Skip to main content

Female Democrats in the Georgia House
 of Representatives protest abortion bill.
(RhReality)
Acting on contentious legislation passed by the Republican-dominated state House and Senate, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R) signed a bill Tuesday that forbids abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy except when the woman's life is at risk. No exceptions are allowed for rape or incest. The bill, HB 954, effectively cuts six weeks off allowable time when abortions are now permitted in the state.

It wasn't the total victory the law's drafters had hoped for, however. In spite of vigorous opposition from forced-birther lobbyists, abortions will be permitted in cases where there are "irremediable" fetal congenital or fetal abnormalities "incompatible with sustaining life after birth." So hurrah for a small victory in two years' of the worst series of defeats for the women's reproductive rights since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide 39 years ago.

“Women should not be forced to adhere to legislative directives that are based on unsound medical science," said Leola Reis, a spokeswoman for the Atlanta-based Planned Parenthood Southeast.
Science? Puhleez.

Like similar bills in Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma,  the Georgia bill was passed on claims fetuses feel pain after 20 weeks. Neuroscientists say this is not the case. But that makes no never-mind to the ideologues eager to keep nibbling away at safe and legal abortions until they vanish.

None of the fetal-pain laws has yet been challenged in court.

The Guttmacher Institute, which, among other things, analyzes policy relating to reproductive and sexual health, reports that in 2012 so far, 944 bills have been introduced in 44 state legislatures relating to reproductive health and rights.

Included in these is legislation in 14 states that restrict abortion later in pregnancy but prior to fetal viability. Nine states, in addition to Georgia, would put the new limit at 20 weeks postfertilization, equivalent to 22 weeks gestation. Last month Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed a bill that would ban abortions 18 weeks after fertilzation. making it the nation's most restrictive law in that regard.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Wed May 02, 2012 at 01:57 PM PDT.

Also republished by Abortion, Kos Georgia, and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Whenever the Five get their chance (24+ / 0-)

    They will overturn Roe v. Wade.  

    Will these Republican legislatures spend the money to build the new prisons that will be needed to incarcerate the women who will get abortions once it becomes a crime?  I suspect they will, not by raising taxes on the rich, but by cutting and eliminating programs for pre-natal and infant care.

    "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

    by Navy Vet Terp on Wed May 02, 2012 at 02:04:27 PM PDT

    •  You are a... (15+ / 0-)

      ...cynic realist.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Wed May 02, 2012 at 02:06:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Can someone educate me please? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        laserhaas

        I mean, if I'm going to be able to have any substance behind me should this come up, I need to understand...

        20 weeks. The significance?

        Total gestation is about twenty eight weeks, right?

        Week zero is conception.
        Week four is the earliest reasonable time a pregnancy might be detected, right?
        Week eight is the two month mark, right?
        Week twenty is the five month mark, right?

        I mean, I believe I don't have any standing to commandeer anyone else's body. But I'm pretty sure this topic will come up at some point in my swing state of PA, what with assface tom corbett and his mandatory ultrasound law and his brand new photo ID law and such.

        My blanket "We don't have the right" stance won't have traction in a dispute about what week to make as a deadline, and I'm feeling the bite of a lack of knowledge.

        So, someone, clue me in as to the why's and wherefore's of the bad stuff about week 20?

        •  I am a woman who owns her own body. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Loge, JayFromPA, sethtriggs, laserhaas

          Educated now?

          •  No duh. I agree with you. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            laserhaas

            I said when someone in my swing state of Pennsylvania goes on about week 20 as opposed to week 24 or week 28, I know nothing about that argument.

            Put someone in front of me who want to ban women's bodily privacy, I can argue against that.

            Put someone in front of me who wants to trim it back, I am at a disadvantage as to that argument.

            See my problem?

              •  How do I fight someone who sounds reasonable? (0+ / 0-)

                Obviously the all-out ban is unreasonable.

                AND, there is right now a week-limit on when the procedure can be done. After week X, no procedure.

                So, when someone says they want to trim the legally recognized week X deadline back by a few weeks, back to the ending of month 5 out of 9 months, what is the medical or logical argument against that?

                And that "I own my body" isn't going to help me, because I already know that is the same as demanding a legal procedure as late as 9 months, and I won't be winning ANYTHING with that line. Seriously, you aren't helping me win any arguments with that line.

                •  The argument they put forth is "fetal pain"... (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Loge, JayFromPA, NonnyO, sethtriggs

                  ...They say the fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. Therefore, it's not just immoral to abort the fetus, it's cruel. Just one problem with that. Neuroscientists don't agree with them.

                  Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                  by Meteor Blades on Wed May 02, 2012 at 08:02:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ahhhh. Thanks MB. (0+ / 0-)

                    And, I can see their trend forming already.

                    The instant they can plant their flag at 20 weeks, they'll push it further shorter with studies of pain-avoidance.

                    Their pain-threshold trend would push it all the way back to a de facto ban, because even single cell amoebas will move away from dangerous things. The patriarchists would say even the single cell fertilized egg moves away from the pain of starvation that is the middle of the uterus, and toward the nutrients of the uterine wall.

                    Okay. That in mind, I'll try to stay away from arguing directly against fetal pain other than just mentioning that the neuros say the anti-privacy folks are full of shit.

                  •  It's a way to rationalize thinking of (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JayFromPA

                    non-viable fetuses as equals.  When "personhood" fails, try personification.  It's literally the "pathetic fallacy."  From that perspective, pain seems beside the point.  Given the choice, I'd just as soon have a painless death, but I'm not too keen on it.  If fish could talk, would we (maybe) eat them?  'cause that's what you got at 20 weeks.  

                    The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

                    by Loge on Wed May 02, 2012 at 08:13:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I am not interested in helping you win arguments. (1+ / 1-)
                  Recommended by:
                  NonnyO
                  Hidden by:
                  Boris49

                  I am interested in maintaining sovereignty over my own body.

                  •  You sound fun at parties. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    SheLawyer, Bailey2001

                    The person above, who is interested in protecting your reproductive rights, is looking for advice and you are being just irritating. Thanks.

                    How many divisions does OWS have?

                    by Diebold Hacker on Wed May 02, 2012 at 08:32:05 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, thanks to MB Loge and Gooserock then. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Bailey2001

                    Because I can damn well be sure that Pres O and Etch a sketch will have campaign rallies in my local area, and that will spark the reich wing into pushing their views, and because of them I've got an idea of what I can say to shut them up. For the 08 election, video clips of a mccain rally not even 20 miles from my home got played on maddow for one of those WTF moments. No thanks to you, I'll have a leg to stand on while the fight is here - and not there near you.

                    It's a team effort, this pushing of personal rights. Sorry you feel that you had no reason to toss me some help even though you know my state will be one of the battlegrounds.

                  •  You were born in 1953 according to your profile. (0+ / 1-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Hidden by:
                    Loge

                    How in the hell are you going to argue that his question has to do with YOUR body?!!!

                    Argumentative and deceitful.

                    HR'd.

                    4π^3 + π^2 + π

                    by Boris49 on Wed May 02, 2012 at 09:28:26 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Hr'd for HR abuse, and sexist claptrap (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      a gilas girl

                      I think a woman born in 1953, who lived thru the sexual revolution, the passage of Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Roe, could validly take a personal interest in seeing that the rights of today's and tomorrow's women are protected.  And given the motivations for the bill, an attack on a 20 year old's reproductive freedom is an attack on all women.  What does it say to a woman past childbearing age if the only thing women are good for is childbearing?  

                      Speaking of argumentative.  

                      The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

                      by Loge on Thu May 03, 2012 at 06:08:55 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  She didn't set up her arguments in that manner. (0+ / 0-)

                        Had she answered the gentleman (who, I believe, had honest questions) as a woman's issue, then it would have been a valid position.  But, she chose to intimate that it was an issue that affected her own body.  That, to me, is dishonest.

                        She wouldn't have phrased the issue that way in person.

                        I also feel she went well out of her way to insult the questioner.  

                        So, HR if you will.  Your logic for it is a bit fuzzy.

                        4π^3 + π^2 + π

                        by Boris49 on Thu May 03, 2012 at 07:25:35 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  And since I can't let your continuing judgemental (0+ / 0-)

                        post(s) rest, you should know, as a lawyer, that "sexist claptrap" is a meaningless term.

                        And, since when does any position speak to the rights of "all" women?  Clearly, there are women on the other side of the issue.

                        Perhaps you should spend more time on the piano and less swooping in to bayonet anyone who appears to interfere with your license to practice rhetoric.

                        4π^3 + π^2 + π

                        by Boris49 on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:49:26 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  Week 20 Is About the Absolute Absolute Earliest (6+ / 0-)

          time some tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of births can survive, if I recall correctly.

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Wed May 02, 2012 at 07:56:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So, let's see if I understand their logic... (0+ / 0-)

            They figure that at week 20 there's a chance at fetal viability in some sort of NICU, and they figure that non-zero chance of viability is a bright line between a status of terminable pregnancy and a status of non-terminable child-bearing?

            Have I got a handle on their thoughts there?

            •  Roe V. Wade (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              a gilas girl

              Was always known to be flawed because it encompassed a sliding scale based, in part on viability.  Given technology, viability keeps getting earlier.

              If you don't accept abortion up until the moment of birth, then you have a line when it's too late.  Viability is a common choice for that line.

          •  I don't think any fetus (0+ / 0-)

            has survived outside the uterus at 20 weeks gestation.  The earliest I've seen (and experienced) has been 23 weeks.  In those 21 days, a lot goes on.

            It's about time I changed my signature.

            by Khun David on Wed May 02, 2012 at 11:00:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Why not ask the legislators? (6+ / 0-)

          They're the ones who place great importance on 20 weeks versus 26. What's special about these six weeks?  Other than to pass the most restrictive bill that might yet be upheld, of course.  Prior to viability outside the womb, Roe and Casey don't recognize a compelling state interest.  The fetal pain nonsense is the camel's nose under the tent to attempt pre-viability limitations, and then yes, why not 8 weeks.  Or 7.  Or 6.  What if it takes some time to get the money, to make the decision in the first place, and then schedule perhaps two appointments?  Tick-tock.

          The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

          by Loge on Wed May 02, 2012 at 07:56:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  In Arizona, it's already 18 weeks. So... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sethtriggs, NonnyO, Sharon Wraight

            ...the camel has his whole head into tent there.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Wed May 02, 2012 at 07:58:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I don't want to ask them. (0+ / 0-)

            They'll say something like "There's no reason why it shouldn't be banned altogether".

            I wanted to ask here, I trust us libs to be more honest.

            •  and that's not honest on their part? (0+ / 0-)

              I've shown you, MB has shown you, exactly how this moves the goalposts, as a pre-viability ban with fetal pain pretext. Stop trolling.

              The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

              by Loge on Wed May 02, 2012 at 08:54:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't trust santorum to be actually honest. (0+ / 0-)

                And he's a good enough stand-in for the rest of the right wing anti-choice crowd.

                I think, if I walked up to santorum or the rest of that crowd, they would purposely hold back any and all evidence against their chosen views, and to lie about even the existence of anything that might be a valid point that they don't agree with.

                That's why I wouldn't ask the legislators - the people like santorum - about week 20.

                Perhaps you misunderstood why I wouldn't ask them - the legislators. Perhaps that's why you insult me with the troll label. It's okay, I forgive you. And thank you for your enlightening answer earlier.

          •  This law may prove counterproductive to saving (0+ / 0-)

            "lives" if that is the goal.

            How many women, sensing an approaching deadline of 18 or 20 weeks, will choose to abort NOW because they will have NO CHOICE later--when later they might have decided they could handle the responsibilities of this child?

        •  Pregnancy = 40 weeks -- (5+ / 0-)

          Although you are considered "full term" by week 37.  Weeks 14 - 20 are considered the best time to have amniocentesis, for those who wish to.  Having 20 weeks as the outer limit puts extra stress on women needing to evaluate possible genetic conditions, etc.

        •  Then there's the "issue"... (5+ / 0-)

          ... of pre-eclampsia.  It can happen at any point in a pregnancy (the old term was "toxemia of pregnancy").  It kills the fetus.  If the fetus is not expelled naturally through a spontaneous abortion (aka miscarriage), the woman can die.

          That is precisely what happened to my maternal grandmother in 1938.  I do genealogy research and I have a copy of her death certificate, including the note the doctor made on the reverse side of the death certificate.  [For historical reminders, old abortion laws were in effect, and if the doctor had taken out the fetus - as he "should" have to save the life of the mother of five living children - he could have gone to prison for removing the dead fetus.]

          The dr. wrote that the fetus died in March (around the first of March).  The doctor recommended bed rest and waited for her to "expel" the fetus naturally..., only she never did.  He seems genuinely confused as to why her body never expelled the dead fetus.  She went into labor the 25th of May, started hemorrhaging when the placenta tore away from the uterus, emergency surgery was performed to remove the dead fetus, but on top of the loss of blood, her system was too poisoned from carrying around a dead fetus for three months to survive on top of the loss of blood.  She died 26 May 1938, leaving a confused widower and five children ages 15 down to two (the latter always said she died when he was born, but he was two when she died); my mother was 13.  Cause of death for my grandmother was 'toxemia of pregnancy, loss of blood, and parturition effort.'  I wince every time I read the death certificate, especially since every relative has told me how nice she was.  Her sis-in-law was one of the people who stayed with her the last three months of her life and talked about how she cried and cried because she knew her baby was dead and she was in both emotional and physical pain.

          To cover his ass, the doctor made a death certificate for the fetus, a boy, "of six months gestation but carried to term."  Cause of death for him was "toxemia of pregnancy of the mother."

          Everyone knew the fetus was dead.  One of her sisters was very vocal about her bitterness, loudly stated that if her sister had been a horse or a cow she would have been treated more humanely.  Certainly, my mother believed that, and knowing what I know now, it's also true.

          There should be NO laws regarding abortion whatsoever!  If a fetus dies, it needs to be removed so women don't die in as much agony as my grandmother did.  If the pompous asses in politics have their way and forbid abortions like the old laws, more women will die precisely like my grandmother did.  (Can't happen in this day and age?  Oh, yes it can!  That's what that one GA legislator was talking about when he compared women to barnyard animals and said they should wait until a woman's body expels the dead fetus!)

          If a woman has too many mouths to feed and one more will make all of the children starve, it's no one's damned business if she chooses to have an abortion.  Better to feed the existing children.

          If a woman gets pregnant in spite of using contraception, it's no one's damned business if she has an abortion, and/or if she knows the condom broke, it's no one's damned business if she takes the morning-after pill without even knowing whether or not she's pregnant.

          If a woman is the victim of incest or rape, abortion should be routine (RU-486, or morning-after pill, or D&C)..., if for no other reason than the rapist's DNA does not go forward into the future in case rape is one of those genetic defects that can be inherited by male offspring.

          Really..., women are NOT children; we can think for ourselves, and, as Kossack TheOtherMaven's sig line says:

          If it's
          Not your body,
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          And it's
          None of your damn business!
          For the record:  I include myself in that equation.  I am beyond child-bearing years, and what a woman of childbearing years chooses to do or not do about any pregnancy she may or may not have, or any birth control measures she chooses to take (including tubal ligation if she does not want to become pregnant) it is none of my damned business.  I support another woman's right to decide what is or is not in her uterus..., or is or is not in her vagina..., and it's still none of my damned business.  [I do, however, reserve a few caveats.  Whatever happens in the bedroom, the participants need to be of the legal and mental and emotional age of consent and not under the influence of date rape drugs or otherwise unconscious from drugs and/or alcohol.]

          If men (especially reichwingnutia preachers and pompous patriarchal politicians) do not want women to have abortions, the solution to women not getting pregnant is really pretty simple.  A man is free to choose to get a vasectomy so he can't make any woman in his life pregnant.  It's his choice if he does not wish to father a child, and it's none of my business if he chooses to have a vasectomy so that no woman he has sex with is forced to choose whether or not to have a child by him or to abort any fetus he may have sired.  He thus takes charge of his own body and his reproductive organs and removes the choice for any woman in his life.

          Some decisions are really quite simple.

          I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

          by NonnyO on Wed May 02, 2012 at 09:32:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your poor grandmother (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NonnyO

            I'm so sorry.

            It's about time I changed my signature.

            by Khun David on Wed May 02, 2012 at 11:03:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you for your kindness.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Egalitare

              If you do genealogy research for 50 years as I have done, one gets stories about positive aspects of people in the family tree..., and inevitably there comes a point where the person relaying info says..., "but... s/he also..." and out comes some gossipy tidbit that's to one degree or another a tad bit scandalous, or one hears said person was a tippler or a shrew or someone who yelled a lot, or ran around on their spouse/significant other..., or whatever....

              Well, when anyone ever told me about my maternal gram, I never got that.  The eldest daughter of one of Gram's sisters said she preferred being at my Gram's (her aunt's) place because she never yelled, and Aunt (my gram) combed her hair and she just adored her Aunt because she was so sweet (and, she added, a lot nicer than her own mother, sis of my gram - which I found sad).

              To a person, whether related or not, my maternal gram has been touted as the nearest thing to a living, breathing angel, the kindest person everyone knew.  All these years later, her death affects her descendants because of how it affected her children.

              I have had pause to wonder what she would have been like if any of the grandkids had known her.  I suspect she would have been a treat to have at a little girl's tea party....

              Instead, antiquated laws and a cowardly doctor took her away from everyone who knew and loved her..., and those of us who would have loved her if we had known her.

              I don't want anyone else to go through what my family did, so I feel very strongly that women need to have complete control over their bodies, with or without being pregnant, with or without idiotic controversies over abortion (even if I'm quite sure that it can't be considered "abortion" if the fetus is already dead - that is strictly a medical issue to save the life of a mother to remove a dead and decomposing body from her uterus).  To treat women like equals means making NO laws regarding medical issues or what decisions need to be made regarding what is or is not in a woman's uterus and/or vagina.  Really, it's not anyone's business and no one should make any decisions about a woman's body except the woman affected, especially not religious nuts or pompous politicians who have misogynistic control issues.  Otherwise, to do things equally and fairly, women must also have the right to make laws regarding male reproductive organs....

              May's not my month anyway.  May 26 is the anniversary of my maternal gram's death; my mother died May 27 and May 19, same year, the youngest sister of my gram's died (same day/year as Jackie Kennedy), and Mom's sister died May 28.  My paternal aunt/godmother died May 30, and eight years later my dad, her brother, also died on May 30.  My maternal gramp's sister died May 15 from a heart condition within a couple of hours of giving birth to her last child, and the letter Gramps wrote to his cousin in Norway (written in Norwegian) makes me cry every time I read it.  That was in 1930, and eight years later, also connected to giving birth, his wife died.

              I don't do May.

              I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

              by NonnyO on Wed May 02, 2012 at 11:59:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Doctors can't protect & "9 months" canard (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elmo, a gilas girl

          Medical standards should be enough. Canada doesn't have abortion laws, just medical standards, and they don't have Gosnell scandals like the USA does. It would be much better and safer -- in general "public good" terms -- if abortion was put back in general OB-Gyn practice as it used to be; there would be better oversight.

          There aren't any "reasonable" restrictions put through by laws (rather than medical best-practice considerations) that can't and aren't used by abortion-eliminationist politicians, DAs, & police to declare doctors who do abortions as "murderers" & they will say "the doctor lied" "the woman lied" and will say whatever medical proofs & documentation the legislation insists on -- well, it's faked, etc. I've read horrible stories about how they harrass legitimate doctors who therefore -- worried about attacks -- has to take risks with the pregnant womans health they shouldn't have to.

          Any legal language that would safeguard a doctor's flexibility in a crisis will (and has) been protested as "allow abortion on demand to 9 months".

          The "9 months" scenario is a canard. Past a certain point -- from a "medical standards" viewpoint -- normal labor is safer than attempting an abortion. Unless there is some crisis such as pre-eclapsia.

          I don't think there's any "problem" with late abortion that wouldn't be better addressed by medical standards and reintergrating abortion into standard OB-Gyn practice rather than TRAP legislation.

          Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

          by julifolo on Thu May 03, 2012 at 02:09:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  As the choice gets closer to the date of viability (0+ / 0-)

          the decision gets tougher.

          First let me state first that I am pro choice, but like John Kerry I am personally opposed, except in cases of rape, incest or life and health of the mother, yet feel strongly that each person has to make that moral decision for themselves, within reasonable limits. Vaginal probes are totally unreasonable. Some restrictions for the very young and for advanced pregnancies might be more acceptable.

          I wish that women who chose abortions would decide to get them sooner, rather than later. I know it's a tough decision and women should have control over their bodies, but the moral dilemmas get larger the more that time goes on. If women wait too long and then don't have the "life and health" of the mother arguments then some limits might be understandable.

          •  In general, life's not fair. (0+ / 0-)

            Nature is inherantly sexist. Most cultures take advantage of that.

            Did you realize pregancy isn't so dangerous for the females of other primate species?

            Evolution threw individual women under the bus because larger brain size gave such a survival advantage that genes that would kill during birth in a significant percentage of births still bred true, if earlier siblings survived, if the infant survived and their was another woman with milk who could raise the orphan.

            Under the circumstances I think it reasonable to ask for privacy & and leave it to the woman and her family to decide, rather than declare there's an ethical problem.

            My personal opinion is that Nature & Societies's sexism is a much more serious ethical problem. When that isn't acknowledged, that's treating pregnant women as public property.

            Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

            by julifolo on Thu May 03, 2012 at 01:10:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  i just can't imagine (0+ / 0-)

      Greg Gutfeld doing that

    •  gotv (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bwren, KayCeSF, Loge, Gooserock, mumtaznepal

      remember who appoints the court...among other things...

    •  this is truly about imprisonment. (5+ / 0-)

      it is about making sex less a pleasure, and more of a paternalistic chore. that is the key of why children are not supported after birth. the wingnuts want the mother to carry what they hope is a burden, regardless of how the child came about.

      cheerleaders need not apply.

      by kravitz on Wed May 02, 2012 at 07:47:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fetuses Are Allowed To Die By the Millions (5+ / 0-)

        from the effects of lack of prenatal health care, pollution, contamination, dirty food and water, you name it. They're happy with that and will fight you to the death to prevent you from stopping those fetus killers.

        Just so long as women are prevented from DECIDING to terminate.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Wed May 02, 2012 at 07:58:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Reichwingnuts want pregnancy... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kravitz

        ... to be a time of guilt-ridden punishment for having had sex, with or without consenting to the sex, with or without enjoying sex.

        It's all about unrelenting punishment - and imprisonment, yes, if the Grand Old Patriarchs decide a woman must be forced to raise a child by herself and see to it the offspring gives her a minimum of 18 years of grief as she is forced to be responsible for this being she may or may not want in her life.

        The only way around it is a tubal ligation or removal of the uterus.  The pompous religious and political patriarchs can make whatever the hell laws they want, devise any punishment, preach any hellfire and damnation sermons with their moralistic judgments, but if a woman removes the method of pregnancy, at least she takes control over whose seed does or does not impregnate her and/or sire any children she might have had, and as long as she freely enters into any sexual relationship, she's free to have and enjoy sex without the guilt the pompous political and religious patriarchs want her to feel.  It is the ultimate control over her own body and her own mind.

        I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

        by NonnyO on Wed May 02, 2012 at 09:50:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Can't believe this "war" is still being waged. (8+ / 0-)
  •  I know that I am in the minority on this, but I (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FarWestGirl, tardis10, Loge, WillR

    applaud each time I hear another conservative (person or state) has moved to this stance:

    Abortion is only legal when the life of the mother is at stake,
    or possibly not even then

    Why?

    Because it exposes the great big LIE that the forced-birthers tell endlessly...

    Which is that they believe that abortion is evil because it is "the murder of an innocent life".

    Because how in the world can they support abortion in cases of Rape or Incest if they truly believe that? No matter how the pregnancy started, the future-human in there is still a future-human, right? An innocent future-human.

    For even most of the conservative Right, this is a step too far.

    It brings into conflict their world view on the issue of Abortion (that good girls who are raped (by strangers or family) shouldn't have to bear a child as a consequence), and their views on punishment for bad behavior.

    That's why I applaud them - they are digging a hole so deep that eventually their Egg-worshipping insanity will be nothing more than a distant memory buried in the dirt at the bottom of a deep, deep hole.

    As it should be.

    * * *
    I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization
    -- SCOTUS Justice O.W. Holmes Jr.
    * * *
    "A Better World is Possible"
    -- #Occupy

    by Angie in WA State on Wed May 02, 2012 at 02:45:29 PM PDT

    •  You're Very Wrong. They Had Birth Control for (5+ / 0-)

      married women outlawed in Connecticut till the 60's.

      They will outlaw all abortion in all cases and all birth control as well, everywhere they're not stopped. They may already have the Supreme Court votes to make abortion unconstitutional.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed May 02, 2012 at 02:48:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think that she's on the right, track, actually, (5+ / 0-)

        there's already push back. Even in Mississippi, the voters veto'd it, and the more people see how far off the cliff these idiots will go without oversight, the better off we are. We knew that the nut cases weren't going to stop with abortion and were going to repeal contraceptives, too, but normal folks thought we were just exaggerating 'cause we didn't like the nut cases or agree with them. Now they're seeing that not only were we not kidding, we were right.

        Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. The Druid

        by FarWestGirl on Wed May 02, 2012 at 03:08:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I agree with you, they will. (0+ / 0-)

        But over 40 years of Roe v Wade, and they are still flooding the State Legislatures with over 1000 Bills in the past year to further restrict Abortion and Contraception.

        So, how do we prevent them from succeeding?

        We have to get their Base to start turning on them, or help them do themselves in.

        I prefer the latter.

        Pointing out that this recent change (opposing Abortion even in cases of Rape or Incest) is what they've been telling us all these  years (the innocent life deserves protection) - and that their belief that good girls who are raped (by strangers or family) shouldn't be punished again by carrying the child to term is just wrong...

        goes against the grain even in Republican women.

        Haven't you heard or read anything from conservative women in the past couple of years that this has been happening more and more? I have. Those women are just perturbed as all get out over this.

        * * *
        I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization
        -- SCOTUS Justice O.W. Holmes Jr.
        * * *
        "A Better World is Possible"
        -- #Occupy

        by Angie in WA State on Wed May 02, 2012 at 03:24:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have not heard this (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Angie in WA State, sethtriggs
          ...goes against the grain even in Republican women.

          Haven't you heard or read anything from conservative women in the past couple of years that this has been happening more and more?

          I don't frequent conservative blogs or newspapers, so I had no idea.  If Republican women are concerned, I wish they would voice their misgivings in a venue where we could all hear them.  I had thought they were marching in lockstep with their lords and masters on this issue.

          "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

          by Diana in NoVa on Wed May 02, 2012 at 07:24:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ok, how about 3 female Republican US Senators: (0+ / 0-)

            Kay Bailey Hutchison
            Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
            Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

            Murkowski Becomes Third Republican Senator
            To Criticize GOP’s War On Women

            Anecdotally I've spoken in person to a number of long-time Republican women in the middle and lower middle classes who feel the same way. They recognize that their Party is treading in dangerous waters on these women-related issues, and may be costing the Party the long-term support of women everywhere.

            From the link above:

            The men in the Republican Party may not think they’re fighting a “war on women,” but its female senators certainly do. Yesterday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) joined Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Kay Bailey Hutchison in criticizing the GOP’s push for legislation to restrict access to contraception and other basic health care services...

            * * *
            I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization
            -- SCOTUS Justice O.W. Holmes Jr.
            * * *
            "A Better World is Possible"
            -- #Occupy

            by Angie in WA State on Wed May 02, 2012 at 08:55:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Except in the meantime (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      julifolo

      real women are trapped into impossible situations by these laws, and I can't applaud that.

  •  Personhood by SCOTUS decision? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rb137
    They may already have the Supreme Court votes to make abortion unconstitutional.
    I think you go too far.

    Am I right, or am I right? - The Singing Detective

    by Clem Yeobright on Wed May 02, 2012 at 03:12:33 PM PDT

  •  Great! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    psnyder, fille americaine

    I expect they will expand the WIC program.

  •  Well, at least they're consistent with the life (0+ / 0-)

    aspect, by not allowing exceptions for rape or incest.

    •  I never understood the exceptions (0+ / 0-)

      for rape or incest.  Either it's a person, worthy of the state's protection and certainly not guilty of rape or incest, or it's not.  And if it's not, it's none of the state's interest.

      •  I understood it perfectly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        william shipley

        as it undermines the claim that it's a person as hollow.  You criticized the viability sliding scale above, but it's, I think, the only way to apply the existing 14th amendment legal framework to the abortion question, the balancing of public and private interests.  It's easy to say there's never a public interest, but then what if the legislature decides otherwise?  But either way, at some point, the fetus isn't a person to the extent it's not viable (which begins, not ends the discussion about when abortion is permitted).

        Saying rape and incest exceptions can exist are really a concession that the whole abortion debate is a question of "who decides."  Does the state get to substitute its judgment for the woman's?  And taking those away does pretty much the same thing -- it could be that it's a flat rejection of the Casey framework a la life begins at conception, or it could just be that rape and incest just aren't good enough reasons.  I tend to think it's the latter.  The only way to such certainty about these questions is to deny that it's a tough issue, which is to deny that women's autonomy concerns even matter.  Otherwise, why not accept Roe and Casey as what they are -- a fair compromise.  They're notably silent about any questions of practical access to abortion, so it's hard to see it as recognizing a positive right.  Framing the issue as one of negative liberty makes legal and precedential sense but it doesn't get to full equality.

        The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

        by Loge on Thu May 03, 2012 at 06:19:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ok, I did understand the reasons (0+ / 0-)

          but as you say, they reveal the underlying theory of pregnancy as a 'punishment' which you must endure unless you are not at fault.  This is, of course, repugnant.

          My criticism of Roe v. Wade is probably more of an acknowledgment that there will not be a clear answer to this debate.

          I will say that I find the "Woman's autonomy" argument suspect.  The state has long established it's right to control what we can do with our bodies, from restrictions on drugs and prostitution to requirements for seat belts, helmets on motor cycles etc.  None of us really have autonomy over our bodies.

          •  the fact that there isn't a clean cut (0+ / 0-)

            resolution possible is, I think, a point in Roe's favor.  

            The bodily autonomy argument is necessary but not sufficient.  The examples that you gave are restrictions that don't infringe on anything as personal as abortion.  So, that can either be characterized as meaning that more than autonomy is required or that the examples you gave don't infringe autonomy to quite the degree.  In fact, a way to think of abortion laws as unconstitutional is that they disadvantage women in a way they don't do men, without a compelling interest in doing so, so it's less that autonomy is threatened but that it's threatened unequally.

            The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

            by Loge on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:52:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  "not clear answer">s/b medical matter, not law (0+ / 0-)

            The "no clear answer" aspect is an indication to me that abortion should be a medical matter, not something polticians use in their War on Women (& the poor).

            Early in the pregnancy, there's no ethical problem: the woman should be able to choose whether or not to (attempt to) GIVE life, without leagal or social pressure.

            Any "problem" with late abortion I've ever heard described could be better handled as they do in Canada -- no law, but medical standards.

            Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

            by julifolo on Thu May 03, 2012 at 11:44:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Some days I just feel glad that I no longer feel (0+ / 0-)

    GOP = Greedy One Percent

    by Palafox on Wed May 02, 2012 at 07:40:37 PM PDT

  •  Next target... 12 weeks! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mumtaznepal

    chip... chip... chip....

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Wed May 02, 2012 at 07:57:12 PM PDT

  •  The Zealots Are In Charge (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mumtaznepal

    Santorum is probably the best example of the true blue zealot. He, and a fervent minority of  Americans, believe that a fertilized egg, any potential human from a blastula on, trumps the welfare of the woman who carries it, no exceptions. They are a minority but they're loud, righteous, nasty and they carry guns.

    The vast majority of Republican politicians go along, not because they share the zealotry but because they think it will help them politically. And they're right. Very few pro-choice people vote solely on the basis of abortion, but all forced birthers do. Therein lies the dilemma. We need to scare the political s**t out of the right wing politicians and the middle of the roaders who think it's more important to oppose abortion than be indifferent. After all, if any woman in their family wants one, they can always arrange it the law be damned.

  •  Why does any legislator think they know more (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sethtriggs, NonnyO

    than the woman carrying the child?

    •  Their god told them they did. To hear them (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sethtriggs

      tell it, of course.

      2012: the Year of the Voting Woman. And by the way, Republicans ... we're pretty pissed about what you've done to our country.

      by mumtaznepal on Wed May 02, 2012 at 08:08:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Laws... (0+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:
      LyGypsy

      Are made to bring order to society.  

      Being against the killing of innocent human life is almost always at the top of every civilized nation's priorities.

      That's why we have legislators who create laws to enact the values that a society holds.

      That's how the rule of law works.

      What you disagree with is that an unborn baby is not a life that deserves protection.  But I have to ask: do you think that the baby at 9 months deserves protection?

      When does that unborn baby become deserving of life rather than the desires of the mother?

      •  Do we all get a vote? (0+ / 0-)

        Or only men? Only women? Only neuroscientists? Only female, white, politicians?

        How many divisions does OWS have?

        by Diebold Hacker on Wed May 02, 2012 at 08:47:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Translation (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alexandra Lynch

        bitchez are brood mares and don't deserve rights.   Deliberately dishonest hypothetical!  

      •  What brings order to society (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        T100R

        isn't just restrictions, but the rights that cabin those restrictions.  The 14th amendment protects a fundamental right to liberty, privacy, and autonomy that stops a bit short of permitting adult women from being full participants in their own reproductive choices.  That enhances the democratic process and provides order by keeping government out of where it belongs.  

        A law that purports to reflect society's values that answers a question I have no right to ask, doesn't reflect mine, and to the extent it does, it's not a value we should encourage.  Don't like abortion, don't get one.  But fundamental questions like how should a woman start a family or what is the definition of life, are not the kind of question that in anything but a police state are answered by the government.  

        Making womens' reproductive choices contingent on men promotes order for whom, exactly?  Family planning already lends itself to order and stability, but maybe not the kind your ilk want.

        The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

        by Loge on Thu May 03, 2012 at 06:38:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No. Don't tell me what I disagree with. (0+ / 0-)

        Women know fully well that a pregnancy is a developing child within them.  They also know a lot of other things that make abortion a very, very difficult choice.  

        Legislators should butt out of this one.

  •  I am torn on this issue. When does a Progressive (3+ / 0-)

    fight for the innocent child to be vs the right to choose.

    What week is the concensus?

    Is there a week?


    PLEASE ☺ - Help Stop Mitt (the Pitts) Romney from Stealing [☻] the POTUS!

    by laserhaas on Wed May 02, 2012 at 09:49:59 PM PDT

    •  You fight for everyone. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      laserhaas, elmo

      You see, there's this mythical idea somewhere about these poor innocent women who are seven and eight months along and who are getting suckered into abortion clinics, or who change their mind and don't want to have the baby now.

      This doesn't happen.

      What does happen is that early abortions are safe and what women who don't want to carry a pregnancy want. But tell me, can you raise a thousand cash by this Friday and take a day off of your responsibilities to get it? No? Takes a few weeks to get it together? You'll run smack up against these twenty-week fetal age laws if you are unlucky. If you want to help these women, they need to be able to get an abortion as readily as they get an ingrown toenail removed, and with as much discussion about the morals and ethics of it. In other words, it needs to be part of everyday healthcare everywhere, and we need universal healthcare.

      Past that, why DO women have late term abortions? Because the fetus died. Because it shows gross abnormalities incompatible with life. Because Something Went Very Wrong. These are wanted pregnancies. Names picked out. Nurseries decorated. And then it collapses. The best we can do for them is to make it possible for them to get the problem dealt with in the best and safest medical fashion, with competence and compassion.

      The moral issue is with the children who are born. Conveniently, they are often forgotten about.

      When you come to find how essential the comfort of a well-kept home is to the bodily strength and good conditions, to a sound mind and spirit, and useful days, you will reverence the good housekeeper as I do above artist or poet, beauty or genius.

      by Alexandra Lynch on Wed May 02, 2012 at 10:22:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks, I concur, it is far from an Absolute issue (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alexandra Lynch, elmo, joe wobblie

        and a case by case basis. As your scenario of costs, etc - points out.


        PLEASE ☺ - Help Stop Mitt (the Pitts) Romney from Stealing [☻] the POTUS!

        by laserhaas on Wed May 02, 2012 at 11:40:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Also, remember this. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          laserhaas

          Women don't want an abortion any more than you want a tooth out.

          If your teeth are healthy, you don't think about them. But if one gets infected, getting that thing seen to will become the all-consuming goal of your existence. If you have to take it out yourself, you will.

          Similarly, no one "wants" an abortion per se. They aren't fun, any more than a root canal is a fun way to spend the afternoon. But similarly they solve a problem that is huge and all-consuming.

          And just as you would prefer that your oral hygiene regimen keeps decay away, most of us women would prefer that our birth control regimen work.

          Both occasionally don't, and require surgical intervention.

          When you come to find how essential the comfort of a well-kept home is to the bodily strength and good conditions, to a sound mind and spirit, and useful days, you will reverence the good housekeeper as I do above artist or poet, beauty or genius.

          by Alexandra Lynch on Thu May 03, 2012 at 06:12:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Here's the thing (0+ / 0-)

      Should we be able to sit here and decide that a woman must carry to term a fetus with a severe abnormality like anencephaly? We aren't the one who would have to walk around pregnant for months, go through a birth, and then watch as the baby dies.

      Should we tell a woman whose amniocentesis for Tay Sachs comes back positive that she must give birth to this child and watch it suffer for 4 or 5 years and then die?

      Personally, I can't. That's why these blanket prohibitions (no abortions after 20 weeks) are wrong.

  •  However, according to Mitt's Church - we are (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe wobblie

    all going to hell - while he & they sit upon their Godish thrones


    PLEASE ☺ - Help Stop Mitt (the Pitts) Romney from Stealing [☻] the POTUS!

    by laserhaas on Wed May 02, 2012 at 09:51:36 PM PDT

  •  Roe meets neonatology (0+ / 0-)

    I am a firm "Roe" supporter. However, its division into trimesters no longer makes sense given the medical advances in keeping babies alive who were born at 22-26 weeks. So I am frankly not outraged by legislatures pushing back the clock a bit on when you can terminate a pregnancy in a way that does NOT treat the fetus/baby as potentially viable. You don't need to go the "it feels pain" route. But I think those of us who favor choice need to acknowledge that any time beyond 20 weeks, the fetus may actually be viable and should be treated as viable. Sometimes the pregnancy needs to be ended early due to medical danger to the mother, but you can do that in a way that protects the fetus, just as you would for a completely wanted and loved baby.

  •  20 weeks is pretty far along (0+ / 0-)

    I don't know - I support a woman's right to choose, but I don't think that right is open-ended. Once you get to that point or much beyond, I think you really are dealing with a tiny human, rather than something that will grow into a human.

    A woman has a right to choose, but I think it's reasonable and necessary to require that she act on that decision fairly promptly. Five months seems like a pretty generous allotment - I would be more in favor of three or four, although that also depends on the service being readily available.

    •  Consider, though (0+ / 0-)

      that most prenatal testing is done in the period right before this cut off. If severe fetal abnormalities are detected, a woman may not have enough time to find an abortion provider and/or figure out how to pay for the abortion before bumping up against that cut off.

      You are imagining that straw man scenario in which a woman just changes her mind about a pregnancy on a whim. This is almost never the case.

      •  no straw man here (0+ / 0-)

        A woman has a pretty good idea she's pregnant within a month and can quickly confirm that with an inexpensive home kit. It seems that four months is plenty of time to locate a provider and get the money together - if you can't do it by then, I doubt you're going to be able to raise the cash in any event.

        I don't think women change their minds on a whim, but I know that many of them defer making difficult decisions - as men do. This simply sets a deadline, which can be a useful thing, as any writer can tell you.

        As for prenatal testing, even this law allows abortions after 20 weeks for medical reasons. Absent a compelling medical reason, 20 weeks seems like a very generous cutoff.

        The difficulty in paying for an abortion or finding an abortion provider are real, but are separate issues. Pushing for an open-ended right to an abortion with no questions asked at 24, 28 weeks and beyond only serves to make the pro-choice movement appear extreme and out-of-touch, and weakens support among the general public.

        •  Actually no. (0+ / 0-)

          I had an IUD (which failed). I sometimes skipped periods. It was the 2nd missed period & morning sickness .that told me. Luckily, I didn't have a monetary problem. Also, luckily, getting my tubes tied wasn't an issue.

          If it's an abused teenager scared and in denial -- and with road blocks -- the weeks can be lost easier than you think. Moiv has told horror stories, among others.

          I support "no abortion laws" without apology. Medical standards should be sufficient. Especially if abortion is reintergrated into general OB-Gyn practice, so Gosnell stuff won't happen (it doesn't happen in Canada).

          30 years ago, abortion wasn't such an issue (!!) -- but if it was I probably would have taken pregnancy tests, to be sure, when I skipped periods. But with the working poor becoming a larger percentage, and the middle class being pushed down, it's grim.

          Giving birth (giving life) should be a gift not an obligation or women and poor people are 2nd class by definition

          by julifolo on Thu May 03, 2012 at 07:37:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site