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

Health
269

Since I have heard all kinds of feedback from pro-lifers, I can make an educated guess on how pro-life leaders would react. Remember that pro-life leaders tend to have the strictest position on abortion, compared to the majority of pro-lifers. However, sometimes the value for a sense of piety serves as a barrier to publicly admitting support for something, even when knowing that it would mean progress.

First the dislikes:

  • They would oppose the rape/incest exception.
  • They would oppose the exception for fetal abnormalities.
  • They probably would not like the exception for girls under 14.
  • The fiscally conservative would oppose as much funding as possible, regardless of the issue.
  • They might worry that the penalties I proposed would be used against a medical professional’s conscience objections to abortion.
  • Pro-life leaders also tend to be more hung up about the definition of “abortion.” They don’t want any implication that “abortion” includes miscarriage care, for example. I understand.
  • Also, it would be tricky to legislate and seek consensus (although I do think it’s possible).

Through-out the comment section, I have provided counter-arguments to many of these objections.

On the other hand:

  • There is a difference between one’s ability to vote on a specific policy, pulling the trigger yourself, versus how you would feel about it if someone ELSE passed this policy.
  • Many of the people who told me that, either ended up voting on the policy, or indicated that they would still be overall pleased with a bill similar to this, even if a few of the parts they had preferences against were in there.
  • Most pro-lifers DO support exceptions, even if pro-life leaders don’t.

Pro-lifers in general appreciate the direction that I’m going here, and that it pushes important discussions forward. Pro-life leaders would understand the dire need to address the anti-life misinformation, and that we need a federal/presidential platform to keep the pro-life movement alive. I am not aware of any major “states-rights-only” pro-life leader. I never even came across any states-rights pushback until I started posting in Libertarian-dominated/adjacent circles.

Pro-life leaders give Ron DeSantis a lot of praise for passing abortion restrictions, first it was 15 weeks, then reduced to six weeks. YET, he allows exceptions for rape (until 15 weeks) as well as fatal abnormalities. I hope that more people can see the bigger picture here. Clearly defined exceptions enable state-level (and potential future) abortion restrictions to stick. Federal exceptions, and basic safeguards, make state laws stronger and more feasible. And if Christians can support Ron DeSantis’ policies, then I don’t think Christianity is an excuse to oppose the same exceptions as a federal policy, especially if that federal policy extends pro-life concessions to protect thousands of unborn babies from all kinds of horrible things that a lack of federal policy leaves them vulnerable to.

1 Like
270

Ashley, well done!! I removed one of my prior votes to vote for this! You have exceeded anything I could have ever come up with! I appreciate all the research, hard work, and dedication you put into this proposal. Seems you have covered it all. Wonderful work. :clap:t4::heart:

271

This policy suggestion is not in the correct place. This is no longer a federal issue and no president can do anything about it. If he could, Biden/Harris could have done something during their administration when the ruling was overturned, but they didn’t. Because they can’t. It is a state issue now, so if you want certain policy about that, contact your state’s legislators and propose those changes there. The only way this could become a federal issue again is with a Constitutional amendment, which takes 2/3 of both Houses of Congress OR 3/4 of states legislatures to even propose an amendment. This was never an election issue in this cycle and the Harris campaign failed miserably when it instilled fear into women about their rights being taken away. Choose a state to live in that has policy that aligns with yours.

1 Like
272

In general, your statement is excellently put. Homicide has always been a STATE issue. Abortion belongs in the homicide statutes. Countless women’s lives have been destroyed by abortion, by how women react, by the aftermath, and it leaves the real reason for a woman’s distress totally unaddressed.

I advocate a constitutional amendment separating medicine and state. I see no constitutional role for government involvement in medicine in the first place. It has caused nothing but trouble. Some of the Founders saw the danger, but they were overruled. It is time to get the federal government out of medicine entirely.

2 Likes
273

I think your take on this is seriously misdirected. Abortion brutally murders a human being, either by hacking him to death, or by poisoning. Since the mother is bonded to the baby, it leaves lasting scars in her life as well.

The vast majority of girls 14 and under don’t even WANT an abortion, because they want the incest exposed, and pregnancy will do that, nor do they think the baby is a burden. When a 14 year old has an abortion, it is almost ALWAYS forced on her against her will.

Pro-life leaders understand the issues better than pro-life people in general. They have studied the issue deeply. It is their responsibility to guide and educate, not to yield to the lowest common denominator.

My stance on ANY legislation is that if it contains ONE destructive element, it has to be voted down. No matter what a person’s take on your proposal is, it is far too complex, and it is highly unlikely that anyone would find the entire thing to be right or useful. Almost anyone is going to disagree with something in it. There is no compromise possible on this issue. Either you recognize the right to life or you don’t. Those who don’t are never going to agree with you. I have even asked pro-abortion women what they would do to protect a woman’s right to refuse abortion. Crickets. Every single time. We have to stop slipping destructive provisions into legislation. That’s what got us in the mess we’re in, in general.

The Christian faith is not the issue here. Science and logic are. We make a mistake when we make this a religious issue. Religions in the past have supported human sacrifice. The Mayans and Aztecs did. The Israelites threw their babies into the fires of Moloch. It is playing right into the hands of killers to even mention it. I have known many atheists who are strongly pro-life. It is not a religious issue. In any case, the Christian faith doesn’t grant permission for any exceptions. The Commandment reads, “Thou shalt not kill.” It doesn’t say, “Thou shalt not kill unless the baby was conceived from rape or incest.”

1 Like
274

This is a very well-thought out and well-written proposal… I can tell you put a lot of time and energy into it, and I commend you for it. I did think long and hard about it, and you actually almost had me convinced that this would be for the best, as a compromise between Pro-Life & Pro-Choice… but I’m sorry, I just can’t bring myself to Vote for infanticide under any circumstance, but which does not include a medical emergency, like an ectopic pregnancy. And I cannot accept abortion in the case of rape or incest at any stage of pregnancy. Once a life has begun, it is human and has a right to live. Harsher punishments should go to those who commit rape or incest… The punishment shouldn’t go to the new human that was created.

1 Like
275

Thank you for your feedback. Consider my responses:

Supporting this policy does not equal trying to “punish” a child conceived in rape. This policy, which alleviates top fears women have, and offers pro-life concessions, is about trying to save as many babies as you can and pushing the discussion forward, and stopping the Democrats from continuing to successfully pass abortion-until-birth laws in all 50 states. These exceptions enable states to pass more gestational restrictions, knowing that the restriction will get less push back.

Also, rape/incest accounts for only 0.05% of all abortions. I see this bill as an effort for voters to stop punishing 99.95% of viable babies getting aborted, just because you must get in the way of a rape victim’s determination for an abortion to avoid whatever suffering she think an ongoing pregnancy by rape would cause. And the majority of Americans do support a rape exception.

Feel free to reform Family Court, Domestic Violence Court and Criminal Court to get justice for victims of rape and abuse, because I don’t see any major effort by any political party to do so. Men’s rights activists will make that a monster battle though, on top of that fact of taking away their prize access to coerced abortions.

1 Like
276

This is exceptional! So much detailed research and plain language. As a man who struggled with being strongly pro-life to them eventually be on the fence, this is something that any reasonable person on either side of the debate that isn’t viewing this issue from a religious standpoint should agree with!
I literally can not think of anything to add to this whatsoever. Granted, how would I being this situation does not directly affect me.
I don’t know if this would apply, but one thing as men that bother us about this debate is when our partner whether it be girlfriend, fiance, wife or even a one night stand decide to have an abortion for any reason without explaining to us why. Most reasonable men would obviously not object to a medically required abortion. But an elective one should be discussed with the biological father. I’m not saying the mother needs approval from the father. So maybe that’s not something that could be pushed legally since it’s more of a moral thing. But I feel I can speak for most pro-life men that most pro-life men are of that mindset for 2 reasons. Religion and/or their SO had an abortion without discussing it with them first. That’s what made me pro-life initially.

Again, fantastic work. Your proposal make all the ones I’ve made look terrible hahaha.

2 Likes
277

RESPONSE TO PAT G: Pat, someone who continues to fight aggressively for the cause of complacency regarding fetal genocide, is the last person who should be lecturing a pro-life woman about it.

You claimed, without evidence, that the majority of girls under age 14 don’t want an abortion. But regardless, number one, please notice that we are talking about CHILDREN, none of these children wanted to become pregnant, and many of these children DO want an abortion.

Don’t try to co-opt the words of pro-life leaders to support your advocacy for complacency. Pro-life leaders agree that this IS a federal AND states rights issue, and would welcome a federal platform to debate these issues and positions. Pro-life leaders and advocates alike were certainly very pleased with Ron DeSantis for his anti-abortion laws, even though he passed almost the same exceptions as I did! A 15 week allowance/limit for rape/incest, and another exception for fatal abnormalities. And we would certainly be very pleased if the federal government passed a 15 week restriction, even if there were exceptions.

Once again, I disagree with your complacency stance and useless virtue signaling. If you’re prioritizing a love of ideology over a discussion on common sense solutions, you are part of the problem. It’s ok to disagree, as long as we do something. Senators, congressmen and President Trump are free to debate and make changes as needed if this idea were to ever make it to them. Meanwhile, hospitals are still killing women, and abortionists are butchering thousands of fully formed babies in the second and third trimester, while you just sit there.

278

Two comments I wanted to address to address first.

  1. Trump deferred to answer because of the process to get to his desk. A) pass 2/3 vote in house and Senate then sent to state legislatures to get 3/4 of state houses and senates. highly unlikely that it would reach his desk for him to act one way or the other, esp. given the even split of House and Senate.www.NCSL.org>amending the US_constitution.

  2. a legal precept used by John Stuart Mills, used by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is called the “harm principle”. The individual’s right to swing his fist ends when he hits the others nose. Means that individuals have the right to exercise their freedom, but those freedoms must not infringe on the rights of others.

Comments to your bill
Could we actually address this as Child’s Rights, as the child that can survive outside the womb has just as much rights as the mother.

What is the justification for under 14 abortions? Too difficult on the child’s body?

You need to define inevitability and imminence as these are slippery terms.

41 states have put abortion bans in place. As these are response to the Dobbs decision, I don’t think we can say we are in imminent danger.

I’m not expecting you can get the feds to pay for NICUs in healthcare deserts.

Reasonable documentation is required for payment through insurance companies or Medicaid(?) Fraud is also applied to this documentation

Under Accountability for Med providers…
As doctors are required to take an ethical oath, you have to allow Docs to follow their ethical standards. They need to transfer to a hospital within the same city or town that can. However, I believe if they are to stock to the cases you have set forth, most doctors would be able to comply.

I think infringements should be handled through licensing and over site.

All education you stipulate is excellent.

I think the maternal patient, if she allows the operation is as culpable as the doctor.

In the informed consent, the scheduled time the mother has to wait needs to be based upon the time the results of the ultrasound are obtained.

The disabled and seniors section is outside the topic, tangentially related but should be addressed separately.

The patient/separated parent is also tangentially related, although some/most of this info could be added to the earlier educational info.

Hopes this helps.

279

As long as this stops people from using abortion, just because, to many times woman go have fun, find out there pregnant, then go to get an abortion, that needs to stop, education for this may help, so limit insurance company’s total control on any medical care of patients, the doctors should be making that decision, not having ho wait on the insurance company’s say so, doctors take an oath to provide the best care possible, it’s the insurance company’s that delay any medical treatment, that need to stop and go back to the doctors and medical staff to make that decision, insurance company’s have to much control in the medical care of people.

1 Like
280

Just curious… where are father’s rights in all this?

Takes 2 to create life…why is only one side represented here?

281

FACTCHECK FOR ANNA: You falsely claimed, without evidence, that “this is no longer a federal issue and no president can do anything about it.” and that this was the reason why Biden/Harris didn’t do anything. Actually, they DID do something. They supported the EMTALA law, and upon their urging, a courtcase was filed against Idaho’s pro-life laws, on the grounds that the EMTALA required emergency abortions in certain situations. And Trump’s conservative Supreme Court essentially sided with the lawsuit. Idaho claimed that the federal EMTALA violated states’ rights/was unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court basically told them they were WRONG.

Secondly, Biden actively pushed for support for the pro-abortion federal law “Women’s Health Protection Act” and congresspeople DID vote on the abortion-until-birth law. It failed because Manchin broke with the Democrats on that.

Trump’s conservative Supreme Court NEVER said that this was a “states only” issue. In Dobbs, they literally said that it is up to “LAWMAKERS” from BOTH “states” AND “CONGRESS” to enact desired laws on this. The 14th amendment already grants federal authority to regular “inter-state commerce” (which abortion and medical industry does involve) as well as to protect every PERSON’S right to due process for their “LIFE, LIBERTY and property.”

So it already IS a “federal issue” and is legally/politically feasible to pass abortion and medical related laws on a federal law. It does not need an amendment.

You also falsely stated that Harris campaign “failed miserably when it instilled fear into women about their rights being taken away.” All evidence says otherwise: EXHIBIT A: A LOT of Harris supporters said that the main reason they voted for her was because of abortion. Even men shamelessly bragged all over Twitter that they were dutifully protecting their children’s rights to kill their grandchildren and great grandchildren. EXHIBIT B: Almost all the pro-abortion ballot measures were supported/voted on by the majority of their states’ voters, including in conservative states like Ohio (last year) and Missouri and Florida (this year). EXHIBIT C: Polls show reduced support for basic pro-life restrictions. EXHIBIT D: We were supposed to get a Red Wave last year. But the fall of Roe v. Wade cut into that red wave. EXHIBIT E: The pro-abortion movement already won when Trump backtracked from any abortion restrictions. EXHIBIT F: A lot of people are totally falling for Democrat propaganda about pro-life laws endangering women.

The main reason why otherwise liberal and independent -minded people swung to Trump was because of being anti-woke and being pro-RKF.

In 2-4 years, when voter needs change, collective memory fades, and more disastrous anti-life headlines pop up, Democrats will have the advantage and may get a blue wave, unless Trump puts his foot down and does something to reverse course.

282

FACTCHECK ON SCHRENE’S POST: You falsely said that this bill allows the “federal government… into people’s lives where they do not belong.” However the constitution, and the Supreme Court, has affirmed the federal government’s right to allow federal regulations in areas of inter-state commerce, and to ensure that states do not intrude on any PERSON’S right to “LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY” without “due process.”

Then you said that “women’s rights” included “kill[ing] babies.” Yet, no one has a right to kill children.

You then falsely said that this was made a “state-by-state matter.” No one ever made this a “state by state” matter. In fact, Trump’s own Supreme Court said that it is up to “LAWMAKERS” from BOTH “states” AND “CONGRESS” to decide the law on abortion-related issues.

What “blows my mind” is when people who either don’t care about a certain issue, or are severely uninformed about it, try to dominate discussions about it and go around condescending people for it.

You said we should “give it to the states to decide.” States have already allowed barbaric genocide-until-birth for decades, and in spite of excellent materials distributed by pro-life groups, the abortion lobby have successfully outspent pro-lifers’ political efforts, and their constant misinformation has convinced many states, including conservative states like Ohio and Missouri to pass abortion-until-birth via ballot initiatives. A majority of Florida voters supported the abortion until birth ballot measure (It only failed because Florida requires a 60% threshold to pass). That is nothing for anyone to “celebrate,” except for abortion supporters.

My thorough research of all factors and polls, leads to only one definitive conclusion. Only a federal/presidential platform could stop this. Pro-lifers already tried all the things you said. It’s been done.

1 Like
283

Thanks for your feedback. My quick responses:

(1) Would only need a simple majority to pass this law, not a 2/3 vote, as it would not require a constitutional amendment. See my recent counter-responses regarding constitutionality. We already have the 14th amendment. If filibustered, it would need 60% vote. This bill could also be re-written to appeal to a broad base of politicians, It can be bipartisan.

(2) Not sure if you are using the harm principle as an argument for/against the blll. This crux of this bill addresses the harms caused to women and children by offering minimal safeguards.

Child’s rights - yes, the section on “fetal healthcare” is definitely to offer some basic rights (although it definitely falls short of a right to life that they deserve)

Underage- yes, I believe that there are extra health risks for a child not fully grown. In addition there are obvious mental health risks. Also, there is a presumption that a child under 14 could never truly consent to sex. Last, but not least, a lot of people would agree that a child shouldn’t have to continue a pregnancy/carry full term. I’m assuming that a lot of people would agree to this exception, although I don’t know about any polls asking this. I want to take away every last argument that the Democrats have to push for elective abortion laws.

Inevitability vs. imminence - yes, and remember I’m calling for legislators to collaborate with doctors and lawyers, from both the pro-life and pro-choice side, to ensure that the language is clear and well-defined.

You said “I don’t think we can say we are in imminent danger.” I’m confused by what you mean. Hospitals repeatedly delay necessary treatment for pregnant women experiencing miscarriages and complications, falsely claiming that pro-life laws demand that the risk must be “imminent,” and not just “inevitable.” A federal law that specifically clarifies that, would remove the ability for Democrats to claim that pro-life laws force doctors to wait until she is at Death’s door.

As for your other comments: the first step is getting RFK/Trump/legislators attention, getting them to like the direction of these proposals, and then to figure out how best to legislate these/go from there and have open debates, talk to their constituents, to decide for themselves. I assume that some of the challenges will need to be addressed once we get to that bridge. It would also need to be split into various stand-alone bills at that point. I purposely kept them all here because I wanted to ensure that when someone reads it, they don’t miss one part of it.

285

This seems like a well thought out proposal, and I support it given our current situation. Nevertheless, I’m a man, so I should have no say in the matter.

Wonder if we could have a vote where just the women are allowed to vote?

286

personally, my thoughts on abortion are infinity, meaning there is are no other forms of life found outside of this world. we can look into the emptiness of space for thousands of light years into infinity and there is no other life. how can we as humans justify the taking of life? whether by abortion or war etc… i fear the human race is naturally self destructive, and strict adherence to the moral code of infinity is the only hope for mans survival. i do not believe the current expert class in any subject. i do not recognize the current authority represents the founders description that men/women are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. i do believe all human life is infinitely connected to the universe and mans justification for destruction is much like having a toad oversee the nuclear football.

287

You’re also a former fetus, and a potential father. So your vote should count, too.

1 Like
288

The Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade was a significant legal decision and fixed a huge unconstitutional federal government overreach. Roe v. Wade, established in 1973, recognized a woman’s undocumented constitutional “right to privacy” between her and her doctor concerning abortion. There is no specifically enumerated power in the Constitution granting the federal government authority to regulate abortion.

In June 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, stating the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to abortion. As a result, the authority to regulate abortion was returned to individual states under the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states and the people. This means states can again choose to create laws regarding abortion, leading to varying regulations across the country based on local values, morals, and the opinions expressed by voters. Some states have enacted more restrictive laws, while others have implemented less restrictive laws concerning abortion access.

This decision has sparked widespread debate and discussion about reproductive rights, personal autonomy, and the role of the judiciary in shaping social policy. It underscores the ongoing divide in public opinion regarding abortion and highlights the importance of state versus federal authority in determining such rights.

Neither Congress, the Supreme Court, nor the President have any constitutional power concerning abortion, and therefore any political rhetoric suggesting they can or do is simply political propaganda.

289

:statue_of_liberty::sparkles: Founding Fathers on Federal Power Beyond Enumerated Roles :sparkles::statue_of_liberty:

The Founding Fathers envisioned a government with limited, specifically enumerated powers, rooted in the principles of liberty and individual rights. They feared a central authority could overreach and infringe upon the freedoms they fought so hard to secure.

:mag: Key Insights:

  1. Enumerated Powers: The Constitution outlines specific powers granted to the federal government, emphasizing any authority not explicitly given should remain with the states or the people.

  2. Federalism: This system was designed to create a balance between state and federal powers, protecting citizens from tyranny while allowing for a unified nation.

  3. Checks and Balances: The Founders implemented a system of checks and balances to ensure no single branch could become too powerful, reflecting their commitment to limited government. Unfortunately Congress has repeatedly overstepped the limits of scope that were purposely placed to prevent their overreach and both the executive and judicial branches failed repeatedly to stop the u constitutional and illegal overreach and people have come to believe that Congress can make laws about what ever they desire.

  4. The Tenth Amendment: This crucial amendment reinforces that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people, serving as a safeguard against federal overreach.

:star2: The wisdom of the Founding Fathers reminds us to remain vigilant about the balance of power. Their vision encourages us to question and engage with our government, ensuring it serves the people without exceeding its rightful authority.

#FoundingFathers #Constitution #Federalism #LimitedGovernment #CivicEngagement #TenthAmendment #HistoryMatters