RIGHT TO MATERNAL/FETAL HEALTHCARE & EDUCATION to stabilize the abortion issue

Nope, you are drawing out an entire thread in response to me referencing a completely separate policy/subtopic and me uttering the words “economic coercive control against mothers” and then arguing against presumptions and accusations you made. As I have pointed out, my primary policy is not about economic policies so this is not the right space to debate about economic issues.

BOTH men and women are responsible for their decisions, for their children that they create, and for whatever harms that they inflict on others. I have repeatedly said BOTH. Most men do take responsibility for their children and manage to do so without any form of abuse; a subset do not. Elective abortion is not primarily driven by women in strong, healthy marriages and financially secure environments. I merely disputed your claim that men were not involved in the push for abortion access.

Again, for the perhaps the 3rd or 4th time, can you please keep your responses constructive and on topic? Stop hyjacking the response section into your personal grievance platform to air out your nonsense and trying to turn this into a men’s rights debate. This is not Twitter.

EDIT/CORRECTION: Upon re-reviewing my posts, I see now that I did also use the term “economic coercive control against mothers” in direct response to your (now deleted) post. This was in response to your claims that women entirely “control” the issue of abortion, that the existence of abortion was driven only by women and essentially erasing men entirely from the current demand for abortion. Basically a laundry list of tired MRA and anti-feminism talking points that I have already heard a million times.

I had made that post after reading yours, but finished it just before you deleted yours and I wasn’t sure if you were just making edits. Anyway, as I had said in response to your subsequent complaint about my mere mention of the words “economic coercive control of mothers” I specifically told you that since this main policy does not even touch on those economic issues, that I don’t want to waste space here about an unrelated topic. It is irrelevant.

Thank you. I bet that if this proposal reached the debate floor, many Congresspeople/senators would bring up similar ideas. I’m just going to provide my quick personal thoughts on that. (This is my mostly my layperson perspective, too.)

I disagree with raising the age exception from 14 to 16 or 18 because:

  • It is very common for teenagers to become sexually active before adulthood and physically women are often fully grown by high school.
  • I don’t believe teenagers over age 14 are automatically considered unable to consent to sex, especially when the partner is under 18.
  • If the older partner is over 18, that partner could be prosecuted for statutory rape, HOWEVER the partner could respond with various defenses. In my state, CA, just because an adult up to age 24 has sex with a teenager as young as 14, that does NOT mean automatic sex offender; it has be ruled so by a judge.
  • If there was rape/incest, a rape/incest exception is already included regardless of age.
  • If you think that teenage consent isn’t consent, then you’re admitting that teenagers can’t “consent” to abortion either.
  • Also remember that teenagers are particularly vulnerable to abortion coercion, not just by the father, but by their family and friends.
  • Remember that the unborn child also isn’t exactly consenting to the abortion either. If we’re going to infantilize someone, let’s remember there’s an actual baby involved that needs consideration.
  • Overall I just do not agree that the desires of a teenager outweigh the life of an actual child. States remain free to expand their exceptions anyway.

I disagree with the idea of increasing the gestational age exception for rape/incest from 15 weeks to 18 weeks because:

  • 15 weeks ALREADY adds plenty of “padding” time. 93% of all abortions occur prior to 12 weeks gestation. Some pro-lifers do not want any rape exception at all.
  • It doesn’t take that long to print a copy of your police report or to get a print-out your medical record. I would agree that the documentation process should be expeditious to avoid delays.
  • 15 weeks coincides with other moderate bills that Republicans have proposed, such as the 15 week bills passed in many states, as well as the 15 week federal bill proposed by Lindsay Graham.
  • The 15 week restriction is one way to balance concerns from pro-lifers about the potential of the rape exception being fraudulently used to get elective abortion.
  • Second trimester abortion becomes increasingly more gruesome and risky for the unborn child. 18 weeks is just way too far for elective abortion.
  • Also again, the unborn child is a victim, too.

I agree with the morning after pill being more accessible and with some kind of limitations.

I understand what your objections are and am fully aware of the kinds of abuse of public funds you describe and object to, that goes on constantly. You are right; there is no trust, because, for more than fifty years, on no subject have the American people been lied to, manipulated politically, and miseducated more by this central government than about the ending of life prematurely by secondary parties.

This has gone on while “healthcare” has become hideously more expensive (far outstripping general inflation for decades), for Americans, causing more and more Americans, particularly the working middle class, to have financially obstructed and/or limited access to needed and necessary care.

Ironically, this proposal is in no small part inspired by that injustice, this time legally obstructed and/or limited access, for the same reason a majority of American women originally supported the “right” to an abortion under the Roe v Wade decision. Roe, in the beginning, was about a woman’s independent access to safe, competent medical care, not just abortions (although references to back alleys and wire coat hangers do bear mention here). Abortion only became central to this national disgrace among modern wealthy nations of the United States never having developed a nationalized system of health protection for everyone under the medical system because at that time, most American women were obliged to get medical care by way of being married to a man who received access from his employer, paid for by that employer, not the central government. (And access via an employer who pays is still, in 2024, how most Americans secure medical services. It is inherently unjust, unfair, and unhealthy to link access to healthcare to employment status and/or marital status. *Also, contrary to popular belief, the ACA and other claimed attempts to provide a “safety net” for those without customary access, have failed.)

Thus, women were expected to be having sex with a man to be able to see a doctor when she needed one in 1973.

That, is what made elective abortions central to the issue of this country’s failure to ever implement an equitably accessible, nationalized system of health protection for our People. But the all-male SCOTUS of 1973 was seemingly incapable (or unwilling) to understand this back-drop precedent attempting to be set by way of Roe v. Wade, and focused exclusively on the limited, ugly, scenario of felony rape as the only issue of injustice being brought by the suit. Rape was lied about as being central to the case in order to get the SCOTUS to consider the matter at all. RIGHT TO MATERNAL/FETAL HEALTHCARE & EDUCATION to stabilize the abortion issue - #187 by PeoplesMandate

Any law that attempts to use “elective” as a distinguishing factor is doomed to failure because there is no clear medical definition of what an “elective” procedure is. Elective vs. what? Elective vs emergency is an element of timing, period, and that is a matter of OPINION on the part of the medical professional(s) attending the case…each and every one of which is different. Even if couched in more specific terms such as public monies will not be used to terminate a “healthy,” or “normal” pregnancy, there are still no absolute criteria of what constitutes “healthy” or “normal.” That is still a matter of opinion on the part of the doctors and other caregivers making that medical, not legal, determination. So, it becomes impossible to assign punishments for misuse of public funds.

The truth is there is no standardization from which to write a “one order fits all” civil law to cover the myriad possibilities of outcome in any medical situation requiring the input/help of a medical practitioner, not just pregnancy. The proposal for a federal law being discussed here is, ultimately, about the struggle with that medical, not legal, truth. The author has gone to great effort to compare outcomes in “pro-life” states to **pro-abortion for any reason whatsoever" states and has been motivated, it seems, to make this proposal because what she’s found is (and has no doubt seen in her experience with real-time, real people cases) there is still no provision, in the United States of America, insuring a woman who needs medical care which might well save her life, will receive it, regardless of her marital status, economic situation or class, or anything else. …because we’ve allowed the legal system and legal professionals, as well as politicians/lawmakers, still, fifty years later, far more of them men, than women, and their “donors” to make all the major decisions about how medical care is PAID for in this country–and it’s failing US

This situation we’ve had for fifty years has left doctors in the middle (discussed extremely well in this proposal), and offensively, and with medical disregard for pregnant women and the child they are carrying by the State, has caused doctors to have to choose, at times, between their own medical ethics, state law in contradiction with federal law, and the politics of the hospital where they practice, potentially affecting the doctor’s own livelihood, in making decisions about what is best for their patients–as, there are always two patients involved from the moment two haploid cells become one diploid conceptus–that is simply biological fact, and true regardless of whether the majority of a medically un/miseducated general population (including most people in the legal/political systems) does not want to recognize this fact, and would prefer to think (believe) the second, unique, individual patient is “just some tissue,” properly described as “it” or “medical waste” that is appropriately disposed of in a garbage bag labeled as such-- all of it a dehumanizing construct which makes still-living human beings comfortable with the ending of life prematurely on an “elective” basis.

ALL surgeries/medical interventions are elective on some level when the “choice” is made to proceed. That word, “choice,” not being defined in a medical context, being picked up by the legal system, and, one thousand times worse, by our politics, in 1973, is arguably the nidus of misinformation and outright lies that have set this country on a path of no less than civil war ever since. The SCOTUS did not have the ability OR authority to offer the “right” they claimed to have found in the Constitution in deciding Roe. RIGHT TO MATERNAL/FETAL HEALTHCARE & EDUCATION to stabilize the abortion issue - #187 by PeoplesMandate

…and neither do the state legislatures have that ability or authority now. Meanwhile, what no one admits or focuses on is the fact the entire half-century of hysteria and insanity about who is allowed to “give orders” to the medical system, and impose punishments for doing something about which there is no definitive “right” or “wrong” has done irreparable harm which has been grotesquely amplified by the fact this country has, at the same time, made the ending of life, prematurely, on the order of “others,” extremely profitable for, yet third party interests…who are largely responsible for the extraordinary escalation in the cost of medical care in this country.

The proposal People's Mandate Healthcare for All Americans https://www.facebook.com/100036084640155/ has linked with this proposal to promote the adoption of a non-tax, unique, new, national revenue stream (an annual, national-to-individual personal health savings account system of insuring equitable financial access to the medical system) mode of payment for the needed and necessary medical care discussed herein as well as all other needed and necessary medical care such that any individual care ‘elected’ returns to being the private decision between the patient and her (or his) medical professionals*. (*who remain under a system of regulatory oversight to be determined by the state, but who can and will be provided with much clearer information as to what can and will be cited as an infraction, and how that infraction can and will be investigated within the health savings account system)

The People’s Mandate also wholly supports and recommends expanding the educational outreach outlined as supplemental to this proposal being implemented nationally as well, so that we can begin to reverse the fifty years of untruth, and end this second American Civil War once and for all.

In the U.S we have freedom of religion and we are suppose to have a seperationg between chruch and state. I believe in more education and more resourses over banning or restricting laws over bodily atomomy. I believe the right to an abortion is still apart of the mothers bodily atomomy and interferes with people having different religious beliefs. Being pro life is more then making it to birth. There are many resources and educational things that should be in place rather then banning or making laws. Laws are not always the answer and CAN cause more harm to women and children. Education, understanding, love, and resources which we do not have would make a larger impact - in my opnion

Thanks for the feedback. FYI - I am an atheist and religion has nothing to do with my proposal or with the idea of supporting basic safeguards to protect women and unborn children from the medical abuse being inflicted against them. There is however, a prevalent degree of pro-abortion ideology biasing our entire country and preventing us from working on issues based on facts and common sense. Anyway, this is a common sense solution to widespread problems, without removing a woman’s access to abortion or messing with states’ rights/gestational limits.

I agree with many of the points made on this thread, everyone is being very thoughtful and reflective, something that is currently lacking in the dismissive, ‘throw away’ society in which we live.
I think we should submit this entire thread to RFK Jr and Trump to help them appreciate the nuances of the abortion debate. This is a war and we want to save as many lives as possible.
Thank you everyone

1 Like

Women’s rights in regards to abortions should be left for the carrier of the fetus only in emergency situations past 6 weeks or upon new diagnosis and/or terminal findings up to 16week gestation growth scans with decisions to terminate and abortion procedure completed before 20 weeks and 1 day gestation and only upon extensive consent and law exemptions allowing and protecting both medical professional’s licenses and the expecting mother for cases such as:

  1. Threat to maternal livelihood. Acute reasons that directly put mothers life in danger for severe bleeding/sepsis. I.ectopic pregnancies, premature rupture of membranes earlier than 20 weeks of gestation. Also chronic health concerns at the physician and health care team’s discretion if noted to be trending in unfavorable directions over the duration of 4 office visits, within 12-24 hours of inpatient care, if caught, and abortion is scheduled prior to 20 weeks for conditions such as diabetes, chronic hypertension, pre-eclampsia/eclampsia, genetic test screenings, etc.
  2. Diagnosis of maternal cancer after conception but prior to 20 weeks in which life saving treatment may Include surgical interventions/radation/ medications incompatible with carrying an existing pregnancy.
  3. Diagnosed severe fetal anomalies that are incompatible with life up to 22 weeks (earliest age at which intervention is offered in most hospitals).

Abortions only eligible for exemption up to two times max after the date of policy effectiveness. Prior abortions do not count and are not considered per this policy.

Katie, it’s good that we are on the same wavelength. I think that all these ideas are worthy of discussion. Here’s my personal thoughts:

Regarding #1- I disagree with adding “chronic health conditions… trending unfavorable directions” as an exception. “Unfavorable” is too vague. I would suggest that legislators work closely with doctors to define the medical exception to definitively protect her from maternal death or fatal injury to a life-sustaining organ.

I am type one diabetic. My pregnancies were high risk but simply required regular monitoring and doctor visits. Abortion was never medically indicated for me, although I did have to get a c-section due to the risk of pre-eclampsia. Allowing abortion simply for high-risk cases means we are allowing the killings of 999 babies to save 1 woman (perhaps?) There is no such thing as a risk-free pregnancy or a risk-free life. This law should be clear about the level of risk that meets the exception, and that should already cover whatever risk you are attempting to cover. Besides, each state already has the ability to broaden access to abortion beyond federal law.

Regarding #2 - good thinking BUT ALSO I heard that sometimes the mom can get treatment without harming the fetus, so we should consider this exception but consult with doctors first to see if this is absolutely necessary or which wording can offer the best balance.

Regarding #3- disagree on the 22 week thing for “severe fetal anomalies.” I would go up to 32 weeks for severe/nonviable/fatal abnormalities. Firstly, some women don’t find out about abnormalities until late in the second trimester and might not have had time to pursue the abortion. Secondly, for some babies, the severity of the condition is unclear, so some women decide to wait until late second trimester, perhaps, to be completely sure about it. Thirdly, when it comes to severe/nonviable/fatal abnormalities, how much of a difference is there between 22 weeks or 30? Fourth, unlike individual states, or smaller European countries, we are a HUGE country, so I think we should be more careful about such a wide-reaching decision. I personally think that 32 weeks is a good starter limit FOR SEVERE/FATAL/NONVIABLE abnormalities. It’s an incremental change and future lawmakers could always vote to change the law on it later if it’s a problem.

I disagree with limiting the number of times a woman can use a medical exception. That doesn’t sound like a politically feasible idea. Besides, Trump does not support any ban.

The Man gives his DNA. The woman gives her DNA. GOD supplies the spark of life and gives his blessings with a soul. Who are we to question God’s wisdom in the creation of a life❓

1 Like

That would quite possibly eliminate entire maternal wards of Catholic Hospitals. Religious exceptions are necessary for the healthcare providers

I’m not saying that it does. But, it does seem to force medical professionals to provide non-elective abortions (defined strictly), which are just as contrary to, among others, Catholic doctrine, as the elective abortions. That is where you find severe disagreement from the “Life begins at conception” camp. When I am referring to abortions here, I mean “Any procedure, operation, or treatment such that the primary goal of it is to kill the child(ren) in the womb”. Is that meaningfully different than how you’re using the term?

I think that this would go well with this policy:

“non-elective” abortion? That’s an oxymoron. Are you aware that the pro-life community leaders do not even consider D&C’s an “abortion” if it’s done to save the mother’s life?

No. In fact, pro-life OB-GYN’s make it a big deal to point out that Catholic hospitals regularly offer D & C’s and whatever treatment to intervene in pregnancy emergencies.

Again this bill does not mandate that anyone perform an elective abortion.

I get the feeling that we are talking past each other, using the same word to mean different things. How is a non-elective abortion an oxymoron?

There is disagreement about the definition and proper usage of “abortion.” Regardless, this bill does not obligate providers to provide an elective abortion. It does not remove protections for conscience objections that are already in place. It does strengthen existing protocols about treating pregnancy emergencies that are consistent with medical standards of care practiced by Catholic hospitals.

NO ABORTION LANGAUGE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. PERIOD.
By defining some form of “abortion” at the fed level eventually enables either side to force tax paying citizens to pay for baby murdering.

Leave it to the states to decide. If you want to live in an abortion state, then move there. NO taxpayer $ should touch fed level govt.

There is NOTHING in America’s constitution that gives anyone the right to willingly, and in some cases, GLEEFULLY end anyone’s life. It is purely satanic. Rape is less than .004% (but will gradually increase as more illegals are allowed to enter - these people don’t hold American values) and medical crisis to the mother is less than .000000000001% - and that is out of the mouths of multiple OB-GYNS… there just aren’t many statistical medical reasons to abort late term… if the baby is viable, they just birth it early. Talk to docs, they will tell you…

In the case of rape, I feel like not allowing the mother to choose exasperates the women’s rights issue. Not only has she already been violated by rape, but now must also undergo an extremely painful and potentially dangerous process to birth the perpetrator’s baby. The baby then needs to be taken care of by someone, and on top of that there will be hormonal side effects in the mother.

I disagree with your abortionist’s claim. What if the mother has hemophilia (can’t form blood clots easily), and complications during birth result in the requirement of a cesarean section (cutting the baby out)? I’m no doctor but that seems like a REALLY dangerous situation that they’d probably want to avoid.

1 Like

Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

I am type one diabetic, so my pregnancies were high risk and required constant monitoring and frequent doctor visits. I have had c-sections. C-sections saved both my life and my children’s lives. Abortion however is dangerous and fatal, 100% of the time. I do not agree to an exception just because of the likelihood of a c-section birth. Besides, this bill does not prevent states from allowing more access to abortion for whatever reasons.

If, however, continuing the pregnancy would risk the mother’s life, or injury to a life-sustaining organ, this bill would protect the woman’s ability to deliver early.

2 Likes

You are right to say “There is NOTHING in America’s constitution that gives anyone the right to willingly, and in some cases, GLEEFULLY end anyone’s life.” I wish someone would challenge the constitutionality of these pro-abortion laws and ballot measures, to the Supreme Court.

The constitution, though, DOES allow for a federal right to BAN or RESTRICT elective abortion, or to dictate which situations such restrictions would apply, because of the 14th amendment.

Leaving it to states” is what led to the practice of elective abortion until birth, fully formed second trimester babies experiencing the pain of dismemberment & saline abortions, and post-abortion infanticide. I am on a “let’s save as many babies as we can” track of mind.

In addition, hospitals are letting women and mothers die (like the two in Texas), and abortion misinformation & malpractice is killing post-abortion women (like the two in Georgia). F*** that. The rampant anti-life misinformation is driving the pro-abortion success in these state elections. F*** that too.

Let’s do something about it, and move the discussion to meaningful resolutions, instead of just arguing about it from the sidelines.

3 Likes