True. I have even seen evidence of embryonic pain as early as 8 weeks gestation. My proposal calls for fetal pain relief at 12 weeks. I wasn’t sure how early fetal pain relief could be given. If this idea makes it to Congress, then I would leave it to the OB-GYN’s and neonatal surgeons to advise the legislators on what point the law should mandate it.
You’re welcome.
Once more you are telling me what I think. Let me do my own thinking for myself. Saying a proposal is bad has NOTHING TO DO with the character of the proposer, and for you to say it does is to distort everything I have tried to say. You should not be taking criticism of your proposal personally. I cannot be responsible if you choose to do so. I’m sorry you feel that way, but it is beyond my control how you react to something.
I don’t know how you administer pain relief to an embryo. It shouldn’t even be an issue because we have no business tearing a child’s body apart in the first place. The law should at least mandate no abortions once the embryo can feel pain. One thing nobody ever seems to mention is that when a human being feels pain, it creates certain chemicals in the body. If they measured these chemicals, they would learn how early an embryo can feel pain. Another thing rarely discussed is that during pregnancy, the child sends stem cells into the mother’s body. Some lodge near the breasts and help prevent breast cancer. Some lodge in the brain. During an abortion, massive numbers of stem cells are released. Consider this: stem cells with pain chemicals in the brain are going to have an effect on the mother, whether she’s conscious of it or not. Yet another thing I never see mentioned is the fact that during pregnancy, the placenta is firmly attached to the wall of the uterus. If you remove it and get all of it, it is GOING to leave an injury to the surface of the uterus that has the potential of exsanguinating the mother. By definition, elective abortion is malpractice.
I am a Christian and God makes it clear. My feelings or wants are of no important. God said before I formed you in the womb I knew you. I will never condone murdering God’s Children no matter what you propose.
1 Like
HARD PASS!!!
Abortion is a states rights issue.
The. End.
1 Like
That’s a misconception. Abortion is both an state and federal issue.
The Dobbs decision does NOT say anything about abortion being a “states-rights-only” issue. It merely ruled that the constitution does not grant a right to abortion, and even Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion said that it is now up to “elected lawmakers” in both the “state” and “Congress” to choose their laws. Leaders from BOTH the pro-life and pro-choice movement agree on one thing: Federal laws regulating abortion ARE constitutional , and in fact many federal, medical and insurance-related regulations exist, and were affirmed by Trump’s conservative-majority Supreme Court, such as the ACA and EMTALA, despite Republican challenges to those laws’ constitutionality. The 10th amendment allows the federal government to regulate inter-state commerce, and the 5th and 14th amendments protect a PERSON’S right to “life, liberty or property.” In the context of abortion, “person” can include the pregnant woman and/or the unborn child. Finally, both Democrat and GOP legislators have proposed and voted on federal abortion-related bills (such as the Women’s Health Protection Act, Protect Babies Born Alive Act).
I agree 100%…your assessment is entirely accurate. I would also add that no tax dollars be used to fund any abortion…and also that a morning after pill be made accessible to every woman…and I entirely agree with nor more late term elective abortions. When we propose controls, many use the rape/incest to justify a federal mandate allowing abortion, when many use abortion as a tool of “convenience” when the baby is not the sex they want, when their career is at stake, when the father abandons his duties, or they just don’t want to ruin the physical appearance of their bodies.
We have clarity not agreement.
I don’t want coastal elites projecting their values onto the rest of the country.
The citizens of each state should govern this issue as they see fit without federal overreach.
Arizona just passed prop 139 which enshrines abortion as a legal right in our constitution.
I don’t expect the citizens of each state to agree with our position on abortion.
90% of the federal workforce votes Democrat.
Thats 2,000,000 Racist-marxist-fascist Democrats that can be culled come January 20th.
We need less federal government, not more of it!
1 Like
Public education is tantamount to child abuse.
The federal government should not be in the business of providing goods, services, or jobs to citizens
Student voucher programs and privatized education need to replace the existing government indoctrination camps.
The Department of Education ends January 20th.
#MAGA
1 Like
This bill doesn’t “condone” murder and it has nothing to do with elective abortion for voluntary pregnancies. Complacency is what’s leading thousands of viable babies to the slaughter. And I will never condone or coddle glorified complacency.
1 Like
Hi Ashley. I read your proposal. I have an issue with the following:
Limitations on Extreme State Penalties
-
Protections for Patients:
a. Prohibits criminalizing patients who undergo illegal abortions or take abortion pills obtained illegally.
b. Caps excessive fines and sentences for abortion providers to prevent disproportionate penalties that could deter care. -
Abolishing “Bounty Hunter” Laws:
a. Invalidates civil lawsuits targeting non-providers for aiding or abetting illegal abortions.
Limitations on Extreme State Penalties
-
Prohibits Criminalizing Patients Who Undergo Illegal Abortions or Take Abortion Pills Obtained Illegally
a. Weakens Enforcement of State Laws: Critics may argue that removing penalties for patients diminishes the enforceability of state abortion bans. Without accountability, individuals may feel emboldened to seek illegal abortions, undermining state laws aimed at restricting abortion access.
b. Incentivizes Illegal Activity: By exempting patients from criminal liability, this provision may unintentionally encourage underground abortion providers or illegal distribution networks for abortion pills, increasing risks to patient safety.
c. Undermines Deterrence: Pro-life advocates could argue that exempting patients reduces the deterrent effect of abortion restrictions, potentially increasing illegal abortions. -
Caps Excessive Fines and Sentences for Abortion Providers
a. Lack of Deterrence: Critics may claim that capping penalties allows abortion providers to treat violations as a calculable cost of doing business, potentially leading to deliberate circumvention of laws.
b. Undermines State Autonomy: By restricting the severity of fines or sentences, this measure could be viewed as federal overreach, limiting states’ rights to decide how to enforce their abortion laws.
c. Inconsistent with Public Sentiment: In states with strong pro-life constituencies, capping penalties might be seen as too lenient and out of step with voters’ preferences for stricter enforcement.
Arguments apposing the previously mentioned items:
Abolishing “Bounty Hunter” Laws
- Invalidates Civil Lawsuits Targeting Non-Providers for Aiding or Abetting Illegal Abortions
a. Erosion of State Mechanisms for Enforcement: Critics might argue that “bounty hunter” laws provide an innovative mechanism for enforcing abortion bans. Invalidating them could eliminate a tool states use to hold individuals accountable for aiding illegal abortions.
b. Encourages Circumvention of State Laws: Abortion-related travel and information-sharing could become easier if individuals know they are shielded from civil liability, potentially undermining the effectiveness of state bans.
c. Reduces Accountability: Without the threat of civil lawsuits, individuals or organizations that fund, coordinate, or facilitate illegal abortions may act without fear of repercussions.
d. Federal Overreach Argument: Opponents may see this provision as a federal intrusion into state-designed enforcement systems, which are rooted in states’ rights to legislate on moral and public health issues.
Broader Critiques and Potential Negative Outcomes
-
Perception of Overreach: These provisions might be criticized for overriding state laws, which some view as key to maintaining local control over abortion policy post-Dobbs. Federal restrictions could provoke legal challenges and deepen political divides.
-
Practical Enforcement Challenges: Shielding patients and non-providers from liability while targeting abortion providers may create enforcement gaps. Providers might exploit these gaps to continue operating illegally without fear of severe penalties.
-
Moral Hazard Concerns: Critics may argue that reducing penalties for patients and non-providers sends a mixed message about the seriousness of abortion bans, weakening their intended purpose and moral foundation.
While these provisions aim to address perceived injustices and excessive measures in state abortion laws, they could face opposition for undermining state autonomy, reducing deterrence and potentially encouraging illegal abortion activities. Balancing enforcement and compassion is a challenge that this proposal might not fully satisfy for all stakeholders.
I agree we need to start somewhere and I see that you have, and are, putting a lot of thought into your proposal. I thank you for that. I’ve read through a number of the replies, not all, so I hope I’m not repeating someone else’s opinion. I did not see in your suggested policy much involvement of the father. I believe fathers generally get short shrifted on many issues concerning their children, both in the womb and out. Of course, I’m not talking about rapists, incest or those who are not earnest about being a father. I’m referring to those men who participated in a perceived ‘mistake’ but who genuinely want to take responsibility or even have a say in what happens to their child. So many do not. So many of these situations are difficult and personal. I wonder if we shouldn’t institute ‘abortion’ judges or abortion mediators who, before an actual abortion, would be able to go over all possible options with the mother the father if available/involved and even the grandparents should they desire to help out or even want to raise their grandchild themselves. My sister did that. I’m so proud of her.
We need to change the mindset/culture being taught to our young. To do that, we need to bring God and biblical principles back into the school system to help counteract the satanical thinking behind killing our young. The closer we get to God, the less need we have for laws demanding we follow God’s principals. We need to instill these ideals at a young age to counteract what they are teaching them now.
I believe we are entering a Golden Age full of prosperity. I think this will lead to people having much easier lives which will encourage them to want families. We have a bright future ahead of us. Thank you God. Thank you president Trump and team. And thank you all you who are fighting for that better future. God bless.
1 Like
I don’t think an abortion mediator would be a politically feasible idea, BUT this proposal does advocate for cultural change and value of fatherly involvement in the last section:
Right to Education and Coaching on Management of Pregnancy and Parenting
- Require high schools to offer an awareness class, taught by a non-ideological, independently contracted source, regarding: fetal & child development; what abortion procedures are like; physical/psychological risks/experiences of pregnancy & abortion; resources/options available to low-income families; the maternal/fetal healthcare rights; adoption; parenting skills & perspectives; primary attachment theory; child’s need for routine, care & attention; causes/examples/harms of: toxic stress, absent fatherhood, counter-parenting, all forms of abuse, coercion & exploitation; biological sex differences between men & women; various disabilities and disorders (including Down Syndrome, ADHD & Autism).
- Mandate that Medi-Caid and health insurance offers parents of newborns, as well as recently separated parents, access to an in-home parental coach (independently contracted and selected by the mother), to provide direct, real-time information, advice and assistance to the parents, at their homes, regarding all of the above mentioned topics. These (limited allowable) visits may be free or have a co-pay based on each parent’s income. The parenting coach can also advise separated parents on developmentally appropriate parental custodial schedules.
1 Like
Amen. I truly hope that those in positions of power and influence take the time to thoroughly read, understand, and ultimately support this remarkably well-thought-out document. It tackles a pressing issue head-on and presents a clear path forward through practical, actionable solutions. The comprehensive nature of the document makes it clear that it was crafted with care, expertise, and a deep understanding of the complexities surrounding the problem at hand. In a world where many issues are approached with quick fixes or oversimplified solutions, this document stands out by offering a thoughtful and structured framework for addressing a real challenge.
While I may not agree with every single detail or recommendation, I believe that the overall approach is sound. The proposal reflects a genuine effort to balance different perspectives, and it provides enough room for flexibility in how the solutions might be implemented. I am confident that, despite my own reservations on some points, I would be able to lend my full support to the document because it aligns with my core values and principles. The clarity and integrity of the proposals make it possible to support the broader vision without compromising what I hold to be important.
I also want to express my sincere gratitude for the effort and expertise that went into creating this document. The education it provides is incredibly valuable, offering insights and perspectives that are not only relevant but also necessary for making informed decisions. The concrete strategies outlined to tackle the issue are practical, well-organized, and provide a clear roadmap for action. It’s not merely a theoretical approach but a realistic one that takes into account the challenges we may face in implementation.
This document provides a sense of hope and direction. It’s clear that it was written with a genuine desire to make a positive impact, and I believe that, if embraced, it could bring about meaningful change. Thank you for dedicating the time, thought, and resources to craft such a well-rounded and effective proposal. Your work serves as a beacon for those of us who are committed to finding real, lasting solutions.
1 Like
Response to Tim Ryan:
Thanks for your feedback and giving me the chance to address your concerns.
I will clarify my proposal and will explain why those stipulations are absolutely crucial in order to simultaneously: protect the pro-life movement from unintended consequences of parts of existing laws, but also to protect women from dangerous medical malpractice and treatment delays. These unintended consequences feed Democrat narratives and undermine/sabotage the viability and longevity of state pro-life laws.
Please appreciate that my responses are based on my observations drawn from reading about almost every article/story I could find on this matter, familiarized myself with all the stories, perspectives, trends, polls and informally debated these issues with many pro-lifers and pro-choicers online.
Firstly, remember that my proposal does not stop states from imposing reasonable fines, prison sentences or suspending licenses against people who perform or provide an illegal abortion. But it’s not necessary to threaten a provider with 100 years in prison or million dollar fines in order to stop abortion (such as current Texas laws). This is overkill.
Many pro-life states have successfully stopped abortion without going to that extreme. Tell me about ONE pro-life state whose abortion bans weren’t effective in stopping illegal abortion in their state, simply because they didn’t have bounty-hunter laws or a threat of 100 year prison sentences for illegal abortions…
Therefore, calling for states to ensure that their punishments remain more reasonable, will not increase the number of illegal abortions. But it will lift much of the hesitation that some providers have had about providing LEGAL, medically necessary abortions, and soften the current fierce opposition raging against pro-life laws. This overkill, and the public outrage it has created, is a liability to the pro-life movement/state pro-life laws in place.
There are serious unintended consequences of anti-aiding-and-abetting prosecution, that outweighs any perceived benefit of it. Prosecution against the actual abortion provider is enough to stop illegal abortion. Threats against aiding-and-abetting are not only completely unnecessary to stop abortion, but it actually sabotages the perception/longevity of pro-life laws/exceptions.
There are medical providers who knowingly delay life-saving miscarriage care and life-saving abortions for women who meet the exception, because of either resentment and/or industry wide misinformation about pro-life laws. If you toss around the idea of potential 100 year prison sentences, or million dollar penalties, those same people will be even more dissuaded to go against the collective fear-mongering and honor the pro-life exceptions…
But at least the strong, personal responsibility to their direct patient relationship is enough to motivate most doctors to provide the life-saving intervention that his patient needs and qualifies for… However, what happens when he tries to rally support/assistance to prepare/perform the procedure, from other medical staffmembers who do NOT share the same direct responsibility/relationship to his patient, those who aren’t as motivated as he is to defy pressures/misinformation in order to help his patient? There are cases in which the doctor himself has determined that the woman meets the life-of-the-mother exception, but then is unable to find other staffmembers to help prepare or assist with the procedure (because they claim to be afraid about the law, especially if there are “aiding and abetting” provisions).
In Tennessee, a doctor determined that his patient’s pregnancy posed a severe risk to her life, and that she qualified for the life-of-the-mother exception. However, he needed assistance from other medical professionals to help prepare for the abortion. This article says: “To lower Hollis’ chance of bleeding, Goldberg wanted doctors to insert a special gel into the artery that supplied blood to her uterus to reduce its flow. But that department’s leadership didn’t feel comfortable participating… Next, they approached a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who a week earlier had said he would be able to provide an injection to stop the fetus from growing and decrease blood flow. But once the law went into effect, that specialist grew uneasy.”
I’m not sure if Tennessee had anti-aiding and abetting provisions, but this example supports my assertion that only the providers who are directly responsible to the patient, the ones certifying that she meets the exception and/or actually providing/performing the abortion, should be the ones prosecuted for illegal abortion. Otherwise these anti-aiding and abetting laws demand a time-delaying redundancy, in which every involved staffmember would have to independently certify the woman’s life exception status.
Facing a Life-Threatening Pregnancy Under Tennessee’s Abortion Ban — ProPublica
Family members of miscarrying women might fear driving her to get an abortion she needs, because they might fear being prosecuted for “aiding-and-abetting.”
According to the recent lawsuit filed against Texas, many providers feel too scared to even talk about abortion or discuss the patient’s options, even in times when the woman is experiencing a high risk pregnancy or carrying a child determined to be incompatible with life. This has caused even more distress and chaos for the woman and families already in crisis.
See paragraphs 42, 72, 88, 109, 111, 150, 159-160, 223 and 248.
[2023.05.22-Zurawski-v.-Texas-1st-Am.-Ver.-Pet.-FINAL.pdf](https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2023.05.22-Zurawski-v.-Texas-1st-Am.-Ver.-Pet.-FINAL.pdf
In response to your “Broader Critiques and Potential Negative Outcomes.”
Regarding (1) your concern about “perception.” First of all, the current public perception of strict abortion bans with NO exceptions, and extreme penalties against medical providers and against those “aiding and abetting”… the public perception of existing pro-life laws like the ones in Texas, is that they are extreme, cruel, ignorant, endangering/killing women and overall super-screwed up. On the other hand, the majority of Americans do support exceptions such as rape/incest, the mother’s life and for fatal fetal abnormalities. In addition, the majority of Americans also oppose late term elective abortion. So, public perception would more likely favor the pro-woman exceptions and small pro-life concessions offered by proposal.
And it’s that public perception that has allowed abortion activists to shift polls more left and successfully pass almost every single abortion-until-birth ballot initiative, and to defeat almost every single pro-life ballot initiative, proposed across the U.S., including in red states such as Ohio and Missouri.
You predicted that “federal restrictions could provoke legal challenges and deepen political divides.” However, it’s the extreme states’ laws, and lack of enforcement against cases in which the woman was harmed, that have already “provoked” a huge onslaught of “legal challenges” and a deepened political divide… that’s why we have to do something to address that. I have summarized that crisis in the first few disclaimer paragraphs, and my letter to Trump/RFK/MAHA, preceding the content of this proposal. So that concern already happening; that’s why we have to do something to calm things down.
Regarding (2) your desire to punish women for illegal abortions performed/provided by someone else and your claim that providers would exploit this law… This concern is completely misguided. First of all, fears of prosecution has caused abortive women to delay care for the complications they experienced from out-of-state abortions, leading to their deaths. In fact, that’s what happened to those two Georgia women recently cited in the headlines. Georgia doesn’t actually prosecute women for illegal abortions. However, Democrat/pro-abortion lies/fear-mongering/threats about abortion was so effective and scary, that these two (now deceased) women delayed care for their abortion pill complications because they thought they would be prosecuted.
Democrats and abortion activists now use those stories to flood the news with headlines about pro-life laws killing women. So, just imagine how the anti-life headlines would multiply if pro-life states actually did threaten to prosecutive women for all abortions performed/provided by someone else? Not only would abortive women delay care, and risk death from complications, but women who miscarried would be in fear of being accused of an illegal abortion as well, and more women would die. And more stories and headlines of women dying because of pro-life laws will motivate more voters to support abortion-until-birth state and federal laws.
I theorize that prosecution against abortive women would actually empower abortion providers in multiple ways, and the mutual need for secrecy will make them think they are invincible and that they can continue illegal abortions for a long time. First of all, the fear of prosecution would stop abortive women from cooperating with investigations about illegal abortions. Abortion providers can use that fear against their patients to manipulate them as well. How can the abortionist get caught if his patient is too scared to tell, and her family doesn’t want her to go to jail either? … Also, have you read the traumatic abortion horror stories from abortive women on pro-life websites? Well, if abortive women know they will be prosecuted, then we will no longer hear those stories, those witness accounts of babies born alive, or about horrible the abortion pill really was.
Besides, public perception widely opposes the prosecution of women for abortions performed/provided by someone else. Women seeking abortions are often marginalized in various ways, and usually coerced by their male partner, or by their own family, or by our society. Abortion clinics often lie to women about the baby’s fetal development and manipulate them into abortion. There’s also the fact that only women can get pregnant. So, many people have a vitriolic reaction to the inequality of targeting potentially marginalized, coerced women for abortions, while simultaneously leaving the potentially exploitative/coercive man, blameless.
All in all, no law is perfect and prosecuting women for abortions performed/provided by someone else is an extremely unpractical idea that would do more to benefit the pro-abortion movement than anything else. It would endanger women’s lives, enrage the public and gift the Democrats with enough stories/headlines to blue wave every election until abortion-until-birth is passed either federally or in every state.
Regarding your desire to keep state “bounty hunter laws” in place, none of these “bounty hunter” lawsuits were successful at prosecuting for an illegal abortion, and they are currently being exploited by narcissistic, opportunistic men for money, filling courtrooms with petty, clownshow lawsuits and making discovery requests.
Anti-abortion deposition requests generate fear, not results | The Texas Tribune
In my opinion, only state authorities with access to information about potentially illegal abortion activity, as well as people representing women harmed by an unlawful abortion, should be empowered to sue or prosecute for an illegal abortion. Ordinary citizens should not have this power to sue over abortions in which they have no evidence of its’ illegality, nor should the government be incentivizing these clownshow lawsuits with bounty hunter awards.
My proposal does not set specific criteria as to what penalties, fines or prison sentences that pro-life laws should set. It would still allow states broad authority to establish REASONABLE penalties, fines or prison time to enforce their laws against illegal or fraudulent abortion providers, in a way that will be enough to deter the crime, without being over-kill/sabotaging the intent of the law.
*Also, you mentioned support for state laws restricting abortion related inter-state travel. No current pro-life law can ban someone from traveling to another state. However, two of the pro-life concessions address a similar concern… Mail order abortion pills are responsible for the rapid increase of the number of abortions. That can easily circumvent state laws. Trump should enforce the Comstock Act, which would ban the use of mailing abortion pills. Also, my proposal demands that abortion pills can only be dispensed to the patient IN PERSON, and that’s after a 48 hour post-counseling waiting period. In addition, my proposal’s call to restrict feticide for viable babies, would prevent sanctuary states from allowing late term elective abortion for viable babies.
Abortion is Murder. But I don’t expect a non Christian to understand that. I want abortion illegal at any stage. There is no compromise with God
1 Like
Response to Laurie: while I support the government’s right to impose protections for unborn babies, let’s clear up a few things, in response to your comment.
Our government is not a theocracy. It is not up to human government to impose God’s will or impose Christianity. Even Jesus told Pontius Pilate, that his “kingdom is no part of this world.” Your religious arguments are completely irrelevant when it comes to human government legislation.
Next, my proposal is not a “compromise.” It’s my best attempt to simultaneous protect the pro-life movement and protect women from poor maternal healthcare/medical malpractice, within the confines already imposed on our country. I am not the one who refused to support a federal abortion restriction–that was Trump. And I am not the one successfully spreading anti-life misinformation and passing abortion-until-birth ballot initiatives across the country.
I am also not the one sabotaging/undermining pro-life laws by refusing to address women’s voices/stories of all the harms caused because of a lack of obvious exceptions, or because of activist doctors fearmongering women, committing malpractice and propogandizing elective abortion.
Go re-direct your misplaced graffiti at them. I have no power or influence to ban abortion. Lila Rose has already tried to convince Trump to consider restrictions and he said no. So that’s already been tried. (I understand that pro-life leaders continue to implore Trump to support federal restrictions and I stand by those efforts.)
In this post in which I responded to another person, I explained why if federal legislators/candidates advocated for a full abortion ban, it would not only be political suicide, but it would sabotage the pro-life movement and hand the pro-abortion movement an easy, long-lasting, indefinitely insurmountable victory:
In this more recent response, I explained why penalties against illegal abortion have to be reasonable and well thought out, because extreme punishments against illegal abortion only sabotage the pro-life laws, drives further opposition to it, leading to states over-turning the pro-life laws via state ballot measures or a push to pass a national abortion-until-birth law.
Very reasonable to me, go for it!
1 Like
Well done, Ashley.
My concern for this language is where the weak links will allow abuse of the law to enter.
For instance, defining “inevitability” versus “imminence”.
My assumption here is that imminence has been the standard because it’s arguability is low when a mom is “crashing”.
Humanity has proven medical predictions wrong time and again; inevitability will still be a matter of medical opinion and up to the some discretion of a human provider unless you can clearly define it in this law.
1 Like
You didn’t read this did you?
True. I would implore legislators to actually work with doctors and lawyers, of BOTH pro-life and pro-choice backgrounds, when drafting this law and determining workable definitions, to protect from potential abuses but ensure that the mother’s physical health is prioritized.