Skip to main content

View Diary: So Mike Huckabee just called me up.. (22 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Obama sponsored a 2007 version of the (7+ / 0-)

    Freedom of Choice Act, according to Wikipedia:

    And said on the campaign stump that signing it into law was something he hoped to be able to do when President.

    The National Right To Life campaign has this webpage dedicated to FOCA:

    There's also this website, called Fight FOCA:

    Obviously the right wing is funding robocalls like this one to try to sniff out potential FOCA opponents and rally sympathizers.  I think your call was more a matter of trying to get the ground troops out in 2010 to try to prevent Dems from getting any more seats in Congress or in the Senate.  FOCA really could become a reality if Dems got a rock-solid majority in both houses.

    •  So it boils down to this aspect of the bill? (4+ / 0-)

      Partial Birth Abortions.  What does that mean?  The baby is in the birth canal?


      (3) VIABILITY- The term `viability' means that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.

      First of all, this clause needs to be much more specific.  Surely there is a term that creates 'viability'.  The rate of successful preemies today indicates that 'viability' happens earlier than we used to imagine.  Does it mean capable of living without intensive care?  This law, in my opinion, is so controversial that being more specific could be helpful.

      Also, the bill must clearly state that the mother will die, in the opinion of medical caregivers, if the pregnancy is not terminated.  No fuzzy language.

      May I rant?  I think both sides have a lot to think about regarding partial birth abortions.

      I will start by stating that I don't like the idea of abortion.  Who does?  However, I respect the freedom of choice this law insures.  

      I think it is the issue of 'viability' that both sides have an argument to defend.  The side representing the woman and the side representing the viable child.

      I can't imagine that anyone is FOR partial birth abortion of a viable child.  The thought of sticking a needle into the skull of a newborn and injecting a lethal dose of whatever is too gruesome to support, would you agree?

      However, sometimes nature deals ugly hands.  This huge argument is over a very small percentage of pregnancies that would cause a woman to die if she were to give birth?  And some of these women might have never considered abortion in the first place, but when faced with death, have to decide.  What could be more sad!

      Personally, I would like to see partial birth abortion for viable children removed from the bill, too.  I can't imagine taking the life of an infant who could live if not killed.  And I do fear that, if left in the bill, that the practice could be abused.   I can not support abuse of this rule ever.

      I find it easy to argue that a 'viable' child has rights.  Surely a Doctor could know long before a child became viable that the mother is too high a risk to carry to full term and could make the decision to terminate a pregnancy, to save the mother, earlier in the pregnancy.  There must be alternatives.

      And for those very few horrible circumstances that might present themselves in all their cruelty, isn't the decision up to the mother and/or father?  Where do any of us get the right to legislate whether a mother is to live or die because nature dealt her such a cruel blow?  All efforts should be made to save both the mother and child and, when impossible, do let the parent(s) decide and give them that right under law.  These are rare circumstances.  

      Frankly, in my opinion, abortion is a poor method of birth control.  However, this society is doing such a poor job providing for everyone's health needs either financially or emotionally, and the science of birth control can be greatly improved, is it any wonder there are women who feel they cannot provide for a child, especially if she were impregnated unwillingly.

      The anti-abortion debate has no legs because no one is willing to provide a proper society for a woman, in all circumstances, to properly raise her child(ren).    I can still hear the hateful echo of the GOP "Welfare Queen" mantra of the 1980s when society decided to defund services for the unwed mothers of America.  BTW, there was NO Welfare Queen driving a Cadillac.  They made that up.  Social monsters that they were.

      And Clinton's UnWelfare Reform left too many women and children out on a limb.

      We have this tendency in America to argue over a grain of sand when the bolder is headed straight for us. Is that an American tendency?  Or can we thank Rove and his minions for designing divisive politics?

      We can end abortion in America, but only when we pony up and sacrifice more of our personal wealth to fund the 'least of these' in our society as well as make sure our youth, even the wealthy youth who are very often emotionally deprived, are given the community support they need and deserve to succeed.

      You can't underfund and ignore youth and expect a positive outcome.  Our selfishness creates abortions in my opinion.  Until we cure selfishness and greed, our society will continue to deteriorate and the costs of our failure will be far greater than our investments NOW to solve social injustice and neglect.

      Not one of us has the right to chose for another.  Free will and choice is the very essence of being human.  

      We can all choose to stop calling social responsibility socialism.

      And even if we massively shifted our priorities from ourselves to our youth, there will still be circumstances where people are faced with difficult choices.  We need to support their choices, in my opinion.

      For instance, in my area foster children are literally thrown out onto the streets when they turn 18.  There are no safety nets for them like housing and higher education.  And we wonder why there is crime, drug abuse, and teen pregnancies.  I live in a Red State.  And which states have the largest private prison populations?  Red States.   I find the anti-abortion stance both hypocritical and......perplexing.  They care about the infant and seem to lose interest once the infant becomes a child.

      And why does it have to cost $25,000 or more to adopt a child?  That is prohibitive and another point that the GOP demonstrates their stupidity.  People are selling babies, in my opinion.  And that doesn't seem to raise an eyebrow.

      Poverty does not mean powerless. Unite!

      by War on Error on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 09:43:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Think of what could be accomplished if $10,000 of (0+ / 0-)

        every current adoption fee were put into a fund to help pay for well-baby care, early childhood education, parenting classes, assistance for low-income parents who want to adopt, for medical care for adoptees who may need it, etc. etc.  Just think of how much money that would generate for truly creating better environments for families to grow and for adoptions to have more success.

        •  This is a great idea and on the correct track. (0+ / 0-)

          I am stunned that the Democratic Party doesn't seize the argument by simply, and loudly, stating over and over again:

          They care about the infant and seem to lose interest once the infant becomes a child.

          And then show vignettes of the many, many examples of the sad plights of children who are neglected in our country.

          Unless, and I hope not, the Dems are also loathe to spending the sums required to provide properly for our nations children in ALL ways.

          Poverty does not mean powerless. Unite!

          by War on Error on Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 09:49:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site