RIGHT TO MATERNAL/FETAL HEALTHCARE & EDUCATION to stabilize the abortion issue

Health
166

This doesn’t address the point I was making… I wasn’t saying we couldn’t get this passed at the federal level. I was saying we shouldn’t do that, at that level, at this time. We, as a country, aren’t ready for it; regardless of how good it could be for us.

Roe v. Wade was on the chopping block from the moment the decision was handed down. The people who got their point of view done had a Supreme Court decision guaranteeing the right to abortion on their side. That’s a whole lot stronger than a federal law and it still eventually got overturned. You pass this law, and it will simply get twisted and vilified and be used to justify that whatever party has the power should pass whatever law they can to get their point of view forced onto the American people.

I’m not hearing you talk about the 2nd and 3rd order effects of passing this at the federal level at this time. The way you talk about it is you seem to think after this becomes a federal law, the political parties and extremists on both sides are just gonna chill out, or become powerless/too weak to overturn it. Simply because a particular majority session of Congress happened to agree with it and a President signed it? That majority will change.

1 Like
167

In response to your last paragraph: This proposal is simply my attempt to solve certain problems, with common sense resolutions, within the political limitations handed to us. I also do not subscribe to a do-nothing, just-give-up kind of attitude.

As it stands, Democrats are ALREADY trying to change the federal law by trying to pass abortion-until-birth, via a federal law, state laws or ballot measures. This proposal offers Americans a second choice, and when contrasted with the Democrats’ refusal to support bipartisan measures, it will take some of the political power that their fearmongering, hate and lies have over our country, regarding abortion. It will force Democrats to offer us something better than just elective abortion.

168

I generally agree and would support the passage of this bill if it should become apparent we actually needed it at the Federal level - something I’m still on the fence about. I don’t see this as a constitutional issue at the Federal level. In my view I’ve always seen this as an issue for each state based on the desires of a state’s electorate. Over the years I’ve come to believe that abortion should never be seen as just another method of contraception. While rare, I have read of women who have had 20 or more abortions, many at taxpayer expense. I’ve also read of women being forced by their partners to carry a pregnancy to term and this abhors me as well. There doesn’t seem to be a one-size-fits-all solution to this issue which is why I prefer to leave it to the states.

169

Thanks for your feedback. A few quick pointers:

-Children are fully formed by 12 weeks gestation.

-Their personalities & relationship with their mother begin in the womb. There is nothing developmentally special about childbirth. Children can smile, and cry, in the womb. They feel the same feelings the mother has. For this reason, any toxic stress she feels can pass on to the child, causing developmental harm.

-Unborn babies are also capable of pain. There is no consensus on when that capability starts. It could be as early as 8 weeks. Many doctors say it begins 12-20 weeks. Others claim it’s 24-26 weeks.

-When they are getting dismembered, they actively resist the doctor’s attempts to harm their body (see “The Silent Scream.”)

-Scientists have found that bees are sentient, capable of feeling joy and pain. If a creature as small as a bee, who has only lived several weeks, is capable of that, just imagine what an embryo is capable of.

-There is no test for autism during pregnancy.

-The severity of Down Syndrome ranges from mild to severe, and generally it’s impossible to determine the severity until well after the child’s birth.

-I understand the concern that if there is no one available who actually has the resources to take care of a child, abortion seems like an option. I fully understand your reasoning behind an exception for major fetal abnormalities. However, just a reminder that there are still many families willing to adopt babies with disabilities, including Down Syndrome.

-The bible never claimed that unborn babies are unalive. As people we often casually cite our birthday as the beginning of our life, but that doesn’t mean we are claiming unborn are unalive. If unborn babies weren’t alive, then you wouldn’t need abortion to kill them. Just FYI, Christians & atheist pro-lifers aren’t impressed by abusing scriptures to justify fetal genocide. The only people in love with arguments like that are pro-choice people.

170

Yes, I’m aware there are no tests for autism during pregnancy. I personally believe that vaccinations contribute to the high autism rates which increase with the number of vaccines added to the CDCs horrendous vaccine schedule for children. Interestingly, the parents that abhoar abortion for any reason have no qualms about injecting their child with over 70(and increasing yearly) toxic products.
As you point out, even bees feel pain. Worms, little multi-cell organisms and such all avoid pain. But that isn’t a reason to ban abortion completely. We think nothing of stepping on a bug in the house. We tend to be selective in what is a precious life and what isn’t. I believe you stated that 15 weeks was the cut off for abortion or did I get that wrong? That sounds reasonable to me. I didn’t say that the unborn are not alive. I believe what we call a human is just a small aspect of a greater being, a higher unseen multidimensional energy. The human form is a vehicle that this higher energy uses to exist in this world like when you enter a car to get around. The car is not you. It is a vehicle that you, the consciousness, controls. While the fetus is developing, I believe this energy, some call soul, enters and exits all the time and doesn’t remain in the “driver’s seat” until birth. The abortion is not killing that energy/soul. It will find another car to drive. The termination of the fetus is not the end of soul. I am willing to find middle ground, as I’ve said, by allowing morning after pills on demand and allowing abortion up to 15 weeks but for more than just issues of threatening the mother’s health. Those against abortion should also be against the death penalty, which I’ve seen is often not the case. I believe it is still a spiritual issue in end. I am not a monster. I understand that everyone has different spiritual beliefs and that most people don’t take the choice of abortion lightly. But it will always be a choice some will take, legal or not. Another of my beliefs is that there is no “out there”, only what is within. Changing our thoughts, changes out there. When the activists push hard against abortion, they only feed the energy of abortion. They sometimes even end up attacking or(encouraging others to) those who aid these pregnant women. In other words, they cause pain or take lives. Just what they say they are against. Be well.

171

I never suggested or even implied give up or do nothing, I suggested we treat this as the protracted and ongoing transformation of the thinking of the US electorate that it is by starting with as many states as we can get on board to try it out. It’s a marathon, not a sprint. I believe the abortion topic has become more divisive than slavery was for the American people. At the federal level you have to govern for all the people, not just the cohort you can outvote the other side with. We are not a democracy, we are a bicameral republic for exactly this reason.

If a law is going to “stick” in the US, we either need to be seen as justified in the use of force (fine, imprisonment, murder) against those opposed to comply, or the passing needs to go over with more of a whimper rather than a bang. I believe we want to do as much of the latter as we can. The federal government is the last place you settle a cultural/ideological debate, not the first.

By the time the federal level actually enacted civil rights, most of the US electorate was basically demanding it be done; the cultural debate had been all but concluded. The American people had been watching the injustice go on for decades by that point and had largely made up their minds as to which way they believed the country should go. After passing, the government had to forcibly deal with a few holdouts, which wasn’t seen by the electorate as the actions of a power hungry government cabal forcing their view upon the people; it was seen as the use of power to enact the will of the people.

Far from asking you to do nothing, I was suggesting we identify a state, or several states, to be the first domino(s), then add a few more, and after some years of discussing, educating, and watching those results, enough consensus will have been built that when the federal level is flipped oppositional will power will have been drained from the American people to go against it because they will already know what they are getting and have accepted it.

And don’t forget the state constitutional amendments (maybe that’s what you meant by ballot measures). As well as threatening to end the filibuster to add more justices to the Supreme Court to do whatever they see they need to.

And if you think about it, this kind of proves my point. It’s a politically stupid idea to even suggest they will pursue these courses of action on their part.

Say they managed to succeed at any of those things at the federal level…
Have they actually won anything, or merely emboldened the tens of millions of people opposed, but now will be forced into it to fight against it even harder? All they succeed at is creating the next round of the Roe v. Wade situation.

If they did manage to get an “abortion until birth” bill passed at the federal level (which I don’t believe they actually could, but for argument’s sake let’s say they actually did), they will lose the next set of elections because it will now be a wedge issue for an opposition party. It will wake even more people up that the Democratic Party doesn’t represent them anymore.

They would celebrate and feel quite smug for a brief instant, then the country would throw a fit to undo it and they will lose, hard. That’s the 2nd and 3rd order effect of doing that. They might be able to get their bill passed, but passing that bill doesn’t settle the issue, it throws gasoline on the raging debate. Thinking that passing a bill is the solution to cultural debate problem is “authoritarian thinking”. It’s not how the US is governed. The US lives with an injustice while figuring out what to do about it, then only after having come to a cultural consensus does a federal level action stick. It’s slow, but it results in a stronger willingness to talk through our differences (even if that takes decades).

There is a reason the party in power in the Senate doesn’t just vote to end the filibuster and pass whatever legislation they feel like. It’s because the United States is a government governed by consensus, not democracy.

I am not convinced passing this policy at the federal level at this time will, as you suggest, force the Democratic Party to move away from the unadulterated pure “elective abortion whenever the woman wants because it is her body” argument.

I think it will do exactly the opposite, it will galvanize their base into feeling threatened that an outright abortion ban is next, they will double down on their rhetoric that abortion access is a right that the government/health insurance should be paying for and that if they don’t come together now to first pass a federal law and then a constitutional amendment they will those rights forever.

It will stoke the oppositional rhetoric, not quell it.

172

LIFE liberty and pursuit of happiness - LIFE IS #1 especially to the most vulnerable = the fetus. So abortion is unconstitutional. As to the ACA = you have no idea what you write about. ACA was debated NOT a tax, it was passed and argued it was tax, thus making it unconstitutional since a tax may not come from the Senate (Reid main driver) AND I have outlined in several places where Title V massively violates several Amendments in the Constitution exp ALL LAWS MUST BE APPLIED EQUALLY TO ALL PEOPLE. This whole posting is a 100% NO and further puts forth more constitutional violations = unconstitutional law. As per the constitution, all members must READ and debate bills and make notes to refer to in the event of Veto - Pelosi, “We must pass to find out what is in it.” No Federal laws regarding abortion and should be prohibited at the State level, where SCOTUS put it (Trump didn’t do it, the Supreme Court of the land did.)

BS arguments they push regarding saving mother’s life esp late term, they do a C-section! Atopic or unviable is not aborting a live fetus as there is no placental attachment for growth.

1 Like
173

abolutely poor research esp with ACA and needs to go back to understanding the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

1 Like
174

sorry typo, ACA not ASA

175

Mike, you keep falsely referring to abortion as merely an “ideological” debate. The issue addressed by this bill pertains to violence & torture against children, and medical abuse against women.

You mention a federal bill has to represent “everyone,” yet the exceptions and protections placed here are supported by the majority of Americans, according to polls. (The only part that doesn’t have majority national approval is the part about demanding that abortion pills be dispensed in person only, because polls show support for mail-order pills. However, most people are unaware that mandating in-person only dispensement is necessary to protect women’s health, to ensure the pill is given within FDA circumstances, prevent people from poisoning other women’s pregnancies, and to strengthen states’ rights to limit abortion in their state.)

I think the part Dems would be up in arms the most about, would be the high school awareness class, because they are allergic to the truth. However, within just a few years of implementation, this class would give us a new generation in support of life, just in time to counteract Dem opposition to such education.

You falsely claim that they can’t pass the WHPA (federal abortion until birth bill) but you do not speak for Congress, the Supreme Court or the pro-choice advocacy groups fighting for it. Democrats have already voted in favor of the WNBA. The ONLY thing that stopped them was that the GOP, and Manchin, voted in opposition.

You disingenuously claim to fear that my proposal would rile up the Democrats to go for a Blue Wave. Yet you express no concern or awareness for the fact that they are ALREADY doing that, and that due to their successful misinformation campaign, they are winning on that issue. They passed their state ballot measures. According to polls, support for pro-life bills has lessened. A few republicans have shied away from this issue. This is again the result of the Democrats’/pro-abortion advocates’ effective misinformation campaign. The multiple solutions in my proposal would effectively defeat that misinformation, and build back support for moderate restrictions, while still protecting women from the rampant medical abuse. Legal abortion has been around for our adult lives, and the recent headlines already uncovered what happens to our country when you let states take full reins on this issue. We need the basic safeguards offered in my proposal.

You claim to be concerned about the division of abortion. However, the “division” is caused by:
-pro-choicers DARVO pro-life women and accuse us of killing women
-pro-choicers gas-lighting women, claiming that embryos look like balls of fluff and that denying the trauma caused to abortive women
-the fact that second trimester babies are being torn apart limb by limb without pain relief
-infanticide for babies born alive
-the existence of 12 year old rape victims being denied abortion
-women fleeing their state to abort a nonviable unborn child
-women dying or almost dying because of medical abuse/malpractice.

Since this bill allows exceptions for those things, protects women from medical abuse and offers small pro-life concessions, it addresses the most polarizing, “divisive” aspects of it, with policies that are consistent with what the majority wants. Therefore, concern for division is the exact reason to support this bill.

And if Trump continues to ignore this issue, and let the headlines continue to foment, he’s overplaying his hand and we will see a Blue Wave 2-4 years from now. This proposal, again, offers Americans a second choice, to let people know that we don’t have to support abortion-until-birth to protect women.

176

These are wonderful ideas and they belong in use somewhere as perhaps policy for health care facilities or something. However, the new Republic federal government will not have any business with the health care or free choices of the people. Rules created by the government will only be FOR the government because the government doesn’t rule or reign over we the people. We the people are self governing. If we demand the level of rules or standards you are proposing here, they should apply to care givers in the medical field. The tyranical government of our past has trained us to think that we should seek to pass laws to govern every aspect of our world & that is passing away to be replaced with the will of the people.

1 Like
177

Abortion ends the child’s life. They will not return to another body. That’s why it’s terrible.

I’m pro-life and that means believing that no parent has a right to force their deadly, violent beliefs into an innocent child.

178

Yet, Republican claims about the ACA and EMTALA being unconstitutional were proven wrong. There are many federal regulations about medical care & abortion right now, in effect. Anyone who was proven wrong about a law’s constitutionality, from the Supreme Court, loses the credibility to tell anyone that a related bill is “unconstitutional.”

179

#1- you asked my opinion as an expert and I gave you law fact; #2 - you are claiming “name” calling of Republicans which is not critical thinking and your writing is classic of accuse of what you are guilty of. I cited only few example of the actual Constitutional that you cannot defend. No to all your writing. The ACA was argued before the court to be shown as a tax. Do not argue that which you cannot defend with fact. Read the Constitution and then prove you have read Title V of ACA - you did not even mention. How much of actual ACA have you even read? Scotus ruling over turning Roe vs Wade is State level and needs to remain State level. You are not even arguing specific legal points. Illegal regulations are unconstitutional and you have not even touched the Chevron ruling which shows unconstitutionality of regulations. Emotional statements are not debate. I will reinforce, your writings do not uphold any Constitutional validity.

1 Like
180

Rose: false. And your false statements undermine your credibility.

The Supreme Court decision NEVER stated that abortion was a “states only” decision now. In fact, they literally said it is now up to “lawmakers” from BOTH “states” and “CONGRESS.”

And again, in spite of republicans swearing up and down that a federal law they disliked was unconstitutional, Trump’s conservative majority proved you wrong. Also if u were right to challenge the constitutionality to medical or abortion related federal laws, then you would also have to throw out many other federal regulations in effect RIGHT NOW.

You also falsely accused me of expressing emotionality without evidence, as all I did was state facts, and my response to your remarks. I have noticed that you “states-rights” only people are quite touchy, though.

You also falsely assert yourself as someone who determines the legality or feasibility of a federal law. Both Republicans AND Democrats, pro-lifers AND pro-choicers have not only determined the legality/feasibility/constitutionality of abortion related federal laws, they have actively proposed and voted on them in Congress.

I have also previously explained, in detail, how the 14th amendment’s clause about “inter-state commerce” and about every person’s right to “life, liberty & property” makes this proposal constitutional.

Bottom line: Your opinion about federal laws and the constitutionality of medical/abortion related federal laws is merely your personal opinion. And the current human rights crisis going on necessitates federal intervention.

181

1- LIFE libery and the pursuit of happiness = not addressed
2- mixing laws you are not versed on, specifically you keep writing about the ACA and showing ignorance if you have not even read = not addressed
3- 14th Amendment 4th Amhavendment extended liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people - a fetus is an enslaved person - one without autonomy and controlled by another individual: who deserves Rights including the Right to not be tortured, murdered and to be well fed-cared for.
Your arguments are emotional. If you cannot stand people to disagree wiht you, do not do debate forums or ask opinions of experts. Done.

182

My points still stand. And it’s you making up things, including your baseless accusation of my “emotionality.” You continue to undermine your credibility.

I’m no expert either. I only know enough to know that your assertions are based on an opinion only, not established facts.

If you cannot stand two-way conversations, or responses to your opinions from the OP, you are free not to participate in one.

183

Be that as it may, it won’t be talked about that way in the cultural media landscape.
Objectivity and honesty aren’t the qualities for how these bills get represented and discussed.
Consider the “Don’t say Gay” bill in Florida. That rhetoric completely mischaracterizes the bill. This bill likewise be mischaracterized. I believe it will be characterized as “this bill is their first step toward a complete abortion ban, it that harms women and destroys their choice, and it must be stopped”. It doesn’t matter what the bill actually does.

No I didn’t, I said when you pass legislation you have to consider how it is going to be reacted to. It’s not the same thing.

Lots of legislation gets passed all the time that most of the American people disagree with. The question is what will “stick” legislatively and what will become a back and forth power struggle.

You claim this will lower the temperature of the American people because they basically agree with you on the policy. I’m saying the exact opposite will happen because the powers within the Democratic Party will activate to twist people’s minds around and vilify this bill because they can’t afford to lose abortion as a wedge issue. They aren’t trying to help the American people, they are trying to win power. They lose on this issue, and they have nothing left - therefore they also have nothing left to lose over this. I hope you consider a group of wealthy and empowered people (which they are) with nothing to lose are a very dangerous thing?

No, they will be up in arms about the fact someone besides them passed a bill regarding abortion at the federal level. They don’t care what the bill actually says or does.

And I don’t speak for the President. Which God willing is Trump with the veto power.
And I don’t speak for all the pro-life advocacy groups.

I didn’t say they couldn’t get it passed, I said I don’t believe they can. I am looking at the forces at play and making odds. That’s not the same thing. Most specifically, I don’t believe either side can get 60 votes in the Senate to get any bill regarding abortion passed the filibuster; and I further don’t believe the Democrats can get enough votes from within their own party to end the filibuster to bypass it.

Even further I believe that if the Democratic Party ends the filibuster to pass the WHPA or something like it, it will be the end of the Democratic Party (and the few sane voices in that camp know it). The third order effect of bypassing the filibuster would be political suicide on their part as they will lose all credibility and trust to govern. Control of the federal government is not a scepter of power to be used as a cudgel to force your political opponents into submission.

And let’s say they did manage to rig the system in a way that got that bill all the way through into law and upheld by the Supreme Court, and am 100% confident that law would eventually be undone, just like Roe v. Wade was.

You can disagree with me and say that you believe I’m wrong about them, but please don’t claim my concerns are disingenuous. If I wasn’t genuinely interested in seeing this enacted and “stick” I certainly wouldn’t waste my time here attempting to provide thoughtful responses.

Umm… you’re making my argument about this for me…
I am well aware of what they are doing and exactly how they are doing it.
It’s that very fact that has me saying it doesn’t matter what this bill actually does or says.
What makes you think they will treat this idea with any respect whatsoever?

They don’t want the problem solved and anything that weakens their ability to use it as a wedge issue will be fought with the full force of whatever twisted and manipulated vitriol they can get the mainstream media and news outlets to produce for them. I would bet if they somehow figure out this was the source of the bill and that you were its creator they will paint you as a radical pro-life terrorist.

It’s entirely dishonest of them to misrepresent the policy and smear you in that way, but you’re touching their most sacred cow, and basically the last sacred cow they have left.

Right, so play chess against yourself for a moment.

If you were them, and you saw that this policy was going to do exactly what is claimed here, and you were going to use all the same tactics that they have successfully been able to use, and you had all the media outlet resources that are ready to tell whatever egregious and deceitful lies you want on your behalf for you that they have shown they have, plus an effectively endless supply of billionaires to fund you, and you didn’t want to lose the one issue you had left to drive your voting base to the polls, what would you do? How would you go about stopping this before it destroyed all your remaining power?

I believe we can take that wedge issue power away from them simply by saying “No one gets to pass anything about this at the federal level for the time being”. The American people understand it’s divisive to the population and we’d rather have a “let the voters of each state decide” solution then continue to increase the temperature by doing anything. It’s politically safe for federal congressional members to say “I believe we need to let the state legislatures work this out first before we take this up again as a law for the entire country.”

As it stands right now, 41 states have abortion restrictions.

  • 13 have total abortion bans
  • 28 have gestational limits (8 before 18 weeks, and 20 after 18 weeks)

9 states and D.C. have no limits whatsoever.
https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-abortion-bans#:~:text=shortly%20after%20birth.-,Highlights,bans%20based%20on%20gestational%20duration.

I wouldn’t call that a huge win at the states level for the WHPA advocates.

Now, we are in an election year so that is likely to change up after voting day.
From what I can tell the WHPA advocates are not going to get a states majority anytime soon.

Here’s where I think we most disagree.

I believe by holding the line at saying “We’re leaving it to the states for now” he’s enabling cooler heads to prevail. It’s making everyone have to think about it and accept that reasonable people can disagree with them about this and allow bills like the one you’re proposing here to serve as an example/model for people to look at without being afraid the federal government is going to force a conclusion down on them one way or the other.

If you’re confident that you can get this passed through Congress, then you should be equally confident you get a good number of states to pass it as well.

The first state to put together a framework that most Americans see balances the needs of all the interested parties wins. I believe what you have proposed is a decent kernel to start that framework.

I believe it will benefit from first being adopted by multiple states where it can have its tires kicked by the American people who will watch what its effects actually are.

I think I’ve made my case at this point, and you can see things differently from me here.
What you still haven’t done in my viewpoint is actually layout the process for exactly how you think the Democrats will roll over and accept this when you and I both know full well that what this policy actually says or does is irrelevant to their media and political machinery.

1 Like
184

Thanks for taking the time to explain your stance, and yes I disagree.

Really quick: you said, “I believe we can take that wedge issue power away from them simply by saying “No one gets to pass anything about this at the federal level for the time being”.

If that were true, you wouldn’t see Harris & the Democrats putting abortion front and center. The political extremes and atrocities of the abortion sanctuary states versus the ban states, is driving the division, tension, and creating the need for some basic safeguards, via federal legislation.

“States only” rhetoric has also driven many pro-lifers and women away from voting GOP. Personally, I feel so deflated. I want Trump to win, but why should I chase him if he doesnt chase my vote first?

Furthermore, again, while this wont stop either side from fighting for more, or less, abortion access, all of these stipulations put together will make the Dem’s biggest weapon impotent. The awareness/education, informed consent protections and collective data reporting requirements will inform the public and young people at many different levels, at different points of time, on all aspects of this issue. And the enforceable exceptions will end their headlines about pro-lifers killing women or for not allowing exceptions for young girls, rape victims, nonviable pregnancy & severe abnormalities.

By the time Dems use abortion as a weapon again, in 4-8 years, they will not be able to fool young voters and women again; we will be armed with the full truth and will then be able to tackle the debate based on the merits of each side.

Thank you again for your detailed feedback.

185

First, wow. This is a comprehensive entry. Kudos to that end. I tend to stay out of this debate, bc I def lack the expertise and experience to weigh in with any real value.

That said, my layman perspective looks at the exceptions list and wonders if:

  • Raise the mothers under the age of 14 to 16 or 18 to coincide with age of consent or adulthood.
  • Raise the incest or forcible rape, up to 15 weeks gestation to 18 weeks to allow some padding with respect to procuring legal documents that could take time to get.

Feels like there’s some discussion to be had on those two points.

I’d like to see the morning after pill to be accessible in the same manner that a Decongestant is OTC, but not on the shelf with a limit on purchase counts.

Again… Not an expert, but making the earnest attempt.