-
Website
http://themoderatevoice.com/ -
Original page
http://themoderatevoice.com/52682/compromise-needed-with-abortion-foes-in-healthcare-reform/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I'm willing to entertain a few exceptional cases where abortion could be allowed, and most in the pro-life movement are of the same mind. Actually, I'd be content to see the whole issue back in the state legislatures, like pre-Roe v. Wade. I'm with DLS, that as much as possible, contentious social issues should be decided as close to the people as possible. The Robert court would do us all a big favor by overturning Roe and letting us hammer this out state-to-state.
Not only that, but throwing abortion as an issue back to the states will not satisfy opponents of legal abortion because the inevitable outcome of women flocking to the states where abortion is legal would be opponents of legal abortion pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion outright, to prevent women from escaping their own states' criminalization of abortion.
In a practical sense, the genie is out of the bottle on abortion and has been for decades. That did play a part in Roe v. Wade, and it's why even some of us who are Troglodilian in our views on the underlying moral issue do not see value in overturning Roe. Truth is abortion should remain safe and legal not because of any moral argument, but because the practical alternative is unacceptable.
This is another good point. Although you may not have intended this shade of meaning, what I take from it is that, even if we went back, in a strictly literal and legal sense, to states determining the legality of abortion, women are not going back. Women have had a 35-year taste of individual bodily autonomy, and as a general proposition, they are not going to be willing to return to the days of wire hangers, bottles of bleach, back alleys, kitchen tables, and quack doctors. Been there, done that. Never will do it again.
Read my comment. You may be pleasantly surprised.
As far as the flocking goes. You can require that abortion clients be legal residents of that state. If a "liberal minded" woman wants to get an abortion - she can actually MOVE to that state - and preferably stay there.
I would be willing to bet that Kathy Kattenburg will poop in her pants when she reads that.
LOL
As for residency requirements to have an abortion, obviously that's not going to help a woman who is already pregnant and needs an abortion. And just so you don't come back at me with the same old non sequitur argument, sometimes a woman finds out, after she has conceived a wanted pregnancy, that the pregnancy is not viable for any one of many reasons, or that there are health concerns she was not earlier aware of, or that come up during the pregnancy.
Aside from the above, I'm not sure how it could possibly be legal to have a residency requirement for abortion services if you're not paying for it with public dollars. If abortion is legal in my state, for example, and a woman travels to New Jersey from Mississippi, where abortion is illegal, assuming she can afford to pay for the abortion herself, how could a state government require her to be a legal resident before she could have one?
If a "liberal minded" woman wants to get an abortion - she can actually MOVE to that state - and preferably stay there.
It isn't just "liberal-minded" woman who need abortions or choose to have one, although there *are* women who never thought they would ever have an abortion who find at some point in their lives that they have to have one.
"Conservatives may be more correct than Progressives on this limited debate. Pregnancies and abortions are intrinsic parts of any healthcare debate since they impact the health of a woman."
I don't understand how sentence 2 follows sentence 1 at all. Progressives have been saying that pregnancies and abortions are important to health care because of their direct and huge affect on women for ages, while conservative pro-life folks have been talking about babies and babies only. These are HUGE medical issues for women, and that's why this legislation needs to ensure that women aren't cut off from the medical services involved; it's not progressives who are trying to make it harder for women to access the correct medical care.
"Therefore Conservatives can reasonably argue that federal funds and tax policy impermissibly support and pay for abortions covered under private employer-sponsored health plans."
If we're going to start saying that tax deductions equal government subsidies, we've got a whole 'nuther can of worms to open -- and let's just say that the church-going crowd would not be particularly happy to see that happen. I would say that, as laws go, the non-establishment clause in the Constitution takes precidence (by bounds and leaps) over the Hyde amendment. If tax deductions for health care costs mean that the government is promoting or paying for abortion, it sure as hell means that the government is promoting and paying for religion. It also means that I'm paying $400 per kid per year (the tax deduction for having a child, last time I checked) every time someone chooses NOT to abort. That might sound harsh, but if we're gonna go there, it's not exactly fair to go there ONLY for this one particular case which will only affect women who choose to have sex -- we've got to be fair about this.
"both liberals and conservatives should demand greater public and private insurance coverage for comprehensive pregnancy care, childbirth, extensive infant and maternity care during the first 6 months after birth, and full coverage for surgical remedies of various congenital birth defects."
Progressives (at least feminist progressives) have been fighting for this sort of thing, but it's looked on as "socialism" by conservatives. Good friggin' luck getting compromise on this.
"progressives could advocate more public funds for comprehensive sex education in all public"
Again: we do! We most certainly do advocate for comprehensive sex education! I could write a 10 page paper on just this subject. Guess who doesn't want schools teaching about safe sex? Guess who would rather slut shame and talk about marriage and show little videos about a piece of tape that's been stuck and ripped off too many times or pass around a rose and have each kid take off a petal to show just how dirty and slutty and *used up* women are if they have pre-marital sex? (hint: it's not progressives.)
"All condoms and other pregnancy-prevention medicines and devices for both men and women could be fully covered by public and private health insurance plans."
Great idea. Again, do you really think social conservatives will compromise on this?
I've never completely agreed with that power-word idea. It seems to me that the bigger problem is when words get redefined or misused to mean something other than their original intent. Since pro-life, pro-choice, and all the other related terms have consistently meant the same things, I don't think it's a problem to let people show their bias.
Thank you for your comment. My use of the term "pro-life" was meant only as shorthand in the political vernacular of the day. No intent to imply the opposite on the part of those who might disagree with my position was meant.
Still, I take your point that my use of the term was careless and could be misconstrued. My prior comment has been edited to reflect your concern. My apologies for having been responsible for raising such concerns in the first place.
The most recent polling shows a significant shift in the public attitude. A greater percentage of the public now supports increased restrictions on abortion. This was reported, for example, by the U.S. News and World Report. CNN reported this morning (Wednesday) that Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nevada) has gone on record that he will oppose any Senate health bill that does not include the same abortion funding restrictions contained in the bill recently passed by the House. Rep. Stupak and Sen. Nelson represent new winds blowing in the Democratic party, and I'm glad to be associated as a Democrat with this new direction, one that mirrors the growing public consensus on a long contentious issue.
Roe is a judcially activist case, whose legal reasoning is subject to criticism. But, there is no express right to privacy in the Constitution, and without the judicially activist decision of Roe v. Wade, that right does not exist at the federal level.
Like Redbus, I am morally opposed to abortion, euthanasia, physician assisted suicide and capital punishment. But, I make a distinction between moral issues and constitutional issues to the extent that I oppose legislating morality.
My warning. In wanting Roe v. Wade overturned to send the abortion issue back to the states, be careful what you wish for.
You've raised an excellent point. Not being a Constitutional lawyer, I'm not sure about the validity of what you've said. You make Roe v. Wade sound like a game of Jenga, i.e. you pull out a block from the lower part of the tower, and what's on top comes crashing down. It's hard for me to see how overturning Roe would nullify Lawrence v. Texas, for example. The SCOTUS is usually smart enough to figure out a way to make a ruling that is narrow and thereby avoids legal collateral damage. There may be a lawyer reading this who will set me straight.
Exactly, tidbits. People who want to go back to pre-Roe v. Wade have either forgotten or never knew what the practical state of affairs was before Roe v. Wade. We need to learn from our mistakes, not go back so we have to learn the lessons all over again.
GOP politicians and operatives continue to dishonestly and deceptively say that they cannot support a public option, they claim that they want to keep costs down for the American people! Really? This they claim all the while knowing that a public option/competition is the only way to really control cost and to bring about true reform thereby putting a definite Halt to the “out of control” medical costs and premiums crippling people and businesses today, making it harder and harder for average Americans and young people to realize and take advantage of the slowly, slipping away American Dream. One could ask themselves, If you happen to lose your job today or tomorrow in these unstable economic times and at a time when we currently do not have healthcare reform for all, who would pay you or your familiy's health care costs, that is, if you are lucky enough to be able to see a doctor without insurance? This American Dream, now being called Socialism by the GOP has slowly been slipping away, and is in the last throes of dying, if we do not forge a new path onwards toward inclusion and cooperation for all. This dream of America will die to be replaced with just another third world country -- only to go by the wayside and into the history books as another failed experiment.
(FYI: The Conservative blog "Powerline" barred me from commenting on their blog because my ideas were opposite theirs. This is something a Liberal blog would never do -- censor free speach because it did not agree with theirs!)
Or maybe it had something to do with giving partisan pep talks in place of on-subject discussion. ... just a possibility.
"nor do they support the sale and distribution of RU-486, the morning-after pill since it causes an immediate menstrual period even though a recently-fertilized egg may or may not be present."
This is not true. RU-486 is NOT the morning after pill.
RU-486 is what is known as the "abortion pill". It can be taken up to a month after conception (there is already a confirmed pregnancy) and causes a medical abortion over the two days following the dosage of the medication and has a success rate over 90%. It is an abortion choice that can be made instead of the standard surgical abortion within the first month. It does not cause menstruation; it causes an abortion.
The morning after pill is a heavier dose of regular old oral contraceptive "The Pill". It must be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex (the sooner the better), and *prevents* pregnancy with a success rate of about 80%, if memory serves. It *will not work* if the woman is already pregnant -- medically speaking, if there is an implanted zygote. Zygote implantation happens within 3-7 days after unprotected sex. In fact, if implementation has already happened at the time a woman takes the morning after pill, it won't even hurt the implanted zygote. ETA: it also does not cause menstruation, even though it can cause some spot bleeding due to all the extra hormones.
If we're going to talk about this issue, let's at least get the medical facts straight. The misconception that the morning after pill is the abortion pill RU-486 just makes it harder for couples who have a slip of the condom or unprotected sex to *prevent* pregnancy through the morning after pill which is, again, just a heavier than normal dose of oral contraceptives.
I'd rather allow adopters to pay for healthy infants again. It's not that I'm comfortable with the idea of selling kids like they were a house or a can of beans, but I prefer that to throwing them away like trash. The definition of trash here being something that you don't want and can't sell.
I understand that the change wouldn't save a lot of kids lives, and would have some other, unforeseen problems with it, but I still think it would be the lesser of evils.
"a fetus has to be considered a baby at some point before birth"
Legally, it is. It's called viability, and the medical establishment considers this the dividing line between the second and third trimesters -- about 6 months. This is why it's illegal to get an abortion after this time unless something has gone terribly, horribly wrong. At this stage, the baby can be taken out of the mother's womb and will generally live given the proper medical care, etc. This means that it's rare to have an abortion if the baby's healthy but the mother will die if it doesn't come out -- they just take it out. This is already part of the Roe v Wade decision.
"Although there are a few exceptions, for the most part we're arguing over whether the kid dies legally or illegally. "
I'm really curious about what you mean here. Are we still talking late-stage abortion? I would agree with this statement if we're talking about first-trimester abortions, minus the calling the fetus a "kid". First trimester abortions are extremely easy and safe procedures if done correctly; even DIY (do research first, of course!). Later stage abortions get very dangerous. After about the 4th month of pregnancy, almost all abortions are done for more health-related reasons -- not just "I don't want this thing".
"The real effects of making abortions illegal would be to endanger more women's lives and put some of the women and abortionists in jail afterword."
Agreed.
"I'd rather allow adopters to pay for healthy infants again. It's not that I'm comfortable with the idea of selling kids like they were a house or a can of beans, but I prefer that to throwing them away like trash."
This shows some naïveté about the reasons women get abortions. First trimester abortions -- remember these are easy, safe, cheap -- are done for any reason the woman wants (legally). Sometimes those reason include shame, not wanting to carry a child, an inability to carry a child, not being capable of supporting a child, just not ready to be a parent, can't keep their job while pregnant, whatever. With most of the reasons women get early abortions, it doesn't make sense for the woman to carry that fetus to term, whether they'll be paid for the eventual kid or not. Again, most later abortions are done for other reasons -- the fetus has a disease, etc. It doesn't make sense if the eventual kid will have a disease to then keep the pregnancy in the hopes of getting money for it. Of course, there are huge moral issues involved here -- women getting pregnant on purpose in order to sell their kids, beautiful but poor women being taken advantage of and used as baby-makers for the rich who may be infertile or don't wish to ruin their bodies through pregnancy, etc. This doesn't take into account the fact that giving up your child for adoption is generally way more traumatic than having an early-term abortion.
I don't think it's the "lesser of two evils"; in fact, I certainly think it's the worse of two evils. This is why I'm pro-choice.
Understandable, this has got to be one of my more "off the wall" ideas.
"Legally, it is. It's called viability, and the medical establishment considers ..."
There's bunch of different answers with different principles behind them. GreenDreams brought up the constitutional definition (birth), JeffersonDavis uses synapse viability, if I remember right, and, of course, there's the conception group. All of them have good arguments on their side.
"arguing over whether the kid dies legally or illegally."
I'm not talking about anything medical here, just that the law has effective limits. Speeding, drug use, prostitution, office gambling, and a host of other things are illegal, but because they don't directly impact another person, the law really can't stop them. The kid is obviously affected, but, quite often, no one knows that the mother is pregnant, or at least, no one who would turn the mother in. Yes, late term pregnancies are more of an exception, not just because they're more difficult, but also because the pregnancy is harder to hide.
"Sometimes those reason include..."
Take a look at your list again: not being capable of supporting a child, and just not ready to be a parent are both saying that she can't afford it. Right now, couples will pay $30,000 and more to adopt a child from overseas, since the US market (I'm using that word on purpose) is limited to freewill donors. Although some states allows couples to cover certain expenses for the mother, it's hard to encode into law what all of those expenses might be.
"there are huge moral issues involved here . . ."
You think? Between adoption and abortion, I'd rather deal with the moral problems of adoption.
"women getting pregnant on purpose in order to sell their kids,"
If these kinds of problems really concern you, then are you concerned with AFDC encouraging girls to get pregnant in order to get the payments? The law currently sets the profit (again, I'm using that word on purpose) at $0. It could set at a different level into order to curb the worst abuses.
"This doesn't take into account the fact that giving up your child for adoption is generally way more traumatic than having an early-term abortion."
We were looking at adoption before we went through infertility treatments. Quite often, a baby adoption works like a divorce, with the mother getting visiting rights and choosing the parents, so that she knows how the kid turned out. I think you may have the "trauma" thing backward, unless you have statistics to contrary.
"This is why I'm pro-choice".
I'm more anti-law, since I think the unborn have some rights (even if they're not constitutional, GreenDreams) also. Rights aren't rights at all if they harm someone else, so I can't support abortions as a right without diluting the meaning of the word.
Do you believe that 5% of the global population have the right to use up a quarter of the planet's fossil fuel resources? The fact that Americans do, harms many someone elses.
And, it still doesn't account for cross border [Canada] and off shore abortions. As I said before, the genie is out of the bottle, and you just can't put it back in. Leave it legal and argue the morality on an individual basis. The practicalities just don't work to try to get to illegality or even state-by-state, and way too much is at risk, far beyond the abortion issue, in overturning Roe v. Wade.
That scares me, too! :-)
It's also obvious that a majority doesn't approve of an unlimited, absolute federal abortion entitlement.
No, you're right. Luckily, that doesn't exist, nor is it being proposed by anyone.
http://themoderatevoice.com/52754/an-abortion-c...