ABC's take on the Mississippi abortion law, i.er. "Mississippi's near-total abortion ban," is more than a bit misleading. It's a "near-total abortion ban" AFTER 15 weeks. About 95% of abortions, maybe more, happen in the first 15 weeks. (I am estimating because I haven't seen the numbers broken down at 15 weeks. The numbers I've seen…
ABC's take on the Mississippi abortion law, i.er. "Mississippi's near-total abortion ban," is more than a bit misleading. It's a "near-total abortion ban" AFTER 15 weeks. About 95% of abortions, maybe more, happen in the first 15 weeks. (I am estimating because I haven't seen the numbers broken down at 15 weeks. The numbers I've seen are 90% of abortions in the first trimester, 10% in the second, less than 1% in the third. At 15 weeks, you're nearly a month into the second trimester.)
I'm not convinced abortion, even if Roe is overturned, is going to be a great issue for Democrats in 2022. I think the most likely result of the SCT case is Roe and the arbitrary reliance on viability is scrapped, but the Court draws a new line earlier in the pregnancy which precludes many of those second trimester abortions states are required to allow b/c of Roe, but which are highly unpopular with the public. (I think the Court may also say exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother must be allowed after 15 weeks.) After that new line which replaces viability states can legislate. Thomas and Alito will file a concurrence saying the Court should have gone further and simply turn the issue over to states w/o the new line limiting its authority. Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan will dissent saying Roe should not be overturned and the viability standard created by Roe's progeny should remain.
For nearly 50 years I've listened to the media drumbeat that the abortion issue is good for Democrats. Then the Republicans have gone out and beaten the Ds on the issue nearly every election. Quite simply, pro life voters vote on the issue, while pro choice voters often have other priorities. I realize overturning Roe might change those dynamics, but it the issue becomes about those unpopular second trimester abortions...well that's not a good terrain for Democrats to fight.
My analysis assumes that the Court draws a new line. If the Court instead overturns Roe and its progeny, but doesn't draw a new line, instead turning the issue over to the states, that would be the best political environment for the Democrats. I just have doubts the Court goes that far. Not that I couldn't make an argument that abortion should have been an issue completely left to the states from the get go. Just as a practical matter, the Court doing that at this point would be too big of a disruption. The Court likes to take incremental steps.
What is not discussed at all in the media is that if the Mississippi 15 week line is drawn by the Court as the new standard, we are talking very few abortions being "banned." I estimated 5% of abortions are post-15 weeks. But remember this new SCT line would be a floor, not a ceiling. States could always allow abortions after 15 weeks if they so choose. In the most populous states, such as California and New York, they would opt to allow abortion much later in the pregnancy. Thus, at the end of the day, you might be talking maybe 3% of abortions, or less, ultimately affected by the Court's decision. The sky is hardly falling.
Most countries that have legal abortion limit them to the first 12-14 weeks with very few exceptions. OTOH most countries that have legal abortion cover them under universal health insurance, usually for free.
Ok, my vagina disagrees. Geez. You know what, how about the court MANDATES all MALES at, let's say, 16 years old have to get a vasectomy. They can then have it reversed when they are ready to have children. I think in about 3% of the cases you can't reverse it but hey, 3% is acceptable to you, so . . . It's NO GOD DAME DIFFERENT then this BS you are spewing.
I would think four or five months makes sense. At about month for you have indisputable brainwave activity. Death is measured by a loss of brain wave activity. Why not measure the start of Life the same way.? Of course with abortion the issue is not when life begins when life should be legally protected.
Right, but we have justices, including Roberts, saying the viability standard isn't important, and simply doesn't matter. None of the conservative justices offered an alternative standard, the most coherent argument was by Kavanaugh who simply wants toss it back to the states.
Still, it sounds like you think Mississippi's law should be unconstitutional, so I don't complain about that.
No I don't agree the Mississippi Law should be held unconstitutional. Roe was never well grounded in the Constitution. It was a policy decision made by the court. Nonetheless the ship has probably sailed on abortion being enshrined as a constitutional right. I just don't think there's anything special about viability versus other points in fetal development. Viability simply is too late to draw the line as a policy matter. A strong majority of people have trouble with second trimester abortions. Most countries actually draw the line at which abortion is prohibited much earlier than viability. I don't I think 15 weeks is unreasonable at all.
ABC's take on the Mississippi abortion law, i.er. "Mississippi's near-total abortion ban," is more than a bit misleading. It's a "near-total abortion ban" AFTER 15 weeks. About 95% of abortions, maybe more, happen in the first 15 weeks. (I am estimating because I haven't seen the numbers broken down at 15 weeks. The numbers I've seen are 90% of abortions in the first trimester, 10% in the second, less than 1% in the third. At 15 weeks, you're nearly a month into the second trimester.)
I'm not convinced abortion, even if Roe is overturned, is going to be a great issue for Democrats in 2022. I think the most likely result of the SCT case is Roe and the arbitrary reliance on viability is scrapped, but the Court draws a new line earlier in the pregnancy which precludes many of those second trimester abortions states are required to allow b/c of Roe, but which are highly unpopular with the public. (I think the Court may also say exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother must be allowed after 15 weeks.) After that new line which replaces viability states can legislate. Thomas and Alito will file a concurrence saying the Court should have gone further and simply turn the issue over to states w/o the new line limiting its authority. Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan will dissent saying Roe should not be overturned and the viability standard created by Roe's progeny should remain.
For nearly 50 years I've listened to the media drumbeat that the abortion issue is good for Democrats. Then the Republicans have gone out and beaten the Ds on the issue nearly every election. Quite simply, pro life voters vote on the issue, while pro choice voters often have other priorities. I realize overturning Roe might change those dynamics, but it the issue becomes about those unpopular second trimester abortions...well that's not a good terrain for Democrats to fight.
My analysis assumes that the Court draws a new line. If the Court instead overturns Roe and its progeny, but doesn't draw a new line, instead turning the issue over to the states, that would be the best political environment for the Democrats. I just have doubts the Court goes that far. Not that I couldn't make an argument that abortion should have been an issue completely left to the states from the get go. Just as a practical matter, the Court doing that at this point would be too big of a disruption. The Court likes to take incremental steps.
What is not discussed at all in the media is that if the Mississippi 15 week line is drawn by the Court as the new standard, we are talking very few abortions being "banned." I estimated 5% of abortions are post-15 weeks. But remember this new SCT line would be a floor, not a ceiling. States could always allow abortions after 15 weeks if they so choose. In the most populous states, such as California and New York, they would opt to allow abortion much later in the pregnancy. Thus, at the end of the day, you might be talking maybe 3% of abortions, or less, ultimately affected by the Court's decision. The sky is hardly falling.
Most countries that have legal abortion limit them to the first 12-14 weeks with very few exceptions. OTOH most countries that have legal abortion cover them under universal health insurance, usually for free.
Ok, my vagina disagrees. Geez. You know what, how about the court MANDATES all MALES at, let's say, 16 years old have to get a vasectomy. They can then have it reversed when they are ready to have children. I think in about 3% of the cases you can't reverse it but hey, 3% is acceptable to you, so . . . It's NO GOD DAME DIFFERENT then this BS you are spewing.
What do you imagine the line the court draws is?
I would think four or five months makes sense. At about month for you have indisputable brainwave activity. Death is measured by a loss of brain wave activity. Why not measure the start of Life the same way.? Of course with abortion the issue is not when life begins when life should be legally protected.
Right, but we have justices, including Roberts, saying the viability standard isn't important, and simply doesn't matter. None of the conservative justices offered an alternative standard, the most coherent argument was by Kavanaugh who simply wants toss it back to the states.
Still, it sounds like you think Mississippi's law should be unconstitutional, so I don't complain about that.
No I don't agree the Mississippi Law should be held unconstitutional. Roe was never well grounded in the Constitution. It was a policy decision made by the court. Nonetheless the ship has probably sailed on abortion being enshrined as a constitutional right. I just don't think there's anything special about viability versus other points in fetal development. Viability simply is too late to draw the line as a policy matter. A strong majority of people have trouble with second trimester abortions. Most countries actually draw the line at which abortion is prohibited much earlier than viability. I don't I think 15 weeks is unreasonable at all.