Senate Abortion: Why not?

Two reasons.

1) In general, public opinion is terrible. If we relied on public opinion for legality, we still wouldn't have interracial marriage, gay marriage, integration, etc. Not to mention, a lot more of my family would still be alive vs. sent back to the Germans in 1938. We rely on the law to overcome legacy public opinion where it's wrong and given that the current state of the country seems to be anti-immigrant, anti-minority, and anti-woman? I'm okay with that.

2) Because everything since Roe v. Wade has been chipping away at the right of abortion for women, and there's no reason for capitulating rhetoric. Roe's establishing trimester framework basically made abortion in the first trimester inviolate, second trimester almost inviolate (mother's guidance), and third trimester was where "fetal viability" (so, 26 weeks approximate) and the state could regulate abortion as long as there were maternal health exceptions. Everything since then, including Casey, has been steadily chipping away at Roe(including the fact that the five Justices were willing to overturn Roe before Kennedy changed his mind). All of the Scalias at the time and since have this on record in dissent: "abortion ... is not a liberty protected by the Constitution, because the Constitution does not mention it."

There's no reason to compromise with someone if you want 70 or 80% and their answer is always 0%.

 

Wah? Public opinion is exactly why gay marriage happened.

 

And such delays can be life-ending. The idea that “pro-life” legislation in the United States is enacted to protect women’s health is one of the biggest myths of the past forty years.

And Democrats are not against “all restrictions”—only the most extreme are, and they have no real power, either in the party or the country as a whole. Voting against a national ban with no life or health exception for the mother does not make the Democratic Party extreme. It makes Republicans extreme.

Polling on this issue has shown consistent majority support for keeping Roe, yet the GOP is having none of it. Ever wonder why?

Hint: it has nothing to do with protecting life.

 

See, this is my exact point actually... It is not only extremists. It is actually the party platform. And many Democratic voters don't know that. You clearly didn't, so let me quote it (emphasis mine):

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.
​

That is the official party line. Any and all laws restricting abortion for any reason will be opposed by anyone following the party platform.

Viability dates? Opposed. Making it illegal to abort a baby because it has a condition such as Downs Syndrome? Opposed (aka eugenics). Stopping women from aborting bases on a baby's sex? Opposed.

You can agree with those positions if you like. But at least do your due diligence and know where the party actually stands. Because where it actually stands is in extremist territory. Hillary Clinton is the most milquetoast Democrat possible, was the party's last candidate for President, and said during a debate that she would not consider a ban on late term abortions/any kind of viability date.

And again, it's useless to bring up Republicans, because I'm not talking about them. Every time they are brought up, it looks as nakedly deflective as when Trump supporters bring up that Bill Clinton had affairs too. It's not germain to the topic in any way.

What I can tell you is, many independents like myself who are in any way pro-life actually do know the Democratic party platform on this. We know our kind aren't welcome there (or at the Women's March either). We are told over and over that any opinions we might have on ending an unborn child's life mean we are not and cannot be Democrats.

And so the Democrats lose all those votes. And it's a hell of a lot of votes. Maybe people vote Republican, or they just don't vote at all. Either way, it's bad for the country.

I want to feel like the Democratic party actually acknowledges the scientific facts of today's viability dates. Pretty much every other remotely civilized country on earth has. Yet if you propose a bill to restrict abortions past 20 weeks to cases of medical necessity in the US, the Democratic party and its followers will jump all over you, call YOU the extremist, say you're just trying to control women's bodies, etc.

Because that is what their platform says. That there is no room for doubt or compromise on the issue.

And that extremist position is definitely holding the Democrats back. And for what? So irresponsible people who already knew they were pregnant by that time can abort a fetus that could at that very moment be delivered and survive perfectly fine? Is that really the position most Democrats want to hang their hat on?

 

@solojones

You're misinterpreting what they're saying. Let me explain why.

I'm very involved in state politics via the Pennsylvania Medical Society. PAMED takes no official position on abortion (although personally I think they should), but we oppose any legislation which interferes in the patient-physician relationship and is not grounded in evidence-based medicine. Therefore, when former Governor Tom Corbett tried to help shepherd through a bill mandating transvaginal ultrasounds for all women trying to obtain an abortion beyond the first trimester, we strongly opposed it, and it failed. Our opposition was not "pro-choice" or "pro-life", but based on the tenets I stated above. There is no scientifically-acceptable evidence that having a transvaginal ultrasound is necessary in the absence of certain medical conditions requiring such invasive evaluation prior to obtaining an abortion. The legislation in question was meant to be a barrier, nothing more, and so we stood against it.

This is what the DNC's platform is trying to say. The language is strong, but it needs to be. The GOP's language--basically no abortion, ever--is equally strong. Why should those who are pro-choice tiptoe around the issue while those who are not get to control the vernacular? That seems disingenuous to me, yet we still use phrases such as "partial-birth abortion"--phrases which are not to be found in any medical textbook or journal article anywhere in the world--when discussing this issue. That's not fact, that's emotion.

Another example:

When Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban back during the Bush administration, they held hearings as to whether or not the procedure in question, known as "intact D and X", was ever medically necessary. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, as well as the American Medical Association and numerous state medical societies, gave testimony that in rare circumstances, the procedure was medically necessary and that Congress should not criminalize it. On the other side of the argument, 3 physicians--not organizations, but individual physicians--gave testimony that the procedure was never medically necessary. All of them belonged to religious organizations such as the Christian Medical and Dental Association (which lobbies against legal abortion nationwide). Congress then made a "legislative finding" that the procedure was never medically necessary, ignoring the overwhelming testimony of multiple experts in support of its preferred outcome.

Now, when the case went to the Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the following (from Gonzales V Carhart):

"Respondents have not demonstrated that the Act, as a facial matter, is void for vagueness, or that it imposes an undue burden on a woman’s right to abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of a health exception."

In other words, the Court ignored the overwhelming testimony of experts, as did Congress, to reach its preferred conclusion. The level of mental gymnastics written in the decision is astounding, and on-par with similar statements regarding climate change. If 97% of experts agree on something, they are more credible than the 3% who disagree. Yes, science is based on constant testing, hypothesizing, and questioning what we know, but elevating a minority opinion above what a consensus of experts and/or strong evidence to the contrary states is not good science, it's politicking. Science still follows ground rules, and is based on facts. Hypotheses may change, but that does not mean facts don't exist. If you really want to delve into it, there are only three "certainties" in science regarding the universe in general:

You can't win
You can only break even at absolute zero
You can never reach absolute zero

To that I would add:

Time only moves forward
Death is permanent

In returning to this issue, it's clear to me that both the law in question and the Court's decision were not grounded in anything resembling fact. It was an emotionally-driven political decision, nothing more. As a practical matter, the law is also unworkable, as it only criminalizes not stopping the fetal heart with potassium or digoxin before performing the procedure. So at the end of the day, this law--and the Court decision which followed it--was little more than a political stunt. What it did do was cause a rash of hospitals to a) amend their bylaws preventing its physicians from performing any late-term abortion procedures for any reason out of fear of criminal and civil liability, which puts women's lives at risk and b) cause insurers to stop paying malpractice for abortion procedures in multiple states. Not a desirable outcome for anyone.

Don’t rules of medical ethics that doctors follow, prevent late term abortions except under extreme circumstances? If late-term abortions are already only being performed by licensed doctors in situations in which the mother or baby’s life is in danger, is there a need for a law that says as much?

I’m no fan of the Democrats but I think the position is more complicated than “A woman at seven months pregnant who decides she does not want a baby anymore for any reason or no reason, should be able to go to a clinic and get an abortion.” People thinking that that is their position—and that there are licensed medical doctors who would actually perform such an abortion—is the issue.

And as I said, if we can get around the issue of a doctor trying to save the life of a mother having to jump through legal hopes to make that professional medical call, more people would probably be on board with legal viability and other restrictions. Maybe looking at how these restrictions are enforced in Europe is worthwhile.

Absolutely re: medical ethics. The overwhelming majority of physicians would have a major ethical issue with performing elective late-term abortions, and as a general rule, they should never happen. When they do, as in the case of Dr. Gosnell, they should be prosecuted.

I've always stated that I would fully support a ban on elective abortion after 20 weeks. Hell, I'd support it after 16 weeks, but as I previously stated, those exceptions need to a) put full authority into the hands of physicians as recognized experts in the field; b) allow for rapid decision-making without the need to involve the courts and c) protect physicians who who exercise their best judgement in these situations from legal jeopardy assuming standard-of-care was followed and the situation was appropriately documented. In legal jargon, the law should impose the "strict scrutiny" test that was initially laid down in Roe (and changed to "undue burden" in Casey) when looking at physicians' actions should a late-term abortion be deemed medically necessary.

No such law currently exists, and the ones that have been proposed to date offer no such exceptions or protections. Therefore, as a physician, I cannot in good conscience support them. If they were reworked to incorporate the points I've stated above, then they would have my backing. Until that happens, I will continue to oppose them.

 

I would completely agree on that kind of law. But the Democratic party would never ever propose such a law, because they would be told by most feminists that they are abandonning feminism if they do.

 

And that's an extreme position held by the most extreme proponents of liberal feminism, one which a majority of Americans--and dare I say even a majority of Democrats--do not support.

Having the loudest voices doesn't mean one speaks for all; this is a problem on both the left and right.

 

So are you saying the leaders of the women's march are extremist?

 

No, I'm saying that they don't speak for every woman.

Come on, you know that.

 

Except that they made it clear women like me are not welcome. That wouldn't have happened if not for the massive backlash against pro-life groups being included. The fact that there's a massive backlash in the first place is my point. This is not a minority of people. In fact, it's most of the left wing people I've ever spoken to here.

 

You know, I've let your narrative about the march kind of slide to this point, but I kind of feel like I need to speak up at some point now that the discussion is expanding to cover the entirety of mainstream feminism. To be perfectly frank, you and women like you were welcome at the marches. The march organizers chose not to make an anti-choice organization an official partner of the march. No remarks were made, to my knowledge, in regard for individuals being banned. You could have marched and a lot of women like you did. Also, just to continue to challenge your narrative a bit, the backlash was not in response even to a pro-life group marching; it was in response to a pro-life group being made an official partner in the organization of the march.

I still don't really think said group should necessarily have been excluded; I'm not familiar enough with that particular group and their views to say whether their pro-life views were extreme or more moderate. But the narrative that you were banned from the Women's March on Washington because you're pro-life is simply incorrect. I can't speak, of course, to any experiences you might have had on a local level.

 

Well several people here have repeatedly told me that pro-life people are by definitions not feminists and should not be welcomed as such. Dp4m has in fact told me my views have no place in any public discussion, actually.

And why would I want to be part of a march that says, "Okay, you can march, but you're not fit for leadership"? You're basically saying I could have marched even though it was loudly proclaimed that people with my viewpoint were not really representative of the march.

I mean, how would you feel about a march that excluded people like you in one way or another from leadership? A march that in fact had intended to be more open, but had so much pressure, they were forced to kick people like you out of leadership.

We would have far more feminists in this coutry if the loud mainstream feminist voices didn't constantly say that being pro-choice was an absolute necessity for being a feminist. That's my point.

 

Surely Pro-Choice encompasses people who don't want to have abortions?

They're called choice for a reason, they let the mother decide, rather than having no decision over her own body. I don't see a contradiction is believing in the sanctity of an embryo and being supportive of other people having abortions.

 

I would not have a problem marching in a march that said that people like me couldn't be in leadership. Say a Black Lives Matter march. I would understand if they didn't want me in leadership and I would in fact agree with that decision. And I would still be glad to join in the march itself in solidarity.

As to people here saying nasty things to you, I don't doubt it. And I agree that being pro-choice isn't an absolute necessity for being a feminist and I would encourage you and other feminists like you to plant that flag and fight for it as a lot of you did in the aftermath of the march. I mean, a lot of extremists, though probably not mainstreamers, would say that I can't be a feminist because I'm a man. I don't agree, though again, I don't see a place for myself in leadership in feminism or feminist events or organizations. So I don't agree with the notion that there's a full checklist of things about yourself that you have to check off completely in order to be a feminist. I don't think disagreement on certain issues excludes you or others like you. Others in the pro-life community that are more extreme, well, perhaps or maybe even probably.

But I would encourage you to change your perspective there on that last paragraph. It isn't a case of "there would be more feminists if feminists would let there be." It's a case of "there are a lot more feminists than some feminists are willing to recognize." Because, at least from what I know, you are a feminist and so are a lot of others like you. So, don't let your status hinge on whether other people recognize it or not. Some feminists say you aren't a feminist; disagree with them and plant your flag. Claim the word if you even want it. The biggest value of the women's march excluding that pro-life organization was the discussion it sparked among women. I think you want to continue that conversation and if others don't, well, that's too bad.

 

There were two babies going to be born that would go on to cure cancer.

But God told Jim Bakker we aborted them

 

Interesting that God decided to gamble on just two individuals living long enough to reach such a significant level of education and skill, given how often people die. I mean, what if they'd died in a car accident? Or any number of things? Was abortion the only thing God couldn't protect them from? I mean, in future, given the total global population, maybe kick it up from two. Say, five or something. Or just give the idea to someone that's currently a scientist? I don't know, I feel that this whole "gifting only two people in the entire history of humanity with the ability to cure cancer" thing was just poor planning.

 

G-d moves in mysterious ways. Like the kind only evangelical Christians who vote Republican could possibly understand.

 

And, as we all know, cancer is one disease that can definitely be cured by two people, not a plethora of complex diseases requiring different treatments...

 

Yeah it's pretty pointless to waste time passing something that is immediately going to go into the courts, and would definitely be overturned since, you know, Roe v. Wade.

 

Building off a discussion we're currently having in the U.S. Politics thread, @solojones , would you support the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade? If Kennedy leaves and is replaced by another Trump appointee, some people in the politics thread are arguing, an overturn of RvW is not inconceivable*. As one of the few self-identifying pro-lifers around here, I'm curious to gauge your reaction to such an eventuality.

*sorry

 

Learn from 'Yurp? What kinda American, are you?