Glenn Youngkin's Proposed 15-Week Abortion Ban Speaks to Abortion Moderates
The Virginia governor's proposed 15-week ban shows what a moderate approach to abortion looks like.

On Friday, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) announced that he would push for legislation restricting most abortions after 15 weeks. Shortly following the Supreme Court's decision repealing Roe v. Wade (1973), Youngkin's office said that it would enlist four Republican lawmakers to draft a bill banning abortions in the state after 15 weeks, with exceptions for rape, incest, and cases where the mother's life is endangered. Youngkin also indicated that he would be willing to compromise on a 20-week ban.
"I'm proud to be a pro-life Governor and plan to take every action I can to protect life," Youngkin said in a Friday press release. "The truth is, Virginians want fewer abortions, not more abortions. We can build a bipartisan consensus on protecting the life of unborn children, especially when they begin to feel pain in the womb, and importantly supporting mothers and families who choose life."
Youngkin's proposal is unlikely to draw opposition from abortion moderates. A 2022 Pew Research poll indicated that 71 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances. Gallup reported similar numbers in 2018 but noted that while "six in 10 U.S. adults think abortion should generally be legal in the first three months of pregnancy….Support drops by about half, to 28%, for abortions conducted in the second three months, and by half again, to 13%, in the final three months."
These abortion moderates do not support hardline Republican prohibitions on all abortions or progressive policies that would allow abortions in the third trimester. They are the kind of voters who support making abortion "safe, legal, and rare," the policy tagline coined by former President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.
Despite the political success of Clinton's position, state legislators have taken increasingly extremist positions on abortion. Following Friday's ruling, 10 states quickly banned abortion with no exceptions for rape and incest, while six other states currently allow abortion with no gestational limit.
While some Republicans vow to punish women who obtain abortions with the death penalty, Democratic politicians have regularly engaged in verbal gymnastics to avoid supporting any limits to abortion at all—including in the latest stages of pregnancy.
In contrast, Youngkin's proposal offers a moderate solution to the issue of abortion. His 15-week ban speaks to a significant segment of public opinion, as well as conforms to the standard in much of Europe.
A 15-week ban would still allow for the vast majority of abortions to take place, as 2019 CDC data found that 92.7 percent of abortions are performed at less than 13 weeks gestation. However, it prohibits the procedure in much of the second and all of the third trimester.
The proposal has already earned criticism from both pro-choice and pro-life legislators. At an abortion rights rally on Friday, state Sen. Jennifer L. McClellan (D–Richmond) said, "We're going to say no. We're going to say to the party that professes to care about parental rights, you will not insert yourself into the decision whether to become a parent in the first place." Conversely, congressman Bob Good (R–Va.) took to Twitter to write that "[i]n Virginia, let's not pretend the Democrats will agree to ANY restrictions on abortion. No point in working alone so modestly for 'pain capable' legislation."
For Virginians who find themselves stuck between two increasingly radical camps, Youngkin's approach could offer a compelling alternative for handling abortion policy in a post-Roe world—one which prioritizes moderates' concerns for both female bodily autonomy and the lives of developing fetuses.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Funny. It was a ban limitation on abortion to the first 15 weeks of pregnancy in Mississippi that gave rise to Dobbs. Just a few months ago, that restriction was derided as some sort of far-right, bible-thumping imposition on womens' rights.
Just like the Bible thumpers in France and Germany.
Hi
Abortions are allowed within the first 14 weeks in France and 12 weeks in Germany.
Fucking x-tian fascists.
I'm earning 85 dollars/h to complete some work on a home computer. I not at all believed that it can be possible but my close friend earning $25k only within four weeks simply doing this top task as well as she has satisfied me to join.
Check further details by reaching this link..>> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2022/06/does-france-have-more-restrictive-abortion-policy-than-mississippi-spoiler-no-and-please-stop-pretending-you-know-anything-about-abortion-policy
There's a lot of saying "Nu-uh"' and no actual evidence to the contrary in your fucking moronic little link.
They're trying to say life that French exceptions for lifesaving medical interventions are the difference, but that's the case in Mississippi's law too.
For purported lawyers they're fucking idiots.
So Democrat SC nominee calibre?
He had a link and it wasn't from someone deemed conservative, so it is facts according to Jeff.
I was going to post the same. Amazing how fast a radical Christian fundamentalist law has become moderate.
The irony is through the roof.
At the same time. "We want zero abortions but are willing to concede abortions up to 15, or even 20 weeks, and in the cases of rape, incest, and to save the mother at any point." actually is the traditional definition of compromise as opposed to "We'll compromise by infringing on your 2A, 4A, *and* 1A rights and we'll be back, once the pile of bodies of schoolchildren gets too high, for your next compromise session."
sex in innsbruck is great web place created for your own sexy contacts in EU
Sure, sure; Because Gov-Gods packing Gov-Guns should certainly be granted the authority to FORCE people to reproduce. It's all A-Okay as long as everyone agrees which WEEK they will start enslaving MY Wife as their "baby" (unicorn) incubator.
Wonder what the Nazi's excuse was for forced sterilization.
https://www.thoughtco.com/forced-sterilization-in-united-states-721308
"Nazi propaganda defended Germany's forced sterilization program by citing the U.S. as an ally in the eugenic movement."
I'm not sure how accurate that is; but I had to laught when I ran across it.
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom ( i.e. Fetal Ejection )
UR supporting FORCED reproduction.
Question, do you you have "Gov-Guns" set up as a hot key on you computer?
Nope; I just think it's important for people to remember that talking about legislative government isn't some run-of-the mill business/charity/travel-planning company.. It is different because it packs around GUNS that threaten and kill people. Pitching laws isn't a joke - it has the consequences of poking GUNS at people.
There is no evidence that you "think" at all.
Literally the handmaids tale.
But also, less restrictive than many EU utopias.
But also, LITERALLY the handmaids tale. Women under attack
'F*** America': Green Day Star Billie Joe Armstrong says he's renouncing his U.S. citizenship during London concert in wake of SCOTUS overruling Roe
The UK has far stricter abortion laws than California. Billy doesn't really think very hard, does he.
In a just world, his passport would have been immediately revoked.
"As you wish, Mr. Armstrong" said a state department spokesman.
A talent that will be missedA mendacious asshole who we can do without.I'm perfectly OK with him getting the f out. I got in front of the wave and loathed Green Day from the start.
Maybe he will leave when September ends.
I laughed the last time I saw him in concert. He spent many a song break saying "welcome to the revolution!"
My friends and I were like: "I don't think a privliiged, super rich, white guy understands the consequences of revolutions."
The Bee nails it: "Billie Joe Armstrong Announces He Will Now Just Be A Regular Idiot"
and don't forget to pay your estate tax on the way out the door. when you renounce, IRS looks at it like you're dead. that's why Alec Baldwin never followed through after Bush was elected and re-elected.
but, but, but.... Those other NON-USA nations are doing it...
What's your point; How unexceptional the USA can be?
10 states have already banned all abortions with no exceptions for rape or incest. The theologies are just getting started
Ah yes, the unfounded fear of the fictitious theocratic onslaught that never even was when fundamentalist Christianity was at its highest in modern times in the country.
How can you write this article and not mention that the "moderate" 15 weeks is the same as Mississippi/Dobbs, as the commenters quickly pointed out? It is literally the first thing that comes to mind when you hear "15 weeks." Or at least it should be.
Same as Florida too
Notice they’re not praising DeSantis for his abortion compromise. I don’t think I ever see praise for DeSantis here, despite him being not terrible on libertarian issues.
He's terrible on JournoList issues though, and that's far worse.
all of the right people have decided Desantis is to get the Trump treatment. 24/7 coverage if he does anything they think they can slightly criticize. No coverage if he even does something they like.
After all, they aren't journalists, they are opinion bloggers with an agenda. And the agenda is "blue no matter who"
I was trying to come up with a single thing Biden has done that wasn’t terrible since his election. Best I can come up with is managing to not declare war on Russia. So far.
Even there, we’ve thrown a ton of money funding Ukraine’s defense despite lacking a compelling state interest.
It's true that was the Mississippi law that was before the court in Dobbs.
Mississippi is one of the states with a "trigger law", however. That's previously passed legislation set to go into effect (to the fullest extent possible) if/when the Supreme Court overturns Roe/Casey.
Mississippi's abortion law in 10 days will be that abortion is banned throughout pregnancy except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger or a rape has been reported to law enforcement.
https://mississippitoday.org/2022/06/27/fitch-certifies-mississippis-trigger-law-banning-abortion-in-nearly-all-cases/
"It's true that was the Mississippi law that was before the court in Dobbs.
Mississippi is one of the states with a "trigger law", however. That's previously passed legislation set to go into effect (to the fullest extent possible) if/when the Supreme Court overturns Roe/Casey."
That abortion clinic, maybe, should not have sued?
And, you know what confuses me? Why an exception for rape after 15 weeks? (Nearly four, not three, months!) Is it typical for women to not know they were raped for half their pregnancy? You'd think they'd be certain of it even before conception was complete!
Well, first the poor dears have to figure out they were manipulated into initiating the sexual encounter, then they they have to realize the guy really isn't into them as a girlfriend and all that can take time.
Yep. "Rape" can take months to sort out, and might require many sessions with aggressive therapy to convince the victim.
So the #LibertarianRepublicansforRape caucus is meeting
#LibertariansForItNotTakingFourMonthsToDetermineIfYouWereRaped
It is conceivable that a woman could be beaten unconscious, raped, and not regain consciousness until several weeks in. I agree that the rape exception is really there to put an end to the "no statute of limitations on buyer's remorse" bullshit, but there is at least a shred of conceptualization that a woman could be raped or stealthed or whatever and not realize she's pregnant for a couple of months.
Never-mind all those trigger laws FORCING reproduction at the point of conception.
I know I am stupid and naive, but what about initiatives and even legal restrictions to reduced "unwanted" pregnancies?
Many on the left endorse the concept of deliberate, specific exchange of requests and permissions to engage in sexual activities at different levels. Perhaps include agreements and disclaimers about contraception and potential for pregnancy, recorded by a third party. Maybe a Sex Notary?
You mean a Sex Police?
If Pride Year 2022 has taught me anything, it's sex is no longer a private matter.
^EXACTLY.....
Rub a Pro-Life Republican and out pops a leftard.
That would be some strange band mix/reunion.
Anarchy in the Coalmine
That was my nickname in college
'I'll Be Watching You' remains pretty much unchanged.
Anything less than the official Democratic Party / ENB position — legal access to abortion care through the end of the 9th month of pregnancy — is totally unacceptable.
#3rdTrimesterAbortionAboveAll
PS — Youngkin probably stole that election from Terry M. (or whichever Democrat he ran against).
I found it interesting this this weeks podcast, "What's wrong with abortion federalism.." That Rand Paul and Ron Paul told reason that's it's nothing but a 'wedge' issue...
In other words; I reason that to be politicians trying to divide "The People" on wedge issues so they don't have a chance of keeping any POWER to themselves (i.e. Individual Liberty)...
And apparently with the Dobb's "Right to Privacy" EXCEPT for those 'evil' Women who don't want to reproduce. It appears to be working... Divide the people then put the Gov-Guns in charge.
I'm actually 100% on board with Youngkin on this.
And wow, am I seeing some very weird memes on the internet today. Remember how religious people would throw out the trop that in the absence of religion, people would have no morality and therefore would just kill children as there would be no moral foundation to stop them?
I'm seeing some disturbing pro-abortion memes that now suggests they were right.
I sometimes try to remind myself that the internet is not real life, and that the extremes you see are not representative of the average American. You've made the observation before that if you let pro-abortion folks talk long enough it gets awfully eugenics-y.
Bible thumping religion is the only thing stopping us from killing our kids, and we don't want any of that religion garbage here. Separation of Church and state!
If your god doesn't want you to kill a kid, that's between you and your god! Keep your religion off my body!
"I sometimes try to remind myself that the internet is not real life, and that the extremes you see are not representative of the average American. You've made the observation before that if you let pro-abortion folks talk long enough it gets awfully eugenics-y."
Yeah, so many of the abortion advocates justify the practice due to disabilities (thanks Bush family friend Ana Navarro) or for the purpose of "Well, I have a career I need to work on".
Roe is overturned because the ban that Reason NOW finds to be reasonable were viewed as unforgivably terrible and horrifying for women by abortion advocates just a week ago.
"Roe is overturned because the ban that Reason NOW finds to be reasonable were viewed as unforgivably terrible and horrifying for women by abortion advocates just a week ago."
Because the brave, liberty minded truth tellers at Reason can now speak freely without running afoul of their DNC overlords.
A taboo has been eliminated.
I think you hit it on the head.
They're in the bargaining phase of grief
The nutter extremes on both sides are out in force today. That does NOT mean they are representative of anyone except the nutter extremes.
Explain how abortion on demand after 14 weeks isn't nutty to begin with.
And that concerns YOU so much you have to push to pull out Gov-Guns on anyone who does???
The "pro choice" side is far closer to Youngkin, which was "The Handmaid's Tale" just a week ago, than the "Maybe a fourth trimester abortion is OK" crowd.
Ehh... about 35% of the population as a whole opposes ANY restrictions on abortion, which means about 2/3 of the pro-choice movement thinks mothers should be able to abort the day before delivery just because and that any attempt to prove a need is an intolerable limitation. I don't think they are as far from Pete Singer as you like to think, although it does seem to be an awfully small crowd for after birth abortions to be fair.
According to polls, so take with a grain of salt.
Late-term (third trimester) abortions account for a SMALL percentage of abortions anyway! People only resort to them for good reasons! About 1.3%. See https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2019/mar/07/abortion-late-term-what-pregnancy-stage The truth about late-term abortions in the US: they're very rare.
The aren't rare when people need excuses for Gov-Gun dictating over those other 'evil' people. Heck; they're the whole ball game.
Also see https://www.wired.com/story/roe-fall-limit-screening-fatal-congenital-conditions/ “Roe’s Fall Will Limit Screening for Fatal Congenital Conditions”. Self-righteous anti-abortion fanatics may soon heap HUGE helpings of extra grief on parents who will be FORCED to have Mom carry a soon-dead to birth! Shall we ALSO rub Mom’s nose in her forced futile efforts, in the form of the dead baby? Would THAT help satisfy your punishment boners as well?
“If Roe is overturned, the ripples could affect IVF and genetic testing of embryos, experts warn.” https://www.statnews.com/2022/06/06/roe-v-wade-preimplantation-genetic-testing-ivf-clinics/ Anti-abortionists just LOVE the babies SOOO much, that parents with serious genetic defects will now chose NOT to have babies at ALL! Also note that the freezer(s) at IVF clinics sometimes fail, embryos thaw out unexpectedly, and are thereby “killed”! In the new regime of things, prepare for the finger of blame (“murderers!”) to be pointed at the utility companies and manufacturers of freezers and back-up generators! The lawyers will now make YOU, the consumer, pay a LOT more for these things!
The above are worthy reads! SOME late-term pregnancies are GUARANTEED to NOT yield a baby that you can take home! Women WILL die, for lack of late-term abortions! (What is better, a few minutes or hours for a doomed infant (outside of the womb), plus a dead mom, or a living mom, who can live for many more years? Maybe even give birth to HEALTHY babies, later on?).
The existence of legitimate reasons to get a late term abortion does NOT justify completely unrestricted abortions. The pro-choice crowd on average does not support any restrictions at all currently. They used to go with safe legal and rare, but that was deemed too restrictive and shaming for them.
People like to pretend Kermit Gosnell was unique, but his entire workforce went along with it. There ARE people who will take a late term abortion just because giving birth would be inconvenient, and there are doctors who will perform them.
Also on board and shocked that Reason published this. What are the odds ENB will post a link to this tomorrow? If we can believe the polling this type of legislation reflects the public consensus. If not for Roe we could have been here decades ago.
contrary to the talking points and "librulls want to kill babies" BS, this is pretty close to where we HAVE been for decades. the law of the land was already consistent with public consensus. the vast majority of states restricted abortion after 20 weeks.... (which is where they say they are willing to compromise, here.) 5 weeks is a relatively small shift that only impacts 7% of abortions. (Virginia being where it is, not much of a drive for that 7%.... so that 5 weeks isn't really going to stop anything.... assuming doctors don't just write "15 weeks" on the charts.)
As I point out above:
Democratic "Compromise": You aren't allowed to be pregnant outside your home without presenting special needs and getting approval.
Republican Compromise: OK, you can carry your gun around for 15 weeks and shoot whatever leeches may latch onto your womb relatively without question but, after 15 weeks, if you kill anyone, except in the cases of rape, incest, and to save your own life, we'll try you as a criminal.
We will see how it plays out. Considering what Youngkin is, I expect that he's very close to a median voter in Virginia.
https://twitter.com/Lawrence/status/1540399974860685313?t=0xlrroCBhU6Pljv790yS6Q&s=19
When a 12 yr old girl gets raped by her father who legally has a gun concealed in his pocket, the Supreme Court says the child must give birth to her sister.
These memes are hilarious because that's literally not what the "Supreme Court Said".
Also, not sure what the gun has to do with it, unless he's saying that it makes it both rape and incest.
"R" Party is Our Party is the GOOD party! The Party of the Sex Pistols and the Sex Postals, with which you may go Postal with your Sex Pistol, and rape or deceive ALL the young babes, your "binders full of young women", whose binders bind them to be womb-slaves, and then MAKE them carry to term, their Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells! All Hail the Every Sperm Which Is Sacred!
All Hail Lying Lothario and His Lied-to-Harems! http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/#_Toc105750001
Hey SQRLSY. How's it going?
Hanging in there! Got any used cars for sale?
The market for used women used to be a LOT better (before abortion bans of course), but very soon here, your "pre-made families" are gonna get MUCH larger, and most men want to spread THEIR seed, and NOT support ready-made families! It is just a plain fact of biology! All the men who WORSHIT the fartilized egg smells? Somehow, they will NOT pony up, and chase after the babe with 5 kids from 5 fathers! To reduce abortion pressures, ya know? Geezum, I wonder why?
Yet these basics of sociobiology do NOT get taught in High School; WHY? Will the Bible-Bangers EVER let us teach truths?
Anyway, how are the used cars sales? Would you consider selling used women? Or is that an ENTIRELY too hard of a sale for you to tackle?
What color is your hair? And what was it yesterday?
I've changed my hairstyle, so many times, I don't know WHAT I look like!
life during wartime lyrics
Life during wartime in the BATTLE OF THE SEXES, when Daddy chases Lying Lothario with a shotgun, 'cause Lying Lothario's babes can't get abortions any more!
Me personally, I can see a high probability of getting shot by Daddy's shotgun in the cross-fire, but can NOT see me getting killed in the crossfire of the abortion-pill-sellers! The path to "social peace" is obvious to those with open eyes!
https://www.google.com/search?q=I%27ve+changed+my+hairstyle%2C+so+many+times%2C+I+don%27t+know+WHAT+I+look+like!&oq=I%27ve+changed+my+hairstyle%2C+so+many+times%2C+I+don%27t+know+WHAT+I+look+like!&aqs=chrome..69i57.39701510j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#wptab=s:H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgVuLVT9c3NEw2yisyTK5IfsRowS3w8sc9YSn9SWtOXmPU5OIKzsgvd80rySypFJLmYoOyBKX4uVB18uxi0ktJTUsszSmJL0lMsspOttLPLS3OTNYvSk3OL0rJzEuPT84pLS5JLbLKqSzKTC5exCqVk5mWqpBSWgSUVChPLCrJzE1VgEgCAAWvkoGaAAAA
this ain't no Mudd Club, or CBGB
Sqrlsy was a pedo, Sqrlsy was a cheat,
Sqrlsy and ol' Mickey Mouse stole a trans kid's meat,
I went to Sqrlsy's house, Sqrlsy was away,
I opened up his diary, and saw that he was gay.
Sqrlsy was a liar, Sqrlsy was a sham,
Sqrlsy went to Reason, and covered it with spam,
I went to Sqrlsy's house, Sqrlsy wasn't in,
I opened up the icebox and saw some poop within.
Sqrlsy made a shitpost, Sqrlsy was a troll,
When Sqrlsy sat on capslock, a hundred lines would roll,
I went to Sqrlsy's house, Sqrlsy was in bed,
I picked up his crackpipe and biffed him in the head.
+100 more
I think he's in NY, so referencing the concealed carry ruling
Wow, these people have some sick fantasies.
No fantasies are as sick as the fantasies of the self-righteous Nosenheimers and Buttinskies of this world, who ALWAYS imagine that, with just a WEEEE tad MORE POWER for THEM and THEIR Sacred Tribe, we could finally break on through to Utopia!
They NEVER stop to think about helping Mom wash the dishes!
PJ O’Rourke, “Everybody wants to save the earth; nobody wants to help Mom do the dishes.” Short generic: “Work is love made visible”. Longer version by Khalil Gibran, “Work is love made visible. And if you can't work with love, but only with distaste, it is better that you should leave your work and sit at the gate of the temple and take alms of the people who work with joy”.
Old-old-OLD-time religious: “You’ve observed how godless rulers throw their weight around, how quickly a little power goes to their heads. It’s not going to be that way with you. Whoever wants to be great must become a servant. Whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave.” Jesus, Matthew 20
SQRLSY One comments: I shoe-horned this in here into this web page, because I started out writing about the rampant poo-flinging (about politics) on the internet (forums, chat groups, etc.). This fits right in! And some things never change!
All the wind-bag self-righteous power pigs imagine themselves passing the perfect laws (and school-teaching rules for another example) in THEIR Holy Images, and all would be perfect! Meanwhile, no one (hardly anyone at least sometimes) is “helping Mom with the dishes”… CRT (“Critical Race Theory”) is a popular culture-politics fighting topic right now (early summer 2021). In this case, working peacefully with, and making friends with, people of other races (religions, political parties, etc.), and teaching all children (whenever you get a chance, and usually by example) to love all of their fellow humans, the trees, the bunny rabbits, and the Earth, and the human future, yada-yada… This is BORING! Akin to washing dishes!
Well, STOP that self-righteous bickering! Let’s all get off our asses, stop being arrogant know-it-all windbags, and go do some dishes!
So that's why Biden opposed it!
Sounds like Chinatown to me. Of course that was set in pre Roe hellhole America.
L.A. even
Publicizing their best and brightest.
"with exceptions for rape, incest, and cases where the mother's life is endangered."
"Rape" Ok. Its statistically rare, but OK. The mother's rights were violated. OK. Potential area for some compromise for sure though pro-lifers still prefer an innocent child not be punished amidst such a terrible tragedy. "Incest". Ok. Is it incestuous rape? If yes, then its redundant. See #1 "rape". If no, it does not belong here. "Cases where the mother's life is endanger". Ok. If mom dies, baby dies. Protection of the mother's life in such cases is already protected by law. See principle of double effect.
Abortion after rape penalizes the fetus for the father's crime.
Abortion after consensual incest penalizes the fetus for ... society's disgust?
And a Netflix special.
Remember gentlemen: Abortion is a no-no, unless you are consensually taking your daughter to plow town. Then society approves!
Uh, if you're going to say "Abortion after rape penalizes the fetus for the father's crime." then ignoring the dual facts that a) incest among first degree relatives generates a marked increase (50%, absolute, not relative) in both fatal and non-fatal birth defects and b) animals from chimpanzees to cockroaches notably avoid inbreeding, then ascribing incest exceptions to society's disgust seems a bit oddly, uh, deferential.
My thoughts there are that in the event of rape, there should be some awareness that there might be a pregnancy, which should be tested, at the given points in time, and result in a very early term abortion.
I think those who think an outright ban and those who want it in the third trimester for any reason should be disappointed as the extremists that they are from both ends of the spectrum.
Everyone else can come to some agreement that they can live with. Safe, Legal, Rare and preferably in the first trimester (caveats for medical exceptions)/.
I think you're ignoring both very heinous and very illusive forms of rape. I agree they are minimal and the exceptions should be minimal and you *should* be able to lean on a Governor to grant an exception. Still, however, charging a woman who's been locked in a rape dungeon for 15 weeks and 1 day or who's been under the thumb of an abusive husband for 15 weeks still seems a bit punitive.
And this is where common sense (remember that?) *has* to come into play. It's true to the point of triteness that it's impossible for a law to take all conceivable (ouch...not sure whether I intended that pun or not) circumstances into account, because (1) the law would be so complex that it's practically unenforceable, and thus unusable, and/or (2) circumstances change. I'm not going to go down the "Constitution is a living document" road, but you have to consider, for example, the fact that medical breakthroughs over the past 50 years have changed the abortion conversation. How many times in recent years have we seen things like earlier detection of fetal heartbeats and facial expressions, or in utero procedures that can potentially obviate the need for the "save the baby or save the mother" dilemma?
To your point about "15 weeks and 1 day", that's a classic case of an unanticipated circumstance that has to be considered. If you're a day late because of something beyond your control, that's one thing. If you're a day late because you just couldn't be bothered, that's something else entirely. *Someone* has to exercise judgment and common sense when these outlier situations arise.
[random half-serious thought] What if, instead of trying to enumerate all the situations that might be exceptions to allow for post-week 15 abortions, the rubric was altered to include some assessment of intent and agency? I realize this is a vast oversimplification of a complex question, but could something like "No abortions beyond 15 weeks, except in situations where (1) neither the pregnancy nor the timing of the procedure were/are within the mother's control, (2) when the pregnancy and timing are within the mother's control, the preponderance of the available evidence indicates that the procedure is not intended to be merely for the mother's convenience, or (3) when the life or long-term health of the mother is credibly at risk. For items (1) and (2), no procedure may take place after __ weeks" be a starting point for a compromise?
#1 addresses your rape dungeon/abusive husband scenario and the rape/incest scenario, #2 addresses the concerns of those who believe that abortion has made it overly convenient to ignore contraception "in the moment" (but it's the one I'm most squishy about), and #3 is the bottom line fail safe protecting the mother. [/random half serious thought]
Just the random musings of a guy who needs to get some sleep. Your mileage may vary.
Leave it to reason to spin the the silver lining after the left gets punched in the fucking nose.
Get the actual fuck out of here with this whole "suddenly moderate" horse cum.
Given that the Reason editors were all on board with the post-birth abortion proposals of some states, yes this is moderate and probably where the bulk of Americans fall.
Yes, and watch Democrats tearing him apart over it.
If Democrats were serious about "abortion rights", they would have passed the Freedom of Choice Act in 2009.
They could still get a filibuster-proof majority to pass a moderate abortion bill in Congress, something that would guarantee the right to have an abortion in case of incest, rape, and physical danger to the mother, and maybe abortion on demand within 6-12 weeks.
But Democrats aren't interested in compromise. Democrats aren't interested in helping women. Democrats want to keep this issue alive as long as possible so they can fundraise on it and demonize Republicans.
If Republicans are smart, they pass an abortion bill when they get into Congress, a bill that guarantees the right to have an abortion in case of incest, rape, and physical danger to the mother. Let Biden try to veto that. That would take most of the wind out of the sails of Democrats and progressives and take this issue off the table.
They should just take the language right out of a liberal European country.
If Republicans are smart, they pass an abortion bill when they get into Congress, a bill that guarantees the right to have an abortion in case of incest, rape, and physical danger to the mother. Let Biden try to veto that. That would take most of the wind out of the sails of Democrats and progressives and take this issue off the table.
Maybe. From what I have read, many European countries also have allowances to terminate pregnancies that threaten the mental health of the mother. I get that, in a strict sense, but the woke ethic is to claim that EVERYTHING is an unbearable mental burden, and so that would green-light just about all abortions.
Absolutely. Late/Later term abortion is totally allowed in many EU countries I researched if the health of the mother is in danger, or a medical consensus shows that the child will have severe disabilities.
And I understand there are religious people who would object to some of these things, especially the 'child having severe disabilities'.
I gotta say, as someone who's ok with abortion in the first trimester, and the latter exceptions, it's getting very tiring being bombarded with strawman bullshit about religious fundamentalism. It makes me very much not like the "pro choice" crowd. Makes one feel as if they're fundamentally dishonest.
"I gotta say, as someone who's ok with abortion in the first trimester, and the latter exceptions, it's getting very tiring being bombarded with strawman bullshit about religious fundamentalism. It makes me very much not like the "pro choice" crowd. Makes one feel as if they're fundamentally dishonest."
Yes, and the Venn diagram of that "pro choice" crowd and the "this house believes in science sign" crowd obviously has huge overlap. But they don't want to engage about the scientific details informing why many people view abortion (especially in the 2nd or 3rd trimester) as raising ethical/philosophical concerns that are quite different than getting an appendectomy.
(As an aside, I've always wanted to see polling on attitudes toward the broad scientific consensus about GMO foods from the "this house believes in science" people.)
Or even experimental vaccines that appear to INCREASE the probability the recipient will catch the virus the vaccine is supposed to prevent...
See constitutionalism.blogspot.com and use the search feature. Jon Roland was a sought after presenter at Travis County Libertarian Party get-togethers.
"Makes one feel as if they're fundamentally dishonest."
^^^ 100% ^^^
Makes one feel as if they're fundamentally dishonest.
And that's if you ignore all the other dishonesty. The idea that a reproductive rights in a non-hermaphroditic sexual species belongs solely to one gender is pretty inequitable and/or dishonest.
The republicans already did this. Collins and Murkowski wrote a bill that specifically codified Roe, but Schumer wouldn't even consider it. They're not interested in protecting "reproductive rights." They're interested in fundraising off it forever.
SCOTUS said the issue is one for the States, not merely that it was not an issue for SCOTUS. Meaning any Federal law attempting to control the issue would founder on the same rocks.
A constitutional amendment is the only way to address this nationwide so long as the ruling stands.
All Republicans need politically is a minimal federal guarantee and leave the rest to the states. Doing anything more would that would be politically unwise.
If Republicans are smart, they pass an abortion bill when they get into Congress, a bill that guarantees the right to have an abortion in case of incest, rape, and physical danger to the mother. Let Biden try to veto that. That would take most of the wind out of the sails of Democrats and progressives and take this issue off the table.
"If Democrats are smart, they pass a gun control bill when they get into Congress, a bill that guarantees the right to own a gun for self-defense. Let the next Republican president try to veto that. That would take most of the wind out of the sails of Republicans and conservatives and take this issue off the table."
Do you think that is how it would work? Of course not.
2nd amendment, bitch.
Get aborted.
I think you misunderstood. I'm suggesting that Republicans pass a minimal federal guarantee of abortion rights across all states without any federal restrictions, and leave the restrictions to the states. That would get the issue off the table nationally because the vast majority of voters would be satisfied.
Democrats passing a minimal gun rights bill wouldn't make any difference since gun rights are already guaranteed by the 2A.
Republican politicians would not be satisfied. Because the end goal here is a nationwide ban on abortion.
Cite?
pretty much any pro-life advocacy group includes in it's mission statement that they want to completely abolish abortion...... that does not leave much room for any level of protection for it, even under the conditions most people think it should be allowed.
They want to completely expand totalitarian government healthcare, but those pesky individual rights exercised by women got in the way. One or the other had to go.
Yeah, that's the kind of stupid, partisan, demonizing crap you actually believe. No wonder you can't make sense of the political landscape.
Actually you're full of it. Youngkins' 15 week proposal sounds about right to me, but, we have Democrats who are saying that they won't accept even a reasonable proposal if it comes from Republicans. I'm pretty sure that the Republicans could propose an abortion law with no restrictions and the Democrats would be against it.
"At an abortion rights rally on Friday, state Sen. Jennifer L. McClellan (D–Richmond) said, "We're going to say no. We're going to say to the party that professes to care about parental rights, you will not insert yourself into the decision whether to become a parent in the first place.""
Kind of a desperate strawman position you are having to take on this.
I tell you what, it's been hard being pro-choice lately with all of the wild, completely false, and just downright repugnant arguments pro-choice people have been making.
Democrats passing a minimal gun rights bill wouldn't make any difference since gun rights are already guaranteed by the 2A.
Not to mention they've infringed the 2A further than anti-abortionists have infringed the 'right to abort'. A minimal gun control bill would be a step back for them.
Common sense compromise on gun control:
You can carry a gun for 15 weeks and shoot any clumps of cells that mooch off of you, no matter how irresponsible you act, no questions asked. After 15 weeks, you're only allowed to shoot someone in response to a rape, incest, or save your own life, otherwise, you'll be tried as a criminal.
Fanatical Republican "compromise" on abortion:
No one under the age of 18 can obtain an abortion under any circumstance. Abortions after the first trimester is forbidden to anyone under the age of 21. You must pass a federal background check before obtaining an abortion. The Federal Government has up to 3 days to reconsider it's approval of a background check. States and local municipalities are free to impose their own regulations. If you travel out of state to change an abortion, the abortion provider is legally required to respect the laws of your home state regarding abortion. Abortions performed above an acceptable rate or with certain tools are outright banned to anyone/everyone. States are encouraged to set up programs so that anonymous callers to LEOs can impose invoke 'abortion flag laws' to prevent you from aborting at will. Laws against unlicensed abortion providers providing service on private property represents a loophole in need of closing.
The US Legislature has NO authority to regulate people's pregnancy..
I knew this was going to happen....
F'En Pro-Lifers...
Too stupid to realize what they just did.
I know you aren't too bright, but good call on this. The USSC said the constitution gave neither the Federal courts or the rest of the Federal government jurisdiction over peoples pregnancy.
The individual states however, are another matter.
So much angst, smoke and mirrors. The original Roe v. Wade decision said states had no compelling interest in restricting abortions, for the woman's health, until the 13th week. And no compelling reason in restricting abortion, in regards the fetus, until it became viable around the 24th week. After that decision, many states became far more liberal in allowing abortions. Doesn't the overturning of Roe v. Wade still allow the voters in the states to be as liberal as they wish? Yes, a few may outlaw it completely, but far more will end up with the Youngkin compromise and the state map will not be much different than what it was previously under Roe v. Wade. In fact, the uproar may give pro-choicers the opportunity to convince voters to have states become even more liberal than they were under Roe v. Wade.
Doesn't the overturning of Roe v. Wade still allow the voters in the states to be as liberal as they wish?
Yes. So what we're going to end up with is in some states, women can throw their newborn baby out the window of their car so long as the umbilical cord is still attached when its skull hits the pavement at 70mph, and other states that will ban the procedure outright.
California, my home state (unfortunately), will now make abortion mandatory.
Along with the vaccine. And you must be masked.
Oh, and you must be vaccinated to get an abortion!
If they get the vaccine before the abortion, they might just need the first procedure to accomplish the second
Dad?
Who's going to stop them? The Supreme Court just ruled it's no concern of there's. Specifically it ruled that the "right to privacy" (having a PERSONAL life with PERSONAL CHOICES) still applies EXCEPT for those 'evil' pregnant women.....
Now THAT is a self-solving problem so long as we can keep all the liberals from leaving that state!
Federalism; need moar of that. There is no way this country is going to continue to operate under one big tent.
The Big Tent of WAY LESS Individual Liberty and FAR more Gov-Gun authority making every F'En decision???? /s
Oh wait; Maybe that's the very curse in this country that is making it inoperable.
How dare you! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEStsLJZhzo
So now bans on abortion after tge 15th week are cool..
Somehow, I don't think that was the answer five days ago.
uhhh i was told there was a stable consensus for decades? So this cannot be true
You motherfuckers just labeled 15-week states as red! Holy shit.
I had a really nice poster in my room in the sixties; "Reality is a crutch".
I had a really nice poster in my room in the eighties - Samantha Fox, topless.
word.
I love how so many people here have fallen for the con.
Mississippi: Hey SCOTUS, we only want to ban abortions after 15 weeks. Can you listen to our case?
SCOTUS: Sure, we'll listen.
Mississippi: Akshually, we want to completely overturn Roe v. Wade.
SCOTUS: Akshually, we totally agree!
Mississippi: Sucker! We've got this trigger law banning most abortions the moment Roe v. Wade is overturned. We never were interested in stopping only at 15 weeks. Thanks for doing us a solid, SCOTUS!
when do you think we should consider abortion restrictions jeff?
The more I think about it, the more I think that the "quickening" standard is probably about as fair as it is going to get.
And we see the idiocy that is jeff. Yes. Let's use 10th century science!
"the "quickening" standard"
SCIENCE!
So... 15 - 20 weeks?
When there is undeniable, empirical evidence to even external observers that a new life has been created.
So, fetal heartbeat.
Somewhere between 6 and 12 weeks depending on the quality of your external device.
Damn you science for evolving past observable assertions!!!!!
Per the IVF thread, sometime in 3022 chemjeff and his ilk will be arguing the use of 2022 definitions of what constitutes a viable embryo to defend generating and discarding them. Damned science-denying, backwards-thinking conservatives!
The irony being that Jeff also pushes sex =/= gender as science even though people can observe a dick on a person. Well maybe not his own. Because he is fat.
A little ironic how you are making the counter point to the point you think you are making.
So the external observation is that if I am needed to sit there and squeeze a pump to watch a heart-beat.... Check....
....Then you have an excuse to threaten me with a GUN to keep squeezing a pump to watch a heart-beat....
Oh that lovely political "science"........ (i.e. Propaganda)
Then there is *REALITY*....
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
UR supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction.....
Now try to make that one sound silly. Gooooo.
Quoth the male eager to see other males with service pistols force that medieval homily on women.
Well, returning the question to the states is going to result in restrictions greater than we have now... in some states. If Mississippi didn't have the "trigger law" there was really nothing stopping them from passing a more restrictive version next year, or the year after.
More revealing of his ignorance is that these laws weren't wiped off the books before Dobbs.
They obviously weren't a priority for the citizenry, ergo we can safely conclude that the people in those states have limited trimestial problems with them.
I know that. The point is the comments about treating Mississippi's 15-week law as a "compromise". It was never offered as a good-faith compromise.
You mean when democrats sued to stop it? Because if they didn't sue it wouldn't have made it to the USSC you fucking retard.
In fairness, it was intended to provoke the left to sue and then to cause SCOTUS to revisit Roe. The irony is how the left played right into their hands on it.
"It was never offered as a good-faith compromise."
It WAS a compromise. A total ban was their desire, they compromised on 15 weeks.
Abortion industry sued them for that.
Jeff doesn't understand good faith arguments or compromise, he only has the morning DNC talking points for programming.
Ya; It was a compromise alright....... A bloody slaughter of Individual Liberty in every pregnant woman's PERSONAL LIFE.... Now their 'slave' status just awarded them as being property of the State... Yeah; We now have people amongst us who don't own themselves. /s
A compromise to dismiss original intent of the US Constitution that is suppose to PROTECT Individual Liberty via the Supreme Court (via OPPRESSING Government Tyranny) now the Almighty State's Gov-Guns gets ownership of those 'pregnant women' slaves. Slaves for all us [WE] voters...!!! Who couldn't be happier about that... /s F'En Morons.
Ahh so it's illegitimate because their end goal was obvious?
Reality check: SCOTUS either was going to uphold Roe, or not. There was no other way Dobbs could have been decided.
Chemjeff,
Seriously, that's a retarded take. Do you really think the SCOTUS didn't know Mississippi had a trigger law? The question before the Court was whether Roe was constitutional or not. I'm pretty sure the well understood that Mississippi had a trigger law. They didn't care. They believed Roe wasn't constitutional on its face. Whether Mississippi wanted to pass a complete ban or just the fifteen week ban is beside the point to that question. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be an unelected, unaccountable, super-legislature responding to the policies of lesser mortals. Their oath is one of fealty to the Constitution.
So was Jeff Davis' oath. But his constituents were not eager to allow the mulatto gals from whom they demanded sexual submission the right to say no. The Kangaroo (Palito, Long Dong) and Trumpanzee judges have pleased their mob by declaring women are not individuals but unformed potential offspring--slave fodder--are. HL Mencken offered a cash reward to anyone who could point out where in the Bible it says slavery is bad. No takers. Yet everywhere it says that faith, assumptions, suppositions, assertions are good.
That's because leftists are so fucking predictable. A 15 week limit, which is now being hailed as reasonable, and is pretty much in line with most industrialized nations as well as the rest of normal America's sentiments on abortion, was NEVER going to be accepted by the pro-abortion cult. Do you think it was a mystery that it was eventually going to end up at SCOTUS because the pro-aborts sue over any and every limitation placed on abortion?
So, if the MS law triggered a full ban in MS, that's the leftist's own fault for pushing it to the court. They've just been counting on a squishy court that's too afraid to touch Roe.
You can also blame the democrats, who've failed to pass any national legislation any time they've have a majority. They could have rolled it thru with Obama, but instead they spent all their political capital on Obamacare. Or, they could have sponsored the Collins-Murkowski bill before the ruling dropped- which had at least 2 guaranteed GOP votes, definitely Manchin and Sinema, and probably a few other GOP votes- but they pushed their extremist bill that they knew wouldn't pass.
Or they could have just stayed moderate, not shifted hard left, and gotten DESTROYED in state level elections across the country so GOP state legislatures have supermajorities.
You should just face it, Jeffy. Abortion is not a serious issue for the left. It's a fundraising cash cow. Why would they solve a problem that generates huge amounts of money for them?
What abortion politics are for Team Blue, gun politics are for Team Red.
- Both believe their position represents fundamental human liberties that must be jealously guarded
- Neither trusts the other side at all to act in good faith
- Both believe any compromise represents the slippery slope to a total ban
- Both derive a great deal of electoral and fundraising power by stoking fears that the other side will institute a total ban
So if you want to know why Team Blue did not agree to a "reasonable compromise" on abortion restrictions, it is the same reason why Team Red does not agree to a "reasonable compromise" on gun restrictions.
And before you say "but abortion isn't in the Constitution, it is only based on a twisted interpretation of it", they would say the same thing about guns - that the current regime of a nearly unlimited individual right to own a gun is based on a twisted interpretation of the Second Amendment that does not preclude what they believe to be reasonable limitations on that right.
And yes both sides overplay their hands from time to time and push for the whole loaf when they could have gotten half a loaf. That is true.
Also I find it interesting that you frame this discussion in terms of Team Blue not being reasonable in the face of Team Red's proposals. This implies that Team Red represents the normative standard and Team Blue is unreasonably deviating from this normative standard. The Team Red position of near-total bans on abortion is not the mainstream position. Why is it Team Blue's obligation to try to accommodate Team Red? Maybe it ought to be Team Red's obligation to be a little bit more reasonable and not push for near-total abortion bans.
I hate to break it to you, but the country is way closer to pro-life extreme than the pro-abort extreme.
So yes, Team Red is the normative on both guns and abortion.
60% in recent surveys were supportive of the heartbeat standard.
I think the nuance to that argument though is if people had to choose between total bans and unlimited allowance, the majority would choose unlimited allowance in order to avoid total bans.
seems like the two sides are diametrically opposed. In such a scenario a top-down law for all is very likely to make a lot of the country mad.
If only we had a system where the federal govt provided protections for some very basic list of rights and left everything else up to the states, and let people sort out based on which state they like
Neither the National Socialist Republicans nor International Socialist democrats know how to define: a right; power; government. Very few or no Dems know the definition of energy or its units of measure, much less relative hazards, just as no or almost no GOP voter has any clue what modern free-market drugs are or how safety comparisons stack up against the stone-age drugs they failed to ban. Yet both demand the power to coerce us at gunpoint to obey their superstitious credulity.
15 weeks is not a near-total ban. That's more than one third of the pregnancy.
"Mississippi: Sucker! We've got this trigger law banning most abortions the moment Roe v. Wade is overturned. We never were interested in stopping only at 15 weeks. Thanks for doing us a solid, SCOTUS!"
Perhaps the abortion industry should not have sued over the 15 week ban.
If Team Blue offered a "reasonable compromise" and proposed, say, only banning AR-15's, instead of all guns, would you want Team Red and gun-rights groups to sue to stop this proposal?
Are we playing the game where we ignore the constitution for one side but not the other??
"If Team Blue offered a "reasonable compromise" and proposed, say, only banning AR-15's, instead of all guns, would you want Team Red and gun-rights groups to sue to stop this proposal?"
If Team Blue or Red wished to support outlawing dangerous speech without government approval, would you support it?
I'd oppose your scenario if either side proposed it.
Huh, getting some wafting off the internet today that Count Dankula presented himself as a Supreme Court justice in the Dobbs decision and he literally fooled tens of thousands of twitter users and was the recipient of a cascade of violent threats and angry responses, some from blue checkmarks, some of those blue checkmarks were journalists.
This is the kind of shit that the Daily Show would fake and Dankula did it for real.
Who?
The guy in the UK who taught his girl
The guy in the UK who taught his girlfriend's dog to do a nazi salute as a joke.
And we are supposed to care about his opinion why?
I don't really care about his opinions. The Twitter pitchfork mobs, including professional journalists, issuing death threats OTOH has all kinds of far-reaching implications.
I would assume that if some young teen girl posted about getting an abortion on Twitter and got a mob issuing death threats at her, you'd be concerned too... if I didn't already know you were an immoral, unprincipled hack.
OT but with high fuel prices, gov dictating corporate governance, punishing dissenters, and now 2 train derailment... Is atlas shrugged real now?
We’re still waiting on a Scandinavian pirate.
That was my nickname in high school
In 1984 there is a sequence where Winston is listening to a speech. In that speech the crowd is informed that regretfully, the chocolate ration has been reduced to 15 grams. The crowd does the big sigh thing and a few more 'bad news' bits are put forward. Then the speech moves to inspiration, to rallying the people, to getting everyone feeling fervent and patriotic. It is announced during this phase that, thanks to some major victories, the chocolate ration has been raised to 15 grams. And the crowd goes wild cheering.
I find it incredibly poignant that the number in both these cases is 15.
LOL
https://twitter.com/SenLouiseLucas/status/1540343649795555336?t=DOrEL5bmDuTO6cpb6cJ51g&s=19
I am 78 years old. Women in my generation had no right to choose. Many were injured or died trying to give themselves a choice through grizzly back alley options.
So when Glenn Youngkin wants to take us back to those days I will be there to stop him. NEVER AGAIN.
"Many were injured or died trying to give themselves a choice through grizzly back alley options."
GOOD!
If you're too lazy and retarded to use birth control and chose to fuck, but now want to kill your kid, screw you.
They hand out condoms, the pill and diaphragms to teens like ice and cream these days. There's no fucking excuse.
Sorry to hear you can't get laid mother, but not a surprise.
Screw off 4 bit
Mother's Regret is still trying to whine and bluster agreement from non-pinheads? LIBERTARIAN non-pinheads to boot? There you have strutting proof of the wisdom of defending a mother's right to forfend herself from enslavement--especially enslavement to acephalic offspring. Random mutations generating brain-damaged fetuses are not appropriate objects of worship to be cultivated at gunpoint in the unwilling.
They hand out condoms, the pill and diaphragms to teens like ice and cream these days. There's no fucking excuse.
Also, the stat is bullshit anachronistic rhetoric more broadly. 78 yrs. old takes us all the way back to 1944. The technology to perform abortions beyond "Cram a foreign object up there, hope a baby pops out, kill it, and hope the mother doesn't suffer the almost 1-in-10 chance (and certainly greater than 1-in-100 chance) of dying during childbirth like her mothers have for hundreds of years." didn't exist.
It's really rather like saying, "Many women were killed by polio, I will be there to stop Youngkin from banning vaccine mandates. Women have a right to contract polio and refuse to get vaccinated as they see fit, even if everyone else is vaccinated."
So, did you have contraceptive pills when you were a tike NARDZ? Norplant contraceptives in case you might forget to take pills? Morning-after pills to prevent an egg from implanting in the uterus if you failed to take your pill OR get a Norplant?
It is a shame you are so out of touch in your 78 yr old dotage.
Reason ally
https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1540352244888899584?t=ZwMiv8VYRRvoEyfDnrbu5A&s=19
In case you ever thought youngkin was a moderate
[Link]
This statement appears to be what she's objecting to
JUST IN: @GovernorVA weighs in on todays #SCOTUS decision.
"The truth is, Virginians want fewer abortions, not more abortions."
He is asking 4 @VA_GOP members to help find consensus on new abortion legislation that can be introduced in the 2023 session.
https://twitter.com/timkaine/status/1541426430617309184?t=L--IF7WMPHEMG0ePOGkiPA&s=19
Abortion is still legal in Virginia, but Governor Youngkin wants to ban it after 15 weeks, and Republicans in Congress want to implement a national ban on abortion. I’m working in the Senate to protect the right to choose legislatively—we’re not going to stop pushing for this.
The idea of a 15-week limit might be a good compromise but will anti-abortionist accept that limit. The goal has always been to eliminate abortion and I suspect that most states control by Republicans will be looking to eliminate abortion altogether.
Second problem is the remaining 7.3 percent of abortion after 13 weeks. It would be easy if it was just cases of procrastination, but I suspect you are going end up needing a case-by-case review of these cases. Who make the final decision on what is acceptable and what is not? What will be the standard for deciding? If the mother's life is not threatened, but her health is affected, say the possibility of loss of kidney function, can we terminate the pregnancy? Is sex selective abortion acceptable if there is a family history of sex-linked genetic disorders, say hemophilia? There can still be a large number of reasons for an abortion later in pregnancy.
Your belief that Republicans are the problem is laughable. You could easily get 10 moderate Republicans on board. That's not the problem.
Obama made a campaign promise to pass the Freedom of Choice act right away, he had the votes in 2009, and he dropped it. Democrats aren't interested in a 15 week compromise, they aren't even interested in getting everything they want. Democrats want the current situation to continue, where they can demonize Republicans and pretend that they are the champions of women's rights while doing nothing. It's the same game they have been playing with gay marriage, except that time, they actually first signed on for DOMA.
The same people who decide whether you can have a kidney transplant or whether you can take opioids: doctors. It works fine in dozens of nations.
"Democrats want the current situation to continue, where they can demonize Republicans and pretend that they are the champions of women's rights"
This. They have given the game up on day 1. They all immediately put out mass fundraising messages with ZERO plan to do anything despite complete control of the legislature. Raise money on it, hopefully get votes on it, and say "aww shucks its those damn R's!". That is the plan. Nothing more
If this was so important they could attempt to put forward some kind of compromise legislation. But that is the opposite of what they want. Roe is useless to them when its solved.
So, you are willing to let doctors make the decisions on abortions after 15 weeks? I have no problem with that idea. But you cannot come back then and question the doctor's decision after you give them the authority to make that decision.
Long as they can be disciplined for fraud.
And what does that mean? SCOTUS just ruled that a doctor writing a prescription in good faith cannot be sued. Does the same apply here? If a doctor provides a post 15 week abortion in good faith, will that be accepted?
Take a breath.
If the standard of the law is likewise mens rea then yeah, the state will have to prove the physician acted in bad faith - intending the death of the fetus regardless of the necessity of the procedure.
So, what you are saying and as I predicted every instance of a post 15-week abortion would be reviewed and addressed on a case-by-case basis. Any of these procedures could be challenged in a court of law.
Laconic could
"And what does that mean? SCOTUS just ruled that a doctor writing a prescription in good faith cannot be sued."
Notice how you said "good faith"?
Fraud is the opposite of that.
Would you accept the doctor's good faith opinion?
I think you're trying too hard to be confrontational here.
Yes, people would accept the doctor's good faith opinion, but would still require it to actually be a good faith opinion.
I'd have to review his/her record on covid first
Not quite. SCOTUS ruled that the jury received incorrect instructions about the conditions under which a doctor is guilty and sent the case back.
Also, "in good faith" has a narrower meaning than you may understand it to have.
I couldn't care less about what women do with their fetuses.
I do care that Democrats are using this issue to destroy the rule of law, demonize SCOTUS, and destroy subsidiarity.
Is sex selective abortion acceptable if there is a family history of sex-linked genetic disorders, say hemophilia?
This is a non-sequitur on a couple of levels. If the father is known, genetic disorders can be predicted prior to and at any point during conception. If the father is not known and a rape occurred, the abortion is accepted. If the father is not known and no rape occurred, then the rape law applies without exception and any exception for disorders applies to all disorders (and "disorders") regardless of genetics (and the "let's wait and see if the baby's disabled before we abort it" position is still pretty morally repugnant).
It doesn't surprise me and makes me a bit thankful that you retards don't reproduce.
Great article,thanks for sharing with us!
A 15 week limit on abortion is reasonable and moderate if and only if it is proposed & accepted in good faith. If it's seen as a "good first step" toward a total ban, something offered to outwit those eeeevil pro-choice types, then not so much.
The abortion-rights types aren't much the gun-rights types, but the opponents of abortion are a LOT like the opponents of gun ownership.
Yes, there is a lot of similarity between how Team Blue treats abortion, and how Team Red treats guns.
It's almost as if Team Blue values the 'right' to murder and Team Red values the right to protect yourself AGAINST murderers.
No, it's a similarity between how Team Red treats abortion and how Team Blue treats guns.
There is, however, not a lot of legal similarity.
The right to bear arms is explicitly constitutionally guaranteed and incorporated under the 14A.
A hypothetical "right to an abortion" is neither.
Kind if like the pro-abortion types offered the 20 weeks as a safe legal and rare position in good faith only to push to "celebrate my 15th taxpayer funded abortion" almost immediately? Fuck that dishonest bullshit.
True, except that there IS a Second Amendment. There is not an amendment declaring women "other persons", "bond servants" or "property" as was commonly assumed true of they were back or condemned to pay restitution for some actual crime. That "quadroon ball" mentality lost the war and the 13th Amendment made it a crime to enslave any person, black, white, male or female. As Republicans found out on January 6, 2020, there IS a 19th Amendment bringing to justice the Army of God fanatics attempting to violate the 13th, 14th and 9th.
"Jan. 6 committee unexpectedly adds hearing for Tuesday"
Funny, on the same day we are seeing some pretty nasty Hunter Biden / Joe Biden messages, they democrats organized an emergency hearing so their minions never have to hear about more corrupt shit the Brandon family did
" it’s going to be printed tomorrow in the Times, was good,” Biden continued. “I think you’re clear."
"Joe Biden said, “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” His former press secretary, Jen Psaki, and his chief of staff, Ron Klain, have both repeatedly echoed that sentiment."
So Hunter is getting millions of dollars from shady tycoons in multiple countries (some of which went to Joe), and Biden is aware of this, and colluding with the NYT to run cover for him?
What did we impeach Trump for again? Asking Ukraine to basically confirm the Biden's are the criminals they seem to be proving they are?
Kushner got $2 billion from the Saudis at the end of Trump's term. Ivanka got a secret deal with China on marketing and production. Don jr admitted Russia was their most fertile ground for deals. Don senior owned a DC hotel which those seeking favor stayed at and overcharged staff to stay at his hotels which were often not even close to an event.
This must be why you're in favor of a powerful central government, right?
No one cares about Hunter Biden except right-wing media.
Not really sure why anyone should care about Hunter Biden either. He wasn't the one elected. He appears to have made many poor choices in his life. That is too bad, but hardly a national scandal.
Leftists like yourself don't care about corruption from the left. This is true.
"Not really sure why anyone should care about Hunter Biden either. He wasn't the one elected."
They only shared bank accounts and Biden committed (and boasted about) a quid pro quo to protect his son.
But to leftists like Jeff this isn't corruption and doesn't need to be looked at if done by team jackass but pre-existing business contracts with no change in terms or usage are proof of corruption by Republicans. Proof these marxists have no principle but a thirst for power and dominion over others.
Well, that's because left wing media are simply not covering the story correctly so that people like you remain in the dark.
Correct. People care about the Hunter Biden story because it is linked to corruption and serious lies by Joe Biden.
The best abortion policy is to leave the matter to the medical and moral judgment of doctors and their patients. We cannot effectively legislate the right course of action in each and every case where abortion may be necessary to save the life (or protect the health) of a mother.
But if we're talking about bans, a late-term abortion ban can be viewed as a reasonable compromise, provided that it has a medical exception that can be consistently relied upon, akin to those in European nations with a similar regime. The problem is that a lot of these exceptions are framed around a mother's "life," rather than "health." In countries with a similarly-narrow exception, the way this exception is applied often means that a woman with a non-viable pregnancy is forced to allow that pregnancy to advance to the point where it actually endangers the woman's life - rather than permitting an abortion earlier, when it can be done more safely and without endangering the mother. An exception framed around a mother's "health" would allow doctors to make a better medical judgment, and save more mothers from potentially fatal pregnancy complications.
That aside, ban proponents who are in favor of late-term abortion bans with only narrow exceptions for a mother's life (or health) still need to grapple with what to do with the children born who might otherwise have been aborted late in pregnancy. Because the vast majority of these children will be congenitally ill, severely disabled, completely dependent on caretakers, or short-lived. That's why they're getting aborted late in pregnancy, in the first place - they have abnormalities that aren't detected until that stage of development.
I appreciate that some advocates embrace a life of servitude to children who are barely sentient. But imposing that kind of life on women is in many ways an even more significant exercise of state power of a woman's autonomy than requiring her to carry to term in the first place. These children can survive for years, possibly suffering the whole time from an existence very few of us would voluntarily choose for ourselves. The care these children require is massively expensive and can disrupt families, careers, lives. States that ban late-term abortions will see more of them. So it would be fair to expect ban proponents to have some explanation of how we, as a society, are supposed to bear the burden of these children. If you have no proposal, then the abortion ban needs to have an exception for these kinds of late-term abortions.
^ behold the bargaining phase.
You mean, precisely what the Supreme Court feels that we ought to be doing, when it comes to abortion?
I have always been realistic about the rightwing fever dream and its effects on the Supreme Court. So Alito has overruled Roe with an incoherent, poorly-reasoned opinion that lays bare the newly hyper-conservative Court's political agenda for the foreseeable future. The only question, in my view, is what to do next about it.
Gloat about it while you can, chucklehead. Just wait until the conservatives come to ban your Japanese sex dolls.
"I have always been realistic about the rightwing fever dream and its effects on the Supreme Court. So Alito has overruled Roe with an incoherent, poorly-reasoned opinion"
Because you don't get it does not mean it is poorly reasoned.
Roe was poorly reasoned. Dobbs makes sense.
"Gloat about it while you can, chucklehead. Just wait until the conservatives come to ban your Japanese sex dolls."
More likely that comes from progressives, who find sexism and cultural appropriation so distasteful.
But keep asking for compromise with people you denigrate incessantly. That certainly will win the case for you.
I get it. It is poorly reasoned, and demonstrates an almost ridiculous level of special pleading, selective application of historical and legal precedents, and hypocrisy.
Roe came out of decades of jurisprudence and a judicial philosophy that looked to the structure of the Constitution in order to "imply" rights that aren't specifically spelled out in its text. That jurisprudence expands well beyond Roe and even beyond privacy rights more generally. There are several liberties that we currently take for granted that are at risk, if the Court chooses to go further down this path.
I appreciate that not everyone believes that you can properly "imply" such rights, as a matter of constitutional interpretation. But I find it puzzling why any small-government conservative or libertarian would oppose doing so. Do you want the government to regulate what you do in the bedroom?
I suppose this demonstrate your brain-rot pretty well, because you can't help but make a partisan swipe about who might propose such a ban - while ignoring that my point is about such a ban being preposterously intrusive in the first place.
It doesn't really matter whether it comes from conservatives or progressives. If progressives want to ban having sex with Japanese sex dolls, Dobbs will make it easier for them to do so.
You are making the mistake of thinking that I ever made the mistake of believing you lot were capable of engaging in good-faith compromise. You have lied, cheated, and stolen to get this country to this remarkable turning point in its history. Do you think I am interested in trying to compromise with you?
The 1972 LP plank was itself a compromise. We know the elections are rigged, but need to earn spoiler votes to pressure Kleptocracy parties into repealing communist and fascist laws in self-defense, that is, to avoid being tossed out on their snouts. The Liberal Party in 1931 demanded repeal of the Volstead Act and 18th Amendment, and instead got the 20th and 21st Amendments. The 20th sped up how quickly an economy-wrecking Administration can be thrown out on its snout. That, not the clawback 21st, saved America from mystical fanatics.
The solution is patent. First the Libertarian Party needed to be replaced in an Anschluss by girl-bullying mystics willing to lie about everything else. That ended the small lingering danger of us again spoiling a top slot election with women already dismissing us as cowards since 1980. But even the grudging concession that women might be worth collectivized rights such as for pets, cattle and other non-individual chattel or "bond-servants" was too much for Sharia Law mystics. So they got voted out on their snouts. 19th Amendment saves the 9th. Mencken has already suggested how to make a vacancy on the Suprema Corte.
I have always been realistic about the rightwing fever dream
The same way Obama has always been pro-immigration and HRC has always been pro-Gay Marriage. You're stance has never been shifting in the political winds, it's always principled and realistic and you're just evolving!
A politically motivated decision on abortion would have been to declare unborn children to be persons under the law and outlaw abortion. They could easily have justified that. Instead, they took the moderate and logically correct position of overturning Roe with the effect of leaving it up to legislatures.
Even RBG thought that Roe was a lousy decision with politically bad consequences.
Alito told you clearly that they are not going to do what people like you accuse them off in your fever dreams. Justice Thomas (correctly!) pointed out that they really should revisit a number of cases, but the other conservative justices are too restrained to do that.
That's easy: you'll go to the state legislatures and make your case. About a third will be very permissive, about a third will be moderately permissive, and about a third will be restrictive. And then you'll live with it.
And don't expect help from Democrats at the national level. They could have passed the Freedom of Choice Act in 2009; Obama had promised that during the campaign, but then in 2009, said "it wasn't a priority". Democrats are playing you for a fool.
"But if we're talking about bans, a late-term abortion ban can be viewed as a reasonable compromise, provided that it has a medical exception that can be consistently relied upon, akin to those in European nations with a similar regime."
Can you provide a single situation where a late-term abortion is required? There is no difference, at all, between delivering the baby alive and killing it at that point.
"An exception framed around a mother's "health" would allow doctors to make a better medical judgment, and save more mothers from potentially fatal pregnancy complications."
That was done here. And courts ruled "health" to include "mental health" which meant there were no actual limitations at all. So that is a non-starter.
"That aside, ban proponents who are in favor of late-term abortion bans with only narrow exceptions for a mother's life (or health) still need to grapple with what to do with the children born who might otherwise have been aborted late in pregnancy."
We are quite supportive of adoption, which has a massive backlog.
"I appreciate that some advocates embrace a life of servitude to children who are barely sentient."
You are arguing for eugenics here.
I hate to abet your willful ignorance, but it is not hard to google this question:
There are also medical conditions that arise late in pregnancy (either due to the pregnancy or coincident with it) that require an abortion for the mother to survive.
For many of these fetuses, delivering it alive is tantamount to killing it. Or inducing labor is tantamount to killing the mother.
A small number of pregnancies are aborted late in the term for reasons unrelated to the health or life of the mother. The most common reasons for these late-term abortions are barriers to access/cost. So the best way to reduce these kinds of late-term abortions is to ensure that people have access to the reproductive care they are responsibly seeking out, when they need it.
Personally, I view forcing mothers to risk dying of sepsis to be a "non-starter," but you do you, I guess. Can't let those black women get abortions for their "mental health," can we!
Virtually no one is interested in adopting a special-needs child who will need 24/7 care and probably won't have anything like a normal lifetime. You're not paying attention to the point I'm making. We need to provide high-quality state support for those children or allow women to terminate their pregnancies.
And you're arguing for Christofascism. As long as we're making wild claims about each other's positions on abortion.
I don't necessarily believe that we should be killing fetuses or people with severe genetic or developmental defects that make their lives short and full of suffering. I would say that we can reconcile a "respect for life" of all people - including these fetuses, children, people who suffer debilitating injuries or diseases during their lifetimes, and elderly people who can no longer care for themselves - with a high-quality social welfare system that does not expect individual family members to shoulder the cost and work required to care for these people.
But since the pro-lifers don't seem to be in favor of that, either, and instead expect people to be "self-reliant," I think we have to give people the freedom to choose how best to provide themselves. If you don't like late-term abortions, give people an alternative. The possibility of giving up a severely disabled child to the government, where they'll receive inadequate care until they die due to mistreatment, hardly seems adequate.
"a fetal anatomy scan is performed around 20 weeks"
These scans would qualify under all abortion restrictions as is. So...no.
"There are also medical conditions that arise late in pregnancy (either due to the pregnancy or coincident with it) that require an abortion for the mother to survive."
At the point of viability, no. Removing the baby and killing it have identical impacts on the mother.
"The most common reasons for these late-term abortions are barriers to access/cost. So the best way to reduce these kinds of late-term abortions is to ensure that people have access to the reproductive care they are responsibly seeking out, when they need it."
Sorry, killing a kid because it is more convenient to do so is not going to pull on heartstrings too much.
"Personally, I view forcing mothers to risk dying of sepsis to be a "non-starter," but you do you, I guess. Can't let those black women get abortions for their "mental health," can we!"
Given that black women are the majority of abortions as is, I am seeking to save black lives, not kill them.
And don't want to risk the issues with pregnancy? Either don't fuck or get protection. Not remotely hard to get.
"Virtually no one is interested in adopting a special-needs child who will need 24/7 care and probably won't have anything like a normal lifetime."
Do not confuse you with all of humanity. There are plenty of people who'd be happy to do so. Because YOU find such children inconvenient hardly makes that a universal view.
"We need to provide high-quality state support for those children or allow women to terminate their pregnancies."
...or allow adoption. We could do that.
"And you're arguing for Christofascism. As long as we're making wild claims about each other's positions on abortion."
I'm not the one who wrote "I appreciate that some advocates embrace a life of servitude to children who are barely sentient."
That was you.
That you failed to recognize what your argument was for is a failure on your part.
"I don't necessarily believe that we should be killing fetuses or people with severe genetic or developmental defects that make their lives short and full of suffering."
Mighty generous of you there. "I don't think that ALL people whose lives I feel are not worth living should necessarily die..."
"I would say that we can reconcile a "respect for life" of all people - including these fetuses, children, people who suffer debilitating injuries or diseases during their lifetimes, and elderly people who can no longer care for themselves - with a high-quality social welfare system that does not expect individual family members to shoulder the cost and work required to care for these people."
And, uh, who pays for that?
Families are there to take care of their families. If the child is unable to be taken care of, adoption is an infinitely better option than, you know, KILLING the child.
"But since the pro-lifers don't seem to be in favor of that, either, and instead expect people to be "self-reliant," I think we have to give people the freedom to choose how best to provide themselves."
If I think killing my neighbor is best for me to provide for myself, that'd be frowned upon. If I killed a dog that was bothering me, same thing.
Only a child is worthy of execution due to inconvenience.
"The possibility of giving up a severely disabled child to the government, where they'll receive inadequate care until they die due to mistreatment, hardly seems adequate."
I know, some people are lives not worth living. Heard that mantra before from some group I cannot recall.
Additionally, despite SimonP's retardation, these types of abortions aren't too common and it's NP for a Governor or court to say "Exception granted." out of hand. The ruling specifically overturns the previous conscription and grants them greater liberty to do so.
Good reasoning, wasted for poor premises and lack of definition. God's looters are driven by superstition to resort to the same argument as communist looters. Lay looters correctly saw the government had no power to rob Peter to subsidize Paul and Mary's kid portrayed as starving because charity is not part of the superstition. So actual rights of an adult, compos mentis individual to NOT be robbed is eroded by the steady drip of whining and bluster. Mystical looters pattern their arguments exactly the same, again to replace rights with weaponized power to coerce at gunpoint.
You're welcome to make that argument to state legislatures; many of them are receptive to it.
I really don't care whether we make abortion legal or illegal. In fact, I think humanity is better off if women who want abortions remove themselves from the gene pool.
But let's be clear about this: in this day and age, if a woman gets pregnant without wanting a child, that shows a serious defect in judgement and responsibility. I have zero respect for such women.
That is not what European nations do. Generally, European nations ban second and third trimester abortions (not just "late term"), granting only few exceptions.
Even during the first trimester, abortion laws vary substantially across Europe and may place limits on elective abortions. And in most cases, elective abortions are out of pocket.
15 week limit on abortions is reasonable. I believe that the vast majority of people fall fairly close to to this position.
The unrestricted abortion or no abortion positions are unreasonable. The media largely is using the debate in an attempt to save the democrat party from themselves. The republicans very well may undermine themselves.
People in the middle should ditch both the democrat and republican parties and vote third party. For example vote for candidate of the 3rd largest party instead. Change the makeup of your local government.
The major parties do not serve the people, but server themselves and their party. They play the social issues, never really attempt to solve an issue, but rather virtue signal keeping the issue for future debates.
Occasionally there is an honorable politician. The 15 week or even 20 week restriction is indeed reasonable and more of a national consensus that either of the other two extreme positions.
15 weeks or thereabouts will probably end up being the law in most places not rabidly left within the next few years.
But I suspect that with better science, and more widespread knowledge about fetal development, that number will trend downward towards two month over time.
The pro-abortion crowd are vocal, but absent Roe they have very little clout outside their urban conclaves. While the pro-life crowd are more numerous and are better versed in fighting the long incremental war of attrition.
Gotta harvest as many 'unicorns' with those newly EMPOWERED Gov-Guns that are FORCING women to reproduce...
It's all about the "Science"..................
Gotta harvest as much 'green energy' with those newly EMPOWERED Gov-Guns that are FORCING the energy industry off the market...
It's all about the "Science".................
Power-Mad --> Climate Nuts & Pro-Life.
Whether you agree with them or not surely you are not so insane as to fail to recognize that people who see themselves fighting to save lives are likely to succeed against people largely fighting for someone else's accomodation.
"people who see themselves fighting to save lives are likely to succeed against people largely fighting for Individual Liberty and Justice for all."
And maybe that's a problem since it destroys the very foundation of the USA.
"the very foundation of the USA."
Yes, unfettered elimination of the unborn was indeed the very foundation that inspired the Declaration of Independence.
Nope, you are not the least bit nuts.
Individual Liberty and Justice for all....
NOT except for those 'evil' pregnant women.
While the pro-life crowd are more numerous and are better versed in fighting the long incremental war of attrition.
And, even if not, they have morality and science/reason (not The Science) on their side.
"15 week limit on abortions is reasonable."
LAST WEEK, it was the fucking "Handmaid's Tale come to life!".
We OFFERED compromises. For years.
I'm largely in agreement with your take. The question that for some reason almost nobody is asking is, why did the democrats never codify something reasonable like this into federal law, when they had almost fifty years to do it?
Really it's a rhetorical question. The liars will claim they never had the votes for it, but we all know this is complete horseshit. The real reasons are twofold:
1) Because the extreme far left they are increasingly behden to doesn't want to settle for a reasonable compromise like this, they want totally unrestricted abortion on demand, and
2) They absilutely love being able to campaign on this as one of their most favorite divisive culture war wedge issues. It's a lot harder to campaign on an issue once you've actually solved it!
"why did the democrats never codify something reasonable like this into federal law"
Roe v Wade....
Insisting PERSONAL CHOICE of Gov-Gun Dictates.
But dumb*ss Republicans just lifted that Government restraint for the States. And everyone should know by now that whatever power the State Gov-Guns have generally ends up at the Federal Level out of some 'regulate commerce' excuse....
Republicans just made a complete *ss of themselves for everyone to see by being complete hypocrites about LIMIT government.
How does any of that excuse that Obama broke his campaign promise to codify Roe v. Wade into law, despite having the votes and the opportunity in 2009?
Obama write an UN-Constitutional treasonous law??? No, never.. Democrats don't do that.. /s Ya; leftard's do that all the time.
But any 1st Grader and read the Constitution and see it's a Rogue-Regime move. The 'feds' were never granted any authority by the people to regulate PERSONAL affairs... I would be a MASSIVE growth to the Nazi-Regime.....
But hey; The Supreme Court just ruled pregnant women are slaves of the State; so what's going to stop the 'feds' from playing the same game? Their respect for only Constitutional federal powers??? lol...
Stupid Republicans just opened the door for Obama.
It's worse than that. Obama sponsored the "Freedom of Choice Act" in 2007 as a senator and Obama and said on the campaign trail in 2008
In 2009, he had both houses and a filibuster-proof margin. And then he said suddenly it was "not high priority" anymore.
Republicans are perfectly happy to make their cases on a state-by-state basis, based on the voter preferences in those states.
Here is a little insight for you: 99% of Americans don't give a f*ck about abortion because it simply doesn't affect them and will never affect them. What they care about is inflation, the stock market, taxes, the economy, public safety, illegal migrants, and education.
PERSONAL CHOICE *over* Gov-Gun Dictates
and of course, "about LIMITED government"
...an edit button would be awfully nice.
Meet him halfway and go for an 18 week mark. Also, give away pregnancy detection kits. We give away Covid testing kits and so this should be easy. With a good education infrastructure in k12 schools it should be rare that a women can get to the 18 week mark and not know they are pregnant. This is such a simple comprimise that pleases the vast majority of people. Why wouldn't the Democrats jump at this? Put the ball back in the GOP's hands and make them look extremist. If you get the legislation passed most people will be happy and we can move on to tackle other equally or more pressing issues.
"If you get the legislation passed" --- All hail the Gov-Guns.... Ye of sheeple minds... Maximizing Individual Liberty and Justice for all??? Anyone anymore?
Yes, we maximize liberty and justice for all by going through the political process and making our case, as the Constitution requires.
You seem to want to maximize liberty and justice for all by shouting at the moon.
Or by calling B.S. on activist justices and activists who defend their obviously B.S. Constitutional Interpretations.
And since you love that voter power so much. Here's one for you; The vote on Roe v Wade was a bigger win than the vote on Dobbs.
It’s kind of ironic that where I live most of the team blue moms who support unlimited abortion on demand will also pay a fortune for IVF treatments so they can push around a double wide stroller in their 40s.
The "on demand" part is the main fallacy. Economists understand that ineffective demand is not an offer of payment for goods or services. So the equivocation--that government-subsidized polyp removal is goood because neither man nor woman can afford to hire doctors the government has bludgeoned into a small cartel of expert perjurers for lobbyists--is silly. Libertarians seek no coercive subsidies for polyp or fetus removal, but are not enlisted in witch-hunts to ban either, especially as a war on women.
And it doesn’t matter how reasonable a 15 or 20 week limit might be, anything that comes short of allowing the tossing a newborn into a dumpster is an abortion ban according to the WaPo.
It's all been extremitized by propaganda...
Neither Pro-Life NOR Pro-Choice have ever lobbied to take the "murder" out of the Abortion Procedure...
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
UR supporting FORCED reproduction...
It's nothing but a personal wedge issue generated by propaganda to divide people so the Gov-Guns will get MORE control & authority.
Mission accomplished.
Admit that what you want is a return to National Socialist Lebensborn hatcheries turning out Hitlerjugend and madschen for Reich, Fuhrer and Martin Luther, in that order. We admit that as in Invasion of The Body Snatchers, and in federal law, unborn are not legal persons, but women are. The rhetorical trick is as in lifeboat "ethics" where the brainwashed seek to incite to coercion by conjuring up some imagined scenario. All it is is social pressure in the service of totalitarian coercion disguised as altruist handwringing.
Abortion as birth control is wrong. Full stop. There may be a very limited set of circumstances where it is justified, but otherwise there is no place for compromise.
Why?
Good question. We expect convinced looter intellectuals to come take a poke at libertarian conclusions. Instead, we get semi-literate, superstitious, ignorant, frustrated male rednecks with green teeth eager to stone women in the public square. Then along comes Tony, who evidently is tricked by these goons into thinking THEY answer for libertarians. The result is Tony in a fencing match where his patinado and lunge to the cuirasse defeats a Trumpanzee--not a libertarian. Good entertainment just the same.
Because abortion ends a human life. To conceive a child and then kill it is senseless and barbarous.
If you don't want children, then take precautions, or abstain.
So under what limited circumstances is it OK to kill a child?
When Pro-Lifer's talk about "babies", "child" and "infant" what their new 'woke' cool definition of those terms is; is imaginative unicorns in their heads....
Ya know; kinda like how gay people managed to change the definition of 'marriage' from being a union of two people that produces offspring to ??Um?? well a union that doesn't??
There is no logic when word definitions keep changing by political whims... But one thing remains true in the pursuit of word redefinition and it's always an *excuse* to get More Control of that overly empowered Gov-Gun forces.... [WE] mobs rule! /s
Gov-Guns threatening and killing pregnant women just because they refuse to reproduce is wrong. Full stop. All Women are NOT just "baby" incubators for [WE] mobs packing Gov-Guns...
Wonder what percentage of the 1.3% of all abortions performed after 20 weeks are due to fetal abnormalities or to preserve the life or health of the mother?
Show some cojones, sockpuppet, and ask NARAL.
That would've been a good question to put before Pro-Life [WE] Power-Mad mob toting Gov-Guns BEFORE they threw MORE Individual Liberty in the garbage for "baby" incubator slaves...
I love how fire-breathing Christian conservative absolutists suddenly become pragmatists who just want to save as many babies as possible. Donald Trump, weirdly enough, was the first to say the truth of the matter: if embryos are people, then a quarter of women must be sent to prison for first-degree murder. Trump was also responsible for the Supreme Court appointments who gutted the right to abortion. Trump has undoubtedly secured several abortions in his life and is not, in fact, nor ever has been, pro-life.
What absurdities you idiots have forced upon all of us.
Cry more, Tony. Cry more.
"I am very Pro-Choice." -- Trump, 1999
Yep... Trump was a Pro-Choice Republican too as well as Rand Paul, Ron Paul and probably a whole list who won't come out of the closet about it :)... lol..
Because [WE] gang-affiliation is a very Powerful Instinct that runs at odds with Individuality. As seen in every grade-school. One would hope by adulthood people could get over their [WE] gang-affiliation tendencies; commonly refereed to as chicken-pecking in the livestock arena.
Surprised no one is mentioning that Florida already passed a similar 15 week bill in the run up to Dobbs.
I am a pro-choice conservative. (No, that is not an oxymoron.) Fifteen weeks is plenty of time. If, after 3 1/2 months a woman doesn’t know if she is a) pregnant, and b) wants to keep it, then we need to abort her - after the baby is born and put up for adoption.
Me too..... Pro-Choice Libertarian-Republican/Conservative.
And yet here you are, responding to my comment...
Cite where he cared about your opinion? He dismissed it like you did dankulas.