in the news.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Not all abortions happen that way, and many happen to things that hardly resemble a 'child.'

    Historically and today we usually don't act as if early stage fetus is a 'child.' We don't reckon their age by the start of their conception, the common law did not recognize them as persons, few people treat early stage abortions with funerals, etc.

  • Duke||

    You are a true humanitarian, the way you use semantics to justify the destruction of a healthy human life so that some women won't be inconvenienced with pregnancy.

  • Tonio||

    Are you claiming that fetuses at all stages of development are indeed human beings?

    If so, please go over there with all the other people who have opted out of rational debate.

    If not, please giver your threshold for personhood, or protection or whatever and we can continue talking.

  • Enough About Palin||

    "if not, please giver your threshold for personhood"

    A unique set of human chromosomes.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Why in the world would that be the threshold? When I think about rights I think about intelligence, freedom to act, sentience, ability to experience pain and pleasure, ability to fulfill promises and obligations.

    You really think about chromosomes?

  • Enough About Palin||

    "When I think about rights I think about intelligence, freedom to act, sentience, ability to experience pain and pleasure, ability to fulfill promises and obligations."

    So you're cool with pulling the plug on coma patients?

    "You really think about chromosomes?"

    Yes, because they designate a unique person.

  • Tonio||

    Therefore, identical twins are not human since they are, you know, identical.

    Thanks for playing.

  • Enough About Palin||

    They are not 100% identical. Each twin has unique gene mutations.

  • ||

    I think the minimum threshold of protection should be viability.

    The second the egg is fertilized a completely individual homo sapien has been created. Whether or not that individual will even make it through the gestation period is a whole other matter.

    Now do I get to sit at the big kids table or am I relegated to the kids table with Episiarch?

  • Enough About Palin||

    "but because you actually care about that child."

    Which is why the pro-abortion pulls out the old "You don't care about the baby after it's born" troupe.

  • Tonio||

    They pull out companies of actors?

  • Enough About Palin||

    Yeah, a misspelling of trope. Ooh hooooo!

  • Duke||

    All one really needs to consider at the secular level is “what about the due process rights of the unborn child?”

    And, if I cannot ingest drugs which may harm my own body, why am I allowed to suck out the brains of another body living inside mine?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You're assuming an aborted fetus has anything like the brain you have.

  • Duke||

    At five weeks, a baby’s heart is beating. So if you are ok with using a vacuum to suck out the brains of that human life, then why do people like you cry and scream for gun control if a child is killed with a gun? Holding those two positions simultaneously is a paradox that cannot be resolved no matter how many lawyers you use.

  • Tonio||

    Oops, never mind you answered my question.

    (click)

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not 'cry and scream for gun control if a child is killed with a gun' of for any other reason.

    As to your five weeks comment it's interesting you point to 'a baby's heart is beating' while omitting all the ways the fetus is light years from anything we would grant rights to in most other respects. It's almost like you want to play on some emotion while avoiding others...

  • Duke||

    Who the fuck is “we?” You don’t grant me my rights.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Meant 'recognize.'

  • Mickey Rat||

    Which is effectively no different.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "...the fetus is light years from anything we would grant rights to in most other respects."

    It interesting to note that your statement suggests human rights are granted rather than inherent. It is interesting how abortion is one those subjects where ostensible libertarians trash the notion of rights.

  • np||

    So, then the problem is the method of extraction of the entity who occupying and initiated the violation of property rights of the hosts' body.

    Starting with the principle of self-ownership, i.e. a fundamental property right in one's body, leads one to to evict without preemptively destroying the entity in the womb, BUT neither does it place any demands or obligations to sustain the entity or guarantee it from harm, in the same way one evicts a trespasser.

  • ||

    How exactly did the fetus violate the property rights of the mothers body?

    It's not a fucking parasite and it didn't just walk up the goddamn uterus.

  • ||

    All one really needs to consider at the secular level is “what about the due process rights of the unborn child?”

    Why do you assume the unborn child would consent to be born? Just because it's too hard to ask first?

  • Duke||

    "Why do you assume the unborn child would consent to be born?”

    Serious question? If so, have you ever hunted and shot an animal that took some time to die? It’s utterly amazing how all creatures cling to life and fight death till the very end.

    This "abortion should be available to all as long as it’s safe” shit is sickening and illogical. Abortion certainly isn’t safe for the fetus or baby (whichever you want to call “it”).

  • ||

    Yes, it's a serious question. I am aware that living beings cling to life. Some consider this a curse of having ever been born to a world of suffering in which we have evolved to want to live regardless. But we're talking here about something that doesn't exist yet. Why assume a nonexistent child would consent to live? Almost everyone assumes this, but it seems the only reason is because we can't ask them first.

  • Duke||

    I am aware that living beings cling to life. Some consider this a curse of having ever been born to a world of suffering in which we have evolved to want to live regardless.

    Nikki, may I suggest a hug or a piece of chocolate to cheer you up? I’d be happy to supply either.

  • ||

    Thanks, Duke, but based on experience it's going to take a bit more than that for me to think otherwise on the subject. I realize my position is radical.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    "Some consider this a curse of having ever been born to a world of suffering in which we have evolved to want to live regardless."

    Good stuff Nikki, have you ever read anything about negative utilitarianism?

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    eh after reading some of your other comments you're probably more nihilistic than utilitarian. I still like the point of forcing existence, it's not one people usually think about.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Because absent any facts to the contrary it is the most reasonable and ethical assumption to make? An assumption has to be made, how is assuming the child does not want to live reasonable given that human rights exist as a principle?

  • ||

    Aren't we genetically predisposed to fight for survival? Meaning we instinctually want to survive, at least up to the point where we can make a conscious decision to end our lives.

    (Now one of those damn Butterfly Effect alternate endings popped in my brain dang it.)

  • ||

    As a person who lived on the border for 25 years I can state that this has been going on long before any new law was passed. The Bloomberg article is pure hyperbole and propaganda.

    How about this? If you don't want a child don't have unprotected sex.
    sperm+viable ovum=Baby mmmkay

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    How about this: you don't use government force to force that equation on me, mmmkay?

  • ||

    I assume you are trying to make a point. So the government forces the equation the sperm+ovum=baby?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    In a free society I can make the equation: sperm+ovum+abortion=no child.

  • ||

    In a free society people would and should be responsible for their actions.
    If your equation helps you rationalize murder then so be it. I cannot rationalize ending a child's life because of 5 minutes of fun in a back seat when I knew the outcome of my actions could mean insemination.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If you scratch many pro-lifers you get a pleasure hater who wants to see people 'pay' for their '5 minutes of fun in a back seat.'

  • SugarFree||

    But they don't hate women.

  • Tonio||

    Yes, but that's really irrelevant to the argument. Even puritans can be right about some things, though often for the wrong reasons.

  • ||

    I love pleasure and have 5 well provided for children to show for it. 2 of whom I adopted. I look at them every day and am thankful for their being.
    I believe in personal responsibility and owning up to ones actions. I understand that actions have outcomes and consequences that I must accept no matter what they be. I however cannot justify foisting those consequences on another being.

  • ||

    I however cannot justify foisting those consequences on another being.

    You have indeed foisted those consequences off on your children. They exist because of you.

  • ||

    And they better be grateful for it too. Those little buggers.

  • ||

    And if they aren't, does that mean you have done something worse than abortion? You've potentially caused orders of magnitude more suffering.

    Some people think life is a gift. Some people think it's a curse. There's no objective or scientific way to say it's one or the other. There's no way to know whether an unborn or unconceived potential child is going to think it's a gift or a curse. That's a pretty big gamble either way, but most people don't think of it like that.

  • Duke||

    You aren’t foisting anything on anyone. The laws of nature are what they are -- you screw, you can get pregnant. It’s part of being an adult. Pro-abortionists want to avoid personal responsibility at all costs, even at the cost of a human life. 54 million children have been aborted since Roe v. Wade. 54 MILLION CHILDREN. How can the pro-abortion crowd simply dismiss that gruesome number?

  • SugarFree||

    Now who's getting emotional?

  • ||

    I could just as easily say that pro-lifers want to avoid personal responsibility--the responsibility not to have children, at all costs, because doing so foists suffering onto others who have not accepted such. Not causing others to suffer unduly is part of being an adult too.

    It's very, very easy to turn things around if you simply fail to assume that being born is a good thing.

  • ||

    Isn't that a little misanthropic?

  • SugarFree||

    Isn't that a little misanthropic?

    And making every miscarriage a potential murder case isn't?

  • ||

    I was unaware that miscarriages were conscious acts on the part of the mother (otherwise they couldn't be considered murder, right?).

  • ||

    How would you know if it was a miscarriage or an abortion? That's the point. You'd have to investigate them all as potential homicides.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Nikki,

    That is not how it is handled in Poland, Chile, and other countries where abortion is illegal -- any more than every instance of a child's death is investigated by the police.

    Pro-lifers are, by and large, not asking for the impossible (the outright elimination of abortion altogether), but for legal and social sanctions equivalent to what is provided in the case of infanticide.

  • ||

    I see what you mean.

  • ||

    Who cares if it's misanthropic? Is there some kind of objective scientific proof that misanthropy is wrong? That life is good? No. That's part of what makes this really stupid.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Nikki, there are ways for a person to remedy the trouble of their own existence if they are so inclined. Not to be macabre, but I can recommend several painless ways to end one's life if one so chooses.

    It is, OTOH, impossible to a person to remedy the termination of her life once she has ceased to exist on the mortal plane.

    In the face of ontological insecurity and libertarian ethics on the primacy of choice, it seems to me that, all else being equal, one must allow the person themselves to make that choice once they have been brought into existence.

  • ||

    TIT, that's where I completely disagree. Anyone who has to remedy the trouble of his own existence has already had to exist and suffer for years and years beforehand--and to what purpose? He is then likely to struggle with the decision to end his suffering because of myriad evolutionary developments designed to prevent him from doing so. Not to mention the presence of friends and family who will try to persuade him against it, including potentially imprisoning him to continue forcing him to live.

    On the other side, there is no one who would even want to "remedy the termination of her life once she has ceased to exist on the mortal plane" -- because that's the only plane there is. I mean, unless you think there's another one, which I think you do, but I don't.

    Without a belief in another plane, I am not sure it's possible to go with your logic.

    Which is to say, in my view, in the face of ontological insecurity and libertarian ethics on the primacy of choice, all we can do is let every potential mother decide for herself.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Fair enough, but I don't see how that thinking would preclude a similar line of reasoning for infanticide, or for that matter the painless killing of a child at several points before the age of majority.

  • ||

    It doesn't, though I don't think the age of majority is relevant (to anything, not just this).

  • Duke||

    If you scratch many pro-lifers you get a pleasure hater who wants to see people 'pay' for their '5 minutes of fun in a back seat.

    Wow.

  • Tonio||

    You're newish here, Bo. Old-timer pro tip: when they talk about "child", "baby", "beating heart", murder, etc, just walk away. Remember my advice about how to spot time-wasters on that other thread?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    And once they start talking deep dish, you really know it's time to run...

  • ||

    And god forbid you talk about Wesley Crusher or that time Riker had command of the Enterprise...

  • Azathoth!!||

    What about the time Riker had command of the pagh?

  • Mickey Rat||

    No you cannot make that equation, because abortion does not cause nonexistence, it causes death. The child existed, you are claiming that in a free society you can make 2+2=0.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Government force would not be necessary if private actors didn't initiate force against a child.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Do you really find, for example, a one cell embryo to be a 'child?'

  • ||

    By the time a person learns they are pregnant mitosis has been at work for quite some time. I really do think there has ever been a single cell "abortion".

  • ||

    do(sic) = do not

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That doesn't answer my question.

  • ||

    Yes I consider a single cell with unique DNA to be the beginnings of life and there for living.

  • ||

    oops therefore living.

  • Zeb||

    The question wasn't about whether it is living. No one says it is not living or doesn't have distinct DNA. The question was whether you consider that cell a child.

  • Tonio||

    See how they weasel and wriggle, Bo? Anything to avoid answering the question in a direct and forthright manner.

    They realize that personhood from the moment of conception is a non-starter for anyone outside their bubble of delusion. So they avoid answering the question.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Well said.

    I can see debating someone like the Trouser below who reasons that there is some objective criteria that usually matters to recognition or extension of rights and that at some point a fetus meets that as sufficiently as I think an infant does. But the idea that chromosomes warrant that...

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think that's an absurd basis for you to use the government to prohibit me and my significant other from contracting with a willing doctor for an abortion.

    But the problem seems from your comments above that you just want to see people like us 'pay the consequence' for our '5 minutes of fun in a back seat.' The problem with this is in a free society that is not dictated to granting full rights to one cell organisms and using government force to force their carrying to term, a 'consequence' can simply be contracting with a willing doctor to take care of the issue.

  • ||

    It takes 5 seconds to put on a condom. Why is that hard for you to understand? And you know I was not talking about single cell organisms. Stay in context.

  • SugarFree||

    It takes 5 seconds to put on a condom.

    And if the condom fails, you're OK with them getting an abortion?

  • ||

    I could only support abortion unless the mother would die carrying the child and it could not be delivered.

  • SugarFree||

    I could only support abortion unless the mother would die carrying the child and it could not be delivered.

    So then don't bring up contraception. No condom, broken condom, rape, incest... fuck you, you're having that baby.

  • ||

    My wife got pregnant 2 times on the pill. Their names are Quinn and Liam.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Condoms break. People don't use them.

    That doesn't mean they should have to be saddled with a child because you think governments, in the name of one celled organisms, can press them to.

  • ||

    Quit being an idiot. Who said anything about single cell organisms? You want to kill the unborn, go ahead. It sounds like you are trying to convince yourself that it is an OK thing to do. I believe it is not.
    I personally do not think murder of an innocent is a morally acceptable action. You on the other hand do. I cannot change your mind and you will never change mine. I have never once stated the government should have anything to with it. You on the other hand have consistently tried to put those words into my mouth and redirect my statements. Which brings me back to single cell organisms. With your knack at redirection have you ever thought of becoming a lawyer?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I'm in law school now (well, on break now).

    You keep throwing words around like "kill the unborn" or "murder of an innocent" and I'm asking you: what should we consider an "unborn, innocent" that we can "murder?" Are single celled embryos covered? 4 week old embryos? 20? 35?

  • ||

    There is no such thing as a "single cell embryo" at the moment of conception mitosis begins and the cell splits. I hope you put more effort into law than you did biology.
    I assume your questions are rhetorical as I have already stated my position.
    We cannot murder anyone. As a firm libertarian I believe in maximum freedoms as long as they harm no other person. I am sorry you do not feel the same way. Oh well; live and let live they say.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "As a firm libertarian I believe in maximum freedoms as long as they harm no other person."

    I believe the same, and I don't warp this view in the name of trying to allow impositions on voluntary transactions because they may impact a one celled zygote (if that's better). I find that to be as misplaced as non-libertarians stretching causality to indirect negative impacts on third parties to justify their interventions.

  • ||

    And therein lies our conundrum. I believe a fertilized zygote is a unique being and deserves a chance to realize it's potential. If that is ended by mishap so be it. You believe that potential only exists after birth. I say it is already there. I can appreciate your stance but cannot accept it. I look into my children's eyes and see the answer easily.
    Just curious do you have any children? I assume not do to the use of your words such as "saddle" and "pay".

  • Duke||

    I'm in law school now (well, on break now).

    Explains a lot. Take it from me, you don’t know shit. I’ve been a lawyer for 11 years and I’m just now learning my ass from a hole in the ground.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I consider a single cell with unique DNA to be the beginnings of life and there for living.

    Which is, of course, insane.

  • ||

    In the context of the discussion I believe it is not. We are not talking Amoeba here.

  • Tonio||

    No, he's absolutely right. It's living. You will notice he strenuously avoids characterizing it as a human for fear of being laughed off the thread.

  • Auric Demonocles||



    I consider a single cell with unique DNA to be the beginnings of life and there for living.


    Which is, of course, insane.

    That's science. If you want to say it's not a "person", you can make that argument.

    If you want to argue it's not a life, you're the insane one.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    No, but I certainly would consider a fetus at 20 weeks to be within that set (which is what this bill bans).

    A little more than 120,000 abortions past 12 weeks were committed last year. That's no small number, and none of those could be considered the termination of a single-celled organism.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The bill also requires regulations which many abortion providers presently are not required to meet, whether for abortions under or over 20 weeks.

  • T||

    Blame Kermit Gosnell.

  • Brett L||

    How many cells is your dividing line?

  • Tonio||

    ^The only question that matters. (can also be expressed as weeks of development, number of brain cells, or other objective measures).

  • Azathoth!!||

    There are no 'one cell' embryos.

  • wareagle||

    how did govt force create the equation? Govt now in charge of biology?

  • Another David||

    No, just medicine. But only when it's medicine the GOP doesn't like! Free market principles only apply to beer and guns, not drugs and abortions.

  • Duke||

    That seems to be the argument of the pro-death crowd -- “don’t force me to carry the child, because I am a free person.” But again, why not err on the side of caution, and humanity, and protect the due process rights of the unborn child, who cannot speak for herself?

    Think about it -- if the government were truly good, it would provide financial assistance to mothers to have the child, not abort it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "and protect the due process rights of the unborn child, who cannot speak for herself?"

    Because at most stages the unborn child is nothing much like the birthed citizens who get due process rights?

    "if the government were truly good, it would provide financial assistance to mothers to have the child, not abort it."

    I prefer neither since the government has no money apart from mine and yours.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    What is the "birthed citizen" like, these days?

    It's been a while, but in my day infants weren't exactly quoting the works of Plato on the existence of a soul to make a case for their own humanity.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    None of this changes the fact that an early stage fetus is light years away from a birthed infant.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Define "early stage fetus". The fetal stage of development doesn't start until ~9 weeks into the pregnancy, yet by week 12-14 a fetus' major organs (including its brain) have either developed or are close to developing to the point where a fetus can act autonomously.

    At that point meaningful distinctions between fetus and infant become hard to come by.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    There's a vast difference between the brain of a 12 week old fetus and a one day old infant. Do you dispute that?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Sure. There's also a vast difference between the brain of a 1 year old and the brain of a 6 year old, the brain of a 6 year old and the brain of a teenager, the brain of a teenager and the brain of an adult, and the brain of an adult and the brain of an octogenarian.

    For that matter, there are notable differences between the brains of men and those of women.

    Care to establish a meaningful difference?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think somewhere in the vast difference between the 12 week fetus and the 1 day old infant sufficient lines in terms of intelligence and awareness are reached to trigger personhood rights.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Well, that's nice. You aren't going to bother to articulate those lines, by any chance?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Wouldn't you have the same issue marking the exact line it deserves protection?

    There's a certain level of brain activity and functioning where the line is tripped. I know where I think it's close (late term abortions) and I know where I'm confident it's miles away (early term).

    Likewise I would provide legal protections to some animals (mammals) and not others (bugs) because even though I can't point to the exact line where complexity of brain function kicks in the protections I can guess where extremes fall.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    This is all very fuzzy and non-defined. *Why* is it "miles away" in the early term?

    I've already established terms on which a fetus could be considered a person: when a fetus exhibits the minimum markers for autonomous behavior and cerebral capacity. You can agree with these standards or not, but one should at least (in principle) be able to make a similar demarcation.

    Is it when the fetus feels pain (could be as early as 20-24 weeks or sometime in the third trimester)?

    Is it when a person can cogently express some level of rational, independent reasoning to other human beings (2-3 years in age)?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

  • Zeb||

    Honestly, I think that infants are also less human than an older child who has learned something about the world and how to communicate with people. I think that killing one should be treated as harshly, but because of the harm it does to the parents more than that done to the baby itself.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If this is the logic then it seems the deaths of 'unborn children' should be treated as less consequently, since while it's often tragic it rarely hits a parent like the death of a born child. This may be why traditional codes like that found in the Old Testament considered the causing of a death of a fetus to be a crime, that it was a lesser crime than murder.

  • Duke||

    *This* In the womb, government must pay to kill it. Out of the womb, government must pay to support it. At least not make the taxpayer pay for their abortions.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Who is arguing for government to 'pay to kill it?' I don't want that.

    Forcing someone to carry a baby to term is wrong, forcing someone to pay for the termination of the same is wrong.

  • np||

    What's with the strawmen? No one is suggesting government fund anything. No government funding of abortion, of mothers or children. NOTHING

  • ||

    why not err on the side of caution, and humanity, and protect the due process rights of the unborn child, who cannot speak for herself?

    Why not err on the side of caution and not force a child to live without its consent?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    That's certainly an option if one successfully uses contraception, gets lucky, or avoids procreative sex.

    If one is pregnant, then it's a little too late to talk about preventing a human being's life from coming into existence.

  • np||

    Since the embryo cannot speak or communicate with the mother ahead of time prior to fertilization, then there could not have been any voluntary arrangement with the mother to occupy her body.

    The mother could have also taken steps to prevent it, but the barriers between ovum and sperm failed and this "person" appeared anyways.

    But whatever the case if the mother does not want it, it is a trespasser, pure and simple.

  • Tak Kak||

    Simply being a "trespasser" doesn't mean that you therefore can be (legally, or morally) killed though.

  • SugarFree||

    Simply being a "trespasser" doesn't mean that you therefore can be (legally, or morally) killed though.

    Haven't been on many of the "stand your ground" threads, have you?

  • Tak Kak||

    If "self-defense" and "fetus" are used in the same sentence then I'm happily ignorant.

  • np||

    As I mentioned above, abortion does not necessarily have to kill the embryo/fetus/whatever to evict it.

    However, there is also no obligation to the trespasser to guarantee it free from harm from the eviction process or sustain the trespasser afterward. Currently it would still result in death outside the womb at early stages.

    But in the future technology may advance to where it is viable at earlier stages upon removal, and there could be charitable organizations willing to fund its growth (or birth) looking for adoptive parents, etc.

  • Tak Kak||

    Yes, the evictionist argument leads to a world where abortion should be legal the entire time and where it should be illegal the entire time, depending on the technological state (and the kindness of others).

    I believe the approved-abortion period in Texas for an is approximate in that regard. (But I could be reading too much Sci-Fi and am confused)

  • SugarFree||

    No, the argument that many make is that simple trespass can be meant with lethal or at least damaging force.

    And this isn't even simple trespass. This is 9-months of squatting.

  • Tak Kak||

    Then they are making a silly argument. Happy to ignore.

    I believe squatting is a deliberate act though, so it's still not as simple.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Restrictions and prohibitions spur black markets. Who would have thunk it? Hopefully a lesson for both sides here...

  • Duke||

    There is a black market for murder since it’s against the law. Should it be privatized instead?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    As tighter restrictions force legal abortion providers that don't meet stringent new requirements to close (the two serving the Lower Rio Grande Valley near the flea market in the Bloomberg piece are expected to have to close their doors), the demand for black market alternatives can only grow.

    1) Isn't it more likely that these clinics (or others like them) open after making themselves regulation-compliant? It's not like the abortion industry has a low profit margin; I highly doubt that high demand will go unmet indefinitely.

    2) Empirically, there is no doubt that black market abortions are nowhere near the number of abortions that women have in legalized settings. The observation that there will be a black market in the event of restrictions on legal abortion is banal -- there are black markets in everything that is illicit or illegal. This point is only relevant if you believe that these black markets are perfect substitutes for their legal counterparts (they are not), or if you believe that abortion is a morally neutral procedure (presumably those in favor of these laws are not of that mindset).

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I find it fascinating that you oppose Hispanic immigrant's path to citizenship because you are worried they will vote Democrat and spur demand for bigger government but you don't seem to think the growth in unwanted babies that would follow abortion restrictions might have the same effect...

    And are you arguing that in this magic case making some legal service harder to get is not going to spur more demand and supply for illegal equivalents?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    And are you arguing that in this magic case making some legal service harder to get is not going to spur more demand and supply for illegal equivalents?

    I'll quote myself for effect:

    Empirically, there is no doubt that black market abortions are nowhere near the number of abortions that women have in legalized settings[...] black markets are [not] perfect substitutes for their legal counterparts

    And, lemme check here...

    Nope, I've never made the argument that a fetus or a child should be able to vote, or that voting is a fundamental right. For that matter, I've never made any sort of argument regarding "Hispanic immigrants"; I've made plenty of arguments regarding immigrants at large and the pertinence of granting them the franchise. Try again.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Actually, you specifically mentioned South American immigrants. I imagine Reason preserves these discussions, we could take a look.

    But more importantly, it's interesting that you think the general rule of economics that black markets will rise in the face of restrictions is somehow magically suspended in this case.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    If you've got time to waste, go ahead and take a look. You'll note that I mentioned Hispanic immigrants because I am myself a Hispanic immigrant, and proceeded to make an argument by analogy. You'll be very hard-pressed to find any statement favorable to making, say, Euro or Asian immigrants naturalized citizens easily. I certainly don't think that would be wise policy.

    As far as black markets go, you are evidently too stupid or ignorant of economics to understand what I mean when I say that the black market that emerges will not be a perfect substitute for legal markets.

    If Bob's Burgers is made illegal and Randy's Illegal Burgers opens up, how many customers from Bob's Burgers do you think will shop at Randy's Illegal Burgers? 100%?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Certainly buying drugs from the guy on the Wire is an imperfect substitute for buying it at CVS. The point is that lots of buys from the former will go down if the latter is barred. The same will happen for abortion. It's basic economic thought.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    ...yes, the point being that the number of overall abortions will, all things being equal, *reduce*, thus achieving the policy aim in question.

    I would think that we can quantify that exact percentage better than "lots". In the natural experiments I've seen in going from a liberalized regime to a criminalized one, it seems that ~5-35% of abortions under a legal regime are pursued in black markets.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    No doubt the people who buy drugs illegally are a percentage of those who would buy them were they legal. The issue is that black markets bring their own problems. In the case of abortion it is increased policing (to enforce the laws), unhealthy procedures and, ironically, an increase in methods that likely would cause a fetus more pain (if we're dealing with fetus' at the stage they can feel pain).

  • Tak Kak||

    Maybe that's a good point for keeping it illegal, no fence-sitters.

  • trshmnstr||

    a) there's a HUGE moral distance between not granting citizenship to somebody who broke immigration laws and murdering somebody because you decided that you don't want to birth them. Besides, i don't think many people argue against abortion on the utilitarian ground that we need more babies in the world.

    b) There's absolutely no argument in the whole "there's gonna be a black market" trope. Yes, just like every other crime out there, there will be a black market for abortions. However, it's not like we make child sex slavery legal because there is a black market for child sex slaves.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "there's a HUGE moral distance between not granting citizenship to somebody who broke immigration laws and murdering somebody because you decided that you don't want to birth them."

    If your argument against granting citizenship is that it will lead to greater government there's little difference, since unwanted babies very often lead to social problems that get big government responses.

  • RightNut||

    (the two serving the Lower Rio Grande Valley near the flea market in the Bloomberg piece are expected to have to close their doors)

    So the black market exists even though those abortion clinics are there already, so the Texas bill won't change that now will it?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    There you go again with your patriarchial male logic. Can't you see how oppressive you're being?

  • John||

    The other issue is how many of these women got pregnant because they cheated on their husbands or b/fs and go to the black market as a way of getting an abortion without anyone knowing about it? I find it difficult to believe they don't have the money for an abortion. Now what they might have a problem with is getting an abortion for such a small amount of money their b/fs or husbands won't notice they did it.

  • ||

    If you take misoprostol, your partner will know.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What percentage of grown women couldn't spend a few hundred dollars of their money without their 'boyfriend or husband' knowing it?

    I know many couples pool all their money, but I think many don't.

  • Homple||

    "...deterred by state mandates such as a 24-hour waiting period...."

    Can't wait 24 hours? That's stretching it a bit.

  • MJGreen||

    Yeah, that jumped out at me too. "24 hours? Nuts to that! Time for shady drugs from Mexico."

  • Floridian||

    3 day wait to exercise a constitutional right: reasonable.
    1 day wait to end a life: unreasonable

  • ||

    +7 rounds in your magazine

  • Another David||

    It's tough enough to drive 300 miles for a medical procedure when you don't have to find somewhere to stay for 24 hours after you get there (and make sure that you can get excused from work for the extra day, find childcare, etc).

  • John||

    So driving to Mexico and buying drugs that might kill you is a better alternative? If you are so poor you can't afford "child care" and to take a day off work, it is doubtful you can make it to Mexico either.

  • Another David||

    You really think there's nobody selling these drugs more than a couple of miles from the border?

  • ant1sthenes||

    If you were rigorous about getting abortions, you wouldn't need to find childcare.

  • John||

    Note they were unable to find any actual women who would speak on record, even anonymously who would say as much. Even the woman they did talk to said people used them but didn't say why. They took the anonymous sourced "residents and doctors say..." and used that for proof that the 24 hour waiting period was a motivation and then used the name source to show it was happening. It is a pretty sorry slight of hand.

    Is JD so dumb he can't see the flaws in the article, or such a hack he doesn't care and hopes none of us will notice?

  • wareagle||

    maybe he put it out there and let us draw our own conclusions. It's not like the use of unnamed sources is a new thing. Or he maybe using the tactic to camouflage his own thinking.

  • Tonio||

    This is mainly designed to deter poor women, particularly ones who must travel out of town to an abortion provider. Yes, for some people that extra day of missed work can be critical.

  • The Last American Hero||

    I call BS on that one. There are plenty of medical procedures that require people to travel and do an overnight, especially if you live in a remote area. Suck it up drive a few hours. Call in sick for a couple of days. Maybe the inconvenience will make sure they stock up on rubbers next time.

  • SugarFree||

    Yes, but most medical procedures don't cause people to call you a murderer. You fucks try to make it as shameful as possible and then get dismissive when women want to keep it private.

  • Gray Ghost||

    And make it as difficult as possible for a provider to provide this service. There is no way that the same people who are happy foisting a 24 hour waiting period on women would be fine with the same waiting period to exercise any of their other rights, like buying a gun.

    Or having analogous restrictions on selling guns such that the only seller required a 6 hour drive to you to get to. That these are marketed as restrictions for safety purposes is just more horseshit. If you have a Gosnell in Texas, then go find him, actually act on complaints filed with the state medical board, and try him under the laws we already have. Don't go and add restrictions whose sole purpose is to drive abortion providers out of business. There's no way you guys would be alright with this type of legislation in any other context than abortion.

    Completely agree with your statement below, SF, on Hilary and the GOP. Of all the things to be concerned about in Texas, that Perry et al think this is the subject that requires two special Leg sessions is just galling. Good luck appealing to women who aren't already in the GOP, guys.

  • seguin||

    So, apparently, a 24-hour waiting period is onerous, but waiting for the flea market to open (in small towns usually they're open only a couple days of the week) isn't? Yeah, something else is going on.

  • Tonio||

    Nope.

  • ant1sthenes||

    If you really believe that a fetus is the same, morally, as a toddler or an adult, then feeling pity for a woman who dies in a back-alley abortion is tantamount to feeling pity for a man who dies while trying to hire a hit man to kill his wife after the hitter got suspicious and thought he was an informant. "Gosh, if only hiring contract killers was legal, then the hitter wouldn't have to worry about getting busted and everyone would still be alive. Well, the widower would, anyway."

  • RightNut||

    Whaaaaaa?

  • ant1sthenes||

    That the "black market" argument to promote choice by invoking sympathy for women who get abortions only really works if you're already pro-choice (in which case you don't need convincing), or prefer to emote rather than think.

  • ||

    It also works if you're pro-life but think that the number of legally aborted dead babies is better than the number of illegally aborted dead babies and the dead and maimed women who aborted them.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Isn't that a utilitarian argument, though?

    Not to say that there isn't a libertarian utilitarian tradition, but still...

  • ||

    For sure. I mean, it's not my argument, I just assume that's why people make it. It would seem many (most?) people are utilitarians, insofar as they have any principles at all.

  • Duke||

    Uh, no.

    If you’re pro-life, then you consider a back alley abortion a dastardly deed tantamount to murder. Do any of us feel sorry for a murderer who gets shot and killed by a victim? The back alley abortion argument to justify “safe” abortions is a canard.

  • John||

    Pretty much. But what is your point? You are right, these women refused to face the consequences of their actions and their solution is to kill their child.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's not a child.

  • Tonio||

    Good, Cyto. Better: walk away when they become fanatical or dishonest.

  • John||

    Yeah, becaused believing a entity that was created by human beings and has a human brain and brain functions is a child is just dishonest.

    Don't engage the point TONIO. Just call it dishonest and continue with your superstition. The birth fairy show up and magically transforms the fetus in the birth canal and thus it becomes a child.

  • John||

    Yes it is. It has human DNA, it has brain function, it can live outside the womb. That is a child. Nothing about the trip the birth canal changes the child. It doesn't gain any more brain function or change in anyway. Therefore, the trip down the birth canal is not the distinction between life and not life.

  • The Last American Hero||

    MacDuff agrees with this statement.

  • SugarFree||

    Hilary should be sending the Texas GOP flowers and chocolates every day.

  • John||

    I don't think so. The fanatics who think that even late term abortions should be legal all of the time are all voting for her any way. Not every woman is pro choice much less fanatical pro choice.

    At some point the truth does have a nasty way of coming out. The truth is that most people would support a ban on abortions past 20 weeks and think that late abortions should be banned.

    The great slight of hand that the pro choice side has mastered is making the debate always about "a few cells" but the actual laws about keeping late term abortions legal. If the debate is about "abortion" in the abstract, pro choice people often win it. If it is about "late term abortions", the pro choice side rarely if ever wins.

  • SugarFree||

    But it's not about late term abortions and pro-choicers aren't going to be fooled. The TRAP rules are about putting enough regulatory burden on clinics that they can not operate at all.

    When the War on Women rhetoric gets going, few fence-sitters are going to be fooled. The stupid party strikes again.

    Wouldn't it be nice if the Texas GOP spent 1/10th of the energy it spends on abortion on reforming the horrible fucking drug laws or the militarization of the police?

  • John||

    Of course it is about late term abortions. That is what the Texas bill did. And if the pro choice people are not just about keeping late term abortions safe legal and common, they should offer to compromise and ban abortions after 20 weeks in return for killing the TARP rules. If the pro life people wouldn't agree to that, they would be revealed to be fanatics. If they did, then the TARP rules go away and we have a great compromise.

    But pro choice will never do that because they are totally about keeping late term abortions legal.

    People always compare this to gun rights. And they are right, but not like they think they are. I will never agree to any gun control laws because I am all about gun ownership. I am a complete extremist when it comes to that. I don't want reasonable gun ownership. I want unreasonable gun ownership. I want people to won whatever gun they want when they want. So I don't want to compromise. And won't support any form of restriction.

    In the same way the pro choice people are the same way about abortions. They don't want it safe legal and rare. They view abortion as a bad but necessary thing. They look at it like I do guns, as a good thing that should be encouraged. Thus, they won't agree to any controls on abortion just like I won't agree to any gun control.

  • Cytotoxic||

    they should offer to compromise and ban abortions after 20 weeks in return for killing the TARP rules.

    And I'm sure the womb enslavers won't come back for more no way. That would be dishonest.

    HAHAHAH fuck off. We have no reason to compromise.

  • John||

    Yeah because the debate is all about ensuring that as many children as possible are killed. It is not about when life begins or any kind of scientific debate. We can't have that.

    And no one enslaves your womb. If you don't want to get pregnant, close your fucking legs. Men can get stuck with child support even though they don't want the kid. But a woman should be able to just off the kid even after she has had four months to decide what to do?

  • SugarFree||

    The dishonesty of pro-lifers makes compromise impossible. Pro-choicers know they won't stop at 20 weeks.

    Just like you and I know that gun grabbers won't stop with an assault weapons ban.

  • John||

    Maybe instead of obsessing about sticking it to the other side, the pro choice people ought to think for themselves and do what is right? They can't justify late term elective abortions. They only do so out of fanatical commitment.

  • SugarFree||

    Maybe instead of obsessing about sticking it to the other side, the pro choice people ought to think for themselves and do what is right?

    Clueless comment of the day. That's all the Texas GOP is doing. They can't ban abortions, so they are just going to fuck with clinic so hard they can't stay open.

  • John||

    But the pro life people honestly believe life begins at conception. The pro choice people are objectively pro abortion just like I am objectively pro guns. But they are too dishonest to admit it. They won't agree to the 20 week ban because they think late term abortions are great just like I think automatic weapons are great.

    I wish they would be honest and admit it and get rid of this "safe legal and rare" and "I don't like abortions but just want to give people a choice" crap. Bullshit.

  • SugarFree||

    The pro choice people are objectively pro abortion just like I am objectively pro guns.

    This is the bullshit, John. And this sort of dishonesty is why no compromises are going to happen.

  • Zeb||

    Exactly. I'd take a law that banned abortion after 20 or 24 weeks, with an exception for medical necessity, if it were really what everyone agreed on. But the pro-life camp is clearly not going to settle on that as an acceptable end. It's just the first step, like all of the "reasonable" regulations aimed at making it more and more difficult to operate an abortion clinic at all and making getting an abortion more difficult, time consuming and expensive for women.

  • John||

    Zeb,

    Do you think the pro choice people would accept that? No way. They would be back tomorrow writing exceptions that made the ban meaningless.

  • Duke||

    The dishonesty of pro-lifers makes compromise impossible. Pro-choicers know they won't stop at 20 weeks.

    Perhaps it’s the immorality of pro-abortioners that makes compromise impossible.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "That is what the Texas bill did."

    That and the admitting privileges nonsense.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Lies. The vast majority of late-term abortions are due to medical reasons, like the fetus not being viable. And the vast majority of abortions overall are early. The 'we only hate late-term abortions' talking point of womb enslavers is similar to the 'we only want some background checks' talking point of gun-grabbers. It is also BS-ese for 'tip of the wedge'. The womb enslavers won't be happy until there's no abortion, and they're willing to engage in dishonest tactics like regulating clinics to death-for safety of course.

  • John||

    But every ban on late term abortion contains a medical exception. If all of the late term abortions are for medical reason, the bans won't have any effect.

    If you want to talk about dishonest tactics, lets talk about believing that the trip down the birth canal magically transforms a fetus into a human being. One moment is a glump of cells to be disposed of. Then the next moment, the birth fairy shows up and that magical trip is taken and the fetus is now a human being even though it hasn't changed a single bit and has done nothing other than that magical trip.

    If you want to argue for the morning after pill or early term abortions, have fun. But to try and tell me late term abortions are the same thing is just you using superstition and magical thinking to justify murder.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Is any abortion over the halfway point of gestation a 'late term' abortion to you?

  • Enough About Palin||

    "Tight new laws around the country may be bringing back the black market for abortions."

    If it takes you longer than just shy of 5 months to finally getting around to getting that abortion, then tough shit.

  • T||

    Causally, I would argue this results from the Gosnell case. The pro-abortion side refused to seriously engage the issues brought out by that case, and it bit them in the ass.

    If you're going to argue that abortion should be legal, you need to argue for some mechanism to prevent what happened in the Gosnell case. Most of the 'restrictions' Texas has enacted are an attempt to prevent situations like Gosnell arising by requiring some minimum standards of care and facilities for abortion providers. I may be wrong on that, but that's what it looks like to me. You may say that Gosnell got very little national publicity, but it was widely disseminated and discussed in the circles where abortion is an issue.

    I'll reiterate my position on abortion: y'all people with uteruses go sort this out and get back to me.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Gosnell was also the result of too much regulation.

  • Another David||

    Gosnell was operating in flagrant violation of the health and safety standards Pennsylvania had set up, along with things like basic medical training/licensing requirements. He got away with it in part because there wasn't staffing to inspect clinics. Shockingly, Republicans have not been calling for doubled inspection budgets.

  • Tonio||

    ^This.

  • Another David||

    Don't we have articles here every so often about how dumb it is to respond to people who do blatantly illegal things by making them SUPER DUPER ILLEGAL? They pretty clearly don't give a fuck about breaking the law, so either enforce or figure out a different strategy entirely.

  • SugarFree||

    Gosnell is an excuse, not a reason. These restrictions have been attempted in myriad ways and forms for decades.

    I don't think most pro-choicers would have a problem with clinic regulation for safety, but regulation has been used as cover for end-runs around RvW for so long, no one trusts them.

    Pro-lifers created Gosnell with their history of dishonest regulation.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    That's even more absurd than pinning Gosnell on the abortion movement as a whole.

    Gosnell operated in a state where abortion is legal and where regulations are rarely enforced. Plenty of PPs operate in that environment. If you want to argue, as a representative of PP in PA did, that partial-birth abortion bans are to blame, go ahead -- but you're not going to get a very receptive audience.

  • SugarFree||

    Gosnell is the fault of Gosnell. Adam Lanza is the fault of Adam Lanza.

    All abortion is murder, right? What's so special about Gosnell? What he did is exactly the same as a doctor prescribing RU-486 to flush out a 4-week embryo to the ban-it-to-conception crowd.

    Gosnell is not the slam dunk you people think it is, because anyone with half-a-brain knows that the Gosnell slaughterhouse is what abortion will be after you shut down the clinics.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Gosnell is his own fault. No political movement is responsible for him, and you'll find people like him in any legal regime. The reason he is a big deal is because, to most people, the complexities and uncertainties of where life begins diminish the closer you get to the birth canal. Most of the pro-choice movement chose to justify late-term and even partial-birth abortions, criticizing only the damage done by Gosnell to the women in question. Doesn't it disturb you that the largest providers of abortion in this country, and those most fiercely fighting regulation, are the same people arguing in favor of partial birth abortion (and openly performing them in the states where they are legal) -- which, let's be honest, is functionally no different from infanticide.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Gosnell is his own fault. No political movement is responsible for him, and you'll find people like him in any legal regime. The reason he is a big deal is because the complexities and uncertainties of where personhood begins diminish the closer you get to the birth canal. Most of the pro-choice movement chose to justify late-term and even partial-birth abortions, criticizing only the damage done by Gosnell to the women in question. Doesn't it disturb you that the largest providers of abortion in this country, and those most fiercely fighting regulation, are the same people arguing in favor of partial birth abortion (and openly performing them in the states where they are legal) -- which, let's be honest, is functionally no different from infanticide.

  • SugarFree||

    And if Perry and the Texas GOP were only going after super-late-term abortions, Gosnell would be relevant. But that's not what he is doing and that is why he and they are being opposed so strongly.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I think that the propriety of providers of a service which is medical and confidential in nature is always a concern, especially as it relates to minors (which a fetus obviously qualifies as, and which ~18% of PP's customers are as well).

    If it were discovered that a rogue Catholic orphanage in TX were openly molesting children, and a Cardinal of the Catholic church speaking in an official capacity stated (in principle) his support of safe, legal child molestation as a response to this problem, would that not be relevant in a debate concerning greater scrutiny of Catholic orphanages?

    If your concern is that the debate is being monopolized by pro-lifers for their own ends, the best way to address that concern is to make sure that pro-choicers are addressing the problems here and that -- for God's sake -- they're not arguing for what is indisputably legalized baby-killing (i.e., PBA) as a policy response.

  • SugarFree||

    would that not be relevant in a debate concerning greater scrutiny of Catholic orphanages

    Have the people against the recent molestation been trying to shut down Catholic orphanages for 40 years with regulation even before the molestation came to light? Is there a large vocal movement using any legal means and some illegal means to try and shut down any and all Catholic orphanages just because of what they are?

    Pro-lifers have lied and lied and lied and now no one on the other side believes them. Boo-hoo.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Pro-lifers have lied and lied and lied and now no one on the other side believes them.

    Lied about what, in particular?

    Besides, I don't think that pro-choicers should be consulting hardcore antichoicers to figure out what their opinions should be on the topic of regulation of abortion providers. They should -- and you should, if you really think that viable fetuses are the moral equivalent of infants -- go to great pains to make sure that their medical processes are above board, accessible to relevant parties, and that their leadership isn't supportive of the actual killing of infants.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Of course the choicers are worried about slippery slopes. Accepting the humanity of certain fetuses raises the question of whether the law should recognize the humanity of other fetuses, too. The choicers also happen to want late-term abortions to be legal. Opposing this bill is a no-brainer for them.

    But how far will you take this "no slippery slope" reasoning? What if (as has sometimes happened) the prolifers introduce a bill against infanticide? Would choicers oppose such bills because of their sinister hidden agendas? This isn't a hypothetical case, since prolifers *have* offered such bills, and the choicers have often been divided over how to respond. As if some of them were uncomfortable with an explicit recognition of the personhood of all newborns.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    "Slippery slope" is a silly argument as is. It's been argued against gay marriage, against legalizing marijuana, against withdrawing from unwise commitments abroad, against allowing the wealthy economic freedoms, and as an argument for foolish or unethical policy.

    Argue legislation on its merits, and let the chips fall where they may. You might be surprised by how close you get to what you wanted in the first place.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It's what abortion *was* in a choicer state.

    When the case arose, the choicers' first response was to try and ignore it (it was a "local crime" story, and the media never covers those, you see). Would they have been so eager to ignore the case if it actually demonstrated the validity of the choicer position?

    Only when it became publicized through non-MSM channels did the choicers try to play catch up. Only then did the case they had been hoping would go away suddenly prove that they were right all along!

  • SugarFree||

    What's the moral difference to you between stabbing a newborn in the brain with a pair of scissors and aborting a 4-week-old embryo?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I think both should be illegal.

  • SugarFree||

    Then stop talking like Gosnell is particularly horrible.

    Because to you he wasn't. And the hypocrisy shows.

    You know, Chile is forcing a raped 11-year-old to give birth. Maybe crow about that being a victory for a while.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Then stop talking like Gosnell is particularly horrible."

    Yes, I will certainly take advice from a choicer about how much to oppose his position.

  • SugarFree||

    Well, then don't get all huffy when people think you are a liar.

    No happiness about that little slut in Chile that should have kept her legs shut? She's probably just lying about being raped. That's what sluts do.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    SF,

    The little Chilean girl in question is heroically and compassionately choosing to have her rapist's child, and did not pursue an abortion beforehand. The "pro-choicers" in this case are arguing that she is making an unreasonable decision and implying that this choice is therefore illegitimate.

    As someone who is pro-choice, who are you to say that her decision is any less legitimate or more loathesome than that of a teenager or minor who decides on getting an abortion?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "don't get all huffy when people think you are a liar."

    And don't get huffy when I think you're an asshole - now let's see who can actually prove their accusation. You first. Cite the post were I lied.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Hmmm...you've grown remarkably quiet. You're probably busy cataloguing and indexing all my lies, eh? But that's OK - you only need to cite one. Just one, that's all.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Wow, having trouble finding only a single example of me lying, eh?

    Well, keep looking.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Nothing yet? That's OK, SF, you can probably just make something up.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    You haven't responded in quite a while. Cat got your tongue?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Wow, you shut up pretty quickly.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Why I Didn't Write About Gosnell's Trial--And Why I Should Have

    "by Megan McArdle

    "...I'm not saying that I identify with criminal abortionists who kill infants and grievously wound their patients. But I am pro-choice.

    "What Gosnell did was not some inevitable result of legal abortion. But while legal abortion was not sufficient to create the horrors in Philadelphia, it was necessary. Gosnell was able to harm so many women and babies because he operated in the open."

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....trial.html

  • kbolino||

    Shorter McArdle: "[Bad shit happens] because [something else is legal]."

    How is that an argument?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    She's a choicer, so it's an admission against interest.

    If the Gosnell case is such a slam-dunk against the prolifers, why does she feel so uncomfortable even talking about it?

  • kbolino||

    Step out of tit-for-tat world for a moment and recognize that the argument McArdle is making is no different from the argument for prohibition.

    From the same logic, it would follow that cohabitation is bad because it enabled Josef Fritzl.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It's not tit-for-tat, it's someone reluctantly acknowledging an uncomfortable truth.

  • kbolino||

    It matters to me that she makes a fallacious argument against her own interest why, exactly?

  • Azathoth!!||

    But Gosnell occurred when the clinics were open. It WAS one of the clinics--and they were not rare, in a state that was pretty reliably pro-choice

    What makes Gosnell horrifying is the people tryiong to justify or minimize it.

    Gosnell is not a slam dunk in getting abortion illegalized(which I don't think is possible anyway), but it sure is a slam dunk in having abortion clinics be subject to the same regulatory burden as other ambulatory surgery centers.

    Because tat's the important point. PP and a whole host of other pro-choice people seem to think that being subject to the same regulatory burden as other ambulatory surgery centers is too onerous a burden for abortion clinics.

  • Zeb||

    you need to argue for some mechanism to prevent what happened in the Gosnell case

    Why? He committed criminal acts and was punished for it. That's how the legal system works here.

  • Duke||

    Condoms break. People don't use them. That doesn't mean they should have to be saddled with a child because you think governments, in the name of one celled organisms, can press them to.

    If this statement represents the sum total of Libertarian ethics, then count me out. I guess I don’t fit in any political movement then.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Heh, join the club.

    Is there a movement for disaffected classical liberals with republican tendencies?

  • Duke||

    No kidding. I come to this site daily and agree with most everything written. I hate government at all levels, hate gun control, hate police brutality, hate the drug war and hate the police state where everything is a crime.

    However, I believe in Jesus Christ and I’m not super jazzed up about women having more abortions. And those beliefs seem to blow most Libertarians minds judging by a lot of the articles and comments. T. Jefferson was my favorite political leader and I know that he wouldn’t have countenanced abortions. I just need a time machine to go back to the old timey good days.

  • ||

    Isn't abortion on the decline, even with the proliferation of clinics since Roe v. Wade?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It's on a slight decline, largely due to moral stances on the subject changing (which can itself be attributed in part to the pro-life movement's attempt to educate regarding birth).

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The right-wing fanatics at the Huffington Post cosponsored a poll finding public support for a late-term abortion ban.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....75551.html

  • OldMexican||

    They will have to get their abortion pills from some flea-market outside McAllen, TX!!!!!

  • radar||

    I'm sorry, remind me again how risk-free sex is supposed to be an inalienable right? You can prattle on about womb-enslaving and sluts and whatever, but the simple fact of the matter is that no one gets pregnant accidently. If you're going to take part in an activity, you have to take on the risks inherent in that activity. I always thought that such personal responsibility was something inherent to libertarianism. Apparently, I was mistaken.

    A lot of people get saddled with caring for elderly relatives who can't live on their own anymore. Should we just take them out back and shoot them? To me, abortion is the same thing. I wish we had an easy way to determine precisely when life begins, but there isn't one.

    It's hard for me to feel too much sympathy for someone who cries about facing the consequences of their actions.

  • Jgalt1975||

    but the simple fact of the matter is that no one gets pregnant accidently. If you're going to take part in an activity, you have to take on the risks inherent in that activity.

    Ah, so rape can never cause pregnancy? Got it.

  • OldMexican||

    New Abortion Restrictions Drive Women Back to the Black Market


    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!

    At an open-air flea market outside McAllen, Texas (BEESTX)[...] You can also find pills to end a pregnancy.


    Yeah, and "abortion restrictions" somehow equals "you will have to get your 'abortion' pills outside of McAllen, TX."

    The spin-doctor is in!

  • OldMexican||

    As tighter restrictions force legal abortion providers that don't meet stringent new requirements to close (the two serving the Lower Rio Grande Valley near the flea market in the Bloomberg piece are expected to have to close their doors), the demand for black market alternatives can only grow.


    There has to be a great demand for contract-killing as well, and I am sure there's a black market for that and I am equally sure there are economic reasons for having your spouse killed; that does not mean that contract killing should be allowed and, by the same token, abortion, as both are clear violations of the NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE.

    No, I do NOT subscribe to utilitarian arguments. Unjustified killing is WRONG. Period.

  • Acosmist||

    Boohoo. Stop murdering kids. Why is child-murder a libertarian plank anyway?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement