by von
Over on RedHot, Adam C., Mark Kilmer, and Augustine are debating ways to counter the impression that the repeal of Roe v. Wade means the repeal of legalized abortion. They’re correct in two respects: First, if Roe were removed tomorrow, it would not mean that abortion would suddenly become illegal. The matter would simply be thrown to the legislatures and — in the first instance — whatever state laws are currently on the books.
Second — and I don’t care how much of a living Constitutionalist you may be — they’re also right that Roe is hard to defend as a "judicial" (as opposed to "legislative") decision. One can argue the epistemological nuances of what separates a "judicial" act from a "legislative" one. But, whatever criteria you end up choosing at the end of the day, you’re going to be hard-pressed to fit Roe into the judicial box. It just ain’t a very good opinion, per traditional criteria.
What I think they miss (‘tho Augustine skirts around it here) is that, as a practical matter, overturning Roe will almost certainly prompt the U.S. Congress to act. In what will surely be an apocalypic battle between the forces of good and evil (which is which will depend on your personal perference), some sort of new set of abortion laws will shortly emerge as the law of the land.
And, thus, the marketing problem: Adam C., Mark Kilmer, and Augustine can, and should, correct the misconception that eliminating Roe means eliminating one’s right to abort one’s child. The problem is the implication of their remark: And as soon as Roe is gone, we’re gonna try to make it illegal to have an abortion. Talk about the text being overwhelmed by the subtext!
‘Course, it’s easy for me to take potshots from the peanut gallery: I think Roe was wrongly decided and would be happy to see it go. Yet, I’m annoying conflicted on what regulations should be implemented in the post-Roe world. I suppose that I could take a cue from the poll-tested Democratic response. If the DLC folks say that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare," my equally bland nonresponse is that abortion should be "safe and rare — and legislated to make it so."
R
correct the misconception that eliminating Roe means eliminating one’s right to abort one’s child.
But eliminating Roe does mean that. The misconception is that eliminating Roe would eliminate one’s ability to abort one’s child. /foolishly-arguing-semantics-with-a-lawyer
That said — if Roe were overturned where would congress get off enacting a federal law about abortion?
If you look at actual world-wide data (see, e.g. the AGI studies) it becomes fairly obvious that the way to make abortion rare is to (3) make it safe, legal, and accessible, (2) give everyone high-quality, non-ideological sex education, and (1) make sure everyone has easy access to contraceptives, including those without a lot of money. Abortion rates are lowest in countries where it is totally legal (Netherlands and Belgium), but nearly as low in Germany, which does have more restrictive laws than Netherlands and Belgium, but does have good sex-ed and access to contraceptives, thus allowing one to conclude that (1) and (2) are more important than (3). Making abortion totally illegal appears to have no impact on the abortion rate. Trying to reduce abortion by reducing the rate of sexual intercourse has not been successful (see, e.g., the abortion rates in predominantly Catholic Latin and South American countries, and the results of “abstinence education.”)
Well, if we’re going to be precise, we’d be eliminating a federal constitutional right to abortion; rights also derive from state constitutions.
What we’ll get, of course, is a balkanized regime whereby women in the South and parts of the West can’t get legal abortions and resort to DIY, with predictable consequences. Enterprising bookies might take long-term bets on the exact year when the first execution of a woman for aborting her child post-Roe.
Von: If the DLC folks say that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare,” my equally bland nonresponse is that abortion should be “safe and rare — and legislated to make it so.”
Not possible, Von. You can certainly legislate abortion law so that abortions are always safe – indeed, I believe the US already has a system of not permitting doctors to practice unless they are certified to be properly trained – but you cannot legislate abortion law to ensure that abortions are rare and safe. (You could legislate to ensure that legal abortions are rare, but this would just ensure that many abortions would be illegal and therefore less likely to be safe.)
Legislation to make abortions rare falls outside the scope of laws directly to do with abortion. AFAIK, simply on the basis that you are a right-wing American, you probably don’t support most of it.
(Free health care for pregnant women and all children – with underage children having the right to full patient confidentiality: what they tell their doctor, the doctor doesn’t tell their parents, no matter what. Free day-care for all. Free nursery-school education for all children. Financial support for women with children in the education system. Legally enforced minimum wage for all workers. Paid maternity leave and paternity leave. A legal right to family-friendly hours and child sick days for all workers. Plus, of course, mandatory sex education classes for all children over the age of nine, and free contraception available to all but especially teenagers. How much of that do you support, Von?)
if Roe were overturned where would congress get off enacting a federal law about abortion?
What are you asking, Jeremy? Are you saying it would be inappropriate for Congress to ban abortion nationwide? I don’t think they would have much compunction about doing so. That’s one way overturning Roe would make abortions illegal.
As for the legislation that von wants, to make abortion safe and rare, then if me2i81’s data is accurate the way to do that is to adopt the practices described, not to legislate a bunch of ad hoc restrictions.
Perhaps von could be more specific about his preferred policies.
As the Romanian experience shows, the main result of restricting abortion legislatively is not fewer abortions but more maternal deaths. In 1990 Romania legalized abortion, which had been illegalized by Ceaucescu in an effort to increase the birth rate. This single manuever decreased the maternal mortality by half in one year. reference
There are things the legislature could do that would make abortion rarer. They include: funding real sex ed, including information on birth control, making the morning after pill over the counter, mandating training in abortion for all ob/gyns and FPs, introducing universal health insurance, improving access to day care, etc. However, none of these maneuvers would satisfy the real agenda of many of those who call themselves pro-life: punishing women for having sex. Nor would they satisfy most of those who genuinely believe that a fetus–not direct enough. Therefore, they are unlikely to pass.
I disagree with von’s assertion that overturning Roe v. Wade doesn’t mean that abortion would automatically become illegal. This depends entirely upon te grounds through which it is overturned. If it is a narrow decision that Roe was improperly decided because such a right to privacy doesn’t really exist, then von is correct.
However, it could also be decided on the basis that a fetus is legally a person, and posesses all of the rights thereof. If this is the way that it is decided, which I don’t think is impossible if Stevens also retires and is replaced by this administration, then it most certainly would mean that abortion automatically becomes illegal.
That said — if Roe were overturned where would congress get off enacting a federal law about abortion?
Commerce clause. We’d see something through the Spending clause first — hospitals getting any federal money of any kind would have to just say no.
re: the analysis in Roe. ye gods, the notion that Roe was poorly reasoned gets waaay too much press.
here’s the most important sentence in Roe: (available here)
“It perhaps is not generally appreciated that the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage. Those laws, generally proscribing abortion or its attempt at any time during pregnancy except when necessary to preserve the pregnant woman’s life, are not of ancient or even of common-law origin. Instead, they derive from statutory changes effected, for the most part, in the latter half of the 19th century.”
Put bluntly, the notion of “liberty” as set forth in the 5th amendment included, at the time the 5th amendment was drafted, the idea of being free from abortion restrictions.
so many of the anti-Roe conservatives on this blog believe in an originalist view of constitutional interpretation. If you live by that sword, you get to die on it. Roe is entirely consistent with most textualist and originalist interpretations of the 5th amendment.
“However, it could also be decided on the basis that a fetus is legally a person, and posesses all of the rights thereof.”
If this were the decision, would personhood also automatically be applied to zygotes and embryos? For example, would abortion in the first 8 weeks still be allowed if the fetus is defined as a person but the zygote and embryo are not? Furthermore, if the fetus is considered a person, is miscarriage involuntary manslaughter? What if the woman having the miscarriage did something potentially dangerous to the pregnancy (anything from getting drunk to rock climbing to taking a medication not shown to be safe in pregnancy–that is, almost any medication.) Any of the lawyers out there know the answer to these questions?
as regards national restrictions, von and ccarp are surely correct, as the Schiavo affair showed us.
Were Roe to fall, the (presumably still) Republican Congress would under great pressure move immediately to exercise their spending power to bar federal funds from going to abortion providers and their commerce clause power to prevent abortions generally.
on the second issue, i imagine that the Supreme Court might get more amici briefs in the case challenging the commerce clause power of the Congress to bar abortions than any other case in history.
also, i think that Jane Galt’s wrong in her July 6 post (yah, big shocker). The US Congress would be forced by their religious constituents to pass laws on this issue. That would leave enormous room for moderate Democrats to capture independent votes.
Von wrote:
It may just be me, but seeing those sentences in the indicative mode just sent my blood pressure soaring. We are still talking hypotheticals here, aren’t we?
Since that isn’t a really substantive comment, I’ll just repeat, with one slight alteration, what Anderson wrote, which expresses my concerns as well:
The “great social laboratories” theory of states’ rights leaves me queasy when vulnerable women are concerned.
Italics closed?
Italics begone!
Jackmormon: The “great social laboratories” theory of states’ rights leaves me queasy when vulnerable women are concerned
Yes, but “pro-lifers” tend to have extremely strong stomachs when contemplating making women suffer and die. Better, it seems, that women should suffer and die than that women should have full access to safe, legal, affordable abortion.
(Free health care for pregnant women and all children – with underage children having the right to full patient confidentiality: what they tell their doctor, the doctor doesn’t tell their parents, no matter what. Free day-care for all. Free nursery-school education for all children. Financial support for women with children in the education system. Legally enforced minimum wage for all workers. Paid maternity leave and paternity leave. A legal right to family-friendly hours and child sick days for all workers. Plus, of course, mandatory sex education classes for all children over the age of nine, and free contraception available to all but especially teenagers. How much of that do you support, Von?)
Not much, Jes. And there we see the admitted limitations of a belief system based on the notions of personal responsibility and freedom.
That said, I do believe that sex ed means, among other things, providing an education about sex. Which has to include contraception. I also have no problem providing free contraception on an anonymous basis to high school and college-aged folks.
In other words: yes, by all means, do all you can to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Because, once another potential life/life is involved, it cannot be easily discarded.
“Instead, they derive from statutory changes effected, for the most part, in the latter half of the 19th century.”
Put bluntly, the notion of “liberty” as set forth in the 5th amendment included, at the time the 5th amendment was drafted, the idea of being free from abortion restrictions.”
Your reasoning has gone off the rails here. The fact that abortion was not limited in most states does not at all imply that it was a Constitutionally protected right. And the fact that many states were able to pass anti-abortion laws in the 19th century without a peep from anyone that they might be unconstitutional suggests that almost no-one read the Constitution in the 19th century the way you are reading it now.
“The US Congress would be forced by their religious constituents to pass laws on this issue. That would leave enormous room for moderate Democrats to capture independent votes.”
Maybe, but I doubt it. There are a huge range of people who are anti-Roe. They range from people who just don’t like judicial activism to those who don’t like late-term abortions to those who don’t like late-term elective abortions to those who don’t like mid-term abortions all the way to those who would ban all abortions except those which threaten the life of the mother. They can all be anti-Roe, but if Roe is overturned none of them form a majority of the Republican Party (or even an obviously controlling minority).
The problem for Democrats in exploiting that is that they have the same problem in reverse. Not everyone buys the NARAL all-abortions legal at all times line. The Democratic Party has been able to avoid dealing with it by focusing on Roe as law, and pretending that it mandated the NARAL position (which isn’t strictly true, though as it has played out in the courts it has pretty much turned out that way).
So there are lots of moderates from both sides available, and lots of extremists from both sides to make really angry. How that will play out in terms of a party that wins is difficult to determine, but how it will play out in abortion politics is much more obvious.
If a federal standard is followed, it will ban most 3rd term abortions and perhaps some in the late 2nd term. It will definitely not touch 1st term abortions. If written by Republicans it will focus on enforcing medical necessity guidelines in the 3rd trimester. If written by Democrats it will focus on bundling it with a social welfare package. If written by moderates from both parties it may do both.
Dianne, you pose extraordinarily difficult questions, most of which would need to be resolved legislatively.
Here’s a short short version: if Congress passes a law finding that life begins at conception (and it’s upheld), then it is entirely possible that a state prosecutor, relying on the federal supremacy clause, could file assault/battery charges against any woman who drinks during her first trimester (when fetal alcohol syndrome usually occurs).
nice, ain’t it?
SH: compare the dates of anti-abortion laws with passage of the 19th amendment.
As to your liberty argument, you’re not even close. You have bitterly argued with Katherine that we are to look to the laws and customs in effect at the time of adoption of the Bill of Rights in order to put structural limits on the interpretation of the word “liberty”.
Put it another way, then. How are we to know what “liberty” means? When a claim arises that a state law deprives a person of “liberty” in violation of the 5th amendment, what are the appropriate tools for engaging in legitimate judicial analysis?
you have expressed profound concerns about the tyranny of five votes. fair enough, but what about the tyranny of the majority? Set your concerns about Roe aside for a second and tell us what limits exist on judicial interpretation of a “liberty” challenge to a state law.
von, your response to Jes indicates that you are willing to trade away the rare goal in service of your other legislative priorities. that’s ok; there’s room to disagree. but please be honest that the consequences of your positions is that abortion will be illegal, unsafe, and of unknown frequency due to being driven underground/overseas.
The people standing over you trying to push you all they way down the slippery slope, are not generally good at convincing you that “take a step, don’t worry, the slope’s not slippery.”
A huge % of the pro-life movement, including most of the posters on RedState wants to overturn not only Roe but Griswold, and outlaw not only abortion, but the birth control pill and the morning after pill. I doubt they will succeed, and I don’t think that the slippery slope argument is a good enough reason for liberals to do nothing about an unacceptable status quo, but…if they don’t moderate those stances, they are simply not going to be able to reassure people that overturning Roe will have no effect on their lives.
As for sex ed, if I had any control over school curricula my first principle would be: Don’t lie to kids. Don’t lie to kids. Don’t knowingly teach them false information, or teach them information with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. Ever. It’s immoral. Anyway, it will mainly serve to undercut your credibility, and make them more likely to believe other false information and disbelieve the true things you teach them.
Brother rail gun: Drinking alcohol is probably the least of it. The potential for blaming women for problems that occur during pregnancy is nearly unlimited. For example, I take a chronic medication that is pregnancy class B, which means, approximately, that we have no evidence that it is dangerous in pregnancy but that it has not been proven safe in clinical trials. (There are practically no class A drugs–drugs proven safe for use in pregnancy by controlled trials–because the drug companies fear the lawsuits that could occur if they did such a trial and the drug in question proved to be unsafe). Would it be considered assault for me to continue this med if I were pregnant? If I went off the med, there might be negative consequences for the fetus as well (and there certainly would be for me.) Could I equally be charged for not taking it? What about early miscarriages? Would they be considered potential acts of murder? Would women have to send in their tampons or pads for analysis to make sure that they didn’t have an early pregnancy loss? Would zygotes get their fair share of NIH funding (ie would half of the NIH budget go towards research into the reasons for early miscarriage and preventative measures)? I hope my imagination is running away with me, but I’m not sure of it.
“if Congress passes a law finding that life begins at conception (and it’s upheld)…”
Here is something that might make you feel better. Try to identify 51 Senators who would likely vote to pass such a law. (I bet you will have trouble getting a solid 40).
“As to your liberty argument, you’re not even close. You have bitterly argued with Katherine that we are to look to the laws and customs in effect at the time of adoption of the Bill of Rights in order to put structural limits on the interpretation of the word “liberty”.”
I strongly suspect that whatever Katherine thinks about the legitimacy of Roe ultimately, that she would not argue that the 19th century concept of liberty included a right to abortion. If I understand her idea of jurisprudence correctly, she is much more likely to aruge that the idea of liberty has grown to include certain things. But it is flatly wrong to assert that historically a right to abortion was understood in the concept of liberty in the 19th century.
von: “Not much, Jes. And there we see the admitted limitations of a belief system based on the notions of personal responsibility and freedom.”
Then you’re going to have not much success trying to legislate a situation in which abortion is safe and rare. Personally, I don’t see how having health care and day care freely available limits “freedom and responsibility” any more than having school and roads available does, but that is, perhaps, a side issue.
Katherine can speak for herself; she’s posting.
Nice duck, btw, on answering how YOU would interpret / constrain “liberty”.
and you can say i’m flatly wrong — doesn’t make it so. If preventing abortion was important during colonial times, we would have had laws on the matter. We didn’t; therefore it wasn’t. And therefore it is precisely the kind of thing that an originalist / textualist should be willing to protect under the 5th and 10th amendments.
There are a huge range of people who are anti-Roe.
But only a small minority of people are anti-Roe – around 30%. And most of them already vote Republican. The majority thinks it was a good decision. If it is overturned, and the policies mentioned above are enacted, not only will the Republican party’s appeal to moderates be greatly diminished, the GOP coalition of traditional conservatives and religionists will fracture a little more.
As someone who supports the general result of Roe–though not the incompetent legal reasoning to be found within it–I’ll simply suggest that the rhetoric of its most prominent supporters–which tends to vary from a hysterical parade of horribles that is brought forth whenever the most miniscule restriction to unfettered abortion on demand is suggested to the most blatantly offensive “fetuses are the moral equivalent of warts” nonsense–has done more damage to the prospects of abortion remaining a federal constitutional right than a battalion of Randall Terrys and Jerry Falwells could have dreamed of doing. If this process is to be arrested, the pro-choice movement is going to have to realize that a lot of people who think women should have access to abortion in many cases also believe that parental notification/consent laws are perfectly reasonable, and that late-term abortions should be almost always illegal, barring a real, verifiable medical reason that will withstand review.
as to con law:
1) I think Roe was wrong but I think it goes wrong in applying the compelling interest test.
2) I would vote to overrule Roe if I were on the Supreme Court, which doesn’t necessarily mean I want the Supreme Court to overrule Roe.
3) I think Griswold v. Connecticut, like Lawrence v. Texas, was very badly argued indeed but correct in its result.
4) I think that “was this specific thing legal in year X” is a lousy, stupid way of determining whether it’s constitutional whether it’s used by Harry Blackmun or Antonin Scalia.
5) As to general jurisprudence:
–original meaning of constitutional text is fixed and binding but often super, duper ambiguous
–original intent is not binding
–original application is not the same thing as original meaning and is not binding
–text should be read purposively as well as literally. Impossible to coherently interpret a Constitution otherwise. “We must never forget this is a Constitution we are expounding.”
–often what appear to be judges saying that the meaning of the text have changes, are really judges applying the same meaning to a different set of facts. Judges need to talk explicitly about the factual findings and historical evidence upon which their holdings rest. (e.g. homosexuality is/is not an immutable characteristic; a fetus is/is not a child; segregation in practice is neither separate nor equal, was never meant to be and we damn well know it; this country has a long history of discriminating wrongfully on the grounds of X; women are/are not equally capable as men at doing most jobs and at voting)
–ultimately there is no way around judicial discretion. We trust juries to order people’s execution if they know “to a moral certainty” or “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the person is guilty. In the end–e.g. in deciding which previous decisions should be upheld on stare decisis grounds and which should not be–a Supreme Court justice often has to make a similar call.
–Legal realism is a good description but a lousy prescription.
–9th amendment is not an inkblot, it’s a rule of construction that justifies a broad, purposive reading of the constitution. It is NOT an independent authorization to declare things are constitutional rights because you think they’re important. You must justify those decisions as necessary to protect a right that your precedents establish IS constitutionally protected.
The End.
“If preventing abortion was important during colonial times, we would have had laws on the matter. We didn’t; therefore it wasn’t. And therefore it is precisely the kind of thing that an originalist / textualist should be willing to protect under the 5th and 10th amendments.”
Your therefore doesn’t logically follow. Just because something was legal in the 19th century does not make it a Constitutional Right. They are different if overlapping categories. (Ideally Constitutional Rights are a subset of legal things, though in practice that isn’t always true.) Saying that something was legal at point X does not mean that it was a constitutional right at point X–at most it suggests that it was constitutionally permissible at point X. And I am not arguing that allowing abortion was ever Constitutionally impermissible–I’m arguing that banning it should never have been Constitutionally impermissible.
Those two views are hugely different but you are treating them as if they were identical.
Sebastian is awfully optimistic about the alleged “moderate Republicans” in the Senate developing a spine in the foreseeable future.
A “life begins at conception” statute is entirely conceivable, though I’m not a Commerce Clause guru & can’t see how that issue would play out.
If preventing abortion was important during colonial times, we would have had laws on the matter.
I have to agree with Seb here. During the late 18th and early 19th centuries there is a lot of writing out there that openly discusses infanticide and induced abortions as moral horrors. It seems, from my reading, to have been a new and shocking topic of discussion, one that people may have dimly known about but hadn’t wanted to talk about before. By “people” I mean the class of people who read and wrote.
The idea of abortion was out there during the framing, but I suspect it was too disreputable to legislate. Moral condemnation and social ostracization were probably the preferred regulative means.
As far as I can tell Sebastian’s right. Originalists don’t argue that “if it was legal then it’s constitutionally protected” (usually–you do catch Thomas doing it sometimes); they argue that “if the government did it then it’s constitutional” (Most of them carve out certain exceptions to this, though not in any consistent way.)
Me, I think both views are logically indefensible.
Jesurgislac,
“Yes, but “pro-lifers” tend to have extremely strong stomachs when contemplating making women suffer and die. Better, it seems, that women should suffer and die than that women should have full access to safe, legal, affordable abortion.”
Could you give me some examples of people who think this way? Can you give me a cite please?
And while were are at it, how many Pro-lifers do you know who feel this way? What part of the country do you live in? I really don’t know any pro-lifers who feel that way.
blog: Eric Rudolph
Ceaucescu
Blogme, your unfamiliarity with the more vicious heresies of America’s fundamentalists does you credit, but I assure you, I’ve met some of these people.
If you really think that killing your fetus is just like killing your 5-year-old, then it’s not such a bizarre notion. I happen to think both are wrong, but not equally so.
“Yes, but “pro-lifers” tend to have extremely strong stomachs when contemplating making women suffer and die.”
And when an example is requested you provide Ceaucescu and Eric Rudolph?
Give me a freaking break. Now can I argue against environmentalism by invoking the Unabomber and Hitler? Can we at least aim at real discussion?
Blogme, Sebastian: wait a few hours & then google Rudolph’s remarks at his sentencing. It should be pretty g.d. scary.
blogme, there certainly are right-wing nuts who want women pregnant, barefoot, in the kitchen and disenfranchised. As best as I can tell, they don’t post here much.
the bigger problem is that the kinds of policies which would be an effective substitute for abortion-on-demand, as listed by Jes at 1:05 pm above, are an anathema to conservatives. (see Von’s response to Jes.)
so we’re back to the old intent / effect debate. The US doesn’t currently intend to cause civilian casualties in Iraq (i hope), but it certainly has adopted policies that have the effect of doing so (like using airpower against urban targets). Now, these policies may have admirable intentions supporting them — like reducing US casualties — but we should not ignore the consequences of our actions, even if unintended.
Von’s response to Jes’s list is similar. Jes’s policy list is unacceptable for what (i presume) are entirely legitimate reasons, like they’re too expensive or would lead to even worse consequences.
now, does Von in his secret heart wish to cause misery to women too poor to travel to Canada for an abortion? Hey, only the Shadow knows what evil lies in the hearts of men, but I kinda doubt it.
BUT, if you take the position that all / most / many / some abortions should be illegal, AND take the position that the state should not pay for policies which will mitigate the harms caused by the abortion ban, THEN you are vulnerable to the characterization that you are willing to subject some women to pain, suffering and death in service of other goals you deem more important. It may not be your intent, but it is certainly a predictable consequence of your desired policy goals.
“BUT, if you take the position that all / most / many / some abortions should be illegal, AND take the position that the state should not pay for policies which will mitigate the harms caused by the abortion ban, THEN you are vulnerable to the characterization that you are willing to subject some women to pain, suffering and death in service of other goals you deem more important. BUT, if you take the position that all / most / many / some abortions should be illegal, AND take the position that the state should not pay for policies which will mitigate the harms caused by the abortion ban, THEN you are vulnerable to the characterization that you are willing to subject some women to pain, suffering and death in service of other goals you deem more important.”
I suspect we could at a minimum ban all elective abortions in the 7th, 8th and 9th months (and quite possibly the 6th) without significantly causing the negative externalities you worry about. This happily tends to coincide with the average US citizen view on the subject.
“if Congress passes a law finding that life begins at conception (and it’s upheld)…”
Here is something that might make you feel better. Try to identify 51 Senators who would likely vote to pass such a law.
Answer: nearly every Republican and maybe a Dem or two.
This is a statement of amazing ignorance in this day and age. If an anti-Roe nominee makes it onto the court, it is because 51 Senators already support laws that would outright ban the procedure.
This hair-splitting about overturning Roe but not making abortion illegal is all phony deflection — it provides cover for the false talking point that allegedly confirming an anti-Roe judge will not make abortion illegal.
You have to be a fool to believe that, given the vehemence of the forces in the Republican Partyu to make it illegal.
But, whatever criteria you end up choosing at the end of the day, you’re going to be hard-pressed to fit Roe into the judicial box. It just ain’t a very good opinion, per traditional criteria.
According to this “traditional” criteria, the same can be said for any of the following:
Marbury v. Madison
Brown v. Board of Educ.
Griswold v. Connecticut
Reynolds v. Sims/Wesberry v. Sanders
Gideon v. Wainright
To name just a few.
“This is a statement of amazing ignorance in this day and age. If an anti-Roe nominee makes it onto the court, it is because 51 Senators already support laws that would outright ban the procedure.
This hair-splitting about overturning Roe but not making abortion illegal is all phony deflection — it provides cover for the false talking point that allegedly confirming an anti-Roe judge will not make abortion illegal.”
Wrong. Almost all opponents of any type of abortion restriction have to be anti-Roe. That absolutely does not translate into a majority of Senators who would vote to ban all abortions. Banning all abortions and banning some abortions is not the same thing at all. To get abortion laws with restrictions as liberal as found in France or Germany would require overturning Roe. Overturning Roe merely returns the decision to the political process where it should have been all along.
The idea that anti-Roe equals pro-abortion ban all the way to conception is merely a NARAL talking point.
Seb–I suspect we could at a minimum ban all elective abortions in the 7th, 8th and 9th months (and quite possibly the 6th) without significantly causing the negative externalities you worry about. This happily tends to coincide with the average US citizen view on the subject.
We really need something like Modern Chess Openings for the abortion debate so that these sorts of arguments can be formalized.
Given the way that Jeb Bush and Co. showed the tendency of government to make prolonged interferences into private medical decisions, I am not at all comforted by your narrow exception here. Who determines the medical necessity? Who can appeal? How do we ensure that this process cannot be dragged out to the point of irrelevancy–say 1 to 3 months?
We have seen what lengths the more zealous pro-life politicians will go to.
We really need something like Modern Chess Openings for the abortion debate so that these sorts of arguments can be formalized.
At first, I thought that I agreed with this, but on a little reflection, I thought this was being remarkably insulting to the game of chess. My sinking feeling is that it is more like a book of tic-tac-toe openings.
Dianne,
Please, Rudolph couldn’t even keep his eye on the ball. He bombed a nightclub and a park. I think he only got one abortion clinic. That doesn’t qualify you as Pro-Life but as a terrorist.
Francis,
“there certainly are right-wing nuts who want women pregnant, barefoot, in the kitchen and disenfranchised”
Are we talking about the right-wing Christian nuts or left-wing Islamofascists nuts in America?
Should we lump all leftists and rightists together in that context? That seems a bit like what Jesurgislac was saying. If your pro-life you are okay with women dieing.
Are you Pro-environment? Are you in bed with Ted?
“but it is certainly a predictable consequence of your desired policy goals”
Right, other than the fact I have stated no goals whatsoever. All I did was ask Jesurgislasic to cite examples about a ridiculous and asinine comment that was made.
But, is that really the way you want to logically work out our differences?
Okay, then.
You are currently sitting in front of a computer:
Please stop or I will be forced to logically conclude that you don’t like Indians since that is where most of our old equiment goes. Two, you are okay with possibly killing your fellow species on this planet.
You are currently using electricity as you sit in front of that computer, which is polluting our environment.
Quick jump… you are destroying environment, which will cause the deaths of millions of humans. You are killing your fellow humans and other animals on this planet.
Does your actions mean you want to kill others on the planet or is that not your intention?
Jesurgislac post was absurd. And yes there are some nuts out there that want to take us back to the stone age both on the left and the right.
It wouldn’t be rational for me to conclude that those who are Pro-Abortion are also supporting Islamic fascists.
Nor would it be logical to say if you are Pro-Life you are okay with women dieing.
“prolonged interferences into private medical decisions, I am not at all comforted by your narrow exception here.”
This could be accurate as long as her father, mother, brother and sister are not consider part of her family.
“We have seen what lengths the more zealous pro-life politicians will go to.”
Shouldn’t this have said her pro-life family will go to?
Blogme- Going back to the stone age would result in the death of roughly 6 billion human beings. You need to mention that in your analogy because your partner in the debate had the honesty to point to the other side of your arguement about abortion.
Am I the only one dimayed by the calousness of Sebastion’s remark “significantly causing the negative externalities you worry about.” How many women have to die from unwanted pregnancy before it becomes signifigant?
That doesn’t qualify you as Pro-Life but as a terrorist.
False dichotomy. And it does provide you with an undeniable example of exactly what you asked for.
Quick jump… you are destroying environment, which will cause the deaths of millions of humans. You are killing your fellow humans and other animals on this planet.
Does your actions mean you want to kill others on the planet or is that not your intention?
It means that the marginal contribution of your activity that contributes to environmental degradation is more important to you than the effects of that activity on others. You have chosen that tradeoff. You would rather that the environment be made marginally worse than that you be required to stop the damaging activities you are engaging in.
Nor would it be logical to say if you are Pro-Life you are okay with women dieing.
Your argument is asinine. If you are against abortion in all cases, then it is true that you believe that it is better that, “women should suffer and die than that women should have full access to safe, legal, affordable abortion”, as was pointed out. That is the tradeoff that position makes. You believe that one situation (abortion illegal, a larger number of women suffering and dying) is preferable to another (abortion legal, a smaller number of women suffering and dying).
Are we talking about the right-wing Christian nuts or left-wing Are we talking about the right-wing Christian nuts or left-wing Islamofascists nuts in America?
Islamofacists? Last I heard facism was considered a right-wing political position. Which political positions of “Islamofascists” do you consider to be left-wing? Their policies on civil liberties? The environment? Their fiscal policy? Gay rights? Do you know how absurd it looks to go around ranting about left-wing fascists?
To the extent that Christians try to implement Christian values in all spheres of life, they can be compared directly to Islamists. To the extent that those same people are willing to use violence to acheive their aims, as some of them are, they can be compared directly to Islamic terrorists.
I suspect we could at a minimum ban all elective abortions in the 7th, 8th and 9th months (and quite possibly the 6th) without significantly causing the negative externalities you worry about.
Others have already commented on some of the particular problem involved here, but I would also note that this would require ensuring that both abortions and emergency contraception were made exceedingly affordable and easy to get in months one through five. No more of this crap.
Rudolph couldn’t even keep his eye on the ball. He bombed a nightclub and a park. I think he only got one abortion clinic. That doesn’t qualify you as Pro-Life but as a terrorist.
So blogme is on record at Obsidian Wings as believing that one must blow up two or more abortion clinics to qualify as pro-life. Noted.
This could be accurate as long as her father, mother, brother and sister are not consider part of her family.
Wait a minute — which of those people were members of the Federal government?
Re: negative externalities.
I’m not sure who has more sterile ways of talking about death and pain: the DOD or economists.
The externalities of a late-term abortion ban are probably pretty limited. We can probably expect some small increase in welfare and medical costs to be borne by society as a small number of children are brought to term who otherwise would have been aborted.
that, however, is not the cost i’m worried about. It’s the direct costs borne by women who wish to obtain a late term abortion that i don’t like: loss of autonomy, pain and death due to an illegal abortion, responsibility to care for an unwanted newborn.
We can probably expect some small increase in welfare and medical costs to be borne by society as a small number of children are brought to term who otherwise would have been aborted.
As well as an increase in crime down the road a bit.
felix,
You would have some really good points if Jesurgislac had actually said what you changed his post to say:
“If you are against abortion in all cases, then it is true that you believe that it is better that, “women should suffer and die than that women should have full access to safe, legal, affordable abortion”, as was pointed out.
That really wasn’t what was pointed out now was it?
You do notice that you are the one who added “all cases” to Jesurgislac comments.
Jesurgislac said:
“Yes, but “pro-lifers” tend to have extremely strong stomachs when contemplating making women suffer and die. Better, it seems, that women should suffer and die than that women should have full access to safe, legal, affordable abortion.”
Maybe, I missed something up thread, but I didn’t read Jesurgislac making that claim. Von’s points that started it make the opposite point. If Roe was overturned abortion laws would have to be rewritten. Then another point was this:
There are very very few people in this country that believe abortion should be illegal in all instances. For Jesurgislac to state otherwise is just dishonest. Even among the right wing nut pro-lifers there are very very few people who believe that. And as of yet, no one has cited anyone other than the most extreme people. The only example someone has asserted that is even relevant is Eric Rudolph. Who was only one for three in his attempts to blow up abortion clinics.
How in a irrational mind does someone blow up a night club as a protest against abortion? Or the Park? I personally am not really sure.
Careful, you might catch fire from that strawman burning beside you.
“Which political positions of “Islamofascists” do you consider to be left-wing? ”
Just there bed partners.
“If you are against abortion in all cases, then it is true that you believe that it is better that, “women should suffer and die than that women should have full access to safe, legal, affordable abortion”, as was pointed out. That is the tradeoff that position makes.”
But that is most specifically not the position of the average anti-Roe person and certainly not the average American. The average of either of those classes wants to ban some subset of abortions.
You can’t really continue this discussion effectively without coming to grips with the fact that there are ranges of the pro-life and pro-choice positions. Neither extremist position is all that popular (even among in their respective parties).
There are very very few people in this country that believe abortion should be illegal in all instances.
Um, most recent polls, when asking whether abortions should be always legal, sometimes legal, or always illegal, come up with an “always illlegal” figure of around 15-20%. (Don’t take my word for it — Google it.) I suppose there’s some leeway for referring to 20% of a total population as “very few,” but it requires an extremely generous definition.
I didn’t read most of these posts, so maybe I’m missing something, but I have a question.
blogme, what is a “leftwing Islamofascist”?
Rudolph hasn’t yet gone through the formality of a trial for the gay bar and Olympic Park bombings.
He’ll probably be making a statement at those on why he didn’t do anything wrong, like he did today about the clinic bombing.
On the gay bar bombing, I expect he’ll again invoke Biblical morality. He called the abortion clinic a “pit of vomit” or some such thing. I’m sure he’ll wax as eloquently on how filthy and evil gay people are.
The Olympic bombing? I have no idea what Biblical sources fundie Xtianity uses to regard international athletic competition so grave an evil that its participants deserve death. Maybe Rudolph will say something about the original Greek games: all the athletes were nude, and homosexuality was rampant, and the modern Olympics implicitly condone that just by existing. Also, the ’96 Games were held in Atlanta, which has a large gay community.
So, yeah, if he makes a statement justifying the Olympic Park bombings, that’ll probably have so mething to do with gay people.
I’m not surprised about the “leftist Islamofascists”. As I said earlier today, among Bush supporters the definition of “leftist” is “anti-Bush”. Von, Slartibartfast, Sebastian, and even Charles are all leftists now, at least sometimes.
Discover the Network seems to have revised its most embarrassing pages so that people can no longer point to pages featuring Bill Clinton as allied with Osama bin laden, but the database of “the left” is still there. Oh, wait, I see they’ve just removed Osama and maybe a few others — Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman is still there with Katie Couric.
That really wasn’t what was pointed out now was it?
Yes it was, the post was about pro-lifers. Try to keep up here, kid.
There are very very few people in this country that believe abortion should be illegal in all instances
Around 15-20% of people consistently answer when polled that they want abortion to be illegal in all circumstances (as Phil pointed out). For example, when asked the question, “”Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?”, 20% of people answered illegal in all circumstances. Another poll asking pretty much the same question resulted in 16% answering illegal in all circumstances, a third resulted in 14%. Taking the most conservative number works out to somewhere over 40 million people in the US. Those people are pro-lifers. 40 million is not a few. If the poll is off by half, it is still not a few. To state otherwise is dishonest, and to call someone else dishonest for stating the truth is a tactic I have seen you use several times already at this site – accusing someone else of something you yourself are doing at the time you make the accusation.
Even among the right wing nut pro-lifers there are very very few people who believe that.
40 million is not very very few.
By the way, for those of you who missed it there, blogme cleverly implied that the American left is “in bed with” the terrorists.
Seriously, Seb, Slarti, can either of you check IP addresses? I mean, we’ve seen this argument style before, no? With the bad spelling and grammar, and the inability to use tags to distinguish when someone is being quoted, and the constant snotty insinuations . . . ? It could be a coincidence, but if so, it speaks very, VERY poorly as to the type of new conservative commentors that ObWi is regularly attracting.
But that is most specifically not the position of the average anti-Roe person and certainly not the average American
First of all, the original comment was specifically about pro-lifers, not the average American.
Second, 30% of people are anti-Roe, around 20% of people are against abortion in all circumstances. I suspect the latter group is, for the most part, a subset of the first. That is, I doubt a large number of people who are opposed to abortion in all cases think the Roe decision was a good one. In which case the “average anti-Roe position”, as far as that makes sense, is blanket opposition to abortion.
You can’t really continue this discussion effectively without coming to grips with the fact that there are ranges of the pro-life and pro-choice positions
That’s funny, those attacking the comment Jes made are ignoring one segment of that range – 40 million people or so. For those people, the assertion she made is true.
Waaay further up in the thread, a comment I made sparked Jes’s comment that we’ve all made so much hyperbolic hay out of.
Those 10-15% of anti-abortion absolutists are not evenly spread throughout the country. A strict anti-abortion law wouldn’t pass the federal government, but a state like, say, Georgia, Texas, or Kansas might see fit to pass one.
In the absence of Roe, unless the federal government protected some positive right to an abortion, at least some of those states would pass very extreme limitations on a woman’s ability to seek an abortion, even at the early stages of her pregnancy. “Let the states figure it out” is one of the strategies moderates use on contentious social issues–precisely because it allows decisions to be made under the radar.
So let me go on the record opposing state-by-state abortion regulation. Are fetuses more alive in the South? Should women be more empowered in the Northeast?
I don’t think this is an OT comment because a) I’ve seen Seb advocate a state solution to abortion and b) legislative considerations were the object of Von’s original post. (And because c) this thread is degenerating…)
Common Knowledge,
I must admit it is a new one to me also. I always thought fascist were on the far right. But, for some reason the left and Islamicfascists have decided to bed down together.
It seems a useful description during these weird times that the left can identify more with Islamicfascists than the conservative right.
Phil,
Are you referring to this poll:
CBS News Poll. July 13-14, 2005. N=632 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4 (for all adults).
“What is your personal feeling about abortion?
1) It should be permitted in all cases.
2) It should be permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now.
3) It should be permitted only in cases such as rape, incest and to save the woman’s life.
4) It should only be permitted to save the woman’s life.”
All Cases
25
Greater Restric-tions
14
Rape, Incest, Woman’s Life
38
Only Woman’s Life
15
Never
3
Unsure
5
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Or are you only going to refer to the polls that support your statement?
Well, I will take the “clever” as a compliment and ignore the typos and grammar. I think it is safe to say that everyone makes type and grammar mistakes when posting. It happens.
As far as the IP address. You got me. You can track me to GOP headquarters. (Where ever that might be.)
But, for some reason the left and Islamicfascists have decided to bed down together.
There it is again. Not even insinuating this time, but outright saying that Edward, Katherine, Jesurgislac, Anarch, Catsy, felxirayman, CharleyCarp, et al., are on the side of the terrorists. This is not only a massive violation of the posting rules, I’m fairly certain it’s a bannable offense. But it’s your blog, guys.
Phil,
Are you referring to this poll:
No.
having been told by any number of people that my hypothetical construct of why Roe was rightly decided on an originalist basis is wrong, I’d love to be enlightened, then, on two points: (a) Where, exactly did Blackmun go wrong? This is a 7-2 decision.
(b) How should an originalist decide cases asserting that a law violates the liberty interest? Rehnquist’s dissent is basically a statement that the majority overreached. Gee, that’s helpful. It’d be nice to know what the appropriate parameters of the analysis should be.
“I suspect we could at a minimum ban all elective abortions in the 7th, 8th and 9th months (and quite possibly the 6th) without significantly causing the negative externalities you worry about.”
Perhaps one of the legal experts who post here can correct me if I’m wrong about this, but I was under the impression that a ban on third trimester abortion except in the case of severe fetal abnormalities or risk to the mother’s health was a) entirely consistent with Roe and b) already in place in most or all parts of the US.
Second trimester abortion, on the other hand, does frequently occur because the woman has difficulty getting enough money together to afford an abortion earlier or time to travel to a provider if she lives in a state with few providers or, in the case of a teenager in a parental notification state, permission to have it. These second trimester abortions could be prevented by making first trimester abortions readily and cheaply available. Being pregnant is not fun and very few women who want an abortion would delay into the second trimester if they could get one in the first.
Concerning SH’s and blog’s criticism further back in the thread of my choice of examples of pro-lifers, how about Randall Terry as an example of a more typical pro-lifer? So far as I know, he hasn’t blown anything up, but the following quote gives one a flavor of at least his section of the pro-life movement:
“I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good…Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism.”
— Randall Terry as quoted at an anti-abortion rally in Fort Wayne, Indiana by the Fort Wayne News Sentinel, August 16, 1993.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Supreme Court could in fact very easily make abortion illegal, period. You are all assuming that they will simply “repeal” Roe v. Wade, “oops, we were wrong, right to privacy doesn’t extend that far, nevermind.” Why assume that? Congress repeals, the Supreme Court makes up new theories. Here’s one:
The new decision might say, “even if there is a right to privacy that might apply, it is outweighed by the express command of the 14th Amendment against depriving a person of life without due process of law. ‘Person’ clearly means more than ‘citizen,’ and in view of the importance of this provision and the unfortunate history of this and other governments of narrowly construing the word and concept ‘person’, we hold that we must construe it broadly. Therefore, we hold that a fetus is a ‘person’ protected by the 14th Amendment, from the moment it first exists.”
QED, the End. Congress can’t touch it, states can’t touch it.
Oh, btw, just because something was not criminalized in 1789 doesn’t mean it’s a fundamental right. If that were the case, we couldn’t have building codes, maximum hour laws, child labor laws, wetlands protection, etc. Liberals, DON’T go there!
Phil,
But, for some reason the left and Islamicfascists have decided to bed down together.
There it is again. Not even insinuating this time, but outright saying that Edward, Katherine, Jesurgislac, Anarch, Catsy, felxirayman, CharleyCarp, et al., are on the side of the terrorists. This is not only a massive violation of the posting rules, I’m fairly certain it’s a bannable offense. But it’s your blog, guys.
Actually you are right. I should clarify myself. Above Francis referred to right wing nuts. When I said that the left have bedded down with Islamofascists I should have said left wing nuts. That’s really who I meant. I don’t know if everyone on your list qualifies or not. You can judge that for yourself.
Anyone recall how many “Roe is Poor Legal Reasoning” bumper stickers and protest placards you’ve seen over the past 30 years?
Yeah…same here.
That’s why, despite the attraction to some, discussions about Originalism don’t bear on the “Marketing 101” problem. What has to be overcome (as shown in the cited polling data) is the absolutism reflected in all those “Abortion is Murder” signs.
The new decision might say, “even if there is a right to privacy that might apply, it is outweighed by the express command of the 14th Amendment against depriving a person of life without due process of law. ‘Person’ clearly means more than ‘citizen,’ and in view of the importance of this provision and the unfortunate history of this and other governments of narrowly construing the word and concept ‘person’, we hold that we must construe it broadly. Therefore, we hold that a fetus is a ‘person’ protected by the 14th Amendment, from the moment it first exists.”
Sure, they *could* write it that way–but can you name one Justice currently on the USSC–or any other federal judge, for that matter–who has written it that way either in a majority opinion (for the lower federal courts, of course) or in dissent? The Court could also rule that burning at the stake doesn’t constitute “cruel and unusual punishment”–the author of the majority opinion could probably even spin a tale to justify the absurdity–but it’s rather unlikely.
Dianne,
“Randall Terry as an example of a more typical pro-lifer?”
I don’t think he is typical of most pro-lifers. Certainly not the average American. Atleast not any pro-lifer I know.
On Hannity and Colmes he had this to say:
When he was most prominent I would equate him more with PETA or extreme environmental groups.
Although, he is non-violent so that may place him a little above some of those environmental groups like ELF.
Also, I’m not sure that hating abortion is a bad thing. Excluding rape, incest and a women’s safety of course, which is how most Americans feel.
blogme- Also, I’m not sure that hating abortion is a bad thing. Excluding rape, incest and a women’s safety of course, which is how most Americans feel.
And that is not the part of the statement that is a problem, either:
“We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism.[emphasis mine]
This is an anti-democratic point of view. It is based on a paradigm that negates the principles on which the constitution rests. You cannot be a democrat and a theocrat at the same time, because democracy demands pluralism.
It seems a useful description during these weird times that the left can identify more with Islamicfascists than the conservative right.
Hmm, you can give no examples of the supposed similarities between the two, just a false and ridiculous blanket accusation that the left identify with “Islamicfascists” a nonsense term which you can not even define. Rubbish.
Are you referring to this poll:
CBS News Poll. July 13-14, 2005. N=632 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4 (for all adults).
You mean from a page describing the same question asked dozens of different times over the years, by many different polling organizations, am I referring to the poll with the smallest sample size and largest margin of error that also happens to produce outlying results not reproduced by any of the other polls? No. No, I am not.
Or are you only going to refer to the polls that support your statement?
Again, accusing others of doing something you yourself are doing even as you accuse others of it.
“When I was leading Operation Rescue, I was in my 20s,”
When he made the statement that was quoted, he was not.
How should an originalist decide cases asserting that a law violates the liberty interest? Rehnquist’s dissent is basically a statement that the majority overreached. Gee, that’s helpful. It’d be nice to know what the appropriate parameters of the analysis should be.
Exactly. There are so many other liberty interests that constitute constitutional rights that are on the same footing as Roe, but not the same emotional footing so theydo not attract the same heat. Like the right to travel Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941). But emotional factors should not be the deciding factor.
You could parrot the same anti-Roe arguments to rebut the right to travel, and have the same issues as to “overreaching” and “not intended by the Constitution” and “legislative perogative vs. judical activism.” You could marshall the same thoughts about compelling state interests (the government needs identity cards and to keep track of where everyone is to prevent crime, etc.). The Roe critics never address this bigger question — by implication they would essentially eliminate the court’s long historic role in defining the liberty clause. Or else just eliminate about issues that they feel strongly about.
Wrong. Almost all opponents of any type of abortion restriction have to be anti-Roe. That absolutely does not translate into a majority of Senators who would vote to ban all abortions.
Agan, amazing ignorance as to the current political landscape. This administration is already on record regarding the scope of allowable abortions with regard to planned parenthood funding or funding of various health programs overseas. That record — a total ban on abortions or else.
They have repeatedly voted down even mild exceptions, such as rape, incest or health of the mother.
Although many Republican Senators might scurry like cockroaches if asked to participate in a poll as to how much abortion should be illegal, if put to the test, they will vote for a complete ban as they have already done in ever circumstance to date in which they have had an opportunity to make the vote.
You seem to be saying that abortion should be mildly regulated in the first four months, and banned after that. Funny — that’s pretty much what Roe does, although allowing exceptions in later months based on health of the mother (also allowing it later based on viability, which has changed over time based on technology). Abortions after the six month are almost never performed, and then probably only in truly dire situations. The notion that its a “problem” is fictional anyway.
First, if Roe were removed tomorrow, it would not mean that abortion would suddenly become illegal.
Actually, this overlooks a rather important fact.
Although I have not researched it, I am highly confident that large number of States still carry on their books anti-abortion laws that were voided by Roe v. Wade. Those laws remain on the books but are currently unenforceable.
As soon as Roe v. Wade is overturned, those laws are reinstated without any further legislative action. Voila — instantly illegal again.
Maybe the reversal decision would limit State power in some way that would still leave the old laws void (like the 70s death penalty decision that made it clear that the death penalty was proper, but invalidated outmoded death penalty statutes anyway). But I doubt it.
When I said that the left have bedded down with Islamofascists I should have said left wing nuts. That’s really who I meant.
I would be interested to know in what sense, if any, you think ‘left wing nuts,’ whoever they might be, have ‘bedded down’ with Islamicfascists. Are you thinking of all those leftists who’ve gone to the mountains of Pakistan to join the jihad? The Islamists that have been joining gay pride marches? Don’t be coy: name names, tell stories.
You are obviously not talking about any regular (or semi-regular) commenters here, as none are left wing nuts. Thus the danger of posting violation is low.
(This I really don’t get: “Which political positions of “Islamofascists” do you consider to be left-wing?” Just there bed partners. Are you saying Islamists are gay? Or that they sleep with leftist women — a shocking slur, I’d imagine, if made to an Islamist’s face? Or is it the bill offered by Sens. Kennedy and Clinton to declare Islam the state religion of the US?)
Tril:
Abortion is very rarely state action. Consequently, a finding that a fetus is a person under the 14th amendment wouldn’t have a direct impact on abortion. I suppose some fetus, or class of fetuses could bring an equal protection challenge against law enforcement officials for failure to enforce murder laws. The Warren court might have found a way for such a plaintiff to have standing, and for the claim to be ripe. Maybe a tougher go right now.
building codes, maximum hour laws, child labor laws, wetlands protection do not derive from fundamental rights, but from the police power, or commerce clause, depending on whether they are state or federal. The reversal of Casey is unlikely to have any impact on these areas. Indeed, it is the opposition to these kinds of laws that asserts positions based on fundamental rights.
Dammit!
dm, I looked at this 15 or 20 years ago, and I recall seeing plenty of state abortion bans on the books. It’ll be interesting to see what Montana will do, inasmuch as it adopted Griswold in its state constitution.
BM, I don’t know where you were in the 1980s, but that’s when a significant US political figure ‘bedded down,’ metaphorically, with the ‘Islamicfascists.’ I’m speaking, of course, of R. Reagan. And the bedding down wasn’t just some kind of expression of sympathy and offer of therapy. It was billions of dollars worth of weaponry, training, logistical support, etc, etc.
You can’t really continue this discussion effectively without coming to grips with the fact that there are ranges of the pro-life and pro-choice positions
Neither can we continue this discussion effectively without recognizing that the Republican Party generally hews to the line taken by relatively extreme anti-abortion group. It really doesn’t matter if they are a minority within the party or not, if they control the party’s position on the issue.
Charleycorp, you brought up the commerce clause first. I think I’m generally on your side, but I’d like to understand how the commerce clause applies. I am, after all, not a lawyer.
That was only half serious.
The CC is how most fed regulation is done. Is there an interstate market in abortion services? Yes, and there will definitely be in the post-Casey world. If the CC can be used to ban growing marijuana in your backyard for medicinal use, and it can, then abortion can probably be banned as well. (Read the Scalia opinion.)
Jackmormon: the best analogy is the civil rights laws. Once a fetus is a person, fed. law can prohibit others from violating that person’s civil rights. Death, via abortion, is a classic civil rights violation (hanging was the old-fashioned way to do it with that other group that has suffered invidious historical discrimination). Since the same Congress that finds a fetus to be a person will also find that that class of persons has suffered historical discrimination as a class based on their status, the same Sup Ct that upholds the first finding will uphold the second.
tada! a 42 USC 1986 (cvil rights violation) action lies.
It’s still interesting to think about the consequences if the Sup Ct reverses Roe but also reverses the fed. govt. abortion ban. The famous state laboratory model is REALLY going to be put to the test, as blue states become abortion havens and red states seek to prevent them from doing so.
Dianne,
You are wrong about this. The law exists like that on the books in a very few states, but I am unaware of even a single abortion stopped by such a law in the history of post-Roe abortions. The post-Roe legal regime is more permissive than most European states.
Felixrayman,
In the context of getting a federal ban on abortions (which is what most of the people here seem to be worried about) 20% is most definitely, absolutely “a few” and certainly not enough to have their idea on abortion pass unless the other 80% don’t care about abortion at all. You can’t have it both ways. Either a small percentage of people want to ban abortions OR an abortion ban passes through the federal government. Having both be true is dramatically unlikely unless you think Republicans want to pass a ban only to have it repealed by the emerging Democratic supermajority 2 year later.
Nous_athanatos speaking of theocrats…
Do you think that the ‘theocrats’ are likely to be able to impose a ban on abortions with only 20%?
Dmbeaster,
You have to say ‘probably’ because NARAL and NOW have blocked all attempts to gather data on the subject. You want your statement to be true, but there is no proof that it is, and the party most interested in avoiding inspection of the issue has caused it to remain uninvestigated. (Until perhaps this September in Kansas.)
Bernard Yomtov
It has an anti-Roe position which is solid because the anti-Roe position encompasses the entire spectrum of pro-life positions. In a post-Roe environment the extreme abortion banning view does not hold a majority even in the Republican Party–much less the country.
“You want your statement to be true, but there is no proof that it is”
And you secretly want it to be false?
No, I openly suspect the statement is false, and I suspect that one of the major reasons NARAL and NOW want to avoid open statistics on the subject is because they know that such statistics would be ugly.
Once a fetus is a person, fed. law can prohibit others from violating that person’s civil rights.
Which is why I–if I had been in charge of the majority opinion of Roe–would have based the right in the Thirteenth Amendment’s absolute prohibition (excepting as a punishment for crimes for which the individual is duly convicted) of involuntary servitude (no need to throw around “slavery” gratuitously, unless you’re of the “hack-em off” school of feminism made notorious by the vicious tag team of Dworkin and Mackinnon). The advantage to that approach would be that acknowledging the personhood of the fetus would not necessarily deny the putative mother the right to terminate the pregnancy as an expression of her right not to be subjected to involuntary servitude. Alas, Blackmun, et al., chose to base the right on the rather squishy ground of privacy rights (with their eminently mockable pedigree of “penumbras” and “emanations”), and as such it is very vulnerable to frontal attack.
In the context of getting a federal ban on abortions (which is what most of the people here seem to be worried about)
That was not the context I was responding to. The context I was directly responding to was this assertion:
There are very very few people in this country that believe abortion should be illegal in all instances. For Jesurgislac to state otherwise is just dishonest. Even among the right wing nut pro-lifers there are very very few people who believe that
And that’s just a false statement. Among pro-lifers there are tens of millions of people that believe abortion should be illegal in all instances.
Either a small percentage of people want to ban abortions OR an abortion ban passes through the federal government
15-20% want to ban it outright. Depending on how the question is asked and the specific polls, either a large plurality or a majority want to place severe restrictions on abortion. For example in one poll, those who wanted abortion to be either “illegal without exceptions” or “illegal with a few exceptions” amounted to 53% of the population, which certain Republicans currently consider to be an ultra-solid mandate.
So given the fact that most states did have abortion bans in the 70s, and that opinion polls have not changed much on the issue since then (if anything, there has been an increase in anti-choice sentiment), and given that the GOP is currently dependent for its majority on pandering to religionists, it is hardly inconceivable that there could be severe restrictions put on the availability of abortion in the event Roe was struck down.
Of course there probably would be a backlash if abortion was made “illegal with a few exceptions” – it would turn some pro-choice voters into single issue voters the way anti-abortion voters are now. But there would also be a backlash from the social conservatives if Roe was overturned and a GOP Congress took no action. That’s the GOP’s dilemma.
What would be an ugly statistic? In South Australia the majority of abortions are performed before 14 weeks and less than 2 percent at or after 20 weeks. Any reason to think America would be any different?
Dmbeaster: Abortions after the six month are almost never performed, and then probably only in truly dire situations. The notion that its a “problem” is fictional anyway.
Sebastian Holsclaw: You have to say ‘probably’ because NARAL and NOW have blocked all attempts to gather data on the subject.
Sebastian, every time this topic comes up you make this claim (on the lines of “the data isn’t available), and every time I post links (easily gathered from Google) on the data publicly available about late-term abortions in the US. How many are performed, why they are performed, etc. It’s all on the CDC.gov website (I’ve linked to the figures for the year 2000, but the stats are available since 1969.)
Isn’t it about time you gave up claiming what you know isn’t true? The data is available, and you know it. Why keep claiming that it isn’t?
“The law exists like that on the books in a very few states, but I am unaware of even a single abortion stopped by such a law in the history of post-Roe abortions. ”
Actually, forty states, including Kansas have such laws on the books. If few abortions are prevented by them that is because few, if any, women suddenly want an abortion after carrying a pregnancy 24 weeks.
Data is always good. Nice data. However: nit. The specific data Sebastian is referring to is not available on the page you linked to. What’s available is >21 weeks; he’s mentioned six months. This has been a test of the emergency nit-picking system. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
Slarti: The specific data Sebastian is referring to is not available on the page you linked to. What’s available is >21 weeks; he’s mentioned six months.
Yes, and FYI: six months is >21 weeks.
Right, the linked data, while not exactly what Seb. asked for, gives an upper limit: the number of abortions performed after 6 months must be less than or equal to the number of abortions performed after 21 weeks.
Seb. — Is there something particularly unsatisfactory about the data Jes keeps on linking for you? I could understand why this keeps coming up if you had a particular gripe with it, but I can’t figure out what that is.
That’s a real nitty nit: “greater than 21 weeks” vs. “6 months” (ie, approx. 26 weeks).
The most insulting of the anti-choice rhetoric – and the most dishonest – is the one that frames late-term abortion as a frivolous decision. Could someone here tell me why anti-choicers think that?
Oh, and allow me to pick one of my favorite nits: data are, not data is. Datum is singular. Data are plural (unless you’re talking about the USS Enterprise crewdroid).
“Sebastian, every time this topic comes up you make this claim (on the lines of “the data isn’t available), and every time I post links (easily gathered from Google) on the data publicly available about late-term abortions in the US. How many are performed, why they are performed, etc. It’s all on the CDC.gov website (I’ve linked to the figures for the year 2000, but the stats are available since 1969.)”
Jesurgislac, every time this topic comes up I point out that your charts say nothing about WHY the late term abortions are performed so your suggestion that I am lying is highly unwelcome.
That isn’t just a nit, that is a serious lack of data.
So, you concede the extreme rarity of third trimester abortion, you’re just complaining about the lack of solid statistics on the reasons for those very few abortions.
The law exists like that on the books in a very few states, but I am unaware of even a single abortion stopped by such a law in the history of post-Roe abortions.
That doesn’t impress me much, as I’m sure you’re probably not aware of a single murder stopped by murder laws either. I mean, if it doesn’t happen, it is by definition a non-event, right?
I’m also aware of murder prosecustions, I am however unaware of non-medical necessity late term abortion prosecustions.
“So, you concede the extreme rarity of third trimester abortion, you’re just complaining about the lack of solid statistics on the reasons for those very few abortions.”
Can I have a felixrayman analysis of ‘few’ please?
Let us say that only one percent per year of late term abortions are for non-necessity reasons (which I suspect though the data is not available is dramatically lowballing it since a 1% corruption rate in any human endeavour would be quite low). That would make at least 300 effective infanticides per year.
And BTW if it is so few, it isn’t much of a danger to abortion rights to look into it is it?
Wow. You know, if you hadn’t pointed that out…
Sebastian: I point out that your charts say nothing about WHY the late term abortions are performed so your suggestion that I am lying is highly unwelcome.
If you wish to avoid the implication that you are deliberately not mentioning the facts that don’t suit you, you could link to the CDC.org website, provide the information that they give about the percentage of abortions performed at >21 weeks (1.4% of total abortions performed) and say that you are uncomfortable that there is no breakdown of reasons given for abortions on the CDC.gov site.
You might add that, according to the National Right to Life website, 6% of abortions are carried out because of fetal health problems or the pregnant woman’s health problems.
Now, granted, I am not aware of any website which publishes data saying exactly what proportion of the 1.4% of >21 week abortions overlap with the 6% of abortions carried out because of fetal health problems or the pregnant woman’s health problems. Your concern that some of them may fall into the 94% carried out for other reasons is… interesting, but your refusal to use the data available to help you draw your conclusions is not.
As to the repeated assertions of the American Left “bedding down” with the Islamo(ic)fascists, it occurs to me that what blog me is getting at is the known fact that Mohammad Atta was favorably disposed toward keeping Social Security as it is with perhaps a gradual increase in the payroll tax to get us through the baby boomer bulge. I agree with Atta that private accounts would be the worm that eats the New Deal.
Remember, Atta knew, as did Saddam Hussein, that the children of the 9/11 victims would receive SS survivor benefits. So, yes, I, as a representative of the Left work hand in glove with Islamofacsists.
As to the actual “bedding down” with the terrorists, it has been my experience that we Leftists engage in a secret program to sleep with as many people as possible to subvert their cultures. It is our way of bringing democratic American culture to the more uptight regions of the world, the theory being that constant screwing of their lovely women and men (all combinations O.K.) keeps their minds off murder.
Eric Rudolph, of course, had to wait for jail to have sex. Also, for those mystified by Rudolph’s antics at the Olympics, remember that most of the contestants at the games wear short shorts. After all, it’s summer. But he knew what the decadent pole-vaulters were really up to.
We’re just trying to help.
If by late term, you mean third trimester, here’s ( http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib14.html ) an article from the Alan Guttmacher Institute suggesting that only about 320 third trimester abortions are done each year (the difference from the CDC figures is explained by the fact that the bulk of abortions performed at or beyond 21 weeks are performed in the 21st or 22d week).
Has anyone here, or elsewhere, expressed the opinion that it would be wrong to collect the statistics you want on reasons for 3d trimester abortions? I’m not sure who you’re arguing with.
(My apologies for the non-HTML link — when I previewed it originally, the link wouldn’t show up, and I couldn’t figure out how to fix it.)
You have to say ‘probably’ because NARAL and NOW have blocked all attempts to gather data on the subject.
This isn’t true at all. What was stopped was the government subpoenaing the medical records of such persons and thereby invading their privacy over their objections. There are other ways to gather data — sex research has been conducted for years without the necessity of subpoenaing the medical records of doctors.
You can pretend that absent the personal medical records, there is no data, but that is nonsensical. The available information cuts against your prejudice that third-term abortions are being done for the fun of it.
As Jesurgislac says:
Isn’t it about time you gave up claiming what you know isn’t true? The data is available, and you know it. Why keep claiming that it isn’t?
You are free to spout of remarks based on nothing more than blind prejudice, but expect to be called on it.
And your reference to Kansas is off-base — the legal issue there has nothing to do with third-term abortions, but it does involve the improper legal tactic of subpoenaing medical records over the objection of patients when no probable cause justifies the search. Ever heard of the 4th amendment?
[The Republican Party] has an anti-Roe position which is solid because the anti-Roe position encompasses the entire spectrum of pro-life positions. In a post-Roe environment the extreme abortion banning view does not hold a majority even in the Republican Party–much less the country.
You overstate your case, Sebastian. The 2004 platform specifically calls for a Human Rights Amendment and declares that the “unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.”
No matter if this is the majority view in the party or not. Parties are coalitions, and those with more moderate views often go along with the more extreme stance in the interest of maintaining the core bargain.
That there is a substantial segment of the Republican Party that holds these views, and that the rest of the party is highly beholden to them, is enough.
“Let us say that only one percent per year of late term abortions are for non-necessity reasons (which I suspect though the data is not available is dramatically lowballing it since a 1% corruption rate in any human endeavour would be quite low). That would make at least 300 effective infanticides per year.”
What are you proposing to do about this, assuming, for the sake of argument, it is true? 40 states, including Kansas, the only state in which over 5% of all abortions are >21 weeks, and New York, the state which has the highest overall number of abortions at >21 weeks, already have laws against third trimester abortion except in the case of medical necessity. I have no real problem with the other ten states making laws against abortion at >24 weeks as long as they allow exceptions for risk to mother’s health and fetal abnormalities inconsistent with life. I do have a problem with attempts to forbid particular procedures (ie D and X) because they are stupid and don’t help anyone.
By the way, calling a 21 week abortion “infanticide” is a serious exageration. Not as bad as calling a 5 week abortion infanticide, but still not justified by the level of brain activity present at the 21st week.
I’m also aware of murder prosecustions, I am however unaware of non-medical necessity late term abortion prosecustions.
So, prosecutions for breaking a law are the primary evidence of the law’s effectiveness? Is that where the goalposts now stand?
That would make at least 300 effective infanticides per year.
That would be true if the abortion rate was 2.1 million annually, as 300 / .014 / .01 is 2.1 million. That’s more than twice what appears in the CDC report, and I doubt that AK, CA, NH, and OK are taking up the slack.
Has it ever occurred to you that you may be overestimating the size of the problem?
“Has anyone here, or elsewhere, expressed the opinion that it would be wrong to collect the statistics you want on reasons for 3d trimester abortions? I’m not sure who you’re arguing with.”
Yes, in the 1980s and early 1990s (when I was deeply involved in a pro-life organization), there was a push by pro-life organizations to collect information on the reasons for late term abortions, which was completely and successfully resisted by NARAL.
“And your reference to Kansas is off-base — the legal issue there has nothing to do with third-term abortions, but it does involve the improper legal tactic of subpoenaing medical records over the objection of patients when no probable cause justifies the search. Ever heard of the 4th amendment?”
Wrong on all counts. It has to do with two issues. Issue one: statutory rape reporting. Issue two: late-term abortion reporting. There is definitely probable cause that the doctors are breaking the notification laws on abuse of minors (they are in fact performing abortions on underage girls without reporting it to the state). There is also probable cause that they are not complying with the “medically necessary” requirement and the reporting required by law in Kansas because the doctors are not documenting the reason why the abortions are “medicially necessary”.
“You overstate your case, Sebastian. The 2004 platform specifically calls for a Human Rights Amendment and declares that the “unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.”
Please note that would require an AMENDMENT to the Constitution, not merely a judicial appointment. Although if certain liberal theories of jurisprudence were true, such a change could take place via judicial fiat. Fortunately for everyone those theories are not typically held by conservative judges. (I say fortunately for everyone because such a decision would harm the left’s view of the judicial system as much as Roe did on the right and that would be awful for the rule of law).
“What are you proposing to do about this, assuming, for the sake of argument, it is true? 40 states, including Kansas, the only state in which over 5% of all abortions are >21 weeks, and New York, the state which has the highest overall number of abortions at >21 weeks, already have laws against third trimester abortion except in the case of medical necessity.”
I propose to collect the data needed to enforce these laws–which is done in none of those states.
I propose to collect the data needed to enforce these laws–which is done in none of those states.
How?
That’s important.
Sebastian: Let us say that only one percent per year of late term abortions are for non-necessity reasons (which I suspect though the data is not available is dramatically lowballing it since a 1% corruption rate in any human endeavour would be quite low).
Sebastian, do try to put yourself in the place of a woman who has enjoyed six months of healthy pregnancy and whose doctor tells her the fetus is healthy and will survive to delivery. (Discount, for the sake of argument, the women who wanted to have an abortion earlier than six months but were denied access: if your concern is late-term abortions, you must find the “pro-lifers” who try to prevent early abortion of unwanted fetuses as objectionable as I do.)
You are trying to argue that there is at least one chance in a hundred that someone who has spent six months working hard to achieve a desired goal, and who has every reason to believe that she will achieve the desired goal, will deliberately sabotage her goal because “a 1% corruption rate in any human endeavour would be quite low”.
I find that argument less than convincing, somehow.
That would make at least 300 effective infanticides per year.
And BTW if it is so few, it isn’t much of a danger to abortion rights to look into it is it?
You don’t need to overturn Roe to look into regulating third trimester abortions other than those done for the sake of preserving the life or health of the mother. If you wish to ban third trimester abortions when the life or health of the mother is in danger, then as stated earlier, you think it is better that women should suffer and die than that women should have access abortion.
Secondly, your attempt to redefine the word infanticide is just silly.
I propose to collect the data needed to enforce these laws–which is done in none of those states.
And–more to the point–require doctors involved in late-term abortions to give sworn statements regarding the circumstances that required such a drastic action, and to preserve adequate evidence so that the authorities can investigate those circumstances after the fact if they are so inclined. Under the original Roe framework, it was made clear that the state had a legitimate interest in preserving pregnancies that had reached the point of potential viability (the third trimester). Though I do support choice, the whining from the usual suspects that instituting any measures to support that aspect of Roe is somehow unfair or insulting to women and/or doctors is becoming quite tedious.
Here is a Slate piece on the rather unreliable state of some abortion statistics (this only with respect to number of late-term abortions not the reasons behind them).
“I propose to collect the data needed to enforce these laws–which is done in none of those states.
“How?”
A good start would be:
A) Having the doctor certify that the abortion is medically necessary. (Even this is not required in most states)
B) Having the doctor provide in the certification enough medical information to show why it is medically necessary.
C) Provide a mechanism for regular review of these decisions. If we are going to allow the killing of 7th, 8th and 9th month fetuses we can go to the trouble to be sure they are non-viable fetuses or fetuses who are endangering the mother’s lives. We have a better oversight process for parking tickets ane prisoner abuse.
And if women are ‘never’ getting late term abortions without them being medically necessary, none of this will be a big deal.
When a fetus is aborted for non-medical reasons in the late-term, it is essentially infanticide. We can take minor steps to ensure that doesn’t take place. In no other area of law would liberals agree to allow life-and-death decisions about a third party with so little oversight. You would never allow prison administrators to assure you that they are professionals and thus should be just trusted not to break laws about prisoner abuse. You would never allow corporations to say “we are complying with EPA guidelines so don’t bother checking up on us.” You would never allow the US government to say “we aren’t torturing anyone under our definition of torture, so you don’t need to bother investigating”. Why then do you say “We can trust all the doctors, they say all the abortions are medically necessary, so they must be and it is only a few hundred a year that might not be so who cares.”? We aren’t talking about aborting a ‘clump of cells’ at this point. We are talking about a fetus which is only locationally different from a child.
Sebastian: And if women are ‘never’ getting late term abortions without them being medically necessary, none of this will be a big deal.
Unless there’s a two-pronged strategy: try to prevent women from getting access to a wanted abortion before 24 weeks and then preventing any woman who wants an abortion from having one after 24 weeks.
Can I ask where you stand on the obstructionists who argue that (a) women in the military shouldn’t be allowed to have abortions at military health centers: (b) girls underage shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion without the consent of their legal guardian: (c) health insurance companies should be allowed to remove abortion coverage from standard insurance plans (d) a doctor who doesn’t want to perform an abortion shouldn’t be compelled to immediately refer the patient to someone who will perform the abortion?
What do you mean by late term? If you mean third trimester, the Bergen Record story addressed in your Slate link doesn’t address third trimester abortions, it’s limited to abortions between 20 and 24 weeks.
When a fetus is aborted for non-medical reasons in the late-term, it is essentially infanticide
There is no coherent reading of the definition of the word that would apply in that case and with that distinction.
And if women are ‘never’ getting late term abortions without them being medically necessary, none of this will be a big deal.
So call your representatives and tell them to pass a law banning all other third term abortions. Roe does not need to be overturned to do that. Such a law could be passed today.
when was the last time any state legislature passed a law that regulates ONLY third trimester abortions more rigorously than existing law (2nd opinion required / mandatory review of file by AG’s office) while leaving in place legitimate health of mother exceptions in place?
i was involved in the anti-Op Rescue clinic defenses in the early 90s. NOT ONCE did the Op Rescue lunatics pass around an initiative proposing something along the lines set forth above.
here’s one possible view of the political state: centrists mostly don’t care. the issue is out of the paper and little muffy can always get the procedure done.
only the extremists are pushing legislation. and whether they’re more interested in losing and getting headlines / talking points on activist judges, or whether there’s some other reason, there have been precious few attempts to address SH’s narrow issue. Instead we see these great whacking bills that are clearly inconsistent with Sup Ct precedent.
btw, the request still stands for clarification on how an originalist / textualist is to interpret the word liberty in the 5th amendment.
when was the last time any state legislature passed a law that regulates ONLY third trimester abortions more rigorously than existing law (2nd opinion required / mandatory review of file by AG’s office) while leaving in place legitimate health of mother exceptions in place?
Exactly. Sebastian — the pro-choice community isn’t going to spontaneously push the legislation you want, because we don’t think it’s necessary. However, if you, or people who agree with you, came up with legislation that (a) banned abortion in the third trimester only; (b) with exceptions for the life and health of the mother, and for appropriate treatment of non-viable pregnancies; and (c) included reasonable provisions for data collection to be sure that the law was being abided by, you could get it passed fairly easily in almost any jurisdiction you want, and no one would be all that excited about it. That no such laws exist is due simply to the fact that the anti-abortion movement doesn’t push them.
Seb– late, but for the record:
Do you think that the ‘theocrats’ are likely to be able to impose a ban on abortions with only 20%?
I don’t think the theocrats could over the long term, but I think they could certainly approximate such a thing in the short term, especially given that the way that things are currently structured and being run in D.C. the ‘theocrats” 20% is more like an effective 45%, considering that partisanship on both sides has left them squabbling over the moderate left/right quartile that will give them their pluralistic ‘mandate’ rather than aiming for a broadly centrist position.
Dianne,
“By the way, calling a 21 week abortion “infanticide” is a serious exageration. Not as bad as calling a 5 week abortion infanticide, but still not justified by the level of brain activity present at the 21st week.”
So are you willing to propose a cut off date for “infanticide”? I’ve seen studies indicating that anywhere from 20% to 50% of babies born at 23 weeks survive.
By the way, where is Gary?
So are you willing to propose a cut off date for “infanticide”?
The word means, “the practice of killing newborn infants”. Does this not dictate the obvious cut off date for the applicability of the term? Or are terms being redefined here for purposes of propaganda?
If the only functional difference is locational I would call the label ‘infanticide’ descriptive based on the advancement of scientific understanding. If you think there is a moral difference between a 9th month viable fetus and a newborn such that one can be killed without even mild safeguards while killing the other spurs a murder investigation I will admit that I can understand why you would label my discussion ‘propaganda’.
Just dropped by to see if you wanted to join in on a cool carnival
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/365
“Exactly. Sebastian — the pro-choice community isn’t going to spontaneously push the legislation you want, because we don’t think it’s necessary.”
I don’t know about the “pro-choice” community, but why is the liberal community so indifferent to procedural safeguards for the innocent and helpless in just this one case? Do they really let their political opponents dictate things so much that they can’t possibly be attentive to this issue because they are so put off?
And legislation has been tried. The medical loophole is always judicially expanded to swallow the entire rule, or rendered completely unenforceable. This happened in the 1980s (probably earlier but I wasn’t involved at the time) and is not readily linkable, but I will look around for something you can access on the internet.
If you think there is a moral difference between a 9th month viable fetus and a newborn
With the same logic as that, you could ask that all young children be referred to as fetuses. It’s bad logic. The word infanticide has a clear definition and that definition does not include that which you seem, for ideological reasons, to wish it included, so you are trying to redefine the term. Yes, your discussion is propaganda.
I don’t know about the “pro-choice” community, but why is the liberal community so indifferent to procedural safeguards for the innocent and helpless in just this one case? Do they really let their political opponents dictate things so much that they can’t possibly be attentive to this issue because they are so put off?
At this point, we have a very small issue — a few hundred third-term abortions nationally. The pregnant women involved are making the decisions with respect to those abortions, and I see no compelling reason to second-guess their judgment, or to substitute someone else’s.
If this specific issue, of third term abortions undergone without medical reasons, is vitally important to you, this is an issue where you (the anti-abortion movement) can win politically, and Roe does not prevent it. There isn’t a large, energized constituency that is going to fight for third-term abortion on demand. If you want to win it, however, you are going to have to divorce your efforts from attempts to ban or restrict earlier abortions which do have a large constituency behind them.
So long as the anti-abortion movement does not make a separate effort to lobby for the kind of laws that could pass and be enforced regulating third-term abortion, I’m not going to believe that they have a strong interest in such laws that is distinct from their interest in banning abortion globally.
“There isn’t a large, energized constituency that is going to fight for third-term abortion on demand.”
Sure there is, NARAL.
NARAL is an organization, not a constituency, and what gets its supporters energized is not efforts to enforce the laws regulating third-term abortion that are already on the books in 40 states. (Attempts by random prosecutors to override all considerations of medical privacy and go fishing through women’s medical records at random? That will bother us. Regulations requiring the reporting of the medical reason for a third-term abortion? Not going to be a cause celeb.)
I’m not saying that there’s no one out there who’s going to oppose regulations like the ones you say you want, I’m saying there are few enough people who do, that a strong effort from the anti-abortion movement could get them passed and enforced. If the laws aren’t as you would like them, it’s because your political allies don’t want them badly enough.
Let’s see, NARAL has around 150,000 members. This, you say, is “large”. The number of people who want to ban abortion in all circumstances is, again, around 40 million. This is, we read on this thread, “very very few people”. Does this make sense to you? “Large” is orders of magnitude smaller than “very very few”? Someone’s math is off. And, for reference, the National Right to Life Committee, which argues against abortion in all circumstances, has 12 million members – a couple orders of magnitude or so larger than “large”. What shall we refer to this number by in the New Math, “miniscule”?
so now you know what it’s like to be on the wrong side of a powerful and paranoid lobbying group, like the NRA or Focus on the Family.
Prop. 73 (here) is on the ballot this fall here in california. It looks like you missed your chance to fold in increased protections for third trimester abortions. but maybe the Laubachers (the official sponsors and registered nurses) and James Holman (publisher of the San Diego Reader and funder of the signature collection) would be willing to take a run at it in another initiative.
as to your policy question, it is possible that a very small number of women in California are committing murder every year with the complicity of their abortionists. on the other hand, it’s not like late-term abortions are being done in back alleys. How many doctors and nurses are actually willing to perform abortions on healthy, viable 30+ week fetuses?
The coalition of people who want to catch those women have for the most part much broader goals, and it appears likely that any law would impose unpleasant and even dangerous burdens on women who are in dire straits.
You perceive the fetus as the powerless one. I don’t; I perceive the woman carrying an unwanted late-term fetus as the powerless one, with individuals such as yourself seeking to use the power of the State to interfere with her autonomy.
“If the only functional difference is locational I would call the label ‘infanticide’ descriptive based on the advancement of scientific understanding.”
Actually, there are differences between, say, a one day over term fetus and a newborn. A number of physiologic changes occur at birth, including closure of the umbilical vessels and ductus arteriosus, start of regular breathing, and other phsyiologic changes. Probably more significantly, the brain is exposed to a huge input of new stimuli, including at least some critical information about who to attach to. Do any of these differences mean the difference between a person and a non-person? Who knows? I’m a conservative at heart: I say don’t allow elective abortion in the third trimester, or at least not in the last two months, in case the fetus is more concious than is currently understood*. But, really, the question is still open.
*Of course, I also don’t think it is moral to eat mammals, because of the possibility that mammals might have some level of conciousness that would make killing them immoral, except in cases where it is necessary to save human life.
I am mostly with the conservatives in this discussion, I find to my suprise.
In the beginning of the thread the Netherlands was named as one of the countries with the lowest percentage of abortions. That is true, but we only have free (no reason given) abortions in the first trimester, and officially you have to wait 5 days between stating that you want one and the abortion itself. Abortion is officially possible till 24 weeks (in practise this is less than 22 weeks) if there is a medical reason. Above 24 weeks you cannot have an abortion, but if the baby is not viable the doctors may decide to start labour prematurely. As from 24 weeks you have to have a death certificate, you have to bury the baby and (s)he has to be registred.
Figures of 2003 (Dutch pdf):
92.5 % Happen in the first trimester, 87.2 befor the 9th week.
Anticonception is very easily available, the pill is free for women younger than 21, abortion is free and easily available too.
Sex education is not mandatory, but in practise almost every school has it, and there are many other sources (magazines, tv, etc.) that cover the subject extensively.
For almost every Dutch person a baby of 21 weeks gestation or older is a baby. People mourn them, post pictures of them (there is a whole Dutch website for parents who lost a child with seperate sections for people who lost a child during pregnancy or had to terminate the pregnancy).
Daycare is very expensive btw.
Apropos of the discussion about the quality of the analysis in Roe, I offer the this link to Jack Balkin’s website, promoting a new book entitled “What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said.”
highly recommended.
That would be a perfectly acceptable system, if we could get there from here. However, all the actual proposals here to regulate abortion are promulgated by people who favor a total ban on abortions, and thus involve restrictions much more onerous than what you describe. As a result, no one who thinks that access to abortion is important will sign on to them.
This says to me that: if Sebastian is sincerely stating that he thinks abortion should be legal and freely available before 6 months and extremely difficult to get after that*, then he should start a movement to organize for that goal rather than signing on with the “Pro-Life” movement which works for absolute unavailability of abortion. But Sebastian’s argument seems to be, the people who think abortion should be available ought to agitate for his preferred policy whilst leaving the “Pro-Life” movement to agitate for a total ban on abortion. But I honestly don’t want to put words in your mouth, Sebastian. Is that what you’re saying? Because it’s the only reading I have been able to get out of your posts after a few times over them.
—
*Is this what you’re saying Sebastian? It sounds like it from some of your posts but then I think, maybe I’m reading in the first clause and all you’re actually saying, is the second.
Marketing what to whom?
Von of Obsidian Wings notices an interesting exchange at Red State.org: Over on RedHot, Adam C., Mark Kilmer, and Augustine are debating ways to counter the impression that the repeal of Roe v. Wade means the repeal of legalized abortion….
OT, but CNN says it’s John Roberts.
Marketing what to whom?
Von of Obsidian Wings notices an interesting exchange at Red State.org: Over on RedHot, Adam C., Mark Kilmer, and Augustine are debating ways to counter the impression that the repeal of Roe v. Wade means the repeal of legalized abortion….
What I’m saying is that I’m in a tough position. The NARAL crowd, which pretty much controls the Democratic party on the issue is ok with abortion on demand to the last second before birth. The Pro-life crowd, which dominates the issue in the Republican Party, goes much further. The dominant US citizen view on the issue of abortion is not currently represented by anyone. Of the two choices I have, NARAL wants no change, so my best option is to throw in with the pro-lifers knowing that they can’t get everything they want anyway, but also knowing that as currently configured there will be no change whatsoever. This task would be made easier if those on the left who are not completely sold on the NARAL view would work from their end–which if this board is any indication seems deeply unlikely.
Of the two choices I have, NARAL wants no change, so my best option is to throw in with the pro-lifers knowing that they can’t get everything they want anyway…
You realize that makes no sense, right?
if Sebastian is sincerely stating that he thinks abortion should be legal and freely available before 6 months and extremely difficult to get after that*,
Sebastian — Do you agree with the above? Because if that is your position, I think you could get lots of people who think of themselves as pro-choice to sign on.
If, rather, you think abortion should be wery difficult to obtain after six months, and also that it should be very difficult to obtin before six months, (and I’m guessing this is your position, my apologies if I’m wrong) that’s why pro-choice people won’t work with you.
Anarch:
I think it does make sense if you add in the unspoken risk-adjuster: “I’m a man, I’m unlikely to get pregnant, so if the right goes too far, it’s no skin off my nose.” This is roughly the same reason that people who make political claims about race or class very different from their Southern Republican breathren throw in with them nonetheless. Plus, you get a tax cut.
I should note that I think almost everyone behaves in roughly similar ways; it’s just a matter of what you want the world to look like and what you’re willing to trade for it.
SCMT: “if you add in the unspoken risk-adjuster”
That would be unfair to SH.
SCMTim:
Since SH is gay, he also doesn’t have to worry about getting someone pregnant. (and i’m comfortable writing this since SH has openly stated his preference/orientation on this blog.) so the risk-adjustment factor you referenced is even stronger than it is for straight men.
as to his actual views, he has some interesting blog posts on his personal blog. the comments, unfortunately, have been spammed and are virtually unreadable.
and as to what NARAL actually says, after searching their website I found the following: “NARAL Pro-Choice America supports the legal framework established in Roe v. Wade and does not oppose restrictions on post-viability abortions, such as Florida’s, that contain adequate exceptions to protect the life and health of the woman.”
I wonder if anyone has ever managed to get language out of NARAL that contains exceptions they deem adequate but that also has some bite.
One caveat, though.
If Roe v. Wade were overturned in a decision that found that a fetus had a fundamental right to life, that would leave no legislative alternative. Abortion would be illegal everywhere: in every state, red and blue.
Sebastian — Do you agree with the above? Because if that is your position, I think you could get lots of people who think of themselves as pro-choice to sign on.
I could sign on to that, as well as Sebastian’s three-point plan to enforce laws against unnecessary late-term abortions, if I thought that would be the end of it.
Unfortunately, I’m not sure even Sebastian would consider that the end of it, and I’m sure that the idiots along Adams Street here in Chicago a couple of weeks ago wouldn’t.
Still, if Sebastian can agree that this would be a negotiated peace, I would support any organization which espoused that position. What do you say, Sebastian?
Anarch, how does it not make sense? Think of it as a tug of war — right now the flag is too far to the left (in SH’s view), so by teaming with the pro-life crowd, he helps pull the flag closer to the center. You can argue with the thesis, but it’s not nonsensical.
SCMT (and Francis), Sebastian is about the last person you should be accusing of subordinating his political opinions to his own self-interest; and such an accusation is offensive in any case. There’s plenty of room to discuss his actual arguments without having to search for hidden motives and explanations.
Anarch, how does it not make sense? Think of it as a tug of war — right now the flag is too far to the left (in SH’s view), so by teaming with the pro-life crowd, he helps pull the flag closer to the center. You can argue with the thesis, but it’s not nonsensical.
I get the basic idea, sure. The problem I have with it is actually encapsulated in the above metaphor: once flag gets pulled closer to the center it keeps going. [Objects in motion &c] Hence, when the metaphorical flag is pulled to the center, odds are it too is going to keep on going — right to the outcome that Sebastian implies he finds even more distasteful.
I can understand trying to pull the issue to the center; that, IMO, makes perfect sense. Throwing your weight behind the outcome you don’t want, however, in order to try to get the issue to stabilize towards the middle strikes me as far too fraught a manipulation to make any sense. YMMV.
I can’t pull to the center from the Democrats and I don’t like the status quo. It is really that simple.
I would think that my views on Constitutionaly mandated gay marriage would at least cause people to think twice about the idea that I always put my personal self-interest ahead of my political understanding, but I guess it doesn’t.
SH – how, absent a shotgun, do you mandate a marriage?
(Reading this thread reminds me why I pretty much stopped commenting.)
As for an encapsulation of my total views on abortion/reproductive issues, if I were the super-powerful politco in charge of everything (heaven forbid) I would tend toward super easy access if not governmentally funded contraception, sex education in the early teen years, abortions that are available through about week 18-20 (yes I’m aware that is earlier than the 6th month but with readily available sex education, early abortions and contraception that should not be a ridiculous burden), abortions that are not available except in cases of non-viability or serious danger to the mother’s health after that. Maybe I’m crazy, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that is where we end up in 40 years, but I’m not sure what path it takes to get there.
As I said above, I think everybody votes their own interests. Including me. I’m squishier on abortion than many Democrats, and I assume that is largely because I’m a man. I’m more comfortable risking Roe than the 6th and 14th Amendments, for example. I’d rather almost anyone than Gonzales. But I wouldn’t think it’s crazy if a woman were to understand the risks exactly as I do and still opt for Gonzales.
Pretending that there are people who vote against their own perceived interests is comical. When a person’s interests conflict, he prioritizes them, and that’s where you get information about what he might do in a tight case (or, in the case of Padilla, a not tight case).
I have no idea what could possibly be foreign, in America, about the idea that people vote their interests. I have no idea what could be surprising about the claim that Sebastian and I either value different interests or order the same interests differently. What in Gawd’s name does anyone think we vote about?
Pretending that there are people who vote against their own perceived interests is comical. When a person’s interests conflict, he prioritizes them, and that’s where you get information about what he might do in a tight case
I think people vote against their own perceived intrests regularly, if they feel it is the moral thing to do or if they feel that society gets better because of it (which might be prioritized self interest of course). I thought the idea of ‘homo economicus’ was out of fashion again?
Also, for the record, I’d like to note that I seem to be more conservative than Sebastian as far as abortus is concerned since I think elective abortions should only be possible in the first trimester – if the other requirements he mentioned are met.
Ah…. I never thought I’d write that sentence 🙂
“Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The [381 U.S. 479, 486] very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.”–MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, GRISWOLD ET AL. v. CONNECTICUT
If there is no right to privacy in our own bodies, then what privacy do we have? How can there be any at all? I think that needs to be looked at very carefully–it is not only pregnant women who would be subject to invasion, should the Court decide there is no right to privacy in our bodies.
I’m with Phillip B. — I could agree on Sebastian’s position as a negotiated peace, (although I’d have to think hard and do some fact research about precisely what week I thought was a reasonable place to draw the line, but provisionally, 20 sounds okay.)
Politically, though, I don’t now see a constitutency for it — all the political efforts I see directed toward regulating abortion seem to come from people who are interested in restricting or removing access to it globally, and restricting or removing access to sex ed and contraception as well.
Sebastian — to the extent this is your goal, associating yourself with the current anti-abortion movement is going to guarantee that no one who thinks access to early abortion is important is going to trust you as an ally. To sell this position, I think that you, and people who agree with you, would have to present yourselves as a third, distinct, group, fighting both for free access to intelligent sex ed, contraception, and early abortion, and for restrictions on the type of late-term abortions that you oppose. A group like that would get plenty of support from current pro-choicers; I’d vote for candiates with positions like that. As long as you (or a hypothetical candidate agreeing with you) treat the current anti-abortion movement as your ally, though, I don’t trust anything you advocate in this regard.
LizardBreath,
Exactly. Sebastian’s proposal reminds me of the discussion we had months ago on redistricting, where Sebastian expected Democrats to support redistricting in California as fundamentally more fair, while not pushing Republicans to undo the egregious redistricting in Texas. Sorry, but if you want people to think you don’t want to go as far as one’s allies, one needs to break from them.
I can’t pull to the center from the Democrats and I don’t like the status quo. It is really that simple.
To reiterate: what you’re advocating instead, namely supporting the GOP on this issue, strikes me as extremely counterproductive given your stated goals. Once that ball/flag/whatever gets moving, it isn’t going to stop at your desired state and I very much doubt you’ll like the new status quo any more than the old one. The simplicity of this stance strikes me as a cop-out — which is a moderately unfair thing to say here, I know, and I’m sorry — in that what you should really try to do is to break out from the paradigm of D-versus-R to empower a centrist coalition of interest groups whose aim it is to move and hold the abortion position in somewhere in the middle.
Easier said than done, of course, and YMMV.
“A group like that would get plenty of support from current pro-choicers; I’d vote for candiates with positions like that. As long as you (or a hypothetical candidate agreeing with you) treat the current anti-abortion movement as your ally, though, I don’t trust anything you advocate in this regard.”
Sigh, this is exactly how groups like we are talking about get started. You ally with a group that will do part of what you want and you try to build a constituency for the contours of your proposal. That is impossible to do from the Democratic side because they don’t want change at all. If Democrats really were interested in this kind of thing we would have had proposals when they controlled the legislatures. You sometimes see non-crazy abortion proposals from Democrats nowadays only because they are finally freaked out about how far their position is from the mainstream US citizen position. And still I strongly suspect some of the Democrats are only voting for them because they know they can’t pass them (I think especially of Feinstein when I say that). You didn’t get proposals like Durbin’s when the Democrats controlled anything in the Legislature. If your issue approximates something stuck between the moderates of both parties, still the only way to get things done is by initiating things with the party that wants change. This can provoke compromise with the party that doesn’t want change in the long run on an issue like abortion, but if you support the party that doesn’t want change you don’t get anything at all. That is the same reason why we may or may not get anything useful in terms of change to Social Security. I can never get to where I want to be by supporting the Democratic Party, they won’t provide the impetus for any of the kind of changes I want. I may (or may not) be able to get to where I want to go by trying to influence the Republican Party which is at least willing to entertain the idea of changing it. In the long run (unless they use the Courts to ram what they want through) the activists rarely get all of what they want, but you don’t get the change at all unless you harness them somewhat.
See ESPECIALLY welfare reform. We would never have gotten any of the positive effects of the 1990s welfare reform from a Democrat-controlled legislature. But even Newt Gingrich didn’t get all he wanted from welfare reform, because though there were many Republicans who would have liked more drastic measures, there were also many who realized that you couldn’t completely change things in unfair ways without suffering electoral backlash. Welfare reform has been broadly very positive for the economy, and for people who have been encouraged to go back to work, without being very negative for most of those forced to stay on it. That absolutely would not have happened without using the wing of the Republican Party that wanted much further reform. The reform concept from Democrats never got off the ground until after they were scared to death by the potency of the issue as an electoral problem for them and they (mostly Clinton) decided to defuse it as an issue by making reasonable compromises on it. This allowed a reasonable compromise to emerge because the Republican crazies got what they could get and the moderates of both parties crafted something that the crazies would vote for (as an ‘initial’ step, when further steps didn’t and won’t go anywhere) so there were enough votes to get it through. That is how changes occur with respect to issue where the parties as a whole have drifted well away from the political center.
That is impossible to do from the Democratic side because they don’t want change at all.
Here, I think you’re just mistaken. As you’ve said, your position is fairly popular, including among Democrats (remember, we’re still half the country), and it’s not philosophically repugnant to all but a very few abortion-rights activists. Free, open access to early-term abortion, and humane non-harrassing treatment for women who need to undergo late-term abortions for medical or non-viability reasons is all most people in the country want on abortion, and it’s 95% percent of what anyone wants. Most of the abortion-rights movements would be happy to sign onto something very close to what you want, and if your desired outcome were stably imposed by fiat, NARAL would melt away (compare European countries with something very close to your favored regime, and no considerable movement of which I’m aware pushing for third-trimester abortion on demand).
Most of the activist pro-life movement, on the other hand, thinks you’re a murderer. You want to conspire to let people kill babies. They think your desired outcome is a moral abomination, and if it’s ever achieved, they will do everything in their power to change it.
How you analyze the situation and think the second group is a useful set of allies, and the first must be shunned, I don’t get at all.
Sebastian wrote that he would support abortions that are available through about week 18-20…
I haven’t seen the issue of prenatal testing brought up here. The most common method of testing for chromosomal abnormalities, amniocentesis, may not yield a result until week 18 or 19 of the pregnancy. I’d sure hate to be in the position of a woman whose amnio results were delayed a few days in the mail, finds that the baby she had been dreaming of will, if brought to term, have a serious or even fatal genetic abnormality, and is told: OK, you have 3 days to decide whether or not to terminate your pregnancy. Oh, and our office won’t do it, because we’re worried about prosecution, you’ll have to go to someone else who specializes and is lawyered up.
Also: who decides what the start date of the pregnancy was — will prosecutors be looking for expert witnesses that may say “well, based on these criteria, this pregancy was probably at 21.5 weeks, not 19”?
I find the idea of a specified week of pregnancy as a cutoff for an illegal abortion as extremely scary for just these sort of reasons…
LizardBreath How you analyze the situation and think the second group is a useful set of allies, and the first must be shunned, I don’t get at all.
Good question, and one which it would be interesting to get an answer to.
AlexR: I find the idea of a specified week of pregnancy as a cutoff for an illegal abortion as extremely scary for just these sort of reasons…
I think 28 weeks is right as a final no-abortion-after-this-unless-it’s-life-or-death date (well, it seems to work for the UK). It effectively allows for abortion for late-testing abnormalities up to 24 weeks, which gives a woman a reasonable amount of time to decide after getting her test results.
Well, yes — when I say Sebastian’s position is popular, I’m assuming a cut-off date that is reasonably after when amniocentesis is practical, and access to abortion throughout pregnancy for abnormalities incompatible with life.
I find the idea of a specified week of pregnancy as a cutoff for an illegal abortion as extremely scary for just these sort of reasons…
Sebastian stated that he would want abortions after week 20 only for medical reasons, so that covers the fetal genetical abnormalities.
In the Netherlands the cut of dates are more restrictive than the ones Sebastian proposes (elective abortions till week 12, abortions for medical reasons in practise till week 22) and there is no problem with them. Except that having to decide what to do with your baby if the tests show something wrong is ALWAYS difficult and sad.
I’m a second generation Democrat, daughter of a women’s rights activist, and I have no problem with the proposal you put forth. I think your analysis of which party can actually make the changes leaves out an important factor: religion. Many anti-abortion people see it as a religious issue and are unwilling to compromise except as a means of sneaking up to their ultimate goal, an outright ban. I realize that this is a minority view within the electorate in general and possibly within the subset of registered Republicans and that it is a completely irrational attitude; that doesn’t matter to the people who think this way. If abortion is murder, then your suggestion that the child can be murdered up to, but not after, a certain number of weeks will not be seen as a satisfactory negotiated peace. There are a large number of Republican grassroots activists who don’t want a negotiated peace. For the Republican party to provide leadership for change along the lines you are suggesting, the party will have to disappoint and anger its base. There are an awful lot of Republican Congresspeople who ran as right-to-lifers, get funded on that basis, get volunteers from that core group, and will lose election if they are preceived as betrayers or collaborators. I know that there are equivalent people in the Democratic party, one issue voters who judge everyone and everything in terms of abortion policy, they are not any where near as influential. First of all, they aren’t a very big group numerically (see the data about NARAL membership vs anti-abortion upthread). Secondly, they aren’t religiouusly motivated. They don’t think thhey are carrying out God’s will and that right there reduces thhe hysteria level. Lastly, even NARAL has shown flexibility on this. (Again, check the info up thread, particularly the position paper quote) Most important of all,abortion rights activists are not the Democrats’ base, only a fragment of the base, and then only in certain cities. For example here in the Puget Sound region where I volunteered for fifteen hours a week all last summer I never met a single person who was motivated by abortion rights. many people, including me, didsn’t want Bush to get the chance to appoint judges, but abortionn was not the sole focus of concern. Those judges also rule on environmental issues, civil rights, and are the ultimate determiners of the balance (or imbalance) of powers between the branches of government. The concerns about Bush appointees are much broader than just abortion.
Contrast that with the Republican poll watchers at my voting place: all members of the same congregation. The Republican party has much more to lose by compromising on this than the Democrats.
I, too, would support a deal like this. But only if from the Republican side one could get finality. This is unlike welfare reform, because in that case, most of the compromise and all of the genuine grass roots advocacy groups was on the Dem side. With the Holsclaw Compromise, the give is also on the Dem side, but there are genuine grass roots advocacy groups on the Rep side that will never accept the Compromise. There will then always be a debate on the Rep side about whether to reject the Compromise — it’ll be divisive and ugly. Compare it to the status quo: demonizing NARAL and the ‘feminazis’ is worth millions in contributions and hunderds of thousands of Rep votes. (Are them Dem votes? Sure. But I bet this is a big net gain for the Rep side on the ditch). My point is: why would Reps embrace the Compromise knowing that they’d be pushed out of power?
One precedent: welfare reform was one of the ways that the Nader movement sold the view that there’s no difference between Dems and Reps. Several activists I know were selling this line in 2000. I’ll not be taking their calls this week. If I were a Rep strategist, I’d be very worried that opening a principle-based (rather than personality-based) breach on my side would be fatal, and would do anything I could to keep the focus on Roe, and late-terms abortions.
Of course GWB would never sign the Compromise, no matter what his wife and mother tell him, because unlike Clinton, who campaigned on welfare reform, GWB has no mandate of any kind to allow any abortion at all.
Dutchmarbel: Sebastian stated that he would want abortions after week 20 only for medical reasons, so that covers the fetal genetical abnormalities.
Depends how you define “medical reasons”, doesn’t it? Suppose (for example) that Sebastian (assuming he were writing the laws) decided that it was just and right to force a woman to bear a handicapped child whether or not she wanted to? (You can bet on it that none of the “pro-life” lobby will be voting for any support for the child once born – none of them are in favor of support now. Fetuses only, children take a back seat. Yes, I’m being overly sarcastic, but the “pro-life” lobby tends to overlap with the hard-right, to the extent that it appears they’re willing to pass legislation that they think of as protecting “fetal rights”, but the instant the fetus becomes a baby, it has to stand on its own two feet.
This refusal to support children or mothers, but hysterical support for “fetal rights” is not something that I’ve ever seen any right-wing “pro-lifer” prepared to discuss (certainly neither Von nor Sebastian ever have) except in vague terms as “oh well, they can always hand the baby over for adoption”. It’s part of what strongly suggests that for the most passionate “pro-life” right-wingers, it’s fundamentally not about saving lives – it’s all about controlling women’s fertility.
The most obvious means of ensuring fewer abortions is to campaign strongly for easy access to free contraception, and mandatory sex education, and a total ban on any school teaching of “abstinence education”. This is so obvious, indeed, that anyone who claims to be “pro-life” but spends their time arguing against legal abortion rather than for free contraception and mandatory sex education must expect to have their motives considered suspect.
(1) I don’t know what the law is in UK or the Netherlands, but in the US, “medical” exceptions for late-term abortions usually refer to pregancies that threaten the life or health of the mother, not to genetic abnormalities and the like. If there are US laws, or proposal for them, that include non-fatal fetal abnormalities as medical exceptions I’d be interested in hearing about it…
(2) One of the concerns that reproductive rights advocates have is for women who are so poorly educated and unaware of their bodies that they may not even *know* they are pregnant until relatively late in the pregnancy. Is a 12-week cutoff for elective abortions reasonable for women who may not be aware they are pregnant until after this cutoff date?
(3) As others have pointed out, the “pro-life” movement is generally not interested in cutoff dates, except as steps toward the elimination of abortion altogether. A group that genuinely thought that abortions at, say, 8 weeks, were OK but at 16 or 20 weeks were not OK would be encouraging pregnant women who are considering abortion to get their abortions *early*. Needless to say, I’ve never heard of such a campaign — but I’ve heard plenty of rhetoric describing how “human” a 4 or 6 week old embryo is.
The idea of cutoff dates appeals strongly to those who want to find a compromise on the contentious issue of abortion. A date sounds like something that can easily be negotiated: “OK, you want 28 weeks, I want 12, let’s split the difference at 20.” But the enormous variation in the realities of women’s lives, their bodies, their pregnancies, and their medical state makes putting a cutoff date in my mind, problematic. As I pointed out in my previous comment, even determining the gestational date has a lot of uncertainty. I’d like to know how, say, the Netherlands handles these issues. Are doctors or women prosecuted for violating these dates? Do desperate women who are unable to process (or are unaware of) the fact of their pregnancy until after the cutoff end up attempting “do-it-yourself” abortions? Or do sympathetic doctors routinely manage to find “medical” reasons to allow the early cutoff date, at least, to be worked around?
Well, that’s a real concern. The idea of a cutoff date is acceptable in a society where proper access to sexual education, contraception, GYN care, and early abortion are all freely available. Under those circumstances, it’s not unreasonable to expect pregnant women to get it together to make a decision by somewhere between 20-26 weeks. In the US under current circumstances, though, it is a problem.
Jes, I teach high school science which includes sex education. State law requires that abstinence be part of the curriculum, along with info about contraception and diseases. I have no problem at all with teaching abstinence and I think it is a mistake to link support for abstinence with the rest of the religious right agenda. I’m a liberal, an atheist, and I think I am on solid ground in every respect when, in my role as teacher, I promote waiting for marriage, or at least engagement before having sex. That’s what I would tell my children, if I had any. It is safer, medically and emotionally. And kids do need clear guidance along with information. Ultimately they decide, of course, but they appreciate advise from someone they respect and like whether or not they take the advise.
Psha. Neglecting the point that abstinence is the only foolproof birth control technique that doesn’t involve surgery…why the raging moral campaign against discussion of reasons NOT to have sex?
Oops. I neglected one other surefire technique, but I don’t expect it will find widespread adherents in the hetero population.
I’m assuming that Jes’s sneer quotes around ‘abstinence education’ meant that she was referring to sex-ed programs that restrict themselves to advocating abstinence, rather than expressing opposition to advocating abstinence in the contect of a sex-ed program that also provides full information on health and contraceptive issues for sexually active people. Not to speak for her, but I thought her meaning was clear.
Yes, if that’s the point, if what she meant by that was teaching abstinence exclusively, then I withdraw the objection.
Withdrawal…another idea that didn’t pan out all that well.
Howdy. A few brief points before serious commenting: (a) I find the claim, offered without support, that the left has ‘bedded down with’ Islamofascists to be completely offensive. If anyone wants to make it again without offering any actual cites (beyond Ward Churchill, who represents only his own annoying self), be prepared to argue with an angry me. (b) (for the other posters): as best I can tell, you can’t close italics by just putting a ‘close italics’ tag in subsequent comments anymore. You have to go in as Moe, find the relevant comment, and edit it. (c) For everyone else: I used to tell people when I edited their comments for this reason, on the grounds that one should never edit anyone’s comments, even in a trivial way, without telling them. In future, though, I will not inform people when I edit their comments if all I do is close a tag. If I do anything more substantive, of course, I will; and I can’t see doing that unless someone writes something so totally offensive that removal, rather than mere disgrace, seems appropriate 😉
OK. That said:
Sebastian: I think you’re wrong about the Democrats and abortion. There are a lot of Democrats (I would guess a considerable majority) who would be comfortable with your views. And it’s not just random Democrats; we’re the ones with a Senate leader who disagrees with our stated party position (meaning not ‘being pro-choice no matter what, even a nanosecond before birth’, but ‘being pro-choice in a much less specified way’.) Lots of people who are active in pro-choice politics also feel this way. Take me, for example: I’m not wildly active now (though changes in the Supreme Court could alter this), but I have been in the past, I belong to NARAL, and yet I oppose third-trimester abortions except when the mother’s health is at serious risk. So why do I belong to NARAL? Because I think that your party is trying both to place onerous restrictions on earlier abortions and to get people who would vote to overturn Roe onto the bench, and that means that the right to earlier abortions is under threat. And I will fight to protect it.
Moreover, I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the degree to which those who oppose any restrictions on late-term abortions are motivated by the thought that those restrictions are intended to be the opening moves in a campaign whose ultimate goal is to outlaw abortion entirely. This is why earlier comments about needing a guarantee of finality from the pro-life side are important: there are people who would gladly grant serious restrictions on third-trimester abortions so long as they could be assured that that was it, but who would not do so if they believed that all that would mean was that those restrictions would be redefined as the ‘far-left’ view, the center would shift farther towards banning abortion altogether, and the pro-life side would start working on enacting such a ban. And I agree with this: I have no doubt at all that if you and I were negotiating an agreement, we would be negotiating in good faith, but I have no such confidence in Bill Frist or Rick Santorum. None at all.
Exactly, particularly to the final paragraph.
Sebastian: Your position, as articulated in the post referenced, is remarkably close to mine. I would probably have put the cutoff for elective abortion at 22 weeks, but I’d be entirely willing to compromise at 20 weeks if adequate safeguards were put in place (ie enough providers to make access to early abortion feasible for all women, access to late abortion in the case of severe fetal abnormality or risk to mother’s health.) So what have we been arguing so heatedly about?
Precisely why we’re still bickering about it, IMO. Our people are untrustworthy, and so are yours. I have no idea how to remedy this.
Withdrawal…another idea that didn’t pan out all that well.
Sputtering with laughter, here.
And yet it is dangerous misconceptions about preventing pregnancy like that which sex education–and not abstinence “education”–can help alleviate.
Ignorance is only bliss during the orgasm.
hilzoy: I agree with your comment. Apart from the suspicion that pro-life groups are using bans of third trimester abortion as a way in to banning all abortion I also have a problem with their tactics. I think banning a particular procedure (ie D and X) is silly and both too broad and too narrow in its scope. It is too broad because it bans the technique whether it is used at 12 weeks or 36 weeks and restricts the ability of ob/gyns to chose the technique most likely to allow the patient to retain her health and fertility. Too narrow because it does not actually prohibit abortion at, say 36 weeks, just states that it must be done by some other technique (ie hysterectomy). I think SH’s proposal is much more rational and would feel much better about the moderate pro-life movement if it would try to pass laws that prohibit abortion in the third trimester or improve enforcement of existing laws or some such thing rather than worrying about whether a D and X is grosser than a D and C.
Our people are untrustworthy, and so are yours. I have no idea how to remedy this.
Ah, but there’s a real difference in where “our” untrustworthy people are as opposed to “yours.” “Our” side’s reasonable wing is, as is pointed out above, in our leadership, while our die-hards are on the outside. On “your” side, it’s the other way around. “Our” politicians are always looking for ways to triangulate against our base, while yours look for way to pander to yours.
I think this means that your side has to go first.
Right on, hilzoy (as usual)! Whatever the niceties of the “abortion debate” (how many weeks per “trimester” as a definition of pregnancy, health-of-mother parameters, etc.): the fundamental talking-point re public policy in this country is (and always has been, from the anti-abortion crowd’s viewpoint) – an absolute ban . No gray-areas, no exceptions, no compromises; only a BAN: and a BAN on grounds of it being an absolute evil – with which NO compromise can EVER be acceptable.
When issues are able to be defined in absolutes; only absolutist solutions are able to be discussed.
Precisely why we’re still bickering about it, IMO. Our people are untrustworthy, and so are yours. I have no idea how to remedy this.
Back up there a minute. You’re comparing apples and oranges, here.
First of all, Roe is settled law. Legal abortions are the status quo. Even assuming that both Democrats and Republicans are negotiating abortion issues in bad faith, anti-abortion Republicans can only stand to gain ground by changing that status quo, whereas pro-choice Democrats only stand to lose ground. There is no advantage for pro-choicers to even bring the subject to the table.
Second: your apples and oranges comparison lies in the ideological makeup of Congress. I would venture that knee-jerk abortion-on-demand feminist Democrats in Congress could be counted on one hand with fingers left over. You could fill a small convention with the number of Republicans who are on public record as wanting all abortions outlawed.
The vast majority of Democrats and a vanishingly small number of Republicans in Congress have more common with each other than not when it comes to abortion. As for how to remedy this, I can see two avenues of action: one, you and others like you need to start saying no to the theocratic wing of the Republican party, because right now the GOP agenda is dominated by extreme social conservatism. Similarly, we need to tell the minority who refuse to accept any limits on abortion that they’re not going to get everything they want. We also need to reframe abortion as a sex education and contraception issue–because that’s what it fundamentally is. The people who want to outlaw all abortions are more often than not the same people who are ideologically opposed to doing what is necessary to prevent them from being needed in the first place. The sooner social conservatives get it through their heads they need to get behind early and comprehensive sex education and improve access to birth control, the sooner they will start seeing a substantial reduction in the number of abortions in this country.
Charley,
Interesting analysis.
Bill Frist (Senate Majority Leader)
Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions.
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions.
Voted YES on disallowing overseas military abortions.
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.
Harry Reid (Senate Minority Leader)
Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime.
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions.
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions.
Voted YES on disallowing overseas military abortions.
Rated 29% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.
Precisely why we’re still bickering about it, IMO. Our people are untrustworthy, and so are yours. I have no idea how to remedy this.
The difference is that Bill Frist and Rick Santorum are (I think) already publicly committed to the proposition that all abortion should be banned. If that’s what they want, it isn’t a rational compromise for them to settle for regulations that have the result of reducing the total number of abortions by probably under a thousand a year. On the other hand, it is eminently rational for abortion-rights activists to settle for regulations that allow 98% or better of current abortions to go forward unimpeded, especially if we get the improved access to contraception, sex-ed, etc. that’s been linked with the compromise in this discussion.
We’re not claiming to be more trustworthy because we’re better people, we’re claiming to be more trustworthy in this regard because Sebastian’s compromise is something that we can genuinely be happy with, but that most of the Republicans in congress have said that they would find morally abhorrent. If that’s how they feel, why would we trust them to make such a deal?
Moreover, I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the degree to which those who oppose any restrictions on late-term abortions are motivated by the thought that those restrictions are intended to be the opening moves in a campaign whose ultimate goal is to outlaw abortion entirely.
Respectfully, this sounds a lot like the mirror image of NRA members who claim they’re compelled to oppose bans on “cop-killer” bullets, automatic weapons, and the like because they represent a first-step of those who would ban private ownership of firearms altogether. As far as practical restrictions on abortion go, the NARAL position is de facto where the law is, since any attempt to enforce what limited restrictions on late-term abortions exist run into both practical (hard to prove when a doctor has pulled a fast one) and legal (the hyper-broad “physical/mental health” loophole makes it next to impossible to challenge a late-term abortion after the fact). I’m on the pro-choice side as far as early term abortions (up to the viability point), but given that I’m seeing an almost complete unwillingness of the leaders of my side to budge at all, it’s hard to blame those who do have a strong view about the “in-between” position to side with those who are trying to move the law in their direction, even if they’d rather not see those folks get as far as they’d like. I’m not going to oppose a reasonable restriction on late-term abortions just because the sponsor would rather see all abortions banned–if they introduce a bill trying to accomplish the latter, I’ll oppose that.
“And I agree with this: I have no doubt at all that if you and I were negotiating an agreement, we would be negotiating in good faith, but I have no such confidence in Bill Frist or Rick Santorum. None at all.”
Right and I don’t trust Sen. Clinton or the Democrats because the historical reality of the “medical exceptions” that they insist upon is that the exception swallows the rule whole and ends up meaning nothing under judicial interpretation. But that is beside the point. The reason compromises eventually come into existance in cases like these is one side agitates for all of what they want, lots of people think “Hmm they have a point about A but they go too far with X” and you hash out the details. Quite a few Republicans would have be thrilled to abolish the NEA, yet it doesn’t happen. Lots of Republicans wanted to get rid of much of welfare, but pretty much only the middle ground actually got through because lots of other Republicans realized that their electoral chances would be damaged (and lots of Democrats realized that clinging whole-heartedly to an unchanged welfare system was going to damage their electoral chances.
The problem at the moment is that the NARAL side has pretty much completely won in the courts, which has caused the state of the law to be well out of line with what the average american thinks would make moral sense. The NARAL side has no interest in compromise because A) it maintains power through courts not legislatures so compromising undercuts their understand of how they maintain their legal point of view and B) they take the position that any compromise is the same as captiulation (think of it as the “we don’t negotiate with North Korea while they maintain a nuclear program” approach).
So for Democrats, there is no incentive to negotiate. So long as the courts maintain their game they are fine. The long term problem is that this tends to super-politicize the already political court system and you get to elections where people say what ought to be ridiculous things like “the most important thing about a President is the judges he appoints”. As such you don’t see Democrats offering to change abortion rules when they are in power, because they aren’t being pushed to by any of their constituents and they don’t independently care enough about the issue. Remember that Democrats had complete control of all three branches as recently as the early 1993 and they controlled Congress for decades. You only see things like the Durbin proposal from Democrats AFTER they have lost power as they try to temper the more pro-life party which has come to power.
Finally we are near the point where compromise is possible and we can move the issue closer in-line with the moral intuition of most Americans. That would never have happened through the Democratic Party, and in fact if it does happen will happen mostly despite the Democratic Party throwing a screaming fit about it. But the electoral chances of enough Republicans will be put into question if the Republicans go too far, so the Democrats are not useless in the project, but they take the position of conservatives (in the political dynamic they are arguing for the status quo). They must argue that certain things must be protected, and certain procedures must be gone through, and certain issues must be attended to. If they take the absolutist NARAL position they will probably be less effective than if they take a position closer to that of the moral understanding of the majority of the American public. But if they do a good job, they can be the conservative voice which tempers and slows down change.
But it isn’t accurate to think that this end result would be reached without the agents for change (some of them agititating for change far more than the American public would go along with)in the Republican Party. Democrats would not be interested in changing anything if they weren’t losing elections on the issue.
And we always see the more moderate voices on our own side than we do on the other side. My mother is about as pro-life as it gets on the issue of abortion. She believes that an elective abortion at 3 weeks is wrong. But she also understands that there is a different perception of a fetus at 4 weeks than there is at 26 weeks. As she puts it: “I can understand how you can think that a first trimester child isn’t really a child, but you have to be deep in self-deception to say the same about a 3rd trimester child”. She is deeply religious. She is a classic evangelical-Christian of the type that many on this board fret about. But from a legal perspective she can see the point in other people thinking differently than she does in the early months of gestation. Would she still agitate for further abortion restrictions? Probably. Would she expect to win? Nope. Would she be happier that some of the abortions which were most obviously wrong have ceased? Absolutely. Would she be as angry about it as she has been for the past 30 years? Nope, because she understands why people don’t believe that the first trimester fetuses are people but she doesn’t think that anyone can honestly believe that the third trimester ones aren’t. She understands that she won’t always get what she thinks is best, but won’t be nearly as angry with people who are arguing in the non-obvious zone instead of what she sees as the obvious zone. And are there people who think the conception point is the obvious zone? Sure. But they are a lot fewer than the people who think that an 8 month fetus is in the obvious zone.
So do I think the fact that some agents of change want to change things more than I want to change them means that I can’t support them up to the point where I stop agreeing with them. Generally, no. I can support them while trying to get change, and cease supporting them otherwise. (Specific exceptions would be in the case of “pro-life” clinic bombers. I’m not willing to support them at all).
There are a lot of people in the US who wouldn’t be interested in banning abortion in the first trimester. They vastly outnumber the ones who would.
“I’m not going to oppose a reasonable restriction on late-term abortions just because the sponsor would rather see all abortions banned-”
I wouldn’t either, IF they ever introduced one. Look at the list blogme provided: The “partial birth abortion” ban–hideous bill. It would neither have prevented third trimester abortion nor ensured that early abortions were not banned. Plus it made claims about the practice of medicine that were simply untrue. I was embarrassed for Frist. The military abortion bans–ridiculous. A woman in the military is at increased risk of being raped and therefore more in need of access to abortion than civilians, not less. Ok, the criminal penalty for harming a fetus during other crimes I could go with, assuming that it is a well written bill that will, indeed, only do what it says it will do. However, it has nothing to do with third trimester abortion either.
Sebastian — Given that you advocate free access to abortion in the first half of a pregnancy, what was it like being deeply involved in a pro-life group? Didn’t the people you worked with have a problem with your position?
“…a fetus at 4 weeks…”
I know this seems like a nit-picking objection, but it’s a blastulocyte at 0-2 weeks, an embryo at 2-8 weeks, and a fetus at 8 weeks to birth. This is important because these divisions represent radical phenotypic changes. A blastulocyte is essentially undifferentiated and totipotent. The child of a woman exposed to a teratogen at 1 week gestational age is at no increased risk of birth defect because any cells damaged at this stage will fail to develop and the remaining cells will go on to form a normal baby, eventually. An embryo is somewhat differentiated, but its organs are not yet fully formed (organ formation is what goes on during the embryonic period). The fetal period is dedicated primarily to growth, although not all organs are functional throughout the fetal period. (For example, brain function has not been demonstrated until fairly late in the fetal period–around 24 weeks, if I remember correctly. This does not definitively prove that no brain function exists prior to that time, but it hasn’t been proven. And it is clear that a good deal of development takes place during this time. Certainly, the difference in the cortex of a 40 week fetus and a 20 week fetus is huge.)
You keep making straw man arguments about “the Democrats” and NARAL after your assertions have repeatedly been shown not to be true. NARAL’s position as has been described (“NARAL Pro-Choice America supports the legal framework established in Roe v. Wade and does not oppose restrictions on post-viability abortions, such as Florida’s, that contain adequate exceptions to protect the life and health of the woman.”) above is not substantively different than your own. Blogme does a nice job of refuting your assertion that NARAL “pretty much controls the Democratic party”. Care to refute him, or are you just going to keep repeating false claims over and over? If NARAL “pretty much controls the Democratic party”, please explain Reid’s voting record.
If you want to demonize NARAL, fine, but you are repeatedly making false claims about them in this thread. If you want to demonize “the Democrats”, well, demonizing liberals seems to be par for the course in this thread, but you are repeatedly making false claims about them as well.
Just about every claim you are making is contradictory. You claim that the NARAL, with 150,000 members “pretty much controls the Democratic party”, but we are supposed to believe that pro-life extremists, who number in tens of millions, and organizations like NRL, which has 12 million members, won’t exert powerful influence on the Republican politicians that pander to them. That is just a nutty claim.
Your example of NEA is hilarious. No, the Republicans didn’t get rid of the NEA, they passed a law telling the NEA what kind of art it could and could not fund, and that law was upheld by the Supreme Court, which has 7 Republican appointed justices. That should not be a comforting comparison to the pro-choice crowd.
Jes: I agree that the emphasis seems to be more on the protection of the child while it is still in the womb. However I do feel that this thread is more about finding the middle ground, finding the things people agree on and I try to focus on that.
Must be my European/Dutch love for consensus at work 🙂
Alex: Even when you are well educated about pregnancy you do not always recognize the signs. Some women keep having periods while pregnant, others have irregular cycles, to mention how an obvious symptom can go undetected. 70% of the women in the Netherlands who had an abortion were using anticonception (pill and/or condoms) but not everybody knows that medication (antibiotics) can interfere with the working of the pill, or are aware of all the other factors that may hamper proper protection.
Dutch view is that there is a gliding scale in which there is a point where the baby is entitled to protection too. I have seen pro-choicers argue that for them a 32 week old feutus is a fetus and nothing more and must admit that I do not understand that at all. I have friends who lost their beloved baby at 22 weeks gestation and it was a perfect boy who lived after birth and died in their arms because his longs collapsed.
The abnormality must be bad enough to show up in a test; in practise the women decides wether she finds it a reason to terminate. Doctors may refuse, but in the first trimester they have to tell you where you *can* get an abortion.
I think that everybody in this thread agrees that preventing unwanted pregnancies is a priority. Yet I did not find a lot of protests on the Republican side when pharmacists decided to not fulfill prescriptions for the pill.
I would put emphasis on education, availability of anticonception first to be honest. Education about fertility and sexuality can include abstinance: teaching people about sex does not mean that you promote them having it immediately. AFAIK the average age of first sexual experience is the same or even higher in the Netherlands (compared with the States).
I wonder, do we have a tag problem?
If so, I’ll hop in and fix it.
lily: State law requires that abstinence be part of the curriculum, along with info about contraception and diseases.
I like what I’ve heard of typical Netherlands sex education programs, which include pointing out to teens that it’s a mistake to have sex because someone else wants you to do it: that the best reason for having sex is that you love and trust and want the other person. (Dutchmarbel may well have better information about this than me: I know only what I’ve read.) But, as various futile campaigns have shown, “Just say no” is a truly inadequate slogan. There’s no point giving kids negative reasons for not having sex: better to give them positive reasons for when it would be okay to have sex – along with all the information about how to have sex safely.
I think I am on solid ground in every respect when, in my role as teacher, I promote waiting for marriage, or at least engagement before having sex.
No, you’re not. If the kids you’re teaching believe what you’re saying (and presumably some of them do) you are pretty much ensuring that a far higher percentage of them will have unsafe, unprepared sex – because if you’re resolved to “wait till married” you won’t go on the pill and you won’t always carry condoms.
That’s what I would tell my children, if I had any. It is safer, medically and emotionally.
What is medically safer isn’t waiting till marriage/engagement: it’s only having safe sex. Marriage/engagement never protected anyone from STDs.
What is emotionally safer is waiting until you find someone you want, love, and trust – but being aware that loads of people make mistakes picking the first person to have sex with, and that it’s not the end of the world if you do.
And kids do need clear guidance along with information. Ultimately they decide, of course, but they appreciate advise from someone they respect and like whether or not they take the advise.
That’s no excuse for handing out bad advice, though.
Slarti: Psha. Neglecting the point that abstinence is the only foolproof birth control technique that doesn’t involve surgery…
Nonsense, Slarti: abstinence is the birth control technique with the highest failure rate, even including the rhythm method.
why the raging moral campaign against discussion of reasons NOT to have sex?
See my comment to lily, above.
Hilzoy,
I find the claim, offered without support, that the left has ‘bedded down with’ Islamofascists to be completely offensive. If anyone wants to make it again without offering any actual cites (beyond Ward Churchill, who represents only his own annoying self), be prepared to argue with an angry me.
For the record I did clarify:
Actually you are right. I should clarify myself. Above Francis referred to right wing nuts. When I said that the left have bedded down with Islamofascists I should have said left wing nuts. That’s really who I meant.
Examples you requested,
According to the US News and World Report, leftist Europeans:
From Norway:
http://bearstong.net
From Australia,
http://www.greenleft.org.au
If you get a chance go to go to the http://www.greenleft.org.au
Fallujah page.
Shamefully from America,
Check out that first key principle on page 1.
http://uslaboragainstwar.org
Sorry, that post really is way to big of a distraction on a thread about Roe v. Wade.
There’s plenty to discuss without getting off on a tangent.
For someone who is normally so adept at detecting propaganda, you do an awful job here. NARAL is thrilled to be able to say something like this because their definition of ‘adequate exceptions’ swallows the whole rule. Back in the 1970s there were all sorts of laws written with health exceptions and the pro-life community wasn’t particularly exercised about them. But by the mid-1980s they became very unhappy with them because it was clear that the health exception had swallowed the entire world of possible abortions. NARAL’s position is most certainly not the same as mine. I would like a health exception that actually bans elective abortions. NARAL is fine with health exceptions that have such a broad definition of health that it does actually ban anything.
I agree with blogme (July 20, 2005 05:24 PM) – well, it had to happen sometime! Blogme, can you repost your 05:17 PM comment on a more appropriate thread?
Sebastian: I would like a health exception that actually bans elective abortions.
Which is okay for you: you know you’ll never be pregnant and not want to be.
I would like a health exception that actually bans elective abortions. NARAL is fine with health exceptions that have such a broad definition of health that it does actually ban anything
NARAL is fine with health exceptions that require two written certifications by physicians stating that an abortion is necessary to preserve the woman’s life or health. How is that “such a broad definition of health that it does actually ban anything”? Who would you rather have determining whether an abortion was necessary? Perhaps you would prefer Dr. Bill Frist to make the necessary diagnosis?
blogme, you specifically asked, “Are we talking about the right-wing Christian nuts or left-wing Islamofascists nuts IN AMERICA“? (emphasis mine).
After consulting your presumably well-perused home atlas, please answer the following multiple choice question:
Which of the following is in America?
1) Norway.
2) Western Europe.
3) Australia.
4) Michael Moore is TEH FAT!!!!!!!!11
Which is okay for you: you know you’ll never be pregnant and not want to be.
Jes, Sebastian will also never be a 7-to-9-month-old fetus again, and yet he still feels some motivation to protect their rights. If you’re suggesting that all he cares about is his own interests, why should he give a flying f**k about abortion at all?
Sebastian: . . . the state of the law [is] well out of line with what the average american thinks would make moral sense . . .
you don’t see Democrats offering to change abortion rules when they are in power, because they aren’t being pushed to by any of their constituents and they don’t independently care enough about the issue.
These two sentences cannot simultaneously be true. Either the law actually is in line with what most Americans believe would make moral sense, or they would have been asking their Democratic representatives to change it and the representatives would have been responding. You’re trying to have it both ways here.
Jes: Nonsense, Slarti: abstinence is the birth control technique with the highest failure rate, even including the rhythm method.
This is arrant, semantically-twisted baloney. Actually abstaining from sex has a 100% success rate. You are — deliberately or accidentally — conflating the massive failure of “abstinence-only education” with actual abstinence. I know that, during the pre-vasectomy periods of my life when I have not had sex, I didn’t get anyone pregnant.
kenB: If you’re suggesting that all he cares about is his own interests, why should he give a flying f**k about abortion at all?
I decline to speculate about Sebastian’s reasons.
But, it’s fairly clear that for most right-wing “pro-lifers” the object is not to prevent abortions – they’re not interested in promoting anything that has been proven to do that (like easy access to free contraception, etc, as I’ve listed upthread) – it’s to prevent women from getting to make decisions about when to get pregnant and whether or not to stay pregnant.
For example, you can check it out for yourself that there is virtually no overlap between the “pro-lifers” who claim to be opposed only to late-term abortions and those who protested vigorously the pharmacists who refused to dispense emergency contraception – or to dispense the pill!, back when that was topic de jour. Indeed, a right-wing “pro-lifer” is more likely to support a pharmacist refusing to dispense the pill, even though – if they were really opposed to abortion – they would be vigorous in condemning this behavior which is likely to lead to more abortions.
Phil: Actually abstaining from sex has a 100% success rate. You are — deliberately or accidentally — conflating the massive failure of “abstinence-only education” with actual abstinence.
Precisely so, Phil. Actually abstaining from penetrative sex does have a 100% success rate. But it’s not baloney in the least to point out to those who claim “abstinence works 100%!” that for most people, attempted abstinence has an extremely high failure rate: much higher than any other form of contraception, including the rhythm method.
What Phil said. I get women pregnant all the time when I’m not having sex with them?
This is probably one of the main reasons why no one’s claiming that attempted abstinence works 100%, J.
What Phil said. I get women pregnant all the time when I’m not having sex with them?
Must be the fjords doing it. ]:-)
I should point out that Sebastian’s two sentences that I quoted can simultaneously be true if and only if the law “is out of line with what most people think would make moral sense,” AND it’s so far down the list of things they care about that they never bothered to let their Democratic Senators and Representatives know about it all those years they were in power, nor did any of them ever suffer electoral consequences over it.
Jes, you’re never going to be an Iraqi, an Afghan, or an Arab Muslim, yet you’re concerned about their rights and safety. I’m willing to grant Sebastian the same leeway. Otherwise, that line of argument is simply a non-starter and an oppportunity to make insinuations about another’s moral character. Which is fine if that’s the road you want to tread, but I don’t think you do.
This is probably one of the main reasons why no one’s claiming that attempted abstinence works 100%, J.
Of course, when you measure the effectiveness rate of any other type of birth control as used, you measure how often people who say they were using it got pregnant — the effectiveness rate of condoms includes people who didn’t use on just that one time, of the Pill includes people who forgot to take it that morning…
By that measure, the same one we use for other methods of birth control, abstinence does quite badly.
Of course, according to Christian theology, abstinence hasn’t historically been 100% effective. This point is driven home in every Christmas pageant. Mixed messages, maybe?
Odd, LB. For me, the effectiveness of, say, a weapon doesn’t even consider the possibility that someone might forget to use it. If you start allowing for (in the case of birth control) someone just deciding “what the hell, let’s ride bareback tonight”, I’m not sure how you assign effectiveness.
Considering how many Christians have been born since then, factoring that one incident would constitute significant figure abuse.
LizardBreath: By that measure, the same one we use for other methods of birth control, abstinence does quite badly.
Yes, but clearly no supporter of “abstinence as birth control” wants to measure abstinence in the same way as we do other methods of birth control. Perhaps they should examine their motivations for wanting to set “abstinence as birth control” apart from scientific measurement?
Slartibartfast: Considering how many Christians have been born since then, factoring that one incident would constitute significant figure abuse.
It’s clearly not considered outlying data, though.
kenB: Jes, you’re never going to be an Iraqi, an Afghan, or an Arab Muslim, yet you’re concerned about their rights and safety. I’m willing to grant Sebastian the same leeway.
I’m not prepared to grant anyone who supports bombing Iraqi cities because there may be insurgents there, or using cluster bombs on Afghan farmland, or who thinks that American soldiers who torture Arab Muslims shouldn’t be prosecuted, any leeway if they claim that they are concerned about the rights and safety of Iraqis, or Afghans, or Arab Muslims – because plainly they’re not, in the most basic sense possible.
And I’m not prepared to speculate about Sebastian’s motivations: I’ve said what I think about the majority of right-wing pro-lifers, and you can research it for yourself.
Of course, according to Christian theology, abstinence hasn’t historically been 100% effective. This point is driven home in every Christmas pageant. Mixed messages, maybe?
Nah–just pointing out the obvious truth (assuming the existence of a Supreme Being) that if the Big Guy wants you to become pregnant, you’re screwed even if, well, you don’t. ]:-)
Odd, LB. For me, the effectiveness of, say, a weapon doesn’t even consider the possibility that someone might forget to use it. If you start allowing for (in the case of birth control) someone just deciding “what the hell, let’s ride bareback tonight”, I’m not sure how you assign effectiveness.
Well, that is, in fact, where the effectiveness statistic you see on the condom package comes from. Of 100 people who are trying not to get pregnant, and are using condoms to that end, how many are pregnant at the end of the year? It makes perfect sense when you think about it — while, say, Depo-Provera may not be all that much more effective than condoms used perfectly every time, it is vastly more effective than condoms used as people actually use them, because the potential for human error in condom use is so much greater than for Depo-Provera. Statistics that compared only perfect usage wouldn’t give you nearly as accurate a picture of how the varying methods are likely to work for you.
Hmmmm. . .”don’t”–“aren’t”. . .not sure which one makes that sentence work better. Oh well.
Statistics that compared only perfect usage wouldn’t give you nearly as accurate a picture of how the varying methods are likely to work for you.
There’s a rather significant difference between “forgot to take the pill that morning” and “chose to have sex with someone knowing that I wasn’t using any birth control.” The latter–barring rape–is a conscious choice involving one’s sense of moral responsibility (a commitment not to have sex in order to avoid unwanted pregnancy), while the former is a lapse in memory (unless you believe that there is a subset of women who *intentionally* fails to take their birth control pills at times when they don’t want to be pregnant).
Sure, there’s an excellent argument that someone who screws up and doesn’t use a condom one time is more morally responsible for the result than someone who forgets to take their pill one morning. From the point of view of what are you going to print on the package, though, it is useful information to know what the odds are that you will be pregnant at the end of a year of using that method, if your error rate, culpable or not, is the same as that of the average user. By that measurement, abstinence comes off badly.
If you want to say that people who use condoms but not every time, and people who intend to remain abstinent but are not absolutely so, are responsible for any ensuing pregnancies, that’s a perfectly reasonable position. If you just want to know what the odds are that it will work for you, though, responsibility isn’t a necessary part of that calculation.
I’m not sure the effectiveness of abstinence can be measured in the same was as the effectiveness of the pill or other contraceptives. There is a difference in usage. A woman can forget to take her pill ( I do all the time) but no one forgets to not have intercourse. A condom can break by accident but people don’t have intercourse by accident. As Scott says up thread it’s a conscious choice to have intercourse or not. It is a conscious choice even if the circumstances involve lots of consciousness altering substances (since one chooses to use the substances). Basically abstinence means making the conscious choice to put intercourse within the context of a serious committed relationship and to refrain from intercourse until one is certain of the seriousness and committed nature of the relationship. A person can change their mind about that, but not by forgeting or having an accident. They have to actively decide to change their personal policy.
This via Yglesias, a study on abortion attitudes thru a close examination of questions along with comparisons in responses to different wordings and iterations of questions.
Reading the pdf leads to the Roper Center, which is an archive of opinion poll results
iPOLL is the most comprehensive, up-to-date source for American public opinion. iPOLL enables you to sift through nearly a half million questions in surveys since 1935.
Should keep you folks busy and out of trouble.
I’m with lily and MSE on the concept, but it strikes me that if one is looking at the public policy level — rather than the individual level — it’s way better to compare the effectiveness of a given method in the broader sense.
That is, if you’re going to advocate condoms as the primary method of BC, it’d be a good idea to know how many pregnancies occur overall, whether through breakage, improper use, or ‘oh hell, never mind.’ Similarly, abstinence, while it might be 100% on the personal level, is probably pretty bad policy, because a great many people who declare themselves abstinent find them selves making the other choice — and are not prepared to pursue an alternative method of BC.
lily: As Scott says up thread it’s a conscious choice to have intercourse or not.
It’s partly a conscious choice. Yes, folks are completely responsible for their own actions, but there is lot more going on than a simple weighing of pros and cons here. Like millions of years of evolutionary programming, for instance. While it’s not this extreme, it’s a little like saying the only 100% effective way to avoid food-borne diseases is fasting. True, but not terribly useful across large populations. Or perhaps, the only 100% effective way to quit smoking is to not put tobacco products in your mouth and light them. Sure, but does that mean folks who forgo cessation aids are more likely to achieve their desired result? Do we discount relapses in considering the effectiveness of any given smoking cessation method just because it’s the individual’s fault he started smoking again?
While I can’t emphasize strongly enough that people are responsible for their actions, this doesn’t somehow make biological compulsion disappear as a factor in the effectiveness of these methods within a population.
Well, that is, in fact, where the effectiveness statistic you see on the condom package comes from.
LB, do you have a cite for that, because it seems counter-intuitive. As CharleyCarp said, it makes sense from a public policy standpoint when comparing birth control strategies, but on an individual product package, I would expect to see statistics connected to a “when used properly” condition. Otherwise, how would the consumer be able to compare the effectiveness of, say, Trojan vs. Lifestyles, if a large portion of the measured failure rate is due to user error and has nothing to do with the individual brand?
If I were a condom manufacturer, I be more worried about potential liability from understating the risks than potential sales losses from overstating them. Also, they really are all the same. Don’t believe the hype, Ken.
I guess it’s time to bring back the gun safety analogy that didn’t sink in last time we all discussed this.
You have a gun. You do not have the option of locking it away, it sits there on your mantle, loaded. You also have a child who can get at the gun any time you’re not around if they want. Do you:
a) Pretend the gun isn’t there and tell them nothing in the hopes that they’ll handle it responsibly once they’re an adult;
b) forbid them from ever touching the gun because it’s wrong and dangerous;
c) tell them the gun is there and they shouldn’t touch it until they’re an adult, but don’t teach them anything about guns, or;
d) teach them proper gun handling and safety from an early age, ensure that they understand the risks associated with guns, and tell them that if they ever have any questions about them that they can talk to you?
With the exception of ignorantly radical gun-control nuts, most reasonable people would answer (d). Most teenagers are as loaded with hormones and curiosity as that gun is with bullets. Sticking your head in the sand won’t stop them from having sex. For every teen that listens when you flat-out forbid it, you’ll have at least one more who’ll seek it out precisely because it’s forbidden. Teaching abstinence only, aptly approximated here by (c), only approaches being effective in the fantasy world where teens never have sex before marriage–and the degree to which it leaves them uneducated and unprepared for adult sexuality borders on criminally negligent.
Don’t worry, SCMT, I don’t believe the hype. I already have a constant reminder of the condom’s potential for failure even when not forgotten — he’s going into 10th grade next year. And I’ve since moved on to a mode of birth control that doesn’t depend on my memory or self-control, or on a particular product’s effectiveness.
Anyway, as far as measuring the effectiveness of abstinence is concerned, I think it makes more sense to compare the results of abstinence-only sex education vs. the more complete kind, since that’s really what we’re concerned with AFAICT.
Unfortunately, i find myself getting involved in an utterly arcane piece of water legislation pending before the California house.
here are some basic truths:
1. Legislation starts when a small group of people with sufficient political connections feel passionately (or are getting paid) on a particular issue. political connections aren’t hard to come by; just pay a lobbyist.
2. Legislation moves when the leadership wants it to. That means the leader is interested or her cohorts tell her that there is enough interest groups involved that attention needs to be paid.
3. Abortion could be a state level issue if the pro-life groups were inclined to fight on that turf.
Saying that NARAL is mean and unreasonable is an excuse, not an explanation. So is, for some liberals, the NRA. But most democratic lawmakers are extremely gunshy of prolife groups. After all, they want to get re-elected.
and frankly, i just don’t see anyone except the radical pro-life organizations caring enough to press for such legislation, which is why i suggested the initiative route.
That’s just California. Nationwide, however, I’m very curious about the failure of the SH-style pro-life lobby to get 3rd trimester bans / restrictions at the state level.
It could be the case that the laws on the books are working as intended, and that 3rd-trimester abortions aren’t getting done.
It could also be the case that conservative state legislators would rather posture than pass laws on this issue.
It could also be the case that very few people care enough about 3rd trimester abortions to get legislation moving.
It could even be the case that new state laws are getting passed.
After all, we are at close to 250 posts and there has been a real dearth of information on the status of state-by-state legislative efforts.
“NARAL is fine with health exceptions that have such a broad definition of health that it does actually ban anything.”
What do you consider to be a high enough risk to allow an abortion? For example, would you allow abortion in any of the following cases:
1. An ectopic (tubal) pregnancy that will almost certainly burst by the 8th gestational week, killing both the mother and the embryo if it is not removed?
2. A woman with primary pulmonary hypertension, who has a nearly 100% chance of dying sometime during pregnancy due to the increased demands of pregnancy on the lungs, but has some chance of producing a viable offspring before she dies?
3. A woman with milder secondary pulmonary hypertension who has some chance of surviving the pregnancy with a living offspring as long as she delivers via c-section under local anesthesia (note that I said local, not regional anesthesia.)
4. A woman with major depression that is resistant to SSRIs and ECT. (Note that this is only major depression, a disease with a 20% mortality rate when it is untreated or refractory, not less severe forms of depression or anxiety.)
5. A woman with atrial fibrillation, who has a high risk of having a stroke during pregnancy.
6. A woman with factor V leiden, who is at risk of having a blood clot during pregnancy.
7. A woman who previously had HELLP syndrome or preclampsia during pregnancy and is showing early signs of a recurrent episode (ie proteinuria). What about if she is not showing any signs of recurrence?
Ken- I’m doing this from memory a while back (married, IUD) but if you happen to have any condoms around, look at the package insert. I did oversimplify — if my memory is right they usually give both stats: effectiveness assuming perfect use, and effectiveness assuming typical use.
Hmm. I have three brands of condoms in front of me, and none of them list statistics. All of them have language that, with very minor variations, states: “When used properly, latex condoms are effective against pregnacy, AIDS, and other STDs.”
Hmm. Are you looking at the individual foil packet, or the package insert?
Excellent point, lily. Abstinence is not birth control, it’s not having sex. The idea that one may screw up (so to speak) the not-having-sex part goes counter to the whole idea of abstinence. How does one forget to abstain? If you screw abstinence up (hoo boy), you’re simply not abstaining.
It ought to go unsaid that I’m not a huge fan of abstinence. For the young and immature, though, waiting for the right time and place can be a good thing.
To clarify, as far as I can tell, you cannot mistakenly put abstinence on the wrong part of your body, put abstinence on inside-out, accidentally put a fingernail through abstinence, use abstinence past the expiration date on the package (I’m willing to hear argument on this one), or keep abstinence in your wallet so long that it becomes damaged. Nor can you, through combined ignorance and frugality, attempt to reuse abstinence after putting it through the wash. Any other failure mechanisms I’m forgetting to ridicule through analogy?
Abstinence is not birth control, it’s not having sex.
Well, for the purposes under discussion, it’s not having penile-vaginal contact or penetration.
“Well, for the purposes under discussion, it’s not having penile-vaginal contact or penetration.”
Which brings up another interesting point about “abstinence-only.”
ObiWi posters are a well-read bunch, so I’ll assume most everyone here heard about the study of pledged-abstinence groups that turned up higher-than-normal STP rates. Because the kids were defining “abstinence” entirely as “no penile-vaginal penetration” and – good, normal, highly horny teenagers that they are – did everything but penile-vaginal penetration… and did it without condoms.
I’ll also assume that our posters here are aware of the numerous studies which show that teenagers who have access to birth control information, and birth control, and who use birth control, have lower unintended pregnancy rates than teenagers who only get abstinence-only sex-ed.
There’s no way you can listen to the anti-choice rhetoric on birth control and sex-ed without concluding they’re less interested in preventing unwanted pregnancies (and, thus, abortions) and far more interested in punishing sexuality.
Do you really want to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Then you have to support well-rounded sex-ed and access to birth control.
There’s really no way around it.
Phil, I seriously doubt that those advocating abstinence would advise young students that oral sex (for example) is a perfectly acceptable practice in lieu of intercourse. I could be wrong, though, since I’ve never been on either end of that advisory.
Ignorance is only bliss during the orgasm.
But oh, what bliss…
The abstinence curriculum provided for me doesn’t suggest oral sex as an alternative. The kids, however, do bring it up. Just to be clear, I, too, believe and abstinence only curriculum is beyond ridiculous for use in a public school. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with letting kids know that it is OK to be young and to wait for adulthood before getting involved in adult activities. No aspect of life is completely safe, but sex with a committed partner is much safer emotionally and physically than sex with a series of partners when a person is still learning the complexities of driving and getting homework done on time. Dating is hard enough to deal with. I really don’t know how a person can oppose presenting abstinence as the safest choice for teens. A good abstinence curriculum isn’t “just say no”. It should be mostly about relationships and self-determination.
For the young and immature, though, waiting for the right time and place can be a good thing.
Was anyone here arguing otherwise?
lily: No aspect of life is completely safe, but sex with a committed partner is much safer emotionally and physically than sex with a series of partners when a person is still learning the complexities of driving and getting homework done on time.
Ah well, lily: we’ll never agree about this. You are plainly emotionally committed to the idea that serial monogamy is some protection against STDs. This is flat nonsense, but it’s also a very prevalent myth. There’s a cartoon here that debunks it, but it’s not work safe.
It’s physically safer if teens have it ingrained that it’s safer sex, every time – it’s actively unsafe if they’ve been given the impression that being “in a relationship” makes them safer.
I really don’t know how a person can oppose presenting abstinence as the safest choice for teens.
Because it’s less safe. Simple as that. It’s like drug education: it’s safer to give teens accurate information (and of course easy access to free contraception), and let them know that if they have problems there’s an adult they can talk to, than it is to spin them a line of baloney about waiting till they’re engaged/married.
Demonstrably, what makes teens safer is giving them good accurate information, letting them know there’s a reliable adult about, and – it cannot be said too often – making sure they can get access to contraception.
You are plainly emotionally committed to the idea that serial monogamy is some protection against STDs.
Jes, do you have to be a **** about it? I mean, seriously…
Anarch: Jes, do you have to be a **** about it? I mean, seriously…
Yes. It’s a dangerous, stupid idea that serial monogamy is any protection against STDs, and lily is teaching it to kids?
“Oh, we don’t have to use condoms. We’re in a relationship.”
Unless both (or more!) were virgins when they entered the relationship, and/or have been thoroughly tested, nope, sorry, please accept the STD not of your choice and exit right to the nearest clinic where you can hope it’s one of the curable ones. Or if not, that it’s one that won’t kill you.
It’s a myth, Anarch. A lovely fairy tale to which loads of people are emotionally committed. But teaching fairy-tales to children and pretending it’s sex education is, well, just wrong.
I haven’t gotten from Lily’s posts that she is teaching children to remain chaste as a way of not getting STD’s. From her 12:54 pm post above it sounds more like she is teaching sex education with info about contraception and diseases, and recommending to the students that they remain chaste until they are married or engaged. 2 separate issues.
Umm…Jesurgislac, I hate to point this out, but the only references at all to “serial monogamy” in this thread are yours.
lily: I really don’t know how a person can oppose presenting abstinence as the safest choice for teens. A good abstinence curriculum isn’t “just say no”. It should be mostly about relationships and self-determination.
For an individual, yes, it’s the safest choice. For populations, where 100% abstinence is an impossible goal, alternatives must be provided. Talking about individual choices and responsibility and talking about the range of behaviors across large groups of people are very different propositions, and both of these realities need to be addressed in sex education. And, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t get the sense that we are that far apart on this, except maybe on the question of whether sexual behavior can be largely boiled down to conscious choices.
And Jes, I think I understand where you are coming from, but I think you, like the abstinence-only advocates, are taking hard-line positions where a more nuanced approach might be more effective (to say nothing of more realistic).
I don’t much like the word “chaste” because, for me, it has Biblical connotations and implies cleanliness, as if the sex act rendered one dirty.
My basic attitude toward sex education is this: we are the grown ups. We need to act like grown-ups and behave responsibly toward younger people. Parents are the primary teachers of children, but I’m also in that role. It would be absolutely irresponisble to, in effect, say, “Go for it, just use a condom”. I would not teach a four year old to use a chain saw that was too heavy to lift. I would not teach an eight year old to drive a car if she could not see over the steering wheel. And people who are just going through the agonies of dating, learning about their own sexuality, trying to make their plans for the future, and trying to establish their own identites should not be further complicating their lives with intercourse. A good sex ed curriculum is built around the idea that one is constantly making choices and that one can be aware of the consequences of the choices and aware that one is choosing more risk or less risk. The real value of presenting abstinence as a choice is that it is indeed a conscious decision, and young people, like all of us, are prone to living life in the passive voice, acting as if events occur unrelated to decisionmaking. People do, in fact, decide in high school either to have sex or not. They face that decision many times. It is to their benefit to think it through and have a plan. One possible plan is to wait until a relationship of deep emotional intimacy has been established; engagement and marriage are symbols of that kind of relationship (which is one reason why gay people should be able to get married, to have access to the symbol of a deep, established relationship) A good sex ed curriculum will include a lot of material on evaluating and understanding relationships, since teens are, in effect, practicing relationships with others. For example, what does “intimacy” mean–two hours on the phone and finding out you hate the same people and like the same music? There are many teen age girls who would be more embarrassed talking about sex with their boyfriend than actually having sex with him. Sex can’t be separated from relationships. A relationship could be trivial or momentous, exploitive or nurturing, abusive or sweet, whatever, but it isn’t possible to have sex without having some kind of relationship. Abstinence means deciding to wait until one has learned enough about relationships to recognize and commit to a good one before adding sex to the mix. That is the least risky choice. And, no, learning about relationships, choices, and so on does NOT preclude learning about contraceptives.
For crying out loud I was fifteen once and I like sex. But I’m an adult now and I spend a lot of time in a room with fifteen years olds and on any given day of the week at least one of them is seriously heartbroken, humiliated, distraught over the behavior of their girl/boyfriend and that’s without intercourse. The grown ups need to take the grown up role. That’s what we are for.
Gromit: And Jes, I think I understand where you are coming from, but I think you, like the abstinence-only advocates, are taking hard-line positions where a more nuanced approach might be more effective (to say nothing of more realistic).
I recognize that I have edged over the line in making personal comments to/about lily’s beliefs, and I apologize for that.
But I’m tired of the “balanced approach” where you’ve got to support both truth and lies because otherwise it’s not “nuanced”. It’s like saying that the balanced approach to biology teaching is to tell kids that some people believe in evolution, and some people believe in creationism, so we’re going to teach you about both.
Honest, and hand-on-heart, and won’t hold it against you later, who here was celibate until or after their 20th birthday? (I wasn’t.)
Teenagers have sex. (Some don’t, of course, but if you want to run a poll, I’d bet you’d find that most teens do.) Parents may prefer to believe that their kids don’t. (Parents may even be right about their own kids, some of the time.)
The only choice for professional educators is not “Should I or shouldn’t I encourage teenagers to have sex?” (because if they want to, they will, with no encouragement at all).
It’s: “Am I going to give these kids all the information they’ll need if they’re going to have sex – or am I going to fill them up with lies that suit my own emotional needs?”
To be honest, I think that abstinence only programs work counterproductive. You make sex into something larger than life – which is not the best way to stop curious teenagers from experiencing it.
Also, if you make sex something that should be reserved for marriage you automagically make someone using anti-conception suspect. If a girl carries condoms, she must be a slut if waiting till marriage is the social acceptable answer.
Is there anybody among the commenters here, who has waited till marriage for the first sexual encounter?
I am mother of three boys and I would not want my kids to wait till marriage. Because I take marriage very serious and I would not want them to marry in a whim, or because they have the hots for someone. My spouse and I always say that “all 4 L’s” should be present (Love, lust, laughter and liking) before you can really commit long term.
I met my soulmate when I was almost 32 and if I previously had felt that sex should be kept for marriage only I would have been unhappily married to my first boyfriend and would most certainly have divorced by now.
In the Netherlands general attitude is that teens will have sex and that that is not a bad thing. But if you do not do it because YOU want it, but because your partner wants it or because of peer pressure you are dumb. And if you do not use anti-conception you are dumb too.
The average age of first time intercourse is 17 (almost 18) and 85% of the teenagers use anti-conception the first time. Informing them fully does not mean that you tell them that they should just go for it, it means you tell them what it is, what the consequences might be and that it is something that YOU decide about, not someone else.
I liked this article about which bits of the Dutch sex-education could be used in the States (free medscape registration needed, of use of http://www.bugmenot.com).
Jes, it isn’t a lie to say that abstaining from sex will prevent pregnancy and the contraction of sexually transmitted disease. The lie is to say that if only all teenagers knew this, none (or even very few) of them would get pregnant or contract STD’s. I think lily is saying the former, not the latter. Am I wrong, lily?
Gromit: Jes, it isn’t a lie to say that abstaining from sex will prevent pregnancy and the contraction of sexually transmitted disease.
No, but it’s not helpful or useful information, either.
(It is a lie to say “It’s medically safer to refrain from having sex except when you’re in a relationship with someone”.)
My, some poor strawmen are having the absolute…straw knocked out of them on this thread. I mean, that serial monogamy one is absolutely destroyed.
Slarti, Lily claimed that being in a relationship was “medically safer”. A “straw man” is an assertion that nobody made. You may feel that Lily’s claim was so plainly nonsensical it wasn’t worth taking the trouble to point out it’s nonsense, but this is apparently what she’s teaching to children… and though you may have too much sense to believe it, I’ve certainly heard the claim from others besides lily.
See “serial monogamy”. Seriously, how many times do I have to point this out before you’ll have the decency to acknowledge?
Jes, do you have a cite for your claim that people in a monogamous relationship are statistically not even a little bit less likely to contract an STD than those who have multiple partners?
Some clarifications/citations–
Comparison of effectiveness for various birth control methods from the Planned Parenthood website. Note the difference in effectiveness between ‘Continuous Abstinence’ and ‘Periodic Abstinence’ (-25%). This is the same 25% failure rate I have seen cited as the “typical use” failure rate for abstinence on other sites which leads me to wonder if someone is not mistaking periodic abstinence (abstaining during the ‘risky’ days of a woman’s menstrual cycle) with ‘Discontinuous Abstinence’ a.k.a. either “oops” or “not gettin’ any” depending on one’s perspective.
But the bigger question here is what method of sex ed is most effective. The American Association of Pediatrics have recently concluded [sorry, institutional subscription required]:
A further study suggests that “roughly 25% of the actual decrease of 10.3 pregnancies per 1,000 [between 1988 and 1995] was due to the lowered proportion of sexually experienced teenagers [i.e. abstinence]” and that over the same period “This decrease of 7.7 pregnancies per 1,000 due to the lowered pregnancy rate among sexually experienced young women is about 75% of the total observed decline in the pregnancy rate per 1,000 women 15-19.”
For those interested in the effects of the Bush Administration’s politicization of sex education standards, I would recommend this report from the Union of Concerned Scientists:
See the report itself if you are interested in chasing down the references excluded in my excerpt above.
nous athanos: But it compares abstinence AND anti-conception programs with abstinence only programs. It does not compare abstinence AND anti-conception programs with anti-conception only programs.
I still think that if you tell youngsters that they ought to wait till marriage the abstinence option is the only socially acceptable one. Which means that having anti-conception ready is tricky because it will send the wrong message.
You can tell them that sex is something intimate that makes you vulnerable and that it is better in a meaningfull relationship and one always has to decide for oneself wether it is the right time and circumstances. But waiting till marriage is not realistic and they are better off being prepared IMO.