20 Week Abortion Ban Fails to Win Enough Senate Support

Only two Republicans voted against the bill and three Democrats in favor.


Congressional Republican efforts to limit legal abortion to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy have stalled, with Senators falling six votes short of the 60 needed to advance the measure in a procedural vote Tuesday. The legislation would have made it a crime to provide a woman with an abortion if she is more than five months along in her pregnancy. 

Maine Sen. Susan Collins was one of only two Republicans to vote against the bill, citing a lack of protections for women's health as her reason. While the legislation does except cases where abortion is "necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman," this only applies if her life is threatened "by a physical disorder, illness, or injury, excluding psychological or emotional conditions." And it only applies to life-threatening situations, meaning a pregnant woman who faced serious medical complications or health problems that fall short of fatal must still carry to term. 

"The bill before us provides no exceptions for when the physical health of the mother is at risk of serious harm," Collins said on the Senate floor, calling this a "glaring deficiency." Stressing that she shared Republicans' goal of banning most abortions after 20 weeks, Collins asked "Do we want the threat of prison for a doctor who knows his patient needs chemotherapy or radiation treatments?"  

Aside from Collins, the only other Republican who voted against the bill was Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk. 

Those supporting the bill were almost exclusively Republicans, though three Democrats (Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey Jr., Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly, and West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin) voted in favor of the abortion ban. Three Democrats (California Sen. Barbara Boxer, Washington Sen. Patty Murray, and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren) and one Republican (Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski) abstained from voting. 

NEXT: Kim Davis Seems to Think God Cares About Valid Government Marriage Licenses

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.

  1. This social issues bullshit is really ruining the GOP and stopping a socially liberal fiscally conservative party from emerging

    1. There’s not a lot of support for unrestricted abortion post-viability.

      1. Problem is 20 weeks isn’t viable. The youngest ever to survive was 21.5 weeks and under 24 weeks the odds of surviving are only about 15%.

        still, as long as this isn’t intended to be the first step in a multi step approach to eventually banning all abortion this isn’t a horrible bill. Restricting abortion past 20 weeks to cases of medical necessity and outlawing it entirely past 30 weeks (at that point I am unaware of any possible medical condition that would require an abortion as opposed to just inducing labor or performing a ceasarian) is a good idea and frankly something enough people from both sides would support that it would give us a chance to shut the activists from either extreme up.

        The main quibble I have is like Collins I don’t like the government deciding what is medically necessary, I’d rather see that left up to medical professionals, some kind of review board that is empaneled every time a doctor performs an abortion past 20 weeks to determine if his actions were reasonably medically necessary and if not stripping him of his license and in egregious cases referring him to the DA for possible prosecution.

        1. still, as long as this isn’t intended to be the first step in a multi step approach

          Of course it isn’t. They just want to ban those scary assault rifles with the pistol grips and the big murder clips and the entire gun control movement will disband.

        2. Problem is 20 weeks isn’t viable.

          This is true. I was talking to some of our NICU staff, and asked them what the latest was. Depending on how you define viability (earliest known survivor is probably around 21 weeks, but you get much under 24 weeks and the odds are long indeed), 22 weeks is probably a good early viability date.

          At 20 weeks, their lungs are still severely underdeveloped, seemed to be the big issue.

          1. That explains why the democrats announced they would support the bill if amended to specify 24 weeks.


    2. No doubt. But in this instance, depending on which poll you look at, roughly 60% of the population support the ban.

      1. So it’s not exactly an unpopular proposal. It’s basically the rank and file throwing a bone to their constituents having failed to do anything with their majorities, in addition to seeing how well trump, fiorina and carson are doing. It’s still stupid.

    3. Not permitting abortions after the first 20 weeks is a moderate policy that exists in most civilized countries. Most people in the US and around the world are not pro-abortion extremists who would be unsatisfied unless abortion is legal until the tenth month of pregnancy.

      1. Got to cull the herd somehow.

      2. Virtually all 20 week abortions are performed because of extreme medical problems with the fetus or pregnancy.

        1. That’s something I wonder about when all this comes up. How many people actually have late term elective abortions. I may have insufficient imagination, but unless you are suffering from some deep denial, I can’t imagine that many people wait until their belly starts to really swell before saying “oh, shit, I’d better get an abortion”. Which is why I really don’t care much about late term abortion. I’m sure there are cases where it is medically necessary in some way and I don’t think it would make anything better to have doctors who perform such abortions to have to face legal scrutiny.

          1. It is very rare, about 1% of abortions occur after 20 weeks.

            As for why they would wait that long, in the overwhelming majority of cases it is because they had not originally intended to get an abortion however right at 20 weeks is when they start doing ultrasound tests on the fetus checking for birth defects and when the test comes back that the fetus has a major brain or heart anomaly that will 90% likely cause their death within weeks of their birth and the other 10% is lifelong complications from it a lot of parents would quite rationally choose an abortion.

            After that you’ll get a few women who somehow don’t discover they are pregnant until that point and a small number who initially wanted the kid but their relationship ended and they don’t know how they can support it now and then the relatively rare cases of medical necessity (typically caused by runaway gestational diabetes or preeclampsia but sometimes because she has some other condition which she cannot take the medication for while pregnant and it worsens).

            Cases where a woman carries a fetus for more than 20 weeks and then decides “Aw Fuck it I don’t want to be a mom afterall” are exceedingly rare and might never once have happened so far as anyone knows

            1. That’s about what I would have guessed.

              The way some people talk about late term abortion, you’d think that there were clinics where women lined up to abort their 24 week pregnancies and where they can barely keep the half dead fetuses from crawling out of the place.

              1. There are such clinics but they are very rare. Like one or two per state. If that.

        2. Virtually all 20 week abortions are performed because of extreme medical problems with the fetus or pregnancy

          That’s not true according to the study covered here. They found that most late term abortions are due to indecision, changes in the relationship between the mother and father, or financial problems. (Abortions costs hundreds of dollars and get more expensive as the pregnancy progresses. So as the mother is raising money, the cost is also going up. By the time she has enough she’s past the 20 week mark.)

          1. Ah, some guy, you aren’t going to believe a study which was probably cooked up by some hick fundamentalist preacher working at the PraiseGod Barebones Institute of Research ‘n Stuff.

            Let’s see, the study was published in a journal called Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, published by…the Guttmacher Institute.

            Hmm…wasn’t the Guttmacher Institute founded by Jerry Falwell or one of those guys?

            Let’s see…it started out as the Center for Family Planning Program Development…

            “The Center was originally housed within the corporate structure of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). Its program, however, was independently developed and overseen by a National Advisory Council separate from the PPFA Board of Directors. Its early development was nurtured by Alan F. Guttmacher, an eminent obstetrician-gynecologist, teacher and writer who was PPFA’s president for more than a decade until his death in 1974. The Center was renamed in Dr. Guttmacher’s memory, and the Guttmacher Institute incorporated as an entirely independent nonprofit policy research institute with its own Board in 1977.”


            There, you see, it’s independent! And probably run by Pat Robertson.

  2. Does anyone else think it’s odd that this issue is only voted on when it can’t pass?

    1. Could it ever actually pass? Abortion enjoys a large constituency of people who: A) enjoy fucking and B) don’t want children.

      1. See above.

      2. And C) don’t want to wear a jimmy hat.

        1. I wear a tin foil jimmy hat.

      3. A) enjoy fucking and B) don’t want children.

        I’m part of this group but am no fan of abortion (but I would never support outlawing it).

        What I don’t get is why couples can’t use one of the many methods of birth control to prevent the pregnancy in the first place (I’ve heard as many as 75% of abortions are for women who didn’t use any BC). I’m not suggesting that it’s the woman’s responsibility, but women seem to have better self-control when it comes to sex and are fully capable of rejecting a man who doesn’t have and wear a condom. I’m 51 and have never gotten a woman pregnant. It’s not that hard.

        1. It’s not that hard.

          I meant, not that difficult. Although I was technically right the first time since I feel almost nothing through a condom–but I still wear them!

        2. I’m 51 and have never gotten a woman pregnant.

          That you know of.

          1. I would know. None of my exes would’ve passed up the opportunity to sock me with child support.

            1. You are assuming that they didn’t get an abortion or have a miscarriage and decline to tell you

              1. Or maybe they were abducted by a UFO and my illegitimate offspring is being cloned into cyborg warriors intent on conquering Earth!

                Yeah, anything is possible, but what you suggest is highly improbable.

        3. I’m 51 and have never gotten a woman pregnant. It’s not that hard.

          If you’re a man, you simply don’t know this is the case.

          You do know, on the other hand, that no method of birth control is 100% effective other than abstinence.

          1. What about abortion? Or hysterectomy?

            Sorry, I know that’s probably not what you mean.

            1. Abortion is not 100% effective. Hysterectomy probably is.

              1. Abortion is not 100% effective.

                Charley Kelly can confirm this…

              2. Maybe on the first attempt.

          2. Why would I not know this? I’m not one to have a one-night-stand and vanish after I’m done.

            Birth control failure is exceedingly rare, and in those cases using Plan B or a full-on abortion is an option. But as I said, the vast majority of abortions are for women who used NO birth control. That’s the problem that everyone should be focusing on. Don’t outlaw abortion–eliminate the need for it.

            1. You don’t have to have a one-night stand for a woman to keep a secret. Have you ever broken up with someone you’d had sex with in the past couple months?

              Based on your own stat, 25% of abortions are performed for women who are on birth control, so “exceedingly rare” in percentage terms can translate to a shitload of unintended pregnancies.

              I’m more than fine with encouraging more and better birth control use, but I hate it when people pretend it actually makes abortion unnecessary. As long as people continue to have sex, abortion will be necessary.

              1. When used correctly, birth control (the Pill in particular) is very effective. And those women in the 25% may have gotten an abortion for any number of other reasons. But I’ve never expressed a desire to outlaw abortion, and no one has the right to prevent a woman from making that tough decision. I simply said that by avoiding pregnancies in the first place abortion would become a non-issue.

                1. But that’s exactly my point. It’s not going to become a non-issue, because not everyone is going to avoid pregnancy in the first place.

                  “Very effective” in a single person when taken correctly still adds up to a lot of unwanted pregnancies in a population of 300 million.

                  1. I never suggested that abortions would become completely unnecessary. Even planned pregnancies sometimes need to be terminated for a number of reasons, none of which is anyone’s business but the mother’s. But why is it so unreasonable for me to advocate more and better birth control as a means to reduce the number of abortions? You appear to be assuming things I never said, or believe.

            2. Birth control failure is exceedingly rare

              Not really

              My wife has been Pregnant 5 times (3 carried to term with 4 kids resulting and 2 miscarriages) with a likely 6th that we never fully confirmed and was on birth control every single one of them.

              In only 1 of those cases was it likely a result of improper use of the birth control in question

              1. OK, let’s forget that birth control pills are 99.9% effective because of your personal experience.

                The fact is that the majority of women who get abortions were using NO birth control at all. If women in that group simply began using some form of birth control (even with it’s ‘monumentally high’ failure rate) then it would still result in the need for fewer abortions. I assumed this is what most people wanted, but from all the shit I’m catching here I guess I’m wrong. So, forget the birth control and abort away!

                1. No, Birth control pills are 99% effective when used 100% correctly.

                  The problem is humans are not automatons and always make little mistakes including taking other medications that interfere with the pills effectiveness at the same time becuase you didn’t know about the interaction between the 2 drugs and neither the Dr or Pharmacist noticed

                  1. Seems like when the husband wants kids and the wife doesn’t, birth control is 100% effective. Yet when the wife wants kids and the husband doesn’t, then birth control fails. Just saying…

          3. that no method of birth control is 100% effective other than abstinence.

            What about me taking it in the ass from another man? I heard that’s pretty effective too?

            1. What about me taking it in the ass from another man? I heard that’s pretty effective too?

              Not if he felches you and then goes down on a woman. Life always finds a way…

        4. You know what, I am saying it.

          It is the woman’s responsibility to make sure some kind of BC is in play (of course, I view Plan B as a valid BC method). Because at the end of the day, that guy can disappear into the wind and the woman is stuck making all of the decisions.

      4. Yes but most of them don’t wait anywhere near 20 weeks to get the abortion, they realize it by the 10th week at the latest and get it done by the 11th

      5. As others suggest, I don’t think this is plausible given the fact that there isn’t much support for late-term abortion.

        My guess is that abortion is one of those issues the leadership of neither party really want to go away. It’s a good means to rile up a reliable dose of blind support. And a consensus solution would peel away large portions of either side’s blind support.

        1. At this point, I think the Democrats need it as an issue to rile up the base even more than Republicans. I’ve heard a good number of people say that they would never vote for Republican simply because of abortion.

  3. Let me guess. The party that was against Obamacare, allegedly on Commerce Clause grounds, is now pushing a bill based on the theory that Congress may ban abortions because aborting babies affects interstate commerce.

    1. Yep – Pass it in the states or shut up.

      1. I don’t think the states could legally do that, because of the supreme courts ruling.

        1. Yes they can. The federal government is just as bound by Roe and PP v. Casey as the states are. And states do pass stuff like this as well.

          1. Well in that case I would have to concur with Drake.

    2. Was that the rationale? Cite please.

      1. What other source of Congressional authority could they have based it on? Commerce Clause is what Congress usually calls upon when it’s jonesin’ for legislating and it can’t find more explicit authority.

      2. Also, the actual cite is Section 2, Clause 14 of the bill (H.R. 36). “(14) Congress has authority to extend protection to pain-capable unborn children under the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause precedents and under the Constitution’s grants of powers to Congress under the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Enforcement Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. “

    3. In fairness the SC deserves most of the blame for making this a federal issue.

      1. But penumbras! Substantive Due Process! Living document!!!!

        1. You forgot the emanations.

          1. yeah but if you could put a stop to the emanations you wouldn’t have a fetus to abort in the first place

    4. (Without reading the article) Was the bill brought on Commerce Clause grounds? I would think preventing states from depriving individuals of life, liberty or property without due process of law (here, life, as pro-lifers would argue) would have been the justification.

      1. (14) Congress has authority to extend protection to pain-capable unborn children under the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause precedents and under the Constitution’s grants of powers to Congress under the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Enforcement Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

        Right there in the bill’s Findings section.

        1. Sounds like they’re begging the question — if Congress has not been granted the enumerated power to decide when a fetus becomes a human being, then none of these clauses applies.

      2. States perform abortions?

        1. I would think that a state’s wholesale allowance of the slaughter of a class of people (here, pro-lifers would argue, fetuses over 20 weeks) would constitute a civil rights violation.

          1. I was mostly just being a jerk.

            That is an interesting thing, though. I don’t imagine it has ever been tested, but if a state were to legalize murder or theft, would the federal government compel them to criminalize it again?

  4. Abortion? Kim Davis? Religion? Kulture War full-speed ahead!

    1. Why would anyone think about anything else? Debt? Inflation? Out of control bureaucracy? Fuck that shit. KULTUR WAR! KULTUR WAR!

      Note that every single time KULTUR WAR shit comes up, people drop everything to go scream and squeal at each other about it. Think about the fact that they’d rather argue over whether a teenager slapped a clock together out of parts or not, including whether it was intended to be a bomb (?!?), instead of the terrible reaction by school admins and police. They want to nitpick endlessly over whether some fat frump lady in Kentucky actually makes marriage licenses valid (?!?) by her divine signature or not.

      It’s absolutely incredible. And 80-90% of people engage in this unparalleled stupidity with complete gusto. KULTUR WAR exists because they want it. That’s the sad, pathetic truth. Most people love KULTUR WAR, and they actively won’t let it go away.

      1. That’s what so stupid about this, there are a million issues that people in their base are pissed at them for; the fact that they pick this one, something they know will never pass, as their hill to die on shows you exactly how little they intend to do something substantive to address any one of those million issues.

        1. although we should probably be thankful for that as any “solution” they pass to remedy those issues will undoubtedly make it worse, sort of like putting water on a grease fire. We should actually be happy the culture war exists, because if it didn’t they probably would actually try to govern.

          1. KULTUR WAR is the bread and circuses they use to distract people from the really horrible shit they’re doing (which is everything else). It’s not distracting them; they are “governing” (i.e. stealing and lying) all the while the KULTUR WAR bullshit rages on.

            The very fact that they have the power to decide issues like this is central to the problem. They can’t stoke KULTUR WAR if they can’t affect outcomes.

            1. Yet, if you suggest to someone that the government wants to distract people, you’re crazy.

              1. Apparently pointing out that being distracted by stuff as idiotic as “that 14 year old nerd may not have actually ‘made’ that clock and something something bomb” or “schlubby attention whore county clerk may need to sign retarded marriage licenses or they might possibly not be valid” is just beyond the pale.

                I mean, if you don’t care more about that shit than anything else in life, what’s wrong with you?!?

                1. Also, some dentist killed a lion or something…

        2. What you said Idle, combined with the Trump-love, will destroy conservatism and the Republican party. Which, of course, is not a bad thing.

          1. nope, especially as it looks as if the democrats have a similar problem. My dream scenario is Trump winning a bunch of the primaries and than the delegates all vote for Jeb at the convention.

        3. Calling it a hill to die on implies they have any intention of actually doing something about the issue. Not too long ago they had the White House and majorities in the House and Senate. What did they do about it then?

      2. Maybe we should talk about the Seahawks?

        1. The Seahawks? God hates them, but the God talk is happening on the previous thread.

        2. What, should we talk about how they can’t get their offense organized for more than one drive? Should we talk about biffing an onside kick in OT?

        3. I don’t even think the Seahawks are off-topic for an abortion thread.

          1. So what you’re saying is that the Seahawks should be aborted?

      3. You’re missing the beauty of KULTUR WAR for the leadership of the major parties, Episiarch. With KULTUR WAR, you never actually have to deliver on your agenda. Just the act of identifying their tribe is the point of the KULTUR WAR for most participants.

    2. I’m going to start bitching soon if we don’t get more articles about things other than election, abortion and gay marriage. And I hate that shit.

      How about a good old fashioned nutpunch?

  5. This social issues bullshit is really ruining/i the GOP and there is no “fiscally conservative” party there, socially liberal or not. The GOP has been playing that con for far too long for me to have much patience with the idiots who keep voting for those shitweasels on the premise that “well, at least they’ll whiitle down the size of government”. No, no they won’t, they have no intention whatsoever of decreasing the power of government and never have.

    1. Goddammit. Edit the strikethrough there. This social issues bullshit is really ruining the GOP, and so forth.

      1. Mybe, but it is also the Democrats and the libertarians as well. It is just the latter two don’t think their positions are fighting a culture war.

  6. MOAR KULCHER WOR!!!!1111!!!1!!!

  7. Both sides can bash you for abstaining so what’s the point?

  8. Is PA’s Bob Casey up for re-election next year? I can’t imagine any other reason for my senator to crawl out from under his rock long enough to do anything.

    1. Are you complaining that your senator is doing nothing?

      1. Well, I’m caught between paying him to do nothing and being pissed off when he does something. So, I guess I get to complain either way.

          1. It’s the American way.

    1. In your face? Otherwise I’m not interested.

      1. That’s not cool Butters. You don’t shoot a guy in the dick.

        1. Wait, we’re talking about photography, right?

    2. I condemn you to…LIVE!

  9. Boxer and Warren were… um… too busy to attend the vote. Coulrophobia meets coprophila in a no-holes-barred fuckfest.

      1. Is that a John Wayne Gacey thing?

        1. It’s a “me waiting for you in your closet in a bloody clown outfit” thing. Don’t be scared. Where the minotaur takes you, there is no fear. Only darkness. Shhhhhhh.

    1. Dear God…….

      1. Don’t blame him. You read it even after seeing who posted it.

    2. Coulrophobia

      I would prefer coulrophilia.

      1. Coulrocoprophagiaphobia: The fear of eating clown poop.

        1. AutonepIoaptemnophilia: Sexual attraction to amputee babies.

          1. Hey, that’s not cool. SIV’s been working on that.

    3. I do not want to be “that guy” who brings a woman’s outer beauty into a discussion, but am I the only one here who finds Barbara Boxer sexually appealing?

      1. Can’t speak for everyone else here, but — ugh. Wouldn’t fuck her with Epi’s dick.

      2. am I the only one here who finds Barbara Boxer sexually appealing?

        Yes, yes you are. My condolences.

        Hopefully, you’ll catch as much shit as I did last week for saying I thought Huma was kinda hot.

        1. Huma’s kinda hot. I must have missed that one – I’ll defend you!

          But not Crusty. Boxer? Tha fuck?

          1. But it’s irrelevant since there’s not enough soap in the world to wash away Hillary and Weiner’s feculence.

        2. Huma is pretty good. Bony and with a cavernous mouth, but good by wonk standards.

          1. with a cavernous mouth

            You say that like it’s a bad thing.

            1. I would prefer more of a “BJ Queen” look, instead of a “Python Unhinging Its Jaws to Swallow an Antelope” look.

              1. I never said Huma was my ideal woman, just kinda hot and doable. And I’d rather be with a woman who’s mouth is too big than too small. Btw, my girlfriend is full Samoan and has amazing lips.

                1. “notes that Huma is Antilles “Ideal Woman”*

                  1. Glad someone understands…

      3. Yes. Young Nancy Pelosi looked OK. Young Dianne Feinstein looked, well, uh, um….

        1. like a ferengi?

          1. I had to google ferengi, but that is a good reference.

      4. Yes. As fucked up as I am? And yet, no, only YOU find her appealing.


        Sometimes you worry me, Crusty…

      5. I’ll go out on a limb and speak for everyone else…


  10. Perhaps I missed the part of the constitution where the federal government was given the enumerated power to decide when a fetus becomes a human being.

    Shouldn’t this be something left to the states?

    1. Shouldn’t this be something left to the states people?

      1. Well, as an anarchist, sure. I was just addressing the notion that this was something Congress has any authority to legislate.

        1. Fine, by my determination neither of you qualify as humans and I shall treat you accordingly.

    2. So the federal government can only treat a human as a person if a state determined they are, then how can the 14th amendment override a state’s determination that regard? For that matter how are 50 standards for personhood workable?

      Either there is a standard for personhood above the states and the feds on what qualifies a person or equal treatment under law is arbitrarily applied.

      1. We have a working a definition of what a person is: an individual human. It is the pro-abortion rights side that has demanded exceptions be carved out of that definition, often based on criteria both dubious and difficult to establish to serve utilitarian goals.

        1. I’m not pro abortion, and there is no way in hell you can convince me a human zygote is a person.

          1. This particular issue is not about zygotes, but I am addressing the idea that the concept of personhood has to originate somewhere as a legal standard and be universally enforced. Without that, the concept of individual rights is negated.

            You cannot have people deciding for themselves their own standard for what a person is and have enforcable rights. A standard has to be set by law or one that considered to preexist the law that cannot be amended (and has to be broad as possible) or otherwise universal civil rights are impossible.

            1. You cannot have people deciding for themselves their own standard for what a person is and have enforcable rights…(and has to be broad as possible)

              The problem with that is, that the entity in question (child, if you must) is not the only entity involved in the given situation. While I’m positive that the mother/host is most certainly a person with the right to do what she pleases with her body, I’m not sure when that lump of cells achieves personhood (obtains rights).

              I think we can agree that when they are both people, the right to live probably outweighs the right to not be inconvenienced. Prior to that, however, the mother/host’s rights would clearly take precedence.

              Since I have no way of knowing at what point personhood is obtained, I’m extremely hesitant to place a limit on it, as being wrong means infringing on someone’s rights. So, in such a case, I’m more than happy to leave that decision up to the conscience of the host.

              1. So, in such a case, I’m more than happy to leave that decision up to the conscience of the host.

                FdA- I invite you to sail across the Atlantic to Spain with me. 1000 miles into our journey, I decide you’re not a “person”, and kick you off my boat. My conscience is untroubled.

                Is that a crime?

  11. While the legislation does except cases where abortion is “necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman,” this only applies if her life is threatened “by a physical disorder, illness, or injury, excluding psychological or emotional conditions.” And it only applies to life-threatening situations, meaning a pregnant woman who faced serious medical complications or health problems that fall short of fatal must still carry to term.

    See, this is my main problem with late term abortion bans. Who decides if the pregnancy is a threat to the woman’s life? Is it up to a doctor, or does the doctor also have to run it by a bureaucrat, medical panel or a judge? If its just the doctor, then any woman who wants an abortion is just going to go doctor hunting. Otherwise, you’re creating more bureaucracy.

    And it’s kind of messed up that it doesn’t include serious medical complications or health problems. Is it really a good idea to force a woman to have a child if doing so will not threaten her life, but will disable her long-term, making it impossible for her to care for her child?

    1. I think pregnancy is well enough described medically that for everything but the rarest of conditions, the danger to the mom is pretty well quantified.

      Teh thing about pregnancies is that if they go awry, generally the result is a miscarriage. Only rarely do you get a situation where the baby will continue to grow or not be expelled if it is imperiling mom’s life. During the millions of years humans were subject to natural selection, the moms who didn’t miscarry when their life was in danger tended to have their genes selected out of the gene pool.

      As medical care gets better, the danger posed by most conditions is made less severe.

      1. I’m just against giving power to a bureaucrat, judge or jury to make a medical decision. I think it’s best to leave it between the patient and their doctor. And if you leave it up to the doctor, then there’s no need for legislation.

        Also, let’s keep in mind that we’re only talking about roughly 15,000 cases per year in the US. Most of those happen just after the 20 week mark. I guess I could get behind the idea mentioned by Rasilio above, a medical panel that has the power to take a doctor’s license for doing unnecessary late-term abortions. Even then I wouldn’t want to get a DA involved. Too much room for abuse of power.

        1. And if you leave it up to the doctor, then there’s no need for legislation.

          Unless it’s Dr. Gosnell, and then the DA gets involved anyway.

        2. Also, let’s keep in mind that we’re only talking about roughly 15,000 cases per year in the US.

          In other words, 50% more than all “gun” murders of people of all ages in this country… Seems like we really need some “common sense” gun abortion regulation.

  12. Ah abortion, formerly THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, EVER, now taking a backseat to the gays and their marriage.

    1. “Backseat.” “Gays.”


  13. Completely OT: I saw the story about the Oklahoma teacher trying to force the left-handed kid to be right-handed because Jesus and did have to laugh at the headline: Oklahoma Pre-K teacher allegedly calls being left-handed ‘evil’ and ‘sinister’. You do know that left-handed is literally sinister, right? It’s what the word means.

    1. ” It’s what the word means.”

      Thus proving that Left-Handed people are agents of Satan. Q.E.D.

      1. duh

      2. I thought it just meant they were destined to get Yellow Power Rings?

      3. The kid didn’t look like a ginger to me…

    2. I read stuff like that and wonder what the hell the “socialization” argument against homeschooling is supposed to mean. Being at the mercy of crazy vindictive teachers builds character?

      1. I think public schooling instills a healthy disrespect for the arbitrary and capricious hand of authoritarian government at an early age.

      2. Who has made the socialization argument against homeschooling?

  14. Actual Reuters Headline =

    U.S. woman China probes for spying cloud’s President Xi’s state visit

    Maybe its the use of the weak-verbs “Probe” and “Cloud” that make it so clumsy sounding and inexact. That, and the syntax.

    My version – “Chinese Accusation of US Espionage Overshadows State Visit”

    “Sandy Phan-Gillis of Houston, Texas, has been held by Chinese authorities for about six months under suspicion of spying and stealing state secrets, according to a statement from her family released this week.”

    I imagine the story the journalist is actually trying to tell is mostly via ‘implication’ – not directly offering any interpretation, but insinuating one in the details…

    “China’s state secrets law is notoriously broad, covering everything from industry data to the exact birth dates of state leaders. Information can also be labeled a state secret retroactively.”

    So, perhaps the unstated accusation is,

    China Arrests US Citizen Before State Visit, Reviving Ancient Diplomatic Practice of Hostage-Taking Before Negotiation
    “Worked Great for Iran”, Note Foreign Affairs Observers

    1. *side note =

      if the lady was arrested 6 months ago… how is that supposed to be connected to the current state visit?

      All it suggests is that China/US discussions have avoided dealing with the issue prior to meeting (which, as noted re: ‘hostages’ and their effect on diplomacy… just suggests extraordinarily shitty behavior by the State Dept. Normally, they’d be like,

      “sure we’d love to have you visit – just make sure you release our citizens from your fucking Secret Police prisons before you book your flight, Mmkay?”‘

      the fact that they didn’t, and are letting the press show their weak-hand? just fucking amateurish behavior that suggests they either don’t care* (most likely) … or that they’re actually afraid of asking China to *do stuff*… i.e. that they’re giant pussies.

      Its odd because while Americans probably put little weight on this sort of thing… other countries see it as “loss of face” for Americans, and its a sign they can ‘push’ more, and it almost encourages siezure of hostages, a la the old-school diplomacy.

  15. Just like the Democrats with assault weapon bans, the GOP can’t resist dying on that hill one more time.

    1. Re: Jordan,

      Just like the Democrats with assault weapon bans, the GOP can’t resist dying on that hill one more time.

      Guns don’t kill people; abortionists do.

  16. Someone needs to give our entire government a post-birth abortion

  17. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……


    1. Too bad your mother didn’t abort you

  18. Re the senators who “abstained”, one wonders what they might be hiding?, as well as perhaps why?

    1. Here’s the thing:

      An “Abstain” is a “No” vote, at least in the Senate.

      In any voting scheme that requires a certain percentage of the total votes (as the Senate does) rather than a percentage of those voting, an abstain is a no.

      If your voting rules require a percentage of those voting, and don’t count abstentions, then “abstaining” is a real thing distinct from voting no.

      Those three Dems and Murkowski voted no. Which is fine, but lets not pretend that what they did was anything other than a no vote.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.