The "pro life" party is really a "pro birth" party. After birth, the prevailing conservative/Republican philosophies of "personal responsibility" and "I got to where I am on my own, so should you" kicks in. If the party was pro life would they say no to vaccines that save lives, child tax credits to help reduce childhood poverty, access to affordable health care for children (talking to you Mr Abbott), access to affordable prenatal care, access to assistance for child care for working parents, and the list goes one. The Republican Party should not be allowed to use the pro life moniker. Brand them as only pro birth and then you're on your own.
So the financial worries of a pregnant woman “can be alleviated”. Yes indeed - but they won’t be. Notice the passive voice…. “can be alleviated” doesn’t get to who will do the alleviation. Not a plan you can take to the bank.
And adoption is also not a realistic solution for most women. Apart from the emotional trauma of giving up a baby you have lived with for nine months, what about the real-world problems of pregnancy? How will the mother pay for prenatal checkups and hospital birth? Who would pay for medical costs if the pregnancy runs into to one of the many complications of pregnancy. And what about the woman’s job? Employers have been known to find a reason to “lay off” pregnant women. Some employers straight up fire unmarried pregnant women because they aren’t considered morally fit to represent the morally-stellar company. If adoption is such a winning solution, why are there thousands of children in foster care?
Suggestion for how to solve the”pregnancy problem” need to be connected to the real world.
1) 6-in-10 women who get abortions are already mothers.
2) 1-in-4 women will have an abortion at some point during their child-bearing years.
3) 90+% of abortions are done in the 1st trimester (92% in first 13 weeks).
If the GOP doesn't get that there's going to be an immense backlash to this ruling and the subsequent state laws that kick in, then they are dreaming. This issue will move swing voters and mobilize liberals--even the young ones. It impacts more people's lives and is more popular than they understand. And they're STILL going the maximist route--no exceptions for rape, incest, mother's health--via one-liners like "I guess the father has to be a good guy for it not to be a murder" (yes, I've see pro-lifers throwing that one around). They don't see how badly this is going to backfire on them going into the next two election cycles.
Charlie, I'm one of your biggest fans, but I'm going to have to disagree with your characterization of Mona's piece as nuanced. Mona is making the same argument she makes consistently, which is that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest, and extreme medical conditions on the part of the mother or fetus. Her response to unwanted pregnancies: better support and/or adoption. This is (en)forced pregnancy, and is an extreme position not in keeping with the majority of Americans. There is a reason abortion had been on the back burner (though certainly an always simmering part of the political soup): it had been laid to rest as settled precedent, which all of Trump's appointees agreed to respect in public and private questioning.
Abortion is obviously a very emotional subject. But no matter how much I may agree or disagree with the writers’ views (and I am not completely on board with every argument presented by both Mona and Will), I want to applaud their principled stance and good faith arguments.
As someone who is frankly squishy on the topic, I would like pro-choice folks to think about how the social conservatives are finally able to reverse Roe (assuming the draft opinion sticks), and what they can do to regain the upper hand?
Social conservatives are finally able to reverse Roe by buying themselves a majority of Supreme Court Justices mostly appointed by Presidents that lost the majority vote. The United States is a majority minority country. It is no longer a democracy.
And Senate leaders who say you can't possibly vote on a SC justice within 10 months of an election unless it's two months until the election and we think we will lose.
I saw Charlie's appearance on The Beat last night and had the same reaction.
I'm amazed at how so many democrats are politically naive (or more honestly, outright politically stupid) - they would rather "feel" good at the moment by protesting outside the home of a SCOTUS than to think of the implications it has on the midterms, where many suburban voters will turn away from a "radical" or "extreme" democratic party.
When we have so many good arguments to make regarding the overturning of Roe, why must the Progressive wing of the party loudly insist on "whenever" abortions, no restrictions, when a majority of Americans from any party are as against that as they are in "never" abortions?
Like it or not, neither Democrats or Republicans can win elections without convincing Independents to vote for them. Most of those Independents live in the suburbs and they are not in the 18-25 yo age group. No generation in my lifetime voted with any frequency when they were the "younger" generation.
Instead of taking the opportunity to convince the 18-25 yo's that using their voice is great, but it is meaningless to bringing about change if they don't VOTE, progressives like Jason Johnson live in a fantasy world thinking that just the right "cause" will magically succeed in turning out their vote in sufficient numbers, though it's never happened in my long lifetime....
Someone made that same calculation regarding Black and Latino voters several decades ago, and how did that work out? We lost the working class of voters because we stopped fighting for them at the same time.... It doesn't have to be a numbers game - it ought to be an issues game. And we need to include every group who shares the same vision of a better America with better opportunities for all of us.
It's a little funny nobody is insisting that protesting Covid outside the homes of public health officials is going to turn suburban voters away from the GOP. Even though it has been a lot more widespread than these protests.
Again, do you want to be "right" and "feel good", or do you want to win elections? Seems to me if you don't want the GQP retaking power, and all that portends for our country and our democracy, it's a question that can only have one answer....
I'm pretty sure journalists are only supposed to be concerning themselves with the business of being right, which makes the failure to note the important context rather peculiar.
Once upon a time, the media asked more questions than "will this win an election?" That they largely don't anymore, instead just repeating talking points, is a big part of why we're in the mess we're in.
It really doesn't matter. The GQP will characterize any support for abortion, anywhere, however nuanced or moderate, as proof Democrats are baby killers. It is just another of their culture war artillery.
Intimidation through protest is not violence. And if "swing voters" are "put off" by rowdy (but nonviolent) protests than we are hopeless.
There is only ONE issue in 2022 and 2024 who will work to preserve democracy and who will work to undermine democracy. Abortion and the other culture war issues are just distractions.
"A year after the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol, a CNN poll asked whether it’s likely “that, in the next few years, some elected officials will successfully overturn the results of an election.” Fifty-one percent of Republicans and 44 percent of Democrats said it’s not at all likely. Only 46 percent of Democrats and independents said that U.S. democracy is under attack, which helps to explain why Democratic candidates aren’t campaigning on defending democracy."
We can't even convince a majority of Democrats that Democracy is on the ballot in the upcoming election, so how are we supposed to convince Independents? The economy and culture wars will decide this next election, and we're losing on both fronts. Maybe it's time we ask why and change our strategy....
McKinley going down in West Virginia should lay to rest any ideas pundits have about what bipartisanship and crossing Trump gets you in a very red state: a primary loss. Doesn't matter if you voted to give your constituents broadband, fill potholes, or running water. Don't kiss the ring and you lose!
It should also give Joe Manchin an idea of how much weight his endorsement carries in the Republican base, the same one that will show up in droves to end his career in 2024.
They won’t come Wlection Day 2024. Because right now they love Manchin for what he does, he’s the best they can hope for under the circumstances. But why settle for a lesser version/simulacrum when you can get the pure, uncut sh*t? All Manchin’s triangulation will end up accomplishing him is that he loses by “only” 15 points, instead of 20+, the next time he faces voters (if he even bothers to run for reelection)
There are solutions for women who are on the fence about abortion, but Republicans would *never* entertain them.
-A guaranty of free healthcare and housing for every pregnant woman and her family.
-A guaranty of a minimum stipend to cover any living/housing costs that they cannot cover themselves.
-A guaranty that if they are in school, their progress will at worst only be paused with them to resume immediately upon their desire to do so.
-A guaranty that the child will have full healthcare up to age five (at a minimum).
-A guaranty that the woman's children would have immediate access to child care as soon as she decided she was ready to re-enter school or the work force.
-A guaranty of free after school programs to fill the donut hole of when school ends and when most jobs end.
-A guaranty of a minimum six weeks recovery time that can instantly and immediately be extended (because the detatching of the placenta is effectively an internal gunshot wound--not every gunshot wound heals with the same alacrity).
-A guaranty that they will not miss out on any promotions or raises while they are away from work.
You *must* eliminate every.possible.negative. before you decide you are going to treat half the population as brood mares.
Once all that is in place and firmly established, then you can *ask* a woman if she might prefer to have a(nother) child. It would, and should always be, her decision.
As you stated, none of that will ever happen. I am old enough to remember Reagan's "welfare queens" ads. Women who have multiple children and receive those kinds of benefits have been vilified for generations. It was predominantly republicans who brought out the bullhorns and shouted from the rooftops about lazy women having children to stay on welfare.
One of the most disingenuous aspects of the "pro-life" position is that forcing a woman or
raped child to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is that doing so, with adoption being so easy (at least in their minds), is pretty harmless.
In this country that is nonsense. The US has the highest rate of maternity-related death in the developed world. We do not have universal health care to make sure the pregnant woman stays safe throughout pregnancy. And, as pointed out above, support for mothers of infants and small children, especially those who are poor, is practically non-existent in huge swathes of the US.
I might have a bit more respect for Mona's position if she were advocating for the large tax increases to put such a safety net in place that are a prerequisite for making forced birth in any way fair.
I think you meant “ second trimester not second term”. While you state the Roe “ mandates states to allow second trimester abortion the actual rate of abortions in the second trimester is very small, 1.3 %. According to this document from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology:
In the United States, more than one half of pregnancies are unintended, with 3 in 10 women having an abortion by age 45 years. In 2008, 1.2 million abortions occurred in the United States, of which 6.2% took place between 13 weeks of gestation and 15 weeks of gestation, and 4.0% took place at 16 weeks of gestation or later. Only 1.3% of abortions are performed at 21 weeks of gestation or later. The proportion of abortions performed in the second trimester, usually defined as between 13 weeks of gestation and 26 weeks of gestation (as calculated from the last menstrual period), has remained stable during the past two decades
For the next year or two (at least), the Republican base will require that their representatives spike the football. There will be much more extremism on the right in service of 'owning the libs'. On top of that, there really is a theocratic impulse that has no use for pluralism.
Charlie, I really like the Bulwark and read at least one article in it almost every day. But Mona's position on abortion is nuts. Let's face facts here. The notion that "life begins at conception," the basis of her position and increasingly that of all of the GOP, is a matter of opinion and not science. I assume that opinion is based on her religious faith, which I greatly respect. But it is NOT a matter of objective fact.
It is simply wrong for government at any level to take away the right to make a decision about what goes on in one's own body based on a religious view that is not even held by the majority.
The scientific consensus is that life begins at conception (fertilization). https://acpeds.org/position-statements/when-human-life-begins Whether and when an embryo develops sufficiently to be considered a person is a philosophical, religious, legal or political matter.
The problem with Mona's formulation is that once you define the debate in terms of competing "rights" you are setting up a conflict of postulates that transcend mere transient democratic majorities by definition. That's what makes ever arriving at a consensus so futile, as neither side will accept an abridgment of their preferences for the sake of comity.
I apologize for the sloppiness in my argument. Mona's position and that of others who think like her, is that when sperm meets ova "personhood" attaches. And that is truly only a matter of opinion.
The main problem with the Christian argument that abortion is murder is that it relies entirely Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill." However, the same Jewish law, in the only verse that touches on abortion (Exodus 21:22), treats the killing of a fetus as a property offense against the father. The penalty is payment of a civil fine to the father. To be consistent, the Christian argument should demand that a fetus be considered the father's property, and lobby for abortion to be treated as a property offense.
Twitter before Elon Musk had the right to ban Trump if it chose--- Twitter after Elon Musk has the right to allow Trump if it wants. Those who don't like it can move the invisible hand and go elsewhere.
[Sarcasm alert]
BUT everyone knows having Trump on Twitter is far more fun and entertaining than not having him there.
[End Sarcasm alert]
In the end, it is my job, not Twitters, to sort out truth from disinformation. The ability to block people I find objectionable (racists, fascists, homophobes, religious fanatics, etc.) means I have the power to shape my own Twitter experience without stripping others of their own.
"In the end, it is my job, not Twitters, to sort out truth from disinformation. " True. And yet, as a culture we are not doing that. Or at least a critical mass of triggered and motivated authoritarians are not doing that. We will get the government we deserve. And (to quote Menken/Sykes), we will get it good and hard.
Trump certainly spices Twitter up, and as many have pointed out, his Twitter account would be bad for Republicans in general this November, serving as a reminder of what sort of monster leads their party. But his Twitter account also led directly to real-life violence, and an internationally shameful attack on our Capitol and a violent attempt to overturn a presidential election. This is what Elon will find out: content moderation is hard, and platforms cannot exist without content moderation.
Unfortunately, you can block everyone who trolls you, every bot that trolls you, and that may make your sanitized Twitter experience better, but what happens on Twitter doesn't always stay on Twitter.
Trump adds spice to Twitter. That’s the essence of our downfall. People expect constant entertainment and drama, even in politics. Especially in politics! We are a vapid and shallow people. We probably don’t deserve freedom.
"BUT everyone knows having Trump on Twitter is far more fun and entertaining than not having him there." Yep, that's how all ethical decisions should be made /s
Trump's ban from Twitter is about as close as we can get today to shunning someone from polite society.
Shunning in that fashion is a voluntary act for those who step over the line, or in his case blunder and bluster all over it.
In a just world he's in jail. A somewhat less just world sees him gathering dust in what amounts to social and political exile.
Where we're at of course is that he still has a court and that jackass dilettante Musk will give him the megaphone back because it stirs the conversation around what Musk is doing and feeds his own narcissism.
You just prompted a question I haven't thought about. Let's assume by some miracle Trump does end up in jail. I know most inmates are allowed limited access to the internet. Could trump tweet from jail? That would be drinking game fun!
Also, since we know dead people vote (/s), he would be able to tweet from his golden coffin after the Big Macs catch up with him, right?
Charlie, I love the Bulwark, or at least I think I do, and it's why it pains me to see articles like the ones you've featured today, because it very much feels to me like either coping or outright delusion on basically everything.
To start with the easy bit, Schumer's bill is merely codifying what is currently already law thanks to Roe v Wade. If that's the 'maximalist' position, then we have a very different idea of what that is. Beyond that, politics is salesmanship, which is why Trump was so bad at it. You don't start with what you want. You put out the position you know you won't get and you let people haggle you down for it to where you actually want to be. That lets them think they got one over on you when you actually got what you want. Beyond that, the reason you need to bring it up for a vote is because you need to A. show the base that you actually do need more democrats in office because you don't have enough to do what they want and B. need to make it clear that the party position on this issue is not up for debate. Parties, at least until recently, stood for things. You couldn't be a communist in Reagan's GOP, and you can't be anti-abortion in today's Democratic party.
Moving beyond that, Mona is well out of her depth about what's coming. The positions are not going to get less maximalist, they're going to get more so, especially on the anti-choice side, which has already begun criminalizing not just abortion but things like Plan B and IVFs. What is coming, simply put, is another version of Dred Scott; we are going to have two Americas, where where you live determines what rights you have. Or we will, until there is a matter like Dred Scott where someone has an abortion in another state and there's a showdown over who has jurisdiction. And if you don't believe me, Louisiana just passed a law wherein it says, explicitly, that any judge that attempts to stop it in the state will be impeached, and any federal law that attempts to overrule it will be ignored. To put it bluntly, the issue of abortion is no less significant than that of slavery in our day and age, and rather than tone down the rhetoric, it's going to go to eleven.
Lastly, a shrinking GOP base means nothing, because they don't believe in elections or in voting. Any Democratic victory is a lie, any GOP failure is only due to evil by the other side. This is what animates the party. It doesn't matter if it's shrinking, because either later this year or in 2024, the party is simply going to seek, as JD Vance says, 'their American Caesar.' American institutions already don't reflect the popular will, and the Supreme Court has now taking to flouting it openly, so if you think it's going to do anything other than rubber stamp the GOP into power you're dreaming.
I hate to say it, but we as a nation are heading either towards a second civil war or dissolution. There is no other way to see the world, given the fact that neither side is going to give up on an issue or a set of beliefs that they consider literally life or death. The right already canonizes figures like Rittenhouse, and we're going to have a whole nation of them before long, I'm afraid.
I agree with everything you've said. My feeling is if a female is pregnant and she thinks that her embryo is a living person with a soul to be given life, I'm all for her having all the resources she needs to give birth to her baby. However if her sister becomes pregnant and absolutly does not want to be pregnant and give birth, why does anyone else care? It seems so personal to me. How can someone in a free country feel they have a right to force someone go through pregnancy and birth if she doesn't want to. It's her body.
Rule #1: Don't bring up for a vote something that YOU KNOW will lose.
Rule #2: If you DO violate Rule #1, only do so to force the other side into a unpopular position that they will then have to explain and defend (if you are explaining and defending, you are losing the argument). You do this by voting on "popular" things that your opponents vote against (cf. Repubs voting "against" support for Ukraine by voting against a larger bill)
So, yeah....Don't put up for a vote a bill that 90% of the population is against that you are going to lose: This puts YOU in the position of explaining and defending an unpopular vote.
Instead, put up for a vote something that has 75% popular support that your opponents will vote against, forcing them to explain and defend.
Rule #3: Your "base" is your BASE. You aren't going to lose them simply because you don't vote for every maximalist thing. (Do you really think pro-2A voters are going to vote for a Dem just because once their Repub rep voted for background checks? Sure...)
Rule #4: Successful, long-term politicians (and parties) are so because they GROW support from beyond their base.
In a 50-50 country (or any race), if you can peel 5% of the other side to you, you win. If all you do is focus on the 30% that is your "base" to the exclusion of the other side - you lose. (See rural America and Dem failure)
I do not buy the "If you are explaining and defending, you are losing the argument." A huge problem is the rejection of nuance and context. So we get stupid memes instead of well-reasoned arguments. Furthermore, an explanation is not prima facie a defense. Both sides have accused me of "defending" when I am merely explaining a position, whether I hold that position or not. Debate Team 101.
There's the world we live in and the world as we wish it were.
If you have to spend 10 minutes explaining that, "Yes, I voted for abortions right up to the moment the child is born because there's this one in one million time that it *might* be necessary..."
Your sentence is framing it all wrong. You are buying into limiting the definition of abortion to an elective procedure instead all abortions as opposed to miscarriages medically defined as spontaneous abortions. Doctors have been performing abortions for hundreds of years as an emergency medical procedure to save the life of the mother. However, we have learned that what seems obvious often needs to be specified by law to prevent bad actors taking advantage of loopholes. Also not one in a million. 1.3% of abortions occur after 21 weeks of pregnancy in the US. That is 13 in a thousand.
Yes, I have read it. Please show me where it says not after the third trimester (or when "viable" and define viable).
If it doesn't say it can't be done in the 39th week...then it can be done.
You just proved my point...1.3% after the 21st week (hint: third trimester is after 24 weeks, which would be even less)....And my reference to "one in a million" was the ONE time an abortion would need to be done in the 39th week (which is ridiculous - it can borne by caesarian) out of ALL pregnancies in the 39th week.
So, again, sacrificing the 1% is not worth getting the 99%? It's whole loaf or nothing?
No, the majority do NOT support late term (third trimester) abortions, which this bill protects. The majority DO support first (and to a lesser degree), second trimester abortions.
Over 95% of abortions are in the first and second trimester. Why push for that last 5% when it's going to be bad politics?
The bill being voted on by the Senate is for abortion anytime, anywhere. That is NOT supported by the majority of the population.
We can guarantee that the GOP will be hanging that vote on every Dem who votes for it:
LOOK! The Dems want to KILL babies at the 39th week of pregnancy! We're against killing babies!!!! Vote Republican.
Versus:
The GOP was to prevent women from making responsible healthcare choices in the early stages of pregnancy. They want the victims of rape and incest to carry unborn babies to term. They want women that have ectopic pregnancies to suffer and quite possibly die because they want to ban ALL abortions.
See the difference?
How about take the first away from the GOP and run on the second?
That's called framing/triangulation...aka - politics
Because the last 5 percent of abortions are not just frivolous. A woman doesn't decide she wants to go on vacation instead of having a baby. It may not be because her life is in danger. Maybe the pregnancy will injure her and she won't be able to have more children. Maybe the baby has deformities that will, if it lives, cause it to live a short and painful life and the mother decides not to put it through that. An ectopic pregnancy, is when an embryo emplants in the fallopian tube. It not only cannot mature into a baby in the tube, it will cause the damage to the woman's reproductive organs and she won't be able to have any more children.
This bill is not for abortion anytime, anywhere. It is a codification of Roe. Nothing more.
Have you read the bill? Or are you relying on what you've heard other people say about the bill? Because what you are describing as the bill, is not the bill.
It doesn't MATTER what the bill actually says, Kevin, you KNOW that. What matters is that the GoP WILL represent it a certain way. There aren't a lot of people who will actually read the bill and even fewer who actually get nuance.
Most people do not even know what Roe v Wade or PP v Casey say... or what current abortion law where they live is.
Scott's post about politics above (with Rule 1 and 2) is essentially spot on.
That is why I proposed a codification of privacy rights the other day--it is an indirect support for the status quo and it puts the GoP into the position of being against personal privacy. They have to get bogged down into explanations and nuance about why they are voting that way.
Shawn, what an excellent, well argued reply to what I also found to be a disturbing column today by Charlie.
I too have really appreciated The Bulwark these past several years, but since the Roe news broke I have increasingly found myself in disagreement with the various writers. I think their conservative roots are showing....and those old beliefs they may have held for years are now coming up against their new found progressive growth. They are being forced to confront the abortion issse , and it feels like it's omething that clearly makes them uncomfortable is something they'd really rather not do.
“The shrinking GOP base” means nothing to them, because they have the tools and the will to enforce minority rule. That’s what has me in despair. The presumed Roe decision is just one slap in the face, with more to come.
You might want to tell the anti-choice Mona Charen that the largest number of abortions are performed on women age 15 to 24. Her claim that many women get them because of financial reasons is narrow, simplistic and inaccurate. I wish people like her would stop putting up silly arguments for why we should be second-guessing a right that has been settled law since 1973. Really, handing money to a 15 year old to get her to have a baby?
Even granting Mona’s position, she claims those financial reasons “can be fixed”- by who, Mona? Her column only indicates that the old maxim about pro-lifers only caring about the pre-born are still 100% true.
If it was really about “saving babies”, “protecting mothers”, even just a little about helping ANYONE other than themselves, they’d propose financial assistance, childcare assistance, shelter assistance, something, anything provided by the state. Because these young mothers are often shunned by their communities and families, during and after pregnancy.
If you really think “finances” are an easily-solvable solution to reduce abortions, propose incentives for women to never have to consider finances when having a child. It’s that simple.
Otherwise, Mona, we can all tell it’s just posturing.
I've been bullied a bit by male commenters on various blogs because I keep asking why women can't simply have the right to terminate a pregnancy? This whole thing about justifying banning abortions because some sanctimonious people want to talk about "helping" pregnant women who don't have the financial means to be mothers is garbage. Why can't a woman have an abortion simply because it's her body and she doesn't want to be pregnant or give birth against her will?
Marycat2021, you've asked the essential question that is seldom addressed. There are more reasons that a woman could not want to be pregnant than apparently ever imagined by those who think just throwing money at her is sufficient. If "pro-lifers" were required to answer your question they would reveal their true patriarchial, authoritarian, misogynist religious reasons.
I'm retired and am doing research and reading about the history of misogyny, and I'm seeing how deep the anti-woman attitudes run, attitudes and thinking that have their roots in Herodotus and Aristotle. It's become almost hard-wired in the human brain. Last night, someone here commented that if women don't want to get pregnant, they shouldn't have sex. Another said that "the man" involved in the woman's pregnancy has just as much right to decide whether it should be terminated. We are still seeing that the loudest anti-choice voices are coming from men; they have always dominated the anti-choice movement.
I was pregnant on my 18th birthday, in 1975. I got a safe, affordable abortion in a clinic that was adjoined to a major hospital. I was treated with kindness and respect, and nobody called me a murderer. Not only was I going to college in the fall, but I just did not want that pregnancy or that baby. I was terrified of what would happen to me and my life, even though my boyfriend offered to marry me (oh please, that's not an answer or all purpose fix-it!). I have never regretted my decision. And perhaps if I had been able to obtain effective birth control in my tiny town back then, I would have a different story to tell. Abortion was the first major decision I ever had to make as an adult.
"Last night, someone here commented that if women don't want to get pregnant, they shouldn't have sex. Another said that "the man" involved in the woman's pregnancy has just as much right to decide whether it should be terminated" Who said either of those things?
I do not agree with abortion as a cavalier substitute for other birth control methods. Personally, I think that if THE MAN and the woman (it takes two after all) are not ready for the responsibility of a child, they should not engage in the activity that can potentially produce a child in spite of diligent use of birth control methods. The only 100% effective method of birth control is abstinence. But I also understand the reality of human nature. Furthermore, I am not willing to make my personal views a legal mandate.
If either of the potential parents is not ready to be a parent, then neither should engage in the activity that has the potential to make them a parent.
Even if these young mothers have their babies, they are still shunned by their communities and families. One of these young mothers with two preschool children and one infant, all different fathers, decided to turn her life around. She got herself sterilized. She started coming to my church. Except for some individuals like me, the church rejected her.
But she kept coming until the father of the infant got out of jail stole her car and stole her welfare money, and took off. As a result she couldn't pay her rent and utilities. Child protective services said without utilities her house was uninhabitable and took her children. Without children, she no longer qualified for the house, so now she is homeless. So she began living with some guy, and of course left the church. You get one guess how she paid rent. My church's reaction-- a lot of judgemental clucking but no help to prevent her perfectly rational decision given the circumstances. I tried to help, but I could not afford to support two households.
She cried bitterly about the church's treatment, "They see me as immoral." "That's true," I said, "But their sins, though less public, are far more serious. because their sins are deep in their heart and far more insidious."
It was revealing that Janet Yellen testified to Congress that making abortion illegal will hurt the economy. It’s not good for progress to disenfranchise women; there’s so much evidence in repressive countries. But, never mind! Punishment is its own reward for the Christian fascists.
Because it was a policy decision dressed up as a legal one, which decision has proven to be quite unpopular. Roe v. Wade mandates that states permit, unrestricted, second term abortions. Second term abortions are highly unpopular. Most countries do not allow them. FYI, your use of the "15 to 24" is highly misleading. Why stop at 15? Why not say "5 to 24." The fact is most women who get abortions are not minors.
This one might still upset you. What the hell is a "second term abortion"?
Amazing. Please get your terminology straight. I have corrected by statistical error by providing you with the above link. "Women are most likely to have an abortion at age 20, when the abortion rate peaks at 29.1 per 1000"
Most abortions are performed in the first trimester, up to 15 weeks. Second trimester abortions are much less common (up to 24 weeks) and are mostly done for medical reasons.
"Roe v. Wade mandates that states permit, unrestricted, second term abortions."
This is the second time you've said this, and the second time I've noted that 1) "second term abortions" aren't a thing (as there is only one "term" involved; they are trimesters) and, more importantly, 2) that it is a factually incorrect statement about Roe, which does in fact allow regulations in the second trimester. Why do you keep repeating this?
The decision is quite unpopular with a small group of people, but not unpopular with the majority of the people polled in the US. As for other countries, meaning European ones probably, there are social safety nets...health care that doesn't rest on employment, maternity leave that is longer than 6 weeks, and abortion is still allowed for medical reasons.
The line I've heard used to justify this stance is "I guess the father has to be a good guy for it not to be murder." They will say preventing "murder" is more important than forcing the woman to bring a pregnancy to term. Once you believe that abortion is murder, it's easy for them to justify anything because isn't murder the greatest of all evils? If your opponents are "baby murderers" you can justify just about anything. It's the philosophical equivalent of declaring a blueprint draft to be a fully-constructed house.
As another commenter asked you, do stop transmitting for long enough to actually register what others are saying?
From Mona's piece: "Pregnancy has no analogs and life is messy. In the cases of the life of the mother, rape, and incest, it is cruel to demand that a woman carry a pregnancy to term. Yes, ending the pregnancy is cruel too, but in rare cases it’s the lesser evil. There are a few other situations in which abortion seems the less grave offense—if the child is doomed to a short, painful life as in the case of Tay-Sachs disease, or if the mother is the sole support of other children and becomes so violently sick during pregnancy that it would prevent her from working."
You may still disagree with what Mona said. Fine. But try disagreeing with what people say, not jumping to conclusions as to why those other than yourself should not be listened to.
What Mona said: "In the cases of the life of the mother, rape, and incest, it is cruel to demand that a woman carry a pregnancy to term. Yes, ending the pregnancy is cruel too, but in rare cases it’s the lesser evil." She is saying that ABORTION IS PREFERABLE to making victims or rape and incest carry to full term, the opposite of what you claim she said.
This might be an issue with the way the sentence has been written. My reading of it was that even within the confines of rape and incest, it would rarely be be preferable to have an abortion.
She defined the antecedent of "rare cases" as rape and incest. Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Are you a woman with a rare medical condition worsened by pregnancy? I am. "Life is messy" does not strike me as disingenuous understatement, but a short description of how things are. My reading comprehension is fine, thank you.
Nice of you to lecture me on what you know nothing about.
I do not characterize people as "trolls" or "not trolls". "Troll" isn't just a noun but a verb. And you are trolling. Have a nice day.
The "pro life" party is really a "pro birth" party. After birth, the prevailing conservative/Republican philosophies of "personal responsibility" and "I got to where I am on my own, so should you" kicks in. If the party was pro life would they say no to vaccines that save lives, child tax credits to help reduce childhood poverty, access to affordable health care for children (talking to you Mr Abbott), access to affordable prenatal care, access to assistance for child care for working parents, and the list goes one. The Republican Party should not be allowed to use the pro life moniker. Brand them as only pro birth and then you're on your own.
Suggested correction to this phrase from Mona Charen's piece:
"With the Supreme Court poised to toss the issue back into politics. . . ."
Revise to:
"With the Supreme Court poised to toss the issue back into a different arena of politics. . . . ."
So the financial worries of a pregnant woman “can be alleviated”. Yes indeed - but they won’t be. Notice the passive voice…. “can be alleviated” doesn’t get to who will do the alleviation. Not a plan you can take to the bank.
And adoption is also not a realistic solution for most women. Apart from the emotional trauma of giving up a baby you have lived with for nine months, what about the real-world problems of pregnancy? How will the mother pay for prenatal checkups and hospital birth? Who would pay for medical costs if the pregnancy runs into to one of the many complications of pregnancy. And what about the woman’s job? Employers have been known to find a reason to “lay off” pregnant women. Some employers straight up fire unmarried pregnant women because they aren’t considered morally fit to represent the morally-stellar company. If adoption is such a winning solution, why are there thousands of children in foster care?
Suggestion for how to solve the”pregnancy problem” need to be connected to the real world.
Fun abortion facts:
1) 6-in-10 women who get abortions are already mothers.
2) 1-in-4 women will have an abortion at some point during their child-bearing years.
3) 90+% of abortions are done in the 1st trimester (92% in first 13 weeks).
If the GOP doesn't get that there's going to be an immense backlash to this ruling and the subsequent state laws that kick in, then they are dreaming. This issue will move swing voters and mobilize liberals--even the young ones. It impacts more people's lives and is more popular than they understand. And they're STILL going the maximist route--no exceptions for rape, incest, mother's health--via one-liners like "I guess the father has to be a good guy for it not to be a murder" (yes, I've see pro-lifers throwing that one around). They don't see how badly this is going to backfire on them going into the next two election cycles.
Stat source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/14/upshot/who-gets-abortions-in-america.html
Charlie, I'm one of your biggest fans, but I'm going to have to disagree with your characterization of Mona's piece as nuanced. Mona is making the same argument she makes consistently, which is that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest, and extreme medical conditions on the part of the mother or fetus. Her response to unwanted pregnancies: better support and/or adoption. This is (en)forced pregnancy, and is an extreme position not in keeping with the majority of Americans. There is a reason abortion had been on the back burner (though certainly an always simmering part of the political soup): it had been laid to rest as settled precedent, which all of Trump's appointees agreed to respect in public and private questioning.
Abortion is obviously a very emotional subject. But no matter how much I may agree or disagree with the writers’ views (and I am not completely on board with every argument presented by both Mona and Will), I want to applaud their principled stance and good faith arguments.
As someone who is frankly squishy on the topic, I would like pro-choice folks to think about how the social conservatives are finally able to reverse Roe (assuming the draft opinion sticks), and what they can do to regain the upper hand?
Social conservatives are finally able to reverse Roe by buying themselves a majority of Supreme Court Justices mostly appointed by Presidents that lost the majority vote. The United States is a majority minority country. It is no longer a democracy.
And Senate leaders who say you can't possibly vote on a SC justice within 10 months of an election unless it's two months until the election and we think we will lose.
I saw Charlie's appearance on The Beat last night and had the same reaction.
I'm amazed at how so many democrats are politically naive (or more honestly, outright politically stupid) - they would rather "feel" good at the moment by protesting outside the home of a SCOTUS than to think of the implications it has on the midterms, where many suburban voters will turn away from a "radical" or "extreme" democratic party.
When we have so many good arguments to make regarding the overturning of Roe, why must the Progressive wing of the party loudly insist on "whenever" abortions, no restrictions, when a majority of Americans from any party are as against that as they are in "never" abortions?
Like it or not, neither Democrats or Republicans can win elections without convincing Independents to vote for them. Most of those Independents live in the suburbs and they are not in the 18-25 yo age group. No generation in my lifetime voted with any frequency when they were the "younger" generation.
Instead of taking the opportunity to convince the 18-25 yo's that using their voice is great, but it is meaningless to bringing about change if they don't VOTE, progressives like Jason Johnson live in a fantasy world thinking that just the right "cause" will magically succeed in turning out their vote in sufficient numbers, though it's never happened in my long lifetime....
Someone made that same calculation regarding Black and Latino voters several decades ago, and how did that work out? We lost the working class of voters because we stopped fighting for them at the same time.... It doesn't have to be a numbers game - it ought to be an issues game. And we need to include every group who shares the same vision of a better America with better opportunities for all of us.
It's a little funny nobody is insisting that protesting Covid outside the homes of public health officials is going to turn suburban voters away from the GOP. Even though it has been a lot more widespread than these protests.
Again, do you want to be "right" and "feel good", or do you want to win elections? Seems to me if you don't want the GQP retaking power, and all that portends for our country and our democracy, it's a question that can only have one answer....
I'm pretty sure journalists are only supposed to be concerning themselves with the business of being right, which makes the failure to note the important context rather peculiar.
Once upon a time, the media asked more questions than "will this win an election?" That they largely don't anymore, instead just repeating talking points, is a big part of why we're in the mess we're in.
It really doesn't matter. The GQP will characterize any support for abortion, anywhere, however nuanced or moderate, as proof Democrats are baby killers. It is just another of their culture war artillery.
Intimidation through protest is not violence. And if "swing voters" are "put off" by rowdy (but nonviolent) protests than we are hopeless.
There is only ONE issue in 2022 and 2024 who will work to preserve democracy and who will work to undermine democracy. Abortion and the other culture war issues are just distractions.
"A year after the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol, a CNN poll asked whether it’s likely “that, in the next few years, some elected officials will successfully overturn the results of an election.” Fifty-one percent of Republicans and 44 percent of Democrats said it’s not at all likely. Only 46 percent of Democrats and independents said that U.S. democracy is under attack, which helps to explain why Democratic candidates aren’t campaigning on defending democracy."
We can't even convince a majority of Democrats that Democracy is on the ballot in the upcoming election, so how are we supposed to convince Independents? The economy and culture wars will decide this next election, and we're losing on both fronts. Maybe it's time we ask why and change our strategy....
More widespread AND violent. But the Democrats are extreme.
McKinley going down in West Virginia should lay to rest any ideas pundits have about what bipartisanship and crossing Trump gets you in a very red state: a primary loss. Doesn't matter if you voted to give your constituents broadband, fill potholes, or running water. Don't kiss the ring and you lose!
It should also give Joe Manchin an idea of how much weight his endorsement carries in the Republican base, the same one that will show up in droves to end his career in 2024.
Except they LOVE Manchin because he has put the brakes on the Democrats in the Senate....
They won’t come Wlection Day 2024. Because right now they love Manchin for what he does, he’s the best they can hope for under the circumstances. But why settle for a lesser version/simulacrum when you can get the pure, uncut sh*t? All Manchin’s triangulation will end up accomplishing him is that he loses by “only” 15 points, instead of 20+, the next time he faces voters (if he even bothers to run for reelection)
I bet you Manchin does 10 points better than Biden in West Virginia in 2024. I also bet you he loses.
I absolutely would NOT take that bet.
They won't come election time.
They could just get a Republican for that.
They could, but getting a Democrat to do it for them is so much sweeter.
There are solutions for women who are on the fence about abortion, but Republicans would *never* entertain them.
-A guaranty of free healthcare and housing for every pregnant woman and her family.
-A guaranty of a minimum stipend to cover any living/housing costs that they cannot cover themselves.
-A guaranty that if they are in school, their progress will at worst only be paused with them to resume immediately upon their desire to do so.
-A guaranty that the child will have full healthcare up to age five (at a minimum).
-A guaranty that the woman's children would have immediate access to child care as soon as she decided she was ready to re-enter school or the work force.
-A guaranty of free after school programs to fill the donut hole of when school ends and when most jobs end.
-A guaranty of a minimum six weeks recovery time that can instantly and immediately be extended (because the detatching of the placenta is effectively an internal gunshot wound--not every gunshot wound heals with the same alacrity).
-A guaranty that they will not miss out on any promotions or raises while they are away from work.
You *must* eliminate every.possible.negative. before you decide you are going to treat half the population as brood mares.
Once all that is in place and firmly established, then you can *ask* a woman if she might prefer to have a(nother) child. It would, and should always be, her decision.
As you stated, none of that will ever happen. I am old enough to remember Reagan's "welfare queens" ads. Women who have multiple children and receive those kinds of benefits have been vilified for generations. It was predominantly republicans who brought out the bullhorns and shouted from the rooftops about lazy women having children to stay on welfare.
Yep, Republicans get it both ways again:
Get pregnant and bring the fetus to term: Welfare queen
Get pregnant and terminate the pregnancy: Baby killer
One of the most disingenuous aspects of the "pro-life" position is that forcing a woman or
raped child to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is that doing so, with adoption being so easy (at least in their minds), is pretty harmless.
In this country that is nonsense. The US has the highest rate of maternity-related death in the developed world. We do not have universal health care to make sure the pregnant woman stays safe throughout pregnancy. And, as pointed out above, support for mothers of infants and small children, especially those who are poor, is practically non-existent in huge swathes of the US.
I might have a bit more respect for Mona's position if she were advocating for the large tax increases to put such a safety net in place that are a prerequisite for making forced birth in any way fair.
I think you meant “ second trimester not second term”. While you state the Roe “ mandates states to allow second trimester abortion the actual rate of abortions in the second trimester is very small, 1.3 %. According to this document from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology:
In the United States, more than one half of pregnancies are unintended, with 3 in 10 women having an abortion by age 45 years. In 2008, 1.2 million abortions occurred in the United States, of which 6.2% took place between 13 weeks of gestation and 15 weeks of gestation, and 4.0% took place at 16 weeks of gestation or later. Only 1.3% of abortions are performed at 21 weeks of gestation or later. The proportion of abortions performed in the second trimester, usually defined as between 13 weeks of gestation and 26 weeks of gestation (as calculated from the last menstrual period), has remained stable during the past two decades
For the next year or two (at least), the Republican base will require that their representatives spike the football. There will be much more extremism on the right in service of 'owning the libs'. On top of that, there really is a theocratic impulse that has no use for pluralism.
Charlie, I really like the Bulwark and read at least one article in it almost every day. But Mona's position on abortion is nuts. Let's face facts here. The notion that "life begins at conception," the basis of her position and increasingly that of all of the GOP, is a matter of opinion and not science. I assume that opinion is based on her religious faith, which I greatly respect. But it is NOT a matter of objective fact.
It is simply wrong for government at any level to take away the right to make a decision about what goes on in one's own body based on a religious view that is not even held by the majority.
The scientific consensus is that life begins at conception (fertilization). https://acpeds.org/position-statements/when-human-life-begins Whether and when an embryo develops sufficiently to be considered a person is a philosophical, religious, legal or political matter.
The problem with Mona's formulation is that once you define the debate in terms of competing "rights" you are setting up a conflict of postulates that transcend mere transient democratic majorities by definition. That's what makes ever arriving at a consensus so futile, as neither side will accept an abridgment of their preferences for the sake of comity.
I apologize for the sloppiness in my argument. Mona's position and that of others who think like her, is that when sperm meets ova "personhood" attaches. And that is truly only a matter of opinion.
The main problem with the Christian argument that abortion is murder is that it relies entirely Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill." However, the same Jewish law, in the only verse that touches on abortion (Exodus 21:22), treats the killing of a fetus as a property offense against the father. The penalty is payment of a civil fine to the father. To be consistent, the Christian argument should demand that a fetus be considered the father's property, and lobby for abortion to be treated as a property offense.
Twitter before Elon Musk had the right to ban Trump if it chose--- Twitter after Elon Musk has the right to allow Trump if it wants. Those who don't like it can move the invisible hand and go elsewhere.
[Sarcasm alert]
BUT everyone knows having Trump on Twitter is far more fun and entertaining than not having him there.
[End Sarcasm alert]
In the end, it is my job, not Twitters, to sort out truth from disinformation. The ability to block people I find objectionable (racists, fascists, homophobes, religious fanatics, etc.) means I have the power to shape my own Twitter experience without stripping others of their own.
"In the end, it is my job, not Twitters, to sort out truth from disinformation. " True. And yet, as a culture we are not doing that. Or at least a critical mass of triggered and motivated authoritarians are not doing that. We will get the government we deserve. And (to quote Menken/Sykes), we will get it good and hard.
Amen.
Trump certainly spices Twitter up, and as many have pointed out, his Twitter account would be bad for Republicans in general this November, serving as a reminder of what sort of monster leads their party. But his Twitter account also led directly to real-life violence, and an internationally shameful attack on our Capitol and a violent attempt to overturn a presidential election. This is what Elon will find out: content moderation is hard, and platforms cannot exist without content moderation.
Unfortunately, you can block everyone who trolls you, every bot that trolls you, and that may make your sanitized Twitter experience better, but what happens on Twitter doesn't always stay on Twitter.
Trump adds spice to Twitter. That’s the essence of our downfall. People expect constant entertainment and drama, even in politics. Especially in politics! We are a vapid and shallow people. We probably don’t deserve freedom.
"BUT everyone knows having Trump on Twitter is far more fun and entertaining than not having him there." Yep, that's how all ethical decisions should be made /s
Yeah.
Trump's ban from Twitter is about as close as we can get today to shunning someone from polite society.
Shunning in that fashion is a voluntary act for those who step over the line, or in his case blunder and bluster all over it.
In a just world he's in jail. A somewhat less just world sees him gathering dust in what amounts to social and political exile.
Where we're at of course is that he still has a court and that jackass dilettante Musk will give him the megaphone back because it stirs the conversation around what Musk is doing and feeds his own narcissism.
You just prompted a question I haven't thought about. Let's assume by some miracle Trump does end up in jail. I know most inmates are allowed limited access to the internet. Could trump tweet from jail? That would be drinking game fun!
Also, since we know dead people vote (/s), he would be able to tweet from his golden coffin after the Big Macs catch up with him, right?
I'm not a penal expert, but I'd assume he'd absolutely end up in some form of ad-seg. What internet privileges come with that, I don't know.
Who is the "we" doing the shunning? I have to stretch my brain to thinking of Twitter as an embodiment of "polite society".
It's one of the primary vectors of social discourse these days, it just doesn't make a pretense of civility.
And it was meaningful enough that he engaged in juvenile attempts to evade his ban by using other people's accounts that were subsequently banned.
Charlie, I love the Bulwark, or at least I think I do, and it's why it pains me to see articles like the ones you've featured today, because it very much feels to me like either coping or outright delusion on basically everything.
To start with the easy bit, Schumer's bill is merely codifying what is currently already law thanks to Roe v Wade. If that's the 'maximalist' position, then we have a very different idea of what that is. Beyond that, politics is salesmanship, which is why Trump was so bad at it. You don't start with what you want. You put out the position you know you won't get and you let people haggle you down for it to where you actually want to be. That lets them think they got one over on you when you actually got what you want. Beyond that, the reason you need to bring it up for a vote is because you need to A. show the base that you actually do need more democrats in office because you don't have enough to do what they want and B. need to make it clear that the party position on this issue is not up for debate. Parties, at least until recently, stood for things. You couldn't be a communist in Reagan's GOP, and you can't be anti-abortion in today's Democratic party.
Moving beyond that, Mona is well out of her depth about what's coming. The positions are not going to get less maximalist, they're going to get more so, especially on the anti-choice side, which has already begun criminalizing not just abortion but things like Plan B and IVFs. What is coming, simply put, is another version of Dred Scott; we are going to have two Americas, where where you live determines what rights you have. Or we will, until there is a matter like Dred Scott where someone has an abortion in another state and there's a showdown over who has jurisdiction. And if you don't believe me, Louisiana just passed a law wherein it says, explicitly, that any judge that attempts to stop it in the state will be impeached, and any federal law that attempts to overrule it will be ignored. To put it bluntly, the issue of abortion is no less significant than that of slavery in our day and age, and rather than tone down the rhetoric, it's going to go to eleven.
Lastly, a shrinking GOP base means nothing, because they don't believe in elections or in voting. Any Democratic victory is a lie, any GOP failure is only due to evil by the other side. This is what animates the party. It doesn't matter if it's shrinking, because either later this year or in 2024, the party is simply going to seek, as JD Vance says, 'their American Caesar.' American institutions already don't reflect the popular will, and the Supreme Court has now taking to flouting it openly, so if you think it's going to do anything other than rubber stamp the GOP into power you're dreaming.
I hate to say it, but we as a nation are heading either towards a second civil war or dissolution. There is no other way to see the world, given the fact that neither side is going to give up on an issue or a set of beliefs that they consider literally life or death. The right already canonizes figures like Rittenhouse, and we're going to have a whole nation of them before long, I'm afraid.
I agree with everything you've said. My feeling is if a female is pregnant and she thinks that her embryo is a living person with a soul to be given life, I'm all for her having all the resources she needs to give birth to her baby. However if her sister becomes pregnant and absolutly does not want to be pregnant and give birth, why does anyone else care? It seems so personal to me. How can someone in a free country feel they have a right to force someone go through pregnancy and birth if she doesn't want to. It's her body.
You don't get politics, eh?
Rule #1: Don't bring up for a vote something that YOU KNOW will lose.
Rule #2: If you DO violate Rule #1, only do so to force the other side into a unpopular position that they will then have to explain and defend (if you are explaining and defending, you are losing the argument). You do this by voting on "popular" things that your opponents vote against (cf. Repubs voting "against" support for Ukraine by voting against a larger bill)
So, yeah....Don't put up for a vote a bill that 90% of the population is against that you are going to lose: This puts YOU in the position of explaining and defending an unpopular vote.
Instead, put up for a vote something that has 75% popular support that your opponents will vote against, forcing them to explain and defend.
Rule #3: Your "base" is your BASE. You aren't going to lose them simply because you don't vote for every maximalist thing. (Do you really think pro-2A voters are going to vote for a Dem just because once their Repub rep voted for background checks? Sure...)
Rule #4: Successful, long-term politicians (and parties) are so because they GROW support from beyond their base.
In a 50-50 country (or any race), if you can peel 5% of the other side to you, you win. If all you do is focus on the 30% that is your "base" to the exclusion of the other side - you lose. (See rural America and Dem failure)
I do not buy the "If you are explaining and defending, you are losing the argument." A huge problem is the rejection of nuance and context. So we get stupid memes instead of well-reasoned arguments. Furthermore, an explanation is not prima facie a defense. Both sides have accused me of "defending" when I am merely explaining a position, whether I hold that position or not. Debate Team 101.
There's the world we live in and the world as we wish it were.
If you have to spend 10 minutes explaining that, "Yes, I voted for abortions right up to the moment the child is born because there's this one in one million time that it *might* be necessary..."
You loose.
Your sentence is framing it all wrong. You are buying into limiting the definition of abortion to an elective procedure instead all abortions as opposed to miscarriages medically defined as spontaneous abortions. Doctors have been performing abortions for hundreds of years as an emergency medical procedure to save the life of the mother. However, we have learned that what seems obvious often needs to be specified by law to prevent bad actors taking advantage of loopholes. Also not one in a million. 1.3% of abortions occur after 21 weeks of pregnancy in the US. That is 13 in a thousand.
Yes, I have read it. Please show me where it says not after the third trimester (or when "viable" and define viable).
If it doesn't say it can't be done in the 39th week...then it can be done.
You just proved my point...1.3% after the 21st week (hint: third trimester is after 24 weeks, which would be even less)....And my reference to "one in a million" was the ONE time an abortion would need to be done in the 39th week (which is ridiculous - it can borne by caesarian) out of ALL pregnancies in the 39th week.
So, again, sacrificing the 1% is not worth getting the 99%? It's whole loaf or nothing?
Interesting calculation.
Yes, you have read what?
Caesareans are performed when feasible. Sometimes they are not. According to the data, medical abortions are required about 13 out of 1000 times. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2016/10/30/there-s-a-term-for-abortion-at-nine-months-cesarean-section/
"So, again, sacrificing the 1% is not worth getting the 99%? It's whole loaf or nothing?" What does that even mean?
The Democrats are putting up a bill that has majority support among the population. What bill are you talking about?
No, the majority do NOT support late term (third trimester) abortions, which this bill protects. The majority DO support first (and to a lesser degree), second trimester abortions.
Over 95% of abortions are in the first and second trimester. Why push for that last 5% when it's going to be bad politics?
The bill being voted on by the Senate is for abortion anytime, anywhere. That is NOT supported by the majority of the population.
We can guarantee that the GOP will be hanging that vote on every Dem who votes for it:
LOOK! The Dems want to KILL babies at the 39th week of pregnancy! We're against killing babies!!!! Vote Republican.
Versus:
The GOP was to prevent women from making responsible healthcare choices in the early stages of pregnancy. They want the victims of rape and incest to carry unborn babies to term. They want women that have ectopic pregnancies to suffer and quite possibly die because they want to ban ALL abortions.
See the difference?
How about take the first away from the GOP and run on the second?
That's called framing/triangulation...aka - politics
.
Because the last 5 percent of abortions are not just frivolous. A woman doesn't decide she wants to go on vacation instead of having a baby. It may not be because her life is in danger. Maybe the pregnancy will injure her and she won't be able to have more children. Maybe the baby has deformities that will, if it lives, cause it to live a short and painful life and the mother decides not to put it through that. An ectopic pregnancy, is when an embryo emplants in the fallopian tube. It not only cannot mature into a baby in the tube, it will cause the damage to the woman's reproductive organs and she won't be able to have any more children.
This bill is not for abortion anytime, anywhere. It is a codification of Roe. Nothing more.
Have you read the bill? Or are you relying on what you've heard other people say about the bill? Because what you are describing as the bill, is not the bill.
It doesn't MATTER what the bill actually says, Kevin, you KNOW that. What matters is that the GoP WILL represent it a certain way. There aren't a lot of people who will actually read the bill and even fewer who actually get nuance.
Most people do not even know what Roe v Wade or PP v Casey say... or what current abortion law where they live is.
Scott's post about politics above (with Rule 1 and 2) is essentially spot on.
That is why I proposed a codification of privacy rights the other day--it is an indirect support for the status quo and it puts the GoP into the position of being against personal privacy. They have to get bogged down into explanations and nuance about why they are voting that way.
I get what you're saying, but if it doesn't matter what that bill actually says then why would it matter what your privacy bill actually says?
The GOP will make up a lie to demagogue a privacy bill just as easily as they are doing now about the current Senate bill.
"No, the majority do NOT support late term (third trimester) abortions, which this bill protects."
They do when it's to protect life/health of the mother, which, like Roe, this bill is protecting.
Shawn, what an excellent, well argued reply to what I also found to be a disturbing column today by Charlie.
I too have really appreciated The Bulwark these past several years, but since the Roe news broke I have increasingly found myself in disagreement with the various writers. I think their conservative roots are showing....and those old beliefs they may have held for years are now coming up against their new found progressive growth. They are being forced to confront the abortion issse , and it feels like it's omething that clearly makes them uncomfortable is something they'd really rather not do.
“The shrinking GOP base” means nothing to them, because they have the tools and the will to enforce minority rule. That’s what has me in despair. The presumed Roe decision is just one slap in the face, with more to come.
Triumph of the Swill
You might want to tell the anti-choice Mona Charen that the largest number of abortions are performed on women age 15 to 24. Her claim that many women get them because of financial reasons is narrow, simplistic and inaccurate. I wish people like her would stop putting up silly arguments for why we should be second-guessing a right that has been settled law since 1973. Really, handing money to a 15 year old to get her to have a baby?
Even granting Mona’s position, she claims those financial reasons “can be fixed”- by who, Mona? Her column only indicates that the old maxim about pro-lifers only caring about the pre-born are still 100% true.
If it was really about “saving babies”, “protecting mothers”, even just a little about helping ANYONE other than themselves, they’d propose financial assistance, childcare assistance, shelter assistance, something, anything provided by the state. Because these young mothers are often shunned by their communities and families, during and after pregnancy.
If you really think “finances” are an easily-solvable solution to reduce abortions, propose incentives for women to never have to consider finances when having a child. It’s that simple.
Otherwise, Mona, we can all tell it’s just posturing.
I've been bullied a bit by male commenters on various blogs because I keep asking why women can't simply have the right to terminate a pregnancy? This whole thing about justifying banning abortions because some sanctimonious people want to talk about "helping" pregnant women who don't have the financial means to be mothers is garbage. Why can't a woman have an abortion simply because it's her body and she doesn't want to be pregnant or give birth against her will?
Marycat2021, you've asked the essential question that is seldom addressed. There are more reasons that a woman could not want to be pregnant than apparently ever imagined by those who think just throwing money at her is sufficient. If "pro-lifers" were required to answer your question they would reveal their true patriarchial, authoritarian, misogynist religious reasons.
I'm retired and am doing research and reading about the history of misogyny, and I'm seeing how deep the anti-woman attitudes run, attitudes and thinking that have their roots in Herodotus and Aristotle. It's become almost hard-wired in the human brain. Last night, someone here commented that if women don't want to get pregnant, they shouldn't have sex. Another said that "the man" involved in the woman's pregnancy has just as much right to decide whether it should be terminated. We are still seeing that the loudest anti-choice voices are coming from men; they have always dominated the anti-choice movement.
I was pregnant on my 18th birthday, in 1975. I got a safe, affordable abortion in a clinic that was adjoined to a major hospital. I was treated with kindness and respect, and nobody called me a murderer. Not only was I going to college in the fall, but I just did not want that pregnancy or that baby. I was terrified of what would happen to me and my life, even though my boyfriend offered to marry me (oh please, that's not an answer or all purpose fix-it!). I have never regretted my decision. And perhaps if I had been able to obtain effective birth control in my tiny town back then, I would have a different story to tell. Abortion was the first major decision I ever had to make as an adult.
"Last night, someone here commented that if women don't want to get pregnant, they shouldn't have sex. Another said that "the man" involved in the woman's pregnancy has just as much right to decide whether it should be terminated" Who said either of those things?
It was somewhere on the Bulwark. Why?
I do not agree with abortion as a cavalier substitute for other birth control methods. Personally, I think that if THE MAN and the woman (it takes two after all) are not ready for the responsibility of a child, they should not engage in the activity that can potentially produce a child in spite of diligent use of birth control methods. The only 100% effective method of birth control is abstinence. But I also understand the reality of human nature. Furthermore, I am not willing to make my personal views a legal mandate.
Lol the man? Is he pregnant?
If either of the potential parents is not ready to be a parent, then neither should engage in the activity that has the potential to make them a parent.
Even if these young mothers have their babies, they are still shunned by their communities and families. One of these young mothers with two preschool children and one infant, all different fathers, decided to turn her life around. She got herself sterilized. She started coming to my church. Except for some individuals like me, the church rejected her.
But she kept coming until the father of the infant got out of jail stole her car and stole her welfare money, and took off. As a result she couldn't pay her rent and utilities. Child protective services said without utilities her house was uninhabitable and took her children. Without children, she no longer qualified for the house, so now she is homeless. So she began living with some guy, and of course left the church. You get one guess how she paid rent. My church's reaction-- a lot of judgemental clucking but no help to prevent her perfectly rational decision given the circumstances. I tried to help, but I could not afford to support two households.
She cried bitterly about the church's treatment, "They see me as immoral." "That's true," I said, "But their sins, though less public, are far more serious. because their sins are deep in their heart and far more insidious."
It was revealing that Janet Yellen testified to Congress that making abortion illegal will hurt the economy. It’s not good for progress to disenfranchise women; there’s so much evidence in repressive countries. But, never mind! Punishment is its own reward for the Christian fascists.
Because it was a policy decision dressed up as a legal one, which decision has proven to be quite unpopular. Roe v. Wade mandates that states permit, unrestricted, second term abortions. Second term abortions are highly unpopular. Most countries do not allow them. FYI, your use of the "15 to 24" is highly misleading. Why stop at 15? Why not say "5 to 24." The fact is most women who get abortions are not minors.
https://www.132healthwise.com/abortion-and-age-when-do-women-have-abortions.php
This one might still upset you. What the hell is a "second term abortion"?
Amazing. Please get your terminology straight. I have corrected by statistical error by providing you with the above link. "Women are most likely to have an abortion at age 20, when the abortion rate peaks at 29.1 per 1000"
Most abortions are performed in the first trimester, up to 15 weeks. Second trimester abortions are much less common (up to 24 weeks) and are mostly done for medical reasons.
"Roe v. Wade mandates that states permit, unrestricted, second term abortions."
This is the second time you've said this, and the second time I've noted that 1) "second term abortions" aren't a thing (as there is only one "term" involved; they are trimesters) and, more importantly, 2) that it is a factually incorrect statement about Roe, which does in fact allow regulations in the second trimester. Why do you keep repeating this?
Of course he meant second trimester. Let that part go and concentrate on the salient part of the misstatement.
The decision is quite unpopular with a small group of people, but not unpopular with the majority of the people polled in the US. As for other countries, meaning European ones probably, there are social safety nets...health care that doesn't rest on employment, maternity leave that is longer than 6 weeks, and abortion is still allowed for medical reasons.
They also want men to have the right to make decisions about what women do with their bodies and their lives.
The line I've heard used to justify this stance is "I guess the father has to be a good guy for it not to be murder." They will say preventing "murder" is more important than forcing the woman to bring a pregnancy to term. Once you believe that abortion is murder, it's easy for them to justify anything because isn't murder the greatest of all evils? If your opponents are "baby murderers" you can justify just about anything. It's the philosophical equivalent of declaring a blueprint draft to be a fully-constructed house.
As another commenter asked you, do stop transmitting for long enough to actually register what others are saying?
From Mona's piece: "Pregnancy has no analogs and life is messy. In the cases of the life of the mother, rape, and incest, it is cruel to demand that a woman carry a pregnancy to term. Yes, ending the pregnancy is cruel too, but in rare cases it’s the lesser evil. There are a few other situations in which abortion seems the less grave offense—if the child is doomed to a short, painful life as in the case of Tay-Sachs disease, or if the mother is the sole support of other children and becomes so violently sick during pregnancy that it would prevent her from working."
You may still disagree with what Mona said. Fine. But try disagreeing with what people say, not jumping to conclusions as to why those other than yourself should not be listened to.
What Mona said: "In the cases of the life of the mother, rape, and incest, it is cruel to demand that a woman carry a pregnancy to term. Yes, ending the pregnancy is cruel too, but in rare cases it’s the lesser evil." She is saying that ABORTION IS PREFERABLE to making victims or rape and incest carry to full term, the opposite of what you claim she said.
This might be an issue with the way the sentence has been written. My reading of it was that even within the confines of rape and incest, it would rarely be be preferable to have an abortion.
She defined the antecedent of "rare cases" as rape and incest. Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Are you a woman with a rare medical condition worsened by pregnancy? I am. "Life is messy" does not strike me as disingenuous understatement, but a short description of how things are. My reading comprehension is fine, thank you.
Nice of you to lecture me on what you know nothing about.
I do not characterize people as "trolls" or "not trolls". "Troll" isn't just a noun but a verb. And you are trolling. Have a nice day.