Democrats & Liberals Archives

Obsessed with Abortion

Since the “shellacking” during the Midterm Elections, we are seeing a proliferation of abortion-based bills on both the federal and state levels.

Across America, voters voiced their frustration with the state of economy during the Midterm Elections. This resulted in Democrats losing the majority in the House, and the election of GOP governors.

According to GovTrak, 28 bills pertaining to abortion have been introduced in the 112th Congress. The most notable was H.R. 3 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act The name of this bill is interesting as federal funding for abortion is already prohibited by the Hyde Amendment. H.R. 3 passed on May 4, 2011. For those of us who are pro-choice, we hope the bill does not pass the Senate.

Anti-choice legislation has exploded in many states. In April, the Guttmacher Institute reported, "Through March 31, legislators introduced 916 measures related to reproductive health and rights in the 49 state legislatures that had convened their regular session."

I don't understand this obsession with abortion. The concern about the economy and jobs are why these GOP legislators and governors were elected. Are they attempting to overturn Roe v. Wade? With all this abortion legislation, it looks like that is the ultimate goal.

One of the most intrusive abortion laws passed in Texas makes a pregnant woman have a sonogram beforehand. She would also have to wait 24 hours to have the abortion. If she lives more than 100 miles from an abortion provider, she only has to wait 2 hours. She doesn't have to look at the sonogram or hear the heartbeat, but the doctor has to describe the image to her.

I guess the TX legislature doesn't care that a sonogram requires a vaginal probe for early stages of pregnancy. Apparently, the same legislators who believe the government is too big and overreaches make the exception when it comes to a woman's uterus.

Abortion became legal in 1973. In 2011, the government is throwing road blocks for women seeking safe and legal abortions. Danielle Deaver in Nebraska tried to obtain an abortion after she was told that the baby would not likely survive outside the womb. Her water broke unexpectedly during her 22nd week. Because abortion after 20 weeks is prohibited, she had to wait and give birth a week later. The baby tried to take one breath and died. She had to watch that.

Thanks to laws like this one, I'm sure hers won't be the last tragic story we'll hear. This type of utter disregard for the woman's feelings and health is cruel and dangerous. I hope we're not headed down the road where a woman's decision about her body is no longer between her and her doctor.

If anti-choice legislators put as much effort into women as they do fetuses, maybe contraception and education would reduce the number of abortions. Hillary Clinton made a statement that many supporters of choice, including myself, share. "Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare." This won't be achieved on the road we're on now.

Posted by Spinny Liberal at May 31, 2011 11:45 AM
Comments
Comment #323736

ABORTIONS SHOULD BE SAFE, LEGAL, AND RARE, catch word here is RARE. Although abortions are on the decline they are far from rare. When it gets to the point that it is no longer a form of birth control for some, and I am refering to women who have had numerous abortions then it can be said abortions are RARE and only happen when the mothers life is in danger or in the example you stated.

Posted by: KAP at May 31, 2011 5:54 PM
Comment #323742

The goal is definitely “rare.” Women who use abortion as birth control piss me off to no end. Contraceptives are cheap (definitely cheaper than an abortion) and effective. Preventing pregnancy is far from hard anymore.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at May 31, 2011 6:18 PM
Comment #323745

Spinny, Agree wholeheartedly!!!

Posted by: KAP at May 31, 2011 7:26 PM
Comment #323749

I don’t want to agree too much, but I think we agree.

Abortion is a serious issue. When C was pregnant with our first child, one of her sisters also got pregnant about the same time. She was in a steady relationship, but she thought the baby would be a burden. We disagreed about the decision. She told us that it was nothing much. Our daughter was born alive; hers was aborted. Twenty years later, she and her boyfriend (still the same one) wanted a child but it was too late.

I am not saying that there are no reasons for abortion. I would advocate it for severely handicapped or genetic anomalies.

Posted by: C&J at May 31, 2011 8:20 PM
Comment #323776

I don’t think were even allowed to say the word eugenics but I wish we could sterilize woman and men who have no potential for ever functioning at a parental level in society. Their oh so precious babies quickly become criminals. You can call me Hitler or whatever but what I’m advocating is reducing horrific murders of a few of our most promising kids and I won’t apologize for it.

Posted by: Schwamp at June 1, 2011 12:05 PM
Comment #323782

“Danielle Deaver in Nebraska tried to obtain an abortion after she was told that the baby would not likely survive outside the womb. Her water broke unexpectedly during her 22nd week. Because abortion after 20 weeks is prohibited, she had to wait and give birth a week later. The baby tried to take one breath and died. She had to watch that.”

It is certainly horrible to watch your baby die a natural death. It is also more horrible to have the abortionist kill it, because that is murder.

Posted by: tom humes at June 1, 2011 2:45 PM
Comment #323788

spinney

“I guess the TX legislature doesn’t care that a sonogram requires a vaginal probe for early stages of pregnancy.”

as opposed to the abortion itself which involves forcfully removing a living human being from the same area. i find abortion horrendous, but wouldn’t make it illegal in all cases. this should be left up to the individual states, seeing as it is legal on the federal level, but not a constitutional right. the guarantee of life liberty and the persuit of happiness does not include the right to end the life of an unborn human being.

Posted by: dbs at June 1, 2011 3:52 PM
Comment #323791

@Schwamp - I’m sure there are people who would agree with you. To be honest, there are some people I wish were sterilized - like that Octomom. It stops at wishing though because mandatory sterilization a dangerous road. Who makes the decision who gets sterilized? And why is one person sterilized, but not another (assuming same circumstances)?

@tom humes - because you believe it is murder, it’s OK for her to go through that? Would you make another mother go through that? Or wait until the baby dies on its own inside her?

@dbs - I have to side with the woman and the government forcing a medical procedure on her gives the them way too much power. She has the final say because it is her body. Without her, it couldn’t develop.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at June 1, 2011 4:39 PM
Comment #323792
Apparently, the same legislators who believe the government is too big and overreaches make the exception when it comes to a woman’s uterus.
This isn’t an exception, it’s the rule. Intervention into people’s lives at the expense of liberty is standard operating procedure for conservatism.

Once again, the true supporters of big government rear their ugly heads.

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 1, 2011 4:53 PM
Comment #323795

dbs stated: “….seeing as it is legal on the federal level, but not a constitutional right.”

I guess that is your opinion but certainly not that of the US Supreme Court under Roe v. Wade.

Posted by: Rich at June 1, 2011 5:47 PM
Comment #323802

Warped

I stated my opinion on abortion.

But I do not think it fair to claim that abortion opponents do it just to intervene in other people’s choices. They believe that we are talking about a baby. We do not allow a parent to murder a 3 month old infant because she has become an inconvenience. We do not have that rule to interfere in the mother’s life, but rather to protect the baby’s.

Schwamp & Warped

I also mentioned that I believe it would be a positive good to have an abortion if you were sure the baby was significantly handicapped mentally or physically. You would be surprised at the people who detest that idea. Many of the same people who support abortion on demand feel morally outraged by the idea that you would abort a mentally retarded (or whatever the word is these days) baby.

And some of these same people also feel it is morally outrageous that the Chinese and Indians practice gender selection. I also think this is a bad idea, but if you believe in abortion on demand, you have already conceded this point. This shows how complex the issue can be.

Posted by: C&J at June 1, 2011 8:38 PM
Comment #323804
But I do not think it fair to claim that abortion opponents do it just to intervene in other people’s choices. They believe that we are talking about a baby.

How is this any different than the Marxist who uses government interference to “save lives”?

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 1, 2011 9:57 PM
Comment #323806

Warped

I am not saying that I agree with them. But if you define it as a baby, you cannot just stand by and allow the murder. I am just explaining the point of view.

Re Marxists - Marxist systems are massive life takers and misery makers. You are right that some benighted people actually believed it would eventually work out. They were mistaken, but dangerous. That is why they had to be defeated. Do you feel that way about abortion opponents?

Posted by: C&J at June 1, 2011 10:04 PM
Comment #323808

Most pro-abortion people claim the rights of the mother, or that the unwanted child will be abused, and on and on the excuses for abortion. But, nowhere are the rights of the baby brought into the pix. The defenseless baby having its life taken without any representation of its rights. You can argue all you want about what to call the baby, but it has a heartbeat well before most decisions to abort are made. It can feel pain likewise. So whatever ones pleasure is to call the baby it is still a baby with life. And to snuff it out is murder.

Since it is believed that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land then frankly, a post natal termination might be in order on specific adults just because they have no moral code than death. I am speaking of drug cartel members for example, or terrorists. There can be others.

My belief is that the Supreme Court made and error when it ruled the way it did in Roe v. Wade. That was a states rights issue not a US Constitution issue. But the supremes have made mistakes before and that opens a door to a new discussion.

Posted by: tom humes at June 2, 2011 4:28 AM
Comment #323811

rich

being legal, and being a right are not the same thing.

Posted by: dbs at June 2, 2011 5:38 AM
Comment #323813

I am a longtime reader of WatchBlog but I’ve never posted a comment before.

My wife and I have made the decision to abort twice in 5 years. Not because we did not want the babies, but because we knew that if those babies were born they’d live short, miserable lives and put my wife’s life at risk. Luckily, we beat the odds and we have one healthy, happy child free of a horrible genetic disease that is no fault of our own.

We are not “believers in abortion.” It’s a terrible experience that no one should have to go through, but we are lucky to live in a state where first-trimester abortions are still legal and the crazy pro-lifers aren’t camped out at clinic doorways.

However, we are believers in having a choice. The people who want to take away that choice are in the wrong and are trying to change the laws so that their beliefs are forced onto everyone. This, not abortion, is the key point of the Constitutional rights that are the crux of Roe vs Wade.

It sucks that I have to post this anonymously, but if I used my real name I risk the wrath of the unhinged contingent of pro-lifers who would use my words against me in their zealous effort to further their own cause and beliefs.

Please put yourself in my shoes and try to understand it from my perspective. Termination of an unhealthy fetus due to genetic anomalies needs to remain legal. Bringing a really sick child into this world only leads to soaring medical costs, insurance premiums and heartache for the family when they are forced to watch their little bundle of joy die a horrible death.

Posted by: WatchBlog Lurker at June 2, 2011 8:44 AM
Comment #323822

Lurker wrote; “Please put yourself in my shoes and try to understand it from my perspective. Termination of an unhealthy fetus due to genetic anomalies needs to remain legal.”

I feel certain that you and your spouse agonized over the decisions you made. It is unfortunate that many must face such circumstances.

Given the same choice as you had, I would probably have done the same. What many object to is convenience abortion which, I have read, accounts for over 70% of those performed. Abortions performed for social and economic reasons are abominable.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 2, 2011 11:58 AM
Comment #323828

@Lurker - Thank you for sharing your story. It must have been excruciating. I can’t even imagine. =(

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at June 2, 2011 2:12 PM
Comment #323854

C+J,

Re Marxists - Marxist systems are massive life takers and misery makers. You are right that some benighted people actually believed it would eventually work out. They were mistaken, but dangerous. That is why they had to be defeated. Do you feel that way about abortion opponents?

Yes, these people must be defeated in the same way. It’s OK for people to have radical ideas if they remain on the political margins, but a free society will not last long if those ideas become commonly accepted.

I am not saying that I agree with them. But if you define it as a baby, you cannot just stand by and allow the murder. I am just explaining the point of view.
I’m well aware of their attempt to logically justify their ideas. Animal rights activists think it is murder when we eat meat; that does nothing to justify the laws they advocate for. Marxists think wealth inequality must be the result of theft, but that doesn’t justify the laws they advocate for.


WB Lurker,
Thank you for your comment. No one undergoes abortion without taking much thought into account. I think this fact is lost amongst most anti-abortion activists. I’m glad to hear you were eventually successful in bringing a healthy child into our world.
I encourage you to participate more in future conversations even if under a different pseudonym. It’s always great to hear more voices on these issues and there’s no shame in anonymity so long as you don’t abuse it.

TH,

But, nowhere are the rights of the baby brought into the pix. The defenseless baby having its life taken without any representation of its rights. You can argue all you want about what to call the baby, but it has a heartbeat well before most decisions to abort are made. It can feel pain likewise. So whatever ones pleasure is to call the baby it is still a baby with life. And to snuff it out is murder.

It’s not a baby if it hasn’t been born. It’s not a person unless it’s able to survive outside of a woman’s body. Animals have heart beats and feel pain when they are slaughtered, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to eat meat. In order to make the case that we have a compelling interest in preserving the lives of these clusters of cells, organs and tissue, you need to demonstrate that the these cells, organs and tissue can survive outside of the uterus. You also need to separately justify the forced taking of property from one person to give to another.

dbs stated: “….seeing as it is legal on the federal level, but not a constitutional right.”

I guess that is your opinion but certainly not that of the US Supreme Court under Roe v. Wade.
Posted by Rich at June 1, 2011 05:47 PM rich

being legal, and being a right are not the same thing.
Posted by dbs at June 2, 2011 05:38 AM

Perhaps you should read Blackmun’s opinion:

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 2, 2011 6:07 PM
Comment #323921

Warped Reality

“It’s not a baby if it hasn’t been born. It’s not a person unless it’s able to survive outside of a woman’s body.”

And who determines whether it can survive outside the woman’s body and when. My sister had twins at 17 weeks. One lived and the other died.

The baby cannot survive on its own after it has been delivered after 9 months. It needs someone to care for it for a period of time. The argument of a baby not being a baby is stupid. Women consistently refer to what they are carrying as a baby or infant. Why do you think your definition is correct? A woman would be the best one to get a clear answer from. Yet, a variety of persons want to refer to a baby as a cluster, or a wad of tissue and a number of other anal definitions.

Pro-abortionists are still blowing the wrong horn.

Posted by: tom humes at June 3, 2011 2:24 PM
Comment #324021

Warped

I don’t understand why you do not understand the point. I agree that animal rights people feel justified; I think they are nuts. I understand that Marxists feel justified; I think they are evil. But I recognize that they can be sincere in their benighted beliefs.

I assume if they really believe what they say, they need to react strongly.

Every society sets up norms. Some societies consider infanticide acceptable. We consider that murder, but the difference is only a few months.

The consensus in our society is that eating meat is okay and the property rights are sacred. These things are accepted by most reasonable people. The abortion debate is not yet so settled.

IMO - abortion is morally suspect and bad, but it should not be illegal because of other considerations. I think this is the majority American belief, but there are extremes. One side says that abortion is just another choice; the other says it is murder.

Posted by: C&J at June 5, 2011 4:31 PM
Comment #324110

except for rape and to save the life of a woman should an abortion be allowed. even with the law today, 2 should be the limit. if you want a third abortion, sterilization should be mandatory. i know this will upset a lot of folks but if you have 2 abortion, obviously you do not want a child. it is logical and necessary.

Posted by: rick bagley at June 7, 2011 5:51 AM
Comment #324123

spinney

curious what you think about this issue. as a former long time resident of orange county i find it beyond bizzarre.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/us/05circumcision.html?_r=1

doesn’t suprise me though. the nanny statism is one of the many reasons i left.

Posted by: dbs at June 7, 2011 2:29 PM
Comment #324125

spinney

here’s another link in the same article. is it just me or does anyone else find this really weird.

http://www.foreskinman.com/

this is a comic book put out by the author of the bill.

Posted by: dbs at June 7, 2011 2:41 PM
Comment #324135

TH

My sister had twins at 17 weeks. One lived and the other died.

BS. I can’t believe you are plainly lying to me. The youngest surviving premature birth is Amillia Taylor Taylor. She was born slightly less than 22 weeks after conception. Also, she was the result of in vitro fertilization, which adds a few extra factors to the situation. I still can’t believe you invented a nonexistent niece/nephew born 17 weeks after conception.

In any case, abortion on demand is only legal in this country when the pregnancy is less than 24 weeks. If you want, we could decrease that by a few weeks for Amillia Taylor’s sake if we get rid of all those silly restrictions including waiting times, forced invasive procedures, etc.

The baby cannot survive on its own after it has been delivered after 9 months. It needs someone to care for it for a period of time.
Everyone who cares for a newborn does so voluntarily. No one is ever involuntarily required to care for a newborn. Pregnant woman would be made to care for unborn fetuses involuntarily under your scheme. Also, newborns are quite resourceful when it comes to caring for themselves.
Women consistently refer to what they are carrying as a baby or infant. Why do you think your definition is correct? A woman would be the best one to get a clear answer from.
You rely on the existence of a euphemism with origins that are purely cultural and have no basis in biology. That hardly even constitutes an argument.
Pro-abortionists are still blowing the wrong horn.

No one is pro-abortion; just as no one is pro-animal slaughter. However, some recognize that a country with roots in the liberal ideals of our founders must allow fellow citizens do as they please with their own lives without government interference.

C&J,
I think we are on the same page here. Just because anti-abortion rights people feel secure in their beliefs doesn’t mean I have to believe the same way. Just because Marxists feel sincere in their beliefs doesn’t mean I have to believe the same way. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

dbs,
As someone with a Jewish background, I see those “intactivists” as nothing other than modern day anti-Semites. Throughout the centuries, laws against “genital mutilation” have been used to oppress us time and time again. I’m not surprised to see the tactic revived, but I’m disgusted to see it occur in the Land of Reagan.

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 7, 2011 5:44 PM
Comment #324143

warped

it hasn’t been the land of reagan for a long time. it’s a great place, but as a state it’s ruined. it was my home, it’s where i was born, and it’s sad to see it in its current state. after 46 years i had to leave. and those anti-semites are only a portion of the problem. i’m not jewish, but i truely believe our current c in c is himself an anti-semite, and his middle east policy is IMO a perfect example.

Posted by: dbs at June 7, 2011 8:43 PM
Comment #324213

dbs,

From what I read, the GOP in California is much more conservative than the Republican party in most states and they still wield an inordinate amount of power in the state due to a few quirks in the way the state government is set up. Personally, I blame most of California’s woes on those Republicans, but that’s just me.

Regarding the Middle East, I must tell you that I think Netanyahu is terrible at insuring the existence of a Jewish state for posterity. His positions on settlements and other issues are unsustainable and will only serve to undermine Israel’s existence. I don’t think its proper to label Obama as an anti-Semite just because he won’t follow Netanyahu’s folly. It is trolly remarkable that Obama is still backing Israel against any unilateral statehood attempts by the Palestinians after what the Israeli right-wing has done. Hopefully, Benyamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman will come to their senses or lose their positions in the next election.

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 8, 2011 8:10 PM
Comment #324289

warped

“From what I read, the GOP in California is much more conservative than the Republican party in most states and they still wield an inordinate amount of power in the state due to a few quirks in the way the state government is set up.”

the only bargaining chip they have is the 2/3 mjority needed to pass a budget, or tax increase. the democrats can pretty much pass any legislation they choose. without that bargaining chip the taxes would be much higher, and the state even more in debt than they already are. when pete wilson left office calif. was running a surplus. gray davis made quick work of that, and its been down hill ever since.


“I don’t think its proper to label Obama as an anti-Semite just because he won’t follow Netanyahu’s folly.”

IMO he’s shown no support for israel. that he would suggest going back to the 1967 borders says he’s either ignorant, or really doesn’t care. i think netanyahu did the right thing by making it clear to him that it wasn’t going to happen.

obamas middle east policy has been a disaster, and it started with him abandonning mubarak. if we see the surrounding arab countries fall into the hands of groups like the muslim brotherhood things are going to get very bad. and with no US support israel will be forced into taking drastic measures to defend itself, and one of the first major targets IMO will be iran.

Posted by: dbs at June 10, 2011 4:08 PM
Post a comment