Well i want to give you credit for a very well presented proposal. I am also in california and know its a different line we walk out here, especially as Trump and RFK jr supporters, because we are usually try to have some compassion and understanding from where our liberal friends or family might be coming from on alot of issues that we see all the time out here.
With that said, i think i would say i could agree with this plan. The only part that gets a little rough for me is Limitations on Stateâs Excessive and Ineffective Abortion Penalties. But in my defense im not familiar with the abortion world personally so i cant really speak on the procedures. I am a man and have been blessed with my children being born healthy. With that said, i will support this and hope that if any fine tuning needs to be done, that the maha team would know whats necessary.
Iâve read through this proposal thoroughly and want to provide some thoughts for those considering its validity. While I respect the intention behind this proposal, I believe it misses the mark and ultimately misrepresents the current reality of abortion-related medical care.
This proposal seems to suggest that life-threatening situations for mothers or extreme cases like rape are not being adequately addressed in our medical or legal systems. However, this implication is simply not accurate. These rare cases are already prioritized and treated with the seriousness they deserve. Hospitals, doctors, and existing laws ensure that when a motherâs life is in danger, or other rare circumstances arise, proper care is provided.
Proposing legislation to address issues that are already being handled effectively seems like a misdirection of time, resources, and energyâresources that could be better used to address the core issue driving most abortions: personal accountability and responsibility in sexual behavior. These rare, extreme cases make up a very small percentage of abortions, yet theyâre being used as the foundation for a sweeping proposal.
The majority of abortions are not about life-threatening emergencies but rather decisions stemming from preventable circumstances. This proposal fails to address that reality and risks creating unnecessary policy changes for problems that have already been addressed.
While the intent might be noble, this approach diverts focus from promoting real solutions, such as comprehensive education, accountability, and fostering a culture that values life from conception. I encourage others to think critically about whether proposals like this truly add value or whether they simply rehash solutions to problems that donât exist in the way theyâre being presented here.
Yes, but that is the only part we agree on. I will not compromise on murder. The argument that we have to allow some abortion because banning it causes more problems isnât a very good argument. That is the same argument for making drug abuse legal so that the drug addicts can do drugs in a safe environment, but look at Kensington, Philadelphia. It backed fired. Yes, there will always be drug addicts but making it legal for the sake of safety will only cause an increase of people who will abuse the legalization of a crime. I rather make abortion a crime and women suffer (because of their own choices) than legalize abortion and perfectly innocent babies die. The only bill I will support is to abolish abortion.
I Think a lot of the arguments are funded on very dated premises about abortion. In the 70s they did not have the technology we have today. But more importantly, the lack of information teens get about the development of pregnancy and the lack of empathy towards the baby/fetus sets our society back. 1. Education is key to advance humanity, and not just about the biology of it but the ethics. too. People should grow into adults understanding that abortion is killing a potential human life ( at 3 weeks) and a developing human after that, therefore it is not a feminist stand, a right, political stand, or a religious view. 2. If there should be any laws about womenâs fertility should be that every sexually active woman should pee on a stick every month, and if she needs to have an abortion for whatever reason (be it rape, choice, etc) she will be able to have it as soon as possible. In this day and age, killing a fetus at 4 or 5 months is a brutal medieval practice.
Response to Valerie:
I disagree with your claim that a well-defined rape exception would back-fire and cause more deaths. A well-defined rape exception would help pro-life laws to stick (which would, in turn, save more unborn babiesâ lives in the long run) and it could be written in a balanced way to prevent widespread abuse/fraud.
At the same time, itâs perplexing that you would use your concern about âback-fireâ against a rape exception, while explicitly saying that you have NO concern about the obvious back-fire that a federal abortion ban, with no exceptions, would cause.
In addition, your comment saying you would ârather make abortion a crime and women suffer⌠than legalize abortionâ falsely implies that we have some sort of choice between having an abortion ban or not. Federal abortion bans are not on the table. They are not being offered period. Abortion-until-birth laws ARE on the table. That is the choice. We can either save as many lives as we CAN, or NONE. Abortion-until-birth is the status quo and the current direction our country is going, unless we do SOMETHING.
My proposal keeps the path open for the pro-life movement. It would strengthen our ability to pass more restrictions, at a state or federal level, because it removes the top concerns about pro-life laws that slow people down from supporting them. (At the same time, the pro-choice movement can continue to advocate for more abortion access.) Legislators are always free to make changes to this law and adjust. But this proposal would stabilize the issue/debate, regarding the top concerns most people have, in the meantime.
In a previous response, I explain why support a full abortion ban, would sabotage the pro-life movement more than anything else, and the huge backlash would lead to abortion-until-birth in all 50 states, either by ballot measures, or by a Blue wave causing the federal abortion-until-birth law Womens Health Protection Act to pass. If that happens, itâs the pro-choicers who will write the history, the narrative about pro-life laws killing women will stick for decades to come, and it will be harder than ever for pro-lifers to gain ground again.
I explained that potential back-lash in a previous response here:
RIGHT TO MATERNAL/FETAL HEALTHCARE & EDUCATION to stabilize the abortion issue - #371 by AshleyLuna
In addition, in another response, I explained why prosecution against abortive women, would only feed Democrat narratives, and further galvanize the pro-abortion movement.
RIGHT TO MATERNAL/FETAL HEALTHCARE & EDUCATION to stabilize the abortion issue - #403 by AshleyLuna
Response to Richard:
Thanks for your feedback and your support.
Re: your concerns about âlimitations on stateâs excessive and ineffective abortion penalties.â First bear in mind that my idea would not stop states from enacting penalties or prison time against people who violate their abortion laws.
However, the punishment has to fit the crime, and also, certain parts of these laws are actually over-kill and have unintended consequences, that really do more harm than good.
I explained my reasoning behind that section, in detail, in a previous response here:
Response to Michael:
You are gravely incorrect on all three claims that you just made.
(1) Indeed, life-threatening situations for mothers, as well as pregnancies involving rape and severe/fatal fetal anomalies, are NOT being adequately addressed by our medical and legal systems. I have been following this movement, the polls, womenâs stories, articles and lawsuit readings, from both the pro-life and pro-choice side, extra closely for two years, and have documented my findings and resources/links in my google docs.
-
Stories like Amanda Zurkowski abound. I have read story after story, article after article. The fact is: medical providers are systematically, and knowingly, delaying life-saving care for pregnant women, up to the point that women were permanent injured or dead. They blame pro-life laws, claiming that the exceptions are unclear, that the exceptions force them to wait until she is at âdeathâs door,â and that the million dollar/100 year jailtime penalties scare them into providing that care. To be clear, my position is that their blame on pro-life laws is primarily due to misinformation and fearmongering about pro-life laws from the aggressive pro-abortion activists. HOWEVER, the effect is still real and at some point, anyone who sits there and lets this continue, is simply complicit, no matter what side you are on.
-
Letâs not forget stories like the two women in Georgia and another two in Texas who died because of all of this⌠We should care about their lives, and pro-lifers should especially be concerned with the blowback.
-
Pro-life OBGYNâs have pleaded with state medical boards/state governments to offer more guidelines in order to assure everyone about the law, to deaf ears. People have asked hospitals whose doctors endangered or killed their maternal patients, for these hospitals to state what their policy is for cases that like that, and we get silence. I keep clinging to the hope that these women and their families will file medical malpractice lawsuits to hold these dangerous doctors accountable, however such lawsuits are extremely rare. Accountability isnât coming for them and pro-life states have done little to counter-balance these harms. Page 11 of my google doc lists the links of the kinds of stories flooding the headlines and public consciousness. Treatment delays for pregnant women in red states - Google Docs
-
In addition, many pro-life states do NOT offer exceptions for rape, incest or fatal fetal anomalies, causing women a lot of distress to go through, and a lot of headlines, damaging the pro-life movement, ESPECIALLY in Texas. The story of a 12 year old rape victim who had to flee the state for an abortion, rocked the headlines. Pages 9-41 of the anti-Texas abortion lawsuit brief details many of these stories of women in crisis because the state did not offer exceptions in their cases: 2023.05.22-Zurawski-v.-Texas-1st-Am.-Ver.-Pet.-FINAL.pdf
(2) You falsely attribute the lack of abortion restrictions against elective abortion to me, when you should be directing that blame to Republicans who failed to support federal restrictions against abortion and in fact, nominated a candidate who called DeSantis six week ban âhorrible.â Abortion bans are not on the table, however the pro-abortion success rates in the polls and state ballot measures indicate that abortion-until-birth laws ARE on the table. My proposal allows for as much pro-life concessions allowed within the political constraints pushed by the anti-restriction Republicans and the pro-abortion leaning political climate.
(3) Your final paragraph demonstrates that you clearly did not even read the proposal and rushed to judgment. You claim that my proposal âdiverts focus from promoting real solutions, such as comprehensive education, accountability and fostering a culture that values life from conception.â However, my entire proposal calls for accountability against medical providers, and abortionists, who are endangering women and unborn children (especially disabled children), with various measures at various points in time. Also, did you completely skip the last section, specifically entitled, " Right to Education and Coaching on Management of Pregnancy and Parenting" ?? My proposal SPECIFICALLY calls to educate everyone about things like fetal/child development, valuing childrenâs needs and parental responsibility.
You msgâd me. I read it. Yes, all of it.
The Fed governs the States. The States govern the people.
This is a State issue. There should be nothing Fed-level regarding abortion. We need LESS Federal intervention and LESS usurping of Statesâ rights, not more.
FACTCHECK for John Albano.
The constitution, Supreme Court and federal legislators have all affirmed the constitutionality of the federal governmentâs ability to make laws regarding abortion.
In fact, even the Supreme Court specifically said that the abortion laws were up to BOTH states and âCongress.â Hereâs an excerpt:
I love this idea! We need to also make it harder for unwed people to get pregnant in the first place. It doesnt make any sense to limit birth control. If we truly want to decrease the number of abortions we need to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies. Federal protection for birth control and mandates for it in healthcare need to be made.
Dear Ashley,
I appreciate your dedication to addressing maternal healthcare and abortion legislation. However, I must respectfully AGAINâŚâŚDISAGREE with your assertions. Hereâs why:
- Medical Response in Life-Threatening Situations
While you cite cases like Amanda Zurawskiâs to highlight delays in care, itâs important to note that all states with strict abortion laws permit necessary medical treatments for conditions like miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies. A comprehensive analysis by the Charlotte Lozier Institute confirms that these laws explicitly protect the lives of pregnant women, allowing physicians to exercise their medical judgment in emergencies. ďżź
- Exceptions in Pro-Life Legislation
You mention that several pro-life states lack exceptions for rape, incest, or fatal fetal anomalies. However, many states do include such exceptions. For instance, a review by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that while some states have stringent laws, others provide exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or when the motherâs life is at risk. ďżź
- Accountability and Education
Your proposal emphasizes the need for accountability and education, which are indeed crucial. However, existing frameworks already address these aspects. FOR EXAMPLE, abstinence and condoms, people are aware of what they are and what they prevent. Another example, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) requires hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with emergency medical conditions, including pregnant women. Additionally, numerous educational programs focus on pregnancy and parenting, supported by both governmental and non-governmental organizations.
In conclusion, as I told you previously, while your concerns are valid, current systems and laws ALREADY address these issues. Redirecting resources to reinforce existing structures may be more effective than proposing new policies that might OVERLAP with current efforts.
I think you raise a valid point. Until we get everyone using the proper definition of abortion, its proponents will always be able to modify the language to suit their ends.
Response to Michael:
Regarding #1 - Yes I understand that there is misinformation about pro-life laws and that pro-life laws cover emergency care. However, a complete analysis of the facts shows you pro-life OB-GYNâs have repeatedly sought further guidance/clarification from state medical boards and medical professional agencies, and have cited the misinformation and lack of professional guidance as reasons why doctors continue to operate based on the misinformation, at the continued cost of womenâs lives and bodily injuries. The pro-abortion movement is extremely aggressive and effective with their misinformation efforts, so a law that provides even more clarity would help. I keep hoping that this situation would resolve, but the headlines keep coming. Pro-life OB-GYNâs as well as judges have said that for women like Amanda, it was medical malpractice, I keep hoping that these women and their families would seek medical malpractice lawsuits, but theyâre not. Thatâs why these doctors keep doing this, misinformation and because theyâre not being held accountable.
Regarding (2) - so you admit that not all states have rape exceptions. In fact, Texas has NO exceptions for rape and NO exceptions for fatal abnormalities, as explained and detailed in the documentation I shared. Additionally, for states that do, activists have very commonly complained that these rape and abnormality exceptions are written too vaguely and sometimes not even workable. I agree to a certain extent. Letâs help women and doctors by offering more clarity.
Regarding (3) - you apparently are backtracking. Before you said that real solutions included âcomprehensive education, accountability, and fostering a culture that values life from conception.â You appear to be back-tracking and are now trashing that crucial component of my proposal now that you see that it specifically calls for all of those things.
You said, âRedirecting resources to reinforce existing structures may be more effective than proposing new policies that might OVERLAP with current efforts.â However, my proposal does âreinforceâ existing protections, by clarifying exceptions, calling for medical accountability and spreading more awareness about all relative subtopics and womenâs options/medical rights. Thatâs the whole point.
Dear Ashley,
There is no doubt that I see your point, again youâre missing my point.
And while I admire your passion, your approach here does more to highlight unproductive back-and-forth exchanges than foster genuine progress. Your insistence on negating my points and reframing them to fit your narrative reflects a defensive and counterproductive mindset, which undermines the credibility of your proposal. Shrugs shoulders. But since you care to keep arguing let me break this down even further to shut your ass up.
- Medical Malpractice and Clarification of Laws
You repeatedly cite cases like Amanda Zurawskiâs to emphasize misinformation and lack of clarity in pro-life laws. However, these examples are primarily cases of medical malpractice, as you yourself acknowledge. Medical boards and professional associationsânot legislationâare responsible for addressing these issues. The laws in question are clear enough for professionals willing to act within their scope of practice. Your focus on legislating further clarity ignores the root cause: a failure of medical accountability and professional ethics.
The irony is apparent: you demand redundant legislative clarity while failing to hold the actual perpetratorsânegligent doctorsâaccountable. This diversion of focus not only wastes resources but reinforces the very problem you claim to address.
- Rape and Fatal Abnormality Exceptions
Your continued emphasis on Texas and vague exceptions reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of political feasibility and legislative nuance. Activists often misuse cases of rare exceptions to skew public opinion, and it appears youâve fallen prey to this strategy. Instead of acknowledging that these laws function effectively for the vast majority, you magnify fringe cases to undermine broader efforts.
The reality is this: no law can foresee and address every conceivable scenario with perfect specificity. You fail to recognize that exceptions like rape and fatal anomalies are addressed case-by-case to preserve legislative integrity. Your call for over-specification doesnât solve the problemâit complicates it unnecessarily.
- Backtracking or Misrepresentation?
Itâs disingenuous to suggest Iâm backtracking. My critique of your proposal isnât about rejecting accountability or education; itâs about pointing out the redundancy in your plan. Existing structures already address these concerns effectively, and your refusal to acknowledge this shows an unwillingness to engage constructively.
Instead of reinforcing clarity or accountability, you have focused on arguing for the sake of argument. Proposing a new policy just to reiterate existing laws is not only inefficient but indicative of a fundamental lack of understanding of policymaking.
Final Thoughts
Your conduct throughout this exchange has veered into unprofessional territory. Constantly labeling opinions you disagree with, reframing my arguments to suit your rebuttals, and insisting on perpetual debate serves no purpose other than to inflate your own sense of relevance in this discussion. Grow up. What are you 14 years old?
The truth is simple: if your goal were truly about fostering positive change, you wouldnât waste energy arguing endlessly on this platform. Instead, youâd focus on collaboration, compromise, and advancing actionable solutionsânot rehashing redundant proposals.
At this point, your insistence on continuing this conversation appears less about progress and more about asserting dominance in a debate. This is neither productive nor professional. I will not approve of your proposal, not because I donât value maternal healthcare, but because your approach defeats the very purpose of MEANINGFUL reform.
If youâre serious about making a difference, I suggest focusing your efforts on areas where genuine change can occur rather than rehashing points already addressed by existing laws and systems. Until then, this dialogue serves no further purpose. SO MOVE ON TO SOMEONE ELSE
Regards,
Michael
@AshleyLuna I appreciate the time, effort and detail in this proposal. I also like the education portion. My opinion has always been that education is the key to reducing abortions. Not restrictive bans that force births and can result in high numbers of children who spend their childhood unwanted or uncared for.
I appreciate the quite comprehensive nature of your education proposal and I appreciate that you specified this education should be non-ideological. One question that I had was in regards to education on contraception. I might have missed it but I donât recall seeing contraception as a topic for education. I am curious as to the intention behind that. Was this intentional? An over site? Deemed unnecessary?
Thanks!
Thank you. Contraception and sex education about contraception falls outside the scope/focus of my already detailed proposal. My focus is on improving care for existing pregnancies and defending the lives of already existing childrenâŚ
In addition, the GOP is shifting left when it comes to access to contraception and it doesnât seem as urgent as the other issues affecting pregnant women from my proposal. I think it would be more effective to discuss contraception-related issues in its own separate, dedicated proposal/forum.
Excellent. I appreciate the clarification. You got my vote.
Response to Michael:
You continue to fill your opposing remarks with willful dishonesty and condescension.
First of all, I am not âpassionate.â My opposition to fetal genocide, and the marginalization, medical abuse and killing of pregnant women/mothers and women, is not based in âpassion.â Itâs common decency.
Itâs perplexing that you would go OUT OF YOUR WAY to belittle and dismiss a proposal, (to squash my policyâs efforts to save as many lives as possible and defeat dangerous misinformation) without articulating your actual basis, other than a slew of dishonest remarks and willfully ignoring all facts, willfully ignoring the testimony of doctors and injured and traumatized women, and the stories of women who died. Existing state laws were not enough to protect them. At this point, when you remove the dishonest attacks from your posts, I donât even know what your actual concern is. It seems more like your dishonest attacks is a smokescreen for a different agenda that has nothing to do with concerns for pregnant women.
Itâs also so weird that first you say that a good policy would be âRedirecting resources to reinforce existing structures may be more effectiveâ, and âpromoting real solutions, such as comprehensive education, accountability, and fostering a culture that values life from conceptionâ and essentially say the law should only address situations that arenât already covered by the medical/legal system⌠But then when I point out, that thatâs EXACTLY what my proposal does, (in addition to explaining examples that my proposal covers that the states donât cover,) you then back-track and make up something new.
Contrary to your new lie you just said, cases like rape/incest and fatal fetal abnormalities are NOT being evaluated on a âcase by caseâ basis for the majority of the time in these pro-life states⌠because for the majority of these women seeking abortion in pro-life states, the lack of exceptions causes the doctors to simply deny access to abortion, or force them to go out of state. You would know that if you stopped ignoring womenâs voices and the inconvenient facts. I donât like hearing about these facts either. I am not the one who put those cases on blast; the Democrats and the abortion activists did. Donât kill the messenger.
Demâs and abortion activists have successfully used these examples/headlines to get just enough support to pass abortion-until-birth in many states and they will not stop until they do so in all 50 states via ballot measures, or a federal law in the future. This proposal attempts to stop them from using these extreme examples to pass their extreme laws.
I also decline to accommodate your demand to forfeit my free speech. If youâre going to graffiti this feed with condescending, dishonest attacks on it, then be ready to defend those stances with facts.
Dear Ashley,
Your persistent engagement on this matter, despite comprehensive explanations and evidence provided, is perplexing. To address your concerns definitively, I present the following sourced information:
- Existing Protections for Maternal Health
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) mandates that hospitals provide emergency medical screening and stabilizing treatment to all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. This includes pregnant women experiencing emergency medical conditions. ďżź
- State Exceptions for Rape and Incest
While itâs true that not all states include exceptions for rape or incest in their abortion bans, several do. For instance, Georgia, Idaho, and Mississippi have provisions allowing abortions in cases of rape, though they may require a police report. ďżź
- Addressing Misinformation
The dissemination of misinformation can lead to confusion among both patients and healthcare providers. However, existing laws like EMTALA are designed to ensure that necessary medical care is provided in emergencies, including those involving pregnancy complications. Healthcare providers are expected to be familiar with these laws to deliver appropriate care.
Conclusion
Your proposal appears to duplicate protections already established by federal and state laws. Continuing to argue this point without acknowledging the existing legal framework is unproductive. I encourage you to direct your efforts toward areas where genuine gaps exist, rather than reiterating concerns that have been comprehensively addressed.
If you need more sources or examples to understand the abundance of existing laws and resources addressing these rare exceptionsârape, danger to the motherâs life, or fatal abnormalitiesâIâd be happy to provide them. Iâve given you a short list of resources. But thereâs a lot more where that came from.
Youâre free to continue using your freedom of speech 
to advocate for redundant policies, but letâs be honest: the real issue driving the abortion debate isnât these rare circumstances but the broader problem of adults engaging in sex without accepting responsibility for the consequences. Letâs not lose sight of that truth.
Certainly, here are additional resources detailing existing laws and policies that address exceptions for rape, incest, and threats to the motherâs life:
- KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation): âA Closer Look at Rape and Incest Exceptions in States with Abortion Bans and Early Gestational Restrictionsâ
- KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation): âA Review of Exceptions in State Abortion Bans: Implications for the Provision of Abortion Servicesâ
- PolitiFact: âAll abortion bans include exceptions for a motherâs life. But thereâs nuance.â
- KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation): âPolicy Tracker: Exceptions to State Abortion Bans and Early Gestational Limitsâ
- ABC News: âA state-by-state breakdown of where abortion stands after ballot initiativesâ
- Poynter: â15 states with new or impending abortion limits have no exceptions for rape, incestâ
- ABC News: âWhere abortion stands in your state: A state-by-state breakdown of abortion lawsâ
- PolitiFact: âHow state abortion laws changed after the Dobbs decision reversed Roe v. Wadeâ
- Yahoo News: âRape and incest exceptions: How do they work in state abortion bans?â
- WUSF Public Media: âMany state abortion bans include exceptions for rape. How often are they granted?â
://www.cms.gov/priorities/your-patient-rights/emergency-room-rights
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2814274
Best regards,
Michael
Hi Ashley,
Clearly a very detailed and well thought out proposal. My first point is that we are already seeing the Covid shotâs harmful impacts on unborn babies and infants. This is a subject that is going to strongly play into the abortion/pro-life discussion in the near future. Unborn children with severe physical defects may not be wanted by the parents thus I expect the abortion rate will soar.
My second point addresses your proposal that the government should fund adoptions and the birth mother be given visiting rights. As a 14 year old I gave birth to a daughter. I did not know if she was my step-fathers (rape) or my boyfriends child. I did not know for 18 years because I gave her up for adoption at birth. The adoption was handeled by a free clinic back in the 70s. The adopting family paid for medical and adopting costs. I wanted my child to have real parents, a stable home. I was urged to have an abortion but elected not to. Eighteen years later my daughter, myself, her biological dad, her adopted family and the counselor who arranged the adoption were reunited. I tell you this because I do not believe giving a birth mother visitation rights is beneficial to anyone involved. It will cause much heart ache, insecurity, confusion and even hinder the childs ability to bond with any of the parents and siblings. It is best for all involved to wait till the child is emotionally mature before the biological parents comes into the picture.