I have an idea. How about the government and the anti choice whackadoodles leave the decision between the woman and her Dr? That’s where it belongs. Howmany abortions has Trump paid for due to all this cheating? He’s got you all conned. Good luck with the disastrous next four years.
The tone of this message is considerably improved; thank you. That said, you need to stop trying to tell me what I think or what I said. I did not say I support a federal ban. I have said here and elsewhere that we should be able to get these constitutional amendments legalizing unrestricted abortion ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. I said that the FDA should outlaw the abortion pills. That is the extent of its authority.
I am well aware of the situation with DeSantis. But telling me how people reacted to his signing the abortion bill doesn’t include me. I did not express an opinion. I do not live in Florida.
The problem with your proposals to help women is that they do involve forcing the taxpayer to pay. If you think (and I suppose you do) that taxpayers paying for abortion should not be allowed (I haven’t re-read your proposal for awhile), then it would be equally unacceptable to force taxpayers to pay to help mothers. This part of the proposal is highly coercive. People spend part of their lives earning that money. If you take the money, you take that part of the taxpayer’s life, shortening its usefulness for himself. It is unconstitutional to take money from Peter to pay Paul. We don’t need that part because there are thousands of crisis pregnancy agencies that already provide that kind of help. Let them continue. Charity is MY responsibility and the responsibility of the church, not the taxpayer.
You spoke of pro-abortion folks not being willing to compromise. That means they won’t support your proposal either. As for rape victims, we can give them the kind of support they need to understand that the baby is not guilty of a capital offense, and need not be a reminder of the rape. Raping a woman a second time with surgical instruments is not a solution. As one mother of a baby conceived in rape said, she doesn’t know who the father is, but she does know who the mother is: SHE is. It is HER baby. When an abortion is done on a rape victim, it destroys the evidence that could convict the rapist. Not a single rape has ever been stopped by abortion. We need to stop rape. I earned a second degree black belt and teach women martial arts and self defense. Teach women to fight back. My own instructor told us that 72% of UNTRAINED women who fight back escape unharmed. Think about what it would mean if a rapist never knew if his intended victim might fight back. Rapists are basically cowards. They look for the easy mark. Arm our women with self defense skills. Abortion only prolongs the problem. We do rape victims a disservice when we don’t provide real support and we failed to teach them how to defend themselves. Abortion is the rapist’s friend.
We need to deal with Trump. But a ban on the abortion pill wouldn’t properly come from him, but from Congress and/or the FDA.
We need to propose a bill that is what we REALLY want, and force the other side to compromise with us by withholding support from something they desperately want. That is how the system works. We can force them to compromise. We shouldn’t want for them to propose anything. They won’t. We should force them to seek compromise, not offer it to them on a silver platter.
Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful approach to addressing this deeply polarizing issue. I can see your heart for finding a solution that reduces the harm caused by abortion and addresses misconceptions and medical gaps. While I appreciate the focus on improving maternal and fetal care, I firmly believe that the protection of life must extend to every unborn child, without exceptions based on gestational age or circumstance. Each human life, from conception, bears the image of God and deserves protection.
I believe a heartbeat threshold is a scientifically and morally compelling marker of life. It not only aligns with the conviction that life begins at conception but also resonates with many who see a beating heart as evidence of humanity.
I understand the compassionate intentions behind including exceptions for cases like rape or fetal abnormalities, but I believe these exceptions compromise the principle that all human life is valuable, regardless of the circumstances of conception or potential quality of life. My wife and I experienced God’s love and grace in carrying a child to term despite knowing she would live only a short time after birth. That experience affirmed our conviction that every life has inherent worth.
I do appreciate the emphasis on informed consent, maternal and fetal healthcare improvements, and increased support for parents and adoption services. These are areas where common ground can be found, and they reflect a desire to promote life-affirming alternatives.
While I recognize the proposal aims to balance competing perspectives, I believe our laws should unambiguously affirm the value of every human life. Compromises, however well-intentioned, can risk undermining this foundational truth. I would encourage further exploration of how to address the cultural and systemic issues contributing to abortion without making concessions on the sanctity of life.”
I believe policies such as robust support for expectant mothers, fully funded adoption initiatives, and comprehensive education on fetal development and parenting could address many of the concerns raised in this proposal without compromising the protection of life at all stages.
1 Like
I know I DM’d you but I wanted to mention here that you should add to the section about the doctors disclosure making sure they preform a c section in any scenario where the baby is viable. This would protect babies in states that choose to have very late term abortions legal while not disadvantaging the mother significantly
1 Like
I basically included that kind of idea in the section about fetal healthcare. It says:
- Ban the use of a feticidal agent/feticide (such as dismemberment, the digoxin shot, intra-uterine instillations and umbilical cord transactions) against viable babies, determined likely to survive outside of the womb based on the child’s current medical/developmental circumstances and available medical measures. (Does not ban inducing delivery/terminating pregnancy at any stage; does not ban the use of feticide for legal abortions of pre-viable/nonviable babies.)
I guess I mean I’d like to see this option explicitly explained to everyone as well, the way you have it written seems like it would prevent the abortion yes but it doesn’t explicitly tell the mother she still has the c section option
I guess I choose to use the word “delivery” because it conveys the main idea that, she is free to expel the baby/end the pregnancy. If someone personally faced that circumstance, the doctor would have no choice but to explain her options… It can be a c-section, or a regular induction.
It also says: Does not ban inducing delivery/terminating pregnancy at any stage;
I’m being careful about the wording. I want to avoid saying anything that implies that this bill specifically authorizes/allows something that may or may not have been allowed prior to the bill… We don’t want to convey that this bill gives women an extra right to premature c section deliveries for elective reasons… Meaning: if it’s already allowed in her state to prematurely deliver her baby, fine, this bill does not change her ability to choose that.
1 Like
In response to your remark saying that I “spoke of pro-abortion folks not being willing to compromise. That means they won’t support your proposal.”
I half-disagree. While it is clear that democrats refuse to OFFER a bipartisan proposal, I bet that if the GOP were to offer a compelling bipartisan proposal, such as the ideas that my ideas express, it would compel them to at least consider it and come to the table.
If a Democrat rejected this bill, then the GOP can use that to tell their voters, that they refused to actually support women’s lives. This idea would completely corner them.
Given the GOP trifecta, you wouldn’t necessarily need any of the Dem’s to vote on it in order to pass, however it would be nice to get support from at least some of them. The goal of my idea would be to point the GOP in a direction where they can come up with a similar bill that they all can accept voting on, and it try to get some Dem’s on board.
In response to you again referring to my proposal as a “compromise” and that we shouldn’t “offer a [compromise] on a silver platter.”
Again, I do not like the “compromise” wording, BUT ANYWAY, can I tell you what I would consider to be a “compromise” offer? If GOP said “we will agree to allowing elective abortion until [insert suggested gestational limit here, like 15 weeks] and in exchange you must agree to ban abortion after that.” That would be a Center-Left bill.
My proposal is more Center-Right–it primarily only offers the left common exceptions that the majority of Americans and even many pro-lifers would be willing to accept, in exchange for many pro-life concessions described in the bill (which includes mandating that the abortion pill can only be given in-person, Informed Consent, restrictions against feticide, protection for viable babies born alive, and various attempts to spread awareness/education to Americans at various points of time regarding abortion, fetal development, parenting skills, options/rights, etc. etc.
You’re asking the GOP/pro-lifers to start off by first demanding to pass an abortion ban, and then negotiating from there. However, we don’t have that tool at our disposal right now, because Trump repeatedly said he would not sign any abortion ban. So at least for the next four years, that idea is dead in the water and the Democrats know that. A fake threat to pass an abortion ban will not suddenly push Dem’s into a compromise… (Now if Trump changes his mind, and decides to support an abortion restriction, now we’re talking! If he does that, I can picture him supporting a 15 week restriction.)
So, assuming that Trump keeps his word, and continues to refuse to support any abortion ban, then the question is… what is the closest thing to a bill “that we REALLY want” that “we need to propose” as you suggest?? My policy package is center-right and very close to the minimum we can offer. (And again remember, Trump said he supports rape/incest exceptions. Let’s presume he will not backtrack on that.)
Even if Trump proposed a six week ban (which he won’t) but imagine if he did. I bet the Democrats would simply just let it play out–because it would give them perfect fodder to rally up their base once again, just in time for the next mid-terms. Democrats would probably DARE the GOP to pass a six week ban. They would LOVE it if GOP did that, because it would energize their campaign. They love it like every time when a new maternal death, a new headline to add to their martyr count. It’s extremely validating for them.
What federal bill would you suggest to propose that you think would force the Dem’s to compromise? (Remember it has to be politically viable, with likely enough GOP votes to pass, otherwise the Dem’s won’t take it seriously.)
1 Like
My quick responses to Tina:
Regarding (1) regardless if doctors only “rarely” kill or endanger women from medical malpractice, it’s still a prerogative to try to stop that. In addition, those supposed “rare” cases are creating the headlines, and are being used for abortion advocates to pass genocide-until-birth ballot measures in all 50 states. The pro-abortion movement has outfunded pro-lifers and they are VERY effective at fooling the masses. That’s why the pro-abortion movement is winning. These women are sacrificial lambs to the pro-abortion movement. It will not stop until either (a) they pass abortion until birth federally, or in ballot measures in every state, or (b) Trump does something to reverse the misinformation trend.
(2) Denying the importance of abortion to voters, and especially access to life-saving care, won’t make those voters go away; it won’t suddenly erase their concerns. Fact remains that abortion was a top concern for the majority of voters, and they swung more to Harris because she had a firm stance, and Trump had none. Abortion has affected the elections for the last couple years, favoring access to elective abortion, and all evidence says that it will continue to do so. Politicians should fight for those votes (not saying they should copy Harris’ position–just that they should do more to attract those voters to remain competitive and address voter concerns about abortion in some way).
You also said “talk to the states, inform the people and have them vote on it.” But, again, PRO-LIFERS ALREADY DID THAT. It didn’t work. That’s WHY I requested this federal proposal. It’s the lack of any federal safeguards/platform that has led to the continued genocide of thousands of babies, infanticide and to the complacency/lack of accountability towards all these doctors who are knowingly endangering and sometimes killing women out of medical malpractice.
Respectfully, abortion was the least concern for the majority of voters this election, that’s why Trump won despite there being a lack of uniform election integrity. It’s a non-issue compared to the illegal invasion, out of control inflation, out of control crime (bail reform for some blue states), in short- the communist occupation of the United States of America. We work on the majority, the majority of the will of the people and state sovereignty. We should be lessening the degree of federal centralization if power, not increasing it.
News sources should never shape public policy. Verifiable, reliable and reproducible data should.
Gather more reliable information and then revisit the issue if it’s still unresolved.
Thank you for this analysis. You make a lot of sense. That is not enough, as I will show. Perhaps the best move is to offer a heartbeat bill with no exceptions. That would stop the vast majority of abortions. Then the pro-aborts would want to whittle away at it, and they’d be the ones who are culpable. They said that abortion should be allowed because the heart hasn’t started beating yet. Hold them to it. I’m not happy with that, but from your standpoint, that might work better. So I am thinking from what I perceive as your point of view. But one of my major complaints is that your suggested remedy is too complex, and includes provisions that harm the taxpayer. The Libertarian Caucus in the Republican House won’t support it. It won’t get off the ground. It is not needed. Let the crisis pregnancy organizations help women. Make sure they can operate without constraint. One of the things I urge you to think about is the idea that we can win by throwing SOME people under the bus, whether it be rape victims and their unborn children, or taxpayers. I continue to urge you to think about this.
In the meantime, we need to educate Trump, and this is the place to do it. Show him this:
https://www.feministsforlife.org/rape-is-rape-no-matter-what/
Follow the links, especially this one:
https://www.feministsforlife.org/what-about-rape/
Trump needs to see that these tiny human beings really ARE human beings, and that abandoning them to mass axe-murderers is not a viable choice. His basic instinct overall is to protect innocent people. Let him become aware that babies conceived in rape are innocent people. Demand he be consistent.
We are not losing. Abortuaries are closing. Planned Parenthood will lose government funding. The number of abortions keeps declining, with an occasional blip upward. People talk. They find out about the women who have been harmed by abortion. The abortion issue was NOT a major driver in the election, not for people who voted for Trump. The idea that it is that important to everyone was a carefully planted lie from MSM. The constitutional amendments in various states are a setback, but may be able to be nullified, and they won’t do anyone any good if there are no abortuaries in the state. And because abortuaries are closing, and the number is declining, that could well happen. 40 Days for Life makes note of the fact that abortuaries are closing in blue states. We can end abortion in the blue states without ever passing a pro-life law. So I don’t want to hear that we are losing, because that is false, and it can color our reasoning in an adverse way. Don’t let them get away with this lie.
I don’t see a way to offer an alternative to your proposal that we can both agree on. I think we need to concentrate on educating people in power, and chipping away at the abortion cartel with side issues, like removing federal funding, banning interstate shipping of abortion pills, whatever is within our means under the Constitution. Get the legislatures in the red states with constitutional amendments to challenge the constitutionality of these amendments. We’ve been fighting as a nation against this massive holocaust for a half century. We have a long ways to go. But a little bit of abortion is no more acceptable than a little bit of slavery. Wilberforce fought against slavery all his life, and he died in 1833. The final emancipation of the slaves did not occur until after his death. Our Founders recognized that slavery was evil and needed to be abolished. But they were not in a position to do it at that time because of the southern states, and the most they could do was limit the influence of those states by not letting them count a slave as a full person for census purposes (which would have allowed the southern states more clout in Congress otherwise). It took 85 years for slavery finally to be abolished. Evil never goes down quickly. Once we eliminate abortion, another great evil will arise. Our fight is not done in this life. We need to keep that in mind. In the meantime, we need to do what we can, but never by shedding principles. If we do, that can and will be used against us.
Respectfully I have fundamental issues with using abortion and day after pill as birth control repeatedly. Sixty years ago birth control pills were not easily available. Now there’s really not much excuse other than rape and familial incest.
The real problem that started 60 years ago is the sexualization of children in school systems, television & movie industries, and through our state and federal governments. Public school systems should not be teaching masturbation & sex ed to elementary school kids especially if the W.H.O. directs it. The Constitutional Republic of the United States of America should not be following U.N., W.H.O., and W.E.F. rules, protocols and agendas. They have no say here
Without this agenda push things would be much different today. The problem involves all of our systems pushing hyper-sexualized behavior for everyone and abortion as the solution. When Cosmopolitan pushed careers and delaying marriage and having children, and that a fetus was just tissue until last trimester, they did irreparable harm to America and it’s citizens imo. I have a bachelors degree with masters levels studies. There was no abundance of college educated exceptional career opportunities 40+ years ago. It was just the same ones with some like nursing being a higher paying occupations. It was all a lie to push an agenda.
I do agree what’s been done to fetus’ over past 50 years is barbaric and needs to stop.
I do not agree that education will have much immediate impact because the agenda to destroy men’s important roles in society, remove women from family and having children, encourage dependence on government for more than just basic necessities, etc is too pervasive and embedded in a segment of our population.
Ok, but FYI this bill has NOTHING to do with elective abortions for voluntary pregnancies or with methods of birth control.
It is in my opinion that your proposal has a lot - too much- included within, which can be changed and misinterpreted - which is what our far left leaning politicians are experts at.
I believe a simple legislation in congress should be made with exceptions that all states must adhere to.
This includes rape victims in which they should be immediately hospitalized and treated there until the miscarriage occurs with the morning after pill or a dnc.
This should be fully covered by insurance
The tissues should be extracted carefully and allowed to be gathered for important dna evidences.
With that, steeper laws for such offenses as rape should be created to dissuade such behavior
There should be no abortions after 12-16 weeks
I understand that certain states have banned abortion completely at this time- however when one does their research you will find that most of those states have a large satanic presence- temples- in which abortion is part of their religion.
Perhaps that’s why they have banned it at this time.
They mostly use young girls
Abortion is not a right but a privilege
The bill of rights was written as a document of rights that we were born with and given to us by God- Abortion is not of God.
Hi Ashley,
You have certainly given a lot of time, research and thought into this. However, I couldn’t help noticing one aspect of the pro choice debate that is missing.
Every single person who is pro choice believes that fetus’ are non living beings, that they are just clumps of cells and tissue as they have been taught.
This aligns with the movement of separation of church and state and women’s lib movement of the 70’s and Planned Parenthood.
Until children are taught that life is a gift from God and begins at conception, all of the legislation in the world will not make the pro choice debate go away.
Therefore, school health and sex education need to change this fundamental fact before any progress will be made.
In other words, an ultrasound may still be too late. If children are being told unprotected sex leads to pregnancy, but pregnancy is not a living, human being, and those cells can just be removed with a simple pill or procedure, then efforts to curb abortions in the early stages are futile.
My humble opinion, Jackie
Actually, this bill proposes a high school awareness class that teaches about fetal development and it requires informed consent to include an ultrasound/knowledge of that child’s current development.
First, I’d like to thank you for all the hard work and passion you’ve put into coming up with a well thought through and reasonable compromise on this issue. Well done, truly.
There is one thing that is not addressed in here however, and it’s a thing that seems to be overlooked by most.
Radical changes to access to safe(r) birth control for women and more options for male birth control being released to the market.
No one “wants” to have an abortion. They are painful and dangerous and traumatic. But they are a necessary option because of the woeful lack of access to birth control for much of the population ESPECIALLY for men and youths. Address this issue in this proposal and you’ll gain my vote.
Good job.
2 Likes
Great proposal. I agree completely. Coming from a Christian, pro life background and being a nurse practitioner I think we do have to meet in the middle. I recognize that women will continue to have abortions and providers will continue to perform them. We have to ensure safety for these women. But there must be stiff limits in place.
I think there also needs to be protection on a Federal level of organizations who are providing alternate services to women who may be considering abortion.
Liberal states like New York, are trying to defund and close down NGOs that provide these services. Usually these NGOs are faith based and therefore come under attack by the state.
These non profits often providing baby supplies and female products at no cost through donations. They also provide drug and substance abuse counseling, parenting classes, housing, and connecting mothers with social resources and connections. They also may serve as a “halfway house” for single mothers.
Finally we need to emphasize safe sec practices as these have fallen out of mainstream favor and replaced by abortion. Pediatricians, pediatric Advanced Practice Providers and nurses should be mandated to offer discussions about sex with adolescents and possibly parents. This could be done in a group setting.
Very well done. Your passion and expertise comes through in this policy.
2 Likes
Thank you, Jillian!
While the birth control idea is a good idea, and as much as I would like to honor your suggestion, I’d prefer that the birth control thing be addressed separately. My policy is already a little lengthy, often too lengthy for people to read and I’d prefer for this policy to stay within its intended direction. In addition, I assume that birth control is still very much available, and I don’t view access to birth control* as much of a significant problem as the other issues addressed. I’m also not aware of the same kind of harmful misinformation surrounding birth control as there is for abortion and motherhood itself. I think that cultural attitudes towards women, children and parenthood represent the bigger threat, not getting enough recognition.
If you’re aware of a solid proposal related to birth control on this website that you recommend, let me know. I’m open to voting on it.
*birth control
*I had mistakenly used the word “abortion” instead of “birth control” so I have now fix/edited that.
1 Like