March 26, 2016

Getting an abortion for what Indiana has deemed the wrong reason: the unborn has Down syndrome or some other anomaly or is not the sex or race you want.

WaPo reports.

I'd like to try to connect this to the original Roe v. Wade decision, which was resolved in favor of the woman's right to choose because of the difficulty of the question — before "viability" — of when the fetus should be considered "a person." I've never noticed anyone — other than me, making hypotheticals for law school class — proposing a law that would require the woman seeking an abortion to swear that she believes the entity she is about to destroy is not a person. But something about this new Indiana law reminds me of that hypo. The woman is ending the pregnancy because she sees the unborn not as mere abstract potential but as a person, a specific person — someone she rejects.

I presume the law would just cause abortion providers to make a statement about the law that would work as advice not to reveal the reason if you've got one of the wrong reasons. Let me look at the bill. Yes, it's directed at the provider:
Prohibits a person from performing an abortion if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because of: (1) the race, color, national origin, ancestry, or sex of the fetus; or (2) a diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability.

110 comments:

Phil 3:14 said...

"seeking the abortion solely because of: (1) the race, color, national origin, ancestry, or sex of the fetus; or (2) a diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability."

Left out homosexual. It is genetic isn't it?

Laslo Spatula said...

Ted Cruz's mistress aborted their baby because she feared it would grow up to look like Ted Cruz.

Just putting it out there.

I am Laslo.

jr565 said...

"Prohibits a person from performing an abortion if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because of: (1) the race, color, national origin, ancestry, or sex of the fetus; or (2) a diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability."

this reminds me of Inga, who had a problem with sex selection and abortion. Even though she was pro choice.
Because whoever gets aborted is going to be a boy or a girl. So, she'd have an issue if you didn't want a girl and aborted it, but wouldn't have a problem if you aborted a girl because, say, you wanted a career. Why does it matter ultimately WHY you would kill a fetus? The issue is that you killed a fetus. If you say the woman has a right to choose, then she could choose be aside she doesn't want a boy, or a girl. Or a Down syndrome baby. What are we going to do, if we find out she has a girl and doesn't want girls? Refuse her the ability to have an abortion?

John said...

I will admit to not being a lawyer, but I have wondered the same thing as your hypothetical. I read the courts ruling and it was apparent the Justices could not find a clear and unequivocal definition of when life begins and therefore denied protection of the fetus under the 14th Amendment. They acted to defer this judgement to the Doctor and the patient, but I believe they were quite clear this was limited to the first trimester. I believe they also noted the potential for advances in the medical arts where viability would change.

Over the years the approval of abortion, for reasons other than to save the life of the mother, has expanded well beyond the first trimester. Yet somehow the issue of when does life begin, or when is a fetus viable and capable of being born (bringing the 14th Amendment back into play), is never acknowledged by those in favor of the woman's right.

I know why those on the pro-choice side don't want this on the table, but I remain surprised not to hear a louder drum beat from those on the pro-life side. But then again, I'm not a lawyer.

Mark said...

Enough with the mealy-mouth obfuscations and euphemisms. I know we have had them with this issue for a long time, but three generations of such idiocy is enough.

It is not what a person "chooses" to do, nor is it about a "right to choose." No one anywhere or anytime has ever been denied freedom of choice.

It is about the action that follows from the object of what one chooses. And that action is intentionally causing the death of a human being, it is about killing.

Now, people can come up with all sorts of justifications for killing -- they are annoying or inconvenient or something else you do not like, as well as simply and arbitrarily denying the humanity and the personhood of the one you want to kill -- but in each case it goes far beyond "choice" and "choosing." If you are going to promote something, have the courage and honesty to own up to what it is you are promoting.

Michael K said...

In 1968, I operated on a 1 pound, 10 ounce baby named "Baby Girl Dee." She was the smallest baby ever operated on at the time and there were no respirators for infants then. She survived and went home at 4 pounds. She is now 48 years old. I wonder where she is ?

Viability keeps getting earlier.

Mark said...

it was apparent the Justices could not find a clear and unequivocal definition of when life begins

Blackmun, et al. could. And O'Connor and Kennedy, et al. later could. It is simple basic biology. But the answer was inconvenient to the outcome they desired. So they opted instead to play dumb and engage in legal fictions, such as the fact that a living growing human being was merely "potential life" and "potentially human," as if life were magically and spontaneously generated at some unknown and eternally unknowable point in time.

I remain surprised not to hear a louder drum beat from those on the pro-life side

If you believe that, then sadly it is because like the pro-abortionists on the Court, you too have plugged your ears. Of course, it does not help that the media and academia have ignored and twisted everything that the pro-life community has said for 45 years.

Steve Uhr said...

If the Indiana lawmakers have the courage of their conviction, why let the mother off the hook?

Bay Area Guy said...

Great story, Michael K!

The Femnist Left decided to "other" the unborn baby. Once they decided to do this all bets were off. If a Mother can kill an unborn baby for any reason, she can do it because she doesn't like the sex, race or physical handicap.

So this proposed bill is futile, although it may serve as a poke in the eye of the Left.

The solution for young men is to stay away from Left-wing women, even the pretty ones, and be selective towards finding a well-grounded future mate.

rhhardin said...

The woman is ending the pregnancy because she sees the unborn not as mere abstract potential but as a person, a specific person — someone she rejects.

Bad reading. It's a human in embryo, you could say, but it's not a human. It's human as opposed to wolf, but it's not a human.

M Jordan said...

This whole business about when a fetus becomes a "person" seems very strained to me. If it means when does it express personality, wouldn't that be from the first kick? I recall from the movie "Fiddler on the Roof" the mother claiming her geeky son-in-law was now a "person" after he got his sewing machine (I believe). I later read that Jews used this term during the early part of the 20th century in the same way, I.e., to mean you made it.

It's such a nebulous term it's hard for me to believe Roe v. Wade hinged on it.

John said...

Mark,
Believe me I am intimately familiar with, and supportive of, the pro-life movement. My comment reflects the problems the various groups struggle with the establish a message that is impossible for the media to coverup or deflect.

The March for Life held each year in Washington DC may be attended by hundreds of thousands, but so far the messages have not caused our citizens to change their votes for those who would condemn the life of the unborn.

Interesting, DWS was recently asked when did life begin for her children. Her answer was I am supportive of the right of a woman to choose. What kind of answer is that? Until we force a clear answer to this question, and then back that up with a no vote at reelection, the political and academic left will continue along as they have for the past 45 years

Mark said...

Look at Steve trying to bait people into saying that women should go to prison.

I know that that is what the pro-abortion side wants to see happen.

Jonathan Graehl said...

The more honest will admit that they also support infanticide. It's monstrous when you imagine the particulars, but in abstract I like the reduction in number of lower-quality people (after all, someone with a heart does not kill their infant, and character is half genetically transmitted). Yes, every heartbeat a miracle, but we will be at a Malthusian equilibrium as soon as the earth is filled and tech's efficiencies grow steadily but not rapidly enough - this in spite of first-world below-replacement fertility.

I'm sympathetic to "respect for life is weakened" but just like with euthanasia, "degeneracy slippery slope" can't carry the day for me.

Kevin said...

I think we need to all band together to support sex-selective abortions.

After all, girl babies are icky.

Mark said...

Since before Roe, the pro-life movement has been engaged in the folly of pushing personhood and shouting "life begins at conception" to very little effect. We have been trying this same tactic for 45 years to the same effect, not realizing that the scientific argument was won early on.

That is, we keep thinking that if only we can come up with the perfect argument, if only we can come up with the perfect physical evidence, then the other side will be compelled by logic and reason to admit that the entity in the womb is an individual living human person. We keep chasing after this delusion that the fight is all about the humanity of the unborn.

Well guess what??? The truth is that THEY ALREADY KNOW that the entity in the womb is an individual living human person. Most people know that “a baby is alive at conception,” and that abortion involves the killing of a human person.

The fact is, science can answer the question of the beginning of human life, science has answered it, and it is only because some do not want to hear the answer that they insist that this is some unknowable and unanswerable question. As a matter of scientific fact, the life of an individual human being begins at conception, that is, when a living human sperm unites with a living human ovum.

It is not a matter of opinion, it is not a matter of wishful thinking, it is not a matter of faith that the entity existing at the time a human sperm penetrates a human ovum is itself (a) human, that is, genetically a member of the species homo sapiens, (b) animate and living, with continued growth, and (c) distinct from either the woman who contributed the ovum or from the man who contributed the sperm cell. In short, a human being, however nascent. This is true whether that human being is floating along the fallopian tube or hitching him- or herself onto the uterine wall or sitting in an IVF petri dish or frozen in liquid nitrogen or about to be harvested by stem-cell ghouls. The abortion industry and lobby knows this. The abortion lawyers know this. The "emergency contraception" pushers know this. The embryonic stem cell scammers know this. The United States Supreme Court knows this. The abortionist sucking that human life into a jar or jamming a pair of scissors into his or her skull before ripping him or her from the womb knows this. It is simple, basic scientific fact.

“Life” does not spontaneously begin ex nihilo. It is only because the entity within the womb is alive at the moment of sperm-ovum union that it begins the process of cellular division and reproduction and taking in nourishment and giving off waste and developing more recognizable organs and features, growing and growing and growing for the next 70-80 years.

The pro-abortionists and those who have bought into their lies already know this because the scientific proof is and always has been overwhelming and conclusive, even if they publicly refuse to admit it, and continue to purposely engage in falsehoods about it. (Come on, they are the type of people who kill babies —- do you really think, then, that they are going debate and fight this issue honestly, and with logic and reason???)

The question of the humanity and personhood of the unborn was settled scientifically and in the minds of everyone concerned long ago, even if we foolishly continue to fight that battle. The fact is, they already know. The problem is not that they don’t know about the living humanity of the unborn, the problem is that, even though they know, THEY DON’T CARE that abortion and IVF and embryonic research involves killing. At least, they don’t care enough to give it priority over their narcissistic wants and desires.

sunsong said...

It is the woman's choice. Period. The creeps who want to make the choice for women are just wasting time...

Deirdre Mundy said...

This won't affect the big clinics, BUT some hospitals in the state have begun doing "Compassionate Care Abortions" specifically for women who've recieved a prenatal DX like Down's or Spina Bifida.

It will stop that, to some extent.

The biggest benefit will probably be that currently, there are certain docs who try to push women with a prenatal DX into abortion. Now, those women will be able to report the docs as violating the law.

Gahrie said...

but we will be at a Malthusian equilibrium as soon as the earth is filled and tech's efficiencies grow steadily but not rapidly enough

Paging Dr. Erhlich....

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

It is the woman's choice. Period. The creeps who want to make the choice for women are just wasting time...

Speaking of wasting time, but all right, I'll bite---to choose just one point of contention, why does the father not get a say? I'm sitting here with a 34 week baby in me that is half my husband. We can see she has his nose on the ultrasound photos which is adorable btw. The moment she is born he is responsible for her care for the next 18 years. Half her genetic material comes from him. He can't compel me to go get a late term abortion tomorrow because he decides that being a father is not for him, and he can do nothing whatsoever if I tell him we're going to a prenatal appointment but haha it's actually Kermit Gosnell's office. Why is that ok?

harrogate said...

Mark, what do you mean "baited" into saying women should go to prison ? Isn't that what criminalizing abortion means? Putting women in prison who get abortions ?

Oh, I know you'd rather focus entirely on the doctors , sure . But it's the demand for, not the supply of, the procedure, that drives the procedure . Right ?

Deirdre Mundy said...

I've never understood how people can support post-viability (22 weeks at some hospitals!) abortions. At that point, why not deliver the kid alive and terminate parental rights and adopt them out to the waiting throngs instead of sending them to a chop-shop and selling them for parts?


jr565 said...

"I will admit to not being a lawyer, but I have wondered the same thing as your hypothetical. I read the courts ruling and it was apparent the Justices could not find a clear and unequivocal definition of when life begins and therefore denied protection of the fetus under the 14th Amendment. They acted to defer this judgement to the Doctor and the patient, but I believe they were quite clear this was limited to the first trimester. I believe they also noted the potential for advances in the medical arts where viability would change. "

but it's not exactly a complicated question when life begins. (When you should give protection to that life is actually the tougher question). Every doctor and even every pregnant person knows roughly when life begins. If you have a premature baby that is born at 7 after 7 months where are they getting the idea it was born after 7 months? That 7 months has a starting point. That's whenife begins. and they acknowledge it by telling you how far along you are. At 6 months this happens. At 5 months this happens. They can project a due date because most babes are born roughly at 9 months. So, this idea that NO ONE KNOWS is a fiction. We all know. We just don't want to recognize the fact.

Fernandinande said...

NMark said...
The fact is, science can answer the question of the beginning of human life, science has answered it, and it is only because some do not want to hear the answer that they insist that this is some unknowable and unanswerable question.


Life is a continuum, unless you want to posit that sperm and egg cells aren't alive and/or that life begins by some sort of "spontaneous generation".

And "science" doesn't say it wrong to kill people, or address the issue of a soul:
Did Aquinas say a baby has no soul until 40 days (for a boy) or 80 days (for a girl) after conception, so abortion is okay before those times? (Answer: basically yes).

Meade said...

"Left out homosexual. It is genetic isn't it?"

No, but some people consider gayness to be a "disability." So it's covered by "(2) a diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability."

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that the reason that we still debate this issue is that it was resolved by a bunch of pointed headed, mostly NE educated, somewhat liberal, men, with little political input. So, the faction that lost, the pro-lifers essentially, have never accepted the judicially imposed solution.

Maybe a decade before Michael K operated on that premie, my partner's mother delivered a premie not much bigger. That premie had a son who has three of the cutest grandchildren I have ever met, and the two girls are going to be dangerous to the guys in another couple years (all three look an awful lot like the rest of my partner's family).

I think that it was Fiorina who called this absolutist pro-abortion position, mandatory for all Dem politicians now, the extreme position, and not that of those in the middle who accept early term abortions, and reject late term abortions. She asked why no one asked Hillary why she approved of killing viable fetuses. There is very, very little that separates third term abortions from infanticide. Maybe a couple minutes with an emergency C-Section for an experienced Obstetrician. That is it - most of those third trimester fetuses will survive, if delivered.

I do think that women (or, probably more often, girls) should have the right to their bodies, at least when their choice to an abortion is exercised reasonably, before the fetus (or, maybe even embryo) becomes viable. But, my view is that at that point, at the point of viability, the state should be protecting the baby, and not the mother, who most often just didn't exercise her right to choose responsibly. Didn't get around to aborting it. You snooze, you lose.

Yes, Down's syndrome children are hard. But, my girlfriend from high school lost her youngest a decade or so ago. He had it, but by the time of his death, in his early 20s, had become one of the most popular people in their large town/small city, with their church overflowing at his funeral. And, as far as I know, it can be detected before viability with a genetic test.

Finally, as to sex selection. I definitely think that that shouldn't be a reason for an abortion, but figure that if a woman wants to abort first trimester for that reason, then fine. Aborting girls in our society is just plain silly - they have more and more advantages over boys here, and, are more likely to help their parents in their old age (as contrasted to some Asian societies where the boys are more helpful).

Michael K said...

"why not deliver the kid alive and terminate parental rights and adopt them out to the waiting throngs instead of sending them to a chop-shop and selling them for parts?"

I agree, although no one cares. I am pro-choice having seen a few disasters in the days before abortion was legal in California (1969) but viability should trump (pardon me) choice. If you are too stupid to know you are pregnant, and some are, you should then deliver a baby and give it up for adoption. That used to be common. There was a "home" for pregnant girls a half block from my fraternity house when I was in college. They would stay there once their situation was obvious, and all their expenses were paid.

Now, the crazy laws about adoption have made it an undesirable choice, as that family with the 1/64 Indian kid found out last week. That's why people go to China. The black social workers don't want white families adopting black babies. And so the insanity goes.

Fernandinande said...

"Answer: basically yes" to the soul part of the question.

Meade said...

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...
"why does the father not get a say?"

Didn't he "have his say" back there at the point where you misplaced your pants?

Drago said...

sunsong:"It is the woman's choice. Period. The creeps who want to make the choice for women are just wasting time."

Sunsong is perfectly demonstrative of the intellectual and moral cowards who cannot bring themselves to recognize the humanity of the child. This is the ultimate otherizing of the most innocent and helpless human beimgs.

When you watch and listen to the videos of abortion providers squealing with delight at pulling out baby body parts that can be sold you gain insight into precisely how morally bankrupt the sunsongs of the world happen to be.

Again, there is nothing new here. Its a very small step from leftist support for mass murdering totalitarian regimes to mass slaughter of yet to be borm innocents.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark said...

what do you mean "baited" into saying women should go to prison ? Isn't that what criminalizing abortion means?

From the pro-life perspective, "criminalizing abortion" means trying to save human lives. No person who is pro-life wants women to go to prison. The only ones pushing that are the pro-abortionists. Pro-lifers do not desire that women who have had abortions to go to prison, pro-lifers want to help them -- and that is exactly what they have done for the past 45 years, helping post-abortive women and helping those at risk of abortion to keep and raise their child. It is the pro-abortionists who keep talking about putting women in prison.

Pro-lifers really do not even want to put the abortionists -- even the Gosnells of the world -- in prison. What the pro-life community wants is to SAVE HUMAN LIVES. In fact, that is the purpose of all criminal laws against homicide.

If, however, anyone is deserving of prison, it is the abortionist who knows exactly what it is that he is doing, and not the woman who in times of stress and tension have been taken advantage of and lied to that what is involved is the killing of a human being.

Michael K said...

"Maybe a decade before Michael K operated on that premie, "

A friend of mine who is a GYN doc tells a story on himself. He was working in the Main Admitting Room of County one night in his residency. A woman came in who had had what he assumed was a "miscarriage" that we used to call an "abortion" before the term became loaded. Anyway, she had this tiny little thing between her legs and he tossed it into an emesis basin and sent her upstairs for a D&C.

A couple of years later, he was in the GYN clinic and this woman walked up to him. She had recognized him and said, "Dr Oliver, I just want to thank you for saving my babies' life !" He looked down and there was this two year old kid looking up at him. It was the baby he had tossed in the basin.

Ambrose said...

In the future a woman will need a doctor's certificate saying her fetus is a healthy white male in order to have an abortion.

Drago said...

"Left out homosexual. It is genetic isn't it?"

Meade: "No,..."

Now, wait just a moment. The argument that homosexuality is determined in the womb has become a staple argument of many advocating for gay rights.

Meade, are you saying that is not a common argument coming from the gay rights side of the fence?

Mark said...

And let's not obfuscate things further by this silly reference, which Blackmun also made, to Thomas Aquinas and his ideas about ensoulment. In fact, we can leave religion out of the issue altogether. But once again it is the pro-abortion side who raises these things.

Mark said...

Yes, it is true that “life” per se does not begin at conception —- rather, science tells us that it began millions of years ago and is a continuum. But an individual life does begin at conception, not at some unknown and unknowable and magical point later on.

Yet so many abortion advocates argue with a straight face that we don't know and can never know "when life begins" or that an entity is not fully "human" if it is not "viable" (however they decide to define "viability" today or next week or next year). They would apparently have you believe in the spontaneous generation of life, that matter goes from inanimate to animate in some unknowable, mysterious fashion. Absurd? Of course. It is also the law of the land under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pa. v. Casey.

As a matter of scientific fact, the last case of spontaneous generation of life from inanimate matter happened millions of years ago. Since then, life has been a continuum.

Sebastian said...

@Mark: "THEY DON’T CARE" Right. Arguments make no difference. Science doesn't. The Constitution doesn't. Progs will make up any BS they need at any time for whatever they happen to want. So abortion is about "individual freedom" when it suits them. Or abortion "rights" are mandated by penumbrae of emanations of something. Or whatever. The principle is that they want what they want, and they want the power to get what they want. Everything else is just means to the end, arbitrary in principle.

Meade said...

"Meade, are you saying that is not a common argument coming from the gay rights side of the fence?"

I'm saying the epigenetic science is not yet settled.

whswhs said...

I don't think that's a valid argument. One could say either "This is a biological entity that is not yet a person, but will turn into a person for which I do not wish to be responsible," or "This is a biological entity that will never be a person."

Fernandinande said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fernandinande said...

Mark said...
In fact, we can leave religion out of the issue altogether.


Then why is it bad to kill a person?

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...
"why does the father not get a say?"


Cuz da womens be Special, e.g.

Michael K said...
"If you are too stupid to know you are pregnant, and some are, you should then deliver a baby and give it up for adoption."


Then some unfortunate people are likely to adopt a stupid kid.

Michael said...

This is crazy in so many ways. You cannot abort because of race, sex, or Down's Syndrome - but you can on grounds of simple inconvenience? We should not pass laws that encourage people to lie. And laws should prohibit (or require) actions, not motives or states of mind. Hate crime laws present the same problem.

Ann Althouse said...

"Bad reading. It's a human in embryo, you could say, but it's not a human. It's human as opposed to wolf, but it's not a human."

In the old days, "a human" would have been considered bad English. "Human" was only an adjective. For a noun, you'd have to say human being.

In law, the normal term is "person," though, not "human" or "human being." The word "person" appears more than 50 times in the Constitution, including in the Due Process clause, the source of the right to have an abortion.

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."

But in the abortion cases, the question has not been so much about whether the unborn is a person within the meaning of the Due Process Clause but whether the state has enough of an interest in the unborn to burden the woman's right over her body. The woman has a due process right. The government has interests that it must argue do not put an undue burden on her liberty to end the pregnancy before viability.

The state's respect and valuing of the unborn entity hasn't been seen as a weighty enough interest.

Key passage from Planned Parenthood v. Casey:

“What is at stake is the woman's right to make the ultimate decision, not a right to be insulated from all others in doing so. Regulations which do no more than create a structural mechanism by which the State, or the parent or guardian of a minor, may express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted, if they are not a substantial obstacle to the woman's exercise of the right to choose. Unless it has that effect on her right of choice, a state measure designed to persuade her to choose childbirth over abortion will be upheld if reasonably related to that goal."

sunsong said...

The Pope has put the lie to those who call themselves *pro-life*. They are not. Pro-life means to be supportive of the life *after* birth all the way through to death, [including being anti-war and anti-death penalty] - which the creeps are not. They are only interested in denying women their rights. These are anti-women, anti-abortion creeps.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Let's not put too fine a point on it. Really, until the kid actually pops out and breathes and belches on his own, abortion is not much more than lancing a boil, ain't it?

Terry said...

Drago wrote:
"Now, wait just a moment. The argument that homosexuality is determined in the womb has become a staple argument of many advocating for gay rights."
It is a common belief by many SSM advocates that being 'gay' is a congenital condition. This is not true. The APA describes 'orientation' is almost magical terms, i.e. as a behavior, not a biological fact. The APA is honest enough to say that some people believe that sexual orientation has a biological component (there seems to be a small correlation between birth order in males and homosexuality).
There is no medical test that can determine sexual orientation because it is not a medical condition.

Mark said...

Progs will make up any BS they need at any time for whatever they happen to want. So abortion is about "individual freedom" when it suits them. . . . The principle is that they want what they want, and they want the power to get what they want. Everything else is just means to the end, arbitrary in principle.

Who needs facts and science and reason when you can choose your own truth??

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

harrogate said...

"If, however, anyone is deserving of prison, it is the abortionist who knows exactly what it is that he is doing, and not the woman who in times of stress and tension have been taken advantage of and lied to that what is involved is the killing of a human being."

Why presume women don't know what they are doing? Isn't that (no pun intended) infantalizing them? Why not stipulate that women who choose to have abortions arrive at those decisions themselves? Do you not understand that such rhetoric as you are engaged in here, exemplifies what so many see as social conservatives' hostility towards women, even if in their "hearts," social cons actually"feel" no such hostility?

Further, if your object is to save lives and you are not interested in imprisoning women who have abortions, then criminalization would seem an odd course to pursue. There is much opportunity out there to "help" pergant women faced with these decisions, and indeed a lot of it is being done already. Criminalization, though, isn't about "helping." It's definitively criminalization. Which, um, means prison.

Fernandinande said...

Drago said...
The argument that homosexuality is determined in the womb has become a staple argument of many advocating for gay rights.


That may be true but doesn't mean it's genetic. And it doesn't refer to people misusing the term "epigenetic" as a new-agey form of Larmarkism or Lysenkoism.

traditionalguy said...

Eugenics resisted. This is a tough year for Nazis.

MaxedOutMama said...

How could anyone prove this? Could prosecuting anyone under this law ever be constitutional?

Mark said...

Pro-life means to be supportive of the life *after* birth all the way through to death

Aside from an advocate for the culture of death having the gall to define what it means to be "pro-life," it is exactly because pro-lifers are supportive of all human life "from conception until natural death," to borrow a phrase used for many decades now, that pro-life organizations are the number one private provider of charitable services, including providing food, housing, clothing, employment services, legal services, medical services, mental health services, education, end-of-life care, and more to pregnant women, new mothers, children, and other women and men of every age, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Even most crisis pregnancy centers stay with clients until the kid is in Kindergarten or so. The idea is to help moms get benefits, education, jobs, etc. so they can raise the baby. (And once a kid is in school full time, the mom has a new support community and doesn't need one geared to babies and toddlers.)

http://www.womenscarecenter.org/

Has a really good track record, and tends to drive PP out of business wherever they open up. Because they DO provide options and support. These things just don't get media coverage because 'everyone knows pro-lifers only care about the unborn."

Deirdre Mundy said...

Which is non-sensical, because you have to care about the born before you can care about the unborn. It would be illogical to only care about human beings PRE-Birth.

LarsPorsena said...

Wait until they discover the gay gene. Oh the howls, when women abort to snuff out the birth of homosexuals.

Sebastian said...

"What is at stake is the woman's right to make the ultimate decision" Just to illustrate the arbitrary BS Progs make up.

Steven Davis said...

So am I understanding this correctly? This bill seeks to extend equal protection rights to an entity that Roe has determined has no rights? Ooookaaaay...

Michael K said...

"Then some unfortunate people are likely to adopt a stupid kid."

Yes and there is just no way, short of eugenics, to know.

The people who adopted Steve Jobs had no idea how he would turn out, did they ?

My point is that there is a time when I think a woman has the right to end a pregnancy even though it is taking a life. Once the fetus has reached viability on its own, her right is not preeminent.

FullMoon said...

Michael K said... [hush]​[hide comment]

In 1968, I operated on a 1 pound, 10 ounce baby named "Baby Girl Dee." She was the smallest baby ever operated on at the time and there were no respirators for infants then. She survived and went home at 4 pounds. She is now 48 years old. I wonder where she is ?

This being the internet and all, I expect you will find out.

Michael K said...

"This being the internet and all, I expect you will find out."

Probably not but it would be interesting. My wife and I discussed adopting her at the time.

The story is one of those in my second book.

I watched her for a few hours before doing the surgery because I wanted to see if she would keep breathing. There were no infant respirators then.

john mosby said...

as a further riff on Dr K's reminiscences, here's a hypo:

Suppose OB/GYN tech advances to the point where we can remove a fetus, embryo, gastrula, blastula, or even a zygote, then raise her under lab conditions for the rest of the 9 months.

Then a state passes a law banning all abortions, but making the above "pluck and plant" transfer method available, free of charge or questions, to any woman who asks. Both parents are relieved of any future responsibility for the resulting child.

Constitutional?

JSM

sunsong said...

why does the father not get a say? I'm sitting here with a 34 week baby in me that is half my husband.
The choice is yours. Period. If you choose to include your husband in it, that's up to you. Another woman may not choose to do that.

Michael K said...

""pluck and plant" transfer method available, free of charge or questions, to any woman who asks."

There was a scandal in Orange County a decade ago when the fertility clinic at UCI was found to be implanting "orphan embryos" from other donors to women whose own embryos had failed to develop.

The story is here, although I haven't read it all to check for bias.

What happened was that the clinic would harvest and fertilize a dozen eggs. The embryos would then be frozen. Some parents decided they had enough children and left the remaining frozen embryos as "orphans."

The clinic decided, without permission or informing the women who received them, to use the orphans to implant in women whose own embryos had failed. It is now a common practice but with permission and informing all parties.

Michael K said...

"The choice is yours. Period. If you choose to include your husband in it, that's up to you."

In the case of unmarried couples, where the male may not even be aware or who has been lied to about birth control, is it also his "choice" to pay child support ?

Lefties see everything as having one side. Their own.

wildswan said...

Ferdinande

I read Matt Ridley's blog on epigenetics which you referred to. It seems to me that it is a little to dismissive of epigenetics as such. I read http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3034450/ The Ghost in the genes. Every cell in our body has the same genes but does not express them all. The programming which turns on or off certain genes at certain times is called epigenetics. Bodily form comes from epigenetics and if epigenetics goes wrong due to environmental insult then cancer or other changes ensues rather than correct bodily form.

The current eugenics movement is asserting that stress can cause epigenetic changes, that the changes adversely affect genes concerned with behavior, with socialization or with obesity. Hence they say society is involved because these alleged epigenetic changes supposedly lead to obesity or crime especially among blacks. This I reject even though the "research" is sponsored by NIH.

But this "research" by supporters of eugenics is misusing a new field of study as is commonly the case with eugenicists in my opinion. Epigenetics as such exists. It might even affect the abortion debate. How can potential life be imprinted - by a cigarette smoking mother, for example, unaware she is carrying a three week old unborn child - so that adult life is affected? It seems to me that only a real life will be affected, a real unborn child.

Alex said...

It's ok to abort white male fetus due to "white privilege". Yeah that's we're at in 2016.

Big Mike said...

I'm certainly opposed to the bill as written; a fetus with Tay-Sachs disease should be aborted because the child, if born, is doomed to live a short, sadly painful, life. There's additional discussion here and here.

iowan2 said...

SCOTUS forever, and irrevocably messed this up.

Change your thinking about this. Instead of right of abortion, what SCOTUS did was grant immunity from prosecution.

All of these hypotheticals (that were medically possible at that time) happened and were dealt with by the governing jurisdictions. Rape. Sure a DR. determined fact, and acting in the best interest of the mother. The check and balance on that system was the DR, and the Mother could in fact be prosecuted if it was predicated on a lie, known by one or both parties. The community determined how far was too far.

The Federal govt cannot do what local jurisdictions did. The added benefit was the people voted govt servants out of office if they offended the voters. It is a slower, methodical correction, just the way it should be.

Michael K said...

"alleged epigenetic changes supposedly lead to obesity"

There is even better evidence slowly emerging that obesity may be related to the GI tract microbionome.

This review will investigate the intricate axis between the microbiota and host metabolism, while also addressing the promising and novel field of probiotics as metabolic therapies.

Interesting stuff coming along.

Mark said...

Now, people can come up with all sorts of justifications for killing --

So far here, we have had the obtuse it's all about choice nevermind what the choice is reason; the absolute and arbitrary power over life and death justification; the fairytale and unscientific human life is neither human nor life claim; eugenics; the rationale of some human life is unworthy of life or it loses its humanity if it lacks certain characeristics; killing of innocent human life as justifiable homicide; and the you're doing them a favor false mercy excuse to kill.

Am I missing any?

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

A human life evolves -- a chaotic process -- from conception to death.

Individual dignity. Intrinsic value. Natural imperatives. Go forth and reconcile.

Theranter said...

John and Mark:
A great read: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=vlr
Clark Forsythe's A Road Map through the Supreme Court's Back Alley in Villanova Law Rev.

walter said...

The problem with "protected classes" is they always leave someone out.
So it's better to act with no reason at all or something frivolous.
Like how a killer can be punished more severely for killing a cop vs killing someone for their Nikes or being "disrespected".

Static Ping said...

I'm not sure why you are looking for logical consistency and rationality in the legal environment produced by Roe. Roe v. Wade was a parody of jurisprudence and now we are all living in a 1=0 world. God exists, God does not exist, I have a unicorn in my bathroom, Liechesnstein continues pell mell into flatulence weaponization research, Elvis Presley will be making a comeback with Guns N Roses as his opening act for his concert on Europa, and the Rule of Law continues to die.

Frankly, if this is the sort of thing that we should expect from the Supreme Court, then the Supreme Court was a mistake.

Saint Croix said...

Good for Indiana!

Good for Althouse, too, the hypothetical that reminds liberals that they might be ignorant, and committing an atrocity. Think about what you are doing! The instruction that every parent want to give every child. And we need to give that instruction to the adults who want to get rid of their child.

Consider this movie, Obvious Child. I refuse to watch pro-abortion propaganda. And of course I'm struck by the tendency of bad artists to steal their titles from Paul Simon. But as you deny the humanity of your own child, your obvious child, and you say there is no child, then I am struck by the Freudian question. Are we all supposed to think that this pregnant woman is the "obvious child"? Because she's so irresponsible and not ready for adulthood? The woman you cast is 32!

There's an expression, "adults don't make babies, babies make adults." Abortion is not an act of taking responsibility. It's not an act that will help you grow up. Abortion is an act of avoiding responsibility, avoiding adulthood, of deception and secret violence. And the media that hides this violence is responsible for this violence.

When our society sees the truth, we should all be clear on who the real bad guys are. The corrupt lawyers and judges who claim not to know what a "person" is, the corrupt doctors who violate their Hippocratic Oath in order to do surgeries on healthy people for money, and the media who hides the violence in order to protect those in power. In our age of Trump let us be clear that the violence these boys and girls do is inspired and created by our authorities. They are the shameful ones. Remember that.

Mark said...

Roe v. Wade was a parody of jurisprudence . . . Frankly, if this is the sort of thing that we should expect from the Supreme Court, then the Supreme Court was a mistake.

That's right. Logic and rationality have nothing to do with it. Neither do supportable legal justifications. The pro-abortionists will all concede that Roe is a joke. But they like the outcome. So that is the end of it.

More recently, the same with Kennedy's SSM opinions and Roberts' ObamaCare abominations. The supporters of SSM and ObamaCare, like the pro-abortionists, know that those opinions are legal crap, but they win, so that's it. Who needs logic and reason and truth when you have raw judicial and/or political power??

Gahrie said...

What? You don't think basing a legal decision on an abstraction from a shadow is sound reasoning?

You don't think think that creating a "right" to privacy specifically so that you can use this new "right" to legalize murdering babies is logical?

How quaint.

walter said...

Sir Spatula has traded in his substantive discussions on anal sex and thigh gap for a fixation on Cruz's appearance. Making real progress.

Saint Croix said...

I believe they were quite clear this was limited to the first trimester.

The media has been spreading that lie for a long time. Over six million abortions have taken place in the 2nd trimester. Over 600,000 viable babies have been aborted. If you don't understand how this could happen, read the opinion!

And stop trusting the media. They are liars.

Bob Ellison said...

walter said, "So it's better to act with no reason at all or something frivolous."

Reminds me of a boss who once told me that in an employment-at-will jurisdiction, "You can fire someone for a good reason or for no reason, but you can't fire someone for a bad reason."

Similarly, you can abort a fetus for a good reason (like you're convinced the baby will suffer and die quickly) or for no reason, but not for a bad reason (like the baby will have Down Syndrome or be short or female or half-the-race-of-your-paramour).

Well, that is, if you state a reason, you need these guidelines. As the Professor pointed out, the idea is not so much a legal or moral thing. It's just advice to keep your trap shut.

Michael K said...

The problem with Roe v Wade, as far as I am concerned, is that it was unnecessary. Abortion was legal in California in 1969, with some restrictions. Just think if the Court had declined to hear the case and left things alone.

Saint Croix said...

Viability keeps getting earlier.

Yes, the record now is 21 weeks and 6 days. She was so tiny! 10 ounces.

The doctors wanted to let her die, and would have if the mom had not lied to them. Here she is at 2.

Amazing that her mom had to lie to keep her baby alive. Abortion is kept out of the vast majority of hospitals, but it still corrupts our obstetricians.

And there are many people who are willing to let preemies die. This is against the will of the parents, mind you. Remember that article the next time you shout that we need Canadian health care.

Gahrie said...

I wonder how many people realize that most countries have much more restrictive abortion laws than we do?

Saint Croix said...

How could anyone prove this? Could prosecuting anyone under this law ever be constitutional?

Are you kidding? People file discrimination lawsuits all the time!

Suppose you have a legal right to fire somebody. You do! People get fired every day. But a state can still make it illegal to fire people for bad or improper reasons.

For instance, firing somebody because you dislike their gender.

So why is it okay to abort a girl because you dislike girls? Why isn't that ugly sexism?

The problem the Supreme Court is going to run into with laws like this is that it reminds us all that the Supreme Court has defined these babies as sub-human property. There are no girls. There are no boys. They don't exist, legally. The factual reality of the girl, or boy, is contradicted by the legal reality of non-personhood.

See more discussion here.

Saint Croix said...

The Pope has put the lie to those who call themselves *pro-life*.

Link?

Saint Croix said...

But in the abortion cases, the question has not been so much about whether the unborn is a person within the meaning of the Due Process Clause but whether the state has enough of an interest in the unborn to burden the woman's right over her body. The woman has a due process right. The government has interests that it must argue do not put an undue burden on her liberty to end the pregnancy before viability.

But in the slavery cases, the question has not been so much about whether the slave is a person within the meaning of the Due Process Clause, but whether the state has enough of an interest in the slave to burden the citizens' right over his property. The citizen has a due process right. The government has interests that it must argue do not put an undue burden on his right to own property.

Michael K said...

"repeatedly urged he be taken off life support."

These small preemies are very expensive to care for and many, like this child, are disabled.

It is an ethical dilemma we didn't have with Baby Girl Dee as there were no "life support systems" for small babies.

Bob Ellison said...

Consider the pet dog or the farmed pig.

The states assert rights over how these animals are treated. These states' rights supersede the owners' rights.

PETA would have us deny all ownership rights over animals, but would also require us to shoulder all responsibilities pertaining to animals.

Too many people seem to be lying down on this question. Abortion anywhere, anytime, no matter what. It's for the woman to decide, so shut up.

As Gahrie points out, in countries where Roe v. Wade didn't strike like stupid lightning, abortion is more rare and more careful than in America.

walter said...

Michael K,
What is the disability in st. Croix's example?

An aside, I guess is that there are folks who feel white parents adopting black babies is a problem. I suppose it's too insensitive to ask whether adoption was ever considered before the extended IVF planning.

Saint Croix said...

Good article in The Federalist: The Media's Abortion Problem.

It's exactly like The New York Times covering up the homicides of Stalin in the Ukraine. We do not show abortions to people, and that is because the violence will make you sick. 600,000 babies have been stabbed and killed at the age of Amillia Taylor, or older.

If we applied our death statutes to the abortion controversy? The homicide totals would be 30 million or more. This is why we don't apply our death statutes to the abortion controversy! It's why the Supreme Court has zero interest in the life-or-death question. But the legal answer to the question of when people die (complete loss of brain function) is unanimous in all 50 states.

So we know, with specificity, when abortion would qualify as a legal homicide. Does the baby have any activity in her brain stem? When we write a death statute, we are defining the medical-legal criteria a human being needs to be alive.

Our death statutes might be wrong, of course. But we cannot deny that we have solved the life-or-death issue for human beings. It's just a question of whether we are going to apply the laws that define death to the unborn. Or are we going to continue to define these babies as property, and outside the law?

Eric said...

I've never understood how people can support post-viability (22 weeks at some hospitals!) abortions. At that point, why not deliver the kid alive and terminate parental rights and adopt them out to the waiting throngs instead of sending them to a chop-shop and selling them for parts?

The same reason people support the infanticide they label "partial birth abortion". To do otherwise would be to admit the baby is a person with rights.

Saint Croix said...

These small preemies are very expensive to care for and many, like this child, are disabled.

Premature birth might disable your child. Or it might not. We don't know.

What we do know is that abortion increases the risk of future premature births.

When we advocate abortion to get rid of premature babies, we often damage a woman's ability to reproduce. Her next baby will be premature too! And the more abortions you have the worse it is, until finally of course you cannot reproduce at all.

Deirdre Mundy said...

If it's OK to kill an unborn child because she might be disabled, why is it wrong to kill that homeless guy in a wheelchair? He's definitely disabled. He's neglected. Clearly no human should live like that. Why not hit him over the head and throw him in the river.

The problem is that any argument you can use to kill off a member of a human class you happen to not like (i.e. unborn people) can also be used to kill off someone you DO like (homeless people.)

And "I happen to like this sort of human being" seems to be a poor basis for a kill/not kill decision.

walter said...

Deidre,
The same can be said for the elderly. There were numerous instances with my father where if I hadn't been there to advocate, life extending treatment would have been withheld.
Really makes me wonder what happens to those without advocates.

walter said...

Once physicians start invoking "Quality of life", keep the guard up.

Michael K said...



"Michael K,
What is the disability in st. Croix's example?

"Today, despite some physical and neurological disabilities, Carter is a happy six-year-old preparing to enter Grade 1.

“He lights up my whole entire life,” she says. “It’s incredible.”

That's all but some are more severely disabled.

I'm not making a value judgement but small preemies are more likely to have problems in development.

Michael K said...

"Once physicians start invoking "Quality of life", keep the guard up."

No, once HMOs start involving it.

I did a whole course on decision theory and QALY is one calculation. Quality Adjusted Life Year can include disability but watch out for who is making the decision. One reason why managed care doesn't like old doctors like me is that we tend to be less cooperative about those "decisions."

It's a big reason I wrote the second book.

walter said...

Hmm..kinda vague. But yeah..risk factors abound..like obesity in the mother.

walter said...

Ah..in my parent's case, it was hospitalists working under Medicare.

walter said...

And yes..the youngest doctors/interns were quicker triggers.

walter said...

In one ICU situation, an older doctor gave me his cell number in case things got bad. As I watched the night intern obviously pull back from my Dad's situation, I called him and he intervened and saved him in a surgery. You know..glad to be there but..shit.

Gahrie said...

Here's the next slip on the slippery slope....

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/433273/euthanize-organ-harvesting?kT3IwBPRjouZHhcE.01

wildswan said...

A lot of the medicine of the future might be in the hands of 29 year old epidemiologists with a brand new PhD in Sociology/Statistics rather than in the hands of experienced clinicians with an MD who actually treat patients. These epidemiologists will issue "best practices" based on epidemiological studies which will be taken up by the Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare save money committee and made required treatments (if payment is expected). These "best practices" will just be "one size fits all" medicine. The poor will be stuck with it. The rich will get personal treatment.

Unless the AMA and JAMA get going and keep clinical decision making in the hands of clinicians, this is the future.

Terry said...

Chelsea Clinton has a graduate degree in public health. I assume that means that rather than be a doctor, she wants to be the one giving orders to the doctors.

Michael K said...

"Unless the AMA and JAMA get going and keep clinical decision making in the hands of clinicians, this is the future."

The AMA has been in bed with the feds since 1987. Before, if you ask me. The "Resource Based Relative Value Scale" was a project done by the AMA and Harvard School of Public Health to change incentives in Medicare. It devalues expensive technology.

It's a long story but the AMA has not represented real front line doctors since the 70s.

Michael K said...

A link on the RBRVS, which get part of the story hilariously wrong but tells the history honestly.

RBRVS was created at Harvard University in their national RBRVS study from December 1985 and published in JAMA on September 29, 1988.[5] William Hsiao was the principal investigator who organized a multi-disciplinary team of researchers, which included statisticians, physicians, economists and measurement specialists, to develop the RBRVS.

In 1988 the results were submitted to the Health Care Financing Administration (today CMS) to be used in the American Medicare system. In December of the following year, President George H. W. Bush signed into law the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, switching Medicare to an RBRVS payment schedule. This took effect on January 1, 1992. Starting in 1991, the AMA has updated RBRVS continually. As of May 2003, over 3500 corrections have been submitted to CMS.


Here is more of the story.

Saint Croix said...

The AMA has been in bed with the feds since 1987.

Yes. But the worst is probably the ACOG.

Owen said...

Michael K: wonderful comments.