The debate last night enraged me. Their gross lies about abortion were egregious. We do NOT do “abortions on demand”. We do NOT do abortions at 38 weeks. Their inflammatory lies are horrific - they should be ashamed
The debate last night enraged me. Their gross lies about abortion were egregious. We do NOT do “abortions on demand”. We do NOT do abortions at 38 weeks. Their inflammatory lies are horrific - they should be ashamed
And the descriptive phraseology is deliberately misleading. "Killing new born babies" suggests some sort of horrible death - whereas babies that are not capable of living for more than a day or two, usually in great discomfort, are fed only sugar water or water and any necessary panacea until they pass away - usually in a loving parents arms - not taken to the nearest cliff and hurled over, as Republicans imply.
I'm pretty sure most Republican politicians don't know (I didn't until recently) that "abortion" is an umbrella medical term for many procedures, including the one Bridget references: where the fetus has died and must be removed from the mother's body for obvious lifesaving reasons. My sister-in-law was one of the people who educated me on this. She was 5 months pregnant and her baby boy tragically died. Removing her dead baby from her body was classed in medical terms as an abortion. And any politician who does know this and agrees to passing a bill criminalizing a necessary medical procedure such as this is evil.
I am a pro-life person who believes that human life even before birth is sacred, but I have become much more educated about how complicated a topic "abortion" is in the past year. I have also reluctantly accepted the fact that, even though I believe a human life with a soul is present from the beginning of the pregnancy, this is my belief, not something that is proven, and that other people have different beliefs. (I am one of those people who is willing to accept that I might be wrong about stuff I believe!)
As we are a (so far) free society without the right to impose our religious/ethical/political beliefs on others, I have come to the conclusion that whatever limits are placed on abortion should be the result of a broad, nationwide decision based on legitimate medical knowledge and decisions of the general citizenry. Just because I happen to believe that a "fetus" really should be called a baby, and an innocent baby shouldn't be aborted, for instance, because of the circumstances of his/her conception, doesn't mean that my opinion should have more sway than someone who believes a fetus isn't a person until a certain point in the pregnancy. And I'll repeat again that all kinds of medical issues related to the health and life of the mother and baby make this a much more complicated issue than Republican legislatures in many states are willing to think about.
My mother had six pregnancies. I am the only one that lived. We think this may mostly be b/c mom was a three pack-a-day smoker at a time when the link between smoking and miscarriage wasn’t well-understood, but we don’t really know why and, frankly, it doesn’t really matter now.
Two of those miscarriages took place well-along her second trimester, 5th & 6th months. She almost bled to death, twice. (The second time she bled so much she had an out-of-body experience. She floated above the surgical table and could see the medical team trying to save her. Then her father appeared and told her it wasn’t her time and she woke up in recovery.)
But here’s the point: she was living in Saudi Arabia in the 1950s, getting her medical care from a small clinic, and she STILL got better medical care than women are getting in Texas in 2023.
Thank you. I admire it when people expand their understanding of an issue. Some days it feels like our entire culture works against changing your mind.
Just remember - I believe in Ohio they tried to legislate "re-implanting" an ecotopic pregnancy.
If I'm leery about "pro life legislation," that's why.
I agree with you, rc..... I do have a bone to pick with the "patriarchal religious zealot" part of your comment. It may not be what you meant, but I get annoyed by the idea that the reason I, a woman and mother, have the opinion I do about abortion is because of a slavish, meek, adherence to what a bunch of men administering my religion have told me to think. Again, I apologize if I am painting you with the broad brush of one of my pet peeves. I am an American, a woman, a feminist, and a person who tries my best to form my opinions based on using my God-given ability to reason and get all the information I can on an issue. And based on all that, I have my beliefs about abortion, and accept and respect the fact that others have their own beliefs.
I have to disagree politely. All of this information was out there, and I thought it was very clear. But as you know, a lie travels around the world before the truth has the chance to put its boots on. Planned Parenthood was always pointing out what happens when women can't get abortions, pointing to countries like Ireland and Poland. Medical associations were also proactive. But you just can't force people to absorb things they don't want to absorb. Some people really want to think that "after-birth abortions" is a thing. And some men just think women's issues aren't important. I don't get it either, but I don't think it's a messaging fail, more of an empathy fail.
They don’t want to listen. And ask yourself -- if you’d had an abortion, would you want to publicize it for any purpose, given how insane pro-life people can be? You want to be called a baby killer? Get doxxed by project Veritas types? Be stalked on social media or have people turn up at your home or work?
Pro-lifers have done their damndest to shut down discussion of who has abortions and why, all in favor of their religious and political ideologies. If people don’t know that you can’t implant an ectopic pregnancy in the uterus, thank pro-lifers.
And restrictions that will be used by Republican politicians to curtail rights and access to such potentially life-saving treatment are what Democrats are worried about. Of course, they are basing this worry only on everything Republicans say and do on the subject, so....
* This comment not directed at you, but those who seem to not understand WHY democrats fight back on restrictions.
Serious suggestion: don’t watch these debates. Read a book or do something valuable to you. It is a better use of your time and will give you better head space.
There really is no need to pay attention to this stuff. Plenty of folks will tell us who did what to whom afterwards. And none of it will matter. (One reason the GOP doesn't care about winning elections is because they have become proficient at stealing them, through the anti-democratic electoral college (created to prevent the person with the most votes from taking office) and voter suppression efforts; they don't need to get the most votes any more.
Here in Germany, we slept, and did not go looking for a replay when offered by NYT online. I would rather be condemned to watch faucets dripping than that crew trying to one-up each other without POing the Orangutang not in the room.
"Abortion on demand" is a term that means if you want an abortion, you can have one. No limits. I know liberals hate the term, but it is an entirely accurate characterization. And some states do allow abortion up until birth. New York is one of them. Most countries, by the way, have a cut off at 15 weeks.
Just the fact that abortions in the final trimester are extremely rare, doesn't mean they don't happen. If the Rs were smart, they would fight the battle over the Ds' support for 2nd and even 3rd trimester abortion, as well as Ds support for public funding of abortion. None of that is remotely popular with the public. But Democrats won't back away from supporting those positions because it will alienate their base. But right now the abortion issue is being fought out on the terrain where the R's are the weakest - first trimester abortion and the exceptions. Rs have to give up on those matters and fight the Ds on the abortion turf where the D's positions are unpopular.
Dems would be very happy with a nationwide right to abortion to 14-16 weeks, and after with a doctor's order. This is not nearly good enough for Republicans. Those old fucks will line up and say doctors will write anything a woman wants them to. There is a very strong urge among men on the right to see women punished for their behavior - i.e. unwanted pregnancy? Woman should have kept her legs closed - should only have relationships with men they would want to have children with - etc.
I'm curious why you think doctors and hospitals have no say in the procedures they will perform. Do you really think a doctor at a reputable clinic is going to say, "Well, there's no law against it, I guess I could do an after-birth abortion"? My position is, keep the government away from this question entirely, as the Founding Fathers did.
While I fully support where you are coming from, I'm not sure that referencing the Founding Fathers with regards to women's rights is a fruitful road to go down. "Abortion is an issue that should be between a husband and his wife's doctor!" ;)
Uh, no. Late term abortions are called for when there is a real threat to the mother or there is a lethal malformation that makes the fetus nonviable. I know of no liberal who would support an elective abortion where the fetus is practically fully formed, and only a back alley quack would perform one anyway. Their occurrence is probably six or seven standard deviations from the mean. This accusation is similar to the immigration slur that Dems advocate allowing just anyone to be able to walk into the country without so much as a by your leave. In other words, outright lies.
Virtually nobody carries a child into the 3rd trimester and then, willy-nilly, decides, "I don't really want a baby, so I'll get an abortion!" I suppose it's not unlikely that the father walks out after deciding he doesn't want the child and the mother may very well not be able to afford a child. But more than 90% of late term abortions are because of health or viability.
"No limits. I know liberals hate the term, but it is an entirely accurate characterization. And some states do allow abortion up until birth. New York is one of them."
This is an outright falsehood. New York allows abortion through the 24th week; after that, a woman can only get one if her health or the pregnancy is at risk. You might find them inadequate, but those *are* limits.
"Most countries, by the way, have a cut off at 15 weeks."
Most countries also have public healthcare systems that pay for abortions and birth control in full, and don't require medically unnecessary stuff like fetal ultrasounds, waiting periods, or admitting privileges at hospitals. Unless those things are also on the table, it's a specious comparison.
And if a woman was having a pregnancy emergency in Europe, she'd be able to end her pregnancy with pretty minimal fuss. No doctor in Europe is afraid of going to jail for saving a woman's life by giving her an abortion. Another reason why the comparisons to Europe are bunk.
"Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, and was authored by former general counsel for the Mayo Clinic, Harry Blackmun. If you’ve read it, you can see it was a well thought out, well organized, historical, scientific-oriented decision. Blackmun was very deliberate in laying out the structure he was thinking and why. The result was a 7-2 decision that people at the time didn’t think was all that controversial, and that is because inherent in the framework is a compromise."
You are correct, but. It’s an article of Republican faith that we do. They completely dismiss the reasons anyone might seek a 3rd trimester abortion in one of the 9 states where it’s legal. Infuriating.
Tracy, I know of WHY almost all of those third trimester abortions happen, but if you ask the Ds whether they would ban it when those conditions - such as threat to the health of the mother - are not present, they still will insist on no limits The D position on abortion is waaaaaay out there. Virtually every country has gestational limits (usually 15 weeks) with exceptions. The Ds don't want any exceptions and want abortion, on demand, for 9 months.
You’re cherry picking the rarest of exceptions to allow the government to dictate what the rest can do at the expense of their health. Just stop. I’m pro-life. I am vehemently against abortion. But I have no right to tell women what and what they can’t do with their bodies. Especially as a man - we need to sit this one out and STFU.
Mr. Ogden, ask uber-Republican Rick Santorum about his wife's "early induced labor" at nine months, which was done to save her life when the fetus was going to kill her. They still won't allow it be called an abortion, even though that's what it was. With Republicans, when it's D's, they say "abortion on demand for 9 months", when it's R's, they say, "early induced labor" for the rich & powerful, let the woman die for the poor. It's all semantics.
First, can you provide us with some data on 3rd term abortions happen that do not either (1) risk the mother and (2) the fetus is not viable?
Second, the fundamental problem with your statement is that it doesn’t recognize the gray area which in later term abortion is ALWAYS present. It’s never “if you give birth you will die.” It’s their is 80% chance or 50% chance. So what’s your requirement? A woman should give birth always if it’s only 50% chance they will die? That’s the problem with laws, you have to actually put it on paper and then tell us how you enforce it.
Paul, have you ever known anyone who died from an ectopic pregnancy pre the 1973 Roe decision? I had a college sorority sister (married) who died of an ectopic pregnancy in the late 60s. Have you ever had a married friend who accidentally become pregnant with an IUD in place & almost die, & then have to have a complete hysterectomy to save her life? I have. Have you ever had a friend's married daughter become pregnant with what became a devastating pregnancy, where she& her husband were told that the fetus would only survive a short time after birth & that continuing the pregnancy was a danger to her life? I have.
So, unless you've experienced any of these horrors, please keep your opinions on pregnancy to yourself.
Of course, because you could never legislate to all the things that might happen up to birth and you want to give doctors maximum flexibility to save a woman’s life, if needed - instead of having to navigate a bunch of laws written by people who are medically ignorant just to appease their religious constituents.
The reason they won’t ban it is because, as has happened in many of these red states, the ban then starts to affect medical care and emergencies-those emergencies can come at any part of a pregnancy. NO ONE is advocating for abortion on demand at 38 weeks-they’re advocating for medical treatment to remain legal through an entire pregnancy-doctors shouldn’t be forcing women to wait for medical care. This is grotesque lie that democrats and the press need to start calling out loudly!
You are disingenuous to the point of offense, as has been broadly noted. If you want to be helpful as a male in this discussion, join me in encouraging all men to EJACULATE RESPONSIBLY - which happens to be the title of the recent book by Gabrielle Blair. If you haven’t yet, read it, and share.
That’s the easiest solution. Costs nothing. Imposes no regulation on others. And it’s unimpeachable.
I had a bumper sticker made: "Only Eunuchs Can Prevent Abortion". Sadly (or rather thankfully for my car's paint job), there aren't a whole lot of literate folks out there that can either pronounce or understand the 2nd word.
The Dem position is not way out there. The GOP position has moved the goal posts so far past legitimate compromise the issue is no longer even in the stadium in States like Texas and Alabama. Riddle me this, GOP abortion nuts are demanding full personhood at conception and incarceration for women and doctors who participate in abortion, but what should be done with a fetus whose presence in utero kills it's mother? Should the fetus be put in juvenile detention if it survives the mother's death?
Essentially Democrats want to place the decsion entirely in the choice of the woman and at the medical discretion of the physician performing the procedure. Sure, in theory that implies a one in a million chance of choosing an elective abortion up to the time of birth by a heartless woman enabled by an unscrupulous doctor who enjoys killing viable babies.
But as others have pointed out here that is hardly ever (practically never) the case with late term terminations.
Tell me which democrat endorses abortion on demand up until birth. I think the correct position is that it should be a decision made with the women and her doctors, and most believe in some restrictions. Most democrats had no problem with Roe v Wade restrictions. We could still have them in place except for Mitch and Republicans.
THE REASON SOME STATES HAVE NO LIMIT IN LAW IS BECAUSE THE MOST DIFFICULT, HEARTBREAKING DECISION OF A WOMAN'S LIFE SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO A GOVERNMENT APPROVAL PROCESS OR A BUREAUCRAT UNDERSTANDING COMPLEX MEDICAL CONDITIONS.
How threatening does the pregnancy have to be? Is 5% risk of death enough? 20%? Is inducing a woman whose fetus has died an abortion? What if the pregnancy is not life threatening but future fertility threatening? Should that family be subject to your superior knowledge? What if there is no chance the baby will live outside the womb beyond hours? Perhaps a woman needs to to hurry up and try again - would she get your stamp of approval? What about fetal surgery? Is taking that risk an abortion?
And do you know how well lawmakers are covering this topic? Ohio's 'Heartbeat' bill, which is currenly on hold with the courts was first passed with a section REQUIRING DOCTORS to attempt to implant an ectopic pregnancy into the uterus. This is what a population gets when people who are no longer having children think the topic is simple.
Most of these cases aren't seen by a General OBGYN, they are seen by a maternal fetal medicine physician who has done 4 years of medical school, 4 years of a general OBGYN residency, and then 3 years of a Maternal Fetal Medicine Fellowship.
So these cases are so nuanced and complicated that they require 11 years of post-collegiate education and training, three rounds of general boards and two rounds of specialty-specific boards to manage.
But the roofing contractor from Bumfuck County who got elected to the statehouse thinks we need a heartbeat bill in order to prevent infanticide. NO! This is the reason most women identify as personally pro-life but legally pro-choice. If these were easy, tidy choices there wouldn't entire specialties dedicated to addressing these cases.
The surest, best way to change the mind of Mr. Ogden re: abortion? Get him pregnant. If women really felt the way he thinks, there would be no multi-child families on earth.
I think the question though has to then be, why? Why do democrats want no restrictions in a country that has seen increasing efforts from one side to restrict access any creative way they can? Republicans want the decision to rest with government. Democrats don't trust republican government in this regard.
I want to clarify that the question of 'why' is directed to those who state that Democrats want no restrictions on abortion up to delivery day or some-such. They need to ask why democrats have a position that can be characterized by them in that way. The answer (not clear in my original post) is that there are very good reasons for it.
Paul said: "The Ds don't want any exceptions and want abortion, on demand, for 9 months."
He needs to seriously ask why this is the case? Why the difference with the European model he holds up as 'reasonable'? Why don't democrats trust the South Carolina legislature not to try and and get the death penalty for an abortion to save the mother's life? In which European countries we might want to emulate is anything approaching legislatures like SC's in force?
This isn't hard. Terrible things can happen as the pregnancy nears its end, and it's up to the mother and doctor to make a heartbreaking decision about the baby they wanted and planned for. This is the Why.
I don’t think regulating women’s bodies is safe or effective no matter how I personally feel about abortion, particularly when it is based on religious beliefs about when a soul enters the body. Anti-science politicians making medical decisions for women and their doctors is the slipperiest of slopes.
Not to mention that it only reflects one particular religious view. Religion has no place in lawmaking. How about a little morality, tolerance,ethics and empathy instead.
Maybe there are no limits stated because the time limit becomes the inflexible wall which cannot be surmounted no matter the circumstances, such as the health of the mother, the health or viability of the fetus, or hundreds of other possible factors that cannot be definitively anticipated. The circumstances should dictate the outcome, not the rigid, intolerant timelines that vary on how sanctimonious or "dedicated" to their individual beliefs those who have no skin in the game are.
WHY? Because reasonable, ethical, compassionate people regardless of political affiliation do not condemn women to death even in the final hours of pregnancy if an abortion is clearly and unequivocally necessary to save their life. Such people want no restrictions on a woman's *choice* to live.
The thing is, what you said a lot of pro-life people would agree with.
Dems emphasis must be *choice* and choice gives the idea that there is really an option or decision with late term abortions, but there isn’t, it’s a difficult medical issue at that point.
When someone says choice, a pro-lifer will read it as “my option to do what I will, regardless of viability” when it really means this needs to be a decision between the participant(s) and the doctor.
The worldviews are so disparate there is just no meeting in the middle and I wish there was.
Yes, the choice involved in pro-choice is not the same choice as in what choice of soda flavor do you want. Maybe we can coin a new word that conveys the concept clearly. Latin or Greek, anyone?
To be fair, in a state that does not have any restrictions, I don't know if careless women can get a late term abortion so they can look good in a swimsuit because they won a cruise. I would like to think this kind of thing is not happening. HOWEVER, even if it is happening, I would consider that price worth it if every woman who needed the option could do so without tangling with the government to beg for approval.
I think pro-lifers can let go of their prejudices and see what’s at stake, when testimony after testimony of real people involved in these kinds of decisions make clear that no-one is talking about infanticide. But they don’t. They cling to the lie that we want to kill our babies.
Some people are just foolish and incredibly simple-minded about these things. Almost all of these people happen to be people who do NOT have working wombs. But they sure as hell know what ALL people to include people with wombs should do, because they sure as hell know what is right and wrong.
Well, a lot of them have eight or nine kids - that's an awful lot of nights walking the floor, an awful lot of prolapsed wombs, and an awful lot of nights when she just has to say "No!"
This is what is really at stake. The pro-life/pro-choice wording obscures the reality of the debate. It's not about fetal life vs bodily autonomy at this point.
It's about a women's right to become pregnant and have the right to a 21st century standard of care for the duration of that pregnancy, without anyone involved in her care needing to consult a lawyer at any point.
This is doubly true in TX, which is why TX is leading the nation in pregnancy horror stories. Tort law heavily favors doctors over patients in the state, and now any doctor who deemed complicit in an abortion can be the target of a civil suit. Recipe for utter disaster.
No, Rs want forced birth. If the govt response was, this is an unviable pregnancy only recently discovered, and we recommend termination, the Rs would shit bricks.
It may be to save the mother's life. If you've ever been with child, you'd know this. You have to keep a medical option on the table. Just because it was smooth sailing up until your 25th week doesn't mean there won't be surprises down the road.
I fear my rhetorical question of why was misinterpreted. I was suggesting that those saying that dems want no restrictions should ask why. The implication I was going for was that there were very good reasons.
My misunderstanding - apologies. It wasn't very clear, and to be honest, it didn't sound like you.
republicans, evangelicals, SBA people will never ask that question because they don't want to hear the answer. They have been asked. The only life they think worth saving is the baby's. It is right back to the olden days when women dying in childbirth was just "God's will".
Women were talking about them before Dobbs, but I found it hard to get people like my husband interested. Even here, it was like, oh abortion won't really bring out voters, it's not that important.
I’m sorry, your insistence that communications failures are Ds’ faults is truly maddening. Medical assns have been active PRE-DOBBS, Planned Parenthood and NARAL have been active; SEX ED and reproductive biology taught in high school *should* cover basic female biology so ppl know what ectopic pregnancies are -- but every single educational effort has been opposed by the right to life folks; PP and NARAL and other medical/educational groups are routinely defunded, shut out of the discourse and undermined by pro-lifers and the noise and chaos they provide & promote.
If you -- or anyone else here -- had no clue what rolling back abortion provisions would mean for the rest of us, that’s not on Ds.
There is no doubt that every woman Trump paid to have an abortion also signed a non-disclosure agreement. But all that is needed for anyone to come forward is a good go fund me page to pay any cost incurred as a result of breaking the agreement.
The debate last night enraged me. Their gross lies about abortion were egregious. We do NOT do “abortions on demand”. We do NOT do abortions at 38 weeks. Their inflammatory lies are horrific - they should be ashamed
'they should be ashamed'
Martha, sorry, that ship's sailed.
Actually, their lies on abortion were pretty restrained - for the GOP.
A lot of them claim Liberals favor abortion AFTER birth - being too stupid to realise that that is not "abortion" - but infanticide.
Mind you, for a lot on the debate team last night, I WOULD be in favor of abortion after birth - about thirty five years or so after. . .
And the descriptive phraseology is deliberately misleading. "Killing new born babies" suggests some sort of horrible death - whereas babies that are not capable of living for more than a day or two, usually in great discomfort, are fed only sugar water or water and any necessary panacea until they pass away - usually in a loving parents arms - not taken to the nearest cliff and hurled over, as Republicans imply.
The abortion rant brought me off my couch too!
We may do "abortions" at 38 weeks.
Because the fetus is dead and the mother is at risk of sepsis.
But they would rather sacrifice a thousand women nationally to die than give up their talking point.
I'm pretty sure most Republican politicians don't know (I didn't until recently) that "abortion" is an umbrella medical term for many procedures, including the one Bridget references: where the fetus has died and must be removed from the mother's body for obvious lifesaving reasons. My sister-in-law was one of the people who educated me on this. She was 5 months pregnant and her baby boy tragically died. Removing her dead baby from her body was classed in medical terms as an abortion. And any politician who does know this and agrees to passing a bill criminalizing a necessary medical procedure such as this is evil.
I am a pro-life person who believes that human life even before birth is sacred, but I have become much more educated about how complicated a topic "abortion" is in the past year. I have also reluctantly accepted the fact that, even though I believe a human life with a soul is present from the beginning of the pregnancy, this is my belief, not something that is proven, and that other people have different beliefs. (I am one of those people who is willing to accept that I might be wrong about stuff I believe!)
As we are a (so far) free society without the right to impose our religious/ethical/political beliefs on others, I have come to the conclusion that whatever limits are placed on abortion should be the result of a broad, nationwide decision based on legitimate medical knowledge and decisions of the general citizenry. Just because I happen to believe that a "fetus" really should be called a baby, and an innocent baby shouldn't be aborted, for instance, because of the circumstances of his/her conception, doesn't mean that my opinion should have more sway than someone who believes a fetus isn't a person until a certain point in the pregnancy. And I'll repeat again that all kinds of medical issues related to the health and life of the mother and baby make this a much more complicated issue than Republican legislatures in many states are willing to think about.
My mother had six pregnancies. I am the only one that lived. We think this may mostly be b/c mom was a three pack-a-day smoker at a time when the link between smoking and miscarriage wasn’t well-understood, but we don’t really know why and, frankly, it doesn’t really matter now.
Two of those miscarriages took place well-along her second trimester, 5th & 6th months. She almost bled to death, twice. (The second time she bled so much she had an out-of-body experience. She floated above the surgical table and could see the medical team trying to save her. Then her father appeared and told her it wasn’t her time and she woke up in recovery.)
But here’s the point: she was living in Saudi Arabia in the 1950s, getting her medical care from a small clinic, and she STILL got better medical care than women are getting in Texas in 2023.
This is where we are.
Thank you. I admire it when people expand their understanding of an issue. Some days it feels like our entire culture works against changing your mind.
Just remember - I believe in Ohio they tried to legislate "re-implanting" an ecotopic pregnancy.
If I'm leery about "pro life legislation," that's why.
I agree with you, rc..... I do have a bone to pick with the "patriarchal religious zealot" part of your comment. It may not be what you meant, but I get annoyed by the idea that the reason I, a woman and mother, have the opinion I do about abortion is because of a slavish, meek, adherence to what a bunch of men administering my religion have told me to think. Again, I apologize if I am painting you with the broad brush of one of my pet peeves. I am an American, a woman, a feminist, and a person who tries my best to form my opinions based on using my God-given ability to reason and get all the information I can on an issue. And based on all that, I have my beliefs about abortion, and accept and respect the fact that others have their own beliefs.
I have to disagree politely. All of this information was out there, and I thought it was very clear. But as you know, a lie travels around the world before the truth has the chance to put its boots on. Planned Parenthood was always pointing out what happens when women can't get abortions, pointing to countries like Ireland and Poland. Medical associations were also proactive. But you just can't force people to absorb things they don't want to absorb. Some people really want to think that "after-birth abortions" is a thing. And some men just think women's issues aren't important. I don't get it either, but I don't think it's a messaging fail, more of an empathy fail.
They don’t want to listen. And ask yourself -- if you’d had an abortion, would you want to publicize it for any purpose, given how insane pro-life people can be? You want to be called a baby killer? Get doxxed by project Veritas types? Be stalked on social media or have people turn up at your home or work?
Pro-lifers have done their damndest to shut down discussion of who has abortions and why, all in favor of their religious and political ideologies. If people don’t know that you can’t implant an ectopic pregnancy in the uterus, thank pro-lifers.
And restrictions that will be used by Republican politicians to curtail rights and access to such potentially life-saving treatment are what Democrats are worried about. Of course, they are basing this worry only on everything Republicans say and do on the subject, so....
* This comment not directed at you, but those who seem to not understand WHY democrats fight back on restrictions.
I'm so sorry for your daughter and the rest of your family.
It just happened to one of my cousins. A very much wanted baby and then it died in utero.
A coworker's wife had an ecotopic pregnancy 25 years ago and nearly died from it.
That's why this Republican push to deny women medical care makes me livid. Women are going to die.
Serious suggestion: don’t watch these debates. Read a book or do something valuable to you. It is a better use of your time and will give you better head space.
There really is no need to pay attention to this stuff. Plenty of folks will tell us who did what to whom afterwards. And none of it will matter. (One reason the GOP doesn't care about winning elections is because they have become proficient at stealing them, through the anti-democratic electoral college (created to prevent the person with the most votes from taking office) and voter suppression efforts; they don't need to get the most votes any more.
Here in Germany, we slept, and did not go looking for a replay when offered by NYT online. I would rather be condemned to watch faucets dripping than that crew trying to one-up each other without POing the Orangutang not in the room.
I watched Dodgeball: A True Underdog story.
It turned out to be much more highbrow than the actual debate.
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a direct political question.
It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Lets see if it pays off for 'em!
I read a new Noir Novel and watched South Park. Also more enlightening.
I read an interesting mystery novel, played the NYT Spelling Bee (try it, it's great fun!), and knew that I could read all about it this morning.
If you recommend the novel, what was it?
I am reading all of the Lars Kepler novels. They are Swedish detective novels. The stories are dark and very interesting.
"Abortion on demand" is a term that means if you want an abortion, you can have one. No limits. I know liberals hate the term, but it is an entirely accurate characterization. And some states do allow abortion up until birth. New York is one of them. Most countries, by the way, have a cut off at 15 weeks.
Just the fact that abortions in the final trimester are extremely rare, doesn't mean they don't happen. If the Rs were smart, they would fight the battle over the Ds' support for 2nd and even 3rd trimester abortion, as well as Ds support for public funding of abortion. None of that is remotely popular with the public. But Democrats won't back away from supporting those positions because it will alienate their base. But right now the abortion issue is being fought out on the terrain where the R's are the weakest - first trimester abortion and the exceptions. Rs have to give up on those matters and fight the Ds on the abortion turf where the D's positions are unpopular.
Most countries have sane gun laws.
Are you advocating we update our laws to match theirs?
Dems would be very happy with a nationwide right to abortion to 14-16 weeks, and after with a doctor's order. This is not nearly good enough for Republicans. Those old fucks will line up and say doctors will write anything a woman wants them to. There is a very strong urge among men on the right to see women punished for their behavior - i.e. unwanted pregnancy? Woman should have kept her legs closed - should only have relationships with men they would want to have children with - etc.
I'm curious why you think doctors and hospitals have no say in the procedures they will perform. Do you really think a doctor at a reputable clinic is going to say, "Well, there's no law against it, I guess I could do an after-birth abortion"? My position is, keep the government away from this question entirely, as the Founding Fathers did.
While I fully support where you are coming from, I'm not sure that referencing the Founding Fathers with regards to women's rights is a fruitful road to go down. "Abortion is an issue that should be between a husband and his wife's doctor!" ;)
Uh, no. Late term abortions are called for when there is a real threat to the mother or there is a lethal malformation that makes the fetus nonviable. I know of no liberal who would support an elective abortion where the fetus is practically fully formed, and only a back alley quack would perform one anyway. Their occurrence is probably six or seven standard deviations from the mean. This accusation is similar to the immigration slur that Dems advocate allowing just anyone to be able to walk into the country without so much as a by your leave. In other words, outright lies.
Virtually nobody carries a child into the 3rd trimester and then, willy-nilly, decides, "I don't really want a baby, so I'll get an abortion!" I suppose it's not unlikely that the father walks out after deciding he doesn't want the child and the mother may very well not be able to afford a child. But more than 90% of late term abortions are because of health or viability.
"No limits. I know liberals hate the term, but it is an entirely accurate characterization. And some states do allow abortion up until birth. New York is one of them."
This is an outright falsehood. New York allows abortion through the 24th week; after that, a woman can only get one if her health or the pregnancy is at risk. You might find them inadequate, but those *are* limits.
https://www.ny.gov/programs/abortion-new-york-state-know-your-rights
"Most countries, by the way, have a cut off at 15 weeks."
Most countries also have public healthcare systems that pay for abortions and birth control in full, and don't require medically unnecessary stuff like fetal ultrasounds, waiting periods, or admitting privileges at hospitals. Unless those things are also on the table, it's a specious comparison.
And if a woman was having a pregnancy emergency in Europe, she'd be able to end her pregnancy with pretty minimal fuss. No doctor in Europe is afraid of going to jail for saving a woman's life by giving her an abortion. Another reason why the comparisons to Europe are bunk.
I think you really need to read Roe v. Wade and then you would get that it has NEVER stood for abortion on demand through an entire pregnancy.
Since Roe was overturned people are finally understanding that Roe WAS the middle ground balancing both the rights of women and those of the unborn.
That is why majority opinion in polling essentially ratifies the Roe decision.
100% correct. I wrote about it here: https://purpleusa.substack.com/p/the-coming-electoral-tsunami-on-abortion
Here's the setup:
"Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, and was authored by former general counsel for the Mayo Clinic, Harry Blackmun. If you’ve read it, you can see it was a well thought out, well organized, historical, scientific-oriented decision. Blackmun was very deliberate in laying out the structure he was thinking and why. The result was a 7-2 decision that people at the time didn’t think was all that controversial, and that is because inherent in the framework is a compromise."
I like the way you think . . .
You are correct, but. It’s an article of Republican faith that we do. They completely dismiss the reasons anyone might seek a 3rd trimester abortion in one of the 9 states where it’s legal. Infuriating.
Tracy, I know of WHY almost all of those third trimester abortions happen, but if you ask the Ds whether they would ban it when those conditions - such as threat to the health of the mother - are not present, they still will insist on no limits The D position on abortion is waaaaaay out there. Virtually every country has gestational limits (usually 15 weeks) with exceptions. The Ds don't want any exceptions and want abortion, on demand, for 9 months.
You’re cherry picking the rarest of exceptions to allow the government to dictate what the rest can do at the expense of their health. Just stop. I’m pro-life. I am vehemently against abortion. But I have no right to tell women what and what they can’t do with their bodies. Especially as a man - we need to sit this one out and STFU.
Mr. Ogden, ask uber-Republican Rick Santorum about his wife's "early induced labor" at nine months, which was done to save her life when the fetus was going to kill her. They still won't allow it be called an abortion, even though that's what it was. With Republicans, when it's D's, they say "abortion on demand for 9 months", when it's R's, they say, "early induced labor" for the rich & powerful, let the woman die for the poor. It's all semantics.
And hypocrisy.
Paul this is just not true.
First, can you provide us with some data on 3rd term abortions happen that do not either (1) risk the mother and (2) the fetus is not viable?
Second, the fundamental problem with your statement is that it doesn’t recognize the gray area which in later term abortion is ALWAYS present. It’s never “if you give birth you will die.” It’s their is 80% chance or 50% chance. So what’s your requirement? A woman should give birth always if it’s only 50% chance they will die? That’s the problem with laws, you have to actually put it on paper and then tell us how you enforce it.
Paul, have you ever known anyone who died from an ectopic pregnancy pre the 1973 Roe decision? I had a college sorority sister (married) who died of an ectopic pregnancy in the late 60s. Have you ever had a married friend who accidentally become pregnant with an IUD in place & almost die, & then have to have a complete hysterectomy to save her life? I have. Have you ever had a friend's married daughter become pregnant with what became a devastating pregnancy, where she& her husband were told that the fetus would only survive a short time after birth & that continuing the pregnancy was a danger to her life? I have.
So, unless you've experienced any of these horrors, please keep your opinions on pregnancy to yourself.
Mr. Ogden - nice to know you understand so well how women feel. I presume you were a woman once?
Of course, because you could never legislate to all the things that might happen up to birth and you want to give doctors maximum flexibility to save a woman’s life, if needed - instead of having to navigate a bunch of laws written by people who are medically ignorant just to appease their religious constituents.
The reason they won’t ban it is because, as has happened in many of these red states, the ban then starts to affect medical care and emergencies-those emergencies can come at any part of a pregnancy. NO ONE is advocating for abortion on demand at 38 weeks-they’re advocating for medical treatment to remain legal through an entire pregnancy-doctors shouldn’t be forcing women to wait for medical care. This is grotesque lie that democrats and the press need to start calling out loudly!
You are disingenuous to the point of offense, as has been broadly noted. If you want to be helpful as a male in this discussion, join me in encouraging all men to EJACULATE RESPONSIBLY - which happens to be the title of the recent book by Gabrielle Blair. If you haven’t yet, read it, and share.
That’s the easiest solution. Costs nothing. Imposes no regulation on others. And it’s unimpeachable.
:)
Someone read Gabrielle Blair’s book! 😀
I had a bumper sticker made: "Only Eunuchs Can Prevent Abortion". Sadly (or rather thankfully for my car's paint job), there aren't a whole lot of literate folks out there that can either pronounce or understand the 2nd word.
And what right wing rag is your authoritative source for this bit of "information"?
The Dem position is not way out there. The GOP position has moved the goal posts so far past legitimate compromise the issue is no longer even in the stadium in States like Texas and Alabama. Riddle me this, GOP abortion nuts are demanding full personhood at conception and incarceration for women and doctors who participate in abortion, but what should be done with a fetus whose presence in utero kills it's mother? Should the fetus be put in juvenile detention if it survives the mother's death?
The Democratic position is the only one that trusts women.
Essentially Democrats want to place the decsion entirely in the choice of the woman and at the medical discretion of the physician performing the procedure. Sure, in theory that implies a one in a million chance of choosing an elective abortion up to the time of birth by a heartless woman enabled by an unscrupulous doctor who enjoys killing viable babies.
But as others have pointed out here that is hardly ever (practically never) the case with late term terminations.
Why in the world would any woman wanting to abort a healthy fetus wait until the ninth month to do so. This is largely a fantasy.
Yes. A nasty Republican fantasy.
The cruelty is the point.
And further to this point, the restrictions to prevent that one in a million talking point have and are costing real lives.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2022-12-14/report-maternal-mortality-has-been-higher-in-abortion-restricting-states
The functional Republican position is that saving just one fetus is worth any number of mothers.
So Paul, which of your health decisions can the rest of us make for YOU?
How are your kidneys?
You know people die every day who could be saved with a kidney transplant and you don't really need two.
Since you're "pro-life," I'm sure you have no problem being put into a mandatory organ donation program.
Which is, by the way, what forced birthers are pushing. You're co-opting one of our organs for your political purposes.
The truth is that no government could force Paul to give even a milliliter of blood to save his dying offspring.
True.
But if Paul and his ilk want to throw out bodily autonomy for women, they're creating a legal precedent.
And I for one would be happy to expand that precedent to its logical conclusion.
😁
We don't have to start with kidneys.
Sperm counts are falling globally. Mandatory sperm donation.
Christ, no!
You might get trump's. . .
Eeewwww. . .
He doesn't need his entire liver either.
From what he writes, his brain also seems superfluous.
I spent a chunk of my teens and twenties proving that!
Tell me which democrat endorses abortion on demand up until birth. I think the correct position is that it should be a decision made with the women and her doctors, and most believe in some restrictions. Most democrats had no problem with Roe v Wade restrictions. We could still have them in place except for Mitch and Republicans.
THE REASON SOME STATES HAVE NO LIMIT IN LAW IS BECAUSE THE MOST DIFFICULT, HEARTBREAKING DECISION OF A WOMAN'S LIFE SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO A GOVERNMENT APPROVAL PROCESS OR A BUREAUCRAT UNDERSTANDING COMPLEX MEDICAL CONDITIONS.
How threatening does the pregnancy have to be? Is 5% risk of death enough? 20%? Is inducing a woman whose fetus has died an abortion? What if the pregnancy is not life threatening but future fertility threatening? Should that family be subject to your superior knowledge? What if there is no chance the baby will live outside the womb beyond hours? Perhaps a woman needs to to hurry up and try again - would she get your stamp of approval? What about fetal surgery? Is taking that risk an abortion?
And do you know how well lawmakers are covering this topic? Ohio's 'Heartbeat' bill, which is currenly on hold with the courts was first passed with a section REQUIRING DOCTORS to attempt to implant an ectopic pregnancy into the uterus. This is what a population gets when people who are no longer having children think the topic is simple.
Amen to this.
Most of these cases aren't seen by a General OBGYN, they are seen by a maternal fetal medicine physician who has done 4 years of medical school, 4 years of a general OBGYN residency, and then 3 years of a Maternal Fetal Medicine Fellowship.
So these cases are so nuanced and complicated that they require 11 years of post-collegiate education and training, three rounds of general boards and two rounds of specialty-specific boards to manage.
But the roofing contractor from Bumfuck County who got elected to the statehouse thinks we need a heartbeat bill in order to prevent infanticide. NO! This is the reason most women identify as personally pro-life but legally pro-choice. If these were easy, tidy choices there wouldn't entire specialties dedicated to addressing these cases.
The surest, best way to change the mind of Mr. Ogden re: abortion? Get him pregnant. If women really felt the way he thinks, there would be no multi-child families on earth.
Exactly. If your explaining you are losing.
No.
I think the question though has to then be, why? Why do democrats want no restrictions in a country that has seen increasing efforts from one side to restrict access any creative way they can? Republicans want the decision to rest with government. Democrats don't trust republican government in this regard.
I want to clarify that the question of 'why' is directed to those who state that Democrats want no restrictions on abortion up to delivery day or some-such. They need to ask why democrats have a position that can be characterized by them in that way. The answer (not clear in my original post) is that there are very good reasons for it.
Paul said: "The Ds don't want any exceptions and want abortion, on demand, for 9 months."
He needs to seriously ask why this is the case? Why the difference with the European model he holds up as 'reasonable'? Why don't democrats trust the South Carolina legislature not to try and and get the death penalty for an abortion to save the mother's life? In which European countries we might want to emulate is anything approaching legislatures like SC's in force?
This isn't hard. Terrible things can happen as the pregnancy nears its end, and it's up to the mother and doctor to make a heartbreaking decision about the baby they wanted and planned for. This is the Why.
I don’t think regulating women’s bodies is safe or effective no matter how I personally feel about abortion, particularly when it is based on religious beliefs about when a soul enters the body. Anti-science politicians making medical decisions for women and their doctors is the slipperiest of slopes.
Enforcing these laws is just plain terrifying.
Not to mention that it only reflects one particular religious view. Religion has no place in lawmaking. How about a little morality, tolerance,ethics and empathy instead.
Maybe there are no limits stated because the time limit becomes the inflexible wall which cannot be surmounted no matter the circumstances, such as the health of the mother, the health or viability of the fetus, or hundreds of other possible factors that cannot be definitively anticipated. The circumstances should dictate the outcome, not the rigid, intolerant timelines that vary on how sanctimonious or "dedicated" to their individual beliefs those who have no skin in the game are.
WHY? Because reasonable, ethical, compassionate people regardless of political affiliation do not condemn women to death even in the final hours of pregnancy if an abortion is clearly and unequivocally necessary to save their life. Such people want no restrictions on a woman's *choice* to live.
This and other responses like it are exactly my point. I hope people didn't misunderstand why I was asking why.
The thing is, what you said a lot of pro-life people would agree with.
Dems emphasis must be *choice* and choice gives the idea that there is really an option or decision with late term abortions, but there isn’t, it’s a difficult medical issue at that point.
When someone says choice, a pro-lifer will read it as “my option to do what I will, regardless of viability” when it really means this needs to be a decision between the participant(s) and the doctor.
The worldviews are so disparate there is just no meeting in the middle and I wish there was.
Yes, the choice involved in pro-choice is not the same choice as in what choice of soda flavor do you want. Maybe we can coin a new word that conveys the concept clearly. Latin or Greek, anyone?
Maybe “anti-compulsion” rather than “pro-choice”?
To be fair, in a state that does not have any restrictions, I don't know if careless women can get a late term abortion so they can look good in a swimsuit because they won a cruise. I would like to think this kind of thing is not happening. HOWEVER, even if it is happening, I would consider that price worth it if every woman who needed the option could do so without tangling with the government to beg for approval.
I think pro-lifers can let go of their prejudices and see what’s at stake, when testimony after testimony of real people involved in these kinds of decisions make clear that no-one is talking about infanticide. But they don’t. They cling to the lie that we want to kill our babies.
Why is THAT?
They've been brainwashed, thoroughly.
Some people are just foolish and incredibly simple-minded about these things. Almost all of these people happen to be people who do NOT have working wombs. But they sure as hell know what ALL people to include people with wombs should do, because they sure as hell know what is right and wrong.
Well, a lot of them have eight or nine kids - that's an awful lot of nights walking the floor, an awful lot of prolapsed wombs, and an awful lot of nights when she just has to say "No!"
I need a “love” button.
Seconded.
This is what is really at stake. The pro-life/pro-choice wording obscures the reality of the debate. It's not about fetal life vs bodily autonomy at this point.
It's about a women's right to become pregnant and have the right to a 21st century standard of care for the duration of that pregnancy, without anyone involved in her care needing to consult a lawyer at any point.
This is doubly true in TX, which is why TX is leading the nation in pregnancy horror stories. Tort law heavily favors doctors over patients in the state, and now any doctor who deemed complicit in an abortion can be the target of a civil suit. Recipe for utter disaster.
No, Rs want forced birth. If the govt response was, this is an unviable pregnancy only recently discovered, and we recommend termination, the Rs would shit bricks.
It may be to save the mother's life. If you've ever been with child, you'd know this. You have to keep a medical option on the table. Just because it was smooth sailing up until your 25th week doesn't mean there won't be surprises down the road.
I fear my rhetorical question of why was misinterpreted. I was suggesting that those saying that dems want no restrictions should ask why. The implication I was going for was that there were very good reasons.
My misunderstanding - apologies. It wasn't very clear, and to be honest, it didn't sound like you.
republicans, evangelicals, SBA people will never ask that question because they don't want to hear the answer. They have been asked. The only life they think worth saving is the baby's. It is right back to the olden days when women dying in childbirth was just "God's will".
Women were talking about them before Dobbs, but I found it hard to get people like my husband interested. Even here, it was like, oh abortion won't really bring out voters, it's not that important.
I’m sorry, your insistence that communications failures are Ds’ faults is truly maddening. Medical assns have been active PRE-DOBBS, Planned Parenthood and NARAL have been active; SEX ED and reproductive biology taught in high school *should* cover basic female biology so ppl know what ectopic pregnancies are -- but every single educational effort has been opposed by the right to life folks; PP and NARAL and other medical/educational groups are routinely defunded, shut out of the discourse and undermined by pro-lifers and the noise and chaos they provide & promote.
If you -- or anyone else here -- had no clue what rolling back abortion provisions would mean for the rest of us, that’s not on Ds.
There is no doubt that every woman Trump paid to have an abortion also signed a non-disclosure agreement. But all that is needed for anyone to come forward is a good go fund me page to pay any cost incurred as a result of breaking the agreement.