Victory by the means you suggest tend to be short lived. Annoy the electorate enough and they will overturn you. Pro-aborts won a number of victories in recent state elections due to pro-life over-reach. You overestimate your ability to force people to do what is right. Short term gain by the wrong method leads to longer term loss. Sixty years, you say?
Pat isnât more âcommittedâ to the pro-life cause. She expressly punches down ANY effort to enact pro-life laws at a federal level. That smells more like stubborn complacency.
Answering two of your comments. You are obviously not a friend of women. Your arguments are those of a person who thinks women do not need or deserve legal protection from serial axe-murderers who rape women with surgival instruments. You are wrong about those victories in state elections. They were obtained by lies and fraud just like most women are pushed into abortion. I never said other people are sell-outs. I am saying that we should not be the ones to initiate compromise. If there is a compromise bill that will save some lives and women, I support it. Correction, not 60 years, 55. I started in 1970. Your ad hominem attacks do not serve your position. Ad hominem is the resort of people who have run out of valid arguments. If you persist in this manner, I will stop responding to you. I have no use for games.
You are dead wrong. The fact is, the federal government DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY at this point to enact any pro-life laws. That was closed off to them by Dobbs. Homicide statutes have always been the responsibility of states. Abortion is homicide.
Kudos on your response to Lettie about adoption and single motherhood!
For those women for whom ginger is insufficient, Iâm fine with medication. Why is that a problem for you? I used ginger to alleviate pain from a kidney stone. It worked better than Oxycontin! OK, so pain isnât nausea. I get that. Moving on.
I agree a woman should have a choice of what to do with her body. But the baby is NOT HER BODY. The baby has her OWN body. No one has a right to dismember another human being in the name of deciding what to do with her own body. It is really pro-life to want laws that protect women from serial axe-murderers who rape women with surgical instruments. I never said a woman should give birth because of adoption. Furthermore, Ashley is right. There are no waiting babies. There are 2 million waiting couples. There are older children in need of adoption. It takes special skill as a parent to handle their issues. I knew people who had failed adoptions because they adopted an older child and lacked those skills. Those children are not legitimately a part of a discussion about abortion. One should never expect a couple who has never had a child to have the skills to deal with adopting an older child.
Feel free to stop responding to me.
I appreciate you defending the general idea of an incrementalist approach and acknowledging the bleak reality of the current political landscape.
All-or-nothing is a losing position. We should strive to save as many babies as we can and protect women from the harms as well.
Regardless if someone disagrees with parts of my idea, it would ultimately be up to the legislators to debate it and draft the final bill. If we were to at least get a discussion of these issues/policy ideas on the federal stage, then at least we would be going somewhere.
1 Like
Roe v Wade was not codified by Congress. The SC should never have established it as it is not, by the constitution, part of their powers to establish law. As such, it does fall to congress to codify it or the states to if congress fails to do so.
Iâm sorry, but I removed my vote! As with others, this would be perfect for the states! As is our Government has become so big and bloated, that we are on the precipice of going bankrupt! This bill would add more to government spending and still would be a talking point for presidential candidates! I myself donât believe we should be killing Gods creations! Look at the mess weâre in now because of the lives lost already! I do think there should be laws in place where a woman should be able to have one in special circumstances. Too many horror stories if botched abortions when I was young! I do know why they did bring mass abortions about and it had nothing to do to help women! Iâm sure you know this? Anyway, good luck on your endeavors, May it all work out for you! Bryan
1 Like
David, this proposal has nothing to do with elective abortions from consensual sex. This bill addresses issues that affect married women, too.
Actually, according to post-election polls, abortion was a top concern/motivator for the MAJORITY of voters (56%). A majority of women voted for Harris. And a majority of women would want to have these exceptions for themselves.
Pro-choice women raced to the polls to vote for Harris over abortion. While disenfranchised pro-lifers either barely dragged their feet to vote for âstates-rightsâ Trump, in hopes that he might change his mind to support federal restrictions, or we skipped out on the presidential election altogether. Pro-lifers who did vote, vote against late term abortion and against the extremes of abortion that this proposal addresses.
And across the country, both in this election and the last mid-terms, voters &
state legislators repeatedly passed abortion-until-birth ballot measures, including in red and purple states. In fact, the timing of the Dobbs decision cut into the red wave that we were supposed to get in the last mid-terms.
Trump ceded ground on abortion; he didnât win on his abortion position. He edged out the Democrats because of wokeness and because RFK told his supporters told us to throw our votes to Trump. But when the political landscape/voter needs/collective memory changes in four years, the GOP will have to work harder to duplicate the same sense of urgency and turn-out in order to win again. If Trump doesnât adequately address these abortion/healthcare related issues, then I predict a blue wave 2-4 years from now, as the Dems will only increase their advantage on the abortion topic and will not stop their very effective, well funded misinformation and abortion propaganda campaign, until they pass abortion-until-birth in every state and nationally. (Only an effective, federal platform/offense would blunt the impact of that, and then abortion wouldnât be as big of an issue in future elections.)
This proposal doesnât grant universal healthcare; it really just offers basic safeguards.
You asked me, âwhat exactly are the current statistics regarding women who lost their life because the doctor is afraid to terminate an unviable pregnancy?â
I actually NEVER claimed that doctors were killing women because of âfearâ about terminating a pregnancy. No, I said doctors are killing women, leaving them to die or almost die, committing malpractice, and/or sending them away to other states, and then falsely blaming pro-life laws for it.
My google doc summarizes my findings, as well as all my links for it. It contains all the headlines/stories that I have read about, regarding women dying or being injured because of malpractice and/or hospital delays.
The states do not have full, accurate reporting of pregnancy, fetal and maternal outcomes for miscarriages versus abortions or live births. My proposal would demand that full, accurate data to better inform these conversations.
Clearly, leaving all abortion-related decisions up to the states was not âperfect.â Leaving it up to the states, without any federal safeguards, is what caused this crisis in the first place, for example thousands of late term elective abortions, post-birth infanticides, women dying because of malpractice and states not doing enough to counteract these harms.
Iâm perplexed why you are preaching to the choir saying âI myself donât believe we should be killing Godâs creations! Look at the mess weâre in now because of the lives lost already!â
Of course, Bryan, Iâm the pro-lifer who created this bill to protect âGodâs creationsâ and address this âmess!â Thatâs what I said, look at this messâcaused by leaving it to states and ignoring the issue. Iâm saying, letâs save as many babies as we can, and since Trump refuses to support any abortion restriction, even a moderate 15 week restriction, letâs put a pro-life foot in the door, to leave open the chance for the next president to consider it.
There is something you need to consider very seriously. If we pro-life supporters propose the compromises, we are telling the world that it is acceptable to sacrifice some lives to save others. This undermines the very bedrock of our position: that each and every human being needs and deserves protection from mass axe-murderers who poison. We no longer have a valid ethical position at all. And we are also telling the world that although some women deserve legal protection from people who rape women with surgical instruments, women who have been raped do not deserve this protection. (Keep in mind most women who have been raped and become pregnant donât even have abortions in the first place. They see abortion as a second rape, which is exactly what it is.) This is why we need to propose absolute legal protection for ALL mothers and babies, and force the pro-abortion supporters to FORCE us to accept exceptions to get some lives protected. If we do that, then in good conscience we can vote for the compromise. But if we propose the exceptions, we are abandoning some mothers and babies and telling them that they do not have infinite worth. I wonât go there.
Another thing: homicide has always been under the authority of the states. If abortion laws had been part of the homicide statutes instead of a separate issue, it is much less likely we would ever have had an abortion holocaust in the first place. The federal government simply does not have the authority to pass homicide statutes unless the victims crossed state lines. What Trump has said about the issue and federal action is simply irrelevant. The federal governmentâs role is limited to preventing abortion pills from being marketed, via the FDA, in spite of the fact they have efficacy for some other medical conditions. In the past, the mere fact that a drug would cause miscarriage meant it was never approved. The federal government also has a kidnapping statute for children taken across state lines. This might be applicable to taking an unborn child across a state line for the purposes of ending her life. That is ALL the authority the federal government has. And the federal government does not have any constitutional authority to use tax money to help pregnant mothers.
I acknowledge your good intentions. Your remedy is just plain wrong. Unconstitutional. And it sells our the principle on which the pro-life position is based.
Pat, you keep invading the public response section just to continuously shut down all solutions to help women and unborn children, and I find your persistent negative characterizations of my proposal and virtue-signaling to be disingenuous and aggravating.
You also keep lying about the constitution to stop any federal pro-life legislation for a cause you claim to support. Youâre basically vigorously advocating for states to continue to be allowed to slaughter babies not just until birth, but directly following failed abortions. Anyone who is going out of their way to sabotage any and all federal legislation on abortion, is the wrong person to lecture pro-lifers about âcompromiseâ or âethics.â Youâre not making any sense.
So again, in direct response to your repeated remarks, I will also repeat:
-
NO, This is NOT a âcompromise.â This is an attempt to save as many babies as I can, within the confines handed to me. In addition, this is an attempt to strengthen state pro-life laws, as abortion activists are using misinformation and examples of women who werenât covered by the statesâ exceptions, to undo every pro-life law in all U.S. states. I donât remember hearing pro-life leaders chastising Ron DeSantis for passing the SAME. EXCEPTIONS. that I proposed here. On the contrary, he receives a lot of praise for his pro-life laws.
-
NO, Complacency is whatâs âunethical.â In fact, deadly. Complacency, knowing that you are just sitting there, trying to shoot down any discussion, and allowing thousands of fully formed babies, capable of pain, being led to slaughter every year, you vehemently oppose any necessary protections for them, and yet you SIMULTANEOUSLY go out of your way to attack, condescend and shoot down anyone who is fighting for basic federal protections, against people trying to keep a path open to hopefully increase those protections and restrictions for the next presidency.
-
Your complacency, and insistence on giving states-rights-to-choose-everything is whatâs sacrificing all these babies. They are getting sacrificed right now. Yesterday. Tomorrow. Next week. So we should instead try to save as many as we CAN and change the status quo.
-
I never denied that every human needs protection. But TRUMP is the one who said he will not pass any abortion bans. Letâs not sacrifice the babies we CAN save.
-
Again, rape/incest only accounts for 0.05% of all abortions. Since Trump will not ban abortion, and states are going crazy allowing over a million abortions per year, we cannot stop all these abortions. So we should not sacrifice 99.95% of all viable babies just because of your personal hang-ups. Letâs save as many babies as we can right now. This bill does not stop anyone from advocating for more protections or restrictions.
-
No oneâs stopping you from proposing absolute legal protection for everyone⌠But again, youâre barking up the wrong tree. Go ask Trump and Congress. However, FYI again, they already said no. Stop attacking me and my proposal just because I point out those facts.
-
Again, the pro-abortion supporters have already made their demands known. They refuse to accept ANY compromises. Reporters and moderators have already asked them a million times. For example, they were asked if theyâre willing to support a religious conscience objection. If Pelosi had said yes, they could have passed the Womenâs Health Protection Bill, but Pelosi said NO. Harris said NO. They only want abortion-until-birth and nothing less. They will never EVER make a proposal anywhere near as close to the one Iâm proposing. So again you are full of bull when you demand that we should wait for them to offer a compromise. You will have us wait forever, while thousands more babies get slaughtered.
-
Democrats have no reason to compromise on abortion, because theyâre winning. They are already winning on abortion. They have already fooled the masses that pro-life laws are supposedly at fault for killing women. They are outfunding pro-life advocacy groups. They are shifting polls to the left and they have almost won every single ballot measure. They even managed to convince Trump to back down on any abortion restrictions. Besides, even if they donât get enough seats to pass what they want, they covet their abortion narrative more than actual solutions anyway.
-
No oneâs forcing you to accept exceptions now or ever. The only thing my proposal does is bring the discussion forward. Itâs up to legislators to hash out all the details. I have no authority to push all of these stipulations on the legislators. They can just take this draft, and are perfectly capable of polling and surveying their own constituents, local voters and pro-life advocates to make their own decisions about what they think the law should be.
-
NO, No one is saying that certain moms or children conceived in rape or whatever have lesser worth. This bill aims to teach the worth of life for all humans, and aims to save as many babies as we CAN. Letâs stop sacrificing 99.95% of viable babies because you would rather prioritize 0.05% above the rest.
-
Again you keep lying about the constitution because you care more about libertarian ideals than actually protecting babies from genocide. And besides, your opinion on the constitutionality of federal policy is 100% IRRELEVANT. Federal legislators and Supreme Court justices have repeatedly affirmed the constitutionality of federal abortion and medical regulations. They are endowed with the authority to debate and vote on these policies, not you. Itsâ constitutionality is not up to you. That is your personal opinion of what you want the constitution to mean.
-
Honestly, all these pro-abortion state ballot measures are unconstitutional. Who made unelected, uninformed voters the judge, jury and executioner for these unborn babies? The 5th and 14th amendment says that the government may not deprive any PERSON the right to âdue processâ to protect their âlife, liberty and property.â⌠And yet, in the same vein, my opinion about the constitutionality of these ballot measures is also moot⌠my opinion doesnât get in the way of someone else thinking itâs constitutional, and for the state to accept those passed ballot measures as the new law. I have no authority to legally stop anyone from voting on something, no matter what I think.
-
The 10th amendment allows for the regulation of inter-state commerce, which abortion is a matter of inter-state commerce. There are many reasons why. Two of those reasons include the advent of mail-order abortion pills, and women being sent out of state for abortion. Doctors also get their trainings in different states. Thereâs many reasons.
You have already made your disagreement known. I get it. You oppose federal laws and federal regulations regarding abortion. Obviously I disagree.
Okay, thank you for the thorough response but it doesnât address the point of my comment.
- The number of women who are rejected by healthcare professionals who legitimately need a lifesaving procedure because abortion laws limit the medical interventions to save them is unknown. I believe we would find it was a very rare occurrence statistically. Real data that is representative of the population in question is necessary to consider this proposal.
- States have the right to vote, and thatâs where it should remain according to the constitution. However, election integrity in areas like NY is a serious issue that must be addressed to accurately reflect the will of the people. No I.D. is required to vote, the voter registration rolls are not accurate. Whenever you complete a myriad of various forms and applications for local and state use, it doesnât ask if you are a citizen, but it asks if you want to register to vote. NY is a sanctuary state, and there are millions of illegals here. This would nullify your premise that exit polls have any validity. It would also call into question the legitimacy of Prop 1 being passed.
- The current socialized healthcare system which is the health coverage for a large percentage of the population is centered on treatment modalities that generate the most sales for the pharmaceutical and medical industrial complex, not what is best for the patient. We were shown that during Covid. Should we be blessed to see a MAHA agenda brought to fruition, it would lessen the already rare occurrence where both the doctor is intimidated by laws and thereâs a life threatening risk to the mother. Healthier women will have healthier pregnancies.
While I respect your passion about the importance of this issue, it might be better suited to concentrate not on a federal law but for those few areas of the country this might be an actual issue. Talk to the states, inform the people and have them vote on it. After we have elections secured.
I know that you want this at the federal level but, it would be nice to have at state levels also. Here in Missouri we just past a George Soros funded abortion law, I didnât quite agree with our trigger law that took effect in â22 but this new law is too much! I really like your knowledge and how you wrote this bill up, very impressive and hard to see why either side couldnât agree on a majority of it. I feel it wonât go anywhere this term federal, but like I said we can push it in the states, just my thoughts, thank you for your work!!
1 Like
You have made several false accusations against me. This is where I can only warn people to stay far away from you and any of your proposals rather than try to answer your exceedingly complicated proposal and message to me. Most especially, you have accused me of lying. In order to know I am lying, you would have to read my mind. You cannot read my mind. The accusation is false. A person can be mistaken and say something which is false. He is not lying. A liar has to know what he is saying is false. Your ugly tone toward me is not appropriate.
Abortion was initially outlawed in all the states. That didnât happen overnight, and it wonât now.
The initiatives in the various states were sold under fraudulent information. A group of citizens of a state should be able to challenge these legally on several grounds and get them declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS.
Abortuaries are being closed, and the fewer of those, the fewer abortions. Your proposal includes a lot of provisions that simply substitute one victim for another, like using tax money for various purposes.
My goal is to make abortion unthinkable. This is why a principled stance is absolutely essential.
I have nothing further to say to you. I decry the tone you have taken with me, as well as your false accusations. I wonât accuse you of lying. You obviously believe what you say, but it ill becomes you to attack me. Iâve been in this fight for 55 years, and I have learned a few things that apparently you have yet to learn. Just leave it at that.
FACTCHECK ON PAT. G: Pat G. has been a very toxic commenter, saying whatever she can to dissuade anyone from supporting this proposal, and squash all discussion of any federal bill to address these issues, by trying to shame anyone who supports exceptions, and by falsely claiming that this bill violates the constitution.
It is one thing to come on here, and plainly state your personal opinion. But what really aggravates me, is that you go well beyond that and continually raid the comment section with your nasty, dishonest remarks.
For example, the very first thing you said in your first comment was: âThis is HORRIBLE! IT is not a pro-life suggestion WHATSOEVER.â
Here is a reminder, a summary of all her toxic, dishonest remarks that I have responded to:
She repeatedly claimed that my proposal devalued the lives of âdisabledâ people (because it allows an exception for fatal/nonviable abnormalities) but then she DARVOâd me claiming that seeking funding for the medical care and adoption legal fees (to actually protect the lives and health of disabled children and seniors) was like âpointing a gunâ at her. In a separate post, she again had to nerve to accuse my proposal of âabandoning disabled babiesâ then simultaneously again played the victim at the thought of her taxes supporting the medical care for disabled babies that this proposal proscribed.
She repeatedly claimed that the majority of rape victims choose life over abortion, and yet when I asked for a link a few times, she never provided one. (I tried to google it but could not find proof of this claim.)
She repeatedly falsely claimed that Trump has no say on federal laws, and that Congress has no authority to make any abortion-related legislation. Sheâs basically falsely asserting herself to be a better authority on the constitution than Supreme Court justices, and federal legislators, because, as I have pointed out repeatedly and in detail, Supreme Court justices and federal legislators have repeatedly affirmed the constitutionality of federal abortion and medical related bills, not to mention the 5th, 10th and 14th amendmentâs calling to give all âPERSONSâ a right to due process in the protection of their âLIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTYâ and allowing federal regulation of âinter-state commerce.â She repeatedly asserts her libertarian ideology and person opinion of the constitution, as if it were fact, despite being informed multiple times otherwise, with specific examples, in my previous responses.
Even the Supreme Court, via the Dobbs decision, specifically said that abortion laws were up to âelected lawmakersâ from BOTH âstatesâ and âCONGRESSâ to decide. Interestingly enough, I never hear these âstates-rightsâ people decry the lack of constitutionality of pro-abortion citizen ballot measures. âStates-rightsâ people falsely repeatedly claim that the Supreme Court said that abortion was now for states only, yet how come they never point out that the Supreme Court only said that abortion laws were in the hands of âELECTED LAWMAKERSâ and not citizens? The selective outcry is just so weird.
She makes this fake demand for pro-lifers to first wait on Democrats to propose a bipartisan compromise first, and then ironically admits she has been âfighting against abortion for 60 years.â Since Demâs havenât proposed any compromise in all of this 60 years, Pat knowns darn well that her demand to wait on Democrats to make a bipartisan proposal first, equates a demand to wait almost forever⌠knowing that thousands of viable babies are getting slaughtered in the meantime because of such complacency, and pro-life state protections are getting overturned left and right, mostly due to state ballot initiatives, and things like mail-order pills and abortion sanctuary states completely undermine the effectiveness of statewide only abortion laws. The pro-life movement is losing ground, yet you vilify and stomp on any efforts to fight to win. She seems more interested in shaming and blaming people, than actual solutions.
Itâs totally fake to repeatedly accuse me of trying to âsacrificeâ babies, while simultaneously you fiercely advocate for total federal complacency, as these babies, as well as womenâs lives, are already being sacrificed at the altar of âstates-rightsâ only. Fake, fake, fake.
A federal law is needed to protect both women and children from the harms caused by a mix between the existence of state laws, and lack of state laws and enforcement against medical abuses.
I will again point out, that we should advocate to save as many lives as we CAN and stop allowing states, and medical providers, to sacrifice the lives of thousands of people every year, out of sheer, stubbornness and intentional complacency.
It is one thing to withhold your vote for a position you disagree with. But I have no respect for someone who viciously and incessantly tries to hold others back from advocating for any basic solutions over issues that are killing and harming so many people, women and babies, shaming people who are actually trying to do something about it.
Thanks for your thoughts. Missouri, Ohio, almost Florida⌠These abortion-until-birth advocates are coming for your future grandchildren and your nieces and nephews. This is the desperate reality that pro-lifers must acknowledge as we determine our ongoing game plan.
1 Like
This is a TOTAL MISREPRESENTATION of my views. All of this was taken out of context. Itâs full of false claims (like Iâm proposing something libertarian), and itâs full of hate. This is not how a pro-life person acts.
Just one example: saying wait for pro-abortion supporters to propose a bi-partisan bill. I am saying, let pro-life put up a bill that protects everyone, and let the other side erode what we propose.
Earlier, you mentioned peopleâs opinions of DeSantis. This has nothing to do with me.
You didnât, to my knowledge, ASK for a link, but I did tell you itâs from Elliott Institute. Itâs from a book called Victims and Victors: Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions, and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault: Reardon, Makimaa, Sobie: 9780964895713: Amazon.com: Books You would do well to read this. As things stand, most women who have been assaulted, subjected to incest, or who are bearing a child with a defect, do not even want an abortion, but your proposal would give them no legal remedy to protect themselves, effectively throwing them under the bus.
As for me leaving messages here, I have only responded to people who are talking to me, or who have said something I would like to address.
A complex proposal such as yours is not needed to end abortion. What is needed is a very simple law: giving any woman a right to a cause of action if she was either coerced by anyone, or who was told lies in a way that she relied on them to her detriment: fraud. And make sure women know of their remedy, and support them when they exercise it. This would cut into the abortion business enough that the vast majority of facilities would close within a couple of years. Along with that, a mandate to the FDA to ban the abortion pill would suffice.