Be as clear and concise as possible in your posts, and avoid using jargon or unnecessarily complex language. Use proper spelling and grammar, and make sure that your posts are easy to understand.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 0
In an interview with Nora O'Donnell, Harris tripled down on stating that she wanted to put back in place Roe-V-Wade. But after repeatedly being pressed, she simply wouldn't agree that she supported restrictions after viability. This is maddening. Surely she knows what Roe does. <smh>
No. of Recommendations: 11
But after repeatedly being pressed, she simply wouldn't agree that she supported restrictions after viability.
The number of abortions in the US after viability is vanishingly small. Around 1%. Without checking, a good portion of those are likely to be desired pregnancies where some health issues have arisen, making the abortion an undesired but medically necessary procedure.
That is the **last** place you want to start government meddling in abortion decisions.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 3
The number of abortions in the US after viability is vanishingly small. Around 1%. Without checking, a good portion of those are likely to be desired pregnancies where some health issues have arisen, making the abortion an undesired but medically necessary procedure.
That is the **last** place you want to start government meddling in abortion decisions.
I agree. If a woman is that far along they've been thinking of motherhood and are looking forward to it. Happy, excited. Then... tragedy.
No. of Recommendations: 1
The number of abortions in the US after viability is vanishingly small. Around 1%. Without checking, a good portion of those are likely to be desired pregnancies where some health issues have arisen, making the abortion an undesired but medically necessary procedure.
That is the **last** place you want to start government meddling in abortion decisions.Sure, but this is not what Roe decided - from
https://www.history.com/topics/womens-history/roe-...:
The court divided pregnancy into three trimesters, and declared that:
- the choice to end a pregnancy in the first trimester was solely up to the woman.
- In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health.
- In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.My point is that Harris refused to clarify that although reinstating Roe as the law of the land was the first thing she wanted done, she also - most likely - ideally wants there to be no restrictions whatsoever on any decision reached by a woman and her doctors and family on whether to have an abortion or not.
For the record, I agree. But I suppose coming out and saying unambiguously that she wants no restrictions would lose her some votes.
No. of Recommendations: 5
I suppose coming out and saying unambiguously that she wants no restrictions would lose her some votes.
Of course. She is a politician attempting to win election to an office.
My point is that all of this third trimester crap is just that: crap. It’s a GOP talking point (note: GOP, not MAGA, as this long predates Trumpism) meant to rile up conservatives and gain control over women.
They’re making a mountain, not out of a molehill, but out of a pimple on a flea on a mole.
Regulating third trimester abortion is just a camel’s nose under a tent to regulate abortion earlier in a pregnancy.
—Peter
No. of Recommendations: 1
Regulating third trimester abortion is just a camel’s nose under a tent to regulate abortion earlier in a pregnancy.
I know what you're saying here, but Roe already allowed BOTH of those things (both 3rd tri and 2nd tri restrictions). Yet, reinstating Roe would still be a good thing overall.
No. of Recommendations: 2
but Roe already allowed BOTH of those things (both 3rd tri and 2nd tri restrictions). Yet, reinstating Roe would still be a good thing overall.
Yes. Roe was a compromise. It was good in that it clearly allowed some abortions. But it was imperfect, as are most laws and judicial interpretations of the law. Is it better than the current situation? I would argue that it is. And I suspect that is Harris' point. She'd like to get Roe back because, while imperfect, it is better than both the pre- and now post-Roe eras.
Of course, we're never getting Roe back. We will need some other pathway to legalize abortion across the country. That could be a national law, or a constitutional amendment, or state-level action in the states that are currently restricting abortion.
If I had my druthers, I'd like a combination of a nearly wide-open access to abortion legally, and combine that with updated guidance in the medical code of ethics that helps doctors decide when abortions should and should not be performed.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 17
Regulating third trimester abortion is just a camel’s nose under a tent to regulate abortion earlier in a pregnancy.
Agreed. It's totally stupid, and indicates a fundamental misunderstanding by the anti-choice people.
If a woman is in the third trimester, do they really think she didn't want the baby? Really?! If you're that far along, you wanted it (almost always). So something happened, something changed. Probably something very serious. And they want to mess with the health of the woman and/or fetus? That's just crazy, and stupid. No doctor or woman is going to intervene in a third-trimester pregnancy unless it was critically necessary.
Which is why there should be NO RESTRICTIONS on abortion. It's up to the woman and her physician. There are a myriad of situations and complications that cannot be codified into law, and we shouldn't even try. It just endangers women's health, and victimizes them.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Abortion in the third trimester of a viable pregnancy has always been illegal. This is a "Trumped" up issue like "partial birth abortion", which is not a medical term and refers to nothing.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I agree it is a hyped issue. But is it really illegal? If the health of the mother or fetus is at stake (which is really the primary reason a woman would opt for that at that late stage), I would think there wouldn't be any question (until recently). Any unwanted pregnancy would be dealt with months before. So, yes, in that respect it is a non-issue. And I also knew the "partial birth abortion" wasn't a thing.
There shouldn't be any question. It should be legal all the way simply because you can't reasonably codify all the "what-ifs" into law. And a lot of "what-ifs" will occur every year.
No. of Recommendations: 5
This is a "Trumped" up issue like "partial birth abortion"
But Trump's rally audience swim ecstatically in his stream of garbage lies
It was NBC fake news. She asked me about all sorts of things. She asked me about abortion and I handled it very nicely because you know what? That’s so overplayed. We have abortion. We have the whole thing brought back into the states where it belongs. That’s where everybody wanted it for years and years and years. And in six states you’re allowed to kill the baby after the baby is born. And you know, one of those states is Minnesota where this Tampon Tim comes from...You’re allowed to execute the baby,they put the baby on the table and they execute the baby, they execute the babies on the table....”
