Democrats & Liberals Archives

McCain: I Will Force American Women To Breed

Yesterday, John McCain came out squarely in favor of government-enforced maternity. He told a group in South Carolina that “I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned.” Now, I realize this is a litmus test that Republican Presidential candidates must pass, but I’m squarely with the Democrats on this issue. Outlawing abortion doesn’t reduce abortions; it just drives the process underground.

While Republicans are making senseless -- and probably insincere -- rhetorical gestures on the abortion issue, Democrats are working to actually reduce the number of abortions. Senator Reid, and just about every Democratic Presidential hopeful in the Senate, introduced (again) the Prevention First Act (S.21).

The Prevention First Act is a comprehensive bill that covers access to emergency contraception, compassionate assistance for rape survivors, programs to reduce teen pregnancies with better information and education programs, the expansion of family planning services, and programs to reduce sexually transmitted diseases.

If it becomes law, the bill will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies in the US -- and consequently prevent thousands of abortions. While Republicans are content to sweep the abortion problem under the rug, Democrats are working to make abortion unnecessary.

Posted by American Pundit at February 19, 2007 11:46 PM
Comment #208981

You beat me to the punch, AP.

This is news voters can use. McCain just sealed his fate in ‘08, can’t wait. His idea is simple, no abortion, which overpopulates, but corrected for by elective war which compensates.

I should’a been a Poet!

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 20, 2007 12:06 AM
Comment #208984

Small point, AP. Just because someone wants Roe v Wade overturned doesn’t necessarily mean they want to outlaw abortions.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 20, 2007 12:27 AM
Comment #208988


For what other reasons would one want Roe v Wade overturned?

Posted by: Jarandhel at February 20, 2007 12:51 AM
Comment #208990


There are many people who feel that the decision oversteps the bounds of the federal government in regards to state rights. They claim that there is no mandate in the constitution for the federal government to be involved in this area of our lives.

Their argument is often ignored because of the ‘volitile’ nature of the debate in today’s political environment.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 20, 2007 12:58 AM
Comment #208992
There are many people who feel that the decision oversteps the bounds of the federal government

Sure, but McCain’s not making that argument. He’s posturing for the social fundamentalists.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 20, 2007 1:37 AM
Comment #208996

Your title for this post is quite misleading. No one is “forcing women to breed”. Being against Rove v Wade is not the same as being anti-abortion. What many of us believe is that the original decision is flawed. The decision did overstep the bounds of Federal power by usurping states’ rights.

Also, McCain’s stance on education, family planning faciities,etc, will help reduce the number of abortions by eliminating the underlying cause, unintended pregnancy. I don’t see this as a bad thing. If it can cut down on the number of abortions used as retroactive birth control(most abortions) it will be a good thing.

This stance of McCain’s could help me make up my mind about who to support in ‘08. Although he does carry a lot of baggage that will hurt him, in this case, he is in tune with mainstream America, according to several polls that show a majority of Americans oppose uncontrolled abortion.

Posted by: John Back at February 20, 2007 5:51 AM
Comment #208999


As much as I hate getting involved in abortion threads, there are a few things I have to point out.

First of all, your title is a lie… In fact, it doesn’t even make sense.

While Republicans are content to sweep the abortion problem under the rug…

If you think abortion is a problem, what problem could you have with McCain’s position?

Democrats are working to make abortion unnecessary.

If this is so, why would it matter if Roe was overturned or not? You do realize that overturning Roe does not make abortion illegal, right?

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 20, 2007 7:48 AM
Comment #209002

There are many people who feel that the decision oversteps the bounds of the federal government in regards to state rights.

I remember hearing that argument a lot during the civil rights struggles. Back then, of course, there was a hidden agenda. I believe, with abortion rights, this argument is used the same way.

Posted by: Steve K at February 20, 2007 8:17 AM
Comment #209008


This is off-topic, but I just sent you an email about Singapore. I’m telling you here so that you could fetch the email out of the Spam box if necessary (the subject line is “Singapore? (This is LawnBoy)”.


Posted by: LawnBoy at February 20, 2007 9:24 AM
Comment #209015

If Roe v Wade was repealed tomorrow, nothing would happen the next day. The issue would go to the states, where legislatures would decide what sorts of operations to allow and which to restrict.

I know I am being redudant but …the abortion issue a poison in the American system. Most Americans think abortion is morally wrong, but should not be illegal. This is a highly nuanced, practical and inconsistent view. We have in our great country two groups of weirdoes on this issue. One group believes abortion should be treated like a tooth extraction. The Dems have to kiss their hinders. The other group thinks abortion is murder. The Republicans kowtow to these guys.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2007 9:46 AM
Comment #209017
If Roe v Wade was repealed tomorrow, nothing would happen the next day.

That’s not quite true. There are several states (I can’t find a citation right now) that have laws on the books saying that abortion would be illegal the moment that Roe v Wade is struck down. If you need me to (and I’m still following this thread), I’ll try to find a citation.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 20, 2007 9:51 AM
Comment #209020

I couldn’t let it go. USA Today says that “four states have passed ‘trigger’ bans on abortion that would go into effect immediately if Roe were reversed”.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 20, 2007 10:08 AM
Comment #209021


four states have passed ‘trigger’ bans on abortion that would go into effect immediately if Roe were reversed

Whell, if the “Democrats are working to make abortion unnecessary” this shouldn’t be a problem…

Why perpetuate a divisive issue unnecessarily when there are alternatives? Oh yeah… Votes.

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 20, 2007 10:26 AM
Comment #209028

actually, many good LIBERAL lawyers also say it was a mistake, the supreme court CREATED constitutional law and thus short circuited the national debate we SHOULD have had on what we will allow as a nation and what we wont allow.

If we had this converstation, the 45 million abortion genocide liberals support may not have happened. Something much smaller I hope.

So we also see here the failure of congress to discipline the supreme court as they can if the supreme court violates the constitution and creates laws.

This is an agenda the left has long supported tough, radicalized liberal judgets creating law…it’s a way to get around the will of the people and congress.

Isn’t it time we tossed out this bad law that has created a horrible genocide against our unborn and have a national discussion about this issue? Let the states or the congress do their job and creat a law that our nation agrees on….or in this case create a compromise we can agree on.

For the sake of millions of yet unborn children I think we owe it to them, to the future.

Posted by: Stephen at February 20, 2007 11:04 AM
Comment #209029

The title of this article is terrible and the editors of this site should take it off:

McCain: I Will Force American Women to Breed

The first thing you learn in Journalism 101 is to not put your views into any article appearing to simply report the news. The title, as written, makes it look as if that is a direct quote from the Arizona senator. Were I working on his campaign team I would be contacting this site to demand its removal immediately. The use of the pronoun “I” directly implies that this is a quote. This is in incredibly poor taste and is nothing but sensationalism. A better title for this opinion editorial might be “McCain will force women to breed”. Although untrue, at least it would not directly imply a quote from the presidential candidate.

This would have gotten an “F” in any of my journalism courses. Learn how to write an opinion and come off sounding at least somewhat intelligent.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at February 20, 2007 11:17 AM
Comment #209031


Great article, I agree with every word.

The fact is no Republican can win their parties nomination without the support of the Religious Right which actually seeks to reform American government into a Theocracy. Don’t believe me? Even Chris Shay’s, during the Schiavo debacle, said, “This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy”.

Under this premise, one really look no further than the bible for guidance, “Wives, submit to your own husband as to the lord, For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church”, Ephesians 22-23.

Following are a couple of interesting quotes from ‘The Christian Taliban’ by Stephen Pizzo:

“I would like to outlaw contraception…contraception is disgusting — people using each other for pleasure.” -Joseph Scheidler, Pro-Life Action League

“I don’t think Christians should use birth control. You consummate your marriage as often as you like — and if you have babies, you have babies.” Randall Terry, Operation Rescue

That fairly well explains why “One of George W. Bush’s first acts as president was to issue an executive memorandum reinstating a global abortion “gag rule.” The rule was first implemented under Ronald Reagan but revoked during the two Clinton administrations. The rule prohibited federally funded family planning providers from even discussing abortion with their clients.”

So the issue really extends far beyond abortion. The Religious right actually seeks to eliminate (possibly even criminalize) the use of contraception. Sex has one purpose, and one purpose only: conception! It goes without saying that homosexuals are certainly “up $h!t creek”.

McCain learned in the 2000 election cycle that he could not win without the backing of the Religious Right so he’s not about to make that mistake again. Romney is even more disgusting IMO. He could never have been elected Governor of a “blue state” with his current views on abortion and gay rights.

It all comes down to saying what one must say to gain favor, never mind the potential “collateral damage” ie; womens rights, gay rights, etc. It looks like the ‘08 election cycle is going to be darn interesting.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 20, 2007 11:22 AM
Comment #209032

I’ve rarely seen a person who held a pro-choice or pro-life position change their position “to the other side,” except in the case of politicans conveniently changing their views to fit with their party “requirements.” So does anyone here really expect that there is a rational reason to argue/debate the sides? I expect no matter what factual evidence, anectdotes, statistics, moral interpretations, etc. are posted here, not a single person reading will say, “Interesting, I’m changing my mind on the topic.”

To me, it’s like a debate between a priest and a rabbi trying to convert the other to their side.

If we hypothetically think about Roe v. Wade being overturned, and abortions are immediately outlawed in America, does anyone really think that then there will be no abortions, or even significantly less?

There will be abortions, just illegal abortions, or more trips to Canada (or pro-choice states?), an option available to the more well to do women. And what will happen when abortion is illegal? Will they be less safe? Will we imprison the women who get them (if there is any way to catch them)? Will we imprison the abortionist (if there is any way to catch them)? Will those illegally aborted fetuses come back to life? I’m not really sure what changes.

What is the expected result? Just curious. It always seems to me that this is an emotional issue, the Roe v. Wade decision, and in the end, regardless of what the courts/legislatures/voters determine, little will change. Women not wanting to have a baby will find a way not to have a baby, either through an illegal or foreign provider, or self-induced. The Supreme Court didn’t invent abortions in 1973, there were about the same number of abortions, illegally in 1972, as there are, legally, today.

Without judgement regarding whether or not abortion is “murder” or a “tooth extraction” (see previous post), does anyone see anything changing if the law is changed, in terms of the number of abortions?

I’m not commenting on whether abortion is good or bad, so the intent here is not to invoke hate posts that “a woman’s choice is important” or “a baby is important,” but in the end, I can’t help but believe that the debate over the case of Roe v. Wade, the case, is much ado about nothing. It’s the focus of the issue, but however it’s resolved, will anything really change?

Posted by: Boomer at February 20, 2007 11:24 AM
Comment #209033

Is anyone else besides me getting the impression that McCain doesn’t actually want to be the president? He’s been supporting Bush’s escalation of the Iraq War against the will of a clear majority of the American people, he’s been very visably sucking up to the radical rightwing Christians, now he goes out of his way to make it perfectly clear that he’s not interested in getting the Women’s vote…
Makes me wonder if the RNC hasn’t already told him that he doesn’t stand a chance of winning the nomination?

Posted by: Adrienne at February 20, 2007 11:25 AM
Comment #209034

You are correct. The title was dishonest and designed to inflame. It’s board trolling and flaming.

There is room for compromise on this issue. We need a national discussion in congress where compromise would be reached. For those of us who view this as a 45 million person genocide, anything that limits the slaughter of the unborn is a good compromise.

Yes, I feel that it’s murder, it’s genocide. It’s sick. But I feel we can compromise and create good law in congress instead of allowing the left or the right to take over our nation illegaly using judges to create laws, something they have no legal right to do.

Posted by: Stephen at February 20, 2007 11:29 AM
Comment #209036

Doug Langworthy,

Perhaps you failed to read the Watchblog “intro-line”:

“Political News, Opinion, and Commentary”

AP’s article is clearly an opinion peice. The last time I looked this was still a democracy and AP has every right to express his opinion, no?

BTW, you don’t happen to teach journalism in Kansas do you?

Posted by: KansasDem at February 20, 2007 11:33 AM
Comment #209038


I propose that all male children be required to undergo a vasectomy by the age of 14. They are after all totally reversible now.

Said males will not be allowed to have a reversal done until they have achieved emotional and economic maturity. Of course they’ll also have to be married.

Just think…… more unwanted pregnancy! We could almost entirely eliminate the need for welfare, food stamps, etc.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 20, 2007 11:47 AM
Comment #209039


Your desire to inflame and attack as opposed to discussing the issues is understandable.

My position remains the same. I am opposed to the Supreme court abusing it’s constitutional authority and creating law. I want my nations laws to be created in congress as the founders of our nation intended.

In my opinion the 45 million abortions we have seen is in fact a genocide launched against the unborn. 45 million dead, no one ever intended that to happen. The framers of our nation NEVER would have approved ripping children out of a womans womb and killing them. To pretend that is so is just plain dihonest and silly.

This issue should be debated in congress and settled legaly by our nations very fine system of law. When the supreme court overstepped it’s bounds congress should have stood up to it’s constitutional obligations and disciplined those in the supreme court who violated our legal system.

So there are many problems and issues here. I can see how flaming, trolling, and enraging others is preferable to you over an honest discussion of issues.

Posted by: stephen L at February 20, 2007 11:59 AM
Comment #209040

Are “stephen L” and “Stephen” the same?

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 20, 2007 12:02 PM
Comment #209042

Kansas Dem… Yes… you are TOTALLY right… I TOTALLY meant to say that the author doesn’t have the right to his opinion… right on the money!

No… I was simply stating that the intro line was mis-leading for an opinion piece… I actually happen to agree with the author on his main point, more or less. But making it look as if McCain actually said that is irrensponsible… also, you obviously did not read my entire post as I did mention a better intro for the poorly written piece that would not imply a direct quote.

And no… I’ve never been to Kansas… ;-)

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at February 20, 2007 12:08 PM
Comment #209047

Stephen L.,

So my choice of words is “flaming” and words such as “ripping children out of a womans womb and killing them” are not?

Abortion is one of the most emotional political issues in existence, as it well should be. While my “proposal” is ridiculous my point is to show how strongly opposed we (collectively) are to controlling the function of a mans body while still finding it acceptable, and even moral to control a womans body.

Women do still die in childbirth. When forced to seek “back-alley” abortions women die from blood loss and infection. South Dakotas most recent attempt at outlawing abortion would not even allow abortions in the case of a womans health being in danger, nor even in the case of rape or incest.

Medical knowledge has changed since Roe v. Wade. It is time for some really common sense changes. The key words are “common sense”. The non-scrip availability of Plan “B” was held up for years by the Religious Right. How many abortions could have been avoided had Plan “B” been available?

My intent is not to “flame”. I can’t help it if you percieve it as such.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 20, 2007 12:31 PM
Comment #209049
David R. Remer wrote: This is news voters can use. McCain just sealed his fate in ‘08, can’t wait. His idea is simple, no abortion, which overpopulates, but corrected for by elective war which compensates. I should’a been a Poet!
Good one!

Criminalizing abortion is not the solution.

Eliminating the reasons women feel it is necessary is the solution. But that requires time, money, work, and compassion. Something some think they can avoid by the mere passing of a law.

Yes, John McCain just sealed his fate.
That will not help him get elected.

John McCain also voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security (May 2006) … along with these other 50 politicians.

Some politicians want votes, some want cheap labor, and some want to use massive immigration to solve the looming shortfalls in Social Security, which is their logic for voting for allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.

However, I don’t see how importing the less educated and impoverished by the tens of millions will solve anything … it will only make things worse. Just ask CHINA and INDIA !

I don’t understand all the people that want to grow the population at all costs, as if we’re in some sort of population race.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2007 12:32 PM
Comment #209051

If Roe is overturned, some states will outlaw abortion immediately, some will follow soon after and some states will make abortion legal. In one state it may be legal and in the state right next to it may give a woman a 10 sentence. If a woman were to cross the state line and have an abortion, she may get 10 years in prison when she goes home. This is what I have against states rights. She is a citizen of the United States of America. I live in Ohio, but I don’t consider myself a citizen of Ohio, I am a citizen of the United States.

Posted by: jlw at February 20, 2007 12:44 PM
Comment #209052


The loss of women in back alley abortions in the US never approached the horrific 45 million abortion genocide the left has waged on our unborn.

If you want to compare numbers of dead….the 45 million dead children have your number beat. Millions upon millions dead. Their blood on YOUR hands because you support thier death.

My point remains, I want my laws made by congress, not a run away supreme court. Had the supreme court rulled that abortion was not a right given to us by the framers of the constitution you would have demanded that congress deal with the issue. But since the supreme court screwed up in your favor, you support it all the way.

I am not willing to let my freedoms and my protections be taken away from me by a supreme court that sets itself up to create law. It has no such power and it’s time for congress to take back it’s power and perform as it was intended by the founders to perform.

Yes, I bleive ripping a child from the Womb and killing it is wrong. It’s murder. 45 million dead is a silent genocide. A genocide the left wing of america will support at all costs.

I say, let this nation have it’s debate in congress, let this nation find a compromise in congress. There is room for compromise. Those that view the 45 million abortions as success wont like that compromise, those of us that view 45 million murders as murder wont particularly like it. But a compromise it would be and lives would be saved, far more than would be “lost”.

The lives of the mother was always a red herring. 45 million dead babies. 45 million unborn SLAIN. That number is larger than any number you have and it’s a horrible horrible number.

It’s time for this nation to clean up after the mess our supreme court made when it VIOLATED the law. It’s time for our congress to debate this issue and settle it.

Posted by: Stephen at February 20, 2007 12:45 PM
Comment #209054

Doug Langworthy,


I rather like AP’s choice of words though. “Sensationalism” sells and it’s at least as PC as much of the MSM’s mangling of political statements.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 20, 2007 12:52 PM
Comment #209056


Actually, there’s a fairly simple constitutional argument for Roe v Wade. Constitutionally, you are a citizen at birth. Thus, the mother is a citizen. The fetus, child, call it what you will, is not. Period. The government, state or federal, has no compelling interest in forcing one of its citizens to bring a potential new citizen to term, particularly when human biology itself causes approximately 50 percent of all blastocysts to not implant, resulting in spontaneous abortions with no aid from outside agents. Granting the unborn rights from the moment of fertilization would require trying to force a woman to save every one of these potential children, possibly to the point of requring that special fertility medication be taken to aid in implantation. Not to mention the invasive measures that would be necessary to determine, from the moment of conception, whether or not a woman was pregnant in order for governmental protections for the child to spring into action. That all would be removing her basic rights without due process of law, and turning her into little more than an incubator in the eyes of the law for the length of her pregnancy. Roe v Wade rules against that based on a supposed right of privacy, perhaps more accurately named a right of autonomy with respect to one’s person and property. The constitutional basis for it is quite clear, and is easily logically derived from such freedoms as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to worship, freedom of association, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Moreover, the constitution itself admits in the 9th amendment that there may be Rights which exist, and are retained by the people, which it has failed to enumerate.

Posted by: Jarandhel at February 20, 2007 12:54 PM
Comment #209057
Stephen wrote: KansasDem, … Their blood is on YOUR hands because you support thier death.
Nonsense. Just because someone is against criminalizing women, does not mean they support abortion. It is a sad thing, but those that really care should work on solutions that really work, rather than hypocritically thinking a law will fix everything. Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2007 1:02 PM
Comment #209058

I belive murder is a criminal act. I’m not sure why you don’t.

see, we can both play that game.

Lets let congress write our laws and force the surpreme court to function as they were meant to.

45 millinon babies butchered in the’s a genocide. It’s time for congress to have a debate and pass a law.

Posted by: Stephen at February 20, 2007 1:09 PM
Comment #209067

Stephen keeps talking about compromise on the issue, even though his rhetoric implies otherwise. Let’s see…

I don’t usually comment on policy itself, but let me throw something out there and see which attack dogs from both the facist right and commie left (lighten up guys, I’m half joking) weigh in. Our nation, after all, was founded upon Stephen’s stated idea of compromise…

What if the scientific community were able to agree upon a GENERAL timeframe within the womb when the average baby/fetus could survive outside of the womb? Of course no baby, not even a full term one, can survive completely outside of the womb on its own as it needs nourishment and warmth from a mother-like figure, so don’t twist my words and say I am saying babies can be born and thrown to the wild to survive on their own… but, premature babies are placed in devices that help them survive outside of the mother’s womb, up to a point… If a baby is born TOO prematurely, there is not much we can do… so… if there was a point where the reasonable scientific community can agree that, were a baby to be born at that point on, it could survive, with help, outside of the womb.

I’m no doctor, but it seems that the end of the second trimester is that point, give or take a few weeks. By the end of the second trimester any reasonable woman has had ample opportunity to weigh whether or not she wants the pregnacy, and thus, the baby (at this point I am calling it a “baby” because of my ‘survive outside of the womb’ test). No one, pro-life or pro-choice, would ever argue that kiiling a premature baby at the hospital is within the rights of the mother… I personally see no difference if that baby is still in the womb. On the other hand, a fetus (at this point I am calling it a “fetus” because it could not survive outside of the womb) is not yet a “baby” and could therefore be aborted without legal (if not moral) ramifications.

And please don’t come at me with the “slippery slope” argument, saying that if we outlaw so-called partial-birth abortions that it paves the way for all abortions to be outlawed, because I do not believe that should be the case. To me it is simple, when the baby can survive outside of the womb it should be considered a baby. When the fetus can not, it shouldn’t be.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at February 20, 2007 1:41 PM
Comment #209070


Excellent analysis. Truly brilliant.

CNN has been running coverage of a 21 or 22 week old premature baby and I found it interesting and pertinent that if a baby is born very prematurely and it doesn’t begin breathing it is the parents choice whether or not to attempt recussitation or to implement other “heroic” measures.

Gee whiz, whats that word? Oh yeah, CHOICE!

I want less women to choose abortion.
I want less women to even have to make that decision.

Reasonable limits are just that, reasonable! Given the best medical knowledge available today I think it’s reasonable to limit “choice” to the first 20 weeks with “reasonable” exceptions. (key words: I think)

Legislating the definition of “reasonable” ought to be fun. Almost certainly the definition of viability has changed since Roe v. Wade.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 20, 2007 1:58 PM
Comment #209074


Very well worded. I almost totally agree with you. I do believe that there are very limited “exceptions”, one such exception almost unarguably being if continuing a pregnancy even beyond viability threatened the potential mothers life.

Other exceptions may include a threat to the womans health………how great of a threat need that be? That gets to be a “slippery slope” issue but it’s an issue none the less.

Another might be the rare occassion where a young girl is the victim of incest or abuse and has essentially been held captive beyond the prescribed point of viability. That’s a tough one!

Again, your commentary is excellent, just what I’d expect from a Professor in the journalistic arts:-/

PS: I know I get an F in comprehension and especially grammar.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 20, 2007 2:19 PM
Comment #209077

I refuse to get in to a major debate with you regarding abortion. I find however, that I must ask a couple of questions. How many of “the 45 million” mothers have you actually talked too?

And more importantly, how many babies have you adopted to help avoid a choice like abortion.

Until you can answer both these questions with facts, I don’t think you really have a leg to stand on.

(BTW- my own mother died as a result of an illegal abortion - I am most in favor of having the procedure legalized. I GREW UP WITHOUT HER. So please realize I speak for a very personal view.)

Posted by: Linda H. at February 20, 2007 2:53 PM
Comment #209086

Linda, I’d like to know where he got that 45 million number.

The loss of women in back alley abortions in the US never approached the horrific 45 million abortion

Because no records were ever kept of those women’s deaths. It was illegal. Duh. Remember, women didn’t just have the fetus ripped out with coat hangers, other popular self-abortion techniques included poison, falling down the stairs and just plain suicide. None of the resulting deaths would have been recorded as an abortion attemt.

No, I think things are much better for women now.

Whell, if the “Democrats are working to make abortion unnecessary” this shouldn’t be a problem…

Except that the obstructionist Republicans are… um… obstructing these measures.

Here’s what I don’t understand: Repulicans kick and scream about abortion as if it’s the most important issue facing our nation, but they won’t put any money or resources into programs that are proven to reduce the number of abortions. They just want to outlaw it and then pretend that’s the end of it — and they heven’t even done that despite being in the majority for over a decade.

It appears that Republicans just like abortion as an issue. Can you imagine the damage to the GOP if no woman ever needed an abortion? They’d have no platform on which to run. They’d have to disband as a political party.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 20, 2007 4:19 PM
Comment #209089

KansasDem and American Pundit,

You both are all doing a great job supporting Women’s Rights on this issue. I for one really appreciate it. It is difficult subject for me to discuss, because as I said I tend to take it very personally.

I am curious as to Stephen’s reply to my questions.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 20, 2007 4:33 PM
Comment #209119

I to would like to see Roe V Wade overturned. I to think abortion should be left to the voters and laws pertaining to it be made through congress and each individual state, not by some judge or group of judges. It’s time in this country that we go by what the majority of the people want not just what the ridiculous right or left want. If a state bans abortion so be it, if it is legalized in certain instinses so be it to.

Posted by: KAP at February 20, 2007 10:00 PM
Comment #209130

When the Supreme Court legalized abortion it made law itself. Congress needs to pass a law, or better, a constitutional amendment, stating limits for abortion restrictions. While I personally believe abortion is wrong, most Americans think it should be legal. Thus, the people have spoken and abortion should be legal. (within limits supported by voters) It is the responsibility of those dissenting from popular opinion to sway said opinion to their own views by rational argument, not hate-mongering.

Congress by not really doing anything about the issue and forcing the Courts to overstep their bounds in the abscence of Congressional responsibility allows abortion to unnecessarily divide our nation. A national law or constitutional amendment outlining what restrictions states may place on abortion and what they may not is in order. As long as Congress uses abortion as a wedge issue to get votes while not doing anything, thus prolonging the problem, allowing them to get more votes. This is a heinous diservice to the people.

Stephen-What do you think about the ~655,000 Iraqis who have been unnecessarily killed due to the war? ~50,000 were under the age of 15. Or how about the ~17,000 children who die EVERY DAY because of preventable causes. I don’t like abortion, but I know where my priorities are.

Posted by: Silima at February 21, 2007 1:52 AM
Comment #209132

Do you really want young mothers crossing state lines, for their medical care, and say oh - go home and start hemorrhaging and then having to return back across stat lines for treatment?

How long do you honestly believe any state can afford to offer free abortions or cut the cost of an abortion when women from every state around are crowning at it’s doors.

How long do you believe that poorer women will wait before finding the back-alley abortionist? Remember, the poorer a person is the less likely they are to have the money to travel else where. Rich women, who rarely find the need for an abortion, if for no other reason than wealth, will not absorb the cost.

What little health insurance available most likely will exempt those desiring an abortion.

So then we will have several problems to deal with.

1. Children who have survived, now mangled from the attempt of illegal abortion.

2. More unwanted babies being born by adult SINGLE women who know how to care for them, but either can’t (money) or simply don’t want to.

3. More legal cases and chases hunting down “dead-beat’ DADS. This of course will cost the tax payers more into to hire the people needed for enforcement. (of course this could add to the payroll - so maybe)

4. More children being raised by single parents - who even the great ones, find they have little influence on keeping their teenagers from joining gangs and the like. (Let’s hire more law enforcement personal too)

5. More children being raised in basically UNFIT homes - there they learn to be killers, burglars, rapist and the like.

6. More children growing up feeling abandoned, unwanted, and uncared for.


I know all about the ideas surrounding sex education, both from the parental point of view as well as the Schools’ point of view. I have taught sex education in our public school systems. Mostly High School levels, but also in the lower grades.

Until the parents actually get behind the teaching of sex ed, very little will change.

This article from the TIMES ONLINE UK edition makes my last point.

Almost one third of adults believe that jumping up and down after sex stops a woman getting pregnant, according to a poll that has uncovered alarming ignorance about the facts of life.

The survey, conducted by Gfk NOP for the Family Planning Association, also found that 50 per cent of adults failed accurately to identify a woman’s most fertile time of the month, or knew that sperm could live inside the body for seven days.
Posted by: Linda H. at February 21, 2007 2:32 AM
Comment #209153

“The framers of our nation NEVER would have approved ripping children out of a womans womb and killing them. To pretend that is so is just plain dihonest and silly.”

What is truly silly and dishonest is to assume that the framers wouldn’t have approved of the ability for a woman to get a medically safe abortion if that is what she and her partner chose to do.
After all, these men weren’t religious fanatics. They believed that this was a free country, and that scientific and medical progress was a good thing. In their day, an enormous number of women died giving birth — often after giving birth to many children, since there was no such thing as birth control back then. So, in my opinion the framers would have likely approved of birth control and safe abortions. They also would have been likely to see that medical developments like Plan B were an even better means for women to avoid having to even consider getting an abortion.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 21, 2007 11:05 AM
Comment #209159

The problem with the issue of abortion is that we have not as a civil society been able to have a civil conversation about the issue. The supreme court took this issue out of the publics hands, when it should have just allowed the natural course of democracy in the developed world. The reality is that abortion is a difficult issue, that goes beyond just the pro-life/pro-choice camps. These two sides battle it out, and both have good intentions. Demonizing eachother only makes the discussion more impossible to resolve. The supreme court has not allowed the civil conversation to occur. One that would include rationalist and the scientifically minded who know that a fetus as young as 5 months can survive and thrive with the advent of modern science. You dont have to be a “religious nut” to think that if a child can live outside the woumb, then it is a life. On the other side of the coin women should have choice and a degree of control over their bodies (as their are boundaries to anything, we have rights to do as we please, but not if they infringe on the rights of others). The reality is that in the US we have a more liberal law than tha t bastion of secularists France (they allow abortion up to 10 weeks)! Allowing a reasoned debate to occur would not make the battle camps happy becuase they have created an industry of division on this issue, if it were to be resolved to appease the majority of americans, than these people would be out of business. For example if we limited abortion to 8 weeks, and after that if the health or life of the mother were in danger (yes its not perfect, but we have to trust doctors and rely on the medical field to police itself). When it comes to parental notification, well that seems to be rather logical, if a parent or guardian has to sign off off on every other surgery/medical proceedure, why is abortion any differnt? Of course, there will be exceptions that can be ajudicated throught the courts. It is time that the abortion debate, begin in earnest so that it wont remain a bright deviding line that devides people for no reason other than we can not have a debate.

Posted by: MikeD at February 21, 2007 11:48 AM
Comment #209175
Can you imagine the damage to the GOP if no woman ever needed an abortion? They’d have no platform on which to run. They’d have to disband as a political party.Posted by: American Pundit at February 20, 2007 04:19 PM
They’d still have the gays. And after them the Muslims. And after them the Mexicans. And after them they will still never run out of others to hate. Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 21, 2007 12:46 PM
Comment #209177

It’s such a matter of wanting control. Control over other people’s bodies, lives. The Supreme Court took control away.

If those who oppose abortion enough to feel the need of a law would get out and educate, support and take care of the women who might choose abortion this wouldn’t be an issue. Instead they want to control women. It’s an age-old male thing, that some women through religious teaching have bought into.

Posted by: womanmarine at February 21, 2007 12:58 PM
Comment #209198

Linda H.
I still say that the abortion issue should be left up to the states. Abortions in this country have gone down, I can’t remember where I heard it, maybe due to medical science advances in contraception devices or women choseing to have their children. The majority of people in this country do think that either abortions should be band or very limited. The idea that a judge or a group of judges making laws concerning anything is NOT DEMOCRACY.

Posted by: KAP at February 21, 2007 4:13 PM
Comment #209216

With modern birth-control methods (both pre and post-conception), abortion is obsolete. There is no reason to keep it legal when there are easier and safer methods of birth control.

Posted by: Mark at February 21, 2007 6:35 PM
Comment #209239

Just tell that to all the teenagers, uneducated women and MEN,and Women in the UK (see above post)who don’t know about all these conceptive devices. Better yet, tell them how to use them.

If, as KAP says, the abortion rate is really going down, then the surgery will become unnecessary as time goes on anyway.

Normally I would agree with you re: judges making law. However, this has been the law for 30+ years, so I hesitate to try to change it now.

I don’t even want to imagine what our country would be like if the States were to take up the issue. Most states still argue about who has transportation right-of-ways, water rights, trash rights,and even state borders. As a matter of fact NC and SC have argued for years about who has the right to claim the late President Polk as a descendant!

I would hate to try to put this issue on their plate - I doubt they could handle it either.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 21, 2007 9:37 PM
Comment #209251

I think everyone ought to go READ the decision like I just did. It made perfect sense to me.

Posted by: womanmarine at February 21, 2007 10:47 PM
Comment #209252

Whoops, here’s a link:

Row v. Wade


Posted by: womanmarine at February 21, 2007 10:49 PM
Comment #209261

“I to think abortion should be left to the voters and laws pertaining to it be made through congress and each individual state, not by some judge or group of judges.”


What shape do you suppose the USA would be in now if we’d followed that principle?

Civil rights is a perfect example. If it had been left up to the states we’d almost undoubtedly have faced a second civil war by now.

Concerning “Roe v. Wade” no one need look much further than South Dakota. An extremely restrictive abortion bill was passed thru the South Dakota congress and signed into law by the Governor but then overturned by a state court. Before it could get to the US Supreme Court the measure was put up for a public vote in South Dakota and it FAILED!

That entire scenario is a perfect example of our courts stopping our elected officials from attaining authoritarian rule. The public sided with the court!

While that might not always be the case, the courts stand to protect the rights of the minorities, not just to enforce the position of the powerful. Our founding fathers were sharply divided on the protection of the rights of individuals. So much so that not all those involved in the drafting of our Constitution agreed to sign the final draft.

Roe v. Wade has much more to do with a womans rights than it does with abortion. That’s why I always throw out that “vasectomy” line. Very few of us would subject our sons to such a procedure, but we’re gung-ho about controlling womens bodies.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 21, 2007 11:48 PM
Comment #209263


Very few bother to read or understand the court order. Most of those who seek to overturn Roe v. Wade also want to limit access to condoms and all forms of birth control.

It’s all a Theocratic Dominionism thing. McCain know’s it now. No one can win the Republican primary without the Religious Right. Whether intentional or not anyone that votes republican is voting for Theocracy. One might call it the Americanization of Calvinism: capitalism and dominionism make good bed-fellows.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 22, 2007 12:02 AM
Comment #209265

“Instead they want to control women. It’s an age-old male thing, that some women through religious teaching have bought into.”

Couldn’t agree more, womanmarine.
And good on you for putting up a link to Roe v. Wade. Everyone should read it.

Kansas Dem:
“Roe v. Wade has much more to do with a womans rights than it does with abortion.”

Absolutely true! :^x

Posted by: Adrienne at February 22, 2007 12:07 AM
Comment #209272

I found it very interesting. I had some basic familiarity with it, but the historical, medical and legal research they put into it was impressive. I think way too much of the decision is misunderstood.

Posted by: womanmarine at February 22, 2007 12:34 AM
Comment #209301

Despite the myth promoted by many (see Stephen L above), the framers were well aware of the practice of abortion. It was often practiced and accepted in colonial times. To protect women’s lives because of medically unsafe practices, abortion started to become outlawed in the mid-1800s.

This is simply fact, making the “framer’s didn’t know” argument moot.

Posted by: Boomer at February 22, 2007 12:19 PM
Comment #209310

Thank you for the link. I too, think everyone should read it.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 22, 2007 2:03 PM
Comment #209320

Since the decision is so long, here is the crux:

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy, and other interests involved, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.
Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a “compelling” point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term. Pp. 147-164.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

By the way, expect to see a lot of noise around 3(c) and the concept of viability…

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 22, 2007 3:48 PM
Comment #209324


That’s the thing. States CAN make their own abortion laws within those guidelines, if I am understanding the decision. The problem is that the states want ALL control.

Posted by: womanmarine at February 22, 2007 4:08 PM
Comment #209431


The antichoice contingent are opposed to abortion. Period. They try to make every argument possible, which to date have been held universally invalid outside their paradigm.
I don’t think it’s that the states want “ALL control”, it’s that the antichoice people want to invalidate the right to privacy and due process element of the decision, which would override the decision. The same is true for thier other arguments. BTW, “states rights” is an awful term that was used to justify southern apartheid and numerous other crimes in our past.
Right now, with the baby that lived as a 5 mo preemie, I think we’ll see the viability argument in 3(c) take center stage for awhile.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 23, 2007 1:02 PM
Comment #209455

GW: ask the women how well that’s working.

Posted by: womanmarine at February 23, 2007 4:04 PM
Comment #209710
We have in our great country two groups of weirdoes on this issue. One group believes abortion should be treated like a tooth extraction. The Dems have to kiss their hinders. The other group thinks abortion is murder. The Republicans kowtow to these guys.

Yeah thats a pretty narrowminded view of an issue that is all but black and white. There is such an underlying complex view that could never be boiled down to the issue just being complete murder or complete apathy. I for one believe in Abortion up to the point, It should never exceed the first trimester and it should never be performed as a means of retroactive birth control. On this very subject there always seems to be that gray argument as to when a fetus is a full functional human being and when should it be considered murder. Alot of people mainly in the Conservative camp believes that it starts when the sperm enters the egg, they complain that it is morally wrong cause you are killing a concious baby. I personally dont think its a baby until after the first trimester. If Conseravatives think that this type of abortion is murder then we might as well consider making masterbation illegal. Then again there is a considerably strong left who think they are entitled that right to choose if they want an abortion or not. These tend to be the people who are more concerned for their own well being and would use it as a means of birth control. While I agree that yes alot of people use the later argument to freely wield that option. I believe moderate conservatives and moderate liberals, ones who do not suscribe to extreme points of views believe that abortion is needed is some instances that we could never anticipate and is far beyond our control i.e. Rape, Molestation, and the Endangerment of a Mothers life. I believe this is a womans issue, and should not be a longstanding battle between clergymen and politicians. Until they themselves find their daughters, mothers, or sisters in the similar perdicament this issue should be treated more than something that a coin toss could ever decide.

Posted by: Eric Guerrero at February 26, 2007 1:15 AM
Post a comment