In the current environment your idea which I agree with doesn’t have a chance. That’s why we must attack the problem in the states where the Dobbs decision has placed it . We must first win the hearts and minds of the people. Those who favour this grissly process have had years to corrupt and harden the etics of the people.We need to get to work at the local level to bring compassion into the hearts of our fellow citizens
Foster parents are often paid to foster children, too. Adoptive parents typically have to pay thousands of dollars to adopt non-foster children (usually babies) though, even if they are adopting a special needs child.
They looked at the 14th amendment when they made their decission
And the Supreme Court said that the constitution does not grant a right to abortion. But that’s it.
The Supreme Court did not say that federal legislators can’t make laws about it. They did NOT say only states can do this. They said it’s up to “elected lawmakers” from both “states” and “Congress” to make these laws (actual words that Supreme Court justices said).
The 14th amendment allows the federal government to make laws regarding regulation of inter-state commerce and regarding protections for a person’s “life, liberty or property.” Abortion is an issue involving inter-state commerce, just like many other issues that the federal government has enacted laws and regulations for.
The Supreme Court also “looked at the 14th amendment” when they affirmed the constitutionality of Obamacare and for EMTALA (a law requiring hospitals to stabilize pregnant patients experiencing emergencies). Republicans swore up and down that these laws were anti-states rights/unconstitutional, but Trump’s conservative majority Supreme Court upheld these laws.
The reality is that the Federal legislators are not going to touch this subject
1 Like
I admire your thoroughness and dedication to proposing a solution for this contentious public policy and so support your effort. You reached out to me for engagement, but it’s not an issue I want to invest time on due to being spread thin already. I’m very glad you’re doing it though. My opinions can be described as shallow and not offering solutions, but for what it’s worth: 1) I don’t know of a safe and 100% effective birth control method I’ve ever wanted to use, and if other women feel the same, that’s the crux of the problem. 2) Abortion is/has been widely used as a general form of birth control for unwanted pregnancies due to widespread casual sex in our culture, which is unacceptable. 3) It is not ethical to force people who believe abortion is murder to pay for it. 4) I support the legalities being in the hands of state voters over the federal level. 5) I support men taking a back seat and women taking the lead on this.
Thanks for your feedback. Just a quick response, to be clear on one thing, regarding what you said for #3.
To be clear, this proposal does NOT “force people who believe abortion is murder to pay for it.” The pro-life community does not even consider a D & C an “abortion” if it’s done for the purpose of saving the woman’s life.
In addition, regarding severe/fatal fetal abnormalities: * Under the United States Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), “three circumstances under which treatment would not be “medically indicated” for a neonate include: (1) the infant is chronically and irreversibly comatose; (2) the provision of such treatment would merely prolong dying, not be effective in ameliorating or correcting all of the infant’s life-threatening conditions, or otherwise be futile in terms of the survival of the infant; or (3) the provision of such treatment would be virtually futile in terms of the survival of the infant, and the treatment itself under such circumstances would be inhumane.16 The standard of judgment espoused in the regulations is the treating physician’s ‘reasonable medical judgment.’” End-of-Life Decision Making for Unborn and Newborn Infants | Carlton Fields
So, once again, this bill does NOT fund elective abortions or compel providers to provide elective abortions.
This bill DOES prioritize the lives of both women and babies, in the most effective way I could think of, within the bounds of Trump’s commitment to no bans or interference with “states rights.”
Coalition of medical professionals combats lies with Women’s Healthcare Declaration (liveaction.org)
I very much appreciate what Ashley has put together here.
She and I are having a discussion on a similar topic here: Decentralization of Abortion Regulations to the County Level - #7 by donttreadonme
I also summarize her policy proposal there as well. Given her blessing it may be an easier, more concise way to gauge her policy proposal.
1 Like
I would add that a test revealing Downs syndrome should allow the woman to abort the fetus. All severe mental disabilities eventually become financial burdens on the state. If the parent can support the severely mentally disabled child (and wants to) they can certainly have the choice to raise that child but the option while still a fetus to abort should be allowed.
Abortion, like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is an evergreen issue. It will always be debated and fought over and for both sides of the aisle, it is a fantastic fundraiser. Morning after pills should be legal in all states and nobody should be fighting over their access since they prevent zygote attachment and prevent the need for abortion. The foster care system is overloaded with unwanted children and bringing more children into a situation where they are unwanted and often mistreated is no better. Parents wanting to adopt may be on a waiting list but only for certain babies of specific races if you know what I mean. Few are requesting a child from a severely drug addicted mother because the child can have all kinds of mental and physical issues. People who say no abortions in any situation and those who say no restrictions in any situation will never come together, sadly. In the end, there will always be abortions, whether or not they are legal. We can’t become a Taliban nation where all women are subjugated and all behaviors must fall under the dictates of religious zealots. I tend to lean Libertarian and the less laws, the better. Two rules to live by: Do all you say you will do(honor your contracts/agreements) and don’t tresspass upon another person or their property. Seems to me that we as a nation have swayed too deeply in tresspassing upon other people. I see no end to the arguing because the argument is religious based. I appreciate your effort to find a middle ground but for the zealots, there is no middle ground.
Hi Ken,
I didn’t include a specific statement about severe developmental abnormalities because I personally view those as the fetus not being viable. Some would cause the child to die prior to birth and some the child can be born but dies soonafter.
I do admittedly struggle with Trisomy 21 because the child will live but if there are any comorbidities, then it’s with little quality of life and to your point, enormous strain on the family and potentially the state. You’d also have to take into consideration families who planned a pregnancy who could afford a healthy child but wouldn’t be able to afford to have a child with a lifelong condition requiring medical support.
I feel that Trisomy 21 and other conditions in which a child would live but with permanent disabilities be left out of federal law and be left to the states. My hope would be for a federal law that establishes a framework that the states can add to at the local level.
1 Like
FACTCHECK on Ken’s post:
-Tests for Down Syndrome often have false positives. It cannot be diagnosed until 15-18 weeks with detailed ultrasound examinations, and a direct blood test for the child.
-There are plenty of families willing to adopt special needs children, including children born to drug addicted mothers. In fact, many families SPECIFICALLY seek to adopt children with Down Syndrome.
-Yes, special needs children require extra personal and medical attention, however our society is already well equipped to cover those medical needs.
-There are waitlists out the door for babies of ALL races.
-Just because a woman seeks an abortion doesn’t make her an unfit mother. There are no significant parenting differences between women with unwanted pregnancies who were rejected for abortion versus women with unwanted pregnancies who never sought one.
-Opposition to abortion is rooted in opposition to violence against innocent, vulnerable people. Pro-life is not rooted in religion, although religion is often rooted in a value for life. I AM AN ATHEIST and the existence of atheist groups like “Secular Pro-Life” proves that you don’t have to be believe in God to oppose fetal genocide/violence.
-Access to abortion has not improved women’s lives; it’s the total opposite. Access to abortion has caused an increase of irresponsible sex, which in turn led to a country with high rates of men exploiting women’s bodies without taking responsibility, abortion coercion and absent fatherhood. Lack of fatherly responsibility/support/involvement is a root cause of our biggest social problems, mental health problems and racial/class inequities.
-Of course abortion will always be debated, however, in the least, here’s what THIS proposal would accomplish:
-Democrats & pro-choicers would stop accusing pro-lifers of killing women or forcing rape victims and women pregnant with severe abnormalities from having to undergo a pregnancy that they feel is traumatic
-Democrats wouldn’t be able to use misinformation about abortion to get votes
-Republicans & pro-lifers wouldn’t be able to argue about abortion-until-birth, fetal pain or post-birth infanticide, or the lack of informed consent.
Both sides will continue to fight for their cause )and I for one, advocate for 15 week federal restrictions) but this proposal would soften the polarization and stop politicians from either side, from being able to use abortion as an effective wedge issue, again.
1 Like
Again, while this proposal will not end the debate, it will take away the most polarizing arguments about abortion from the shelf.
As long as this proposal is passed and active, then everyone can refocus on all important issues, instead of the more extreme & rare cases distracting us.
I’m so tired of the Dems always screaming about ABORTION, ABORTION, ABORTION. We don’t want abortion; I wish they would just offer better policies instead.
1 Like
Preeclampsia/eclampsia that’s severe enough to necessitate immediately ending a pregnancy is almost always a late 2nd trimester or 3rd trimester issue. Treatment in this situation would be to deliver the baby alive, as this timeframe clearly intersects age of viability.
In your second example of a car accident, if the baby is alive, treatment generally attempts to bring pregnancy to completion while also keeping mother healthy. If PROM happens & fetus is alive, you treat the mother, protect against infection/treat any issues that arise, and wait. Sometimes the membranes heal and the pregnancy continues to term (or age of viability). Sometimes the membranes will not reseal, but with medical support the pregnancy can continue until the baby is potentially viable. And sometimes, especially in earlier gestational ages, the fetus subsequently dies and the treatment at that point isn’t an abortion.
Placental abruption with a live fetus may require premature delivery or may be controlled & the pregnancy continue, depending on the circumstances. Treating a placental abruption that presents with a dead fetus isn’t an abortion, so there shouldn’t be any confusion there.
In your previous post, you mentioned placental abruptions as a reason for abortion to save a woman’s life. However, typically, placental size correlates to fetal size and gestational age. If the placental site is large enough that a complete or partial abruption would threaten the mother’s life, that means the pregnancy is usually advanced enough for the baby to be viable or potentially viable. So you deliver the baby.
You also mentioned ectopic or molar pregnancies as another possible reason to abort for mother’s health. An ectopic pregnancy is never viable, and it poses a severe threat to the life of the mother. There is zero chance that a living fetus can survive this situation-- both it and the mother will die if left untreated. Clearly this mandates saving the mother by removing the fetus.
In a full hydatidiform molar pregnancy, NO fetus is present. So, clearly, the necessary treatment isn’t an abortion. No issues there.
In a partial molar pregnancy, a fetus is present. It’s an extremely rare occurance, so there’s very little data to go on here. However, it’s generally accepted that most such fetuses don’t survive. It’s believed that molar pregnancies occur when 2 sperm fertilize 1 egg, meaning that the pregnancy (both placenta and fetus) develops abnormally because of the presence of too many chromosomes. Most often, the pregnancy terminates without intervention, due to that abnormal development. A follow-up D&C may be advisable to insure removal of all molar tissue. But again, that’s not an abortion.
If a fetus is alive and copresent with a partial mole, genetic testing, ultrasounds, etc, can be used to determine if the fetus has chromosomal abnormalities & the extent of those issues. Most will have serious abnormalities, due to having 69 chromosomes instead of the normal 46. At that point, it would fall under the author’s exclusions for severe/non-viable fetal abnormalities, and the mother could legally choose abortion even if beyond a particular state’s gestational age restrictions.
Only in the most rare of already extremely rare instances is a genetically normal fetus present along with a partial mole. Those fetuses are most frequently born pre-term due to placental malformations/chaotic (over)growth of the molar tissue. But there are a few case studies that describe situations where the fetus was viable & did survive.
That could make this ONE thing you mentioned a bit of a gray area, because molar pregnancy may create issues for the mother that could threaten her life. It doesn’t always, but the possibility exists.
I personally had a complete molar pregnancy decades ago, before ultrasound was used in every pregnancy. It went undiagnosed until ~15 weeks gestation, & I had a D&C at 16 weeks. I subsequently had 3 normal, term pregnancies resulting in 3 normal healthy babies, and I’m post-menopausal now and still have my healthy uterus. The scientific literature that exists on molar pregnancies confirms that many women who have molar pregnancies of EITHER type can go on to have future normal pregnancies. So no, from personal experience, all molar pregnancies do not threaten the mother’s life, nor even her future reproductive capability. As such, a molar pregnancy wouldn’t and shouldn’t constitute a good reason to recommend abortion in all cases where there’s a living fetus.
In the case of a living, chromosomally normal infant co-present with a partial mole, the unique & ongoing parameters of that particular mother & fetus’ situation would have to dictate the treatment. And as previously mentioned, this is an EXTREMELY rare situation. It’s not a situation that will arise frequently, even amongst a population as large as that of the U.S.
We mustn’t have a federal law protecting anything. I’ll be frank. The federal government f#$ks up everything they touch. The last thing we need is more federal involvement in anything.
The 10th Amendment is clear. If it’s not in the Constitution (abortion, and all healthcare for that matter, isn’t) then it’s reserved for the states, or the people.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The last thing we need is a new .gov Department of Abortion regulating every aspect of human reproduction. I think these proposals would be of better utility enacted at the state level, as opposed to creating yet another massive federal bureaucracy.
1 Like
The 14th amendment is also clear.
The 14th amendment allows the federal government to regulate inter-state commerce, and also to 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.
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 Cavanaugh’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.
So you want to penalize a child for life. Then the boy or in most of these cases men who caused the pregnancy need to be penalized too.
I agree with most everything you said and think there is a lot of good research here with great points to consider. However, you have included a lot of proposed line items for this bill. So many things I would guarantee everyone in Congress will disagree with one thing or another. I would suggest slim down line items to absolute mandatory items and then a seperate bill for amendments later on. I think we need to agree with the basics of when abortion is ok (I’m ok with 20 weeks) as Dems will want more than 15 weeks or else its a no go and then how will it be done humanely without pain. Pain is the factor that will sway Republicans because if there is pain felt they will be against it. If no pain, they will be more amenable to it. Just a suggestion to consider. This is well written and thank you for the added information given.
1 Like
True. Thank you. If considered, it would likely be split into several stand-alone bills.
I decided to include all of these ideas together in one proposal, because they compliment each other as a package, and I wanted to ensure that whoever reads it doesn’t miss a crucial part of the package.
(Democrats want abortion until birth. They won’t compromise at all or support any bipartisan bill.)
Trump said that he will not sign an abortion ban, so a ban is off the table this time. However, I hope that we can keep a path open so that the next GOP presidential nominee will consider a reasonable restriction against late term abortion, such as 15 weeks.