There ALREADY has been a compromise...24 weeks. "".. a 24 week ban isn't really necessary ( it was a compromise). Most abortions are done before 16-18 weeks, women do not wait longer.""" Canada has no abortion laws and Canadian women do NOT wait, wallowing in the "joys" of pregnancy just to have an abortion as late as possible in their pregnancies...
Then my hypothetical abortion 'reform' legislation would have little practical impact on vast majority of women, for the tremendous gain of getting rid of several forms of oppressive and draconian state or federal regulations imposed by legislators. Anti-choicers gain four weeks of protection for the fetus consistent with the direction of twenty-first century improvements in viability. Compromises from 30 plus years ago, are due for a new look anyway. Of course you have to convince SCOTUS to take a fresh look at their original role in the process when they get the challenges to the bill.
Why a "fresh" look at viability? Just to quibble about 2-3 weeks while most women have their abortion long before that! Why not just let the matter drop....and let women alone to choose what medical procedures they want just like EVERYONE else does?????.
You may benefit from reading this fantastic and informative article...I will provide a pertinent snippet to entice you: "What was the reasoning in Roe v. Wade? There was no legal weight given to what happens to the children once they are born, or to the family. Instead, a woman's right to reproductive freedom is protected, the court ruled, by constitutional guarantees of privacy. But that right is not unqualified. The woman's guarantee of privacy and the fetus's right to life must be weighed--and when the court did the weighing' priority was given to privacy in the first trimester and to life in the third. The transition was decided not from any of the considerations we have been dealing with so far…--not when "ensoulment" occurs, not when the fetus takes on sufficient human characteristics to be protected by laws against murder. Instead, the criterion adopted was whether the fetus could live outside the mother. This is called "viability" and depends in part on the ability to breathe. The lungs are simply not developed, and the fetus cannot breathe--no matter how advanced an artificial lung it might be placed in—until about the 24th week, near the start of the sixth month. This is why Roe v. Wade permits the states to prohibit abortions in the last trimester. It's a very pragmatic criterion. If the fetus at a certain stage of gestation would be viable outside the womb, the argument goes, then the right of the fetus to life overrides the right of the woman to privacy. But just what does "viable" mean? Even a full-term newborn is not viable without a great deal of care and love. There was a time before incubators, only a few decades ago, when babies in their seventh month were unlikely to be viable. Would aborting in the seventh month have been permissible then? After the invention of incubators, did aborting pregnancies in the seventh month suddenly become immoral? What happens if, in the future, a new technology develops so that an artificial womb can sustain a fetus even before the sixth month by delivering oxygen and nutrients through the blood--as the mother does through the placenta and into the fetal blood system? We grant that this technology is unlikely to be developed soon or become available to many. But if it were available, does it then become immoral to abort earlier than the sixth month, when previously it was moral? A morality that depends on, and changes with, technology is a fragile morality; for some, it is also an unacceptable morality. " http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
Why quibble about a few rules and regulations to ensure the safety of women in abortionists clinics? What's the big deal about insisting on some common sense hospital privileges within , say, 30 miles of the clinic and having consumers informed and education by seeing an ultrasound and signing an informed consent on what is being done to fetus? And why not a little parental notification before their little Susie undergoes this traumatic procedure so they can provide much needed emotional and spiritual support? Why quibble about some reasonable quarterly inspections by the state department of health to guarantee that all safety and consumer laws are being obeyed at clinics and that the paperwork is in order? If you haven't figured it out yet access and affordability is EVERYTHING, and state legislatures have been taking a very fresh look at abortion! It might be in in women's interest to put some weeks on the negotiating table, if others do the same.
Define "health of the mother" and it is 22 weeks now with even one recorded 21 week neo-natal baby surviving but then why is that the measure of when it's OK to kill a baby in the womb?
A fetus is a baby and a baby can be a fetus if he/she is still in the womb as has already been demonstrated to you over and over. YOUR brought in the education and counselling part so again why not make sure ALL women seeking to kill their babies are FULLY informed.............................well?
Oh, that corner you're in must be getting tight. Your response didn't have anything to do with my post......just hysterics Clinics have safety regulations IN PLACE NOW. Sure, have hospital privileges within 30 miles...(shrug) """"having consumers informed and education by seeing an ultrasound and signing an informed consent on what is being done to fetus?""" Women seeking abortions have all the same opportunities to be informed of their LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE as anyone else having a LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE. No, despite what you think women all know what "pregnant" means........ I wouldn't need a photo of my spleen if it had to come out, would YOU!?
And you said education was necessary so why not a TRUTHFUL education without the denial of that TRUTH and making sure ALL women are fully informed?
Fully informed of what? That they should feel immoral and guilty because YOU think they are "killing a baaaaaaaaby!" ? Are you for fully informing women on the negative aspects of pregnancy, childbirth and raising kids????
I don't have time to read the article (work) but all rights are qualified in law, and practice. Morality is always fragile and changing, secondary to cultural shifts. Insofar as technology drives some of those shifts, it is no different than if macro-economics, religion or politics drives those cultural shifts in morality. The forces of history cannot be contained, and those forces impact a cultural understanding of morality and the newer cousin, bio-ethics.
Wow. You really have trouble getting my position on this issue, don't you? Time and again, you completely miss my point. I am right by your side on obvious efforts to hamper abortion access including ultrasounds etc. But we are LOSING access all over this country to laws that appear so very harmless but are not. The appellate courts are not protecting access and that means women all over this country are not getting services. That business of 'hospital privileges' is serious business if hospitals won't grant them to clinicians in that radius for whatever excuse and that has been happening in conservative regions as a way to impede service. If you want to keep your head buried in the sand of pro choice talking points, you can go ahead but I am not. This is a political debate, in a political country and you can't stay away from the table forever. When you come to bargain and craft a compromise, you have to bring something to put on the table the other side wants.
Your privacy does not come into play in any way whatsoever...unless you can somehow get pregnant. Your "Rights" as the father do not encompass another persons body.
by th way, here it is in my words, "If this were subject to a legoslative fix, and If I were constructing my statutory compromise legislation, I'd move it to a twenty week ban on most abortions, and ban almost all the manipulative obstructionist regulation that red states like to impose, designed to obstruct women's access, intimidate practitioners, and drive clinics out of business. This is supposed to be a federally guaranteed right. What good is the increasingly morally ambiguous and infrequently used four weeks in blue states and urban areas, while red states are virtually driving all access to the procedure out of their borders? Just how many clinics are there in Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas,Ababama and Missouri that are financially viable and safe to practice in, and how are women in rural states and the south getting any value from Roe? Of course how to I find anyone willing to compromise on their polemics and faux outrage ,and sign on to compromise on abortion?" Again, This is a political debate, in a political country and you can't stay away from the table forever, especially if you are losing ground. When you come to bargain and craft a compromise, you have to bring something to put on the table the other side wants. Those weeks that you see as insignificant, the pro life folks may want very badly if they see a more 'lifelike and viable ' innocent life at risk, by not signing on. By the way, it is those later abortions and the images that they use for propaganda, to move a nation.
Because they aren't needed and abortion is being singled out. Other clinics are not subject to the same restrictions. Also, current standards are NOT causing problems. These new ones are solely for the purpose of trying to get clinics shut down. Or maybe beat the crap out of her...... I have no issue with parental notification as long as there's a judicial bypass option. Though we do not require it here in Canada.
Do you think it should also be mandatory for people to see xrays and other test results before any other kind of procedure? It's for doctors to practice medicine, not the govt. If doctors and their governing bodies require certain specifics, the fine. Govt. needs to stay out of it.
Ya , but Repubs and Anti-Choicers seem to WANT Bigger Government...when it comes to controlling women....
Laws that are getting struck down by the courts. Like this one, struck down the other day: http://news.yahoo.com/judge-orders-louisiana-continue-funding-planned-parenthood-052450235.html
I know they what they are doing, you know what they are doing, and Foxhastings knows what they are doing. My point is that these laws are like cockroaches breeding in socially conservative sewers and spreading all over the place. the courts can squash one or two that crawl by their feet, but its not really worth the work to them to get up from a chair walk over and stomp on them. The fact is that there are fewer clinics performing abortions, larger geographic areas without any access and fewer practitioners willing to take the risks for so little gain than there were 20 years ago. that long term pattern suggests that the pro choice movement is losing ground and maybe its tactics are to blame. An Omnibus reform bill banning several general areas of state interference will help for a long time, but you are going to have to come to the table with something.
