"I think everyone agrees with the goal of reducing abortion by encouraging consideration of other alternatives,” the Republican governor said the statement. “I hope that women who are considering an abortion will use this three-day period to make good choices.”Lawsuit forthcoming. Under the case law, "the means chosen by the State to further the interest in potential life must be calculated to inform the woman's free choice, not hinder it." So you tell me, why 3 days?
March 22, 2011
72-hour wait between consultation and abortion...
... just enacted in South Dakota.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
335 comments:
1 – 200 of 335 Newer› Newest»Friday to Monday? That would be my guess.
Isn't three days is par for the course in consumer protection laws to back out of a purchase?
I am likely a bit more ambivalent on abortion than the lovely professor probably is, but I do agree with what I see as her prediction, that the law will be struck down. I see it as imposing too large of a burden on the women who wish to obtain an abortion.
We shall, of course, see.
Easy - you need at least that long to "define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
In the back-ally days IF you could find a well trained doctor to help you, the going rule was to call it an "appendectomy." Or a "D and C." And, in some cases, an episode POST abortion ... where a woman was bleeding to death.
Still, a lot of moms died, leaving kids behind, because abortions were chosen due to the lack of funds available to raise more kids.
In my opinion, if this "hooks" to the republican party, as one of its goals, you can KISS GOODBYE a lot of voters!
Remember, too, that BORK did NOT make it up onto the Supreme Court. Reagan read the bad vibes in the tea leaves over the BORK uproar.
Now, because of ultrasounds. And, tests of the amniotic fluid, women are given choices not to birth a defective child. In other words? We need to keep CHOICE alive. Yeah. Sarah Palin made a choice. But I don't think this should condemn other families, where such a choice would be stolen away.
Again. Back to the ballot box. I think I am just watching the republicans commit suicide.
Why three days? Because the Stupid Party got swept into office back in November on a wave of sudden public sanity about spending, and half of them are hell-bent on pissing away all their political capital on irrelevant social-conservative annoyance legislation that will guarantee the Democrats regaining control in 2012.
Because why would you waste time trying to stop the country from ending up like Greece, when you can instead spend your time pointlessly harrassing tens of thousands of women, all but maybe one or two whom will wait the stupid three days and get the abortion anyway? That's until this moronic law, which does nothing measurable to achieve the alleged ends of the imbeciles who wrote it, will be struck down.
I hate brainless clowns like Daugaard as much as I hate the gangsters running up the deficit.
When you talk about "cooling off" periods, you can what-if things to death. In Illinois, there was (not sure if it still is) a six-month "cooling off" period for no-fault divorces. I don't recall if that was only in force if kids were involved, but that was my case. In any event, one could easily say, why six months? Why not seven? Why not 5 months and 29 days?
At some point, you simply have to put number down if you're trying to construct a rule.
To answer the question...is three days enough? Depends utterly. What if those three days are over a weekend? What if they're over work days? The difference in time allowable for introspection (assuming that's the gal) is limited in the latter case.
My guess is someone said 24 hours and someone else said, "that's not long enough". Then someone else, maybe the same someone from the first someone, said, "well, how about a week then?", to which another someone, someone completely separate from all the previous someone's, said, "no, too long. Let's just roll this d6."
Isn't government wonderful?
Why not three days? You have more time to reconsider an agreement under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (7 days)
Correction: I didn't read far enough to find out if Daugaard is personally responsible for this joke. But for signing it, he should be in prison sharing a cell with the fool who wrote it, in the same cell block as the fools who voted for it.
lol...gal = goal
"Utterly" was not a pun. That is all.
Maybe the thought was, "if it is constitutional to make people wait three days to buy a gun, which is explicitly protected by the Constitution, then surely it would be constitutional to make people wait three days to have an abortion, which isn't."
In three days, the foetus' fingernails will have grown a little more. But don't worry, it's not a human in there. It's just a 'thing'.
Bitter snark aside, my guess it'll be as Bruce Hayden says in his 12:22.
Cheers,
Victoria
The period length is going to be arbitrary regardless, but Abdul, and especially MadMan, are probably onto something.
PS Hate to say it, but Bruce is probably right on this getting struck down.
WV "roundism" When you prefer your women ample.
If a woman has to travel some distance to get to a clinic and she has to stay in a hotel or travel back and forth, then it would make it more expensive. One might thing that the longer wait is designed to deter women from getting an abortion as opposed to interacting with her in the decisionmaking process (while leaving the ultimate choice up to her). That's the distinction in the law. So you may prefer to make a different distinction, but that's the one that counts in court.
Doesn't this law fundamentally insult women by implying that they make the first appointment without thinking of alternatives at all?
Do conservatives really want to replace the nanny state with the Big Daddy state that knows better than women what they really want?
I'm not sure entirely how, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was an increase in abortion as women with serious doubts go ahead and schedule appointments ahead of time so they won't have to wait....
I'm thinking that the courts have already ruled again and again that while it is your right to purchase a firearm in acc. with law, it is also lawful to include a "reasonable waiting period". To ensure emotions of the moment and lack of a reflecting period do not lead to a gun being acquired and used in the heat of the moment.
I can see that body of gun precidents applied to need to have a reflective period before an abortion is "delivered to the customer"..
Wouldn't want to kill a person with a gun, or a fetus with a vacuum cleaner - without at least a chance to "reflect on it" - right?
Do conservatives really want to replace the nanny state with the Big Daddy state that knows better than women what they really want?
The left has a crop of Boomers that will never stop lamenting that they had to leave college and stop protesting. The right has a crop of Boomers that, in direct response (reaction?) to that other crop, latched on to socially conservative issues with a death's grip and won't let go. Comme ci, comme ça.
Neither of which seem to understand that they're fiddling while Rome burns.
(The Crypto Jew)
Correction: I didn't read far enough to find out if Daugaard is personally responsible for this joke. But for signing it, he should be in prison sharing a cell with the fool who wrote it, in the same cell block as the fools who voted for it.
I’m bettin Mr Freece:
1) Is a libertarian; or
2) A Liberal Troll.
If he’s a libertarian, sorry about your luck, but No, there’s no “Truce” on Social Issues. And “Yes” we can both reduce Spending AND Oppose Abortion. Just like the Left can Raise Taxes, Support Gun Control, Support Abortion, Affirmative Action, and Environmental Activism, all at once. We, like they, can chew gum and walk at the same time. If you’re a Troll, sorry.
As to why three days, Nine Months would probably have been viewed as unacceptable, and one day too short.
Why 3 days?
Because it's better than nine months. Abortion chop shops don't give potential clients counseling and advice in considering alternatives, so having tine to look around and ask questions before doing something potentially irreparable is not a bad thing.
Three days to contemplate and reflect? What's the burden? To be an undue burden, a law must "plac[e] a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion," Casey, 505 U.S. at 877. How can a 72 hour delay constitute a substantial obstacle?
One might thing that = One might think that
To Carol_Hermam: It's called having principles. If this causes you to leave the party, then you should not have been here anyway. We knew long ago that to be embraced by many, all we had to do was to accept abortion.
Michael Farris wrote:
Doesn't this law fundamentally insult women by implying that they make the first appointment without thinking of alternatives at all?
That's a good, "real world" point.
My guess is that a savvy debater could argue that their knowledge of the procedure is enhanced after they have a talk with a health care professional.
Sure, some women agonise for weeks about their decision. Few go in with a hop-skip-and-a-jump to kill their baby. But not all women realise exactly what aspirating their wombs means exactly.
Correction: I could see a marginal as-applied challenge to a 72 hour waiting period if a state made it much more difficult (or impossible) to obtain an abortion after a very strict deadline. In that instance, a 72 hour waiting period might be an undue burden if it then precluded the abortion being done, but it's hard to imagine such a scenario arising, and even if it did, the statute would be construed as reserving the mother's place in the line.
Simon wrote:
How can a 72 hour delay constitute a substantial obstacle?
Ann makes a good point about the method of travel and lodging some women might need, which I agree would place some burden on the woman.
Of course, I'm all for placing the burden of reflection on the woman, no matter the pocketbook cost.
Snuffing out the life of a foetus should cost more than just whether you want "twilight" or not.
If Jesus could do three days in Hell for us, then the murderer of an enfant en ventra sa mere can do three days for their baby too. Three days was the Hebrew tradition to prove that a corpse was actually dead and not merely comatose.
A 72 hour mandatory wait also precludes situations where someone goes in with doubts and is essentially roped into it, pressed through the procedure before leaving the building or even having time to really think.
TradGuy wrote:
Three days was the Hebrew tradition to prove that a corpse was actually dead and not merely comatose.
Another version of "three strikes, you're out".
Michael Farris said...
Doesn't this law fundamentally insult women by implying that they make the first appointment without thinking of alternatives at all?
==============
Does the gun purchase waiting period insult and demean all men? Men who have carefully thought out what make, model they want and who have carefully considered spending hundreds of dollars as a customer?
Men who have acrefully thought out the alternatives to owning a gun?
So you tell me, why 3 days?
Three is a magic number,
Yes it is, it's a magic number.
Somewhere in the ancient, mystic trinity
You get three as a magic number.
The past and the present and the future.
Faith and Hope and Charity,
The heart and the brain and the body
Give you three as a magic number.
It takes three legs to make a tri-pod
Or to make a table stand.
It takes three wheels to make a ve-hicle
Called a tricycle.
Every triangle has three corners,
Every triangle has three sides,
No more, no less.
You don't have to guess.
When it's three you can see
It's a magic number.
Are you familiar with "the argument of the heap"? When I first heard it, I suggested "sounds like a heap to me." But there's something to it. Where one draws the line will be arbitrary when viewed narrowly--why not two or four. On the other hand, it's not arbitrary to draw a line.
You have to wait 3 days, 7 days, 15 days or even 30 days to purchase a pistol to (1) exercise your Constitutional right and (2) to defend your life. That's OK.
So, why is a woman's life more valuable than a man's? Huh?
At 65, I'm at least as capable of deciding how to "defend" my body as a 17 year-old female. The number of fetuses that kill their mothers immediately is no greater than the number of burglars/home invaders that kill their victims immediately. Why is the woman favored?
BTW, I favor "choice" for all.
Michael Farris said... following your logic there should be no waiting time for any other action or purchase or grace time to reconsider or walk out of a deal.
Gordon Freece what's the rush for infanticide?
@ann and the point is? So why is a woman's possible inconvenience somehow greater than another person's inconvenience in waiting for a gun permit or fire arm purchase to protect themselves with? Or any other wait time?
I'm not saying the wait time is good or bad but simply it is permissible and if the elected representatives of that state are expressing the views of their constituents then so be it.
In California, there is a 14 day waiting period to buy a handgun, with no exceptions for the average law abiding citizen.
In New York, a "premises permit" is required to keep a handgun in your own home. It takes six months to obtain this permit. Some counties impose a further one-year residency requirement. Thus, it can take 1.5 years for a new county resident to be able to obtain a handgun for home defense.
In New Jersey, it can take up to a year for the handgun licensing process to be completed to be able to buy a handgun for home defense.
All of the above explicit or de-facto waiting periods are infringements upon a constitutionally enumerated right. If these are acceptable for guns, are they acceptable for abortions? If not, why not?
And conversely, if a three day waiting period is not acceptable for an abortion, then what is an acceptable waiting period to obtain a gun for defense of the home?
Many will wait and watch - and use the same arguments in the evolving gun law debate.
"Does the gun purchase waiting period insult and demean all men?"
Only men buy guns? Who knew?
Horrible, horrible horrible.
Vicki From Pasadena
Our gracious hostess said:
"If a woman has to travel some distance to get to a clinic and she has to stay in a hotel or travel back and forth, then it would make it more expensive."
When I grew up in SW MN and went to undergrad in SD in the early 1990s, there was only one abortion clinic in the entire state (Sioux Falls at the eastern edge of the state). I don't know if that remains the case today.
(The Crypto Jew)
Horrible, horrible horrible.
I agree….Oh WAIT you’re not talking about the dead BABIES, you’re talking about the 3 day wait.
FWIW I have no problem with some kind of mandated counselling (that neither demonized or glorified abortion or women who've gotten them).
Abortion is an invasive procedure with some risks and being fully informed won't stop the determined.
But this law is fuzzy thinking, a feel-good soft-headed government-by-Big-Daddy law that might make people feel better (for doing something!) but which has no real content or merit.
It's the socially conservative version of political correctness, sound and fury signifying nothing.
Liberals view abortion laws the same way that conservatives view gun laws. Both react viscerally to a perceived attack on what they see as a fundamental right. Both see each proposed law as the camel's nose coming under the tent.
Probably both are right.
Wasn't South Dakota the state were Indian tribes were offering to perform abortions that last time the state tried outlawing it? It seems if the state makes it too burdensome to murder babies, women can just plan a daytrip to a reservation and have it done there. Maybe get a t-shirt with some witty quip on the word 'reservation.' "Terminating your pregnancy? You'll need a reservation!"
Slightly OT:
The Libertarians think that the Conservatives insistence on challenging the Lefties on social issues is what keeps them from being more popular.
Proof that this is nonsense is nobody expects Ron Paul to get anywhere in the '12 primaries if he takes the leap.
PS The fact imposing their social views on everybody doesn't seem to hurt the Lefties always eludes the Libses.
WV "pulatom" What a woman does when she wants to arouse a man.
Also, every person who voted for this legislation and the governor who signed it will be reelected or at the very least, not lose due to this issue.
Federalism in action. And in a way that if allowed initially with abortion, would have created a less divisive debate on the issue.
Gordon Fleece: Couldn't agree with you more. When one of the tens of thousands, millions perhaps, of women want an abortion they should be able to get it like this fucking minute. They should just have a general strike or a march on the state capitol. I hear that works.
It is very common for people to have to come back multiple times for various medical procedures, even when they have to travel for them.
I'd like to see a man wait 72 hours for sex. (Which is how women get pregnant, in the first place.) The Catholic Church only approves of this form of birth control. Most people ignore the dogma.
As to the wait for handguns, Jared Loughner had guns because Dupnick, the sheriff, kept all knowledge that Loughner was psychotic OUT of the data base. Dupnick knew Loughner's mom.
If "gun waiting periods" worked for the democraps, fewer people would own guns.
Have a got a surprise for those who don't see their neighbors as armed.
Biggest lesson, for me, was the Rodney King Riots (in LA. Circa 1991.) The cops did not respond to phone calls from the Korean merchants. It took about 3 days to have the fire power, with snipers going up to the roof on businesses still left. And, firing down on the looters.
Horrible, horrible horrible.
your mortgage refinance won't fund for 3 days after you sign during the federally mandated waiting period.
you have a 3 day waiting period to buy a gun which you may have traveled from out of town to obtain.
if the government has the right to make you wait, they have the right to make you wait.
I disagree with all the waiting periods and welcome you to the struggle, although we did have to wait for that support.
Anita Sorenstam just delivered a son, Wm. Nicholas McGee at 27 weeks -- those premature survival numbers keep going lower and lower...
OK w/3 day wait here. Even with the travel in Dakotas, and flying in abortionists from Minneapolis. Every single one of those potential infants could be adopted out easily, with all expenses paid. 3 Days to Consider a Lifetime Decision... I'm ok with that.
5 years since the People of Wis passed "one man, one woman." Seems nutsy that we get to vote on that, cultural wise, but the Dakota people get no vote on their culture of life, how their future population gets treated. Oh yeah, 9 robed men decided in the heyday of Liberal Babyboom Feminism, and there's no revisiting... Just a clump of cells, all about women's rights, the Boomer ladies wanted it.
Now, when we see all the dead potential boys and GIRLS (especially in China say, where healthy ones are aborted for just that reason), makes you wonder if any feminists reconsider their original moralities. Don't get me started on all the potential DISABLED children taken out, all because we pretend it's only the woman's right to abort that should be respected...
Too many ways to prevent pregnancies now, before another potential life, is affected. Ladies have to take responsibility, and no more special rights... Hey, for fairness sake, overturn Roe and let's all vote on it. Like with the gay marraige thing. Either culture matters, or not. And surely the right to marry is greater than the right to take out the life of another for inconvenience, or because you're afraid of what's coming?
What is this burden angle. Heck, I wait 3 or 4 days for my Monday and Thursday trash pick-ups, and now it is 7 days to save money. Trashing babies can wait too.
"I'd like to see a man wait 72 hours for sex. (Which is how women get pregnant, in the first place.)"
Sorry sister. A woman bears at least half, if not more, of the responsibility. Her body and all. (And plenty of men will wait. Maybe ... ask?)
And surely we all know ways of not getting pregnant, if you don't want to conceive?
(The Crypto Jew)
I'd like to see a man wait 72 hours for sex. (Which is how women get pregnant, in the first place.) The Catholic Church only approves of this form of birth control. Most people ignore the dogma.
We usually have to wait until the third or fourth date and shell out some lucre on movies, dinners, or plays we wouldn’t care to see if there weren’t something a little extra in it for us, IYKWIM.
vbspurs said...
"Simon wrote: 'How can a 72 hour delay constitute a substantial obstacle?' Ann makes a good point about the method of travel and lodging some women might need, which I agree would place some burden on the woman."
Sure, but I don't agree that it is a substantial obstacle, or an undue burden (stipulating that it is a burden at all). These modifiers mean something: some obstacles, some burdens are acceptable. Lower courts have found that this limit is transgressed by statutes which in fact or in effect bar access to abortion (e.g. Okpalobi v. Foster, 244 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2001) (statute providing a tort action against medical doctors performing abortion violates Casey)); by contrast, an Arizona statute requiring parental or judicial consent (undoubtedly an obstacle) so obviously cleared this bar that Planned Parenthood's pro forma attack on it didn't bother challenging its basic soundness (Planned P'hood of So. Arizona v. Lawall, 307 F.3d 783 (9th Cir. 2002)). I think these are instructive: substantial obstacles are those which tend to prevent access to abortion. Ultrasound laws, fœtal pain laws, and reasonable waiting periods—these are not undue burdens under existing caselaw, to my knowledge.
It's not like sperm is just randomly floating around in the atmosphere and all. And you can catch it, like a bug, that needs immediate antibiotics.
Wait the 3 days. And if it's a religiously significant number too, so be it. It's a damn big procures, with damn real consequences. Just like internal sexual intercourse during fertility.
Women maybe more grown up these days, and we should expect nothing less from them, like we did before perhaps. (ignorance of their bodies, ignorance of prevention methods, sexual co-ercion, etc etc.) We've come a long way, baby. Time to stop acting like children and realize grown up actions have grown up consequences.
I assure many people here that men wait far more then 72 hours for sex. It's called being married.
/boom
/tish
I’m not a big proponent mandatory waiting periods but I don’t think it’s illogical to apply it to abortions. A lot of States requiring a waiting period longer than three days to buy a firearm and unlike abortion, the right to keep and bear arms is actually in the Constitution. Moreover a lot of States allow someone to back out of a decision they’ve made (e.g. buying real estate) if they do so within a statutorily defined time period. An abortion is as at least as serious of a decision as buying property and unlike a mortgage, no one has figured out a way to reverse one yet.
On the other hand, I can respect and share some of concerns that in trying to restrict abortions with things like waiting periods and mandatory notifications, the government is getting more involved in the practice of medicine. Just as one can apply the logic of waiting periods for firearms to abortion, some of the mandates on abortion can and may be applied by the government in regulating the practice of medicine.
I think though that the reason why we’ve seen State legislatures go down what ultimately may be a more intrusive path is because the SCOTUS since Roe v. Wade and its progeny has basically tried to substitute its own policy preference (what it could cobble together since they can’t even agree what part of the Constitution supposedly protects the “right” to an abortion) for that of voters in the various States as expressed through their democratically elected and accountable legislatures. By playing this game of “it’s sort of a constitutional right expect when it isn’t and you can restrict except when you can’t and we won’t tell you what is and is not a reasonable restriction,” SCOTUS has pretty much opened the door for States trying to restrict abortions through methods that are less direct and IMO potentially more intrusive on the practice of medicine than what many had had before.
IMO it would be better to overturn Roe v. Wade and its progeny and return the balancing of the rights of the mother, father and unborn child back to the States where it belongs.
I'd like to see a man wait 72 hours for sex.
I take it you've never been a man.
Carol_Herman said... she wants a man to wait 72 hours before having sex since that is the only way woman get pregnant. Nice. My body, my choice, our obligation. But my choice only whether or not to stay pregnant.
As long as abortion is legal no man should ever be obligated to pay child support unless he has chosen to do so. A woman doesn't have to engage in sex or stay pregnant. It's her choice.
Maybe they should just make any woman considering an abortion read this comment thread.... or does that consitute cruel and unusual?
Btw, did Roe v. Wade or any of the other decisions guarantee CHEAP abortions? So it costs more to get one. That's not undue burden, as FH pointed out. Look at the major rise in the costs of medical procedures overall, and how long you have to wait to get a life SAVING transplant, say, in some cases.
Speaking of being married and sex, handguns and abortions are not the only situations mandating a wait-period, you know. In my county, Miami-Dade, you must wait three days after applying for a marriage license, to get married.
And some counties in the US ask you have to take a marriage course, often with a priest, rabbi or similar, before they issue you the license.
I suppose these burdens on our civil liberties are not whims from fascist legislators, who wish to control every aspect of our lives, no matter how personal. Instead, they are head-hanging admissions that modern Americans rush to do everything in a world that barely pauses to think of consequences anymore.
This law, and mindset, is why I am not a Libertarian. There is nothing wrong with having to wait three days to embark on something which will change the rest of your life.
Cheers,
Victoria
Also, every person who voted for this legislation and the governor who signed it will be reelected or at the very least, not lose due to this issue.
For all of the complaining about “social issues,” the fact is that there are a lot of social issues (at least for the political right) that quite a few people who normally get considered to be “moderates” agree with social conservatives on or at least don’t disagree enough that it makes a difference for their vote. A three day waiting period for having an abortion is likely one of those issues.
Michael Farris wrote:
Maybe they should just make any woman considering an abortion read this comment thread.... or does that consitute cruel and unusual?
Depends on our troll turnout.
Freece wrote: Because why would you waste time trying to stop the country from ending up like Greece, when you can instead spend your time pointlessly harrassing tens of thousands of women...?
I wonder if this is hyperbole or if this guy really believes the S.D. legislature is responsible for preventing the impending U.S. insolvency.
Is it likely that the courts will decide that the 72 hours is an unreasonably long period "to further the interest in potential life" and constitutes harassment or a hinderance to the woman's free choice? If so, our legal system and perhaps our society are more absurd than I have thought.
Interesting that Casey uses the phrase: "... depending on one's beliefs, for the life or potential life that is aborted."
The use of "potential life" was a fiction that allowed the Court to keep the focus of the controversy on the woman, not the fetus. "Life" in this context does not depend on "belief" it depends on human embyology which holds that life, not potential life, begins at conception.
Our hostess Ann asked, "One might thing that the longer wait is designed to deter women from getting an abortion . . ."
One should hope.
The courts throughout history have always attempted to weigh the rights of both parties in legal disputes, but when it comes to children who have not yet transitted the birth canal fully, the courts have expressly refused to consider the rights of the child.
Perhaps this law is intended to get the courts to try again to balance the rights of a woman who has control over her behavior, who no longer faces any stigma for being an unwed mother, and who has birth control methods that are cheap, numerous and effective against the rights of a child that is powerless to stop the doctor from sucking his brains out.
Simon cited:
(e.g. Okpalobi v. Foster, 244 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2001)
Okpalobi? :)
I'm guessing an African surname? That must've been contentious, if so.
If a woman has to travel some distance to get to a clinic and she has to stay in a hotel or travel back and forth, then it would make it more expensive.
Serious question – does the law we’re debating actually require that the initial consultation be in person in the doctor’s office or could a doctor and prospective patient who is seeking an abortion do their initial consultation over the telephone with her coming in to have an abortion three days later?
but she still has to wait 3 days to get a firearm to protect herself from StalkerMan.
The bottom line is that the abortion industry does not want any prospective customers changing their mind during that three day period. The abortion industry does not want to lose revenue. What a surprise.
Well, 3 is a biblical number, so I guess they're making sure the woman has enough time to think about the baby's father, her own son inside her, and the holy spirit that will haunt her once the baby is gone!
maybe they could use the 3 days to consider the "may lead to sterility or even death" part.
Or does the largest unregulated industry in America even tell their clients that?
Althouse, could you discuss how that horribly-expressed quote vaclav excerpted from Casey ever made it in to the opinion in the first place?
A 72 hour mandatory wait also precludes situations where someone goes in with doubts and is essentially roped into it, pressed through the procedure before leaving the building or even having time to really think.
You raise a good point. But I think you have to ask: wouldn't a 24-hour wait accomplish the same purpose?
Galdosiana wrote:
Well, 3 is a biblical number
It's also a prime number. And the number of sides in a pyramid. Earth is also the third planet from the Sun. Atoms also coincidentally have three constituent parts, neutrons, protons and electrons.
So, basically, there's enough in the number three to appeal to clergy, mathematicians, chemists, astronomers and New Age freaks.
And, by the by, recall that Casey itself upheld a 24 hour waiting period, 505 U.S., at 881. Because a 24 hour delay isn't an undue burden, the onus really belongs on those critical of a 72 hour period to explain why that wasn't but this is. Althouse gamely steps up to the plate ("If a woman has to travel some distance to get to a clinic and she has to stay in a hotel or travel back and forth, then it would make it more expensive"), but since the very same thing same could be said of a 24 hour waiting period, that objection plainly falters "[u]nder the [existing] case law."
There was a time when Casey was understood as a shell game—that the court said some restrictions were okay, but it really meant "no abortion restrictions." But if Gonzales v. Carhart teaches anything, it's that those days are over: Justice Kennedy effectively told us, "no, I really meant it. Casey has an outer boundary." The bottom line here is that the critics of this law can't hide behind Casey's skirt; the Supreme Court has supplied the question, not the answer, and answering that question in this case will, so far as I know, break new ground.
"A 72 hour mandatory wait also precludes situations where someone goes in with doubts and is essentially roped into it, pressed through the procedure before leaving the building or even having time to really think.
... wouldn't a 24-hour wait accomplish the same purpose?"
Depends on who's pressuring her.
If it's domineering parents, or the man who imposed his will in impregnating her in the first place ... maybe 3 days is actually minimal?
Some women need more time to consider themselves first, and their unborn potential baby, and to choose what really is best for them, and not for the man who wants to opt out of fatherhood belatedly, or the parents who might face embarassment/expense at having a grandbaby.
ADOPTION, people. Plenty of good homes waiting for those Dakota babies.
"So, basically, there's enough in the number three to appeal to clergy, mathematicians, chemists, astronomers and New Age freaks."
Hell vicki...
when you put it that way,
let's hold out for 12 !!!
;-) cheers, luv.
There is nothing wrong with having to wait three days to embark on something (marriage) which will change the rest of your life.
There is nothing wrong does not equate to this is how we should do it. It's just a way for Government -- big Government -- to justify things.
I guess they prefer women have late-term abortions.
The more developed the fetus at abortion, the better conservatives like it?
Conservatives own motels near abortion clinics? Three nights' booking adds up.
I just kind of assume that I will not be able to get a surgical procedure scheduled and done in fewer than 10-14 days (emergencies excepted).
Just how many abortion are performed within 72 hours of consultation anyhow? Mean, standard deviation?
How important would it be to fight this issue if 72 hours is less than 1.5 standard deviations below the mean?
..and I completely agree with Michael Farris @ 106pm.
Now politicians can go to their Abortion-hating Constituency and say See? See? I DID something about that evil!! How about another campaign donation?.
Never mind that it'll likely be struck down.
Perhaps this law is intended to get the courts to try again to balance the rights of a woman who has control over her behavior, who no longer faces any stigma for being an unwed mother, and who has birth control methods that are cheap, numerous and effective against the rights of a child that is powerless to stop the doctor from sucking his brains out.
Hear, hear.
Isn't three days is par for the course in consumer protection laws to back out of a purchase?
The next time you decide you really didn't need your new car/boat/motorcycle are you gonna be surprised.
The rule is you can back out when the selling party initiates the sale. Last time I saw Planned Parenthood going door to door was never.
Aw come on guys, there are waiting periods to buy guns (a 2nd Amemdment thing), and waiting periods to buy houses.
And maybe soon in Texas a sonnogram that they are forced to watch (which is fine with me, and I hope the 'father' is forced to watch to.)
This is yet another attempt to violate individual rights.
In effect, the government is wanting to use physical force to prevent a woman from acting in what she deems her best interest in her pursuit of her life, liberty and happiness. This is not the purpose of government; to use physical force against its own citizens!
@Simon: if the government prevents me by force (for ANY period of time) from doing what is legally and morally my right to do then it is profoundly violating my individual rights and making a mockery of liberty.
bil_d is right, but I absolutely refuse to listen to any lefty who is okay with, say, a waiting period for guns or vasectomies.
In effect, my argument is one of fairness. Waiting periods for everything or nothing.
bil_d said...
"This is not the purpose of government; to use physical force against its own citizens!"
Government routinely uses "physical force" (defined very broadly, as you do) against its own citizens: For example, jails or time, place, and manner restrictions on speech, and restrictions on access to federal buildings. For a recent example, consider the facts of the Seventh Circuit's Vodak v. Chicago case, decided last week.
"if the government prevents me by force (for ANY period of time) from doing what is legally and morally my right to do then it is profoundly violating my individual rights and making a mockery of liberty."
That might be a libertarian wet dream, but it is not an accurate statement of American constitutionalism, still less current constitutional doctrine.
"I guess they prefer women have late-term abortions."
Yeah, Beth. I'm sure that's it. Can't think of anything other reason, even when you stretch you braincells, for making them wait 3 whole days, eh?
Those girls will really show them, eh? Wait until 3 days shy of 20 weeks -- 20's the current limit, right? -- and endanger their own health too, just to make a point to the bad-old-deciders.
Yay!!! Women's Rights!
Why yes, this legislation is very insulting to women in that it assumes they aren't making a considered decision when scheduling an abortion.
The comparison to waiting periods to get guns is absurd. We don't have "cooling off" periods because we're afraid people are going to lawfully exercise their right to go deer hunting. Cooling off periods are designed to prevent people from using guns illegally to cause harm to others. I understand why the comparison appeals to anti-choicers, you just can't internalize that it is perfectly legal to cause harm to an unborn child, that the unborn child is not a person under the law and is not entitled to the same protections.
Waiting periods for abortions are designed to prevent people from lawfully exercising their rights and they're designed to inhibit that exercise in the most vulnerable population (getting time off work, transport, travel, cost are all real issues that are difficult enough for some women to deal with without dealing with arbitrary obstacles).
The "wait 3 days for a marriage license" comparison makes a little bit more sense, but in that case the state suffers real consequences when people get married foolishly -- divorces take up court assets.
If a woman decides to have an abortion, the state and the community suffer zero consequences. Even if she later regrets her decision. Something that never was born is still not born and you can weep over the lost potential but you can't claim tangible injury.
Isn't it a bit late to make this consideration after a woman is pregnant? isn't the whole point to NOT get pregnant in the first place?
This displays an amazing lack of understanding where the problem lies. Preventing pregnancy is relatively easy.
Sadly, so is murdering the unborn.
Trey
I almost forgot; this shouldn't go unchallenged:
bil_d said...
"if the government prevents me …from doing what is legally and morally my right to do…."
Ah, but one never has a moral right to abortion. A legal right, yes, for the time being, but not a moral right. CCC ¶ 2270 et seq. If you get to assume your moral premises in the debate, everyone else does, too. That's why courts abjure such statements, and, when, striking down abortion restrictions usually mouth false pieties about how they aren't making any judgment about the morality of the procedure.
" It's just a way for Government -- big Government -- to justify things. "
How long do gay couples have to wait, currently, in Wisconsin to get married, MadisonMan?
You were ok with voting on that one, no? Even if you voted the liberally "correct" way, right?
Lots of things we'd all like to do with and to our bodies that currently we have to wait for. Talk to the kids busted for drinking underage at 19 or 20, for starters. Or those in jail for ingesting substances they couldn't wait medically to require -- ie/prescription drug abuse.
Funny how this whole issues brings out the inconsistencies in so many of you well-educated folk. Where the heck were you, with all your Solidarity and commonsense, on all these other limitation under the law?
(The Crypto Jew)
In effect, the government is wanting to use physical force to prevent a woman from acting in what she deems her best interest in her pursuit of her life, liberty and happiness. This is not the purpose of government; to use physical force against its own citizens!.
Ah L/libertarians, they make me laugh…OF COURSE, if the mother is killing a BABY, it puts a different spin on it, doesn’t it? Just saying it’s a “Right/choice/freedom” doesn’t make it so. Example: Health care, not a right is it? So too Abortion, it’s not a “right” it’s murder…
Someone else has already put paid to the “violence inherent in the system” argument I see, but to be fair please tell me you’re an Anarcho-Capitalist who believes ANY government intrusion is violence and wrong…..
"Why yes, this legislation is very insulting to women in that it assumes they aren't making a considered decision when scheduling an abortion."
There it is again. Your timing is completely fouled up.
Needing an abortion is insulting to women. Except for rape, it shows that the woman in question is hugely irresponsible and selfish, that she is willing to murder rather than make responsible decisions and live with the results.
Abortion infantilizes women. It is provided because the poor dears can't help themselves. They lack logic or self control. That is the logical extension of what it means to murder the unborn because of the poor choices of the mother. (Rape is not unders consideration.)
You either must accept this premise or accept that it is an abominable sin and to be prevented.
Trey
The law requires that the woman seeking an abortion meets with the doctor who would perform the abortion three days in advance of the abortion.
Given that the abortions performed in South Dakota are done by doctors who fly into the state, this creates a greater burden than it might in a state which had abortion providers residing in state.
So much has changed -- medically, education and technology-wise -- since Roe was decided...
If this isn't commonsense argument A for why these things shouldn't be decided not by Court set-in-stone precedent, but by the will of the People, then I don't know what does.
I personally can't wait for that 6 or 7-week old baby to survive, out of womb, with technology help to lead a medically uncompromised life. So much has changed, and for the better, unless you're clinging to outdated precedent...
(The Crypto Jew)
The "wait 3 days for a marriage license" comparison makes a little bit more sense, but in that case the state suffers real consequences when people get married foolishly -- divorces take up court assets.
And the baby, the baby suffers NO consequences from the Abortion…got it. Sure marriage is consequential for both partners, but SEX, hey no need to worry about consequences there is there?
And surely we all know ways of not getting pregnant, if you don't want to conceive?
Every contraceptive method will fail.
http://www.guttmacher.org
/pubs/fb_contr_use.html
Scroll down to FIRST YEAR CONTRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES
Sophia X said...
"If a woman decides to have an abortion, the state and the community suffer zero consequences."
The child does, and the state can rationally decide that killing children should be limited. The state's moral interest in preventing murder isn't fundamentally different whether the child is born or not.
"Something that never was born is still not born and you can weep over the lost potential but you can't claim tangible injury."
Don't bother applying to be a miscarriage counselor. And besides, if you want to reduce it to clockworks and cold steel economics, here's a state interest: the state's desire to realize greater tax returns from an increased population. Every abortion represents a lost unit of taxation; you could even do a rough calculation on how much. Unnecessary and cold, but tangible.
" Last time I saw Planned Parenthood going door to door was never."
Of course not, they are most interested in killing black babies. So they set up shop there. Sainger was Hitler in a dress if you read her letters to other eugenicists.
Trey
"Given that the abortions performed in South Dakota are done by doctors who fly into the state, this creates a greater burden than it might in a state which had abortion providers residing in state."
But is that an UNDUE burden, given as Freeman pointed out upthread, so many medical procedures require more than a 3-day planning wait, and cost much more in incidentals, than 3 extra days of nearby hotel stay/gas to getcha there?
Sorry, that argument fails. (Particularly since it's not necessarily financially destitude women who seek out such procedures, I suspect.)
(Please don't tell me you were referring to the burden on the DOCTORS, who would have to either make 2 trips, or else stay in state the 3 days themselves??)
Why is there a 3-day wait for handgun purchases? What do you find in 3 days that you can't find in a series of keystrokes that takes 5 minutes at most?
Sure, Joe, it is possible to reduce spending and pass legislation on the social conservatives' wish list, but I'm not counting on the current crop of pols actually reducing spending in a meaningful way.
Everyone knows that real cuts need to be made in defense spending and entitlement spending. Instead, we'll get preening about cutting funding for NPR.
BFD.
Whatever guys, just send 'em to me. I'll grab my dustbuster and vacuum that sucker right out...no waiting period necessary.
As long as abortion is legal no man should ever be obligated to pay child support unless he has chosen to do so.
Another so-called conservative expecting the taxpayers to support his bastard children.
Parents have equal responsibility to support their children in every state.
"Except for rape, it shows that the woman in question is hugely irresponsible and selfish, that she is willing to murder ...
That is the logical extension of what it means to murder the unborn..."
Unless you're really advocating that women who get abortions be prosecuted for murder then stop using that word.
If you do advocate that, then make it as clear as possible.
former law student said...
"And surely we all know ways of not getting pregnant, if you don't want to conceive?
Every contraceptive method will fail."
Right, which is why the Church counsels people not to have sex outside of marriage. If you can't have abortion, and you aren't open to children, don't have sex (or at least constrain it to the times where pregnancy isn't a possible result). Classify that as a contraceptive method and, with the unique exception of the Blessed Mother, it has a 100% success rate.
Mary, women of means (and the daughters of those who have money) in South Dakota are probably already leaving the state for abortion services. My guess is that the bulk of abortions performed in South Dakota are to women of limited financial means.
Sophia X wrote:
If a woman decides to have an abortion, the state and the community suffer zero consequences.
Actually, no. Many of the women being asked to consider their decision by a mere 3 official days, are below-average economically. They often live in high-crime areas, too.
Taxpayers are the ones who will foot the bill for the imprisonment and EBT cards given the children of these women, not to mention the public health care costs, remedial education classes, ad infinitum.
And STILL most people would much rather the woman keep the baby.
That is not suffering zero consequences.
Simon, your approved method of contraception does nothing for rape victims. Do you approve of their access to plan-B, RU46, or abortion (with or without a 3 day waiting period)?
The Professor writes about travel distance. For extremists on abortion, this is not an important issue. Even UPS drivers would not consider it important. Only lawyers would.
ADOPTION, people. Plenty of good homes waiting for those Dakota babies.
There's a little thing called pregnancy that has to happen first. Are there plenty of surrogate wombs waiting for those Dakota fetuses?
"I understand why the comparison appeals to anti-choicers, you just can't internalize that it is perfectly legal to cause harm to an unborn child, that the unborn child is not a person under the law and is not entitled to the same protections."
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes!
Not so many people think like that anymore, thankfully. (Try smacking a pregnant woman in the stomach and see what that gets you, especially if the fetus dies... re. "it is perfectly legal to cause harm to an unborn child, that the unborn child is not a person under the law and is not entitled to the same protections.")
"There's a little thing called pregnancy that has to happen first. Are there plenty of surrogate wombs waiting for those Dakota fetuses?"
No one has to die this way.
And it seems, the surrogates are already pregnant, their waiting wombs fulfilled.
(The Crypto Jew)
Everyone knows that real cuts need to be made in defense spending and entitlement spending. Instead, we'll get preening.
Yeah that’s why the Marine Corps is losing 22,000 troops…no Defense Cuts….that’s why the F-22 is limited…and that’s why, in part, there is no follow-on to the M1/2/3…no defense cuts…We spend far more on Entitlements, than Defense…and if we can extricate ourselves from Afghanistan, we’ll see Defense Spending nearer 3.5% of GNP. You were saying about Defense Spending?
No rape exceptions for abortion. Poor incentives.
No reason to give women a reason to cry rape when she finds out she's conceived. Too many men already faced that injustice, no?
"Mary, women of means (and the daughters of those who have money) in South Dakota are probably already leaving the state for abortion services."
Hmm... I doubt it. A teenager with wealthy parents still has to explain that out-of-state trip, instead of just saying in-state and going in for her ... routine medical procedure.
Please, don't pretend this is all about POOR pregnant women who didn't know how to prevent pregnancy. I doubt it is, in this day and age.
"Many of the women being asked to consider their decision by a mere 3 official days, are below-average economically. They often live in high-crime areas, too.
Taxpayers are the ones who will foot the bill for the imprisonment and EBT cards given the children of these women."
Not in places like the Dakotas, I'm thinking, do non-aborted babies end up in jail, living in high-crime areas. That's just upper-class lib think.
Actually, upper class women and upper middle class women are more likely to abort, especially in non-urban areas, stats show.
It is a liberal myth that moderates and independents automatically defer to Democrats as soon as a Republican whispers something about abortion.
And furthermore, I personally have very little interest in the "keep as many voters as possible" routine. Maybe if the GOP got in bed with labor unions we would get all of those votes too.
I'm amazed how social conservatives are constantly told to suck it up and vote Republican no matter what. But then when one of their guys gets in office, they have to shut their mouths or they'll start losing voters.
Just like Gov Walker, this Gov in South Dakota was not going around lying about being pro-choice. People knew who he was and voted for him anyway. Whatever happened to letting states take care of their own business?
"No rape exceptions for abortion. Poor incentives."
How did we survive without Aunt Mary telling us all what to do and what not to do?
Thorley Winston asked: Serious question – does the law we’re debating actually require that the initial consultation be in person in the doctor’s office or could a doctor and prospective patient who is seeking an abortion do their initial consultation over the telephone with her coming in to have an abortion three days later?
I suspect that the law requires the consultation to be done in person.
From the article:
The law, which takes effect July 1, says an abortion can only be scheduled by a doctor who has personally met with a woman and determined she is voluntarily seeking an abortion. The procedure can’t be done until at least 72 hours after that first consultation.
"Why is there a 3-day wait for handgun purchases? What do you find in 3 days that you can't find in a series of keystrokes that takes 5 minutes at most?"
Right, because everybody has access to a computer, and reliable internet, everywhere in the land.
Your assumptions here kill me, folks.
Something that never was born is still not born and you can weep over the lost potential but you can't claim tangible injury
If we're going by this logic, then how is it legally possible for someone to be charged with double homicide when murdering a pregnant woman?
"How did we survive without Aunt Mary telling us all what to do and what not to do?"
How did all of those poor people survive before Roe V Wade?
"How did we survive without Aunt Mary telling us all what to do and what not to do?"
Point is:
you all survived this far. Nobody had a successful abortion on ya.
Why ya so keen not to pass on that privilege to others?
Evangelical Republicans simply can't help themselves. The economy is going to utter shit, and their #1 priority is abortion, abortion, abortion and creationism on the side. SICk!
(The Crypto Jew)
Right, because everybody has access to a computer, and reliable internet, everywhere in the land.
Your assumptions here kill me, folks.
No everyone has access to anything, Mary…does that mean we must first guarantee access to any enabling technology or that we cannot limit anything?
In this thread, all the attention has been on the 3-day waiting period.
Another provision in the bill requires that the woman seeking an abortion undergo counseling at a pregnancy center.
Can you say re-education?
Sainger was Hitler in a dress if you read her letters to other eugenicists.
God, I HATE Margaret Sanger. Marie Stopes, the British version, was also an eugenicist.
Stopes disinherited her son because he dared to marry a myopic woman, making it possible for that 'defect' to continue if they had children.
You cannot make this stuff up.
Abortions should be safe, legal and free. No waiting period at all In fact, hell, it should be like a drive-thru, in and out.
People act like an abortion is an easy decision for a pregnant mother, but I can assure you it's not. Most of these women getting abortions will have to undergo years of therapy as they cope with their decision. Still, the sad reality is that most of the people that have them (not SD-specific) are minorities, and people simply won't adopt those children.
FLS:
Another so-called conservative expecting the taxpayers to support his bastard children.
FLS - you are a real bastard piece of work. First you castigate any conservative who fails to live up to the "family values" ideal, and then you spend the other 50% of your time bashing the people who HAVE lived to the ideal, f.e,. THE PALINS.
FLS: Another so-called conservative expecting the taxpayers to support his bastard children.
No, we just prefer you not use our taxdollars to kill the children.
Thanks in advance.
"The economy is going to utter shit, and their #1 priority is abortion"
Right, because if the economy had been bad in 1858 those nanny state abolitionists would have shut up about slavery.
(The Crypto Jew)
The economy is going to utter shit, and their #1 priority is abortion, abortion, abortion and creationism on the side. SICk!
Walk and chew gum, dude…sorry if you can’t, but we can…
Plus this assumes that IF we were to just drop these annoying social issues, more libertarian/independent/liberal folks would join us, and that’s not demonstrably true.
Finally I believe it is true that the most reliably Fiscally Conservatives are also the most reliable Pro-Life forces in Congress…again more evidence we walk and chew gum, too. And that the more “moderate” social folks are also not reliable in their fiscal conservatism, too. And that follows logically, as the Libertarian Party, Social Liberals/Fiscal Conservatives polls fewer votes than the GREEN Party. So one’s options are: A)support abortion/larger government OR B) oppose abortion/support smaller government…the political alternative simply is NOT there. It’s the Holy Grail/Chimera of the RINO’s…social liberality/fiscal conservatism…it generally gets less than .3% of the vote every four years.
Trey, should women who have had abortions be charged with murder? Should women who seek abortion be charged with conspiracy to murder?
What kind of sentences would you suggest?
peter hoh said...
"Simon, your approved method of contraception does nothing for rape victims. Do you approve of their access to plan-B, RU46, or abortion (with or without a 3 day waiting period)?"
That would have been an easier question to answer before I became a Catholic.* Back then, my position was that contraception and abortifacients were permissible before the existence of detectable physical prerequisites of life. I have subsequently "acquired new wisdom …–or, to put it more critically, have discarded old ignorance." If life begins at conception under the sovereign direction of God, even if undetectable at the time, it is far harder to accept the use of post coital contraceptives which can function as abortifacients.
Even before, however, and thus aside from Catholic teaching on abortion, I pointed out that rape exceptions presuppose the pro-choice view of abortion by focusing purely on the mother. A consistent pro life position denies such exceptions for mainline abortions, because if the child is alive, that is the dispositive question, not the circumstances of conception. That isn't to say, obviously, that pro-lifers shouldn't bow to political reality by accepting bills with such exception; they should. A legislature doesn't have to fix every problem in order to fix any problem, and any better is still better.
I also think Mary's comment at 3/22/11 2:39 PM raises a serious point. Any exception in abortion law becomes a loophole through which people who want abortions will try to squeeze, and that may create incentives for bad behavior.
_______
*Technically still a candidate.
Most of these women getting abortions will have to undergo years of therapy as they cope with their decision.
Absolutely not true. The "most" part, I mean. Please cite data to back that up and I'll consider it, but of the women I know for sure in my life that had abortions, none have been in therapy.
Most should have been, but that would be true with or without the abortion...
And no...they weren't my kids. The abortion/civil law thing is a hot-button for me. If abortion as a contraceptive choice is legal, the dammit it should be legal for a man to sign an affidavit stating that he doesn't want a child some woman decides she wants to keep against his will.
Choice for some, not for others.
FLS: former law student said...
"And surely we all know ways of not getting pregnant, if you don't want to conceive? Every contraceptive method will fail."
Correct. Knowing this, you CHOOSE to have sex anyway, you CHOOSE to take a risk because you know not all contraception is 100%.
In short, you know there's a chance you'll end up killing your child, and you choose to do it anyway.
FLS: "I need sex so bad I'm willing to kill for it"
*spit*
Joe, re. spending: when you take defense and entitlements off the table, you can't cut enough to bring spending in line.
Yes, there have been spending cuts to specific items within the defense budget, but much larger cuts are necessary in order to balance the budget.
"Trey, should women who have had abortions be charged with murder? Should women who seek abortion be charged with conspiracy to murder? What kind of sentences would you suggest?"
Laws cannot be retroactively enforced. When you ban something, you don't go back and punish someone who did it while it was still legal.
As for going forward, I think it should constitute, at the very least, child abuse. If that baby made it one day past birth the mother would suffer consequences for starving it. The same process should apply to abortion, taking in mind the maturity level and mental state of the woman.
"Another provision in the bill requires that the woman seeking an abortion undergo counseling at a pregnancy center.
Can you say re-education?"
Right peter. Because no doctor these days actually has the best interests, the mental and physical health of his patient at heart. Especially all those young, poor, destitude women who will be raising their children in high-crime areas if they don't make the first, correct, instinctual decision when they are scared and overwhelmed upon learning they have conceived...
These counseling Doctors surely all are just in service with the liberal way of thinking, to make money on the ... procedure.
(Sadly, I wish some of you could travel to the Dakotas and view the homogeneous populations there. Let the State vote on how they and their doctors want to treat their pregnant women. Besides, the rare well-to-do ones finding themselves in such a situation could always just hop on a plane and fly out of state to exercise their choices, right Peter?)
Let them ADOPT out their beautiful babies to be! Might take more than 3 days, but any thinking woman -- poor or young or not -- might just see another avenue of life that she just was unable to fathom before... Hell 3 days is nothing really.
(The Crypto Jew)
Joe, re. spending: when you take defense and entitlements off the table, you can't cut enough to bring spending in line.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but there is a point Defense, CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED, really can’t be cut, and that is about 2.5% of GNP. We are a long ways from there, but I tell you, you could cut Defense to zero and STILL not balance the budget, without attacking Sosh’ Security, and Medicare…and that THOSE are the biggest drivers of Debt.
vbspurs,
You don't seem to understand the concept of suffering consequences. If the woman has an abortion, taxes are not required to support a child that was never born. That's exactly the point. There is no increase in cost to society when a woman has an abortion.
Tmink,
I don't have to accept your premises. And I don't.
Simon,
I know there are a lot of Catholics on the Supreme Court but even they are highly unlikely to accept your "every sperm is a sacred future taxpayer" reasoning. Why don't you just take a full dive into eugenics and argue that the state has an interest in higher earners reproducing because they're kids are likely to pay more taxes, therefore it's illegal for them to use birth control?
Mary,
I'm familiar with those laws, which are nothing more than anti-choicers trying to sneak personhood rights for the unborn through the back door. What has not changed is the, at the time, not remotely controversial proposition in Roe that personhood is not achieved until birth. There are certainly people today who think that's wrong. But I don't expect them to carry the day at SCOTUS or in the court of public opinion because such a holding would unleash a Pandora's Box of authoritarian control over pregnancy. Then abortion really would be murder, and women procuring them should be indicted under murder for hire statutes that in many states provide for the death penalty. A lot of people feel comfortable passing moral judgment on woman who have abortions. But very few of them are going to go so far as to say that such women belong in jail.
And that's not even accounting for things like, well, if a woman had a miscarriage should we conduct an investigation to see if her behavior contributed to the death, i.e. involuntary manslaughter. Or child abuse and neglect statutes extended to the unborn, where the child can't be "removed from the home" so the state takes custody of the mother as host to ensure conformity with standards. Maybe all that sounds awesome to you. But to most Americans it sounds like tyranny.
Candace, I'm not asking about retroactively charging women who had abortions with murder. I'm asking about from this point forward.
Don't wiggle around with the child abuse charge. Trey was saying that abortion is murder. I'm just asking if he really believes that.
"Mary…does that mean we must first guarantee access to any enabling technology or that we cannot limit anything?"
Don't ask sarcastic ole me. Ask Madison Man at 2:27 -- his argument there.
This thread is jumping fast! Can see where it's hard to keep up...
Alex wrote: Evangelical Republicans simply can't help themselves. The economy is going to utter shit, and their #1 priority is abortion, abortion, abortion and creationism on the side. SICk!
You really are confused and uninformed, aren't you?
Legally, if a state decides you don't get to have abortions, and you do, then I think there would be criminal consequences against the doctor performing, Peter.
Whether the woman then could be criminally in contempt, the voters could decide too, but would she be a "murderer" legally if she aborts in a non-aborting state?
Yes, but sorry if that sickens or makes you uncomfortable Peter. It's a messy subject, all those bloodied potential babies and all.
"Nobody had a successful abortion on ya.
Why ya so keen not to pass on that privilege to others?"
Blogger ate my longer, more considered response so I'll just say: I'm not as interested in telling other people how to live as you are.
I'm technically pro-choice but I'm not interested in convincing individual women to get abortions or not to.
(The Crypto Jew)
Yeah Peter you ARE MURDERING A BABY…but NO Peter we won’t fall into your little trap of criminalizing the victim…let’s just charge the Dr or person performing the murder with the crime?
Mary,
Progressive bureaucrats have made the adoption process so expensive and time consuming that it's almost impossible for middle class families to do it.
I have some friends who applied with their county to be foster parents. They had to pay for classes, install a landline phone despite both having cellphones, submit employment documents, endure lengthy background checks, and let a social worker inspect their house..... and after all of this they were put on a waiting list. That was a year ago. To this day they haven't been allowed to take in one child.
But see how progressives scream at pro-lifers to go adopt already.
Joe, yes, I know that Social Security and Medicare are the budget busters. (Can I get a shout out for Part D?)
I'm certainly not advocating that we spend nothing on defense.
Boehner or someone said that they were going to get serious about spending, and followed that up with the declaration that defense and entitlements were off the table. In other words, we're not serious about cutting spending.
Ag subsidies and ethanol are pet peeves of mine, but you could zero them out without making much dent in the overall deficit.
Shorter Mary at 2:59: Stop killing our white babies!
(that's how it works, Meade)
Trey was saying that abortion is murder. I'm just asking if he really believes that.
Doesn't this get into the whole inconsistency of the law that any Ethics or Policy 101 class deals with?
If a pregnant woman is hit and both mother and unborn child are killed by a drunk driver, is it one or two counts of manslaughter? Is it only one count if the mom didn't know she was pregnant? Is it definitely two if the mother was around five months but had established with friends, family and work that she was bringing he/she to term? Is it one or two counts if she was going to get an abortion, but had changed her mind to keep it?
Not to speak for Trey, Peter, but I think he's the father of 3 snowflake children -- adopted fetuses that became his children. Have you read his blog, or seen his pictures?
In case he doesn't get back to you, and given his previously stated religious beliefs, I'm guessing yes, he really does consider abortion to be murder.
You see, when you can put the face of a growing child to the real-life consequences of life-changing this "procedure", it's not so abstract, and you kinda get over your qualms at making a woman wait 3 days, or undergo the embarrassment or discomfort of carrying a baby to term.
But Trey, as a man and a father, surely can speak for himself on this topic too.
(The Crypto Jew)
Boehner or someone said that they were going to get serious about spending, and followed that up with the declaration that defense and entitlements were off the table. In other words, we're not serious about cutting spending.
That’s Boehner…that’s not necessarily the TEA Party or Paul Ryan or Palin…it is true that whomsoever tries to reform Entitlements is going to have to be very smart because the Democrats will demonize any attempt to change them…I will say that Boehner did NOT mean Defense is off the table, as it IS being cut.
"Shorter Mary at 2:59: Stop killing our white babies!"
Close... Stop killing our AMERICAN babies.
Better still: Stop killing BABIES.
Adoption if you can't afford them. Clear enough for ya?
Ren said...
"Most of these women getting abortions will have to undergo years of therapy as they cope with their decision."
Right, and there's a reason for that. Something deep down in the core of their being realizes that something wrong happened, cf. 2 Cor 3:3. People don't spend years in therapy bewailing their virtuous acts or acts which they believe were okay.
And your point is particularly inapt here, where we're talking about a brief delay not a ban. The women whom you have in mind—those who have thought it through and are determined to get an abortion—won't be affected in the slightest; they will simply wait three days and go through with it. The law protects those who are not sure of their decision.
Child abuse charges is not wiggling. It's how the law currently handles the death of a live baby.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/39151362.html
Parents are charged with child abuse/neglect resulting in death. It tends to carry letter punishment than first degree murder, but it is still legally a murder conviction.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but there is a point Defense, CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED, really can’t be cut
Congress has the power to provide for the common defense, but no obligation to maintain bases around the world. The Constitution envisaged the militia protecting us from invasion, with armies raised for limited times only. Meade's favorite soldier, Colonel Heg, had no military experience when he was chosen to lead the 15th Wisconsin Volunteers.
Peter wrote: Trey was saying that abortion is murder. I'm just asking if he really believes that.
I can't speak for Trey, but technically abortion is the killing of a human embryo or fetus. It is only murder if the legislature says so (courts permitting).
Having said that, it is also, arguably, the immoral killing of an unborn child.
Joe, so now I'm murdering babies, by virtue of asking some pointed questions?
I thought only liberals did the thought police thing.
"I'm familiar with those laws, which are nothing more than anti-choicers trying to sneak personhood rights for the unborn through the back door."
No, you cynic you.
I think it really does have something to do with protecting pregnant women from getting smacked in the belly, with no legal consequences, just in case she actually wants her baby-to-be to live to see the light of day, and therefore, suffers a great loss if someone deliberately (or even unintentionally through neglect, ie/car accidents) kills her child short of birth. Most of us approve of such laws, you know.
(Really, you think killing a pregnant woman's child should have no legal consequence, and it's just something dreamed up to thrwart the pro-choice people? That's sad, that way of thinking.)
I don't understand the enduring fantasy that if Roe v. Wade is overturned that abortion will be a matter left to the states. If an unborn child is a person then abortion would be unconstitutional (you might be able to have a small exception for life of mother arguing self-defense). Period. And drafting laws that punished doctors but not the women who procure would be constitutionally dubious and premised on women having diminished capacity to consent. That's fucking backwards and most people will never go along with that.
Anti-choicers will just keep chipping away with measures like this, knowing damn well that an open and honest discussion of their goals (punish women for exercising control over their sexuality, get rid of birth control and make sure anyone who dares to have sex outside the bonds of marriage is punished) would be met with disgust by the average Americans.
You're a bunch of retrograde fuckwads and the best thing you have going for you is that normal decent people can't comprehend how fucking sinister you are.
I'm familiar with those laws, which are nothing more than anti-choicers trying to sneak personhood rights for the unborn through the back door.
You've not had an argument until you've had a rabid pro-choice advocate try and convince you that children shouldn't be considered as "people" until around 8 or 9.
(The Crypto Jew)
Congress has the power to provide for the common defense, but no obligation to maintain bases around the world. The Constitution envisaged the militia protecting us from invasion, with armies raised for limited times only. Meade's favorite soldier, Colonel Heg, had no military experience when he was chosen to lead the 15th Wisconsin Volunteers.
1) Would you care to point out the basis for Medicare or Social Security or the Departments of Education, Labour, Commerce, or Energy? I CAN find the Articles and Sections mandating DEFENSE, within the US Constitution.
2) And most citizen soldiers, Heg included SUCKED, until they had become “regulars”….Militia’s STINK, on ice…they have failed the US almost every time they have taken to the field. It is the PROFESSIONAL Military that has provided the backbone of any US military success. So no, we can’t just disestablish the US Army and then REESTABLISH it at any point and think that all will be well.
Thank you for your contribution, though.
"Then abortion really would be murder, and women procuring them should be indicted under murder for hire statutes that in many states provide for the death penalty. A lot of people feel comfortable passing moral judgment on woman who have abortions. But very few of them are going to go so far as to say that such women belong in jail."
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes...
(Some people still think that remarried divorced folk are adulterers too. Damn traditionalists! Not that we want a statewide vote to take away their rights to sin, or be imprisoned for it.)
Sophia X wrote:
You don't seem to understand the concept of suffering consequences. If the woman has an abortion, taxes are not required to support a child that was never born. That's exactly the point. There is no increase in cost to society when a woman has an abortion.
I'll re-phrase my poorly delivered reply.
In your argument, society suffers zero consequences for every child aborted.
Why then would society be more willing to encourage such a drain on their resources, if often the result is high-maintenance upkeep?
To my mind, this implicitly means that society puts a higher value on human life, than societies who could care less how many abortions a woman has.
That is a consequence of this law, too. The humanity it is trying to reasseart.
Mary,
I think battering a woman is already illegal, whether or not she is carrying a child. And that loss of pregnancy would count as grievous injury elevating it to a felony and a nice prison sentence. I don't think we need extra laws to punish the horror. I think we have those laws already and I can't imagine there is a judge in the country that isn't going to give the max penalty to a man who beat a baby out of a woman.
Ah, Obamacare at its finest. Wait 3 days. And, if that works, the lines will just grow longer!
People today have no clue what it was like before Roe V. Wade.
Religion had a lock on sexual mores. The pharmacist couldn't display condoms out in the open. Till the Supreme Court came along and struck down a Connecticut law.
Heck, you couldn't even be fitted for a diaphragm if you weren't married. Religion has an ugly way of interfering with science. That's why starting in the late 19th Century, after Darwin strode on stage ... people have successfully impeded religion's march into our political lives.
This 'baby fetus' fixation only costs the republican party votes!
Sophia X said...
"Simon, I know there are a lot of Catholics on the Supreme Court but even they are highly unlikely to accept your 'every sperm is a sacred future taxpayer' reasoning."
No, but it has nothing to do with their religious convictions. If the court voted based on their religious views, Fred Phelps would be a poorer man today and Al Snyder richer. And if Justice Sotomayor in particular
The Justices will vote on their view of the law. For Kennedy, that means Casey, which almost certainly allows a 72 hour delay. For Scalia and Thomas, it means that states can do whatever they want, because Roe. and its progeny were wrongly-decided (for the record, they're correct). For Sotomayor, it means no abortion regulations, for our President isn't an idiot and she wouldn't have been nominated without swearing a blood oath to Roe. And who can tell what our Fearless Leader and Justice Alito will do?
Sorry, strike "And if Justice Sotomayor in particular" from my comment above.
" To this day they haven't been allowed to take in one child."
I suspect the supply of alive unwanted babies will increase if we allow states to vote on whether or not they want to permid medical procedures like abortions within their borders.
Infant adoptions, especially where there is involvement when the baby is still developing in womb, are great in demand. Of all races and ethnicities. Some even have to go out of country, or utilize the snowflake technology implantation, to find such newborns.
(The Crypto Jew)
Religion had a lock on sexual mores. The pharmacist couldn't display condoms out in the open. Till the Supreme Court came along and struck down a Connecticut law.
And then, the SCOTUS found a non-existent right, a right to privacy…I believe in some penumbra’s and emanations….And don’t even start on Religion and Science and Republicans…Unless you’re also going to get on the Democrats and Environmentalism and the MILLIONS it has killed, and the BILLIONS it would kill if it could.
"I think battering a woman is already illegal, whether or not she is carrying a child."
Right. But in many place, the penalty for KILLING her very-much-wanted baby-to-be is punished more severely than just a simple battery against the woman.
As most of us, I suspect, agree it should be. (Getting punched in the gut as a person is bad. Getting punched in the gut AND losing your unborn child is badder still. Even if the person doing the punching didn't mean to kill it.)
vbspurs,
That people are willing to pay for things that they want does not mean they have suffered a tangible loss if they don't get them. They didn't have it to begin with. They didn't have it at the end.
And your argument also needs to be reconciled with the fact that, if anything, there is an inverse correlation between abortion restrictions and funding that "supports human life." Do you read the news? How many pro-life politicians are currently pushing for cuts in Medicaid? Where's the enormous well-spring of private charity to cover the needs of children suffering during economic difficulties?
We do OK, relatively speaking, as a country providing for the disadvantaged but you have a mean heart if you think we are particularly generous or displaying some great defense of fundamental humanity in our treatment of poor children.
Sophia X wrote: I'm familiar with those laws, which are nothing more than anti-choicers trying to sneak personhood rights for the unborn through the back door.
"Personhood" is a sleazy social/legal construct by the abortionmeisters to obscure the fact that abortion takes a human life. It permits the controversy to focus on the feelings, needs and convenience of the prospective mother.
Yes, I completely believe that. Every child is a good gift from God. Killing them as they grow is a most heinous sin. It is a Satanic attempt to cheat God. And it cheats us all.
But I also know that God forgives! And I carry no personal animosity toward women who murder. I pray for them and love them. That is what I am commanded to do, and it is not so difficult!
But oh yes, I know it is murder. And the world is so very idfferent once you know that. Once I knew that, I knew I could not support the death penalty. And I do not.
Trey
Simon,
I think you're misreading the motives behind the Phelps decision. I think it's perfectly sound on First Amendment grounds, and I had zero doubt that a majority of conservative justices would agree precisely because they are protecting the right for people to advance their crazy religious arguments.
Besides, Scalia is on the record sharing his disgust about homosexual conduct. What on earth makes you think he'd make Phelps a poorer man based on his religious convictions?
People today have no clue what it was like before Roe V. Wade.
Rich women got "therapeutic" abortions. Poor women got backalley abortions and sometimes died.
Plug "abortion" into the fascinating "Homicide in Chicago 1870-1930" data base maintained at Northwestern.
http://homicide.northwestern.edu/database/
If an unborn child is a person then abortion would be unconstitutional (you might be able to have a small exception for life of mother arguing self-defense). Period.
If an unborn child is not a person then explain the rationale for laws against "fetal murder."
For more about the pre Roe v. Wade days, read
Packer and Gampell, Therapeutic Abortion: A Problem in Law and Medicine, 11 Stan. L. Rev. 417 (1959).
Gampell was a practicing ENT guy who went to law school.
hombre,
I don't think abortion was considered at all in drafting the fourteenth amendment. And, again, it was a non-controversial point that one does not become a person under the law until birth long before the Supremes had Roe v. Wade in front of them. It's just common sense.
Michael, they are prosecuted, by a higher court. Much higher.
I do not use the word to offend. I use it to speak truthfully.
I do not want to put them in jail, I want to thaw their hearts. This is so very difficult for them to do as the moral impact of understanding what you did is almost unbearable.
If you have done this, you can be forgiven too. Just ask. Building up a wall of sophistery to protect ourselves from difficult moral responsibility just leads to more madness. You start with "it is just a bunch of cells" and end up with "a pig is a dog is a boy."
I do not want to imprison anyone, but I dearly want us all to stop.
Trey
So what do we make of our parents who have aborted our brothers or sisters? Are we the fortunate few survivors who bear a guilt for being the lucky one who escaped death? For one thing, I would not count on an inheritance out of them. A parent that can find no way to give birth to their child is a toxic narcissist. And then there are the traditional Christians who actually love their children...like Sarah Palin.
murgatroyd,
I already did. It's trying to backdoor personhood. If you actually look at how the laws are defended though, they're not upheld on the grounds that the unborn child is a person. Because that would be plainly contrary to existing SCOTUS precedent.
It's always interesting trying to determine if an anti-choicer is stupid or dishonest.
For your insane liberal trolls out there, here is another proof for you that the blogger lady is your garden variety liberal type. She would never put any impediment in the way of killing an innocent baby.
In one of the biggest litmus tests of all she comes up true blue....liberal as any other abortion lover.
And your argument also needs to be reconciled with the fact that, if anything, there is an inverse correlation between abortion restrictions and funding that "supports human life." .... [P]ro-life politicians [blah, blah blah].... [Y]ou have a mean heart if you think we are particularly generous...in our treatment of poor children.
This is just gibberish, the logical offshoot of which is that "if we're not willing to support them, we're justified in killing them."
Are we?
72 hours makes no sense - if no additional information were provided. But it might make sense if a full ultrasound were provided between the 9th and 24th week of gestation.
If you were on the receiving end of an abortion - that is, the child, you'd despise the legal sub-parsing of words and playing of semantic games.
With a pregnancy, there is no "potential" life. Legally, to be pregnant means to be "with child". That child would happen to be a human being.
Go check out http://www.ehd.org/
Sophia X said...
"I think you're misreading the motives behind the Phelps decision. I think it's perfectly sound on First Amendment grounds, and I had zero doubt that a majority of conservative justices would agree precisely because they are protecting the right for people to advance their crazy religious arguments."
That's a puzzling response; I read the motives behind the Phelps decision as "the law says Phelps wins." Like you, I think the decision is, alas, what the First Amendment requires. My point was that if the Justices voted based on their religious predilections, they would have been more apt to join Justice Alito's dissent, which makes a perfectly respectable (just not ultimately persuasive) case for the alternative outcome.
"Scalia is on the record sharing his disgust about homosexual conduct. What on earth makes you think he'd make Phelps a poorer man based on his religious convictions?"
Have you really not read what Fred Phelps and his mob say about Catholics? You have a very blinkered view of their schtick if you think homosexuals are their only targets (vs. their primary targets).
I am ashamed to say that I do not do enough for the cause of the unborn who are murdered in the womb. I do pray for them and know that they will be in a better place and the people who have murdered them will burn in hell for all eternity.
The law need not punish them. It is in a higher court than any douchenozzle lawyer can appeal to plea bargain and excuse the willfull destruction of innocent human life.
Still, the sad reality is that most of the people that have them (not SD-specific) are minorities, and people simply won't adopt those children.
That is a myth.
I have friends who have had to wait years to adopt children of any race. I've also watched more than one friend simply give up after all the waiting. Lots of people are going in for embryo adoption because they can't find babies to adopt.
Freeman is absoultely right. That is why so many hipster dofous couples are buying Chinese babies. Especailly girls which are on sale.
Sophia wrote: ... it was a non-controversial point that one does not become a person under the law until birth long before the Supremes had Roe v. Wade in front of them. It's just common sense.
Even if that were true, it was also a non-controversial point prior to Roe that one could be prosecuted for terminating the life of a fetus. Under certain circumstances one can also be prosecuted for terminating the life of a dog or a rooster. So what's your point?
In fact there is such a big market for Chinese babies that pretty soon you are gonna see Chinamen on bikes delivering them to new parents like take out Mu Shu Pork.
Trooper York said...
"I do pray for them and know that they will be in a better place and the people who have murdered them will burn in hell for all eternity."
We all need forgiveness, and a sincere penitent will be spared even if the sin is grave. Col 1:13-14; CCC ¶ 1422. We must pray for the lost mothers as well as the lost children, that all will be called home.
Victoria saidThere is nothing wrong with having to wait three days to embark on something which will change the rest of your life.
And which will end some one else's life.
This is an LA Times article about an abortion clinic local to me.
You should especially read that if you think everyone going in for an abortion is well-informed about the procedure or that they've put a lot of thought into the ethical implications of it.
I met that doctor when I was in high school and he gave a talk at an academic summer camp. He said that he knew he was destroying a life with every abortion, as he says in the linked article, but that he thought it was for the greater good. I was pro-abortion rights then, and I found that position monstrous.
Post a Comment