Why they’re really, really scared about the Mississippi Personhood Amendment
A potentially game-changing date for the pro-life and pro-abortion movements is quickly upon us, only 10 days away. (Make sure to read the money line at the end of this post.)
On November 8 Mississippi voters will decide the fate of Initiative 26, aka the Personhood Amendment, which states:
The term “person” or “persons” shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.
Almost unbelievably, Amendment 26 really might pass. Quoting the pro-abortion website Salon:
Personhood amendments were once considered too radical for the mainstream pro-life movement, but in the most conservative state in the country, with an energized, church-mobilized grass roots, Mississippi could well be the first state to pass one. Initiative 26 even has the state’s top Democrats behind it.
Yes, shock, both the Republican and Democrat candidates for governor support Initiative 26.
And if Amendment 26 passes, the Roe v. Wade decision may be on our side, shock again. Explained pro-abortion writer Nina Burleigh at Time:
The logistical, legal basis for the personhood movement is a sentence in Roe v. Wade written by Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun in 1973: “The appellee and certain amici [pro-lifers] argue that the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”…
[S]upporters have decided to drive a truck into that legal wording and declare all zygotes persons.
If Blackmun thought the facts about prenatal development were “well-known” 37 years ago, he’d be astounded today.
Today we can see the miracle of conception take place in a petri dish. We can see very young babies dance and wave in the womb via ultrasound. Scientific knowledge has advanced drastically since 1973, all on the side of life.
Moreover, money and momentum are on our side. Again quoting Salon:
The state’s tiny pro-choice contingent was stunned by Personhood’s success. It didn’t help that a legal challenge mounted, and eventually lost, by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood delayed the official opposition.
The Personhood coalition had been busy organizing – getting churches on board, showing up at every gun show, county fair and flea market telling people it would save babies – for months.
But the opposition coalition, known as Mississippi for Healthy Families, waited until a state Supreme Court decision a month ago kept the initiative on the ballot. Before that, says Stan Flint, the managing partner of Southern Strategies who’s advising them, “People wouldn’t pull out a checkbook.”
They could expect no help from local Democrats. The party’s current candidate for governor, Johnny Dupree, who would be the first black statewide official since Reconstruction, supports Personhood. (Republican candidate Phil Bryant embraced Personhood early on, and co-chairs Yes on 26.)
Only one of Mississippi’s legislators, Deborah Dawkins, has come out against the measure, telling the Huffington Post that her fellow Democrats “are at a different place in their life, they’ve got to have a job.”
I’m told that to this point our side has spent at least double that of the other side on television ads, although we can’t rest on that. It would come as no surprise for pro-abortion groups across the country to dump huge amounts of money and people to defeat Initiative 26 in these last days. They really are afraid, picking up the writing pace against it exponentially in these last several days.
But here’s the money line I promised at the beginning of this post, quoting Salon. I’ve read it over and over. Imagine the day…
Personhood could represent the most audaciously successful reframing of the national abortion debate yet – in which pro-choicers have to fight over whether forms of birth control are abortion, as opposed to ensuring a woman’s right and access to reproductive choice.
And this aside from saving absolutely every preborn life – no exceptions – from being killed.
[Top photo via Salon, second photo via Slate]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Unless Roe v Wade is overturned this law will have no effect.
Imagine the FDA having to put a surgeon general’s warning on birth control pills: Warning, this drug may act to prevent implantation of the early human embryo.
Seeing so many pill sellers now admitting to what was has been routinely concealed in U.S. marketing efforts has been interesting.
“And this aside from saving absolutely every preborn life – no exceptions – from being killed.”
The problem is that it would save absolutely no unborn children, since it would be struck down by the courts and never go into effect. A state cannot change the Supreme Court’s interpretation of whether unborn human beings count as constitutional “persons” simply because the state says they should. It doesn’t work that way. The Court will have to change its mind, or we can amend the federal Constitution.
I will include the successful passing of this Amendment in my prayers.
I know this is encouraging but unless we get 5 solid judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade, no matter what we define terms as they will just swat it down. Heck, in South Korea their court ruled a live human embryo wasn’t actually a life form. They don’t play by the rules, they don’t follow the letter of the law, otherwise we would have never had Roe v. Wade in the first place. There is no silver bullet for our cause, we just have to keep pounding the rock until we get a favorable Supreme Court. I suspect this ends with another loony opinion from a federal court, and we’ll see if this is a net positive in terms of education and public opinion… I hope so, that’s what we need the most!
We will keep knocking and knocking and knocking….and one day the door to us, and all the little ones, will be opened.
If I really wanted an abortion you people sure as heck wouldn’t stop me.
FYI… no one really wants to live in your Xtian version of Iran.
Ok Lisa.
I suppose if I wanted to go out and murder someone, Lisa, I could probably do it and no one could stop me, if I tried hard enough. But that doesn’t make it right, and the legal system would have every right to intervene with my attempt to take an innocent life.
Mississippi, the state which ranks at or near the very bottom in almost every standardized measure of quality of life, including health, education, and average income and IQ, simply has nothing better to do than pass novelty amendments to its state constitution that can’t even be enforced. Behold, the red state of tomorrow… today!
The last shall be first, joan.
“Mississippi, the state which ranks at or near the very bottom in almost every standardized measure of quality of life, including health, education, and average income and IQ,”
IQ is a measure of quality of life? That’s funny. I guess a knuckle dragger like me has a lower quality of life than snotty and stuck up elitists and I just didn’t know it.
I have actually lived in Mississippi, and the people there are no more different than those in any other state I’ve lived in. Except perhaps for the fact that they might not see as many nuances when it comes to life and its preciousness. If my hunch is true, then they are a LOT richer than Connecticut.
Lisa, I can’t stop you from getting an abortion. But only one of us can be right. And either abortion is good for women, or it’s not. It HAS to be one or the other. What if you’re wrong?
Oh, and PS–I DON”T CARE (for the millionth time) how many people you want to sleep or contracept with. I REALLY DONT. But once you make the baby, he’s here. He’s HERE.
With every restriction to abortion and so-called “fetal protection” law that gets passed, supporters swear up and down they are not intended to be used to prosecute women. And yet women are being prosecuted for abortions, miscarriages, and stillbirths all over the country as we speak due to these laws. Now the supporters of the personhood thing are swearing up and down that women will not be investigated and prosecuted for miscarriages. But it can, and will, lead to women being targeted by zealous authority figures if there’s anything “suspicious” about the miscarriage or the woman may have done something unhealthy.
Who are these people who are being prosecuted for miscarriages, Donna?
And is that a bunny with a pancake on its head for your avatar? Really?
Courtnay, I’d like to know the same thing. Who are the women prosecuted for miscarriages?
If it goes into effect it may be challenged it the Federal Courts, but MS would beginning saving lives immediately because it would go into effect until the Feds challenged it. The challenge could potentially go all the way to the Supreme Court and since Pro-Life actually has Science on their side… We can all hope.
Here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges
And yes, that is my avatar. Does it upset you for some reason?
Lisa – We’re not all “xtian”. Also, thank you for being a shining example of the absolutely and completely stupid mindset of “I’m gonna kill this kid, or die trying!” probably causing harm to yourself in the attempt. Although, with an attitude and logic like that, how are you guys going to say that WE are “responsible” for women like you dying in such attempts?
I guess your side just doesn’t grasp the idea that actions have consequences, whether it be for your child OR yourself.
Joan
I’ve been around people from Mississippi and the only thing that surpassed their intellect was their graciousness. If the statistics you cited were correct what it would really prove is that the people of Mississippi have managed to accomplish a lot with very little. This would prove their strength as a state. Now for people who think killing pre-born babies is cool well of course they would not have a positive view of Mississippi. This in my opinion would just prove their own lack of substance.
I see two cases listed in this article. One was of a cocaine addict whose preborn child died and the other was a mother who took rat poison leading to the death of her child. Pretty obvious to me that in the 2nd case, the mother took poison intending to kill both herself and her preborn child. So, while I don’t know much about the first case ( though I certainly would think since cocaine is known to cause heart attacks in addicts so surely we’d know it could cause cardiac arrest in a preborn child, no?) the 2nd case with the rat poison was clear intent to cause death.
Those women did not have spontaneous miscarriages–they were doing drugs and killed their children! The first woman was doing cocaine and her baby died at 36 weeks and the reporter writes that there’s no evidence that drugs had anything to do with the baby’s death???? ARE YOU KIDDING ME????
These are the worst kinds of mothers. They SHOULD be prosecuted, because what they did directly hurt their children who could not defend themselves. it’s called CHILD ABUSE, not a miscarriage. And I like how the writer makes sure the article includes quotes on how sad the mom is about having a stillborn child. Why didn’t that sorrow kick in BEFORE the meth lab exploded??
The bunny does not upset me. I does, however, make me laugh a little.
Save the bunnies, kill the babies, Courtnay? :D
You’re exactly right – these are clear cases of child endangerment and abuse, in utero. And I hope that, if they end up in prison, they get drug treatment there. My friend is in prison and he’s now active with AA there – and his addiction is what caused him in part to end up there.
I provided evidence that women are being prosecuted, which puts the lie to anti-abortion activists’ insistence that laws that restrict abortion or “protect the unborn” will not be used to prosecute women and the response is basically “oh well these particular women deserved it”. Predictable.
But don’t worry, fine upstanding Republican Christian ladies (like Rick Santorum’s wife who had a lifesaving abortion) will probably be okay. Poor women and “bad girls” will bear the brunt of it.
In response to the problem with prosecuting women, I would offer teh following. Now obviously I don’t write the laws, but I would say that because miscarriages are quite common and because of the grief and trauma that most women experience because of a miscarriage, it would be prudent to not look into or investigate any miscarriages unless there is a priori reason to believe that there was some sort of foul play involved. That means that miscarriages shouldn’t be investigated in order to take legal action unless there is a clear reason for doing so. Thus, the default potion should be that this was a genuine miscarriage and no investigation should be taken. Could people take advantage of such a law and get away with aborting their own child? Yes, of course. But people can get away with most laws if they are careful enough. We simply can’t attempt to police every single little way that someone could find a loophole or go unnoticed by the law.
So if these investigations are indeed unjust and done on a whim, then I do not support them. But to call them miscarriages is to beg the question; that is, the very reason that these are being investigated is because it is believed on (presumably) good evidence that these are cases of abortions, not miscarriages. In the case of the rat poison, that would be, what, negligent homicide? I don’t really know legal terms, but like I mentioned above, this should not be the default assumption. The real strange part about all of this is that had this woman paid someone to kill her unborn child, then everything would be fine (under the law, of course).
Bobby, you can stop at “I don’t write the laws”. Because unless you are a MS legislator, prosecutor, judge, or police officer you will play no role in legislating, interpreting, or enforcing the personhood amendment. So you can claim until the cows come home that the intention is not to punish women but it doesn’t matter what you think will happen. It has already been demonstrated in the article I posted (and several others readily available on the net) that women ARE being prosecuted under laws that supporters swore wouldn’t be used against women.
And now you and other commenters are openly admitting you want at least some women to be prosecuted for abortions or miscarriages. Not like we haven’t known it all along, though.
Why the Connecticut hate? New Jersey would make a better contrast.
Donna, who is saying that the women “basically deserved” it? I think what is more “predictable” is someone wanting to read that pro-lifers are uncaring, so they take one comment and interpret it as “everyone is basically saying she deserved to die.”
Donna, did these children not deserve protection?
Donna,
The article states, “Gibbs did not take cocaine because she had a “depraved heart” or to “harm the foetus but to satisfy an acute psychological and physical need for that particular substance”, says the brief.”
So I guess we shouldn’t prosecute drunk/drugged drivers either? Pregnant women should get special treatment?
If a man is hopped up on cocaine and runs over a pregnant woman or beats her and it kills her unborn child (that maybe she had been trying for years to have and maybe is an only child), would you expect him to be charged for the death of her child?
No…unless she was on the way to the local Planned Parenthood.
When I moved around the country during my husband’s enlistment, I was always astounded by the comments I got about Mississippi. They call Mississippians ignorant yet they were ignorant ones. The comments and questions were just regurgitated stereotypes churned out by popular movies and tv.
Imagine if I believed Californians were just surfers and pot smoking hippies, or new yorkers were just rat-faced single 40 year-olds like the ones I see on t? So unless someone has actually been to Mississippi, and not just passing through on their way to New Orleans or Florida, your opinion about Mississippi is worthless.
Yes, MS has problems, we have a very large rural population that suffer from poverty and lack of education. And as far as the obesity, thing, I blame food stamps, otherwise Mississippians would be growing their own healthy food. But the government has trapped the poor rural folks on it’s plantation. But just like any state we have many different faces.
As far as the amendment, I will be voting YES. And whether or not it passes and whether or not it includes the pill and in-vitro fertilization, I’m just delighted that the debate has been happening. Because so many lies, half-truths and absurd logic have been brought to light and some hearts may be changed even if the initiative fails.
Would Mississippi residents be able to claim a state deduction immediately after a pregnancy test? How that work – obviously, there are some things that CAN’T apply to a baby before it is born – I mean, if we technically have a person at conception (by legal definition), can they drive at 16 years after that date? If a women doesn’t take care of herself and miscarries, could the father sue her? Or a grandparent? I’ve never been in a state where this debate has taken place – where do they draw these lines?
umm…don’t mothers USUALLY get prosecuted for giving their children poison or drugs, regardless of the reason?
If a woman were to lose a fertilized egg after say, 3 days, would there be a death certificate, funeral and burial?
So the pill, IUD’s etc. will now be illegal – so what will it be, a tax increase or just the provision of tents and gruel for the ensuing baby boom?
And now, here’s a link to a report about an Idaho woman being charged with “unlawful abortion”. http://www.idahopress.com/news/state/article_af96d919-7f3f-5969-8c77-bc918b3cc2b5.html
I await the inevitable defenses of this woman’s prosecution.
You guys realize you’re coming right out and admitting you want to punish women, don’t you?
She kept her baby in a box on her porch????!!!! Good gracious, Donna–where is your compassion?? Have you ever had a baby?
Who DO we punish in this world if not women who kill their babies and then put them out on the porch in a box????
Hi Donna Gratehouse,
It sounds like you want to “trap” us or get us to say something so you can say, “AH HAH I KNEW IT!!” Like you are onto something……..LOL Ooooooh you might be right about us……
Try typing someone’s name in and just asking them.
I am a post abortive mom and there are quite a few people that come and go here that would like to see me punished. Prolifers and Proaborts alike.
I won’t lose any sleep over it tonight.
Here’s a Jill Stanek post from 2008:http://www.jillstanek.com/apologetics/women-do-the-ti.html
In it, she quotes a man from Priests for Life approvingly:
“
The pro-life movement is not out to punish women. Our goal, instead, is to stop child-killing. What would throwing women in jail do to accomplish that goal? Their children have already died, yet the abortionist goes on killing hundreds and thousands of others. It makes far more sense to put the abortionist in jail, so that he or she can no longer kill children.”
So if you’re okay with the prosecution of the Idaho woman, then we are right about you.
But don’t worry, fine upstanding Republican Christian ladies (like Rick Santorum’s wife who had a lifesaving abortion) will probably be okay. Poor women and “bad girls” will bear the brunt of it.
No, she didn’t. In fact, even people on the pro-abortion side have to use weasel-words and dance-arounds and “well, it amounts tos” in order to make this accusation. Every single thing they did was in an attempt to try and preserve the lives of both the mother and the child.
You are a liar. Just…shut up.
Donna Gratehouse
You guys realize you’re coming right out and admitting you want to punish women, don’t you?
Over three thousand unborn babies are killed in their mothers’ wombs daily. They are dismembered, burned and substances are injected into their heart with the intent to kill them. When dishing out guilt please remember they have rights too. And unlike women who are truly unjustly persecuted they have no access to the legal system. None. The answer to stopping abuse of women is not to continue killing babies it’s to make sure women have a real voice and real representation. So a better question would be to ask your ownself is, because abuse of women is wrong why isn’t abuse of a defenseless baby just as wrong.
The resulting baby boom will allow our economy to grow, just like the last Baby Boom did.
With 15 or more workers per retiree, we could afford old-age entitlements like Social Security and Medicare again.
I hate to measure new generations in terms of how they will benefit us, but… babies are good for us. We would not be in this prolonged depression if we had not killed a third of the children, and contracepted millions more.
Of course you can be “meh” about it, Carla. You’re a nice upstanding conservative Christian white lady. The likelihood of you getting punished for an abortion is very small.
A dead baby is a dead baby, regardless of color.
In this instance Del there would be an 18 year period of ballooning numbers of children before any started working and paying taxes. That’s an awful lot of costs for an awfully long period.
We would not be in this prolonged depression if we had not entered into an illegal and unwarranted war in Iraq and allowed the super wealthy to become super-duper wealthy by playing with money rather than producing anything and paying less and less tax.
“I hate to measure new generations in terms of how they will benefit us, but… babies are good for us. We would not be in this prolonged depression if we had not killed a third of the children, and contracepted millions more.”
And the anti-contraception stance rears its head.
Before I run off to dinner here’s the Arizona law (still on the books) that pre-dates Roe v Wade
13-3603. Definition; punishment
A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years.
13-3604. Soliciting abortion; punishment; exception
A woman who solicits from any person any medicine, drug or substance whatever, and takes it, or who submits to an operation, or to the use of any means whatever, with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage, unless it is necessary to preserve her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than one nor more than five years.
Still on the books and goes into effect immediately if Roe is overturned. In the 45 years that the State Legislature has been in GOP hands no one has introduced a bill to rescind that, even though the Republicans here are desperate to overturn Roe.
If a woman were to lose a child (not a fertilized egg) 3 days after conception, she would never know it. The idea of the personhood bills are to establish a non-arbitrary, biologically recognized point in human development at which new life should be protected. The heartbeat bill sets the point at the heartbeat. Both are designed to protect innocent human life and both are far less arbitrary and far more scientific than say, 20 weeks or when it “looks like a baby” or at viability, the mark of which seems to change depending on what country you live in and what treatment they are willing to provide.
Two generations ago, the “anti-contraception stance” was just normal life. My great grandmother had 10 children and my grandfather was the 8th.
I am not anti- all forms of contraception nor am I for outlawing all contraception. I am against hormonal and abortifacient contraception because they do damage to women and children. Birth control pills are listed as a carcinogen by the World Health Organization. How many women are aware of this? It is important that they have all the facts.
Kel, women like Donna don’t want to the facts. BECAUSE THE SEX MUST CONTINUE.
Now this upstanding white Republican Christian lady is going to call it a night. After I kiss the three kids I allowed to live because it was convenient for me to do so at the time.
Kel the intent of the legislation is to confer ‘personhood’ so that any abortion can be declared as ‘murder’.
So if you are conferring ‘personhood’ from the moment of fertilization, at what stage is it going to be necessary to provide a death certificate, funeral and burial for a miscarriage?
“Two generations ago, the “anti-contraception stance” was just normal life.” – well not quite. Two generations ago there was no contraception available apart from condoms. And they weren’t exactly freely available everywhere and were frowned upon.
Newsflash; condoms have been around freely since the 1920’s, the pill has been around for around fifty years (roughly two generations) and multiple other contraceptive methods have been available since the late 19th century and were openly advertised.
Reality, I don’t think you’re the least bit concerned about providing death certificates for miscarried children, not even under our current laws. So seriously – cut the crap.
It’d be nice for my family to be able to get a death certificate for my brother. You going to help us with that, Reality? He died in the second trimester. We have his ashes.
Hi Donna,
“You’re a nice upstanding conservative Christian white lady.”
You sure about that??
There is a reason post abortive moms can’t be punished. It goes something like this.
***********************
Could you please list some links that detail the arrests and punishments(jail time etc) of women due to miscarriage, stillbirth or illegal abortion prior to 1973?
I would like three death certificates please. Thank you.
So were abortions Some Guy, my point was that I disagreed with “anti-contraception stance” being classed as just normal life. There was a whole lot of hidden activity and hypocrisy.
It doesn’t matter what I’m concerned about. This is about you and your support of this legislation.
The question is, if ‘personhood’ is conferred from the moment of fertilization with all that that implies, what are the legal requirements going to be if that fertilized ‘person’ fails to reach birth?
I don’t work for the government xalisae. You would probably need a birth certificate first I guess?
I will keep the people of Mississippi and this vote in my daily prayers.
“If I really wanted an abortion you people sure as heck wouldn’t stop me.”
That’s not the point. It isn’t about the will of the individual. It never was.
This is about the nation tolerating and even approving the slaughter of innocents. Kill your baby in your name, if your heart is so stone cold. But I don’t want my laws protecting your murderous behavior.
What about those who take the pill for non-contraceptive reasons and also like the benefit of a reduced risk if ovarian cancer? Even the RCC is ok with birth control pills for medical reasons.
I can’t understand why people who support this bill are so flippant when detractors ask them about the ramifications this bill could bring about, beyond criminalizing abortion. It’s like they’re not taking it seriously or something. At least have the intellectual courage to take this amendment to its logical conclusion. Do some research.
There is a total ban on abortion in many Latin American countries (Mississippi’s law would actually be more far-reaching). The Human Rights Watch has been all over the Nicaraguan government since it banned abortion in 2006. There have been deaths. Some women try to induce abortion and find that no doctors will care for them. I know these “attempted murderers” aren’t sympathetic figures, so we’ll put them aside for a second. The Nicaraguan abortion ban has also affected healthcare for women who haven’t had abortions. Women who miscarry, who have obstetrical bleeding for a variety of reasons. Doctors face a stiff penalty for providing abortions, and the government will hunt them down if there’s even the suspicion that they’ve helped a woman get an abortion. So they stay away from women’s ladypart issues, and women wait until they absolutely have to see the doctor. And they suffer as a result.
The situation’s much the same in El Salvador: no abortions, for any reason. Doctors face criminal charges if they do them, women face criminal charges if they get them. From an article in the NYTimes (of course, oh-so-compassionate pro-lifers will somehow find a reason to deny the veracity of the story):
In the event that the woman’s illegal abortion went badly and the doctors have to perform a hysterectomy, then the uterus is sent to the Forensic Institute, where the government’s doctors analyze it and retain custody of her uterus as evidence against her.
D.C.: After I came out of the coma, they moved me to the maternity hospital. My brother visited and asked me if the police had come to ask me questions. He said the police had come to our house and they had interrogated our relatives and neighbors. They had gone to where I worked. They asked everyone a lot of questions about me and who I was and if they knew whether I was pregnant and whether I’d had an abortion.
When I got home, the prosecutor came to see me, and he asked lots of aggressive questions. He talked to me like I was a criminal. I didn’t want to answer because I was scared. He said if I didn’t answer, even though I was in bad physical shape, he would put me in jail. He wanted me to tell him who the father of the child was and the name of the person who had done this to me. I didn’t know her name. Then he made a date for me to come to the prosecutor’s office.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magazine/09abortion.html?pagewanted=all
Donna Gratehouse: Consider this:
I don’t belive that a Personhood law or any other pro-life legislation would lead to women being prosecuted for miscarriage. Sorry to get graphic here, but an abortion involves seriously fooling around with the private parts of a person, the cervix, the upper vagina, and the uterus. In the case of an abortion, these body parts would show that they had been severely tampered with. You wouldn’t see that in a normal miscarriage.
“In the case of an abortion, these body parts would show that they had been severely tampered with. You wouldn’t see that in a normal miscarriage.”
Okay, fine. Let’s forget the fact that women who do induce abortion might not get the post-abortion care they need (yes, they still need care, even if they’re horrible murderers). Doctors would still need to prove that “nothing had been severely tampered with,” as is happening in Latin American countries where abortion is completely banned and doctors can face charges if suspected of providing then.
I’m sure you’d totally support the thorough “investigation” of a woman’s body that would need to happen to rule out potential foul play after a miscarriage, right? If there’s any question that she might have tried to abort, isn’t her body a potential crime scene?
Also Donna, you don’t really know that Carla is a Christian (as a Christian myself, I hope she is), or that she’s conservative (pro-life feelings alone do not a conservative make), and you certainly don’t know that she’s white.
You wouldn’t know that unless she posted a picture, and the last time I checked, she hadn’t. Actually none of us posting on this board really knows the racial background of most people posting on this board. You don’t know my racial background either.
I’m sorry, Megan, but I didn’t realize that criminals running around with gunshot wounds who got them from partaking in illegal behavior were being turned away at the E.R. doors to die on the floor, and thousands of doctors every year were being prosecuted as accomplices. OH WAIT, THAT’S BECAUSE THEY’RE NOT.
Okay Xalisae, Read the article I posted that contains firsthand accounts of this crap happening in countries where abortion is illegal. The Human Rights Watch has been documenting it for years now. The laws in countries like El Salvador and Nicaragua are very clear: doctors and women will be prosecuted for procuring, or attempting to procure, abortions. And it happens. All the time.
Your argument also isn’t much of an argument at all, since healthcare in US prisons is notoriously bad. Case in point: our county women’s prison’s chief physician is a retired veterinarian. ‘Cause criminals are no better than animals.
It doesn’t matter what I’m concerned about. This is about you and your support of this legislation. The question is, if ‘personhood’ is conferred from the moment of fertilization with all that that implies, what are the legal requirements going to be if that fertilized ‘person’ fails to reach birth?
What are the “legal requirements” if, say, a newborn fails to reach the age of one?That’s a rhetorical question, of course. There is nothing substantial about birth which says “Oh, if you don’t make it here then obviously we’re going to investigate the woman!” anymore than any other point. Why do pro-choicers constantly ask such ridiculous and nonsensical questions?
Anyway, I’m bored, so I’ll bite at Megan.
If abortion is wrong, then it doesn’t matter how many women die trying to procure one as that doesn’t speak to the morality of abortion. Every year, for example, there are literally millions of robberies and thefts carried out in the U.S. alone, and every year hundreds, if not thousands, of would-be thieves are either maimed, seriously injured or killed while trying to rob someone and/or steal something. Would you argue that since thieves are going to try to rob someone/steal anyway, even if it means bringing harm to themselves, that theft should be legal? Both you and I know you wouldn’t, precisely because you would say that theft is wrong and that thieves being harmed while trying to do wrong doesn’t make thieving any less wrong. It’s the exact same principle here. Just because women will do it anyway and be harmed in the process is, quite frankly, meaningless. If abortion is wrong, then it doesn’t matter how many women suffer harm trying to obtain one, since it’s something they should not be trying to obtain in the first place.
As it stands, your argument just skips right over the whole issue of the morality of having an abortion, though I don’t much of expect this to go anywhere. Just posting for my own amusement, I suppose.
Yes. And those countries are renowned for their similarities to the United States justice systems and their love of due process and protections of the rights of the accused and how reasonable they are in their prosecution habits. I mean, I’ve heard those countries mimic the U.S. in mirror-image fashion!! OH, WAIT, ONCE AGAIN MEGAN IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
This is the United States, Megan. Sh!t don’t work that way here, as evidenced by the continued lack of thousands of doctors being carted away for tending to injured people who suffer from injuries incurred during the course of committing crimes.
Watching people on this thread frantically moving the goalposts is hilarious. ”We totally don’t want to prosecute women so stop saying that! Except when women are prosecuted and it’s okay because those women totally had it coming!”
“And those countries are renowned for their similarities to the United States justice systems and their love of due process…”
How ironic, since “due process” is the exact principle upon which the right to abortion in the United States is based. Glad you’d be willing to start appearing more like those Latin American countries by limiting the reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. The US already has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. You must think that Soviet Gulags were paragons of impartiality and justice.
I’ll also tell you why your analogy still fails. If an individual sustains gunshot wounds when completing a criminal act, the gunshot wound is a mere by-product of this criminal activity. Abortion complications–hemorrhaging, let’s say–constitute the criminal activity itself in countries where abortion is illegal.
“Sh!t don’t work that way here, as evidenced by the continued lack of thousands of doctors being carted away for tending to injured people who suffer from injuries incurred during the course of committing crimes.”
Maybe not for acute issues. But I certainly wouldn’t want to be an HIV+ individual trying to access ARVs in a US prison.
“Watching people on this thread frantically moving the goalposts is hilarious. ‘We totally don’t want to prosecute women so stop saying that! Except when women are prosecuted and it’s okay because those women totally had it coming'”
Exactly. Some Guy, at least you’re consistent in your beliefs that women who get abortions should, and would, be punished for obtaining abortions if abortion were outlawed. I’m not talking about the morality of abortion right now, by the way. I’m taking issue with all the namby-pambying about how women wouldn’t be affected by these laws, only the evil “abortionists.”
Criminalizing abortion would shut the backdoor escape that pro-lifers inevitably use when faced with the uncomfortable question of criminality: if there is no legal abortion, then there is no longer a pervasive “culture of death” supposedly brainwashing women into getting abortions.
What about those who take the pill for non-contraceptive reasons and also like the benefit of a reduced risk if ovarian cancer? Even the RCC is ok with birth control pills for medical reasons.
Well, I’m not Catholic, so I can’t speak to that. However, there are some medical conditions which I believe can be resolved with other options than ingesting high doses of artificial hormones. The reduced risk of ovarian cancer is counteracted with an increased risk of breast cancer. In my opinion, it’s just not worth the risk, when you figure in the other possible side effects and contraindications. I believe women should be fully informed before they ingest artificial hormones. When my doctor put me on the Pill, I did not know the mechanism of it – I didn’t know what questions to ask and trusted that this was my solution to preventing pregnancy for a couple years. What I discovered was that it made me feel horrible and thanks to a Catholic co-worker, I did some of my own research on the Pill. Within a couple months, my husband and I discussed it and felt it was no longer for us, and we’ve never looked back. I will not put that stuff in my body again if there are ANY other options.
No goalposts have been moved here.
Women who have abortions when they are legal cannot be prosecuted later on should they become illegal.
Women who have abortions when they are illegal can and should be prosecuted, as should the person who performs the abortion.
The link you posted, Donna, of two women who were being investigated because of harm to their preborn children, were, as others have pointed out, justified due to the circumstances of cocaine abuse and the ingestion of rat poison.
Some Guy 12:55 – great post. Thanks.
if there is no legal abortion, then there is no longer a pervasive “culture of death” supposedly brainwashing women into getting abortions.
Megan, a culture of death is not so easily done away with. But making abortion illegal is certainly a start.
I wouldn’t call it “brainwashing” when a woman goes to an abortion clinic and is told her child is a “clump of cells” with “heart tones.” No, not brainwashing. I would call that being totally lied to.
But then, when we’re desperate to alleviate our own guilt, we’ll believe what we have to believe, now, won’t we?
Exactly. Some Guy, at least you’re consistent in your beliefs that women who get abortions should, and would, be punished for obtaining abortions if abortion were outlawed.
I don’t believe I said that. Anyway, could you find me an example of a woman being prosecuted in the U.S. for obtaining an abortion illegally? It should be easy. At least, one would think. Right now, off the top of my head, I can think of one case where a woman was initially tried for obtaining an abortion, but the charges against her were ultimately dropped (and this was in the early 20th century).
I’m not talking about the morality of abortion right now, by the way. I’m taking issue with all the namby-pambying about how women wouldn’t be affected by these laws, only the evil “abortionists.”
You were talking about women dying because they couldn’t obtain a legal abortion. That’s what I was responding to. However, since you now brought it up, can you explain to me what the purpose of mentioning how doctor’s in El Salvador won’t assist women who suffer a botched illegal abortion is? Do you really think that, should abortion become flatly illegal in the U.S., a woman who obtains a botched illegal abortion is just going to be left to die on the street, so the speak? Did this happen prior to Roe v. Wade?
@Some Guy – “I don’t believe I said that. Anyway, could you find me an example of a woman being prosecuted in the U.S. for obtaining an abortion illegally?” I posted a recent one. The woman in ID being prosecuted for obtaining abortion drugs online.
“You were talking about women dying because they couldn’t obtain a legal abortion. That’s what I was responding to. However, since you now brought it up, can you explain to me what the purpose of mentioning how doctor’s in El Salvador won’t assist women who suffer a botched illegal abortion is? Do you really think that, should abortion become flatly illegal in the U.S., a woman who obtains a botched illegal abortion is just going to be left to die on the street, so the speak? Did this happen prior to Roe v. Wade?”
Women being “left to die on the street” from a botched abortion is your strawman. Women probably won’t be left to die but they will be subject to investigation and prosecution post medical treatment in a society that gives fertilized eggs and fetuses full legal human status. In the wake of Roe we have had 4 decades of emotionally charged anti-abortion propaganda and activism. We now have generations of “pro-life” zealots, many of whom are in positions of authority in health care, law enforcement, and government. When abortion is made completely illegal there is no reason at all that they wouldn’t use their positions to punish women.
“I don’t believe I said that. Anyway, could you find me an example of a woman being prosecuted in the U.S. for obtaining an abortion illegally? It should be easy.”
Well, abortion is currently legal in the US, thank God. But check out National Advocates for Pregnant Women website (for cases like Regina McKnight’s, who was charged with homicide after suffering a stillbirth. Drug users and suspected drug users in the US are also prosecuted all the time, which certainly punishes mom, but does absolutely nothing to promote the health of the fetus. Dragging a woman to jail (instead of, say, treatment) is hardly conducive to a healthy pregnancy and birth.
“However, since you now brought it up, can you explain to me what the purpose of mentioning how doctor’s in El Salvador won’t assist women who suffer a botched illegal abortion is? Do you really think that, should abortion become flatly illegal in the U.S., a woman who obtains a botched illegal abortion is just going to be left to die on the street, so the speak? Did this happen prior to Roe v. Wade?”
There wasn’t an amendment pre-Roe to establish personhood as existing at the moment of conception.
I doubt that women will be “left to die on the street,” because any fool bystander would immediately recognize post-abortion hemorrhaging as a medical crisis and bring her to the nearest hospital. The real problem with criminalized abortion occurs inside the four walls of the health care facility. Here, physicians and nurses need to weigh their options for delivering life-saving care against possibly facing legal ramifications for doing so.
The longer doctors hesitate and take time to consult ethics committees, the worse the health outcomes will be for the patient. This already happens in Latin America, including in several Mexican states. And maybe you’ve already forgotten the high-profile case at a Catholic Phoenix Hospital last year where a woman had to reach the brink of death before she got the care she needed. And the hospital was still penalized for the decision to give her an abortion. I guess she wasn’t close enough to flatlining for Bishop Olmsted.
And, pray tell, will happen if HR 358 is put into effect and medical schools can’t be forced to teach students how to perform abortions? What if this is construed to include D&C–the procedure commonly performed after a miscarriage? What will happen to women who “legitimately” (i.e., not post-abortive) needs this care and can’t find a doctor who is trained to provide it?
It is SO FUNNY how pro-lifers are SO SURE that this Personhood amendment won’t have any disastrous consequences for women’s health. It shows that a) you have a double standard where abortion and women are concerned, or b) you really don’t see any potential conflict existing between mother and unborn child (i.e., your “side” doesn’t give one darn about women’s health).
“In my opinion, it’s just not worth the risk, when you figure in the other possible side effects and contraindications. I believe women should be fully informed before they ingest artificial hormones.”
Meh, instead of twisting that question to be all about YOU and WHAT WORKED FOR YOU, just say it: you don’t think that women should be prescribed OC’s, even for non-contraceptive, health-related purposes, because of the tiny chance that a woman will flush a blastocyst out of her body.
“But then, when we’re desperate to alleviate our own guilt, we’ll believe what we have to believe, now, won’t we?”
Sure. And people who are desperate to alleviate their own guilt will do anything to isolate their children from the big, bad real world.
Just to reiterate something.
There are prolife friends of mine here that absolutely believe women seeking an abortion should be prosecuted when abortion is illegal again.
I disagree.
Megan,
You are such baiter. :)
our county women’s prison’s chief physician is a retired veterinarian
I’d rather go to a prolife veterinarian for my healthcare than an abortionist.
I disagree.
Me too, Carla. The abortionist she seeks out should be prosecuted. I would only agree with a mother being prosecuted for seeking or having an abortion if the father was also prosecuted. I think prosecuting the men as well would make people become a bit wiser regarding their selection of overnight guests. Heck, maybe some people would even stop with the overnights!
Megan and Donna,
When abortion is made illegal then women who seek or commit abortion should be treated much like people today get treated when they have suicidal tendencies. Mandatory counseling etc. It is not that hard to wrap your head around. Do we prosecute people today who try to commit suicide? No. Should we prosecute someone who assists somebody else in commiting suicide? Yes. Same would apply for abortion. Abortion mill workers; deathscorts and abortionists etc. would be prosecuted. The victims are the woman and her unborn child and they would not be prosecuted; they would be sentenced to mandatory counseling much like that which is provided for today’s suicidal individuals.
Praxedes and truthseeker,
Totally agree!!
I do not believe that women were prosecuted before Roe V Wade.
Could someone correct me if I am wrong?
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_7.asp
From the article
Were women punished?
The definitive study on this gives the lie to Planned Parenthood’s ads which claimed: “If you had a miscarriage you could be prosecuted for murder.” Washington Post April 27, 1981
Studying two hundred years of legal history, the American Center for Bioethics concluded: “No evidence was found to support the proposition that women were prosecuted for undergoing or soliciting abortions. The charge that spontaneous miscarriages could result in criminal prosecution is similarly insupportable. There are no documented instances of prosecution of such women for murder or for any other species of homicide; nor is there evidence that states that had provisions enabling them to prosecute women for procuring abortions ever applied those laws. The vast majority of the courts were reluctant to implicate women, even in a secondary fashion, through complicity and conspiracy charges. Even in those rare instances where an abortionist persuaded the court to recognize the woman as his accomplice, charges were not filed against her. In short, women were not prosecuted for abortions. Abortionists were. The charges of Planned Parenthood and other “pro-choice” proponents are without factual basis. Given the American legal system’s reliance on precedent, it is unlikely that enforcement of future criminal sanctions on abortion would deviate substantially from past enforcement patterns.” Women and Abortion, Prospects of Criminal Charges Monograph, American Center for Bioethics, 422 C St., NE, Washington, DC 20002, Spring 1983
But why were so few abortionists prosecuted?
Because there were no scientifically accurate methods in those days to diagnose early pregnancy. The only absolute diagnosis of pregnancy, medically and legally binding, was for the doctor to hear the fetal heart, and that was only possible after four and five months. Prior to that, the abortionist could claim that her menstrual period was late or that she had some other malady, and that all he did was to bring on her period. It is all but impossible to convict a person of murder unless the body can be produced the corpus delicti. Since they were almost never able to obtain and examine the tissue removed from the woman’s body, in a court of law it was almost impossible to prove (a) that she had been pregnant and (b) that the actions of the abortionist had terminated the pregnancy. In practice, abortionists, therefore, were typically only prosecuted when the woman had been injured or killed. It was not until the advent of x-rays in the early 1900s (fetal bones visible at three months) and later hormone tests for pregnancy in the 1940s that pregnancy could be legally confirmed in its earlier weeks.
Carla, you’re going to have to stop interrupting Megan’s paranoid delusion, or else it might get quiet enough for her to hear the heartbeat under the floorboards.
Megan, Donna, et al. Please answer me this question: the babies in the above articles that Donna posted (cocaine death, rat poison death, etc.)–they were wanted until they weren’t. Did they not deserve some protection from us as a society? Do they not deserve any justice for what happened to them?
OH xalisae–you did NOT just bring out the Edgar Allan Poe this early in the morning!!
I totally did. He’s my second favorite after Steinbeck! <3
How ironic, since “due process” is the exact principle upon which the right to abortion in the United States is based.
Yeah, with ZERO concern for the due process of the other human being involved, and admittedly so by Blackmun. Ironic also that finally granting this right to gestating human beings is what is going to end this barbaric practice.
Glad you’d be willing to start appearing more like those Latin American countries by limiting the reach of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This isn’t limiting the reach of the 14th Amendment. It’s expanding it to cover everyone involved in the situation rather than just half of the equation, as it stands now. I don’t really give a crap about “appearing more like Latin American countries” when for all intents and purposes what we look like now is the barbaric culture of ancient Rome where unwanted babies were discarded like garbage and left in trash heaps to die.
I like Megan. She has endeared herself to me. Can’t help that. :)
The woman in ID being prosecuted for obtaining abortion drugs online.
Read what you’re wrote. She’s not being prosecuted for obtaining an abortion; she’s being prosecuted (if she still is) for purchasing a banned substance. The two are different, even if you don’t want to admit as much.
Women being “left to die on the street” from a botched abortion is your strawman.
You’re kidding, right? Never mind the fact that you seemed to be removed from reality and that you’ve never heard the “if abortions are made illegal women will be left to die on the streets!” line that is constantly said by pro-choicers or even Nancy Pelosi’s latest gem about women dying on the streets should the latest abortion bill be passed through Congress and signed by Obama, I direct you to Megan’s posts regarding Nicaragua and El Salvador, which specifically make mention of women being left to die after botched abortions because no doctor will help them.
Women probably won’t be left to die but they will be subject to investigation and prosecution post medical treatment in a society that gives fertilized eggs and fetuses full legal human status.
And how do you know this? Again I ask you to show me where, in the history of the U.S., a woman was investigated and prosecuted for obtaining an abortion or simply for having a miscarriage. I will wait, as I have been waiting. As it stands, you are doing NOTHING but fearmongering, though I’m not terribly surprised by it. That’s all you really have.
In the wake of Roe we have had 4 decades of emotionally charged anti-abortion propaganda and activism. We now have generations of “pro-life” zealots, many of whom are in positions of authority in health care, law enforcement, and government. When abortion is made completely illegal there is no reason at all that they wouldn’t use their positions to punish women.
And tell me, exactly, how you know this? Or is it one of those things you don’t know, but are going to assume as true anyway because it works for you?
As a “zealot”, I have no desire to punish women. I am one and I am the mother of a future one. I just want the butchering of babies and the culture of death to stop tearing our nation apart. that’s it. Nothing more, or other, than that.
I do love it when I’m called a zealot, though! ;)
“Carla, you’re going to have to stop interrupting Megan’s paranoid delusion.”
…except that this stuff is happening around the world with even less harsh laws in place than what Mississippi would have. If a blastocyst is a person, then every miscarriage is potential evidence that wrongdoing took place. In Latin America, the tragedy isn’t that “women are dying in the streets” (which some undoubtedly are), but that women receive sub-standard care behind the walls of medical institutions.
If doctors are prosecuted for doing abortions, then many will hesitate to put themselves in situations where it could be interpreted that they helped facilitate an abortion, even if the woman is naturally miscarrying. That moment of hesitation will result in needless suffering. And what if–what IF–a woman comes in and has attempted an abortion, and it goes horribly wrong? Consulting that hospital ethics committee is going to cost precious minutes when acute care is needed.
“When abortion is made completely illegal there is no reason at all that they wouldn’t use their positions to punish women. And tell me, exactly, how you know this? Or is it one of those things you don’t know, but are going to assume as true anyway because it works for you?”
Nothing can ever be predicted with absolute certainty. We can only look at examples of what has happened elsewhere in the world with these laws. It ain’t pretty. You don’t really get to call the shots about how a law will be interpreted, buddy. That’s up to politicians and legislators, many of whom I’m certain would just jump on the chance to punish some abortion-seeking harlots.
“I don’t really give a crap about ‘appearing more like Latin American countries’ when for all intents and purposes what we look like now is the barbaric culture of ancient Rome where unwanted babies were discarded like garbage and left in trash heaps to die.”
Ok, so we can just become more like Ireland and Poland, where women pay exorbitant fees to doctors doing abortions legally, or travel to other countries, or just give birth to kids they don’t feel equipped to handle at that time.
“As a ‘zealot,’ I have no desire to punish women.”
Well isn’t that nice. Is a blastocyst a person or not in your eyes, Courtnay? At least have the honesty to take the laws you support to their honest conclusion. If an unborn child gains the legal status of a person, then any attempts to end its life will, legally speaking, be considered murder.
“When abortion is made illegal then women who seek or commit abortion should be treated much like people today get treated when they have suicidal tendencies. Mandatory counseling etc. It is not that hard to wrap your head around.”
Why? If there truly are “two people” involved, and not just one (in the case of suicide), then a woman will legally be considered a murderer.
Well, abortion is currently legal in the US, thank God. But check out National Advocates for Pregnant Women website (for cases like Regina McKnight’s, who was charged with homicide after suffering a stillbirth. Drug users and suspected drug users in the US are also prosecuted all the time, which certainly punishes mom, but does absolutely nothing to promote the health of the fetus. Dragging a woman to jail (instead of, say, treatment) is hardly conducive to a healthy pregnancy and birth.
What utter nonsense. Yes, they are prosecuted as they should be. If, for example, a new mother were to inject her newborn with, say, cocaine or herione causing it to suffer injuries or even die, you would be up in arms, quite possibly demanding she be carted off to jail and/or have her child taken away from her. But, if the woman injects herself with cocaine or heroine, thus causing her newborn to be born physically or mentally impaired, or even to die, then you cry foul? How does that work? What do you think is conducive to a healthy pregnancy and birth? To leave the woman at home so she can quite possibly continue her drug habit? Why shouldn’t she go to jail? I mean, last I checked, drug posession is (usually) a felony offense. Do you believe that a pregnant woman should have the law bended for her simply because she’s pregnant? I don’t and I’d be willing to bet that even a large percentage of pro-choicers wouldn’t as well.
You really are working on being given the “pro-abort” label.
“There wasn’t an amendment pre-Roe to establish personhood as existing at the moment of conception.”
No, but there were laws on the books which stated that abortion was flatly illegal, regardless of the circumstance, which is basically the same thing. So again I’d kindly ask you to answer my question.
I doubt that women will be “left to die on the street,” because any fool bystander would immediately recognize post-abortion hemorrhaging as a medical crisis and bring her to the nearest hospital. The real problem with criminalized abortion occurs inside the four walls of the health care facility. Here, physicians and nurses need to weigh their options for delivering life-saving care against possibly facing legal ramifications for doing so.
Another ridiculous assertion. Show me when and where, in the U.S., this happened. You literally have a period of over a hundred years to find one case of this happening (from around the 1850’s/1860’s to 1973). Go on. Do it. I’ll wait.
The longer doctors hesitate and take time to consult ethics committees, the worse the health outcomes will be for the patient. This already happens in Latin America, including in several Mexican states. And maybe you’ve already forgotten the high-profile case at a Catholic Phoenix Hospital last year where a woman had to reach the brink of death before she got the care she needed. And the hospital was still penalized for the decision to give her an abortion. I guess she wasn’t close enough to flatlining for Bishop Olmsted.
Thank you for shifting the goal posts. You’ve gone from doctors refusing medical care because they’re afraid of the law coming down on them should they help a woman after she obtains an illegal abortion to a doctor refusing to perform an abortion due to the hospital’s policy. The first is not the second, and vice versa, though I’m sure you know this before you decided to type out what you typed out. When you have no argument, you tend to grasp at straws.
And, pray tell, will happen if HR 358 is put into effect and medical schools can’t be forced to teach students how to perform abortions? What if this is construed to include D&C–the procedure commonly performed after a miscarriage? What will happen to women who “legitimately” (i.e., not post-abortive) needs this care and can’t find a doctor who is trained to provide it?
I didn’t know medical schools were forced to teach students how to perform abortions. I didn’t know that HR-358 prevented medical schools from teaching students how to perform abortions. What you’re thinking of is the Foxx Amendment, and even it doesn’t say what you think it says. Also, in the same vein as you, I’d like to ask what if tomorrow it rained fried chicken, mashed potatoes, cornbread and gravy all over the world? Obviously, I’m being facetious with the last sentence, but the point is that the “what if…?” game is an exercise in futility.
It is SO FUNNY how pro-lifers are SO SURE that this Personhood amendment won’t have any disastrous consequences for women’s health. It shows that a) you have a double standard where abortion and women are concerned, or b) you really don’t see any potential conflict existing between mother and unborn child (i.e., your “side” doesn’t give one darn about women’s health).
What double standard? You mean not killing one for the other or simply not killing one at the convenience of another is a double-standard? Furthermore, what potential conflict between the mother and child? I’ve always found a line to be quite interesting, actually. Apparently, to pro-choicers, the mother-unborn child relationship is adversarial or something inane like that.
Megan, you act as if when abortion is illegal, all good health care for women will stop. That’s ridiculous. We don’t need abortion to have healthy women in this world. We simply don’t need it.
You say in your post, “It ain’t pretty.” I agree: there is NOTHING about abortion that’s pretty: not the instruments, not the bloody baby bodies in the bucket, not the sorrowing women who were sold a lie. And Some Guy frames it right, above: abortion puts women as competitors against their own children. That could be the ugliest part yet.
Apparently, to pro-choicers, the mother-unborn child relationship is adversarial or something inane like that.
of course it is, SG. It was for Megan, and her little guy/gal lost out at the cost of his/her life.
As someone who “brought a child into the world unequipped”, I can tell you that it’s not that bad, Megs. I’m glad I can get through my life and be able to say that anything I have or that I’ve done was acquired or endeavored without staining my hands in the blood of my own child. And heck, SHE’S pretty happy to be alive as a consequence, too. I’m sorry you can’t say the same, and I’m sorry your child had to pay such a high price for your diploma.
“Another ridiculous assertion. Show me when and where, in the U.S., this happened. You literally have a period of over a hundred years to find one case of this happening (from around the 1850?s/1860?s to 1973). Go on. Do it. I’ll wait.”
Do you really want to get into what the maternal mortality rate in the US was like for the first half of the 20th century? Women with botched abortions and other obstetric complications did die. All the time.
“Thank you for shifting the goal posts. You’ve gone from doctors refusing medical care because they’re afraid of the law coming down on them should they help a woman after she obtains an illegal abortion to a doctor refusing to perform an abortion due to the hospital’s policy. The first is not the second, and vice versa, though I’m sure you know this before you decided to type out what you typed out. When you have no argument, you tend to grasp at straws.”
The Phoenix case illustrates what a total abortion ban might result in: doctors shying away from providing much-needed acute care to women out of fear of breaking the law.
“Obviously, I’m being facetious with the last sentence, but the point is that the ‘what if…?’ game is an exercise in futility.”
No, it’s not. It’s a perfectly valid exercise, unless, of course, you don’t *really* believe the Mississippi Amendment will be effectual in any way.
“Do you really want to get into what the maternal mortality rate in the US was like for the first half of the 20th century? Women with botched abortions and other obstetric complications did die. All the time.”
You know, it’s reeeaallly hard to honestly compare our time period with the first half of the last century, seeing that germ theory of disease was fairly new, and surgical techniques and medical knowledge were light years behind what we are privileged to have now. Do you honestly believe that women will die in droves if abortion is illegal? I don’t see how that is a rational position to take.
Do you really want to get into what the maternal mortality rate in the US was like for the first half of the 20th century? Women with botched abortions and other obstetric complications did die. All the time.
Only if you do. If the maternal death rate was high in the U.S. for the first half of the 20th century, it’s because of lack of advancements in medical technology.
———-
Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physicians. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind. In New York City in 1921 there were 144 abortion deaths, in 1951 there were only 15; and, while the abortion death rate was going down so strikingly in that 30-year period, we know what happened to the population and the birth rate. Two corollary factors must be mentioned here: first, chemotherapy and antibiotics have come in, benefiting all surgical procedures as well as abortion. Second, and even more important, the conference estimated that 90 per cent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians.
Link
———-
Emphasis mine. As Jack said, if you’re going to argue that women are going to start dying en masse in the U.S. should abortion be made illegal requires a large amount of dishonesty– unless you’re going to assume that the U.S. is suddenly going to lose access to modern medicine.
The Phoenix case illustrates what a total abortion ban might result in: doctors shying away from providing much-needed acute care to women out of fear of breaking the law.
No, it doesn’t, especially since the case had nothing to do with abortion as a legal matter, but rather one as a moral issue.
No, it’s not. It’s a perfectly valid exercise, unless, of course, you don’t *really* believe the Mississippi Amendment will be effectual in any way.
No, it’s a futile exercise because you can introduce all sorts of “what if’s?” that have nothing to do with the actual amendment.
“You know, it’s reeeaallly hard to honestly compare our time period with the first half of the last century, seeing that germ theory of disease was fairly new, and surgical techniques and medical knowledge were light years behind what we are privileged to have now.”
Well, that’s part of my point. SG asked me to find instances of doctors pre-1970’s purposefully denying women-life saving care. I argue that maternal morbidity and mortality were huge issues at that time, so it’s absolutely possible that providers denied women needed care on moral grounds. Yet because of the numbers, it’s probably difficult to separate out the cases of physician negligence from the cases where women just couldn’t have been saved, given the technologies of the time. In short, SG’s question is stupid.
“Emphasis mine. As Jack said, if you’re going to argue that women are going to start dying en masse in the U.S.”
But that’s NOT what I’m arguing. These cases of suffering and death won’t necessarily be the highly visible, hyperbolic “women dying on the streets” scenario you’re invoking as a way of undermining my argument. But it logically makes sense that if abortion is illegal, and the law actually succeeds in getting abortion providers prosecuted, then doctors aren’t going to want to get involved in questionable situations. Tell me I’m crazy and grasping at straws. But this is happening across the world in countries that ban abortion. The tragedy is that it’s not some “third world” phenomenon. Women in countries like Nicaragua are suffering in hospitals because doctors are doing exactly what the laws in their country set them up to do: treat every failed pregnancy as a potential crime scene.
“No, it doesn’t, especially since the case had nothing to do with abortion as a legal matter, but rather one as a moral issue.”
I fail to see the distinction because this wasn’t just a matter of morals–the hospital was legally bound, by its affiliation with the Church, to avoid providing abortions at all costs. A woman needed an abortion and she was almost denied that care. A total abortion ban will most likely increase the frequency of this type of occurrence. Beyond that, if a woman tries to induce an abortion and fails, how can she guaranteed access to timely care if doctors are worried about prosecution?
*double post, ooopz
“No, it’s a futile exercise because you can introduce all sorts of “what if’s?” that have nothing to do with the actual amendment.”
Well OBVIOUSLY the “what ifs” need to be asked if a new law is put on the books. Duh. What do you think law enforcement officers go by, intuition and not a comprehensive set of guidelines?
It appears that you don’t think this Personhood Amendment is going have much of an impact since you’re trying to minimize its potential, very plausible implications. You can’t even be bothered to look at the situation in other places where similar–even less strict–laws have been put in place.
Plus, I’d like to point out that an abortion ban won’t make abortionists go away, especially if they’re the tenacious sort. So if you think abortion providers are evil and malicious and greedy now, what could possibly stop them from acting unscrupulously in different ways in the future? Like an OB denying a woman care out of fear of the potential legal ramifications?
Er… do I need to trot out the “Do Not Feed The Troll” sign…?
Regina: Imagine if I believed Californians were just surfers and pot smoking hippies, or new yorkers were just rat-faced single 40 year-olds like the ones I see
:) Ha! That’s great… :)
____
Sue: If it goes into effect it may be challenged it the Federal Courts, but MS would beginning saving lives immediately because it would go into effect until the Feds challenged it.
Not a lawyer and I don’t know for sure what would happen, but seems to me that a judge usually gives an injunction against the new law – in such cases where the unconstitutionality is so clear.
Megan: It appears that you don’t think this Personhood Amendment is going have much of an impact since you’re trying to minimize its potential, very plausible implications. You can’t even be bothered to look at the situation in other places where similar–even less strict–laws have been put in place.
Exactly – if we are talking about actually granting personhood and full rights at conception, then it’s such an enormous can of worms that nobody knows all the ramifications if it’s opened.
– in such cases where the unconstitutionality is so clear.
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! If THAT were true, we wouldn’t be talking here on this website, I think. It was clearly stated in the original Roe verdict that if they had considered the humanity of the unborn-which they didn’t at all and honestly couldn’t with the lack of medical technology at the time-the entire case Roe had fell apart. So…no. You’re just absolutely wrong.
– in such cases where the unconstitutionality is so clear.
X: BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! If THAT were true, we wouldn’t be talking here on this website, I think.
Has nothing to do with talking on this website. It is true, and I noted what usually happens.
____
It was clearly stated in the original Roe verdict that if they had considered the humanity of the unborn-which they didn’t at all and honestly couldn’t with the lack of medical technology at the time-the entire case Roe had fell apart. So…no. You’re just absolutely wrong.
Heh – there is certainly “absolute wrong,” here, but it’s you on Roe, X.
Exactly – if we are talking about actually granting personhood and full rights at conception, then it’s such an enormous can of worms that nobody knows all the ramifications if it’s opened.
It will have far fewer unseen ramifications then Obamacare I am sure.
My point of “talking on this website” was simply that if it WERE so very “clear”, there would be no room for debate, and here we have plenty of it, do we not?
Also, “NO U” is not a feasible debate tactic. You’ll have to revise and cite your reasons, Dougy.
Exactly – if we are talking about actually granting personhood and full rights at conception, then it’s such an enormous can of worms that nobody knows all the ramifications if it’s opened.
You’re right. Granting the unborn the same protections as any other human opens a big can of worms. The earth will stop spinning, the sky will fall, the seas will dry up and Zimbabwe will become undisputed overlord of the universe. Or something like that. Apparently.
…I mean, seriously. It seems to me that pro-choicers arguments all almost always emotional and contain a lot of fearmongering. Please tell me what will happen should the unborn be granted the same protections as you or I. Not what you think will happen, but what will happen.
Well OBVIOUSLY the “what ifs” need to be asked if a new law is put on the books. Duh. What do you think law enforcement officers go by, intuition and not a comprehensive set of guidelines?
No, your “what if’s” have nothing to do with the actual law. What part of this don’t you get?
It appears that you don’t think this Personhood Amendment is going have much of an impact since you’re trying to minimize its potential, very plausible implications. You can’t even be bothered to look at the situation in other places where similar–even less strict–laws have been put in place.
Riiight. Let me refresh your memory as to how this conversation has gone.
———-
You: “If the Personhood Amendment passes women will die en masse!”
Me: “Why would that happen?”
You: “Because it’s happened in Nicaragua and El Salvador!”
Me: “What does Nicaragua and El Salvador have to do with the U.S.? Do you think, should this amendment pass, that women will be left to die on the streets after a botched abortion because doctors are scared of prosecution?”
You: “Not on the streets, but in the confine of the doctor’s office.”
Me: “Did this happen prior to Roe v. Wade?”
You: “No, but that was different!”
Me: “How was it different?”
You: “Because there wasn’t a Personhood Amendment then!”
Me: “No, but in some states abortion was flatly illegal for any reason, which amounts to the same thing. And if no women was left to die after a botched abortion then under the same conditions, why do you think it would happen now?”
———-
And to that you gave me absolutely no response. I wonder why? Quite possibly because both you and I know that you have no reason to suspect it would happen, as nothing of the sort ever happened in the U.S. between the period of the 1850’s/1860’s to 1973 where abortion for the majority of that time was flatly illegal, except that something similar has happened in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Which, you know, is ridiculous.
…Oh, and about the Nicaragua and El Salvador thing… NICARAGUA and EL SALVADOR? Really…? Yeah, the U.S. is equatable to both of those countries, seeing as how the U.S. is a poor developing country with numerous human rights violations. That would be like me arguing that the U.S. liberalizing abortion laws would result in China-like horrors, on account of abortion being widely legal in China and abortion being widely legal in U.S. I’d simply be cherry-picking the country which helps me best make my point, even if that country is vastly different to the U.S. If you’re going to examine what the likely effects of a personhood amendment in the U.S. would be, why wouldn’t you choose a country which– you know– closely resembles the U.S.? Why wouldn’t you choose a country like, say, Ireland, which is a developed country in which abortion is illegal, to the U.S. instead of Nicaragua and El Salvador? Well, obviously because that doesn’t fit into your agenda, but I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Anyway, how many examples of doctors refusing to treat a patient after a botched abortion in Ireland can you find? The answer? Probably none. How many examples of women being prosecuted for an abortion can you find in Ireland? The answer? Probably none. How many examples of all these horrors you keep going on about do you find happen in Ireland? The answer? Very few. Any change in abortion laws in the U.S. making abortion either flatly illegal or widely illegal would cause the U.S. to be more closely related to Ireland than it would be to Nicaragua or El Salvador. As a result, if you’re going to start talking about the “likely results” of a personhood amendment by looking at another country, then you’d be best served by comparing the U.S. to a country which is culturally, developmentally and politically similar to it rather than to countries which are not. Of course, I’m sure that won’t stop you from comparing the U.S. to the latter two countries rather than the former. You’ll be back to repeat the same thing, I’m sure, and I’ll just respond to you the same, as always, and you’ll ignore it and repeat the same thing, as always.
Plus, I’d like to point out that an abortion ban won’t make abortionists go away, especially if they’re the tenacious sort.
Please show me what pro-lifer has stated that banning abortion will make abortionists go away. Just one. Straw men are bad, though I suppose when you don’t have any (counter)arguments, they have to suffice.
So if you think abortion providers are evil and malicious and greedy now, what could possibly stop them from acting unscrupulously in different ways in the future?
The law is a deterrant. Here’s a simple fact for you; when something is illegal, people are less likely to do it than when it is legal. That means that women are less likely to seek out an abortion and doctors are less willing to perform them.
Like an OB denying a woman care out of fear of the potential legal ramifications?
I see you’re back to this. Show me where, in the history of the U.S., this has happened. I just want one example. Just one. I’ll wait. You have over a hundred years of history to choose from, so it shouldn’t be too hard.
Truthseeker: It will have far fewer unseen ramifications then Obamacare I am sure.
;) Holy Crow, TS – you might be right. Doesn’t change the point, but yeah…
X: My point of “talking on this website” was simply that if it WERE so very “clear”, there would be no room for debate, and here we have plenty of it, do we not?
What happens on Jill’s site isn’t controlled by the Roe decision, nor would it be by the absence of a “Roe” decision, Xalisae. The unconstitutionality of the Mississippi deal really is clear, but still – I did say that I didn’t know what will happen for sure, and didn’t even guarantee what a judge would do, even given the situation. The status quo is that Roe is the “settled law of the land.” Not that it’s impossible that that would change, but still, for now, we can recognize reality.
____
Also, “NO U” is not a feasible debate tactic. You’ll have to revise and cite your reasons, Dougy.
What is that? I’ve been over the Roe decision many times, and practically, if not literally, remember the applicable passage in the decision that you were referring to. “Humanity of the unborn” was not the deal. What really is the deal is what I’ve been talking about all along.
“Exactly – if we are talking about actually granting personhood and full rights at conception, then it’s such an enormous can of worms that nobody knows all the ramifications if it’s opened.”
Some Guy: You’re right. Granting the unborn the same protections as any other human opens a big can of worms. The earth will stop spinning, the sky will fall, the seas will dry up and Zimbabwe will become undisputed overlord of the universe. Or something like that. Apparently.
Wrong. Megan had a good point, and she wasn’t engaging in the silliness that you do, there.
___
…I mean, seriously. It seems to me that pro-choicers arguments all almost always emotional and contain a lot of fearmongering. Please tell me what will happen should the unborn be granted the same protections as you or I. Not what you think will happen, but what will happen.
All the applicable arguments to the abortion debate are emotional, from the get-go.
“Fearmongering”? No, I said the ramifications are unknown. But again, Megan had a good point.
Wrong. Megan had a good point, and she wasn’t engaging in the silliness that you do, there.
Right. Her point is that something will happen which wasn’t true nor happened during the more than 100 years when abortion was illegal in this country, often for any reason. Why will it happen? Because she says it will. What evidence does she have that it will happen? Because it happened in some other country entirely dissimilar to the U.S.. I suppose if you don’t think about it too hard, it makes perfect sense.
All the applicable arguments to the abortion debate are emotional, from the get-go.
Ummm, no. “The unborns are human beings” really isn’t an emotional argument. It’s a purely 100% scientifically accurate statement. And if you accept the idea of human rights (which, apparently, the majority of people, pro-choicers included, do), then abortion must be wrong. Since you kind of ignored this in the other thread, I’ll ask you plainly. Are you saying that there are humans who are not deserving of human rights?
“Fearmongering”? No, I said the ramifications are unknown. But again, Megan had a good point.
If the ramifications are unknown, then how can you say that the amendment opens up a big can of worms, for the only way to say it opens up a big can of worms is to know at least some of the ramifications of said amendment. So which is it? Do you or do you not know? If you know, then how do you know? And if you don’t know, then you’re just fearmongering.
I like you Some Guy!! I am so glad you are here!!!
I should like your comments about 20 times. That would totally show them!! :)
Megan
1,083,000 pre-borns die annually in our country. Why can’t their health and the health of their mother be important?
megan
The numbers are even higher it’s 1,095,000. ;(
Under the personhood law, will birth control (pills, IUD’s, etc.) and IVF be criminalized?
Under the personhood law, will a certificate of conception be issues at which point a social security number could be applied for.
Will death certificates be issued for early miscarriages which do not contain visible fetal parts?
If somebody witnesses a pregnant woman drinking alcohol, smoking, or using drugs, will state social workers (in shorter supply due to budget cuts) be contacted to intervene? If the case is “founded,” which “person” will be put in the custody of the state – the woman, the fetus, or both?
In cases of ectopic pregnancies that go awry, will doctors be allowed to intervene given that a “person” could be, under the personhood law, “killed?”
If a woman, in Mississippi, is raped, will she need to travel to another state in order to get the “morning after” pill?
Will these “persons” be counted in census data to determine voting districts and aid to cities and towns?
CC -i think that you are just stirring the pot. But you can actually find answers to most of your questions at at yeson26.net. I have a feeling that Mississippi will pass this one. They are organized, mobilized and funded. Oh happy day!
What happens on Jill’s site isn’t controlled by the Roe decision, nor would it be by the absence of a “Roe” decision, Xalisae.
Umm…the point is seeking an end to legal abortion. Abortion that was made legal in Roe. If it wasn’t for Roe, we’d have nothing to talk about. You’re not making any sense in this statement at all.
The unconstitutionality of the Mississippi deal really is clear
You keep saying this, and you’ve done nothing to substantiate that comment.
The status quo is that Roe is the “settled law of the land.” Not that it’s impossible that that would change, but still, for now, we can recognize reality.
As can we. And we recognize the inherent violation of human rights in abortion, and the history we have as a nation of overturning decisions which violate human rights, like slavery and racial issues of the past.
Getting back to Jill’s post, where she savoring the idea of pro-choicers having to fight about whether certain kinds of birth control are not abortion: Remind me again why it’s silly to think this personhood initiative is an attack on the Pill?
They aren’t scared. Like many pro-lifers, they think this is a fool’s errand. But pretending to be scared brings in the pro-abort money and network building, which they will use against pro-life measures in the future.
Because it’s stated blatantly on the website for the bill that it doesn’t make hormonal contraceptives illegal. If those were made to be illegal, I suppose we’d have to outlaw caffeine, exercise, stress, and poor diets as well, and mandate that all sexually active women take vitamin supplements. 9_9
Not all pro-lifers are as hard-lined as that. I personally cannot take hormonal contraceptives because female hormones don’t agree with me and they make me feel sick and crazy. But there are plenty of us who can support this bill and still not want to criminalize contraceptives.
Previous anti-contraception statements were scrubbed from the website. People got screenshots, including Rachel Maddow, who showed the language on her show.
Not all pro-lifers are as hard-lined as that.
Which is an admission that some pro-lifers are, in fact, as hard-lined as all that. And some of those hard lined pro-lifers are going to be in legislatures and in other positions of authority.
Right. Because Rachel Maddow is a paragon of virtue and would never lie or fabricate anything. Riiiiiight. Not like the “budget surplus” in Wisconsin which was a lie she shamelessly helped to spread. Give me a break.
Let’s worry about preventing the very real abortion deaths that are in the thousands every year in this country alone before we start worrying about contraception. I mean, if abortion hasn’t been outlawed yet, I think contraception is pretty safe for now.
“Let’s worry about preventing the very real abortion deaths that are in the thousands every year in this country alone before we start worrying about contraception. I mean, if abortion hasn’t been outlawed yet, I think contraception is pretty safe for now. ”
2. Rep. Bobby Franklin from Georgia trying to pass a bill that would place the burden on the woman to prove that her miscarriage wasn’t the result of “human involvement.”
3. Queensland, Australia woman Tegan Leach charged with procuring medicines to induce an abortion (though now her attorney is saying that she might have just had a miscarriage)
3. Ireland: abortion is illegal, yet most women travel to the UK or abroad to get them. “An Irish solution to an Irish problem,” one reproductive rights activist has commented. Three women recently appeared before the European human rights council to protest Ireland’s anti-abortion laws. One of the women got pregnant right after she found out she had cancer, couldn’t find a doctor to give her an abortion, traveled to England for the procedure, and then suffered post-abortion complications. I’m sorry, but if you’re not satisfied by an instance where a <em>woman who has cancer </em>can’t find the healthcare she needs as evidence that anti-abortion laws can harm women, then I don’t know what proof you’re looking for. Wait though, there’s still more!
4. A woman in Poland couldn’t find anybody to <em>treat her colon condition</em>–not give her an abortion, mind you–because treatment could have affected her pregnancy. Well, she had a miscarriage and died anyway.
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/03/25/3174200.htm
5. A 13-year-old girl in Peru (oh, sorry for throwing another invalid example from Latin American in here) gets raped by her 34-year-old neighbor, tries to commit suicide by jumping off a building, and ends up with a broken spine. The doctors, seeing that she’s pregnant, say that they will treat her <em>after she gives birth</em>. Well, she miscarried anyway, and then ended up paralyzed, which likely could have been avoided if she had gotten the immediate care she needed.
And these are all the cases that picked up media attention. They don’t begin to cover instances of women too scared or sick to come forward with their stories, or the stories that didn’t get translate into the English-speaking media. The burden of proof should really be on you–a supporter of this legislation, apparently–to ensure me that the same thing wouldn’t happen in the US.
The system ate part of my comment. What I said was that you don’t have any control over how personhood-at-conception will be legislated, interpreted, and enforced. When presented with plausible possible outcomes your response is basically to plug your ears and go “la la la I’m not listening save the babies la la la!”
The US is dissimilar to the other countries I cited because here, we respect women’s rights, at least nominally. But maybe that will change soon….anyway, why aren’t the examples I cited valid? These are instances where board certified physicians–not some local medicine man–are weighing the decision to treat their patients against a punitive, anti-abortion law. How can you be *so sure* that doctors in Latin America refusing to treat women are the result of some other, unrelated political-social-cultural phenomenon, and NOT a direct result of anti-abortion laws?
1. Idaho pharmacist refuses to prescribe Methargine (a drug to stop uterine bleeding) because he suspects that the woman had an abortion, although Methargine can be prescribed for a missed miscarriage:http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2011/01/26/idaho-pharmacist-refused-fill-prescription-getspass
You asked me to trawl through 100 years of US history to find an example, and here’s one from the last five years. Should be enough proof for you that anti-abortion laws can impede women’s access to care, no? Conscience clause in action!
“What I said was that you don’t have any control over how personhood-at-conception will be legislated, interpreted, and enforced. When presented with plausible possible outcomes your response is basically to plug your ears and go “la la la I’m not listening save the babies la la la!”
^What Donna said.
“Because it’s stated blatantly on the website for the bill that it doesn’t make hormonal contraceptives illegal. If those were made to be illegal, I suppose we’d have to outlaw caffeine, exercise, stress, and poor diets as well, and mandate that all sexually active women take vitamin supplements. 9_9”
If you truly believe that blastocysts are persons, then you really shouldn’t have a problem with implementing all the laws you suggested to be hyperbolic.
Agree totally with Megan. The burden of proof is on proponents of this measure, not the opponents, and so far you guys are all over the map denying and obfuscating. The woman who wrote the OP, Jill Stanek, is positively giddy over prochoicers having to defend contraception and yet xalisae still pretends there’s no threat to birth control.
Donna,
All your claims/worries about hormonal contraception are unfounded. What this law would do is spell out the true side-effects of the drug and ‘counsel’ women with the truth about the drug instead of hiding it. Like I said to you and Megan previously.
When abortion is made illegal then women who seek or commit abortion should be treated much like people today get treated when they have suicidal tendencies. Mandatory counseling etc. It is not that hard to wrap your head around. Do we prosecute people today who try to commit suicide? No. Should we prosecute someone who assists somebody else in commiting suicide? Yes. Same would apply for abortion. Abortion mill workers; deathscorts and abortionists etc. would be prosecuted. The mother is a victim awith her unborn child and she would not be prosecuted; she would be sentenced to mandatory counseling much like that which is provided for today’s suicidal individuals.
“It is not that hard to wrap your head around. Do we prosecute people today who try to commit suicide? No.”
Don’t condescend to me. And as I already pointed out, a suicide involves one person. In the case of a total abortion ban, there would be at least two people involved, legally speaking. How would a woman who gets an abortion under that law be any less culpable of murder than a Susan Smith or Andrea Yates?
Also truthseeker, what do you have to say about Tegan Leach, the Australia woman charged with taking abortion pills? And then there’s Bobby Franklin, the late Georgia legislator who tried to pass a bill that would require investigations to prove that miscarriages weren’t the result of “human involvement.” This was a guy in a position of power, a legislator. But go ahead, keep insisting that women wouldn’t face punishment for getting abortions under extreme anti-abortion laws.
I guess the next question is, would you defend a woman charged with getting an illegal abortion? What about in a place like Ireland, where it can hardly be argued that a “culture of death” is prompting women in the thousands to fly each year to GB for abortions?
“When abortion is made illegal then women who seek or commit abortion should be treated much like people today get treated when they have suicidal tendencies. Mandatory counseling etc.”
Suicidal ideation is squarely in line with the range of personality disorders as cited in the DSM IV. Your view that seeking an abortion is a psychiatric problem is not held by the mental health field and for you to equate a woman seeking bodily autonomy with a person having suicidal ideation (and drug addiction) is bizarre (and those with addictive behaviors) and insulting to those who have tried to commit suicide and those who have counseled them. As attempting to seek an abortion is not considered a mental health issue (and won’t be by the mainstream profession). As such, there is nothing to counsel. If the state, however, mandates counseling, they will be hard pressed to find counselors other than those who have a pro-life bias. And counseling is not about “leading” a person to believe something is morally wrong but helping them realize their destructive behavior and change their lives in a positive direction minus the opinion of the counselor. Outside of the pro-life community, there are no counselors who believe that abortion is destructive unless the person who had the abortion believes that it is so. In that case, the counselor would work with the issues surrounding the abortion and help the woman to move on with her life.
To say that those who support the right to abortion, those who perform abortions, and those who escort (as I do) have psychiatric problems is the ultimate in anti-choice twisted reality. And BTW, a woman who make a decision to have an abortion isn’t a “victim.” Again, you insult the decision making ability of women the majority of whom are not being “forced” (despite your fantasy) into it. If abortion is criminalized, the women should be put in the penal system which is already overcrowded.
BTW, your fantasy would be really great for a woman who aborted as a result of a rape. Not only would she be a victim of a crime, but she would be considered a criminal and be required to have counseling for the abortion. Way to go, pro-lifers.
To say that those who support the right to abortion, those who perform abortions, and those who escort (as I do) have psychiatric problems is the ultimate in anti-choice twisted reality.
There’s nothing more insane than to support a “right” of a parent to kill their dependent child, or to be a parent who actually does so.
But pretending to be scared brings in the pro-abort money
Pretending isn’t hard for the proaborts.
Not only would she be a victim of a crime, but she would be considered a criminal and be required to have counseling for the abortion.
Victims of crimes can also be criminals, CC.
A long post ensues, so if you don’t want to read it, don’t. Anyway, I digress.
Megan, why are you trying to shift the goal posts? Remember your original post on October 28, 2011 at 11:58 pm regarding Amendment 26, which you deemed to be “more far-reaching” than any ban on abortion in any Latin America country, implied the following:
1.) That doctors would refuse to treat women who tried to induce their own abortion or sufferred a “botched” abortion for fear of prosecution, that
2.) Doctors would refuse to operate on a woman whose life was threatened for fear of prosecution and that
3.) Women would stay away from doctors until they absolutely had to out of fear(?).
The first two which I specifically asked for examples of. With that being said:
1. Rep. Bobby Franklin from Georgia trying to pass a bill that would place the burden on the woman to prove that her miscarriage wasn’t the result of “human involvement.
Has nothing to do with Amendment 26. In fact, according to the ‘Yeson26’ website, “[the rumor that Personhood will result in the criminal prosecution of a woman who suffers a miscarriage] is both silly and cruel. Women were not prosecuted for miscarriages before Roe v. Wade and Personhood will not make having a miscarriage a crime.”
2. Queensland, Australia woman Tegan Leach charged with procuring medicines to induce an abortion (though now her attorney is saying that she might have just had a miscarriage)
And…?
3. Ireland: abortion is illegal, yet most women travel to the UK or abroad to get them. “An Irish solution to an Irish problem,” one reproductive rights activist has commented. Three women recently appeared before the European human rights council to protest Ireland’s anti-abortion laws. One of the women got pregnant right after she found out she had cancer, couldn’t find a doctor to give her an abortion, traveled to England for the procedure, and then suffered post-abortion complications. I’m sorry, but if you’re not satisfied by an instance where a <em>woman who has cancer </em>can’t find the healthcare she needs as evidence that anti-abortion laws can harm women, then I don’t know what proof you’re looking for. Wait though, there’s still more!
There are two completely seperate issues to be dealt with here:
(A) You mean that when abortion is illegal some women will travel abroad to procure an abortion? Well, gee. As the saying goes, “No ****, Sherlock”. Can you show me what pro-lifer around here has ever said that wouldn’t happen, as I’d be quite curious? You see, pro-lifers recognize that when abortion is illegal, one of four things will happen. Either:
1.) Women will become pregnant and give birth.
2.) Women will become pregnant and have an illegal abortion.
3.) Women will become pregnant and travel abroad for a legal abortion.
4.) Women will simply forego becoming pregnant in the first place.
To point out that women would do number three is kind of a, “Well, duh!” type of thing. No one has ever disputed that wouldn’t happen. Anyway, as this really has nothing to do with the actual question posed to you, we’ll move on to the second point.
(B) Your original statement was, in so many words, that a doctor would not assist a woman who is suffering medical complications, even if those medical complications stemmed from a botched abortion, because (s)he would be afraid of legal ramifications, as happens in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Thus far, you have absolutely FAILED— completely, totally, utterly and spectacularly– to even produce something close to that happening outside of what’s happened in Nicaragua and El Salvador or why it would even happen in the U.S. or a similar country.
I mean, let’s just look at the “proof” you offered above. Some women couldn’t obtain an abortion in Ireland, so she went to England, got an abortion and suffered medical complications. Therefore that proves that doctors in Ireland let women die after botched abortions because they’re afraid of prosecution? I don’t think so. One plus one does not equal eleven. Even in Ireland, doctors are not prevented from assisting a pregnant woman who is suffering some ailment even if it results in the death of her unborn child.
4. A woman in Poland couldn’t find anybody to <em>treat her colon condition</em>–not give her an abortion, mind you–because treatment could have affected her pregnancy. Well, she had a miscarriage and died anyway.
Did you even read your own link? Your link has nothing to do with medical practitioners refusing to provide treatment to women because they’re fearful of legal ramifications, which is something you claimed would happen happen should the amendment pass, but rather practitioners refusing to perform abortions on moral grounds, a provision which is in place right now, sans any Personhood Amendment. Unless your argument is something like “the amendment shouldn’t pass to prevent medical practitioners from refusing to perform abortions which they can already refuse to perform in the absence of any Personhood Amendment”, which is absurd, you should try again.
Oh, and taken from your link:
“Only in an emergency – where the refusal of the practitioners to perform an abortion means the woman will die – does the law deny practitioners an exemption to their standing obligation to treat.”
5. A 13-year-old girl in Peru (oh, sorry for throwing another invalid example from Latin American in here) gets raped by her 34-year-old neighbor, tries to commit suicide by jumping off a building, and ends up with a broken spine. The doctors, seeing that she’s pregnant, say that they will treat her <em>after she gives birth</em>. Well, she miscarried anyway, and then ended up paralyzed, which likely could have been avoided if she had gotten the immediate care she needed.
Again I ask you, “And…? That’s not to be callous but, again, I see you’re back to operating under the assumption that Amendment 26 states that someone who is pregnant not be given medical care even if it causes their unborn child to die. I really would like to know how you came to such a conclusion. Did you even go to the ‘Yeson26’ site?
You asked me to trawl through 100 years of US history to find an example, and here’s one from the last five years. Should be enough proof for you that anti-abortion laws can impede women’s access to care, no? Conscience clause in action!
Have you so quickly forgot what you originally said and what I asked for proof of?
———-
October 29, 2011 at 2:17 pm
You: “I doubt that women will be “left to die on the street,” because any fool bystander would immediately recognize post-abortion hemorrhaging as a medical crisis and bring her to the nearest hospital. The real problem with criminalized abortion occurs inside the four walls of the health care facility. Here, physicians and nurses need to weigh their options for delivering life-saving care against possibly facing legal ramifications for doing so.”
Me: “Another ridiculous assertion. Show me when and where, in the U.S., this happened. You literally have a period of over a hundred years to find one case of this happening (from around the 1850’s/1860’s to 1973). Go on. Do it. I’ll wait.”
———-
You: “Like an OB denying a woman care out of fear of the potential legal ramifications?”
Me: “I see you’re back to this. Show me where, in the history of the U.S., this has happened. I just want one example. Just one. I’ll wait. You have over a hundred years of history to choose from, so it shouldn’t be too hard.”
———-
You’re free to stop trying to move the goalposts as it suits you, though I doubt you will. As it is, I’m still waiting for you to show me when and where a physician or nurse refused to deliver life-saving care to a woman because they feared prosecution. How long are you going to refuse to produce an example? It shouldn’t be all that hard.
Reposted from earlier, since you glossed over this one:
“1. Idaho pharmacist refuses to prescribe Methargine (a drug to stop uterine bleeding) because he suspects that the woman had an abortion, although Methargine can be prescribed for a missed miscarriage:http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2011/01/26/idaho-pharmacist-refused-fill-prescription-getspass
You asked me to trawl through 100 years of US history to find an example, and here’s one from the last five years. Should be enough proof for you that anti-abortion laws can impede women’s access to care, no? Conscience clause in action!”
“Your link has nothing to do with medical practitioners refusing to provide treatment to women because they’re fearful of legal ramifications, which is something you claimed would happen happen should the amendment pass, but rather practitioners refusing to perform abortions on moral grounds…”
No, it’s your turn to do some thinking. Why aren’t the cases I cited from LA valid? You’ve yet to explain to me why, exactly, they aren’t tenable examples. Stringent anti-abortion law with doctors being prosecuted vs. arguably MORE stringent anti-abortion law with doctors being prosecuted.
Also, don’t you think you’re splitting hairs by arguing that a doctor acting out of fear of prosecution is not at all similar to a doctor refusing to provide care on moral grounds? I’m not going to play this stupid game where you try to distract me from the real issue: doctors failing to prioritize the immediate needs of a patient out of deference to some higher authority, be it legal or “moral.”
Anyway, back to Ireland. I’ll post a nice quotation from a BBC article talking about the three Irish women who petitioned the ECHR last year:
“The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Irish abortion laws violated the rights of one of three women who sought terminations in Britain. The woman, who was in remission for a rare form of cancer, feared it might return as a result of her pregnancy. While abortion in the Republic is technically allowed if a woman’s life is at risk, the court said that was not made possible for the woman involved….the court said that women and their doctors both ran a risk of criminal conviction and imprisonment “if an initial doctor’s opinion that abortion was an option as it posed a risk to the woman’s health was later found to be against the Irish constitution. The court said Irish constitutional courts were not appropriate for determining whether a woman qualified for a lawful abortion”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11342247
Abortion ban? Check. Failure to provide needed care? Check check.
Your view that seeking an abortion is a psychiatric problem is not held by the mental health field and for you to equate a woman seeking bodily autonomy with a person having suicidal ideation (and drug addiction) is bizarre (and those with addictive behaviors) and insulting to those who have tried to commit suicide and those who have counseled them.
Tell me CC. Did Andrea Yates have a psychiatric disorder? Explain the difference please. As I see it women who commit abortion are much like Andrea Yates only they didn’t wait as long to kill their babies.
megan
This is in response to your 8:04 p.m. post.
So because a pharmacist and a hospital, if she went to a hospital ,didn’t do their job this justifies the number of pre-borns murdered daily. Mercy applies to women megan and it also applies to their unborn. Top the 3000 figure. What other population is as targeted as the pre-born human. That’s 3000 hearts that are stopped daily because when american women are denied medical care they have no criminal or civil courts to find resolution for the criminal act that was inflicted upon them. Why do you think the enlightened (?) are fighting for the right to continue to murder the innocent and not instead fighting for a womans real right to health care. I do believe the point you make about the consciense clause is a valid one, I just don’t believe the solution is to allow the further targeting of the pre-born population.
CC,
I will tell you what I see as the biggest difference between a woman who commits abortion and Andrea Yates. Some of the women who have committed abortion over the past 40 years were conned into believing it is ‘acceptable’ behaviour. They were uneasy about their pregnancy and Planned Parenthood lied to them about their baby being nothing more than a glob of cells etc and that the experieeeence was comparable to having a tooth pulled. These women were desperate but sane at the time of their abortion and they eventually realize the truth of what they did recognize it as abhorrent behaviour. The insane ones who commit abortion do not need to be conned; they would kill not only their unborn children but anybody who got in the way of their plans if it was made legal.
You asked me to trawl through 100 years of US history to find an example, and here’s one from the last five years. Should be enough proof for you that anti-abortion laws can impede women’s access to care, no? Conscience clause in action!”
No, I didn’t “gloss” over it. I actually responded to it. As I said earlier, you’re merely shifting the goalposts. You’ve gone from medical practitioners refusing to provide medical care to women because they’re afraid of the law coming down on them, which was your original assertion, to medical practitioners refusing to perform an abortion because it goes against their consciences.
No, it’s your turn to do some thinking. Why aren’t the cases I cited from LA valid? You’ve yet to explain to me why, exactly, they aren’t tenable examples. Stringent anti-abortion law with doctors being prosecuted vs. arguably MORE stringent anti-abortion law with doctors being prosecuted.
I did answer this; twice before, in fact. And every time you gloss over it, which is funny, all things considered.
Also, don’t you think you’re splitting hairs by arguing that a doctor acting out of fear of prosecution is not at all similar to a doctor refusing to provide care on moral grounds? I’m not going to play this stupid game where you try to distract me from the real issue: doctors failing to prioritize the immediate needs of a patient out of deference to some higher authority, be it legal or “moral.”
Are you arguing the status quo, which says a doctor does not have to perform an abortion unless (s)he wants to, or the Personhood Amendment, of whose passage you believe will mean that doctors will no longer treat women for fear of prosecution? I’m really quite interested, as it seems to me your beef is with conscience clauses and doctors being able to refuse to perform an abortion moreso than it is with the Amendment itself. Go back and read your posts; you’ve tried using the existence of conscious clauses to argue against Amendment 26. I’m not so sure how that works or what sense that makes, considering that they exist and will continue to exist regardless of what happens with Amendment 26.
Abortion ban? Check. Failure to provide needed care? Check check.
You spend an inordinate amount of time grasping at straws. You know that, right? How about you try again, Megan? The courts ruled that there is no right to abortion. What they ruled is that Ireland, which has a Constitutional provision which allows for abortions in cases where the mother’s health is at risk, did not adequately do enough to ensure that a woman whose health was at risk could acquire an abortion, which their Constitution guarantees. But, please. Continue on as you are. It’s amusing.
“What they ruled is that Ireland, which has a Constitutional provision which allows for abortions in cases where the mother’s health is at risk, did not adequately do enough to ensure that a woman whose health was at risk could acquire an abortion, which their Constitution guarantees.”
You just made my point for me, so thanks. Here we have a high profile case in which doctors failed to provide the care a woman needed, despite the existence of a health exception. The BBC article alluded to doctors’ fears of breaking the law, of her health retrospectively being deemed not serious enough to have warranted an abortion. So there you go–a Western country similar to the US, with the European Human Rights Council in an uproar over a law impeding a woman’s access to care (actually not one woman, but three).
“Go back and read your posts; you’ve tried using the existence of conscious clauses to argue against Amendment 26.”
Sorry that I have to connect the dots for you–at this point, I think you’re being deliberately obtuse.
We’ve seen what can happen with unregulated conscience clauses–providers refusing to perform necessary procedures, even when there’s a provision in there that allows for therapeutic abortions (ahem, Poland). I’ve shown examples of laws that allow–or force–providers to deprioritize the needs of their patients. Now think about the potential passage of the Personhood Amendment. Take all the folks who currently object to offering comprehensive reproductive care–and providers who WOULD object, except for significant social pressure to do so–and privilege their worldview above one that makes the audacious claim that women should have bodily autonomy. These people would let a woman’s health reach the point of absolute jeopardy before doing anything that might interfere with her unborn child. You suddenly give these conscience clausers more power, and then what? Why WOULDN’T there be a culture of fear, a climate where doctors who want to provide good care are too afraid to do so out of fear of prosecution?
The burden of proof is on you now, I’m done. It’s clear that you don’t think this law will actually have any teeth, in which case, awesome! Maybe I’ll set up my own health clinic selling IUDs, Plan B and abortion pills, right in Jackson.
“Did Andrea Yates have a psychiatric disorder?”
Yes, she was ruled insane. She had severe postpartum depression and had been urged by her therapist not to have any more children.Some of her her psychosis was attributed to her extreme Christianity. But not all murderers are insane which is why there is no “mandatory” counseling for those who commit homicide. Again, to say that women who procure abortions, many of them who post on this site, are insane is highly insulting.
they would kill not only their unborn children but anybody who got in the way of their plans if it was made legal
“Some of the women who have committed abortion over the past 40 years were conned into believing it is ‘acceptable’ behaviour”
That abortion is “unacceptable” is not a universally held scientific, ethical, legal, or religious position. Never has been and, most likely, never will be.
“These women were desperate but sane at the time of their abortion and they eventually realize the truth of what they did recognize it as abhorrent behaviour.
Nice way of circumventing the obvious cognitive dissonance, in the pro-life movement, about those pro-life women who have had abortions. They were “conned” into it (silly things who are just so susceptible to the evil Planned Parenthood) so they weren’t insane and now they’re just fine.
“ The insane ones who commit abortion do not need to be conned; they would kill not only their unborn children but anybody who got in the way of their plans if it was made legal”
So now that you’ve absolved all the pro-life women who had abortions, you proceed to declare that all the other women, who made their own decisions and never regretted it, would commit murder if it were legal (a ridiculous speculation). So, if they are that homicidal, what’s to prevent them from doing it now. I better watch my back around my friends and relatives who had abortions and moved on with their lives. As you folks say, if abortion becomes illegal, some women will continue to “commit” one. You don’t hate all women, just those who want control over their bodies. Misogyny much?
And “commit” – abortion is a surgical procedure that one “has.” It’s not a crime so there is no “commission.”
“Take all the folks who currently object to offering comprehensive reproductive care–and providers who WOULD object, except for significant social pressure to do so–and privilege their worldview above one that makes the audacious claim that women should have bodily autonomy”
True that, Megan. The abortion which occurred at the Catholic hospital in Arizona is case in point. The nun who allowed the abortion to take place was excommunicated and subject to the requisite hatred from the pro-life community. So not only is there pressure from those who hate the idea of bodily autonomy; but in Catholic hospitals there is pressure from the “Majesterium” – in other words, a Catholic doctor or hospital administrator is threatened with loss of their soul if the agree to an abortion to save the life of a woman. And once they have to endure the requisite arguments about whether this was really necessary (and personal attacks and threats), they might not be as willing to help out if the situation happens again.
And BTW Megan, just because you had an abortion doesn’t make you either a criminal or insane!
So, if they are that homicidal, what’s to prevent them from doing it now.
Only the law and fear of retribution from the ones they would kill.
Tell me CC. Do you see ANY similarities between a woman killing an unborn child; and a woman killing her born child cause she wants her own life back (autonomy from the child)? I am really curious; if so what are ANY similarities you see between the two? This time I will wait and let you answer before I give you my list.
just because you had an abortion doesn’t make you either a criminal or insane!
Your right, CC. Sometimes it makes one both!
“Do you see ANY similarities between a woman killing an unborn child; and a woman killing her born child cause”
Not at all. An abortion is the removal of a fetus which, in my opinion and the opinion of lots of others, is not the same kind of “life” as a post born person with legal rights to not be killed as a result of their being post born.
And nice to know that you think women who have had abortions and don’t regret them are potential murderers. There should be no question as to why, in the reality based community, the anti-choice movement is seen as a bunch of weird zealots.
An abortion is the removal of a fetus which, in my opinion and the opinion of lots of others, is not the same kind of “life” as a post born person with legal rights to not be killed as a result of their being post born.
And therein lies your delusion and insanity. A living human organism is a living human being, and fighting for the equal protection under the law for ALL living human beings is “reality-based”.
opinions do not make facts. CC – if they are operating on a pre-born human – is that entity alive? In your view that ‘life’ is not the same – but the doctors operate anyway. the heartbeats are monitored anyway.
Doctors would not work on someone who is dead and monitor the heartbeat. Maybe dissect a cadaver, but that is not what we are talking about here… That ‘fetus’ has a sex, it’s own DNA and blood type anyway. It has life. It is life. It is human.
So maybe, just maybe – opinions are not correct and maybe, just maybe that ‘life’ is real, and valuable. Maybe you should re-think your opinion.
Being zealous for the right thing is good.
Love big, love them all, protect all of our human family, born and unborn.
Not at all. An abortion is the removal of a fetus which, in my opinion and the opinion of lots of others, is not the same kind of “life” as a post born person with legal rights to not be killed as a result of their being post born.
Honesty is important CC if we are to have meaningful dialogue. I could give you a few easy examples of similarities but I know if you think about and want to answer then you could too. Lets start by comparing a born child with say viable fetus at full term gestation since they have the most in common. Be honest and I am sure you can find some similarities. If you say “not at all” then it will be apparent that you won’t answer cause you are afraid to say the truth. I’ll wait again.
Some Guy: Right. Her point is that something will happen which wasn’t true nor happened during the more than 100 years when abortion was illegal in this country, often for any reason. Why will it happen? Because she says it will. What evidence does she have that it will happen? Because it happened in some other country entirely dissimilar to the U.S.. I suppose if you don’t think about it too hard, it makes perfect sense.
Abortion being illegal in the US in the past isn’t the same as what would be the case if we deem personhood and full rights to be there from conception, not nearly the same. I agree that we don’t know what all would happen, but Holy Crow – it’s certainly a “can or worms” because there is already some precedent for what Megan was saying, and some other things that would follow logically.
___
“All the applicable arguments to the abortion debate are emotional, from the get-go.”
Ummm, no. “The unborns are human beings” really isn’t an emotional argument. It’s a purely 100% scientifically accurate statement.
But that’s not the abortion argument. Even prior to Roe, that the unborn had human DNA was not in doubt. The abortion debate is not “science,” but rather all the “shoulds” and “should nots” that people come up with.
____
And if you accept the idea of human rights (which, apparently, the majority of people, pro-choicers included, do), then abortion must be wrong. Since you kind of ignored this in the other thread, I’ll ask you plainly. Are you saying that there are humans who are not deserving of human rights?
Yeah – rights are not absolute. To me it makes a difference if certain behaviors in society are present, or if the “human” is inside the body of a person, if they are sentient, have personality, awareness, emotions, etc.
____
“Fearmongering”? No, I said the ramifications are unknown. But again, Megan had a good point.”
If the ramifications are unknown, then how can you say that the amendment opens up a big can of worms, for the only way to say it opens up a big can of worms is to know at least some of the ramifications of said amendment. So which is it? Do you or do you not know? If you know, then how do you know? And if you don’t know, then you’re just fearmongering.
We certainly don’t know everything that would happen, and thus I say things are unknown, but personhood for the unborn would necessarily make some things happen, and again – this is an extention of the penalties on some (relatively few) women per the restrictions we have on late-term abortion per the Roe decision.
If we would treat the zygote, blastocyst, etc., as persons, would that not mean that pregnant women would be liable for a great range of things then seen as crimes against the unborn? Again, this is a far, far different thing from just having abortion be generally illegal.
“What happens on Jill’s site isn’t controlled by the Roe decision, nor would it be by the absence of a “Roe” decision, Xalisae.”
Xalisae: Umm…the point is seeking an end to legal abortion. Abortion that was made legal in Roe. If it wasn’t for Roe, we’d have nothing to talk about. You’re not making any sense in this statement at all.
X, you had said, “If THAT were true, we wouldn’t be talking here on this website, I think.” And then, “My point of “talking on this website” was simply that if it WERE so very “clear”, there would be no room for debate, and here we have plenty of it, do we not?”
The unconstitutionality of the proposed MS amendment is clear – even if you disagree with the Roe decision, and thus even some pro-lifers are noting that it would have no effect, be struck down, etc. The abortion issue was already a going concern prior to Roe, abortion was already legal in some states, and the argument would be going on, Roe or not.
There have been other clearly unconstitutional laws passed that were struck down right away for the same reasons, and it’s never been the case that the clear unconstitutionality of them meant an end to the abortion debate.
____
“The unconstitutionality of the Mississippi deal really is clear, but still – I did say that I didn’t know what will happen for sure, and didn’t even guarantee what a judge would do, even given the situation. The status quo is that Roe is the “settled law of the land.” Not that it’s impossible that that would change, but still, for now, we can recognize reality.”
You keep saying this, and you’ve done nothing to substantiate that comment.
The MS deal is not compatible with the rights that women have. The conservative Supreme justices agree with this, and thus Chief Justice Roberts said that “Roe is the settled law of the land.” Not that this means things could not change there, but for now, and for decades past, the unconstitutionality of what is proposed is and has been clear.
___
And we recognize the inherent violation of human rights in abortion, and the history we have as a nation of overturning decisions which violate human rights, like slavery and racial issues of the past.
No, this is two different things. There is your opinion about what rights the unborn should have. Then there is the way things are. There is nothing “inherent” about what you assert. That said, looking at overturning the Roe decision – I grant you it’s not impossible.
If we would treat the zygote, blastocyst, etc., as persons, would that not mean that pregnant women would be liable for a great range of things then seen as crimes against the unborn?
Doug, no it would not. It would just mean that the state would no longer sanction killing human beings in the womb. What are some of the ‘biggest worms’ in the can that worry you most?
First of all, the case is here (http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/2032.html). Anyway:
You just made my point for me, so thanks. Here we have a high profile case in which doctors failed to provide the care a woman needed, despite the existence of a health exception.
False. The woman did not need an abortion. The women (C) did not even argue this, but rather that even though the country made exceptions for health concerns that she had no effective procedure by which to establish her qualification for a lawful abortion and would have had to go through a lengthy judicial process in order to determine whether or not she could terminate her pregnancy (154 and 155).
The BBC article alluded to doctors’ fears of breaking the law, of her health retrospectively being deemed not serious enough to have warranted an abortion.
This is simply not true. Regarding the third applicant, she had been suffering from cancer since 2002. It went into remission when she fell pregnant around 2005. She consulted several medical practitioners and medical consultant in Ireland but says she was giving insufficient information about the effects of her cancer on her pregnancy and her unborn child, so she looked for information online. She couldn’t find anything concrete and decided to go to England to have an abortion (22 – 25).
So there you go–a Western country similar to the US, with the European Human Rights Council in an uproar over a law impeding a woman’s access to care (actually not one woman, but three).
This is absolutely false. The European Council wasn’t in an uproar. First of all, they outright rejected the claims of Woman A and Woman B and concluded that there was NO right to an abortion (214). Second of all, they also rejected every claim from Woman C (i.e., her right to life was violated), save her claim that she wasn’t afforded the right to abort should her life be endangered as granted by Ireland’s Constitution. On this claim, they ruled that the mechanisms by which a woman would go about obtaining an abortion were unclear, not because there’s a law, as you stated, “impending a woman’s access to care”. In fact, the council did not question whether or not Ireland could restrict abortion, and allowed that Ireland had broad margin in which to do so (235 and 236).
But please, do continue on as you are. I find it amusing.
We’ve seen what can happen with unregulated conscience clauses–providers refusing to perform necessary procedures, even when there’s a provision in there that allows for therapeutic abortions (ahem, Poland). I’ve shown examples of laws that allow–or force–providers to deprioritize the needs of their patients. Now think about the potential passage of the Personhood Amendment. Take all the folks who currently object to offering comprehensive reproductive care–and providers who WOULD object, except for significant social pressure to do so–and privilege their worldview above one that makes the audacious claim that women should have bodily autonomy. These people would let a woman’s health reach the point of absolute jeopardy before doing anything that might interfere with her unborn child. You suddenly give these conscience clausers more power, and then what? Why WOULDN’T there be a culture of fear, a climate where doctors who want to provide good care are too afraid to do so out of fear of prosecution?
You do realize that you don’t make any sense, correct? Conscience clauses exist today, right now, today, as of October 31, 2011, in the absence of any Personhood Amendment. Doctors, nurses and other medical practitioners can, right now, today, October 31, 2011, in the absence of a Personhood Amendment, refuse to perform any abortion as long as it is not required to save the life of the woman. Now, let’s fastfoward to November 9, 2011, with a Personhood Amendment in place. Doctors, nurses and other medical practitioners will thusly be able to… refuse to perform any abortion as long as it is not required to save the life of the woman.
That’s the exact same situation we have now. Nothing changes. How can, say, a medical practitioner suddenly be given more power when the current status quo regarding conscience clauses would remain in place should a Personhood Amendment pass? Just think about that for a moment there.
The burden of proof is on you now, I’m done.
Right. I like the way you argue. You make an absurd claim, I ask for proof of that claim, you shift the goal posts, engage in either the world’s worst straw man/the world’s most egregious red herring and then claim the burden of proof is on me to ‘prove’ that your ridiculous assertion won’t happen?
It’s clear that you don’t think this law will actually have any teeth, in which case, awesome! Maybe I’ll set up my own health clinic selling IUDs, Plan B and abortion pills, right in Jackson.
Oh? Could you find me where I said that? And while you’re busy doing that, would you kindnly answer the question posed to you on numerous occasions?
Carla: I like you Some Guy!! I am so glad you are here!!!
I should like your comments about 20 times. That would totally show them!!
Carla, “there can be only one!” The server won’t let you record more than one vote – try it, Highlander. ;)
“If you say “not at all” then it will be apparent that you won’t answer cause you are afraid to say the truth. I’ll wait again.”
Again, not at all. What’s in my body and dependent on only me (not a cadre of home health aides or doctors) is my private property. And until it leaves my body, it’s mine – not yours – and it’s up to me what happens to it. Got it?
And BTW folks, I posted a comment about the radical founder of the Mississippi personhood movement (he’s a neo-Confederate who once advocated for a separate “Christian” state in South Carolina) and it got zapped.
Inconvenient truth?
If we would treat the zygote, blastocyst, etc., as persons, would that not mean that pregnant women would be liable for a great range of things then seen as crimes against the unborn?
Truthseeker: Doug, no it would not. It would just mean that the state would no longer sanction killing human beings in the womb. What are some of the ‘biggest worms’ in the can that worry you most?
TS, right here: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/513/biggestwormstoworryabou.jpg/
Seriously, I disagree with you – how could women not be liable for “doing things to” the zygote, blastocyst, etc.? There is already precedent for penalizing women “in the interest” of the unborn. And this is without personhood and rights being attributed to the unborn. If it would be deemed (and upheld by the courts) that “it’s a person from conception,” then obviously more and greater would be done in that area.
If not, then the law would not at all have the effect that those presenting it want.
“She consulted several medical practitioners and medical consultant in Ireland but says she was giving insufficient information about the effects of her cancer on her pregnancy and her unborn child.”
I never said Patient C needed an abortion. What I said was, “doctors failed to provide the care a woman needed, despite the existence of a health exception.” I’m sorry, but failing to discuss the range of options a woman has in this critical state is an absolute failure to provide needed care. And yes, it is possible that the woman’s doctors were deliberately vague about her possibilities for care out of fear of the legal ramifications should they have recommended an abortion. The law was too vague, and consequently her rights weren’t safeguarded.
“How can, say, a medical practitioner suddenly be given more power when the current status quo regarding conscience clauses would remain in place should a Personhood Amendment pass? Just think about that for a moment there.”
Health care providers who rely on conscience clauses today have already demonstrated their willingness to let a woman reach the absolute brink of death before doing anything that might harm her unborn child (ahem, Phoenix). If the vocal pro-life minority suddenly enjoys minority rule, what would stop this extremist anti-abortion position from becoming the dominant perspective on reproductive rights within the medical establishment (especially since this the premise of this bill is so extreme)? And why wouldn’t pro-choice providers feel the pressure to comply with the dominant perspective, since they might face criminal liability otherwise?
“You make an absurd claim, I ask for proof of that claim, you shift the goal posts, engage in either the world’s worst straw man/the world’s most egregious red herring and then claim the burden of proof is on me to ‘prove’ that your ridiculous assertion won’t happen?”
Why is my claim absurd? You’ve failed to disprove its possibility except for saying, “blah blah Latin America is nothing like the US blah blah it never happened before Roe.” You have NOTHING. You don’t like my examples, then fine.
If this bill will have no other ramifications than outlawing abortion in Mississippi, why not just try to ban abortion, instead of codifying personhood as existing at the moment of conception? Why waste all this time and money–yes, TAXPAYER money; I am going to play that card–defending a campaign against claims about implications that actually seem quite plausible, if not inevitable?
Seriously, I disagree with you – how could women not be liable for “doing things to” the zygote, blastocyst, etc.?
Doug, if by “doing things” you mean intentionally killing then yeah, I think the law would be applicable. But other than that what particular “things” are you talking about?
Again, not at all.
CC,
You saying that things inside your body cannot in any way be similar to things outside your is absurd. Your denial is incredibly obtuse. I guess I will have to start by giving you a similarity and see if you agree with it or deny it.
A full term baby inside her mother’s womb has the same fingerprints as the baby ouside the womb. Would you agree or disagree?
“Seriously, I disagree with you – how could women not be liable for “doing things to” the zygote, blastocyst, etc.?”
TS: Doug, if by “doing things” you mean intentionally killing then yeah, I think the law would be applicable. But other than that what particular “things” are you talking about?
Truthseeker, matters of nutrition, and really – anything that could be construed as to have meaningful impact on the unborn, the same as any number of things that are short of killing, but still considered abusive or harmful to born kids that result in penalties to the parents/guardians.
Doug, I would imagine these things might well be given greater attention to the benefit of the unborn if they were given personhood. But I think it would be nearly impossible to prove any criminal injury while the baby was still developing in the womb.
Truthseeker, yeah – that certainly applies. Yet proving a criminal injury would not be required, same as for born kids – parents can be found negligent, liable, guilty, etc., without direct harm being proven to have occurred. Michael Jackson dangles a baby over a balcony… He could say, “Well, I didn’t drop him, did I?” Society is still going to say, “Dude, you can’t do that….”
I have a simple question: I’m not christian…so, why am I being forced to abide by explicitly Christian biblical doctrine? FYI: the official “personhoodmississippi.com website quotes Deuteronomy, 30:19.
Passed by a majority, that’s a theocracy. Welcome to the Western version of (insert putative, primitive Middle East country here).
Statewide Initiative 26, is not a bill about abortion. This is obviously much more than that, otherwise they wouldn’t have included such things as,:Harvesting of eggs, cloning( such as for organs and skin graphs), genetic engineering, all forms of stem cell and fetal tissue. For example, when one gets an organ via transplant from donors, said person will be on medication for the rest of their life, unlike with cloning of organs, which would require no medication to maintain in the body. This type of medical science and achievement would be lost in the listed areas for the bill.