Abortion is murder. No exceptions.
The 10th Amendment does not assign medical laws as Federal responsibility. I suggest this would override the states ability. By providing conditions when abortion should be performed it removes a states right to make the practice illegal. That is a states right.
The only way to fix that would be to add verbiage to the proposal that eliminates the application of this bill to any state that does not permit the practice.
The constitution does NOT outright exclude âmedical lawsâ from the Federal responsibility. Trump may have found that out after losing his attempts to repeal the ACA at the Supreme Court.
Federal regulations exist for many aspects of âmedical care,â often on the basis of their right to regulate inter-state commerce, and also to protect a PERSONâS constitutional 14th amendment protected right to âlife, liberty or property.â
Regardless, my proposal is desired, the Trump administration can work with lawyers to craft the law in the most legally sound way.
The Womenâs Health Protection Act seeks to codify Roe v. Wadeâs abortion rights | Vox
The 10th is the basis for kicking it back to the states. The founders were clearly trying to prevent the federal government from becoming what it has become and needs to be contained. Good luck with your proposal, I will be against it.
1 Like
Well written, well laid out argument/ policy.
You have brought to light one particular circumstance that I had failed to consider; a pregnancy where the fetus is not viable and is now actually killing the mother. If we are medically sure that the fetus is not going to make it, and the mother is in danger of losing her life; do we not try to save at least one of those lives? I say we do.
That was eye opening for me.
But what also caught my attention was this:
âRequire Medicaid and medical insurance companies to cover the cost of legal, medically-indicated abortion/miscarriage care services that meet the federal exception; (it would NOT fund elective abortion) â
Iâve seen this verbiage before about NOT funding an elective procedure, in fact Iâve seen it mentioned when it comes to outlawing tax-payer funded abortions ⌠and yet⌠it HAS happened and it CONTINUES to happen. As with most laws that certain political stripes donât like; they are completely ignored/ broken. What mechanism do we have besides the current recourse (essentially sternly worded letters of protest) do we have to ENSURE funding is not provided against the rules and laws passed on the subject?
Id like you to realize that most who object to any movement in the direction of making abortions legal comes NOT just from religious convictions, but also from those who have been lied to about using tax payer funding, and thus have become so jaded the default is; âNo Abortion, period, because we cannot trust that our money is NOT being used to that end against our wishesâ. The people are tired of being lied to by our government, and NOT just on this subject. Donât be surprised if you find a lot of flat out ânoâ responses based on this distrust. The premise of this distrust is due to programs and policies being implemented that promise to âonly go so farâ and end up being abused. Programs of which you speak can easily be taken from an âinchâ to a âmileâ; the people know this, which is why so many are not budging.
And while, your âAccountability for Medical Providersâ section is very comprehensive in covering the subject of punishment for NOT providing an abortion for medical health reasons like the one I cited above, it really doesnât address the use (misuse) of funds for providers conducting elective abortions using insurance or tax payer funds. This is the show stopper for me; collective pots of money -be it insurance repositories or tax payer funds- absolutely should NOT be used for elective procedures. While I do understand there are medical needs to conduct these procedures and am fine with collective pots of money being used to save a life, they should NEVER be used for elective abortions. Collective funds should be used within the narrowest and strictest confines of health of the mother and any abuse of said funds for electives needs punishment that guarantees they will not reoccur.
In fact, Iâve seen where you responded to one participant who said essentially what Iâve said; no tax payer money for elective abortions, and you stated; âThis bill would not fund infanticide and offers strong protections against feticide and post-birth infanticide for viable babies-born-alive likely to survive.â Iâm really not a fan of âstrong protectionsâ⌠thatâs akin to âstrongly worded letters of protestâ. âProtectionsâ have NOT stopped this type of âillegalâ funding in the past. There needs to be the magic word; âpunishmentâ in order to make it a viable control mechanism. I know youâve mentioned steering clear of such heavy handedness in order to avoid fears within the medical community of being unfairly punished, but there needs to be some teeth in the bill or we stand on more slippery slopes created by slick lawfare and weasel work-arounds. Very clear verbiage including such phrases as âSHALL NOTâ needs to be included.
Last, not quite sure where this fits into an abortion issue; âCommit to policies and regulations to help protect disabled and seniors from abuse and neglect.â I can understand perhaps the disabled being covered but are seniors getting impregnated in nursing homes? Not being flippant or funny but if this is an issue we really are in trouble. And if true, I would not be shocked; these days Iâm often angered but never shocked by what is happening.
Again, well written and though out, and youâve moved me from âneverâ to âthere are exceptionsâ but unless you can guarantee that this is narrowly scoped and NO COLLECTIVE FUNDS ARE USED FOR AN ELECTIVE procedure, with some enforcement behind it; Iâll hold my vote.
-Andrew Calverase
Thanks, Andrew. Good news! While I assumed that it was obvious that this law should ensure that people donât use funds for elective abortions (and indeed I did put that it is NOT for elective abortions and even mentioned later on in the proposal that "only people actually performing/supplying an illegal abortion or falsifying information should face criminal penalties)⌠per your feedback, I have added additional language to make it abundantly clear.
In the section about âRight to Maternal Healthcare,â where it says âThe law willâŚâ I added this: (The law willâŚ)
"- Guarantee this narrow scope for funding and that NO COLLECTIVE FUNDS ARE USED FOR AN ELECTIVE procedure;
- Require the medical/abortion provider to maintain applicable documentation on file as part of his/her certification of the patientâs qualification for the federal medical exemption;
- Allow charges of fraud against those who purposefully falsify medical records to qualify for an exemption."
How do you like that? Since I have made the changes that you conditioned your approval on, may I please have your vote?
That statement about being states-only is widely disputed, including among BOTH pro-life leaders, and the pro-abortion movement, and the Democrats certainly have no qualms about ramming their abortion-until-birth bill through.
The 14th amendment has allowed many other federal laws to pass regulating the medical and insurance industry, and applies here, too. You guys are the same people who claimed the ACA was unconstitutional, but Trumpâs ultra conservative Supreme Court disagreed.
Besides, the states-only argument related to abortion bans, and this is not an abortion ban.
Read Federalist 45.
Original intent is well laid out.
The fact remains that your interpretation of the constitution will not stop legislators from being able to pass laws on abortion (whether itâs pro-life, pro-abortion or otherwise) and, if sued, the Supreme Court would have the ultimate, final word on this and they havenât always agreed with the Republicansâ interpretation of states rights/constitutionality. Another example, in addition to their pro-ACA decisions: the Supreme Court recently affirmed that the federal EMTALA law on abortion as applicable to hospitals in Idaho, despite protests by pro-lifers (who worried that EMTALA would force emergency doctors to perform elective abortions).
You just donât understand my objection. I will never support any law that is not in line with the founders clearly laid out reasoning in the Federalist papers. You will just have to go get support from the rest of the âlivingâ document crowd.
1 Like
Our fundamental difference lies in our priorities. I prioritize common sense solutions to these huge, human rights issues, to avoid the harm caused and improve our lives. If you prioritize your strict interpretation of these papers, then our arguments will never cross paths.
You put in the work⌠Ill vote âŚbut Im still a bit uneasy about it⌠Ending a life⌠no matter the justification⌠is not an easy thing.
Also⌠I asked about the âsenior/ assisted livingâ comments⌠(âCommit to policies and regulations to help protect disabled and seniors from abuse and neglect.â) was wondering what that was about?
Oh, ok: Women pregnant with a baby with a major abnormality, such as Down Syndrome, might feel immense fear and anxiety about choosing life for their child, because they feel they donât have all the resources to do so, and on top of that, our biggest fear is that when we die, we will leave our young, grown adult son/daughter alone and dependent on an abusive, neglectful system. If the disability is moderate to severe, that young adult is extremely vulnerable and will not be able to live independently and may have to live in a lonely, potentially abusive/neglectful group home. Additionally, it is very stressful to manage the need to care for major disabilities anyway.
That particular section, including the remarks about group/nursing homes, is to help encourage pregnant women to feel more confident in choosing life, and to ease their fears that their child will be ok. This is important to parents of disabled children. (The needs of seniors and the disabled often overlap, so we should have a law that considers those needs simultaneously.)
2 Likes
Inevitability vs Imminence: this is one of the best parts of your proposal, as it counters one of the most vicious lies of the abortion racket (one which you have even noted in your argument in favor). When the Life of Mother Exception must be invoked, there should indeed be no need to wait once a determination is properly made that the level of harm required for such invocation is inevitable.
New facilities in âMaternal Healthcare Desertsâ: I agree in principle, but would impose a condition that no organization shall be eligible for such funding if it is or has been found to be (A) involved in the sale of human organs/parts/tissues etc. from aborted fetuses or (B) strategically positioning its facilities for reasons related to race. It is important to ensure that this does not result in more facilities for Planned Parenthood or any similar organization.
Requirement of No Funds for Elective Procedures: I fully agree.
Charges for Falsifying Records to Qualify: this should be treated as an attempted homicide (or as actual homicide in the even a non-qualifying abortion actually occurs as a result of the fraud).
Accountability for Medical Providers: This entire section makes good sense in this context. I agree.
Requirements for Dispensation of Abortion Pills: I fully agree.
Ban on Certain Abortion Methods: I fully agree.
Amendment to PBBAA: I fully agree.
Provisions to counter Born Alive Act violations: I fully agree.
Informed Consent Requirements: I agree in principle, but where practical, would extend the waiting period to somewhere in the 60 to 72 hours range. For example, if all requirements to start the clock were met on a Friday, the appointment could be made on the following Monday, providing the equivalent of a full weekend for the pregnant woman to think it over.
Abuse/Neglect Prevention for Disabled and Seniors: I agree in principle, but would include some specific provision(s) to increase safeguards against sexual abuse of these individuals.
High School Awareness Class: In principle, this is another of the best parts of this proposal. If done right, this could arm teens with the knowledge they need to see through the lies of the abortion racket before they fall into its clutches. It may, however, be necessary to offer this class in junior high / middle school to ensure maximum effectiveness (or perhaps twice: once in JH/MS but perhaps not covering all of the topics or some not to as great of an extent, the second time in HS and at a higher level).
There are also quite a few provisions present which I find concerning, but you have already effectively addressed many of them by explaining that this is meant as a response to Trumpâs reluctance to go any further. Furthermore, some of the provisions that you have indicated as Federal, I would continue to leave to the states for the time being.
Perhaps one day, someone will successfully bring a case under the 14th Amendment that ends the abortion racket once and for all.
2 Likes
I also want to add: Just briefly reading the Supreme Court Dobbs decision, they donât say that only states can legislate abortion. They say it goes back to âelected lawmakers.â In fact, Brett Cavanaugh said: âThe Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected representatives to resolve through the democratic process in the States or Congressâlike the numerous other difficult questions of American social and economic policy that the Constitution does not address. . . Dobbs just said that abortion wasnât protected by the constitution. The court did not preclude federal lawmakers from making laws.
Dobbs v. Jackson Womenâs Health Organization | Constitution Center
Duly noted. In addition to the extent of my original concurrence, I agree as to the two provisions that together ensure that each state has its medical board and its AG on the same page. I should note that some among the founders originally envisioned that the Federal government would have to step in to protect against the tyranny of the states. This seems to be related to that concept, where the Federal government would be ensuring that residents of a particular state do not get caught in a squabble between that stateâs legal and medical systems.
1 Like
TLDR, thereâs a lot here. You almost need a bullet-pointed executive summary. Hereâs the issue: We do NOT need to be accepting abortion until birth. I will state the reason after I make the caveat that medical exceptions or extreme concerns should be handled between doctor and patients, and possibly covered by insurance (in difficult cases) and that leads exactly to the next point; I keep away from trying to intercede about state guidelines for gestation, etc. Youâre liable to end up with something you donât want.
Remember thereâs a brisk market for fetal organs and those ppl become lobbyists.
Trump left it to the States, as he shouldâve.
That being said, thereâs a legal and ethical issue with anything beyond 6 mos.
Have you checked fertility rates? Weâre almost having a moot discussion because of sterility. Thatâs why theyâre harping on IVF now.
Thanks for pointing me here! Hope this helped.
1 Like
This will require an amendment to the Constitution or over turning of the Dobbs decision.
We already have the amendment in place. The 14th amendment.
1 Like
Agreed. I was adopted when I was 13. The people who adopted me really shouldnât have been allowed to (sheâs biopolar) but, the system doesnât care about such things. Anywho, my adoption cost them $2. That was it. This was back in mid-70âs by the way.