Pro-Lifers Pushed Too Far and Doomed 2 Abortion Bans
Americans’ opinions are more nuanced than headlines suggest, leaving little room for total bans.

In the wake of last year's U.S. Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision overturning constitutional protections for reproductive rights, moves by conservative states to restrict abortion are running up against the limits of just how much change even many pro-life Americans want. Last week, both Nebraska and South Carolina legislators rejected bills that would have largely banned abortions. And polls find some degree of buyers' remorse in states that restricted abortion after Dobbs, suggesting that lawmakers misread the room.
Anti-Abortion Bill Meet Unexpected Defeat
"A bill that would ban abortions in Nebraska after six weeks of pregnancy fell one vote short in the Legislature on Thursday," Nebraska Public Media reported. The bill failed even after the introduction of a compromise amendment "which would change the legislation to ban abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, instead of the six weeks the legislation called for."
Almost simultaneously, "the latest push to outlaw nearly all abortions in South Carolina is over for the year, as senators who oppose a ban from conception stood their ground and scuttled the bill," according to The Post and Courier of Charleston. "And Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey made clear there's no appetite in the Senate to make another doomed attempt in 2024 for a bill with limited exceptions to an all-out ban."
Both Nebraska and South Carolina are solidly red states. Republicans hold clear majorities in both South Carolina's House and Senate and Nebraska's unicameral legislature. According to a simplistic take on post-Dobbs politics, that's supposed to indicate a clear path for near-absolute bans targeting abortion. But the bills failed at a time when residents of some states that implemented restrictions after the Supreme Court decision show signs that they think lawmakers went too far. As it turns out, even many Americans who were unhappy with the strong protections for reproductive rights embodied in the Roe v. Wade decision overturned by Dobbs weren't necessarily looking for total prohibition.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Buyers' Remorse on Abortion Bans
Unsurprisingly, as some more-conservative states changed their laws post-Dobbs the percentage of Americans who say abortions are difficult to obtain locally rose from 32 percent in 2019 to 42 percent in 2023, according to Pew Research. "The most striking change has occurred among people living in states where abortion is now prohibited: About seven-in-ten (71%) say it would be difficult to get an abortion, up from the half who said this in 2019."
Interestingly, in states where abortion is now prohibited the share of people saying abortions should be easier to obtain rose from 31 percent in 2019 to 43 percent this year. In fact, the percentage saying abortions should be easier to obtain also rose in restrictive states and in those where it is legal. Those saying it should be harder to get an abortion dropped from 40 percent to 30 percent in prohibitive states, 32 percent to 28 percent in restrictive states, and 30 percent to 26 percent in states where the practice is legal.
These shifts came as Pew found that the percentage of Americans believing that abortion should be legal in most cases stands at 62 percent, very close to the 60 percent who held that opinion in 1995 (opinions wandered somewhat in the intervening years). By contrast, 36 percent favor making abortion illegal in most cases, almost identical to the 38 percent who held that view in 1995. The big change is the growing partisan divide in this as in so many matters. "Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are about twice as likely as Republicans and Republican leaners to say abortion should be legal in all or most cases (84% vs. 40%)," note Pew.
Americans' Abortion Opinions Are Complicated
So, why the buyers' remorse in conservative states dominated by abortion-averse Republicans? It may be because we have an unfortunate tendency to frame the issue in binary pro-life/pro-choice terms. Americans' differing opinions can't all be described that way.
Gallup has tracked opinions on abortion since 1975, but it offers three possibilities in its questions: "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances or illegal in all circumstances?"
As of 2023, "illegal in all circumstances" is the preferred position of only 22 percent of Republicans. Ten percent of Republicans think abortion should be "legal under any circumstances." The dominant position now as it has been since 1975 is "legal only under certain circumstances," favored by 67 percent.
"Legal only under certain circumstances" is also the preferred position for 48 percent of independents, compared to 36 percent who favor "legal under any circumstances" and 13 percent who want abortion to be "illegal in all circumstances."
For Democrats, "legal under any circumstances" is preferred by 57 percent of respondents. "Legal only under certain circumstances" is preferred by 38 percent of respondents (and was the top preference until about 10 years ago). Only 4 percent want abortion "illegal in all circumstances."
Other polling that makes room for nuance finds similar results.
"While most Democrats say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, sizable shares favor restrictions on abortion under certain circumstances," Pew noted last May. "And while most Republicans favor making abortion illegal in all or most cases, majorities favor exceptions in cases of rape or when the life of the woman is at risk." Majorities of Democrats and Republicans also think length of pregnancy should matter, with restrictions applying only after some point in the fetus's progression towards viability.
There is no major political grouping in the United States for which a total ban on abortion is the majority position. It's fair to assume from growing dissatisfaction in states that have essentially prohibited abortion, and from expressed preferences over the decades, that a great many of the Americans who were unhappy with the strong protections for abortion under Roe were not looking for prohibition as an alternative; they wanted greater room for restrictions well short of a total ban.
Prohibiting Abortion Goes Too Far
That large gray zone of American opinion on reproductive rights largely explains the failure of the anti-abortion bills in Nebraska (where abortion is currently restricted but legal to 20 weeks) and South Carolina (similarly restricted but legal to about 20 weeks). While both bills included some exceptions for circumstances including rape, incest, and life-threatening medical conditions, the legislation was too prohibitive to win over enough support from conservative lawmakers to achieve passage. That's just as well, given how many residents of states where anti-abortion measures have been implemented voice disenchantment with the new restrictions.
With abortion and so many other matters, prohibitionists are often their own worst enemies. Given an opening to impose dreamed-for restrictive legislation (never mind the limited ability to enforce such laws against the unwilling), they push matters so far that they alienate their own supporters.
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
Based on the MSM and reader comments in various publications, the whole argument seems to be between the “Abortion at any stage after fertilization is murder.” crowd, and the “Abortion at any moment up to the point of birth is a woman’s choice.” group. Not much room for compromise there.
Based on the MSM and reader comments in various publications, one person can literally point a loaded gun at someone's face and pull the trigger and *shouldn't* stand trial for murder while another person has to wait for the gun to literally be pointed at his face and the trigger being pulled before they *won't* be convicted of murder for defending themselves.
They don't want compromise.
Join this most awesome and cool online home based job and start earning everyday more than $500 per day. i made $18521 last month, this is amazing and irecommend you to join and start your money making source from home. just go tothis web now for info.
HERE ———————————————->> https://Www.Coins71.Com
I have just received my 3rd payment order and $30,000 that I have built up on my laptop in a month through an online agent. This job is good and his regular salary is much better than my normal job.” Work now and start making money online yourself.
Go here……>>>>> http://Www.Smartjob1.com
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM
Yet most abortions take place prior to 12 weeks. You’d think we’d be able to find a compromise here.
My body isn't up for [WE] mobsters RULE "compromise".
The pro-abort crowd aren't used to having to compromise, since they had the Court in their corner for so long. So now they portray anything short of the maximal pro-'choice' position as an absolute ban.
That would be a real losing strategy, were it not for the fact that most media outlets are cooperating with them in that.
And the anti-abortion extreme consider anything less than a total ban as allowing babies to be killed.
Why the one-sided perception of extremism when there is extremism on both sides?
Of course there's extremism on both sides. It's pretty rare that people who aren't extremists put in enough time and effort to rise to the top of an interest based organization.
My complaint would be that the OP more or less pretends that all the extremism is on the pro-life side, as though we didn't have states legalizing elective abortion right up to birth, and maybe a bit beyond.
My last pay check was $8850 just ecom working 12 hours for every week.. My neighbor have found the estimation of $15k for a long time “(t31 and she works around 20 hours for seven days…. I can not trust how direct it was once
SITE. —> https://dollaray121.blogspot.com
Because.............. The overturning of Roe v Wade did NOTHING absolutely NOTHING to change Pro-Choice extremism in the States.
My complaint would be that the OP more or less pretends that all the extremism is on the pro-life side
Huh? I'm not totally sure which person you consider the OP, but they both called for compromise.
"Abortion right up until birth" isn't allowed anywhere. That's a myth. There are no states that allow infanticide. All states have some limit on abortions allowed: viability which is usually 24 weeks.
3rd trimester abortions are done for reasons of severe health risks or non-viability of the fetus.
The anti-abortion zealots think women should carry dead fetuses or give birth to brainless fetuses, ones missing essential organs etc. who would die immediately, because it's the 'natural' thing or 'God wants it that way'.
“Abortion right up until birth” isn’t allowed anywhere. That’s a myth.
Colorado and New Mexico would like a word with you.
Since you're not aware of Colorado & New Mexico abortion laws it's probably safe to say you're unaware of the states where legislation has been introduced (and failed) making abortion legal past birth. Seems you're awareness of extremes is one sided.
“abortion legal past birth”
Cite?
I looked up the Colorado and New Mexico laws. Infanticide is a crime in both places. What do you mean by "abortion until birth"? If a non-viable fetus is removed from the uterus (say if it has deformities incompatible with life or if it endangers the woman) and it dies, that is not "abortion until birth".
If a removed fetus is viable (e.g. an infant) and it is killed after it is removed, then that is infanticide. Viability usually occurs around 22-23 weeks.
That is an awful long winded way to admit that you were wrong and stand corrected.
But hey, you be you.
Guess you don't remember the conversation in Virginia where the then Governor explained that under their new regulations, a child born deformed, or with obvious physical or mental deficits would be "kept comfortable" until the parents and their doctor decided whether to kill it or keep it. That is NOT a myth, nor are the regs in Colorado and New Mexico that allow any woman to receive abortion on demand for any reason (or no reason) up till birth.
FREE the Fetus!!!
It's funny that the Pro-Life crowd won't even address the very violation they're claiming.
American political discourse dominated by Red and Blue Team extremists? So unusual!
Yup. Someone needs to take militantly moderate action.
Go out and stand on a street corner with the following sign:
"10 weeks = slavery. 14 weeks = murder. TWELVE WEEKS = JUSTICE! WE DEMAND JUSTICE"
Whatever it is; It most certainly CANNOT be free the fetus and the woman.... Oh heavens no.... Something somewhere HAS to be dictated with Gov-Guns.
Yeah, let’s be clear what I mean by 12 weeks. On the 84th day, neither before nor after, there will be an abortion, period. If it’s done on the 83rd day, it’s felony murder of a child. If it’s delayed to the 85th day the woman has enslaved herself, the 13th amendment is inalienable so she can’t waive it, and engaging in slavery is a felony.
Things are either right or wrong, TJ. If it’s right it needs to be compulsory, if it’s wrong, it needs to be prohibited.
No justice, no peace. Give me 12 weeks or give me death.
Or maybe people should have Individual Liberty. As-in the very start of the 4th Amendment no matter what 'week' it is.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons"
Someone with clear, concrete policy ideas. Where can I donate?
This is all new. It’s going to take a few years at a minimum for states to sort this out. I’m not sure why anyone would expect anything different
These are laws that have already been passed, limiting abortion to points that often predate their awareness that they are pregnant, and are unconnected to any logical rationale.
Calling it a 'heartbeat bill' for a 6 week ban doesn't change the fact that a fetus doesn't have a heart until 10 weeks.
So what's left to 'sort out'? Where the point of political disadvantage is for restrictions?
There are some vague electrical signals from the area that will become a heart at 6 weeks. But that doesn't matter to the theocrats. They must impose their religion on everyone. They just want to treat women as incubators rather than people and use any excuse.
It's not that hard to avoid becoming pregnant, you know.
It’s not that hard to walk in a straight line. It’s not that hard to touch your knee. It’s not that hard to spell “I”.
There are a million things in life that are not that hard. All of them are as relevant to abortion as your observation.
It doesn’t matter how easy or hard it is to get pregnancy. Once you’re pregnant, that ship has sailed.
At that point, the only two non-authoritarian reasons not to have an abortion are 1) you don’t want to, for whatever reason and 2) the fetus is viable. Everything else is you forcing a illogical, personal, and often religious opinion on strangers. You aren’t that important.
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
"Abortion at any moment up to the point of birth is a woman’s choice"
No one seriously says that. There is a place for abortion after viability, but only in cases where the baby won't survive.
And how will that be known? Fetal Ejection as I’ve said all along.
Notable in both cases is that Republican women legislators were the difference. The old white men in the Republican party care little for women and their concerns, but when it comes to a push Republican women will stand with other women. Throughout history pregnancy has been the prerogative of women. Women helped other women. We see this continued to the present.
Yet when it came to STEALING men’s paychecks they all jumped at the chance to trample men’s rights.
You’re not showing anything except the instinct of pure selfishness.
Maybe the Men wouldn't be so excited about enslaving Women if the Women hadn't been enslaving men for their own F'Ups over the last countless # of years.
Incel
Just an anecdote. I have a cousin from Nebraska who posts lots of MAGA memes and little jokes about woke Democrats, but then caught me surprise a couple of years ago when she posted several pro-choice memes. Real life people don’t always adhere to the party line.
""Real life people don’t always adhere to the party line.""
Yep. Then they get called names for not following the party line, like RINO.
What a gaslighting idiot. Women are more pro life than men
You are wrong.
Define "individual".
My last pay check was $8850 just ecom working 12 hours for every week.. My neighbor have found the estimation of $15k for a long time “(t31 and she works around 20 hours for seven days…. I can not trust how direct it was once
SITE. —> https://dollaray121.blogspot.com
Do you see yourself as caring about ANYONE? As a democrat, you don’t. Your kind use issues like this to divide people. Same way you use race and sexual orientation to pit Americans against each other to amass more democrat power.
So stop pretending you and your fellow travelers are anything other than pure evil.
What indication has Moderation4ever given that he is a Democrat? I don’t see any.
Oh man, who wants to tell him…
The biggest MISTAKE of all was selling off Individual Liberty for [WE] mob RULES everything (Gov-Gun worship) to even the very most PERSONAL lives/parts of the minority...
It's a *KING* of the mountain "democracy" game. Every polarization and growing battle amongst ourselves is rooted in King of the Mountain UN-restricted "democracy". The US Constitution *is* the definition of the USA. When it is conquered so is the USA.
As the RINO'S have an excellent record of doing. They just gave Democrats their biggest win. They handed the basic foundations of Individual Liberty over to [WE] mob RULES Democracy. They may not realize it now; but they soon will when Democrats re-enact citizen slavery to save every life in poverty. It's been a repeating scenario. RINO Republicans are F'En up big time on this one.
it's getting reported that some women are being denied a d&c after a miscarriage in states with restrictive abortion laws like ohio and louisiana ... it's difficult to determine whether this is really happening or being embellished for political reasons
Should we go by what we see, hear, and read in the news media.
There isn’t really an alternative. The best one can do is read from different sources and reserve judgement a bit.
Banning birth control is law designed to enslave women. Why not let women vote on it? White Male suffrage put slavery into the Constitution and kept it there past the 1808 deadline--with U.S. Marshals and rednecks hunting fugitives. The 15th Amendment inclusion of Black males was the Klan's best enlistment poster in the Johnson and Grant Administrations. The 19th as been sabotaged by George Wallace and Televangelist bigotry much like the LP has seen for 50 years.
I've had the same thought. We don't have any governmental framework set up for women only to vote on something, but if we did I would agree to let women decide the rules among themselves.
The same reason we didn’t let only slaveholders vote on slavery. Or, for that matter, taxpayers vote on tax rates, or welfare recipients vote on benefits
That’s cool. They don’t get to make anyone pay either way then.
^^ Exactly ^^
Let women decide the rules among themselves = Individual Liberty.
Who sold the world the bill-of-communist goods that no-one is allowed to be an individual????
Sell your individual souls to the [WE] foundation; because YOU don't own YOU; [WE] own you! /s
Men alone legalized abortion, you realize.
So?
Your fellow travelers are working hard to make sure there is no ‘news’ other than their narrative.
I have tickets to fly to LAX in a few weeks. So, I'll be on a crowded plane with a bunch of other people. Other than that, I don’t think I have any “fellow travelers”.
My last pay check was $8850 just ecom working 12 hours for every week.. My neighbor have found the estimation of $15k for a long time “(t31 and she works around 20 hours for seven days…. I can not trust how direct it was once
SITE. —> https://dollaray121.blogspot.com
It is lies pushed by pro abort activists. Not a single city or state has issued those bans.
Could be the following scenario; if not, it’ll eventually happen somewhere in a large country where there are 3.5 million people at the 1% competence level:
1. Real law allows for miscarriages and other dangers to health.
2. Activists lie and claim law denies women lifesaving treatment.
3. Doctor’s favorite “news” sources repeat activist claims.
4. Doctor literally believes he has to turn away the woman with the miscarriage, and decides keeping his license is more important.
5. Activists yell “look! look! she was denied lifesaving treatment!”.
BTW, this really happens in other contexts. This happened to my mother-in-law in the 2020 election:
1. Texas allows and recommends that mail-in ballots be, you know, mailed in.
2. Activists lied and said Texas requires everyone to physically travel to a single drop box in each county.
3. My mother-in-law gets her “news” from partisan news feeds that repeated the lie.
4. So, despite us pleading with her to just mail it in, she insisted on getting into her car with early stage Alzheimer’s and impaired motor skills, and driving around town all day to find that drop-box. Finally through the kindness of strangers she got to the election office and delivered her ballot.
5. And thus, the activists’ lies made themselves true.
Yes, you have nailed it
Or it's the example of extreme laws creating a chilling effect on a profession (and health care companies and insurance companies) who are severely risk-averse.
They know the laws. They have entire legal departments that obsess over medical liability. This isn't about activists, unless you mean anti-abortionists who got the laws passed in the first place.
This is cold, calculating analysis by an industry that is hyper-aware of what liability entails.
Your premise that doctors and health care systems rely on news stories and not legal advice is ridiculous.
Three MDs in my extended family. Two of them are below average with respect to believing crap they see online or on their phone, even on medical stuff. One advised me to secretly mix medicine into food for a family member refusing to see a doctor. I pointed out to her that, ethics aside, the medicine requires getting a prescription. She’d literally not thought of that.
The local hospital here got busted for billing something over $20 million in fake procedures that never happened. The document trail for a bill includes sign off by medical professionals. Do you think the lawyers advised them on that, too? No? OK, then we’ve established that they don’t always follow legal advice.
If it makes you feel safer to think doctors are especially intelligent rather than just people who sometimes do stupid things, go ahead. But if nothing else will convince you, consider that roughly half of doctors vote Republican.
"If it makes you feel safer to think doctors are especially intelligent rather than just people who sometimes do stupid things, go ahead."
Not at all what I said. Nothing I said could reasonably be construed as saying this.
"But if nothing else will convince you, consider that roughly half of doctors vote Republican."
And? Why would that matter? I would have put it well over half, but that doesn't change anytbing.
I'm discussing a macro effect that acknowledges the fact that hospitals and doctors, writ large, are aware of liability laws and aren't willing to risk lawsuits. Your response is that one of your relatives suggested doing something unethical and a hospital did something illegal. That's not a counter to what I said, that's an observation that individuals can act badly and that criminal behavior exists. Well, duh!
Anecdotes are single data points, not a conclusion. If a large amount of people act one way and your counter is, "yeah, but this one time ...", that's not a convincing counterargument.
"I’m discussing a macro effect that acknowledges the fact that hospitals and doctors, writ large, are aware of liability laws and aren’t willing to risk lawsuits. "
He just provided an example of them specifically risking a lawsuit --- in fact, getting sued. So your premise is incorrect.
He gave an individual family memeber who did something unethical and a hospital that committed a crime.
Pretending that, because there are criminals, law-abiding doctors don't know or think about liability is idiotic.
But you're a "one anecdote counters reams of data" level thinker, so not understanding that what his sister-in-law's ex-boyfriend said he should do isn't a counter to the observation that doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies are very, very averse to exposing themselves to liability is par for your course.
The Lousyanna Klan would rather burn those servile revolt women alive in Colfax Grant Parish tradition. Liberals keep interfering.
The Louisiana Klan have been and probably always will be Democrats advocating that minorities get more abortions.
Seriously, the pro-choice side doesn’t need you supporting them, your rank bigotry makes them look worse.
Je je je. Izzat the best yew kin dew fer the masked Knights of the White Camellia?
We know it's happened. It's the reason Ireland now allows abortion.
Anti-abortion lawmakers misread the room, but pro-abortion lawmakers have also misread the room. The mass majority of the populace supports some degree of constraint on abortion. In my opinion somewhere around 12-15 weeks seems correct. After that point the child is viable enough that more consideration needs to be made concerning the child and not solely regarding the mother.
When all along all that was needed was a restriction on a medical procedure that prevented *intentionally* killing a fetus on removal. The solution is so simple.
But Power-Mad whack-a-doodles want to excuse their Power-mad tendencies with fantasy-land fairy-tale creatures. (i.e. “Don’t kill ?my? unicorn!”). Something about pretending ownership of other people's pregnancies or something. The Power-mad cow disease seems to be a plague in today's times.
We'll just stamp a big fat NEVER-MIND on people's PERSONAL body and life shouldn't be commandeered to "mass majority" whims.
The very faltering belief of the USA itself. The USA is NOT a democracy!!!
You're talking about some kind of compromise. Given the reactions to Bud Light, what are the chances that either side is going to compromise an issue that might actually be important?
Maybe the important part of it all is Individual Liberty.
Define "individual".
Separate. As every dictionary under the sun has given it.
In----Dividable... Ironically word definitions were the answer all along.
The vast majority of people couldn’t care less one way or another about Bud Light. Don’t confuse people who get lots of publicity with the majority.
The unthinkable Bud Blight solution is to quit palming off water as beer. So the newest guteus-intolerant backing-water plan is to put either King Kong or Long Dong's face on the cans--someone who grabs women against their will. An Ambev boardmember suggested Mohammed, but that motion failed for lack of a backbone.
Bud Light sales have dropped over 20%. That's not all hyper-political folks.
And 3 months from now it will be right back where it was before, or so close the difference will be a rounding error.
The minute the angry pundits in the conservative echo chamber move on to the next manufactured outrage, almost everyone will go back to doing what they did before. That's human nature.
If I remember correctly, Bud Light could lose half its market share and still be the largest light beer on the market by almost 2%. The whining of a bunch of grievance-porn junkies has no staying power and won't make a difference outside of a quarter or two.
This may be a good opportunity to buy InBev stock. This sort of blip can provide short-term volitility with a quick return to statis quo.
Plus most of the people who are briefly outraged by Bud Light probably aren't smart enough to avoid all InBev brands. Hell, they probably think that Anheiser-Busch is an American company.
I'll see your cowardly fence-straddling and raise you 4 million pro-choice Gary Johnson votes. NARAL, dedicated to REPEAL of cruel laws discriminating against women, now has 4 million members.
Maybe one side needs to go away. Like the one that is obsessed with murdering babies and celebrating it.
As soon as !!!!>>>>>>>>>>YOU<<<<<<<<<!!!! stop sticking your BIG FAT nose into their PERSONAL life.... They will be gone.
Nobody listens to or cares about the vast majority. They don't have a microphone. Only the crazies on both sides get heard, so that's who lawmakers listen to.
Unfortunate, but true!
"around 12-15 weeks seems correct. After that point the child is viable enough"
At 12-15 weeks the fetus is not viable at all There has been one fetus that has been born at 21 weeks and survived, none before that. Calling any point before that viable is intentionally dishonest.
"concerning the child and not solely regarding the mother"
Fetus, not child. Not viable, not a person, and not equal to the actual, living human that is the pregnant woman.
Your argument starts from the flawed premise that a pre-viable fetus should have rights. There is no other reason to use nonsense phrases like "viable enough", since viability is binary. It either can suvive outside the womb (viable) or it can't. There is no such thing as "viable enough".
Reaching a conclusin based on a premise that assumes the conclusion is sophistry.
I agree with our assessment but would point out that it is essentially what was laid out in the 1973 Roe decision. The first trimester up to about 13 weeks is the prerogative of the patient and the doctor. After that the state may begin to intervene considering the woman's health and the viability of the fetus. Most of the compromises I hear from moderate Republicans are similar to the Roe. The guiding principle here is to recognize that abortions are part of women's health care. First trimester should be for abortion by choice. After that it is the patient, her support and her doctors that must assess the situation and make the best, and often a difficult choice.
Available, just not easy.
Which should be on a t-shirt.
I get paid more than $100 to $500 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this I have earned easily $21k from this without having online working skills . Simply give it a shot on the accompanying site…
Here is I started……………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Let us not forget the words of Evangeline Lilly.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CZPQ4hlLFCl/?hl=en
“loss of employment”
Even in the case where one is a healthcare worker and vaccination is a reasonable requirement for your job?
“alienation from loved ones”
What is this advocating? Forcing families to get along at Thanksgiving dinner?
Yeah, healthcare workers demanding their anti-vaxx lifestyle is as stupid as an engineer refusing to check his maths, or a dentist refusing to use novacaine. Yeah, I know both types exist. So sad.
Except the vax doesn't work.
That's demonstably false. If you want to advocate against lockdowns or vaccine mandates by employers, have at it. There's a lot to unpack there. But the effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines is clear.
The COVID mRNA vaccine did not work. They had to redefine vaccine to even try to make an argument.
They had to redefine aircraft when helicopters were invented.
"The COVID mRNA vaccine did not work."
According to data, it did. According to the people who believe that Tucker Carlson is a journalist and tells the truth, it didn't. Which is more credible?
Your ignorance and false equivalence are breathtaking.
Your handle is "Elmer Fudd".
Yours was White Knight, and you believe in H02
If those hospitals weren’t requiring proof of flu vaccination to retain employment, those medical professionals had a legitimate complaint.
You know what, fuck that, they had a legitimate complaint because it was experimental, the companies had complete immunity from liability and it wasn’t stopping transmission and therefore FORCING it was completely unjustified.
Oh, and nice job to you and Brandy for equivocating being against THIS “vaccine” with being Anti-vaxx. Again.
Yeah, believing that someone who has every other vaccination, but not the Clot Shot, is "anti-vax" is the retarded belief of a cultist who lacks critical thinking skills.
More BOAF SIDEZ
Pay no attention to that original Libertarian party Choice Plank the Supremes copied into Roe behind the curtain.
Too far... like voting against born alive bills or voting for no questions asked until magic birth fairy?
Yes. That is the other extreme, supported by a tiny minority of pro-choice advocates. Exactly like complete or near-complete bans are only supported by a tiny minority of pro-life advocates.
That point has been made repeatedly in the 2+ years I've been here. Does this mean you understand it now?
Leaving it to the states is the correct decision. The extremists on both spectrums can't get their way.
State Tyranny for the WIN!!! /s
Maybe Gov-Guns just don't have any business in a "land of the free" to be demanding people reproduce.
"Leaving it to the states is the correct decision."
Leaving it to the individual is the correct decision. The government, including state governments, shouldn't be implementing emotion- and morality-based legislation that doesn't have objective facts to back it up.
Problem is that both sides (Both Sides!) are being wagged by the tail. The extremists think everyone else is with them, but they are not. Most Red Staters are not ardent anti-abortionists, they just lead anti-abortion. There is a difference. Likewise, mot Blue Staters are not pro-abortion in all circumstance, they just lean pro-abortion. In through, the middle of the Red States and Blue States are very close to each other. But the leaders of Red and Blue movements thinks everyone is out on the edges like they are.
Moderation in all things. Even abortion policy.
There was no point in moderation so long as the Court was handing one side an automatic win. Moderation is something you engage in when the fight matters.
The pro-aborts didn't need to compromise because they had the 9[00 lb gorilla] in their corner. The pro-lifers didn't need to compromise because they weren't getting much of anything they asked for anyway, so why not ask for the moon?
Now that abortion is back to being a normal political issue with the (Federal, anyway!) courts standing back and letting politics work, there will be some back and forth for a while.
Let's not pretend the pro-aborts didn't go nuts, too. There are now multiple states with elective abortion legal right up to the moment of birth, and, de facto, for a few hours after. That's a position that's hellishly less popular than banning elective abortions after 6 weeks, but they did it anyway.
Here's the face of the other side's fanaticism. Elective abortion right up until birth, if you can get an RN to sign off on it. And she lied about it until she was safely elected.
Republicans and Democrats on the State level have rejected any middle ground. The Democrats want to "codify Roe" (but not Casey"), which results in abortion-on-demand up to birth. The Republicans want to ban abortion in at least 95% of circumstances. The American People are pretty much around where Casey was (undue burden, with ban until "viability"), although many would agree to a ban at no earlier than 15 weeks.
Candidates that accept this reality will do much better at the polls than those who hold to either extreme. However, the parties are afraid to offend the activists within their respective parties and so may pressure their candidates to maintain an extreme position.
The Democrats want to “codify Roe” (but not Casey“), which results in abortion-on-demand up to birth.
Cite?
Everything after the comma in the sentence you quoted is my opinion. For what comes before the comma, see the following source:
https://theconversation.com/what-would-it-mean-to-codify-roe-into-law-and-is-there-any-chance-of-that-happening-182406
My last pay check was $8850 just ecom working 12 hours for every week.. My neighbor have found the estimation of $15k for a long time “(t31 and she works around 20 hours for seven days…. I can not trust how direct it was once
SITE. —> https://dollaray121.blogspot.com
OK, cool. That Democrats would settle for nothing less than abortion all the way up to birth is your opinion.
SO the Dems finally sent an official sock-rep to counter-infiltrate the masked Puppetariat?
^^^ EXACTLY ^^^....
And who opened the door for "coding" democratically Individual Liberty?
The same one's who just overturned Roe v Wade.
"The Democrats want to “codify Roe” (but not Casey“), which results in abortion-on-demand up to birth."
Roe specifically allowed for states to implement restrictions in the third trimester. So codifying Roe would be the exact opposite of "abortion-on-demand up to birth.".
If there has to be a ban, and my belief is there should be since viability is a logical point to recognize a separate individual, the relevant question becomes when?
21 weeks, the earliest point that a fetus has ever been born alive and survived? Later, when survival is more likely than not? When all major organs (specifically lungs) can be seen on a scan to have developed enough to sustain life? When survival is 100% certain?
Or should it be purely opinion-based? A political, not a medical, question?
Is the relevant question not "why should the government intervene", but "why shouldn't the government intervene?".
They manage to compromise fairly stably in other countries, where Roe wasn't law.
While most of us can agree that Roe's foundations were shaky, it did provide what is in my opinion with a reasonable compromise starting point. The point of viability is a sliding scale as technology advances and to me provides a natural break in the competing rights of the mother and the baby. If the baby can survive outside the uterus, that seems like a good starting point for where its rights as a separate entity begin.
Politically speaking, it seems like this is an appropriate starting place for states to start crafting their laws. Currently speaking this is often thought to be around 23 weeks.
Seems like that is a reasonable position for an individual rights-defending libertarian to take. If the baby can survive on its own, or with the voluntary support of others, then it has individual human rights.
Also called 'inherent' rights as they all have always been. Gov-Gods don't grant 'rights' they ensure natural (i.e. 'inherent') rights don't get trampled by others.
Funny how the party that knows and torts these principles seems to forget them all once someone says 'abortion'. Once upon a time the Republican SCOTUS WROTE Roe v Wade.
You should probably read up on the definition of "inherent". Because it isn't "bestowed upon you by the prevailing technology."
No it's not. There is no right to life support technology and there certainly isn't a right to using a female body as one. The woman retains *all* rights to her own body 'inherently'.
13A
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Thank you for quoting the text of the Thirteenth Amendment. Now please explain what you believe is its relation to abortion. For example, if a State bans abortion post-viability is it violating the Thirteenth Amendment?
Pro-Life legislation *is* to FORCE women to reproduce (involuntary servitude) against their will.
The narratives (propaganda) ARE the arguments. 13A should guarantee that no-one is FORCED to reproduce against their will for the State (unless convicted of a crime).
Pro-Life BS propaganda has replaced common-sense reasoning in that the only part of the discussion should be making a medical procedure that stabs fetuses intentionally be an act of killing.
But no-one will even address the main issue. It's all fantasy land narratives on the subject. An the only reason for the fantasy land narratives is the POWER obsession with dictating the Woman to reproduce..
The difference is that in this case the woman had around 23 weeks to exercise her rights prior to the child having a valid claim to its rights. The right to life is not a valid claim and is certainly not absolute when it requires the labor of others. But at the point of viability you have a true case of legitimate rights being in conflict. Given the intrusiveness of the abortion procedure itself, it seems a reasonable compromise on competing rights to say instead of this abortive procedure, you're going to have to give birth to the child so that it can exercise its right.
If you're comparing delaying a decision to exercise a legitimate right by 23 weeks akin to actual slavery, then you might be part of the problem on reaching a reasonable compromise on this issue.
“If you’re comparing delaying a decision to exercise a legitimate right by 23 weeks akin to actual slavery, then you might be part of the problem on reaching a reasonable compromise on this issue.”
Narrators voice: He is and it was one of the reasons so many pro-choice people just kept their mouths shut.
FREE the Fetus..... Everyone wants to keep pretending it's 'separate' has it's own rights blah, blah, blah but keep insisting the Woman keeps reproducing. WHY? If it's an Individual than for F'Sakes LET it be an Individual!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SET IT FREE!!!! and prove your stances aren't just imaginations.
I wouldn't be against Roe v Wade being re-instated; but Power-mad wack-jobs in the SCOTUS who voided Individual Rights have shown the people that minor 'breaks' to the Constitution just lays precedence to burn the whole thing.
“Pro-Life legislation *is* to FORCE women to reproduce (involuntary servitude) against their will.”
Histrionics like this is why people are switching off. I have yet to see anyone, at all, advocating forcing women to have children. Are you reading about baby farms or something? If these people had their way, do you think they would have armed government goons rounding up unimpregnated women to pair them up with random studs?
My last pay check was $8850 just ecom working 12 hours for every week.. My neighbor have found the estimation of $15k for a long time “(t31 and she works around 20 hours for seven days…. I can not trust how direct it was once
SITE. —> https://dollaray121.blogspot.com
Did I say forced intercourse? No I did not; but just keep swiping desperate low-blow ignorant shots to justify your favorite dictation. Something about straw-men getting put up all over the place.
I'm just following your rhetoric chief, don't get all upset. If you can blow things out of proportion, so can I.
What have I blown out of proportion?
"Pro-Life legislation *is* to FORCE women to reproduce (involuntary servitude) against their will."
Right on, let's extend this logic. I went into a restaurant and ordered a meal. When I tried walking out, they demanded I pay them! Fuck that, no one has a claim on my labor. That's involuntary servitude.
More straw-men getting built. Do they have the right to FORCE you to WORK for them??? And frankly you're purposely dismissing the end of the 13A.
Dear masked male-simp. For the same reason enslaving black women became illegal after ratification. Forced labor is involuntary servitude and individuals are what have constitutional rights. See Ayn Rand Lexicon for more. See Jon on abortion (https://bit.ly/3A2K6wi)
The Constitution allocates the violence of law to the protection of individual persons' rights within a jurisdiction that does not violate a woman's body or cook up pretext for invading other countries. Tzarist sockies thought banning all alcohol a brilliant move at the start of the Opium World War of 1914. The move did rid the planet of a fanatical mystical State, and the current crop of whining dissemblers are on track to rid These States of Comstockist-Wallace Party cross-burners and slavery buffs via the 19th Amendment.
The 1972 libertarian platform parlayed some 4000 votes into a Supreme Court decision restoring pre-Comstock individual rights to women by protecting birth control from mystical violence for 100 days. God's Own Prohibitionists struggle to transplant their whack job tumor to the Libertarian Party, as always counting on help from the anarcho-Nazi von Mises outfit of Alabama and that organ's infiltrating caucus of girl-bulliers. Canada went through a similar crisis concurrently and kept individual rights for individual women. Canada contains few or no Ku-Klux Klowns.
Far be for me to promote religious guru-isms, but since that is all some of you will listen to....
https://www.christiancentury.org/article/editors/roe-v-wade-was-compromise
"The Century editors see eye to eye on many subjects. The ethics of abortion is not one of them. Some of us see abortion as a moral good; others very much do not. Some of us find it morally troubling but maintain that there are instances in which it is the least bad option.
We agree, however, about Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision the US Supreme Court overturned today. It was a crucial legal protection that empowered people to make such ethical determinations for themselves—and to act on them without fear of legal sanction. Now that protection is gone.
To be sure, ethical issues are often legislated and litigated in our society, even at the expense of individual choice. But abortion is especially complex, because it involves ethical claims about competing rights—claims that cannot be tidily resolved. What exactly is the moral status of a fetus, and how should the rights of that fetus be weighed against the bodily autonomy of women and pregnant people? This question cannot be answered definitively by appeals to empiricism or even to a standard ethical concept like human dignity. Ultimately it is a philosophical question—one that the people closest to it should answer for themselves, rather than being bound by the views of experts and authorities. "
Deserves a repeat...
"one that the people closest to it should answer for themselves, rather than being bound by the views of experts and authorities"
Yep, if I want to beat my wife with a rod the width of my thumb, the authorities should stay out of it
Maybe you can beat her with a Gov-Gun into birthing your children yeah??? /s Keep scratching for some leverage.
My last salary was $8750 just ecom worked 12 hours a week. My neighbor has long found an estimate of $16,000″ (u113 and works about 20 hours for seven days…I can’t believe how easy was after
trying the info… binancetrade1
The positions are simple. Every fertile woman dispenses with an ovum on a natural lunar cycle. But the very same wankers that presume to randomly destroy millions of living human spermatozoa insist that women who will have nothing to do with them be forced undergo dangerous forced labor of reproduction, 13th Amendment be damned. The First amendment clearly (to them) makes it OK to torture heretics and continue the European tradition of burning people alive over baseless superstition.
Don't play stupid, you're not smart enough to pull it off.
Pull of the cowardly Enuchhorn mask and tell the readers about Joan of Ark and The Devils of Loudon.
What if geneticists were able to identify a "gender dysmorphia gene" and people chose to abort early fetuses with this mutation?
I think I have the plot for a Netflix Series...
It would cause explosion of the heads of several Red and Blue Team culture warriors, with their tidy partisan positions on gender and abortion.
The Christian nationalsocialist Kleptocracy wing causes women to vote against energy in order to escape murder at the hands of race-suicide slave-catchers. One way or another this may be the way to be rid of that faction of the Grabbers-Of-Pussy the way we were rid of the Prohibition Party, Wizened Christian Temperance Union and Anti-Saloon League as of March 4, 1933--AFTER the economy was wrecked with communist membership doubling and redoubling.
What a silly article.
The entire premise of the section about Buyer's remorse is just a terrible reading of statistics.
"The most striking change has occurred among people living in states where abortion is now prohibited: About seven-in-ten (71%) say it would be difficult to get an abortion, up from the half who said this in 2019."
Um...that is not buyer's remorse. A person recognizing reality- that it is now harder getting an abortion- doesn't say whether or not they are remorseful of the change. Seriously, wtf?
"Interestingly, in states where abortion is now prohibited the share of people saying abortions should be easier to obtain rose from 31 percent in 2019 to 43 percent this year....Those saying it should be harder to get an abortion dropped from 40 percent to 30 percent in prohibitive states, 32 percent to 28 percent in restrictive states"
What exactly does 2Chili think this is proving? As near as I can tell, it sure looks like the states found a reasonable compromise. ~57% feel like the law should not be any easier. And the number of people who feel it should be harsher went down...because there are now more people who feel like the right balance was achieved. This isn't buyer's remorse, it is statistics.
If I feel the law should be "No abortion after 13 weeks", and the government moves it to 13...then I won't say "The law is not restrictive enough." That isn't buyer's remorse- that is me feeling that the law is good enough.
"As near as I can tell, it sure looks like the states found a reasonable compromise.
That's a typical ploy of both fringes in defending their positions. They take the middle ground and claim it as their own. When 43%/27%/30% support less/the same/more restrictions, only 27% "feel like the right balance was achieved".
When that is smaller than the percentage who believed the same thing before (29% in a 31%/29%/40% split), the conclusion that "states found a reasonable compromise" is demonstrably false. Fewer people believe their state found a reasonable compromise than before and the huge shift from "more restrictions" to "less restrictions" says that they believe the restrictions go too far.
When there is a "just right" category, only someone with an agenda ignores it and tries to co-opt those numbers into an "against the side I disfavor" category.
If you're arguing about 2% I'm sure that's easily within the margin of error of the polls.
So we should assume that it falls the other way? That doesn't make sense. At best, the very best, the percentage who think it's just right hasn't changed in percentage, just composition. And the huge shift towards the belief that it's too restrictive and the massive decrease in those who believe it's not restrictive enough shows that the minority who wanted more restrictions have their "just right" well outside the norm, even in deep red states.
I'm worried this will negatively impact the R's ability to be a strong opposition party. While culturally it will be good for America to reject the restrictionist legislation of the right, without a strong political position they will be incapable of reigning in the rampant spending that the Ds want to institute. And that is the part that is actually a threat to America, not drag shows and abortion.
The bible thumpers will completely destroy the republican party if they go unchecked.
The only way they will return to a solutions-oriented party is if the culture war extremism of "groomers", "socialists", "baby killers", and "open borders" results in large electoral defeats. They didn't read the midterms that way, so 2024 will be the next test.
I fear that the Rs will get decimated in a way that tarnishes their brand with voters for several cycles. While rebalancing the judiciary would be a good outcome, the reckless spending that a weakened Republican party will allow will be disastrous. That is my fear.
We always need a strong opposition party to control deficit spending, since both parties love it. The obsession of Rs with extreme culture war positions will weaken them when we need them to be strong.
You sound concerned.
The well being of the GOP is, after all, a major goal of libertarianism.
I am concerned.
We need two parties roughly equal in influence, with small swings back and forth. If one party (in this case, Rs) don't self-correct when the electorate sends a message, the following election cycle is usually a bloodbath and it takes years to regain credibility with voters.
Imagine what would happen if Ds get a supermajority. I doubt it will happen in 2024, but without a course correction it could. What will happen with deficit spending? What will happen with regulations? What will happen with student loans? All those things worry me.
Even if it doesn't happen in 2024, do you see the Rs as self-aware enough to dial back the culture war? Or will they double down? And if they do, what will happen in 2026?
Libertarians gain when there is a push/pull between the two major parties that is roughly equal. Rs seem hell-bent on wrecking their power with extreme policy positions, leaving Ds with an inordinate amount of power for the next several cycles. This would be a bad thing. Better than the Rs having an inordinate amount of power, but not by much.
Great Tucille article, as usual. "Unexpected defeat" was one of the conditions for which Dr Trump's Butt-Hurt Salve was a specific. The LP came almost exactly a year after women finally got their hands on The Pill. It took all of the power of the Nixon subsidies, Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Reagan, Warren Commission Ford, Special Guest Ceausescu, Holy War Bush and issue to get Long Dong on the Court. Today, the gluteus-intolerant asses are handed back to them and the bar owner who spat in customers beers is begging them to return. (http://bit.ly/3UAkOit)
I would love to have some more moderate voices, who usually don't participate, join in. Yes, the extremists will say untrue and nasty things about you. But we need more reasonable voices to get involved.
If you have a middle-ground view and don't usually post, please reconsider. Don't let bullies silence you.
It's interesting to see the duopolists suddenly express concern about public opinion.
Did they worry about public consensus when getting into more wars?
Or locking down the country?
Or when setting up a federal spy system?
No, on all these issues they showed Leadership and went ahead and did what they wanted.
Now with innocent human life in the balance, they want polls about splitting the baby to influence their action.
TooSilly is quite the populist, doncha know.
I get paid more than $100 to $500 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this I have earned easily $21k from this without having online working skills . Simply give it a shot on the accompanying site…
Here is I started……………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
A new post is up. Data show that girl-bullying laws drive up the rate at which women die in childbirth--especially forced childbirth. When the outcomes are meassured, Pro-Life turns out to mean Pro-Death. Simple facts: (https://bit.ly/3HqbdFJ)
Three gender studies profs from Tufts produced that study? Cultural Marxism is strong today I see.
Now can we discuss the pedo/groomer trans movement pushing for the govt to take your confused kids and sexually mutilating them? The DOJ going after TN on this is probably the most disgusting immoral thing the Federal Govt has done domestically in decades. The govt doesn't own your kids...and there is no such thing as "transgender"...evolution determines your gender. Fuck off Pedos
The nutjobs are "strong today, I see." ^^^
When it comes to trans issues, they always are. It's the same arguments as the anti-gay rhetoric of the 80s, they just changed the target. Cultural conservatives are nothing if not consistent in their opposition to personal freedom.
"Hey, do not mutilate children" and "Hey, let's not sexualize youngsters" is the next step to fascism, obviously. Note: Nobody gives the first iota of a shit about drag shows if all involved are adults. Nobody gives a flying fuck if an adult wants to mutilate themselves. Knock yourself out. I won't call you she when you're a he --- fuck you trying to police MY speech --- but I do not care what you do to yourself as an adult.
You'd think somebody who wrote "I would love to have some more moderate voices, who usually don’t participate, join in. Yes, the extremists will say untrue and nasty things about you. But we need more reasonable voices to get involved." would avoid such idiocy, but you'd be disappointed.
"Hey, do not mutilate children"
Not happening. Even surgery (which isn't mutilation) doesn't happen except in very, very rare cases. Since it's not your kid, your bigited opinion is irrelevant.
“Hey, let’s not sexualize youngsters”
That also isn't being done. Just like a drag queen reading books to kids isn't a sexual performance.
"Nobody gives the first iota of a shit about drag shows if all involved are adults."
Nobody should give a shit what someone wears while reading a book to children. No drag queen story hour has ever been even a little sexual, but that doesn't stop idiots like you from claiming they are.
"Nobody gives a flying fuck if an adult wants to mutilate themselves."
Actually, I believe one of the ignorance-heavy states (maybe Missouri or Mississippi?) has proposed exactly that.
"I won’t call you she when you’re a he — fuck you trying to police MY speech"
That's fine. Just don't complain when you get fired because you can't work well with others and are viewed as a self-impressed dick.
I am absolutely a moderate voice. I don't make wild, unsubstantiated claims about culture war issues. I support personal liberty and independent moral decision-making. I don't support legislating morality. I oppose speech restrictions like "free speech zones" on campuses and book bans. I assume that people are capable of making decisions about their kids and should be allowed to, without random strangers forcing their opinions on everyone else through legislation.
You're a wingnut. You know it. You revel in it. You are convinced of your own righteousness and think that means your beliefs should be forced on everyone else.
You refuse to believe, despite overwhelming evidence, that most people are generally decent. You are convinced the political position of a person (or the party they support) is related to whether they are a good or bad person. You think that liberals are evil, moderates are liberals, the center-right are bad, and the far right are the only righteous ones.
I keep hoping you're a teenage edgelord, stirring the pot just to see how far you can go. But I fear you are actually as hateful and angry as you seem. It's a sad thing.
Republicans are making a horrible error on this issue. When millions of your enemies are lined up around the block for the opportunity to voluntarily end their own genetic line, don't stand in their way.