The Roe Countdown

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

With these kooky laws., it is no wonder there is a push by some to overturn Roe. It is like liberals went crazy with relaxed legislature, in some cases.

Oh BS. There are some people who believe abortion is murder and a whole lot more people who believe all those fetuses were made by their Christian god and that is why they should not be aborted.

It has nothing to do with any poorly worded laws.

 

[TomB]

Unfair prosecutions are nothing new, and are not unique to the issue of abortion. I don't see this as fundamentally changing anything.



Your model doesn't really work. A number of these laws explicitly provide no punishment at all to the women who obtain illegal abortions, only to the abortion providers.

Which effectively means that it's legal for a woman to have an abortion. As long as she doesn't do it in a safe environment assisted by someone who knows how to do it safely.

 

[Bob001]

The current senate bill wasn't blocked by filibuster. It couldn't even get a majority, it was 51 to 49 against. If it had a majority, then a filibuster might have been used to stop it, but no filibuster was even needed to stop it.

As I understand it, several senators opposed this particular bill because they felt it was broader than Roe v. Wade and would invalidate some state restrictions that are now permitted under Roe, and they said they would have supported a bill tailored to Roe more closely. I dunno whether that's true. The point is that a federal law protecting the basic right to abortion could not survive a filibuster, and I'm not sure that there is any time in, say, the last 30 years that such a bill could have been passed.

 

[TomB]

When I signed that ballot initiative paperwork, I didn't actually read it. (This is a voter initiative in Michigan.) I've read it now, and I think they made a serious mistake in it. I hope that doesn't prevent its passage, and I hope similar initiatives don't make the same mistake.

The language includes a few paragraphs, but it's fairly straightforward. The right to abortion is guaranteed up until the point of viability. After that, it may be outlawed by legislative action. It isn't outlawed by the amendment, but the legislature has the option to outlaw it after fetal viability. In that section, the amendment says,



"allow state to prohibit abortion after fetal viability unless needed to protect a patient’s life or physical or mental health; "


The problem is the "mental health" section.

I know exactly what the right wing yappers will say about that. They will say that if a woman goes in and says, "I'm stressed about being pregnant", she can have an abortion right up until the baby is born.

A straightforward reading of the amendment would say that they will be right. I don't know if it's actually right, but based on my reading, it could be.

I'm still going to vote for it. I just worry how many other people will not, because of the inclusion of that clause, which effectively makes all abortions legal before birth. I think a bitter political strategy would have been to use language that basically guaranteed abortion rights up until the end of the first trimester, and left it up to the legislature after that.

The way I see it, the "life begins at conception" crowd isn't going to vote for any abortion rights, from any source. The "abortion on demand until birth" i.e. the Mumblethrax contingent would vote for any pro-abortion amendment. However, that's a pretty small contingent. The rest have to decide.

I think an awful lot of people, indeed most people, are probably in the camp that supports early abortions but opposes late term ones, except under extraordinary circumstances. Will this wording drive enough people into the "no" camp to doom the amendment? I don't know.

I think the key will be convincing them that it doesn't mean what I have characterized it as meaning. I suspect that, in reality, there would be enough wiggle room in the amendment to prevent late term abortions based on a flimsy excuse. As noted by others, those abortions are a very, very, small number of abortions, but I think getting people to vote based on the premise of, "This won't kill very many babies" is a tough sell.

The reality is that it's kind of moot in practice.

Women who are going to have an elective abortion--by which I mean non-medically necessary. do not misconstrue that to mean "entered into lightly."--will withe extremely few exceptions have done so in the first trimester, with a small portion overlapping into the second for various reasons. Aborting in the third trimenster has some pretty powerful disincentives already:

• Medically much more invasive and complicated, at least as I understand it.
• Less likely to find a doctor willing to perform the procedure.
• A woman who has carried that far (and knows it) has likely already previously decided to have the child. It would take an extraordinary circumstance to reverse that decision.
• Nearly all of her social group...friends, family, co-workers...will have been aware that she was pregnant. (Visibly so.) The idea of having to explain would be quite the deterrent.
• Absent a medical reason, she would face social moral judgment, not only from the anti-abortion crowd, but also from a good portion of the pro-choice crowd people in her life.

Basically, someone who is going to get an elective abortion will naturally not want to procrastinate. It is unlikely that late abortions would happen frequently enough that a law is needed.

 

[Bob001]

....
Aborting in the third trimenster has some pretty powerful disincentives already:

• Medically much more invasive and complicated, at least as I understand it.
• Less likely to find a doctor willing to perform the procedure.
• A woman who has carried that far (and knows it) has likely already previously decided to have the child. It would take an extraordinary circumstance to reverse that decision.
• Nearly all of her social group...friends, family, co-workers...will have been aware that she was pregnant. (Visibly so.) The idea of having to explain would be quite the deterrent.
• Absent a medical reason, she would face social moral judgment, not only from the anti-abortion crowd, but also from a good portion of the pro-choice crowd people in her life.

Basically, someone who is going to get an elective abortion will naturally not want to procrastinate. It is unlikely that late abortions would happen frequently enough that a law is needed.

From the link I posted above:

Levy: Abortions later in pregnancy typically occur because of two general indications: lethal fetal anomalies or threats to the health of the mother. Some fetal development problems or genetic anomalies do not show up or develop until later in pregnancy. Some examples might include anencephaly (described above) or limb-body wall complex, when the organs develop outside of the body cavity. With conditions like these, the fetus cannot survive out of the uterus.

Likewise, when conditions progress or appear that severely compromise a woman’s health or life, abortion may be the safest, medically indicated procedure. These conditions can also reduce the possibility of fetal survival. They might include premature rupture of membranes (where the fluid surrounding the fetus is lost before labor), uterine infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption and placenta accreta. Women under these circumstances may have extensive blood loss or septic shock that can be fatal. It’s important to note, if a woman’s health or life is at risk and the fetus is viable, delivery is pursued, not abortion.
In the case of either lethal fetal anomalies or complications that endanger a woman’s life, it’s essential that women and their physicians are able to consider the full range of appropriate treatments, whether that’s abortion care, induction of labor or cesarean birth. Every pregnant woman’s situation and medical condition are different, and there is no way to make a one-size-fits-all determination about the appropriate care.

Levy: Abortion later in pregnancy is a very complex decision and, often, a very emotional one. We know that women who make the decision to have an abortion do so in a considered, deliberate fashion. This is especially true for women who have abortions later in pregnancy who are often facing devastating fetal diagnoses or life-threatening conditions that may introduce a multitude of clinical considerations into their decision-making.

Moreover, the ob-gyns who provide later in pregnancy abortion care have very specific training both in the technical procedure, as well as ethical decision-making in complex clinical circumstances.
....
If a person needs to end their pregnancy after 24 weeks, there are a limited number of places in the country where they can do that, and the approval process for that procedure is scrupulous.
.....
For women who need abortion care in the third trimester, there are very few places across the country where this care is accessible, and it is very rarely covered by insurance. Typically, these procedures would cost in the thousands of dollars. Moreover, many women would have to travel by plane to reach these providers, so in addition to the cost of the care, they are incurring the cost of travel and lodging.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/health/late-term-abortion-explainer/index.html

A third-trimester abortion will never be routine or casual, but prohibiting them would cost women's lives.

 

[TomB]

As I understand it, several senators opposed this particular bill because they felt it was broader than Roe v. Wade and would invalidate some state restrictions that are now permitted under Roe, and they said they would have supported a bill tailored to Roe more closely. I dunno whether that's true. The point is that a federal law protecting the basic right to abortion could not survive a filibuster, and I'm not sure that there is any time in, say, the last 30 years that such a bill could have been passed.

This kind of goes into the discussion that Meadmaker has been trying to have as to which branch of government should be deciding this.

First, I've always hated the filibuster. It's exploitation of a loophole in order to prevent bills from passing by the margin required by the Constitution. But it does have a "buffering" effect.

Suppose the filibuster is removed and legislation on a controversial issue is passed by a narrow majority. Next election the base on the opposite side is motivated and there is a narrow majority the other way. So the law is just as easily repealed. Two years later, same thing in reverse.

Unless voters continually place the same issue at the top of their priority list every election, it is likely that the law will oscillate back and forth every two years.

Is that a desirable outcome?

Roe happened and the process was dampened for 50 years. Now we are likely to enter a period of inconsistency and (in some places) oscillation for another extended period of time, until another Supreme Court rules on a case and contradicts Alito.

Really, the only way I see to end this is an Amendment. Which is still not necessarily permanent. We've seen amendments reversed before.

 

[TomB]

From the link I posted above:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/health/late-term-abortion-explainer/index.html

A third-trimester abortion will never be routine or casual, but prohibiting them would cost women's lives.

To be clear, I was saying that there is no need for a law limiting late term abortions.

 

[TomB]

Changing circumstances demand changing stances.

The fact that leadership is still out stumping for an anti-choice candidate for the House of Representatives strikes me as hard to justify given these new circumstances. No SCOTUS is going to save the party from their own cowardice on these issues, this is no longer a pointless purity test.

What you propose would "purity test" the Democratic party out of power. There is no "otherwise liberal, but anti-abortion" just as there is no "otherwise conservative but pro-choice" party. These voters, and they do exist will vote for someone.

If you remove your party from the middle ground in the name of ideological purity, you are ceding that ground to the competing party...you know, the one you like the least.

 

[bruto]

Oh BS. There are some people who believe abortion is murder and a whole lot more people who believe all those fetuses were made by their Christian god and that is why they should not be aborted.

It has nothing to do with any poorly worded laws.

In a sense, it's not a law at all, in the sense that it only allows, but does not specify. It is a law that establishes a right rather than an action. And I would remind Warp12 that, although it's true that this is the case in Vermont, and it's true that I cite Vermont often because it's where I live (thank goodness), but Vermont is not the only state without restriction on abortion.

 

[Babbylonian]

In a sense, it's not a law at all, in the sense that it only allows, but does not specify. It is a law that establishes a right rather than an action. And I would remind Warp12 that, although it's true that this is the case in Vermont, and it's true that I cite Vermont often because it's where I live (thank goodness), but Vermont is not the only state without restriction on abortion.

I also live in such a place. Oregon.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

That doesn't undermine my point. In fact, it bolsters it.



If we acknowledge that lawless prosecutions for non-existent crimes exist and Republican law enforcement officials are willing to carry them out in the name of their ideology, then we have acknowledged that, if abortion is made illegal, women being arrested and charged with crimes for abortions they had prior to that isn't baseless fear-mongering.



It's a legitimate concern based on the observable behavior of Republicans.







Current Texas law explicitly provides no punishment at all to women who obtain abortions.



They still arrested a woman who got an a abortion and charged her with murder.

I mean they quoted a witch-hunting jurist, so it's not a huge stretch to suggest maybe that's the direction they'd like to go.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

What you propose would "purity test" the Democratic party out of power. There is no "otherwise liberal, but anti-abortion" just as there is no "otherwise conservative but pro-choice" party. These voters, and they do exist will vote for someone.

No they won't. They might stay home instead of voting D, but if voting for someone who is anti-abortion is really that important to them, they're already voting R anyway no matter what they tell you on your survey form. In the meantime you're excluding everyone else on the left who'd themselves rather stay home than vote for either of the two regressive throwbacks on the ballot.

 

[Meadmaker]

The reality is that it's kind of moot in practice.

Women who are going to have an elective abortion--by which I mean non-medically necessary. do not misconstrue that to mean "entered into lightly."--will withe extremely few exceptions have done so in the first trimester, with a small portion overlapping into the second for various reasons. Aborting in the third trimenster has some pretty powerful disincentives already:

All reasonable, but here's the problem with the marketing.

So, the vast majority of women would never have an elective abortion at that stage. That's true.




So, when dealing with abortion and whether or not it ought to be legal, the universal agreement is that we don't allow people to kill babies. I know I don't. I just don't think a fetus is a baby. If I thought it was a baby, I wouldn't let you kill it.

People aren't going to go for a law that says it's ok for anyone to kill just one baby. With that in mind, "vast majority" isn't good enough.

Does the Michigan ballot proposal allow it? I don't know. For my part, I'm going to hope that the language and the way the Michigan law works is that the legislature can define "mental health" in such a way that makes the whole process of post-viability abortion extremely difficult, and only possible in an extraordinary situation, where there is a significant probability that either the mother, or the baby, or both, will die if no abortion is performed.

I just think a more restrictive ballot proposal would have been just as good, from an abortion rights prospective. The chosen wording puts things at risk. At least, that's the way I see it. We'll see what happens between now and election day.

 

[Meadmaker]

Let me put it this way. We are to believe that late term abortions are so rare that we don't need to concern ourselves with the incredibly small number that will occur if late term abortions are not limited. Well, then, why not limit them? After all, no one is going to get one, so prohibiting them will have no real effect.

 

[Babbylonian]

Let me put it this way. We are to believe that late term abortions are so rare that we don't need to concern ourselves with the incredibly small number that will occur if late term abortions are not limited. Well, then, why not limit them? After all, no one is going to get one, so prohibiting them will have no real effect.

Laws are supposed to be passed in order to address actual problems. Abortion is not a problem.

 

[bruto]

Let me put it this way. We are to believe that late term abortions are so rare that we don't need to concern ourselves with the incredibly small number that will occur if late term abortions are not limited. Well, then, why not limit them? After all, no one is going to get one, so prohibiting them will have no real effect.

If what you're saying is true, then another way of looking at it is that you would support a useless law which actually does nothing except to limit a freedom that some people perceive to be excessive - or even (see comments below) illegitimate.

Apart from the possibility that bureaucratic error or corruption would make the administration of that law more of a problem than it solves, comes a fundamental issue of what is being done. This issue is real, even if you are entirely OK with it. It's real, even if you believe it necessary. But when you are discussing it, you have to remember that it's real, and not a thing you can just do without implication. A law of this sort makes the leap from "you may not meddle with a woman's reproductive rights" to "you may meddle with a woman's reproductive rights - up to this point we have, for the moment, decided on."

One of those things is fixed. The other is malleable. This is the case not because of the morality of one thing over the other, nor because of what is right or wrong, nor because you support one thing or the other. It is the case even if your considered and thoughtful judgment deems it correct and necessary. It is the case anyway, and whichever route you choose to support you must remember that it goes back to that basic, fundamental starting point.

 

[Bob001]

Let me put it this way. We are to believe that late term abortions are so rare that we don't need to concern ourselves with the incredibly small number that will occur if late term abortions are not limited. Well, then, why not limit them? After all, no one is going to get one, so prohibiting them will have no real effect.[

"Rare" does not mean "non-existent." As described in the links I've posted, they do occur, and when they do they are usually a matter of medical urgency. It's dishonest to claim there's no reason not to ban them.

 

[Bob001]

More food for thought.

Terminating a pregnancy to save a mother’s life has long been accepted as a moral imperative by those on both sides of the abortion debate. For decades, jurisdictions that restricted the procedure granted wide leeway to doctors to make exceptions for medical necessity. But now, with the U.S. Supreme Court potentially moving to overturn Roe, the landmark ruling affirming the right to abortion nationwide, emboldened conservatives in some states are pushing to narrow and in some cases eliminate such exceptions, arguing that they create loopholes that are easily exploited. Doctors say such restrictions will complicate medical decisions for pregnant women, increasing the risk of death in a country that already has the highest rates of maternal mortality in the industrialized world......
“What we are calling for is a total ban, no exceptions,” Matt Sande, legislative director of Pro-Life Wisconsin, said in an interview. “We don’t think abortion is ever necessary to save the life of the mother.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/05/13/abortion-ban-exceptions-mothers-life/

 

[TheGoldcountry]

More food for thought.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/05/13/abortion-ban-exceptions-mothers-life/

Good. Publicize these sociopaths as much as possible, so people understand where this is going.

I don't want to hear about how silly the "slippery slope" argument is when it's a ******* cliff.

 

[Kestrel]

"Rare" does not mean "non-existent." As described in the links I've posted, they do occur, and when they do they are usually a matter of medical urgency. It's dishonest to claim there's no reason not to ban them.

Anti abortion propaganda likes to pretend that perfect little babies are being aborted mere days before they would have been born. Reality is that these are wanted pregnancies that went terribly wrong. A real Christian would treat these woman with sympathy and compassion.