March 22, 2011

72-hour wait between consultation and abortion...

... just enacted in South Dakota.
"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?

335 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 335 of 335
Freeman Hunt said...

That clinic, by the way, is no longer open. He retired.

Mary said...

"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.
...
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."


Ch-Ch-ch-ch-changes...

Techonology -- medical, transportation, crime scene evidence -- is gonna get ya.

It's why nobody buys the painless, clump of cells things, and coat hangars aren't going to be the preferred abortion means in the states where those citizens vote not to support a culture of abortion within their borders.

Think of how much else has changes, and tell me why some here deliberately choose to ignore the changes, not only in culture, but also in our life-saving and -understanding capacity?

Again, once these babies start surviving out of the womb still in the first trimester, it'll be harder and harder to deny what's really being done in such "procedures". Their individual hearts start beating in the fifth week, we now know.

http://pregnancy.about.com/od/pregnancycalendar/p/week5.htm

Can't turn back science, and pretend it's the early 70s we're going back to...

Shouldn't the law be able to grow and develop as more and more facts are known, or are we forever locked into what those robed MEN decided on this big big issue way back when? ( Be consistent with other social issues you may have approved voting on, please. Tell me why this one should be considered "settled" law, despite what we know now, and can do technology-wise.)

peter hoh said...

If you really believe abortion is the moral and legal equivalent of murdering newborns, then why be content with nibbling away at it with 72 hour waiting periods?

Why not go for a constitutional amendment banning the procedure?

Sophia X said...

hombre,

I didn't quote the language I was responding to, which may have confused you. I was responding to this:

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.


I don't agree with this. I pointed facts that disagree with the premise. Your reading mistakenly assumes, sheesh, I don't even know where to start. I think the right to terminate a pregnancy rests alone with the pregnant individual. It doesn't belong to society. And it ends when the pregnancy ends. (Yes! Horrified anti-choicers! That means I think a woman should be legally entitled to seek abortion on demand up to the last second! And I'm not worried about the consequences of that being the law because no one can force doctors to give that woman what she wants and they'd probably just end up giving her a psych eval anyway. Because in the real world, people don't need you wagging your fingers at them or threatening to assassinate them to behave reasonably.)

former law student said...

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.

Then why wait nine months? Why not take the child out immediately? Easier on the mother and everyone else.

Revenant said...

That is why so many hipster dofous couples are buying Chinese babies.

Chinese girls are a popular choice for adoption because so many of the ones who don't get adopted wind up killed or sold into slavery.

Scott M said...

Then why wait nine months? Why not take the child out immediately? Easier on the mother and everyone else.

Non-sequitur. Even if it wasn't you would argue, using that logic, that it's okay for a five-year-old to legally drive and buy smokes.

Revenant said...

Why not go for a constitutional amendment banning the procedure?

You mean aside from the glaringly obvious reason that it wouldn't pass?

Simon said...

peter hoh said...
"If you really believe abortion is the moral and legal equivalent of murdering newborns, then why be content with nibbling away at it with 72 hour waiting periods?

Why not go for a constitutional amendment banning the procedure?
"

Because this is what can be done today. If you really believe abortion is the moral and legal equivalent of murdering newborns, you should be focussed on doing what can be done at any given time to fix the problem, not waiting for implausible pie-in-the-sky solutions that would fix everything but for the minor problem that they'll never be enacted.

Freeman Hunt said...

Some gems from the article I linked:

She regrets having to pay $750 for the abortion, but Amanda says she does not doubt her decision. "It's not like it's illegal. It's not like I'm doing anything wrong," she says.

"I've been praying a lot and that's been a real source of strength for me. I really believe God has a plan for us all. I have a choice, and that's part of my plan."

*

Before, after and even during an abortion, Harrison lectures his patients on birth control. He urges them to get on the pill and to insist their partners use condoms.

They promise. But Harrison knows many will be back.

His first patient of the day, Sarah, 23, says it never occurred to her to use birth control, though she has been sexually active for six years. When she became pregnant this fall, Sarah, who works in real estate, was in the midst of planning her wedding. "I don't think my dress would have fit with a baby in there," she says.

The last patient of the day, a 32-year-old college student named Stephanie, has had four abortions in the last 12 years. She keeps forgetting to take her birth control pills. Abortion "is a bummer," she says, "but no big stress."

peter hoh said...

Simon, how about my earlier question?

Should rape victims have access to plan-B, RU46, or abortion (with or without a 3 day waiting period)?

Freeman Hunt said...

Should rape victims have access to plan-B, RU46, or abortion (with or without a 3 day waiting period)?

Dealing with rape victims is something people will have to talk about in crafting legislation. It is also, however, an outlier and not, therefore, relevant as to whether or not the vast majority of abortions should be legal.

Most laws are complicated in that way. Take murder for example: first degree, second degree, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, etc.

Trooper York said...

Rev......
Chinese girls are a popular choice for adoption because so many of the ones who don't get adopted wind up killed or sold into slavery.

Actually they are cheaper. There was a run on Romanian babies for a while when Communism fell but too many of them had problems and they were a bitch to return. I mean so many of them were Vampires and stuff and they couldn't go out in the daytime and what not so they stopped being popular.

Then after Madonna and Angelina Jolie got them some real African Babies the trendy wanted them but they also had a lot of problems with the cannibalism and witch doctor stuff so that died out.

The Chinese babies are cheaper and there are a whole lot more of them and you can pick from column A or column b. Free delivery.

Just remember to say no MSG.

Carol_Herman said...

There are plenty of parents who wouldn't give you a nickel for another kid.

The pro-life crowd just hurts republicans! It is stupid. Since you can kiss all the pregnant women's bellies you want. But you have no right to intervene with something women have been doing since the time of the Egyptians! (True, knitting needles weren't the best way. Tossing oneself down a flight of stairs, also not good enough.) While sticking rocks inside an open uterus ... probably as a kid got born ... went a long way in assuring women they didn't have to have another one!)

peter hoh said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trooper York said...

Hey I bet you can get a Japanese baby pretty cheap these days.

You could be trendy with an Asian kid but still different from all the other yuppies in the PTA.

And just think of the bonus fact that they will be easy to find in the dark and stuff.

Freeman Hunt said...

Also, Plan-B is not usually lumped in with medications explicitly used to cause abortion.

According to NARAL, 117 pharmacies in SD stock Plan-B.

Thorley Winston said...

If an unborn child is a person then abortion would be unconstitutional

Um no, it wouldn’t.

If an unborn child were to be legally classified as a person (BTW: overturning Roe v. Wade doesn’t require this) that wouldn’t make abortion unconstitutional anymore than murdering a fully born person would be unconstitutional because the constitution doesn’t impose any restrictions on anyone other than the government or those acting as its agents.

peter hoh said...

Freeman, it doesn't surprise me that people seeking abortions talk about the procedure -- and their reasoning -- in such fuzzy terms. Humans have a remarkable ability for self-justification and fuzzy thinking when it suits them.

I'm not sure that I would find it comforting if each woman had given the reporter a cold, calculating rationale for her choice.

I'm not so certain that rape victims are outliers to this debate. The efforts to limit access to plan B, for instance, have the impact of making it hard for many rape victims to get plan B.

Freeman Hunt said...

Efforts to restrict Plan-B and efforts to restrict abortion are not one in the same though.

Freeman Hunt said...

I also don't see justifications from any of those women except the first one, and hers was terrible. The others have reasons that are jaw-droppingly self-centered.

hombre said...

Sophia X wrote: hombre,

I didn't quote the language I was responding to, which may have confused you.


Thank you for the clarification, but I wasn't confused.

Sophia X wrote: I don't even know where to start. I think the right to terminate a pregnancy rests alone with the pregnant individual. ... (Yes! Horrified anti-choicers! That means I think a woman should be legally entitled to seek abortion on demand up to the last second!

It wasn't necessary to clarify your position. Neither it nor you are unique.

BTW, I am anti-abortion, not anti-choice. I support your right to choose chocolate or vanilla, to make puerile arguments, to wear chartreuse, etc. I even support your right to have unprotected sex with men you don't want as fathers of your children. I just don't support your right to choose to take innocent life to avoid the consequences.

Fen said...

I'm familiar with those laws, which are nothing more than abolitionists trying to sneak personhood rights for the Negro through the back door.

Fixed that for you. And added a little southern drawl as well.

Its true. Future generations will look back at us the same way we look back at slavers of the 18th and 19th century. They will ask "how could you?" the same way we do now.

Simon said...

Peter, I already did. It's somewhere back on page one.

Sophia X said...
"I think a woman should be legally entitled to seek abortion on demand up to the last second!"

Well, that's one way to avoid a reductio ad absurdum: Start with an absurd position.

Trooper York said...

You don't have to worry Sophia. We have met you before. You are legion. So to speak.

former law student said...

Plan B birth control is just a birth control pill, but a bigass dose. It contains levonorgestrel.

It is not RU-486 is the abortifacient "morning after" pill.

hombre said...

Carole wrote: The pro-life crowd just hurts republicans! It is stupid....

So I guess the "pro-life crowd" should leave the party and/or stop voting for Republicans. Right? That would help Republicans. Right? LOL

There is a preview button in case you want to read what you write before posting.

former law student said...

Plan B is not RU-486 which is the abortifacient "morning after" pill.

isaacaf said...

Why three days? Because I'd have to wait that long to have any other elective surgery. And if I want to voluntarily have my tubes tied, I have to sign the consent form and wait at least three days, but no more than 30 days. AND I was not allowed to have a tubal ligation while I was in the hospital having just given birth to my 4th child.

Tubal ligation is a surgical form of birth control; abortion is a surgical form of birth control. Choice is fine, but I don't see three days for one and burdensome, but three or more days for the other as not.

Nite Herder said...

Several posters have compared gun-purchase waiting periods to this abortion waiting period.

I've never bought a gun with the intention of using it to kill anyone (although, interestingly, the Federals once issued a gun to me for that specific purpose). I don't need to peer into my soul to determine whether or not its "right" to go punch holes in a paper target with a gun.

When a woman goes into a clinic for an abortion, she does so with the specific intention of terminating a human life. I'd say that merits peering into one's soul ...

Fearsome Tycoon said...

Don't like South Dakota's law? Live in one of the other 49 states, just like 99.7% of America's population already does. Isn't this the point of federalism?

The Savage Noble said...

This may as close a thread as I can get for this mind exercise, but...

Why can't there be a male equivalent to abortion? What if, at any point before the child is born, a guy can have a legal "procedure" done where he could wash his hands of any responsibility or rights to the child. It would also put him beyond any legal means of the woman to bring him back into the child's life physically or monetarily. No support payments, no parental rights, nada...as if it was a stranger's child. To all purposes the child would be "dead" and out of the guy's life...not even recording the guy legally as the child's father.

A badly timed pregnancy would be detrimental to a young man's life as well, best to have it expunged if the woman will not respect his reproductive wishes.

Thoughts?

(Disclaimer: I am not advocating this, mind, just something that seems to me to be analogous)

George said...

"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. "

Sophia, I'll tell you what is sinister--that you are unable to have any empathy for children whose lives are snuffed out before they begin...that they are "zeroes."

former law student said...

Because I'd have to wait that long to have any other elective surgery.

Bullshit for an office procedure.

Revenant said...

So I guess the "pro-life crowd" should leave the party and/or stop voting for Republicans. Right? That would help Republicans. Right? LOL

Who cares about the welfare of the Republican Party? They're a means to an end. That end, so far as I'm concerned, is "smaller government".

If they're going to fool around with abortion and not do anything about the size of the government, who cares if they ever win an election?

former law student said...

Why can't there be a male equivalent to abortion?

Abortion ends pregnancy. Men can't get pregnant.

What if, at any point before the child is born, a guy can have a legal "procedure" done where he could wash his hands of any responsibility or rights to the child.

Society expects both parents to support their children. If the father shirks his responsibility, then the taxpayers may have to step in.

former law student said...

you are unable to have any empathy for children whose lives are snuffed out before they begin...that they are "zeroes."

God is still the biggest killer of the preborn under the rubric of miscarriage -- why do people not direct their wrath at Him?

cubanbob said...

Sophia X said...
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.

3/22/11 3:45 PM

In California a guy named Peterson is on death row for the aggravated murder of his wife and unborn child. The killing of the unborn child is the triggering act that rendered Peterson eligible for the death penalty. So unless the sentence is overturned it would appear that the person hood of a fetus has been accepted (at least in CA) for the purposes of sentencing someone to death.

Now if memory serves me right the logic behind Roe v Wade was that a fetus cannot exist independent of the mother before X number of weeks gestation (the number escapes me at the moment)so therefore an abortion is permissible. Frankly it's stupid logic since one can make the same case for someone in a coma in an ICU totally dependent on the staff for IV drip,tube feeding, assisted breathing etc yet they are still considered fully human. Shoot dead a person in the ICU in those conditions and you are looking at a felony murder charge. But setting that aside the fact that this Peterson is facing a death penalty because he killed his unborn child (believe it or not murdering his wife alone wasn't sufficient to qualify for the death penalty)is on it's face evidence of the acceptance of person hood of an unborn child.

This eventually will have to squared by the courts. You can't be considered a person for the purposes of sentencing someone to death and at the same time have no person hood at all for the purposes of an abortion. The 3/5 human argument was disposed of 150 years ago.

Brian said...

@fls:
Bullshit for an office procedure.

I don't know a single doctor who takes walk-ins and gives them any kind of out-patient procedure without first doing tests, then scheduling the procedure days later. Unless it's an emergency.

Anything that can be scheduled you're going to have to wait for.

On another thread, someone admitted that if the healthcare law is valid under the Interstate Commerce clause, then abortion is covered by it too.

Under this scenario the feds could impose whatever limits it wants on abortion, since interstate commerce is affected. Your body, your choice? If the feds say they need another taxpayer, no it's not.

In the case of guns: The 2nd amendment is an enumerated right, though the courts have held local laws can be used to regulate the time, place, and manner of purchase of firearms.

Brian said...

@fls:
God is still the biggest killer of the preborn under the rubric of miscarriage -- why do people not direct their wrath at Him?

Good luck arresting Him, and convicting Him.

You could sue Him. Good luck collecting damages.

Does this mean you can charge Him with thousands of counts of murder in Japan? The tsunami was an "act of God," right?

Alexander D. Mitchell IV said...

Let me see if I can ask a valid question which has apparently not been asked yet.

In principle, I support the idea of a waiting period on both gun purchases and abortions--neither are decisions which should be made lightly.

But in the comments above, it is alleged that there is only one abortion clinic in the state of South Dakota, with doctors flying in from Minnesota to provide the service.

How many places are there to buy a gun in South Dakota, and what is the furthest one could have to drive/go in order to legally acquire a gun, Internet purchases notwithstanding? Is there ANY possibility I would have to drive across the state four times or stay in a motel/etc. for three nights in order to buy a gun?

If not, ANY comparison between a gun purchase waiting period and an abortion waiting period in South Dakota is specious and disingenuous.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

God is still the biggest killer of the preborn under the rubric of miscarriage

Miscarriage is nature's way of terminating biologically defective offspring.

Abortion is the process of defective humans terminating other human life for generally cavalier and selfish purposes.

People who suffer miscarriages grieve deeply at the loss of life of a child that they would have loved and cherished.

Most miscarriages are so early in the pregnancy that people don't know they are even pregnant and are at a point where there was no viable life.

Most abortions are at a point where the baby would have been able to live outside the womb and are a purposeful killing of another life.

There is no comparison and you are a sick ignoramus for trying to make one.

hombre said...

Revenant wrote: If [the Republicans] are going to fool around with abortion and not do anything about the size of the government, who cares if they ever win an election.

If the Republicans fail to deal with the size of government do you really believe it will be because they "are going to fool around with abortion?"

I guess you and Carole are prepared to depend on the Dems, eh? Good luck with that.

peter hoh said...

Simon @ 5:00, I looked but can't find your comment that addresses this. I'm not doubting you. Perhaps blogger ate it, which is highly likely if you included links.

FWIW, I'm not sure that 3 days is an undue burden. I don't have an answer for why 24 hours is okay, but 72 is not. That's "above my pay scale."

Phil 3:14 said...

Abortion thread never fails to deliver. (sorry for the pun)

People today have no clue what it was like before Roe V. Wade.

Yes, I do; I grew up in NY State, so nothing changed after Roe v Wade (except fewer "tourist" dollars into the state's economy)

peter hoh said...

Savage Noble @ 5:19 -- the male option remains to abstain or wear a condom (and use it correctly).

Simon said...

former law student said...
"God is still the biggest killer of the preborn under the rubric of miscarriage -- why do people not direct their wrath at Him?"

God also commanded that graven images shall not be made while later directing the forging of a bronze snake, see Numbers 21:6-9. Here's the takeaway: God can do things we aren't allowed to do, doesn't have to follow the rules laid down for us.

DA Munroe said...

Sophia X (and others)
"Why yes, this legislation is very insulting to women in that it assumes they aren't making a considered decision when scheduling an abortion."

This argument is lame.
Are you saying that all women make careful, considered decisions? Are you saying all women are intelligent? That nobody has ever had an abortion without thinking it through?

I thought not. Then why the faux outrage at being 'insulted'. If it's at least sometimes true, then can't be an insult.

former law student said...

I don't know a single doctor who takes walk-ins and gives them any kind of out-patient procedure

The abortionist (in the article Freeman linked to) worked by appointment. I've had a cyst removed in an office visit -- the doc did not make it seem unusual.

Jay said...

"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.

This "backalley" stuff is utter fiction perpetrated by ignorant people.

DA Munroe said...

"God is still the biggest killer of the preborn under the rubric of miscarriage -- why do people not direct their wrath at Him?

People die at all stages of the lifecycle - miscarriages through to centenarians. We don't shake our fists at the sky with every death.

We do, however, have laws about people causing the deaths of others.

30yearProf said...

Waiting 48 or 72 hours for an abortion doesn't kill the mother.

Waiting 48 or 72 hours for a self-defense tool, often does cause a dead crime victim.

Even in oh-so-safe Wisconsin. Bonnie Elmasri had a restraining order against her husband, who had been threatening her and her children. She asked a firearms instructor about getting a handgun and was told there was a 48-hour waiting period. Within 24 hours, she was dead, along with her two children. Murdered by her husband, who had no trouble at all illegally obtaining a gun.

former law student said...

Most miscarriages are so early in the pregnancy that people don't know they are even pregnant and are at a point where there was no viable life.

dbq, the argument is that life begins at conception. If you disagree, then feel free to ignore this comparison.

Most abortions are at a point where the baby would have been able to live outside the womb and are a purposeful killing of another life.

Most abortions occur in the first trimester, when no fetus has been known to survive outside the womb.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I've had a cyst removed in an office visit -- the doc did not make it seem unusual.

I assume you have an ongoing relationship with your doctor and didn't just pop in off of the street. He has had a chance to know you and your previous conditions. Probably has a medical chart on you and would feel comfortable in a minor procedure like that in the office.

An abortionist doesn't know anything about the mother (or ex-mother in this case). An abortionist who wasn't a back ally butcher, would probably want to do some testing and make sure the mother wasn't mentally unstable and didn't have medical conditions that would present danger....at least for his own protection if not for hers.

Once again. No comparison.

former law student said...

Waiting 48 or 72 hours for an abortion doesn't kill the mother.

Waiting 48 or 72 hours for a self-defense tool, often does cause a dead crime victim.


But I could have bought a handgun at age 21 and picked it up three days later. So if a woman sees her gyno at age 21 she can get an abortion at any point in the future once three days have passed?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

the argument is that life begins at conception. If you disagree, then feel free to ignore this comparison.

So, which comparison are YOU making. If miscarriage=abortion, then which argument are you trying to make?

Miscarriage can also mean that the child/foetus was alive at some point and then died. Life could have begun at conception and then ceased for a natural biological reason.

Abortion is not a natural biological event.

You are always trying to make apples and oranges comparisons.

DA Munroe said...

Most abortions occur in the first trimester, when no fetus has been known to survive outside the womb.

Irrelevant to the ethics.
Either it's a human being or it isn't. Scientifically, genetically, it's human.

Unless you have brand new scientific evidence that the fetus is actually a walrus or something?

former law student said...

This "backalley" stuff is utter fiction perpetrated by ignorant people.

Did you read the abortion cases at my homicide in chicago link?

Educate yourself further, with When Abortion Was a Crime.

http://publishing.cdlib.org
/ucpressebooks/view?
docId=ft967nb5z5&brand=eschol

30yearProf said...

"The killing of the unborn child is the triggering act that rendered Peterson eligible for the death penalty."

An unborn child is a person against everyone in the world except its mother. Does that raise an Equal Protection issue???

peter hoh said...

If you want women to get an abortion from a doctor whom they already know, then we would have to change the cultural practices which have led to abortion becoming a procedure performed only (mostly?) by doctors specializing in that procedure.

peter hoh said...

DA Munroe, if you had it your way, would there be exceptions for rape?

DA Munroe said...

the argument is that life begins at conception

Of course life begins at conception. Anything else is superstitious nonsense.

DA Munroe said...

"if you had it your way, would there be exceptions for rape?"

Let me rephrase that for you.
"Should I be sentenced to death because my father is a rapist?"
No.

Rape is a terrible crime, but the woman shouldn't murder the rapist's baby in revenge.

Jay said...

Did you read the abortion cases at my homicide in chicago link?

Um, no, there is no reason to.

The actual figure in 1972 for deaths from illegal abortion was 39, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

You are not that bright and easily misled.

Jay said...

Poor women got backalley abortions and sometimes died.

Um, any woman getting an abortion today sometimes dies.

This isn't an argument as much as it an emotive statement. One borne by ignorance of course.

former law student said...

The actual figure in 1972 for deaths from illegal abortion was 39, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

Jay must be a connoisseur of gore -- it would take far more than 39 dead women to get his attention.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Jay must be a connoisseur of gore -- it would take far more than 39 dead women to get his attention.

How many dead and dismembered babies does it take to get yours?

Carol_Herman said...

Nope. Most people don't get worked up over someone else having a baby.

There are no storks bringing in these bundles, either.

At one point you couldn't even say the word "pregnant" on TV.

But like all attempts at Prohibition, this "smug fetus" crawl hurts the republican party!

And, republicans have a tougher time climbing over the 50% mark. That's how divided politics IS. With a real chance, still, that Obama is campaigning ... and can win. He just needs to win back those Independents he lost in 2008.

What did the republicans have in 2008. So many republicans didn't like him, it's amazing he got the slot. But the going wisdom was that he'd win because the media, and Hillary's women, liked him.

Proved to be false.

If McCain won in 2008 all you'd have now is President Mood Ring. And, the republicans on the ropes.

How do you get to stay off the ropes?

ROE IS THE LAW! Get used to it. Before Roe a pregnant woman was glad to find out where the back alley abortions got done. It wasn't a subject openly discussed, either.

Simon said...

By the way, lost in all this is the bill itself. You'll find it here.

DA Munroe said...

shorter Carol Herman:
"Ha ha! It's legal to kill our babies! So screw you, Republicans! Losers!"

Peano said...

So you tell me, why 3 days?

This is what democracy looks like. Abortion policy should have been a political issue from the start. I am not a "pro-life" zealot by any means, but I think that Roe v. Wade is one of the most deplorable Supreme Court decisions in our history. These heavily freighted moral issues should be decided by "the people" through their state legislatures -- not by a handful of judges who think they know better.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Before Roe a pregnant woman was glad to find out where the back alley abortions got done. It wasn't a subject openly discussed, either.

Before Roe there were also a lot of younger marriages, many of which, like my mother in law's which lasted for over 50 years, were sucessful and produced stable families. It normally takes 9 months to have a baby, but you know.....that first one can come at any time. /wink

Before Roe, people took the act of sex and the consequences of having a baby seriously. When there are actual consequences for your actions, you tend to be a bit more circumspect and careful in your decision making.

Lest you think I'm anti choice. I'm not.

However, I am anti thoughtless choice.

Anti selfish choice.
Anti using abortion as an easy means of retroactive birth control. If a woman has more than one abortion, there is something seriously wrong.

Anti government paying for abortions.

Anti not allowing women to have OTHER choices, like adoption or counseling that may help in their decision making.

vbspurs said...

271 posts! What, did McCain nominate Sarah Palin again. Jesus, peeps!

Carol_Herman said...

Nope. Most people don't get worked up over someone else having a baby.

There are no storks bringing in these bundles, either.

At one point you couldn't even say the word "pregnant" on TV.

But like all attempts at Prohibition, this "smug fetus" crawl hurts the republican party!

And, republicans have a tougher time climbing over the 50% mark. That's how divided politics IS. With a real chance, still, that Obama is campaigning ... and can win. He just needs to win back those Independents he lost in 2008.

What did the republicans have in 2008. So many republicans didn't like him, it's amazing he got the slot. But the going wisdom was that he'd win because the media, and Hillary's women, liked him.

Proved to be false.

If McCain won in 2008 all you'd have now is President Mood Ring. And, the republicans on the ropes.

How do you get to stay off the ropes?

ROE IS THE LAW! Get used to it. Before Roe a pregnant woman was glad to find out where the back alley abortions got done. It wasn't a subject openly discussed, either.

Carol_Herman said...

Clarifying my own sentence.

In 2008 McCain LOST! Obama won because he received a swing of INDEPENDENT VOTERS. These people have left the "Hope & Change" candidate in droves!

That's why there's CATNIP out there. And, the lesson that McCain didn't win because he was running against a Black man. More Americans voted for Obama. You want to spit at them? What? You've got Tourettes?

And, that's why its a stupid idea for the republicans to get saddled with the label that they are home to religious nutters.

Even in Italy, where the dogma of the Catholic Church has to be ignored, to see the country has the lowest birth rate in all of Europe.

I'm not buying the idea that people want large families. PERIOD.

The Grey Man said...

I think that this is a question of good medicine more than anything. Termination is the only major elective procedure where a patient is legally entitled to "same day" service.

If a patient showed up demanding lipo or rhinoplasty the same day, any good doc would recommend a psych consult to evaluate whether the patient is capable of understanding the choices and consequences.

Peano said...

Poor women got backalley abortions and sometimes died.

When an abortion is performed, the baby always dies. That might just be the rationale for requiring a woman to wait a couple of days when deciding to kill her baby.

I grant you that's a controversial requirement, but that is why we have political processes: So people can debate these issues and reach a political consensus.

Pastafarian said...

Whether you're for "choice" or against it, Roe is a litmus test, in my mind, determining whether someone is a conservative or a liberal.

If you're conservative, you believe Roe is a horrible decision that stretched an elastic constitution til it broke.

If you think Roe was a good decision, you're a liberal. It doesn't matter whether you voted for Reagan and you belong to the NRA -- you're a liberal.

Plenty of conservatives favor "choice" but think Roe was a joke.

Bob Ellison said...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14627053

Bob Ellison said...

Pastafarian: I'm generally pro-choice, but you're right. Roe was a joke.

former law student said...

How many dead and dismembered babies does it take to get yours?

http://www.babycenter.com/
fetal-development-images-6-weeks

vbspurs said...

Pastafarian wrote:

Plenty of conservatives favor "choice" but think Roe was a joke.

Heck, even Justice Ruth Bader-Ginzburg said it was founded on shaky legal precedent.

You know, I respect that woman. Don't agree with her. But will miss her scruples on the bench.

Alex said...

2A:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Notice that the framers already assumed that the right was morally enshrined in nature and they were simply ratifying that the government could not infringe on God's law.

vbspurs said...

(Not 'precedent'. Principle)

DA Munroe said...

that's why its a stupid idea for the republicans to get saddled with the label that they are home to religious nutters

Carol, I'm an agnostic.
I simply recognize the reality that a fetus is (a) alive and (b) human.

Alex said...

Carol - as people gain more affluence they don't want to share it. Children need constant attention, they cost money and they don't let you go to swanky restaurants while you're still young and fabulous. Thus, trendy hipster douchebags like me don't have kids.

cubanbob said...

former law student said...
Why can't there be a male equivalent to abortion?

Abortion ends pregnancy. Men can't get pregnant.

What if, at any point before the child is born, a guy can have a legal "procedure" done where he could wash his hands of any responsibility or rights to the child.

Society expects both parents to support their children. If the father shirks his responsibility, then the taxpayers may have to step in.

3/22/11 5:27 PM

Following your logic the entitlement state would be abolished for all adults (other than those physically or mentally handicapped) as society expects them to be self supporting and not wards of the state or a burden on the taxpayers.

Now as it stands while it takes two to get pregnant but only one to to elect to stay pregnant it is not in society's interest to force people into involuntary servitude. Can a man sue to have the woman have an abortion? No. But he should have the right to not be forced in to paying for a choice he has no right to decide as an equal partner. Her choice of staying pregnant is her acceptance of the financial obligation. Not his. That thing with pro-choicers is they want it both ways, heads I win, tails you lose.

According to Sophia a fetus is a nullity until fully born so presumably no doctor could ever be sued for any unfortunate result prior to birth, Peterson would not be on death row and no one has to accommodate a pregnant woman and the poor could be compelled to have mandatory abortions.

If republicans really want to make lib heads explode Governor Walker and WI republicans ought to legislate that any woman on welfare must have an abortion in order to receive welfare and that a man can waive all rights to a child while the woman is pregnant in exchange for a complete financial release. WI seems to be the current lib lightning rod so they might as well go for it.

Lem said...

Abortion on demand is the biggest gift liberals have given the haters like the KKK and the rest.

Story #8: Black Population Falls (Abortion Not Mentioned)

RUSH: From USA Today: "Black Populations Fall in Major Cities. "The black population is declining in a growing number of major cities -- more evidence that the settlement pattern of African Americans is changing as they disperse to suburbia and warmer parts of the nation. 2010 Census data released so far this year show that 20 of the 25 cities that have at least 250,000 people and a 20% black population either lost more blacks or gained fewer in the past decade than during the 1990s. The declines happened in some traditional black strongholds: Chicago, Oakland, Atlanta, Cleveland and St. Louis."

Now, let's see, here. "The loss is fueled by three distinct trends: • Blacks -- many in the middle or upper-middle class -- leaving cities for the suburbs. • Blacks leaving Northern cities for thriving centers in the South. • The aging of the African-American population, whose growth rate has dropped from more than 16% in the 1990s to about 10% since 2000." The major factor is not mentioned. We had the news and we've talked about it two or three times. It's abortion. What was the number that we had out of New York? Fifty-nine percent, 60% of black pregnancies are aborted in New York City?

And that doesn't get mentioned here as one of the reasons for black populations falling in major cities? I think it's 40% nationwide. It's 40% of black pregnancies are terminated nationwide; 60% (59, something like that) in New York. It is big business. It's huge business for Planned Parenthood. The end of the story: "The drop also can be partially attributed to a declining black fertility rate and the aging of the black population, says John Logan..." Well, okay, let's just skirt it. Let's talk about the "fertility" issue. Let's not use the abortion word. No, no, no, no! Mustn't do that
.

bagoh20 said...

Why three days? The same reason we no longer have the gallows ready outside the courthouse. But if you make the time too long you might as well not decide at all, just like the death penalty in California.

vbspurs said...

Sophia X wrote:

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?

Sophia, I am just reading this. I am not sure if you or others wrote further ones to me, but apologies, as my eyes are beginning to glaze over reading the 300 replies, and not sure if I will continue replying to the thread, which boils down to, for me, 3 days is not an onerous time to ask a woman to wait to terminate the life of her foetus, after making an appointment.

I am also anti death penalty, by the way, not because I compare the death of an innoncent unborn life to that of a convicted murderer, but because I believe killing one innocent person is one too many.

Likewise this SD law. If only ONE human life is saved, because a mother had a chance to refelct on her actions, then it was a good law.

Cheers,
Victoria

Basil Seal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mockmook said...

If a woman decides to have an abortion, the state and the community suffer zero consequences.

Really?

The woman will have no regrets?

The community won't value life less?

Thew community won't miss the potential achievements and happiness created by then new citizen?

The woman won't miss the potential happiness of having and raising this child?

Perhaps the negatives outweigh the positives, but there is no reason to dismiss the potential benefits to the community of the child coming to term.

WV: psycho !!!!!! WTH????

former law student said...

Now as it stands while it takes two to get pregnant but only one to to elect to stay pregnant

cubanbob wants to empower men to force their partners to get abortions, because he assumes remaining pregnant is not the default state. This is the most radical position I have seen in this thread.

Can a man sue to have the woman have an abortion?

Can a woman sue to force a man to have a vasectomy? No. Each person is in charge of deciding what to do about their own reproductive system.

Her choice of staying pregnant is her acceptance of the financial obligation.

How do you figure that? There's no obligation to support the mother financially, physically, or emotionally during her pregnancy.

it is not in society's interest to force people into involuntary servitude.

Society is all about the raising of future citizens -- this is the only rationale for caring about abortion at all. That's why society requires both parents to support their offspring.

That thing with pro-choicers is they want it both ways, heads I win, tails you lose.

Women can decide whether to end a pregnancy or not. Pregnancy is a physical condition that may harm or kill a woman. The idea that a deadbeat dad would use this basic fact of life to duck out on his obligations to his children is monstrous.

former law student said...

as people gain more affluence they don't want to share it.

The affluent people I know what their wealth to go to their descendants after they kick.

Tom said...

"How can a 72 hour delay constitute a substantial obstacle?"

I agree, it should be more substantial. Parental notification, parental consent from the father of the baby, or better yet make the waiting period as long as it takes for adoptions, years.

mariner said...

Do it "for the children"!

Revenant said...

cubanbob wants to empower men to force their partners to get abortions

The woman could also opt to assume 100% of the financial burden of raising the child.

There's no reason why a person who has no say in the child's birth should be required to pay for it.

bagoh20 said...

"The affluent people I know what their wealth to go to their descendants after they kick."

I don't see anything positive about staring life out rich. Eventually getting there is ideal, but the value is in the struggle and the accomplishment. Passing wealth on to your young is cruel and selfish.

mariner said...

Fen,

Its true. Future generations will look back at us the same way we look back at slavers of the 18th and 19th century. They will ask "how could you?" the same way we do now.

Thank you.

I hope you're right, but I'm not as confident as you.

DA Munroe said...

Pregnancy is a physical condition that may harm or kill a woman.

That's the stupidest comment to date. Pregnancy isn't a disease, FLS.

Big Mike said...

That's the stupidest comment to date. Pregnancy isn't a disease, FLS.

Well, yes it is. A girl gets it from her boyfriend.

But I'm with Glenn Reynolds on this one -- if you have to wait 72 hours to buy a gun you should have to wait at least as long to have an abortion.

newscaper said...

Instapundit compares this waiting period to one for gun purchases, suggesting they are both similarly flawed.

Let's compare:

gun waiting period
1 - right to bear is explicitly in the Constitution
2 - purchase *could* lead to a loss of life (guilty or innocent)

abortion waiting period
1 - federal right to one is merely inferred (penumbras and all that)
2- will *definitely* lead to loss human life (scientifically, whether legal 'person' or not), and which is absolutely innocent.

I actually am not 100% against abortion, but to equate these i snonsense.

Carol_Herman said...

The religious nutters will kill the republican party!

By "kill" I mean they won't be able to garner more than the democraps during national elections.

Most people wouldn't give you a plug nickel for a new kid. Have one. Go through labor. And, a woman, even one with "screaming egss" who puts aside her education, learns that "one is more than enough."

Carol_Herman said...

I'm all FOR Roe. And, I'm not a liberal.

Carol_Herman said...

Yup. Shop worn issue. Worn by republicans. Who don't win elections. And, when they do, they get stuck with the likes of the Bush's.

Sad to see the republicans still willing to wear this shop worn issue. Which caters to their crazy base. The same way the unions get coverage from democraps.

A carcass, indeed.

DA Munroe said...

The bottom line is, either you think a fetus is a human or you don't. Everything else is froth and bubble.

Genetically, it's human so I'm on the side of "it's human."

Conservatives 4 Better Dental Hygiene said...

I hope you're right, but I'm not as confident as you.

Why the reservation on validating the belief that cells are people? What's the sticking point? A knowledge of biology?

peter hoh said...

Now Pastafarian has gone and declared that I'm a conservative. Good to know.

Timon said...

"So you tell me, why 3 days?"

There are so few people in SD that they are just feeling lonely and playing don't-go-yet-stay-awhile. It's terribly sad; the expectant mothers don't want their own children but there are no doctors to kill the baby. Welcome to democide.

John said...

Sophia X said:
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.

Professor Althouse, I know you generally have a very open comments policy, but to me this seems a little bit beyond "acceptable".

DA Munroe said...

Let it go John. Sophia X is bitter because she doesn't like being reminded that she sent her child off to become landfill.

former law student said...

The bottom line is, either you think a fetus is a human or you don't.

A fetus is human but not a human.

I noticed for what, the 21st time in a row, the US census neglected to count fetal-Americans.

Is Munroe really a DA, BTW? Most lawyers can differentiate between a "physical condition" and a "disease."

DA Munroe said...

"I noticed for what, the 21st time in a row, the US census neglected to count fetal-Americans."

I was referring to scientific, not legal, fact, FLS.

"Human but not human?" That's an absurd answer. A newborn baby's not a fully-formed adult either but we recognize it as a human on an early part of the lifecycle. Same thing with a fetus.

"physical condition" - your wording was intended to imply that it's a disease without explicitly saying so. At any rate it's misdirection. Most women don't get abortions because they fear for their lives.
(btw "DA" are initials, not a title).

Fen said...

FLS: Jay must be a connoisseur of gore -- it would take far more than 39 dead women to get his attention.

More than 39 have died this year alone at abortion clinics. Before you lecture Jay, explain why that never hit your own radar?

Fen said...

FLS: A Negro is human but not a human.

Yes people, they actually call themselves "progressive"...

Fen said...

Poor women got backalley abortions and sometimes died.

Thats another lie.

"“This report carefully and clearly debunks the myth that women will die if abortion is no longer available... Medical progress in treating complications, not legalization of abortion, accounts for the enormous drop in maternal abortion deaths from the 1940s to the 1970s.


•Before Roe v. Wade, there were approximately 100,000 illegal abortions per year, a number far lower than the 1 million claimed by abortion advocates.

•The largest reasonably possible number of illegal abortions in any one year before Roe v. Wade was approximately 210,000 in 1961; the lowest was about 39,000 in 1950. The mean was 98,000 per year.

•The data demonstrates an exponential increase in the number of abortions since legalization. There are roughly 16 times as many abortions now each year as there were in an average year before Roe v. Wade.

•The claims by abortion advocates that 1,000,000 or more illegal abortions occurred annually and 5,000-10,000 women died are based on inaccurately calculated extrapolations from flawed and erroneous data of the 1920s and the 1930s – the pre-penicillin era.

•The number of deaths of childbearing-age women for non-abortion related causes remained relatively constant in the years before Roe v. Wade, showing that deaths from illegal abortion could not have been “hidden” under other causes of death.

Advances in medical technology, not the legalization of abortion, caused a significant drop in the number of maternal deaths from abortion:
- maternal deaths from illegal abortions were above 1,000 per year only in the pre-penicillin era (1940). The maternal abortion deaths dropped sharply with the advent of antibiotics (penicillin and sulfa) and other medical advances to treat infections."

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0449_Life_Without_Roe.html

former law student said...

Fen: Do Negroes have yolk sacs?

former law student said...

Thats another lie.

I gave two references. If you can't be arsed to read them it's not my problem.

"“This report carefully and clearly debunks the myth that women will die if abortion is no longer available...

Oh, sure, the research arm of the National Right To Life Committee.

If I gave you the results of gun control research conducted by the Violence Policy Center would you take it at face value?

DA Munroe said...

FLS, let's say you're right - illegal abortions leads to some back-alley abortions. That is orthogonal to the scientific question of whether a fetus is a human (something you seem confused about).

former law student said...

a fetus is a human (something you seem confused about)

Realize that "human" is an adjective. My cyst was a human cyst. Is a fetus a human being? That depends on how developed it is.

Fen said...

FLS: Is a Negro a human being? That depends on how developed it is.

Next, you'll be measuring its cranium.

Just say it, FLS, you know you want to.

Sub-human.

Thats the word you want to use.

DA Munroe said...

My cyst was a human cyst. Is a fetus a human being? That depends on how developed it is.

You understood perfectly well I meant "human being" but again, you hid from the issues with word games. "Depends?" It's a living organism; it has its own unique human DNA. Barring misadventure, it will grow to be a human adult. Sounds suspiciously like a human being.

peter hoh said...

Simon, I suspect that the provision most likely to be struck down is the one requiring a visit to an approved pregnancy center. Did you read the language in the bill relating to these centers?

For those who favor the gun purchase analogy, this would be like making someone who wanted to buy a gun sit for a session with an anti-gun organization.

jr565 said...

Sophia X wrote:
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.

Are the people getting married and then divorced in those three days? If not, then it's silly to justify a 3 day waiting period for a marriage on the grounds that the couple may in the future get divorce. Besides, how long does it take for families to actually plan weddings in the first place? Couldn't that waiting period similarly be viewed as a waiting period whereby a bride and groom can determine if they are going to get married or not? This is not to say that you shouldn't wait 3 days, only that its not a grounds to say waiting 3 days for an abortion doesn't make sense but that it does make sense to wait 3 days for a marriage license.

jr565 said...

Former law student wrote:
Realize that "human" is an adjective. My cyst was a human cyst. Is a fetus a human being? That depends on how developed it is.

Does your cyst have it's own heart beat and unique dna?

jr565 said...

Former Law student wrote:
Society is all about the raising of future citizens -- this is the only rationale for caring about abortion at all. That's why society requires both parents to support their offspring.

Yet the mother and the law shut the man out of any decision making during the pregnancy, then demand that he support a baby that someone else made the choice to keep or not. If society is all about the raising of future citizens and wanting to have both parent raise the offspring, why would it make it legal to kill that child in the womb?
If the mother can make the choice to keep the child, despite the fact that she knows the financial hardship she'll have to endure she should choose for herself and not the dad as well. Since the choice has always been hers and hers alone anyway.
"I choose, because I have a baby in my womb, to raise the child and make you pay for the costs even though we're not married and you want nothing to do with the child". The baby is only in the mothers womb nine months, how come she can choose for the dad for the next 20 years?
Now this is not to say that dads shouldn't support their babies. Only mothers have the option of not even allowing a baby to live on the grounds that they're not ready to be a mom. Why can they make that choice for a man.
Suppose I'm not ready to be a dad, and it will be a financial hardship for me to raise a kid. It's apprently an honorable position for a mother, and grounds for her to murder her baby, but yet not grounds for a dad too? If a mother makes the choice to kill her kid it's her choice alone, even if the dad desparately wants the kid. If the mother wants the kid and knows she won't be able to support the baby, and knows that the father doesn't want the baby, then doesn't her choice involve more than simply her womb? She's choosing what that man has to do with the rest of his life simpy because she has a baby in her womb that she alone chose to keep, knowing that she may not be able to afford it.
If you want to make the woman have the sole decision to keep or kill a baby, then she should factor in whether she can raise that baby. It's in effect HER baby. So then the only decisions she should make should impact her only. If a dad wants to be a dad, he should be allowed, but he shouldn't be forced to be a dad, just as a woman shouldn't be forced to have a kid she doesn't want (if we're going to argue that abortion should be legal).Why does womens reproductive freedom mean they get the right to turn men into indentured servants?

Renee said...

Being strongly and consistently pro-life, I understand the legal issues with this law.

I'm very fortunate to have a good support system through out my pregnancies. When I get pregnant, my family never thought my children destroyed my life or theirs. I'm pretty damn lucky that when I had my first baby, family members were willing to watch her and I had a great school with flexible day/night classes.

Women get an abortion, not because she doesn't want the baby or unable to care for the child, but rather she's been abandoned. When I do read abortion stories, even when the abortion isn't coerced and chosen, it always other people's reactions and feelings towards the pregnancy that affect the decision.

I don't see abortion as liberating, but rather a cruel loop hole for others to walk away.

John0 Juanderlust said...

Why limit the state's power to the unborn? Think of all the unfertilized eggs begging for life. What about their rights? Certainly that ought not be left to the woman who happens to carry them. That should be the concern of strangers, the state, all of society. I think they need a chance to be born. What the woman thinks be damned. Everyone should choose as I would, by law. It's critical to a free country. And I don't care who the woman is, it is obviously my right and obligation to make it my business. A moral imperative.
I'm sure to some that means I am against an unabridged 2nd amendment right to bear arms, but they would be wrong.

gemma said...

A better law would be to insure there are no more clinics such as Kermit Gosnell ran. He certainly destroyed that back alley story that pervades the abortion discussion.

Renee said...

"Think of all the unfertilized eggs begging for life. What about their rights?"

Think about the millions of sperm cells that never reach the egg? What about that too!

milesswgrc said...

A 3 day waiting period was acceptable for buying a gun, i guess we will see if it ok for an abortion. Turn about is fair play, i can't see any objection if you supported the waiting period on guns.

Phil 3:14 said...

John J;
Think of all the unfertilized eggs begging for life. What about their rights? Certainly that ought not be left to the woman who happens to carry them. That should be the concern of strangers, the state, all of society.

Well you do bring up and interesting issue for discussion. (In spite of your attempted snark)

Phil 3:14 said...

This thread is probably dead but...
as for waiting periods if I might point out a federal regulation that has and continues to be in effect since the '70's. It pertains to federal funding of a sterilization procedure and was meant to prevent "forced sterilization". Key phrase in the permit:

I understand that the operation will not be done until at least thirty days after I sign this form.

Whole form here

Simon said...

peter hoh said...
"Simon, I suspect that the provision most likely to be struck down is the one requiring a visit to an approved pregnancy center. "

Right, section 3(3)(a). But I'm not sure it's bound to be struck down. Casey upheld an informed consent statute which "require[] that at least 24 hours before performing an abortion a physician inform the woman of the nature of the procedure, the health risks of the abortion and of childbirth, and the 'probable gestational age of the unborn child,'" and "of the availability of printed materials published by the State describing the fetus and providing information about medical assistance for childbirth, information about child support from the father, and a list of agencies which provide adoption and other services as alternatives to abortion." 505 U.S., at 881. To be sure, that's a somewhat different statute. In that case, the physician would directly deliver this information, while HB1217 requires a referral to a third party "pregnancy help center." (It's not clear whether the referral must be to a center meeting the criteria of section 5.) Suppose the same information is given either way; can the Constitutionality of the measure really turn on whether that information is delivered by the abortionist or a third party? Stipulating the possibility of circumstances giving rise to an as applied challenge, how does the referral become an undue burden on its face?

Anonymous said...

I'm one of those nutty pro-choicers living in the state of South Dakota.

I believe that the right to an abortion is as fundamental as the right to bear arms.

Current restrictions on abortion are not geared to make the women more informed or better informed, they exist soley to try to browbeat, berate and beat down women for even CONSIDERING exercising their right to choose.

How pro-lifers can legitimately claim that 'life begins at conception' or equate a collection of cells as having equal rights as a full grown adult is mind-boggling to me.

Why should I, a intelligent, full grown woman, endure nine months of pregnancy because somebody else thinks they know better than me?

I'm no baby mill for pro-lifers to control.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 335 of 335   Newer› Newest»