January 21, 2023

"Some anti-abortion advocates say that if doctors believe the exceptions are too ambiguous, they should suggest fixes rather than criticize the laws."

"'They’re not trying to fix the problem,' said [James Bopp, the general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee, who writes model legislation for states]. 'I would be screaming from the housetops, "We better amend this law to make it clear that this can be done because this is wrong."' But abortion-rights advocates have warned for decades that exceptions would not work in practice. They point to the rare instances of patients being granted exceptions to the Hyde Amendment, which blocks federal Medicaid funding for abortion services. And those on both sides of the issue say there may be no middle ground. Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, who specializes in the history of abortion, said, 'What would seem workable to a lot of physicians or reproductive-rights supporters would look like a loophole to the pro-life movement.'"

57 comments:

Michael K said...

Legal abortion up to 15 weeks makes sense. Most of the "exceptions" are loopholes. Trump was right about abortion bans at the state level cost seats in the midterms.

gilbar said...

this is SO BAD!!! Women (any, and ALL Women), should be allowed to murder (without explaination) ANY ONE they want to.. At ANY time or place. To say otherwise, is to be AGAINST WOMEN!!!
Women EXIST to Murder. They MUST be given the right to fulfill their desires

rhhardin said...

There are souls lined up in heaven and at conception God puts one in the egg. There's no room for exceptions.

madAsHell said...

that if doctors believe the exceptions are too ambiguous,

The Dr. has already crossed the Rubicon.

Abortion, and murder. Where does one begin, and the other end??

tim maguire said...

The biggest problem with case-by-case solutions is that time is of the essence. The usual delays of courts and bureaucrats can’t apply to abortion. And if they create a special expedited process, it will inevitably be slipshod, issuing a lot of bad decisions and soon become corrupted.

Temujin said...

Move to Minnesota. They are about to allow any abortion at any time, for any reason you want. No questions, just line 'em up and...

They're also moving to include for teaching certificates, multiple requirements that licensure candidates publicly support critical race theory and transgender ideology and include both in their teaching.

In case you haven't paid attention, Minnesota is racing to out-California, California. They are working on attracting the anti-Florida crowd. I sincerely hope they do. Best to have all the unicorns living together in one spot.

deepelemblues said...

Few are granted? Good.

Birches said...

Perhaps the rare exemptions granted from the Hyde amendment are because exemptions are actually rare. Genius.

Same as an exemption for life of the mother, or rape, or incest. The actual instances are rare and could not keep an abortion doctor in business. Which is the whole problem.

Robert Cook said...

"There are souls lined up in heaven and at conception God puts one in the egg. There's no room for exceptions."

Oh, please. We're not in Romper Room.

Big Mike said...

Why should anyone believe the New York Times writing about abortion? I am not going to waste minutes of my remaining lifespan trying to wriggle past their paywall to read what I expect will be readily refutable bullshit.

Big Mike said...

Why should anyone believe the New York Times writing about abortion? I am not going to waste minutes of my remaining lifespan trying to wriggle past their paywall to read what I expect will be readily refutable bullshit.

Big Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Big Mike said...

We're not in Romper Room.

Anyone with Cookie’s politics never left Romper Room.

bobby said...

I doubt the individual legal points are important to the pro-aborts. What's important to them is being able to scream "ha! beat ya!" to the anti-aborts. This is all a very personal and rage-filled fight to the ultra-partisans.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

i am generally anti-abortion, for reasons of faith. That's my 'choice'. I can also make a strong anti-abortion argument which is entirely secular. I also adopted a 3rd-trimester child who was within a week or two of being carved up and sold for spare parts. I was 62; best 'retirement' I could possibly have had.

The challenge, however, is to find a medically-sound POLITICAL solution. I arrived at the following position after many heartfelt discussions with my late father-in-law, 50 years a Pathologist:

a) There are certain brain waves, the absence of which define the END of human life. When they BEGIN during gestation -- usually 9 to 12 weeks -- they should define human life and change the rules entirely. His European home-country legally adopted 13 weeks, in part due to his commentary.

b) He also said that after 20 weeks, there is NEVER any justification for abortion. You C-section the child and give it a chance. And this "The only reason for an abortion after 20 weeks is if the desired outcome is a DEAD BABY. No medical basis whatever."

Come up with a better PRACTICAL solution ... if you have one.

n.n said...

There is no mystery in sex and conception, a woman, and man, have four choices, and an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation.

The Pro-Choice ethical religion denies dignity, agency, and normalizes human life as negotiable commodities.

A wicked solution to a hard problem: keep women affordable, available, and taxable, and the "burden" of evidence aborted, cannibalized, sequestered in darkness.

That said, civilized society has compelling cause to discourage human rites performed for social, redistributive, clinical, political, criminal, and fair weather causes.

#HateLovesAbortion

Ice Nine said...

>Robert Cook said...
"There are souls lined up in heaven and at conception God puts one in the egg. There's no room for exceptions."

Oh, please. We're not in Romper Room.<

That was of course his very point.

n.n said...

Legal abortion up to 15 weeks makes sense

Six weeks until baby... fetal-baby matches granny in legal state, if not in process. After that, human rites can only be legally performed in self-defense through reconciliation. Reasonable scalpel, vacuum, etc. control. #BLM

n.n said...

Some, many people are pro-life. NYT is pro-abortion.

ccscientist said...

"no middle ground" means abortion up to birth. The claim that exceptions are rarely granted is without factual basis. Abortion is not birth control but is being used as such.

Laurel said...

Everyone, but everyone gets to self-identify. You say you're black? Fine, you're black. You say you're flavor of the week-sexual, fine you're a weirdo. Ahem. I mean, you're a special snowflake flavor of the week-sexual.

But when it comes to the pro-life groups, they invariably are deliberately misnomered as anti-abortion.

Why? Seriously, why? By what obligation to you must I use your "preferred pronouns", but the NYT and WAPO are never, ever under any obligation to call pro-lifers, pro-lifers?

Greg the Class Traitor said...

"Most Abortion Bans Include Exceptions. In Practice, Few Are Granted"

Remember the "health exception" to aboriton bans? Remember how judges turned that into "mental health", and then turned that into "my doc't wrote a note saying I'll feel better if I get an abortion, so give me the abortion"?

Because we do

So
1: I'm pretty sure the claim by the NYT is a lie
2: I don't care even if it is true. because the reward for operating in bad faith is that no one trusts you, and they shouldn't

Greg the Class Traitor said...

Let's make this simple:

If you, a doctor, can't write a clear and easy to understand exception that the rest of us can clearly see won't be abused, then the fault is on your side, not ours.

If you don't even try, it's because you are not actually approaching the problem in good faith, and therefore we are going to rightly ignore everything you have to say

And "not a lot of excepts are granted" is, in fact, the correct result

"Execptions" should be exceptional, which means "rare"

Especially when the exception is giving you the power to kill a defenseless and innocent human being

TheDopeFromHope said...

Can we please do away with the "reproductive-rights supporters" BS? They don't want reproduction, they want to prevent it. How about "anti-reproduction supporters"?

Deevs said...

"Most Abortion Bans Include Exceptions. In Practice, Few Are Granted"

I mean, they wouldn't really be exceptions otherwise, right?

RigelDog said...

A California acquaintance of ours recently helped a friend of hers through the process of getting a completely elective abortion of a healthy 20+ week fetus. The mother was a professional woman recently separated from her husband; they already have a three year old daughter. The mother also had a solid upper-middle-class family of origin who were very supportive of her and her child.

That baby in her belly had to die, and can you guess why? It was because it was a boy. She thinks that her soon-to-be ex would become obsessive and not accept the divorce if she had a boy. That's what we are talking about here.

Jamie said...

"There are souls lined up in heaven and at conception God puts one in the egg. There's no room for exceptions."

Oh, please. We're not in Romper Room.


Ok, don't like that metaphor? How about this: every human fetus is first of all human, simply at an early stage of development, and therefore carries that same ineffable something - some call it a "soul" - that distinguishes humans from other animals. Therefore to end the life of a human fetus is different from ending the life of just another animal.

Or - to continue in a different and more "reproductive rights"-ish vernacular - to remove that particular clump of cells from the environment that nurtures it and that, left to do so, would cause it to continue to grow into a viable human baby, is different from removing, say, a suspicious mole or an appendix or any other clump of cells that the bearer doesn't want to keep on bearing.

To fail to acknowledge this difference is to deny the fact that humanity is itself exceptional in the animal kingdom. Not a supportable position.

It doesn't mean you can't still support a "right" to abortion while recognizing that what abortion certainly does is end a human life. It just makes it a little more... morally complicated.

n.n said...

"Most Abortion Bans Include Exceptions. In Practice, Few Are Granted"

Human rights, not human rites that should be few and far between. Respect women and men, discourage girls and boys until they reach the age of majority. Transhumanism is a clear and progressive liberal conception.

n.n said...

Hah, abolitionists remember the 3/5 compromise, and now the 1-2 measure of humanity with social distancing.

wildswan said...

When you were an unborn child you built up a body, the one you now have, the only one you will ever have. What right did you have to do that?
That's how I would like to see the debate framed. The other way where we discuss time limits strikes me personally as chewed string. For the question and the policy has a history which is as follows:
We say "abortion ban." They say "what about conditions where a mother will die?" We say "the procedure in that case is not to kill the child but to save the mother, keeping in mind that if the mother dies the child will, too, so only one can be saved." They say "So there is an exception for health of the mother?" We say "You could put it that way." They say " WE do put it that way because we are not cruel like you and now, what about the emotional health of the 'mother' if she is a ten-year-old victim of rape or incest?" We say "there can be an exception for rape or incest." They say "Then there can be exceptions for the emotional health of the mother and who is to judge what would be emotionally devastating for an individual woman except that woman?" And, bang, abortion on demand up till birth.
Because the question has been repeatedly debated before, during and after Roe in the same way with the same outcome as outlined above, pro-lifers will say that any time-based standard will soon be riddled with loopholes. We know Planned Parenthood will bring cases designed to turn the supposed standard into something as riddled with exceptions as the tax code and we prolifers know that then Planned Parenthood will call for a simple, humane outlook based on what an individual woman wants. However, the end (we prolifers know) will not be a simple, humane outlook; the end will be what Planned Parenthood wants which is what we have now - abortion on demand up till birth. This will happen even though most people (including most women) do not want this outcome. Planned Parenthood will bring the cases and be damned to the rest of us.
So this is why I would like to see a discussion which starts on the issue of who an unborn child is, who or what? And as I said above, this is what I see when I argue with an abortion supporter. "When you were an unborn child you built up the body you now have, the only body you will ever have. What right did you have to do that?"

Rusty said...

TheDopeFromHope said...
"Can we please do away with the "reproductive-rights supporters" BS? They don't want reproduction, they want to prevent it"
If they wanted to prevent it we wouldn't be in this mess.
Speaking of "Romper Room". Why it's almost as if they don't know how babies are made.

Jeff Weimer said...

If we're going to err as regards to abortion, I'd rather err on the side of a birth than not.

Readering said...

rrhardin's limbo must be real crowded with souls. Or is he a reincarnation guy? I've got a few siblings there I know of. Probably many more I don't, if i am right on natural pregnancy failure stats.

Smilin' Jack said...

Love those maps showing which rights exist where. It’s like the reductio ad absurdism of federalism, except no one recognizes the absurdity.

Quaestor said...

In Practice, Few Are Granted

That's the nature of exceptions, isn't it?

The Godfather said...

Before Roe v. Wade, Connecticut, where I grew up, prohibited abortion -- but there was an exception where the abortion was necessary for the "health of the mother", if three physicians so certified. Well, in the age of modern medicine, there weren't all that many pregnant women who really met that standard -- unless "health" included "mental health". Bingo. But to get approval of an abortion based on "mental" health, you needed one of the three physicians to be a psychiatrist. That pushed up the cost a lot, so the "mental health of the mother" really meant the "bank account of the mother's family". My father, a psychiatrist, refused to play that game. He believed that in most cases it was better for the mental health of the pregnant young woman to give birth to the child and (in most cases) give him/her up for adoption by a loving family.
So far as I know, there are no longer "homes for unwed mothers", and families that want to adopt a newborn need to look to China or some other overpopulated foreign land. If you support prohibiting abortion after X weeks, you also need to support re-creating the infra-structure to care for the children are born as a result.

Smilin' Jack said...

It would be interesting if there were a genetic anomaly that caused a fetus to stop developing after, say, 30 weeks, and remain in that state forever. The woman would just have to carry it around for the rest of her days, because, after all, it’s a HYOOOMAN LYEEEF!! Some people have strange ideas concerning what is valuable about human life.

Jim at said...

Notice the language. Anti-abortion instead of Pro Life.

How's this? Pro Death instead of abortion-rights activists?

Jamie said...

rrhardin's limbo must be real crowded with souls.

And if it is?

I've got a few siblings there I know of. Probably many more I don't, if i am right on natural pregnancy failure stats.

And if you are?

What do you have to lose by positing the ensoulment of every human zygote? If you believe in the soul, is it contingent on you also to believe that the soul is a thing of matter or energy and therefore maybe there's some limit on how many there are? Or, Horatio, might there be more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy?

If you don't believe in the soul, I look forward to the necessary discussion of where consciousness resides and how it arises, both in a species and in individuals of a species, and also why human beings seem to have more of it, whatever it is, than other animals. Because - except for the "there is no such thing as consciousness" people - everyone seems eventually to settle on "OK, something makes human consciousness different and special, but I choose not to call that thing a 'soul,' because that's religious and I don't believe in a god."

A semantic issue, in other words. If you like, be flip about whether your mother's miscarried fetuses (I'm making an assumption here) were, to her, babies she lost or just clumps of cells that proved non-viable, but you do acknowledge, surely, that, if they had been able to be born, they would have been human?

Daniel12 said...

Lots of philosophers on this thread. People unbothered by how this actually plays out, and the actual women who are currently not getting medical care for their ectopic pregnancies, their broken placentas, their pre-eclampsia, their cancer. Please tell us more about how many pregnant women fit on the head of a pin.

wildswan said...

"There are souls lined up in heaven and at conception God puts one in the egg. There's no room for exceptions."

This gets the theology and the science wrong. You aren't a Christian, OK, but you don't get to state what Christians believe which is that souls are created as part of a composite, a human being composed of body and soul.
But as an atheist you think you are only a body. OK, but the science on the body is that the moment of conception is the moment when the two sets of chromosomes, one set from each parent, act together to form a mitotic spindle and divide everything from the egg and the sperm into two cells, each with the same chromosome set and each with half the mitochondria and so on. And that same process has gone on and right now you are entirely dependent on the continuance of mitotic division. It is the basis of everything else, it is your "soul," if you will because it is to you the basis of it all, it is to you what soul is to Christians But when did mitotic division become "human rights?"

Jamie said...

the actual women who are currently not getting medical care for their ectopic pregnancies, their broken placentas, their pre-eclampsia, their cancer.

Oh, please. These conditions are all unequivocally life-threatening for the woman.

Jamie said...

Let me be clear: I am against abortion but am willing, reluctantly, to accept European-level abortion rules. I just don't delude myself that what is happening is nothing more than removal of an unwelcome clump of cells.

I don't know when, or if, ensoulment occurs. But I do think it's obvious that only human gametes form a human zygote and only a human zygote grows into a human baby, which is the only thing that grows into a human child and ultimately adult.

Women who don't want to face these facts can abstain for sex or use very effective contraception - that will eliminate the dilemma for almost all. Men who don't want to face these facts - well, let's face it, abortion is a HUGE gift for those men, and had been from the get-go. Feminists take note.

wildswan said...

"So far as I know, there are no longer "homes for unwed mothers"

There are "homes for unwed mothers" run by prolifers and there are crisis pregnancy centers which help women deal with difficult pregnancy issues in ways other than by abortion. Over seventy of these helping centers were firebombed or otherwise attacked after the Dobbs leak/ decision. Those who criticize prolifers for not helping were and are strangely silent about these attacks. And even after these attacks made it plain that prolifers were running helping networks, pro-abortion people continue to say that the networks do not exist. And the FBI has never arrested anyone who was responsible, not even those who publicly proclaimed their involvement.

https://catholicvote.org/pregnancy-center-attack-tracker/

n.n said...

No strawman apologies like strawman apologies themselves.

This is what they did with slavery. This is what they do with diversity. This is what they do with redistributive change (e.g. progressive prices). This is what they do with [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] immigration reform. This is what they did with political congruence. This is what they did with underage grooming. This is what they did with "burdens" of evidence, excess carbon sequestered. This is what they do with human rites performed for social, redistributive, clinical, political, criminal, and fair weather causes.

I think we can do better for women, men, and "our Posterity", without the underlying secular ethical religious fervor.

Gahrie said...

I was doing some research earlier today, and I had what could be called an epiphany: What a marvelous creature is Man.

Do you realize that Man has only existed on this planet for 300,000 years? (And that was only recently extended, we used to think it was around 100,000 years)

For 270,000 of those years we wandered around as cave men. Around 30,000 years ago we developed agriculture, and the rest is, well, history.

30,000 years from living in caves picking lice to living in space and planning to colonize Mars. That's fucking incredible!

The dinosaurs were here for hundreds of millions of years, and didn't even begin the process.

If God does exist, he must be very proud of us.

TRISTRAM said...

Few exce[tion are granted. Like they are exceptional cars. I mean, if everyone gets an exception, isn’t it the rule then?

Creola Soul said...

Heard an interesting comment today. If we’re declared dead when our heart stops beating, why aren’t we declared alive when our heart starts beating? Good question.

Drago said...

Daniel12: "Lots of philosophers on this thread. People unbothered by how this actually plays out, and the actual women who are currently not getting medical care for their ectopic pregnancies, their broken placentas, their pre-eclampsia, their cancer. Please tell us more about how many pregnant women fit on the head of a pin."

First things first pal.

First, provide the detailed numbers and source(s) for this claim: "...the actual women who are currently not getting medical care for their ectopic pregnancies, their broken placentas, their pre-eclampsia, their cancer."

And try to avoid using other Daniel12-types as your go-to "authoritative" sources.

Saint Croix said...

The Hippocratic Oath is emphatic. Doctors are not to do abortions, or assist in suicide.

Any doctor doing an elective abortion is not really practicing medicine. Aside from the violation of the Hippocratic Oath, you're not healing anybody. There is no sickness or disease that you're treating. You're abusing your medical training to make healthy pregnancies go away, and you're doing that for money.

Abortions were pushed out of hospitals decades ago.
Obstetricians don't do abortions. That's what abortionists do.
It's a whole subset of healthcare, with stand-alone abortion clinics. The people who want a baby go to obstetricians, and the people who want to abort pregnancies go to abortion clinics. (Obviously you don't want the two groups of mommies meeting up in the waiting room, because that upsets everybody).

There has long been a baby segregation in our minds. The babies we love are given names. The babies we don't love are never named, just given the identity of "fetus." Unborn babies we love are taken to obstetricians for healthcare. Babies we don't love are taken to abortion clinics for termination.

Saint Croix said...

The billion dollar abortion industry is notorious for fighting back against any regulations. For instance, in 1967 Ronald Reagan signed a law allowing therapeutic abortions in California. The number of abortions exploded in the state. Any "healthcare" exception is the moral equivalent of getting a note from your doctor. A "mental health" exception is the most notorious loophole.

Of course the abortion industry has always fought back regulations, including obvious ones like healthcare inspections. Who could be against healthcare inspections? The abortion industry, that's who!

The reason Dr. Kermit Gosnell had collections of dead babies in jars and milk cartons is 1) he was too cheap to pay for the disposal of his "medical waste" and 2) the pro-choice partisans in Pennsylvania had made health inspections of abortion clinics a no-no.

The Supreme Court itself made the entire first trimester of pregnancy a regulation free paradise for abortion doctors to do whatever they wanted to pregnant women. To be perfectly (and damning) clear about what Roe v. Wade said, there could be no regulations to protect the health of women in the first trimester. It was to be an abortion "free of interference from the state."

Blackmun's language was so bad that many judges read it to mean that states couldn't even require that an abortionist has a license to practice medicine. The first abortion case the Supreme Court heard after Roe, Connecticut v. Menillo, had to fix that fuck-up.

That's what the abortion industry (any industry!) loves: no regulations whatsoever!. It took almost three years(!) for the Court to declare that yes, states could require that abortionists had medical training. And it took almost 20 years for the Court to overrule this part of Roe and say that states could protect the health of women in abortion clinics. And it took almost 50 years for the Court to overrule Roe v. Wade and say that states could protect the health of unborn children.

Saint Croix said...

Legal abortion up to 15 weeks makes sense.

Dr. K, that sounds like an arbitrary, made-up regulation to me. What's the rationale behind 15 weeks?

Counting weeks is notoriously difficult. Nobody knows when conception happens! Are you counting weeks from the last menstrual period? What if the women lies about when her last menstrual period was, so that she can get an abortion? She says her last menstrual period was 12 weeks ago, and you're looking at the sonogram and it looks like the baby is bigger than that, maybe 20 weeks. Can that doctor abort or not abort?

What if the doctor doesn't do a sonogram, and is relying on what his patient tells him, and then in the middle of the abortion -- when the baby is dead -- discovers that he's in violation of the criminal statute?

The abortion industry hates sonograms, of course, because they are expensive and cost money. And the industry would prefer that doctors do whatever the hell they want!

Saint Croix said...

Just a few years ago, feminists were claiming that sonograms were raping women. That's another horrific category, the woman who cries "rape" because she wants to manipulate people in other contexts.

Jane Roe claimed she was raped, when she wasn't. If you have a broad rape exception (no need to call the cops, no need to have a police report), many women will claim that they are raped just to get the treatment they want.

Saint Croix said...

I much prefer biological activity as the important marker, not arbitrary rules ("first trimester"). So I would suggest brain activity, as that's the relevant criteria in our death statutes. Certainly that should be the rule if you're prosecuting people for infanticide.

Conception is a bad legal point because, again, nobody knows when that happens. (Except God). You'd have to outlaw birth control if you want to protect zygotes. Implantation in the uterine wall is the first possible time that a woman (or a doctor) can be aware of a pregnancy. So that can be enforced, with a simple pregnancy test. (Once the zygote attaches to the walls of the uterus, a woman's body starts producing a pregnancy hormone).

I personally think pro-lifers should be advocates for Plan B, particularly in rape cases. There are many, many advantages to Plan B, versus an abortion. It's cheaper, it's easier, it's safer, and you don't have to worry about infanticide. Plan B is the chemical equivalent of swallowing two birth control pills.

(You suck, Blogger!)

rwnutjob said...

"Antiabortion" advocates. STFU

Saint Croix said...

There are certain brain waves, the absence of which define the END of human life. When they BEGIN during gestation -- usually 9 to 12 weeks -- they should define human life and change the rules entirely. His European home-country legally adopted 13 weeks, in part due to his commentary.

The standard in the U.S. for human death is absence of any brain activity. And I agree with you, I feel very strongly that these rules are highly relevant to the abortion debate. An unborn child starts to have activity in her brain stem six weeks after conception (eight weeks after the last menstrual period).

I think it's a big mistake to focus on weeks (which is vague and sloppy) and ignore the biological reality of unborn children. Pro-choice people love to ignore the reality of the unborn child, and our authorities have been doing this for decades.

Any law in this area should acknowledging the humanity of unborn children (quit lying about it!). And talk about biological criteria! It's the 21st century, we don't have to pretend like we have no idea what's going on inside the uterus.

Smart legislators would take the homicide issue off the table by referencing death statutes and saying they will be enforced against doctors who are intentionally killing people.

I'm in favor of serious criminal sanctions against abortion doctors who commit infanticide.

Early abortions before that point should be smaller felonies or perhaps misdemeanors.

Plan B and other forms of emergency birth control should be actively encouraged for rape victims. I think we should spend a lot of money educating people about Plan B, and try to move as many aborting people as possible into taking Plan B.

There's a huge difference between Plan B and abortion.

Plan B might abort a zygote, and it might not abort a zygote. Nobody knows! It's the moral difference between swallowing one birth control pill and swallowing two of them. Negligible, in my view. Pro-lifers would likely run afoul of Griswold v. Connecticut if they tried to outlaw Plan B. (Not to mention the American people!)

We should pick our battles. Plan B is a lot cheaper than abortion, it's very similar to birth control, it's perfect for rape victims, it's not a homicide under any law. I don't think microscopic homicide is a thing or should be a thing.

Contrast, for instance, the horrific atrocities done with RU-486, which produces a corpse. The New Republic recounts one horror story from RU-486.

Joe Bar said...

Gee, I wonder which side the NYT is on?