Author Topic: Abortion  (Read 128811 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16773
    • View Profile
Re: Abortions, but who's counting
« Reply #400 on: July 02, 2022, 08:30:52 AM »
Nobody needs a high capacity abortion!

For 58% of U.S. women who had induced abortions in 2019, it was the first time they had ever had one, according to the CDC. For nearly a quarter (24%), it was their second abortion. For 11% of women, it was their third, and for 8% it was their fourth or higher.
Think… Somewhere between 80 thousand and 100 thousand abortions in 2019 were had by women, for whom it was their 4th (or higher) abortion… Really think about it.

I wonder if these high capacity abortion pregnancy people were getting a cut of the action on the body parts Planned Parenthood was caught selling, or just got screwed, so to speak.

https://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/2020/05/planned-parenthood-testimony-on-selling-baby-parts-unsealed-new-videos-released/

Kind of a contradiction that it is 'nothing to see here' that they are aborting, yet the parts are sold as living, functional organs and tissue.

I wonder why the 20 gestational week 'fetus' squirms when you puncture it, and why extreme 'liberals' have more compassion for a chicken in a chicken coop than they do for a developing human.  Kind of blows the theory that liberals care more about others while conservatives risk everything, with nothing to gain personally or politically, standing up for the most innocent and vulnerable among us.

Supreme Court decision could lead to the end of hookup culture.
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/women-tiktok-hookup-culture-absolutely-062100891.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/06/29/relationships-post-roe/

What says love and commitment like knowing you can kill your unwanted consequences of your hookup?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24511
    • View Profile
Re: Abortions, but who's counting
« Reply #401 on: July 02, 2022, 08:35:11 AM »
https://www.brainyquote.com/photos_tr/en/t/thomasjefferson/157225/thomasjefferson1-2x.jpg



Nobody needs a high capacity abortion!

For 58% of U.S. women who had induced abortions in 2019, it was the first time they had ever had one, according to the CDC. For nearly a quarter (24%), it was their second abortion. For 11% of women, it was their third, and for 8% it was their fourth or higher.
Think… Somewhere between 80 thousand and 100 thousand abortions in 2019 were had by women, for whom it was their 4th (or higher) abortion… Really think about it.

I wonder if these high capacity abortion pregnancy people were getting a cut of the action on the body parts Planned Parenthood was caught selling, or just got screwed, so to speak.

https://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/2020/05/planned-parenthood-testimony-on-selling-baby-parts-unsealed-new-videos-released/

Kind of a contradiction that it is 'nothing to see here' that they are aborting, yet the parts are sold as living, functional organs and tissue.

I wonder why the 20 gestational week 'fetus' squirms when you puncture it, and why extreme 'liberals' have more compassion for a chicken in a chicken coop than they do for a developing human.  Kind of blows the theory that liberals care more about others while conservatives risk everything, with nothing to gain personally or politically, standing up for the most innocent and vulnerable among us.

Supreme Court decision could lead to the end of hookup culture.
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/women-tiktok-hookup-culture-absolutely-062100891.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/06/29/relationships-post-roe/

What says love and commitment like knowing you can kill your unwanted consequences of your hookup?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15546
    • View Profile
Hawley and his wife's role in SCOTUS decision
« Reply #402 on: July 02, 2022, 10:45:46 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 62817
    • View Profile
ET: Clinic House of Horrors
« Reply #403 on: July 07, 2022, 03:52:55 PM »
Hidden Camera VIDEO: Nurse at Abortion Clinic ‘House of Horrors’ Reveals Chilling Truth to Undercover Investigator
By Michael Wing July 5, 2022

An undercover investigator has obtained hidden camera footage from an abortion clinic in Washington, D.C., that raises grave ethical concerns.

The candid video, taken by a 28-week-pregnant woman, reveals a nurse saying that the babies they abort do not receive digoxin — a lethal injection given to infants in utero during an abortion to ensure the baby is not born alive during the procedure. This increases the chances of a baby being born alive and possibly being illegally killed after birth.

The nurse also told the patient she may deliver the deceased child in her hotel room after the procedure; and furthermore that the doctor would not speak to her until she took Xanax, a mind-altering drug, prescribed by the clinic. This raises ethical concerns about how the clinic obtains proper consent. The patient has since filed a formal medical complaint.

Watch the undercover footage from the D.C. abortion clinic:


“The undercover footage released today shows that the Washington Surgi-Clinic abortion facility is forcing mothers to take mind-altering medications before meeting with the abortionist and giving final consent. This is a likely violation of basic medical ethics, and so the patient has filed a complaint with the D.C. medical board,” said Lila Rose, president and founder of Live Action, in a June 23 press release. Live Action is a leading prolife organization in the United States.

Rose continued, “The footage also provides first-hand testimony that the Washington Surgi-Clinic may kill later-term babies without using a feticidal drug, increasing the chance that the babies would be born alive and then brutally and illegally killed. Whether or not this drug is used, this facility is ending innocent lives through violence. Tragically, this footage also shows the nurse relaying the reality that the patient may be left to deliver her dead child alone in her hotel room.”

The investigator is heard asking the nurse what to expect during the procedure.

Nurse: No. We don’t do the — a lot of people do the injection through the heart and all that. We don’t do that here.

Patient: Okay. I didn’t even know.

Nurse: Yeah. She’ll be alive when you go to sleep, but she will definitely have passed before he does anything.

Abortionist Cesare Santangelo, who runs the Surgi-Clinic, has been under scrutiny in recent months after prolife activists found five late-term aborted babies being disposed of as medical waste from the clinic. Some were deemed by medical experts to have likely been viable births.

Live Action shared the experts’ conclusions: An incision behind the neck of one baby girl, between 28–30 weeks’ gestation, indicated she was possibly killed via the federally banned D&X abortion procedure, more commonly known as partial-birth abortion. Her neck was cut and brain removed. An intact baby boy, who may have been nearly full-term, may have been the victim of infanticide. Another baby, found in her gestational sac, may have been born alive and left to die; while two other children, a boy and a girl, about 22 weeks and 28 weeks respectively, were found brutally dismembered, indicating D&E (dilation and evacuation) abortions.

Epoch Times Photo
(Courtesy of Live Action)
The video continued:

Patient: This is the possibility of labor, basically?

Nurse: Yeah. Spontaneous abortion.

Patient: I’m sorry, that means …

Nurse: You may go into premature labor and deliver the fetus in your hotel.

Patient: Right. What do you tell me to do when that happens?

Nurse: That depends on what happens.

Patient: Do you guys come and like —

Nurse: He could come and help you take care of it. We could just tell you what to do with the remains. It just depends on what happens.

“This footage also shows the unethical and coerced administration of Xanax prior to seeing the abortionists,” Rose added. “Xanax is a substance that medical experts attest impairs a patient’s ability to give truly informed consent, particularly when a patient is not used to taking the drug.”

Patient: Does the Xanax effect, like —

Nurse: — The fetus?

Patient: No, not the fetus, just my clarity of thinking.

Nurse: It shouldn’t. I mean, you might be a little sleepy, but other than that …

Patient: I would really —  I don’t mind if I have to stay longer, I would really rather talk to him first.

Nurse: Um …

Patient: Is that not usually how you guys do it?

Nurse: Yeah, that’s unfortunately — cause like I said, we have to make sure that’s in your system before you talk to the doctor. He’s not going to be able to speak with you until he is ready to do it.

Epoch Times Photo
(Courtesy of Live Action)
The patient has now filed a medical complaint, calling on the D.C. medical board to investigate the apparent unethical activity, Live Action reported.

Experts reviewed the footage and shared their opinions, including Dr. Christina Francis OBGYN CEO-elect of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who said: “Xanax is a substance that, in a patient who is not used to taking it, would most definitely impair her judgment and therefore her ability to give truly informed consent. There is no reason a medication like this should be routinely given to a patient prior to her meeting with a physician and going through the consent process. Often times patients are not allowed to drive or operate heavy machinery for up to 24 hours after even minor procedures due to sedating medications they have received that impair their competence to make complex decisions. Xanax is a clear sedative, especially in a patient naïve to that medication.”

Dr. C. Ben Mitchell, ethicist and former Graves Chair of Moral Philosophy at Union University, also studied the video.

“The footage I viewed indicates a likely ethical violation and could warrant further inquiry due to it demonstrating that patients were required to ingest Xanax before a full medical consultation could occur,” he said. “Being a physician entails profound ethical responsibilities and professional duties to the patient to inform, treat, and care. The physician himself or herself is ultimately responsible to ensure informed consent, in which the patient understands the diagnosis, treatment options, potential outcomes, and possible complications of a procedure or medication. That means being available to the patient to answer any questions the patient has about his or her care. Failure to do so is a dereliction of duty.”

Rose is now calling for the D.C. government, including the mayor, medical examiner, and chief of police, to investigate Santangelo and his facility.

“They are not only killing children through abortion, but they may be committing illegal infanticide, as well as other federal crimes such as partial-birth abortion,” she added. “We demand justice for these babies, and the closure of D.C.’s House of Horrors, the Washington Surgi-Clinic.”

Share your stories with us at emg.inspired@epochtimes.com, and continue to get your daily dose of inspiration by signing up for the Inspired newsletter at TheEpochTimes.com/newsletter

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15546
    • View Profile
American College of Physicians (ACP)
« Reply #404 on: July 08, 2022, 02:20:48 PM »
should change their name to
American College of Democrat Physicians:

https://www.acponline.org/advocacy/acp-advocate/archive/july-8-2022/acp-advocacy-for-reproductive-health-care-rights-to-focus-on-the-states?utm_campaign=FY22-23_NEWS_ACPADVOCATE_070822_EML&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

Notice how never is mentioned that abortion should be restricted to early term even
Only that it is needed for "reproductive health"

(you know , like "prostate health" or "breast health")

and "limiting access to care"

as i posted before I do not recall ever seeing any health care journal publication that advocated
for "pro life"
 in close to 40 yrs .

Something very odd about that if you ask me.
is terminating a baby in keeping with the hippocratic oath?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15546
    • View Profile





ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15546
    • View Profile
NYT what pregnancy can do to the bodies of young girls
« Reply #410 on: July 20, 2022, 08:24:23 AM »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24511
    • View Profile
Re: NYT what pregnancy can do to the bodies of young girls
« Reply #411 on: July 20, 2022, 09:44:26 AM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pregnancy-childbirth-bodies-young-girls-175017137.html

NYT

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

 :roll:

Not mentioned:

What illegal alien rape does to the minds and bodies of young girls.

Import the 3rd world, become the 3rd world.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15546
    • View Profile
Whitmer gives pro life advocates the middle finger
« Reply #412 on: July 22, 2022, 08:21:36 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 62817
    • View Profile
Noonan on the Kansas vote
« Reply #413 on: August 05, 2022, 07:42:07 PM »
What Pro-Lifers Should Learn From Kansas
They asked for too much because they failed to prepare for the debate over abortion after Roe v. Wade.
Peggy Noonan hedcutBy Peggy NoonanFollow
Aug. 4, 2022 6:55 pm ET


I found myself unshocked by the abortion vote in Kansas, and I don’t understand the shock of others. America has come to poll consistently in favor of abortion in the first trimester with support declining in the second and cratering in the third. The people of Kansas were asked if they’d like to remove any right to abortion from their state constitution and allow their legislators to fashion new laws and limits. They said no by 59% to 41%.


That margin in a conservative state might have been surprising, but not the outcome. The proposal would have looked to voters radical and extreme: We’re going to sweep it away, immediately? It’s all or nothing? And we’re going to hand all our trust to legislators in hopes they’ll be wise? I have never met an American who confused his state representative with a philosopher king.

In Kansas, pro-lifers asked for too much. People don’t like big swerves and lurches, there’s enough anxiety in life. They want to absorb, find a way to trust. Dobbs was decided only six weeks ago.

And those six weeks have been confusing and chaotic. Nationally, the pro-life movement spent 50 years fighting for something and then, once it won, its leaders seemed to go silent or sound defensive. It’s possible they were attempting to be tactful as opposed to triumphalist, but it left a void and foolish people filled it.


No compelling leader has emerged as a new voice. National energies haven’t been scaled down to state activity. Pro-choice forces, galvanized when the Dobbs draft leaked in May, raised money, spent it shrewdly, drew in talent and were pushed by a Democratic Party that thought it finally had a game-changing issue. Pro-lifers didn’t have an overarching strategy. But everything we know about abortion tells us that when you turn it into a question of all or nothing, you’ll likely get nothing. Thoughtful, humane legislation has to be crafted in the states, put forward, argued for.

The pro-life advocates who filled the rhetorical void competed over who could be most hard-line: There should be no exceptions for rape, if it even was rape. There should be no exceptions for the life of the mother, that gives dishonest doctors room to make false claims. Maybe we can jail women for getting abortions.

It was gross, ignorant and extreme. It excited their followers but hurt the cause they supposedly care about. There was an air of misogyny, of hostility to women. It was, unlike the most thoughtful pro-life arguments of the past 50 years, unloving, unprotective and punitive.

People heard it and thought: No, that’s not what we want.

Moderate, reasoned, balanced approaches will appeal to the vast middle. Arguments over whether women should be prosecuted for crossing state lines to get an abortion won’t.

The public face of the pro-life movement looks at the moment loony and vicious. Last Saturday in Florida, Matt Gaetz, the Republican congressman and famous idiot, spoke at a student event and said overweight and unappealing women don’t need to fear pregnancy: “Nobody wants to impregnate you if you look like a thumb.” A 19-year-old pro-choice activist then drew his mockery by responding on Twitter, and NPR reports that she cannily used the confrontation to raise more than $700,000 for pro-choice causes.

We live in a democracy. The pro-life side rightly asked for a democratic solution to a gnawing national problem. To succeed, they need baseline political skills. You persuade people as to the rightness of your vision. You act and speak in good faith so they trust you. You anticipate mischievous and dishonest representations of where you stand. You highlight them and face them. There has in fact been a lot of misrepresentation of where pro-lifers stand and why, and what their proposals will achieve. You have to clear the air. You can win a lot with candor and good faith. You can impress by being prepared and ready.

Most important, there is a political tradition in democracy that consists of these words: “That’s asking too much.” Don’t ask people for more than they can give. Don’t go too far, don’t lose by asking for a sweeping decision when people will be willing to go step by step. Ask for as much as they can give, pull them toward your vision, but don’t be afraid of going slow and steady, be afraid of overloading the grid. That’s part of what happened in Kansas: They were asked to take a step they thought extreme, and they don’t like extreme.

You have to be clear in explaining how society will arrange itself if you get the measure you asked for. In this case, the pro-life cause, conservatives and the Republican Party have the chance to speak of, laud and increase state and private help for women bearing children in difficult circumstances. The antiabortion movement will never really succeed unless it is paired in the public mind with compassion for the struggling. The Republican Party had the chance to align itself with women. Has it taken it? Or is it too busy talking about “impregnating” those you find unattractive?


Finally, if you are going to be in politics you had better know what your own people are thinking. NBC’s Steve Kornacki noted the morning after the vote that turnout in Kansas was high—276,000 Democrats, 464,000 Republicans and 169,000 unaffiliated voters. The number of votes against the abortion amendment was more than 543,000. That means a lot of Republicans voted no. A lot who identify as conservative and live in deep red areas voted no. You have to know where your own people are and build policy and strategy around it.

Because this is a democracy. Policy is decided by votes. Every loss contains the seeds of victory, every victory the seeds of loss. Nothing is permanent.

This is America working it out. Some states will be extreme in one direction, some in the other. It’s going to be ugly for a while. Sweet reason has seldom been a dominant characteristic of combatants in this fight. Too bad, because in the vast middle there’s a lot of it.

A lot of state decisions will likely come down along lines of where national polling has been—15-week bans, exceptions for rape and the mother’s life. In the end we may wind up where Chief Justice John Roberts would have put us. The idea in his concurring opinion in Dobbs was to maintain a federal right to abortion while finally granting states broad authority in establishing laws and limits that had previously been prohibited by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. This approach may have restrained the worst excesses of both sides, removed a sense of alarm and helped ease the country into fewer abortions in a post-Roe, post-Casey world.

The Dobbs decision, though, requires something more immediate: true adults in legislatures of all levels, and activists who are serious and have a sense of democratic give. All who fight for life must think about this and be our best selves. Or we will wind up having won all, and lost all.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15546
    • View Profile
Kansas
« Reply #414 on: August 07, 2022, 06:43:58 AM »
Left wing media =>

Kansas vote is a win for pro abortionists!

( https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/03/politics/kansas-abortion-midterm-election-what-matters/index.html)

Right wing media =>

Kansas vote bans abortion !

( https://populistpress.com/first-state-bans-abortion/)

 :-o

The truth is a compromise
 some abortion with strict limits
 
Like Justice Roberts was thinking - and another well known genius - me

 :-D

 


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 62817
    • View Profile
Not good for the red wave?
« Reply #416 on: August 26, 2022, 06:03:27 AM »
Three more GOP-led states join move to restrict abortion

Judge grants motion for injunction in North Dakota

BY KIMBERLEE KRUESI ASSOCIATED PRESS NASHVILLE, TENN. | Three more Republican-led states will ban almost all abortions this week as yet another slate of laws severely limiting the procedure takes effect following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

To date, 13 states have passed so-called “trigger laws” that were designed to outlaw most abortions if the high court threw out the constitutional right to end a pregnancy. The majority of those states began enforcing their bans soon after the June 24 decision, but Idaho, Tennessee and Texas had to wait 30 days beyond when the justices formally entered the judgment, which happened several weeks after the ruling was announced.

That deadline expired Thursday.

North Dakota’s trigger law was scheduled to take effect Friday, but a district judge in Burleigh County granted a motion for a preliminary injunction as he weighs arguments from the state’s lone abortion clinic that the law violates the state constitution.

Judge Bruce Romanick granted the motion as part of a lawsuit brought by the Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo.

The changes in Idaho, Texas and Tennessee will not be dramatic. All states already had antiabortion laws in place that largely blocked patients from accessing the procedure. And the majority of the clinics that provided abortions in those areas have either stopped offering those services or moved to other states where abortion remains legal.

Texas, the country’s secondlargest state, has banned most abortions once fetal cardiac activity has been detected, which can be as early as six weeks into pregnancy, before many women know they’re pregnant. The ban has been in place for almost a year, since courts refused to stop the law last September.

While clinics were severely limited in the services they could provide during that time, they offi cially stopped offering abortions on the day of the Supreme Court ruling. Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton argued that state laws that banned abortion before Roe v. Wade could be enforced ahead of the implementation of the trigger law.

Much like Texas’ current abortion ban, the trigger law does not include exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Instead it has a provision allowing abortions if a woman’s life or health is in danger.

The political response to the change was swift: Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke chose Thursday to unveil the first TV ads in his campaign against Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who signed off on the statute.

Meanwhile, Texas has challenged a legal interpretation put forth by the federal government that was aimed at requiring Texas hospitals to provide abortion services if the life of the mother is at risk. On Wednesday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the government from enforcing that interpretation.

Texas argued that the federal guidance would have required hospitals to provide abortions before the mother’s life is clearly at risk, which would have violated the state’s trigger law.

In Tennessee, just two of the six clinics that provide abortions continued to offer the service after Roe was overturned. They did so even as Tennessee enacted a “heartbeat law” similar to the one passed in Texas. Under both the new trigger law and the previous heartbeat law, doctors who violate the law risk felony convictions and up to 15 years in prison.

Operating after the high court’s abortion ruling has been at times a “painful” experience, said Melissa Grant, chief operations officer of Carafem, which has had a Nashville clinic since 2019. The legal environment has required difficult conversations between staffers and patients who may be unaware how early in pregnancy cardiac activity can be detected.

“When we find that we do ultimately have to turn somebody away, whether it’s the first visit, the second visit, the conversations can be very emotional. Primarily anger, fear, grief, sometimes disbelief, and it’s difficult for the staff,” she said.

In Idaho, the federal government argued that Medicaid-funded hospitals must provide “stabilizing treatment” to pregnant women experiencing medical emergencies despite its trigger law.

Much of Idaho’s law went into effect Thursday, but due to the federal judge’s ruling Wednesday, the state cannot prosecute anyone who is performing an abortion in a medical emergency.

Most abortions in Idaho were effectively banned on Aug. 12, when the Idaho Supreme Court allowed a different law to go into effect allowing potential relatives of an embryo or fetus to sue abortion providers
===================================================



GOP won over Roe, but is losing abortion debate

Republicans need to go on the offense (and compromise)

By Steve Levy

Republican commentators are in a quandary as to why Democrat Pat Ryan defeated Republican Marc Molinaro in a New York swing seat contest for Congress. Or how Democrats are leading in key U.S. Senate races for the midterm election, despite the fact that the country is wallowing in Democratic-caused hyperinflation, open borders and record-breaking crime waves.

The answer? To paraphrase former Bill Clinton operative James Carville: It’s abortion, stupid. (We can also couple in the impact that multiple Trump investigations have had on distracting the focus from these Democratic liabilities.) There have been two seminal political moments in the Biden administration that have altered the trajectory of public opinion. The first was the botched Afghanistan withdrawal last August, which combined gross incompetence with horrific policy. The debacle made Mr. Biden look feeble, illogical and out of touch. It marked the end of his honeymoon and a clear dive toward the polling dumpster.

Additional polls followed showing that Americans favored Republicans in generic matchups as to who should run the country. But over the last few months, Democrats

B3

have gained ground and now are even ahead by four points in a Politico Morning Consultant poll.

The change correlates closely to the leaking of the Supreme Court decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which now places abortion in play in elections on the state and national levels.

Republicans have traditionally been on the losing side of the abortion argument, given that most agree with the policy baked into the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

In May of 2021, Gallup polls showed Americans’ support for abortion in all or most cases at 80%, while the Pew Research Center finds 59% of adults believe abortion should be legal.

An NPR/PBS poll showed that this year, two-thirds of the American public opposed Roe’s reversal.

That concept was confirmed just last month in a Kansas referendum which surprised many political observers but shouldn’t have. Yes, even conservative Midwesterners (when they got in the polling booth) didn’t want the government removing options in the first trimester.

It’s simply hard to fathom how a party can maintain dominance nationwide promoting ending abortion choice in the early months when the public is seemingly demanding it.

While polls show abortion landing far below inflation as a top issue, one should not underestimate the passion it stirs in voters. Fifty-five percent of Americans said in a post-Dobbs poll that abortion now ranks as an important issue to them in the upcoming election, with 56% opposing the Dobbs decision.

Since Dobbs, money has been flowing into Democratic coffers and advocacy groups such as Planned Parenthood, which will be crucial in generating get-out-the-vote campaigns. Dems are crushing Republicans in money raised, having brought in over $80 million through June after word got out about the court decision.

Important demographics, including single women and independents, are impacted markedly by Dobbs.

Lesser informed voters might not be sold on the fact that the Democrats caused the massive rise in crime (which they indeed did), but it’s very easy to distinguish how your local candidate will vote on an upcoming abortion bill.

A recent AP/NORC poll shows that 60% of Americans want Congress to pass legislation making access to some abortions a national right. Given that 60 votes in the Senate would be needed to effectuate such a change, the Senate races will logically be more impacted by the Dobbs decision, which may explain why Democrat Senate candidates are pulling ahead of their Republican rivals.

Republicans would be wise to strike a compromise position that is in line with the electorate and actually winds up limiting abortions. Just as voters want to maintain choice in the first trimester, only 28% support abortions in the last trimester.

Yet, the Democratic platform continues to espouse the radical view that abortion should be a matter of choice, even as a baby is exiting the birth canal.

The GOP should announce that they will agree not to alter present access in the first trimester if Democrats will support bans in the third.

This isn’t only a wise political move, but it would also wind up actually lessening abortions, which is the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement. Pushing too hard on bans in the first trimester will likely lead to larger Democratic majorities and, thus, more abortions.

Polls show that the public trusts Republicans more than Democrats on important issues such as the economy, the border and crime.

The GOP even shifted public opinion toward their favor on the issue of education, a longtime centerpiece of the Democratic platform.

Still, Republicans have faired very poorly with single women and the younger generation, in large part due to a perception of not being flexible enough on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion (though a majority of even Republicans now are copasetic with the former.)

The average American thinks much more like a Republican than a progressive on most issues. By striking a compromise on the abortion front, Republicans could seal the deal in becoming America’s majority party. But if the GOP is perceived as going gung-ho on first trimester bans, the red tidal wave we were anticipating this November could devolve into a tepid ripple.

Steve Levy is president of Common Sense Strategies, a political consulting firm. He served as Suffolk County Executive, as an New York State assemblyman and host of “The Steve Levy Radio Show.” He is the author of “Solutions to America’s Problems” and “Bias in the Media.” Find more from him at www.SteveLevy.info , @ SteveLevyNY on Twitter and steve@commonsensestrategies.com.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2022, 06:06:44 AM by Crafty_Dog »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 24511
    • View Profile
Re: Not good for the red wave?
« Reply #417 on: August 26, 2022, 06:18:10 AM »
What's not good for the red wave is all the blue vote fraud left unpunished.

2022 and 2024 will be stolen.



Three more GOP-led states join move to restrict abortion

Judge grants motion for injunction in North Dakota

BY KIMBERLEE KRUESI ASSOCIATED PRESS NASHVILLE, TENN. | Three more Republican-led states will ban almost all abortions this week as yet another slate of laws severely limiting the procedure takes effect following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

To date, 13 states have passed so-called “trigger laws” that were designed to outlaw most abortions if the high court threw out the constitutional right to end a pregnancy. The majority of those states began enforcing their bans soon after the June 24 decision, but Idaho, Tennessee and Texas had to wait 30 days beyond when the justices formally entered the judgment, which happened several weeks after the ruling was announced.

That deadline expired Thursday.

North Dakota’s trigger law was scheduled to take effect Friday, but a district judge in Burleigh County granted a motion for a preliminary injunction as he weighs arguments from the state’s lone abortion clinic that the law violates the state constitution.

Judge Bruce Romanick granted the motion as part of a lawsuit brought by the Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo.

The changes in Idaho, Texas and Tennessee will not be dramatic. All states already had antiabortion laws in place that largely blocked patients from accessing the procedure. And the majority of the clinics that provided abortions in those areas have either stopped offering those services or moved to other states where abortion remains legal.

Texas, the country’s secondlargest state, has banned most abortions once fetal cardiac activity has been detected, which can be as early as six weeks into pregnancy, before many women know they’re pregnant. The ban has been in place for almost a year, since courts refused to stop the law last September.

While clinics were severely limited in the services they could provide during that time, they offi cially stopped offering abortions on the day of the Supreme Court ruling. Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton argued that state laws that banned abortion before Roe v. Wade could be enforced ahead of the implementation of the trigger law.

Much like Texas’ current abortion ban, the trigger law does not include exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Instead it has a provision allowing abortions if a woman’s life or health is in danger.

The political response to the change was swift: Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke chose Thursday to unveil the first TV ads in his campaign against Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who signed off on the statute.

Meanwhile, Texas has challenged a legal interpretation put forth by the federal government that was aimed at requiring Texas hospitals to provide abortion services if the life of the mother is at risk. On Wednesday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the government from enforcing that interpretation.

Texas argued that the federal guidance would have required hospitals to provide abortions before the mother’s life is clearly at risk, which would have violated the state’s trigger law.

In Tennessee, just two of the six clinics that provide abortions continued to offer the service after Roe was overturned. They did so even as Tennessee enacted a “heartbeat law” similar to the one passed in Texas. Under both the new trigger law and the previous heartbeat law, doctors who violate the law risk felony convictions and up to 15 years in prison.

Operating after the high court’s abortion ruling has been at times a “painful” experience, said Melissa Grant, chief operations officer of Carafem, which has had a Nashville clinic since 2019. The legal environment has required difficult conversations between staffers and patients who may be unaware how early in pregnancy cardiac activity can be detected.

“When we find that we do ultimately have to turn somebody away, whether it’s the first visit, the second visit, the conversations can be very emotional. Primarily anger, fear, grief, sometimes disbelief, and it’s difficult for the staff,” she said.

In Idaho, the federal government argued that Medicaid-funded hospitals must provide “stabilizing treatment” to pregnant women experiencing medical emergencies despite its trigger law.

Much of Idaho’s law went into effect Thursday, but due to the federal judge’s ruling Wednesday, the state cannot prosecute anyone who is performing an abortion in a medical emergency.

Most abortions in Idaho were effectively banned on Aug. 12, when the Idaho Supreme Court allowed a different law to go into effect allowing potential relatives of an embryo or fetus to sue abortion providers
===================================================



GOP won over Roe, but is losing abortion debate

Republicans need to go on the offense (and compromise)

By Steve Levy

Republican commentators are in a quandary as to why Democrat Pat Ryan defeated Republican Marc Molinaro in a New York swing seat contest for Congress. Or how Democrats are leading in key U.S. Senate races for the midterm election, despite the fact that the country is wallowing in Democratic-caused hyperinflation, open borders and record-breaking crime waves.

The answer? To paraphrase former Bill Clinton operative James Carville: It’s abortion, stupid. (We can also couple in the impact that multiple Trump investigations have had on distracting the focus from these Democratic liabilities.) There have been two seminal political moments in the Biden administration that have altered the trajectory of public opinion. The first was the botched Afghanistan withdrawal last August, which combined gross incompetence with horrific policy. The debacle made Mr. Biden look feeble, illogical and out of touch. It marked the end of his honeymoon and a clear dive toward the polling dumpster.

Additional polls followed showing that Americans favored Republicans in generic matchups as to who should run the country. But over the last few months, Democrats

B3

have gained ground and now are even ahead by four points in a Politico Morning Consultant poll.

The change correlates closely to the leaking of the Supreme Court decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which now places abortion in play in elections on the state and national levels.

Republicans have traditionally been on the losing side of the abortion argument, given that most agree with the policy baked into the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

In May of 2021, Gallup polls showed Americans’ support for abortion in all or most cases at 80%, while the Pew Research Center finds 59% of adults believe abortion should be legal.

An NPR/PBS poll showed that this year, two-thirds of the American public opposed Roe’s reversal.

That concept was confirmed just last month in a Kansas referendum which surprised many political observers but shouldn’t have. Yes, even conservative Midwesterners (when they got in the polling booth) didn’t want the government removing options in the first trimester.

It’s simply hard to fathom how a party can maintain dominance nationwide promoting ending abortion choice in the early months when the public is seemingly demanding it.

While polls show abortion landing far below inflation as a top issue, one should not underestimate the passion it stirs in voters. Fifty-five percent of Americans said in a post-Dobbs poll that abortion now ranks as an important issue to them in the upcoming election, with 56% opposing the Dobbs decision.

Since Dobbs, money has been flowing into Democratic coffers and advocacy groups such as Planned Parenthood, which will be crucial in generating get-out-the-vote campaigns. Dems are crushing Republicans in money raised, having brought in over $80 million through June after word got out about the court decision.

Important demographics, including single women and independents, are impacted markedly by Dobbs.

Lesser informed voters might not be sold on the fact that the Democrats caused the massive rise in crime (which they indeed did), but it’s very easy to distinguish how your local candidate will vote on an upcoming abortion bill.

A recent AP/NORC poll shows that 60% of Americans want Congress to pass legislation making access to some abortions a national right. Given that 60 votes in the Senate would be needed to effectuate such a change, the Senate races will logically be more impacted by the Dobbs decision, which may explain why Democrat Senate candidates are pulling ahead of their Republican rivals.

Republicans would be wise to strike a compromise position that is in line with the electorate and actually winds up limiting abortions. Just as voters want to maintain choice in the first trimester, only 28% support abortions in the last trimester.

Yet, the Democratic platform continues to espouse the radical view that abortion should be a matter of choice, even as a baby is exiting the birth canal.

The GOP should announce that they will agree not to alter present access in the first trimester if Democrats will support bans in the third.

This isn’t only a wise political move, but it would also wind up actually lessening abortions, which is the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement. Pushing too hard on bans in the first trimester will likely lead to larger Democratic majorities and, thus, more abortions.

Polls show that the public trusts Republicans more than Democrats on important issues such as the economy, the border and crime.

The GOP even shifted public opinion toward their favor on the issue of education, a longtime centerpiece of the Democratic platform.

Still, Republicans have faired very poorly with single women and the younger generation, in large part due to a perception of not being flexible enough on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion (though a majority of even Republicans now are copasetic with the former.)

The average American thinks much more like a Republican than a progressive on most issues. By striking a compromise on the abortion front, Republicans could seal the deal in becoming America’s majority party. But if the GOP is perceived as going gung-ho on first trimester bans, the red tidal wave we were anticipating this November could devolve into a tepid ripple.

Steve Levy is president of Common Sense Strategies, a political consulting firm. He served as Suffolk County Executive, as an New York State assemblyman and host of “The Steve Levy Radio Show.” He is the author of “Solutions to America’s Problems” and “Bias in the Media.” Find more from him at www.SteveLevy.info , @ SteveLevyNY on Twitter and steve@commonsensestrategies.com.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 62817
    • View Profile
Fed court overturns CA abortion law requiring churches to pay for abortions
« Reply #418 on: August 29, 2022, 02:51:24 AM »
Court says churches don’t need to pay for abortions

BY SEAN SALAI THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A federal court has overturned a California state mandate that required churches to pay for employees’ elective abortions in their health insurance plans, ending a yearslong legal battle.

U.S. District Chief Judge Kimberly Mueller wrote in an opinion filed Thursday that the 2014 directive from the California Department of Managed Health Care is unconstitutional because it imposes a “substantial burden” on the churches’ freedom of religion.

The Eastern District of California’s chief judge said that Mary Watanabe, the department’s director, failed to demonstrate a “compelling interest” for the state not to accommodate the religious beliefs of three churches that filed the lawsuit in 2015.

Foothill Church in Glendora, Calvary Chapel Chino Hills in Chino, and The Shepherd of the Hills Church in Porter Ranch had asked to be exempt from covering abortions except “when absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother.”

The state agency had argued it only considers objections that come directly from health plans, not from individual employers, due to its compelling interest to keep millions of employers from filing a “flood of exemption requests.”

“Even assuming similar religious challenges materialized in California in large numbers, [Watanabe] has not offered evidence showing that entertaining these religious objections would be so difficult and time-consuming that DMHC’s operations would grind to a halt,’” wrote Chief Judge Mueller, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama.

The ruling does not extend to artificial contraception, which California does not require church health plans to cover.

Jeremiah Galus, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom who helped represent the churches, said emails discovered in court showed California issued the abortion mandate in response to requests from Planned Parenthood.

“The government can’t force a church or any other religious employer to violate their faith and conscience by participating in funding abortion,” Mr. Galus said in a statement.

======================

MARC:  What about atheists who believe abortion is a moral wrong?


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 62817
    • View Profile
WSJ: Abortion politics in Michigan
« Reply #419 on: August 31, 2022, 12:36:25 PM »
How Abortion Could Upend Michigan
An initiative to codify Roe is close to qualifying for the November ballot.
By The Editorial BoardFollow
Aug. 30, 2022 7:00 pm ET


Michigan could be the next state to put abortion on the November ballot, and Democrats no doubt hope it will juice turnout among their base, carrying Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to a second term and maybe flipping some House or state legislative races. Have Republicans devised a better strategy since this month’s blowout referendum in Kansas?


Michigan’s proposed constitutional amendment would create a right to “reproductive freedom,” including abortion access through fetal viability, which is roughly 24 weeks. Proponents needed to gather 425,059 signatures. They submitted about 750,000, which news reports say is the most ever for a Michigan initiative. Official certification to appear on the November ballot could come from a state board Wednesday.

The context is that Michigan has a 1931 law that broadly bans inducing miscarriage, with an exception “to preserve the life of such woman,” but not for victims of rape or incest. The law is on hold as court challenges play out, but it doesn’t seem to be consonant with public opinion in 2022, even in red states like Kansas, to say nothing of purple ones like Michigan.

Yet the proposed constitutional amendment would mirror the Supreme Court’s old standard under Roe v. Wade of requiring unrestricted abortion through about 24 weeks, and it isn’t clear that this is the plurality position either.

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP

Morning Editorial Report

All the day's Opinion headlines.


Preview

Subscribed
Nationally, the Gallup numbers say 67% of Americans want abortion to be “generally legal” in the first three months (12 weeks) of pregnancy. But only 36% say the same through the first six months (24 weeks). For Michigan residents, state data show that 89.5% of all reported abortions in 2021 were conducted in the first 12 weeks, according to the Detroit Free Press.

In other words, a Michigander could easily consider herself pro-choice and against the 1931 law, while also thinking the proposed constitutional amendment goes too far and that 24 weeks—nearly the start of the third trimester—is late for purely elective abortions. In a less polarized age, Gov. Whitmer and the Republican state Legislature could get together to agree on a line somewhere in between, at 12 weeks, or 15 or 18. Neither side would be thrilled, but that’s the nature of compromise.

Since that seems unlikely at the current political moment, voters might instead be given an all-or-nothing choice: approve the proposed constitutional amendment to codify the line at 24 weeks, or risk the enforcement of the 1931 law. For the pro-life side, this political prospect might be even worse than the lay of the land in Kansas. There the threat was the unknown, and voters decided against giving state lawmakers the power to legislate freely on abortion.

The lesson for pro-life Republicans from Kansas is that they would be better off politically if they put on the record the policy that they intend to pass. Fifteen weeks? With or without an exception for rape victims? Voters of all political persuasions want to know, and they won’t trust a Legislature that declines to specify. Michigan Republicans would be wise to answer the question long before November, and they can then defend that policy on the merits.

Or look at the recent transformation in Arizona of Blake Masters, the GOP Senate nominee. In the primary he said he was “100% Pro-Life.” Now he’s trying to put Democrat Mark Kelly on defense, saying that the Senator “votes for the most extreme abortion laws in the world.” Mr. Kelly is on record against parental consent requirements. “Ultimately I feel that young women at a certain age should have the rights to make these kind of decisions with their doctor,” he explained. What age? He wouldn’t say.

The public finds some of the Republican proposals on abortion extreme, and it finds some of the Democratic plans extreme, too. Outside the progressive coasts and the most conservative states, the side that will lose is the one that cedes the middle.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16773
    • View Profile
Abortion politics
« Reply #422 on: October 21, 2022, 07:02:19 AM »
The election isn't over yet but it already turns out that the right to slaughter your unborn at any time for any reason is not as widely motivating as initially thought.

https://thehill.com/opinion/3695068-the-gop-is-playing-offense-on-abortion-and-theyre-winning/

Marco Rubio handled the question masterfully in his debate.  Paraphrasing, I'm pro-life but every bill I've sponsored or supported includes exceptions because that's what the American people want. 

Hard to call that extremist when your opponent wants them killed at any moment up until they can see daylight and maybe a little longer.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2022, 07:06:04 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16773
    • View Profile
Abortion, Democrats 1972, McGovern, Humphrey, Muskie, Rev. Jesse Jackson
« Reply #423 on: October 26, 2022, 08:49:31 AM »
Note:  This is one year before Roe v Wade.  Leading Democrats (above) all knew abortion was wrong.

McGovern’s position at the beginning of the campaign was that  abortion was a matter that should be left to state legislatures (which is the default Republican position today), and although he resisted attempts at including a pro-abortion plank in the Democratic platform in 1972, he gradually conceded to the pro-abortion views of insurgent feminists.  (Muskie and Humphrey, it is worth adding, both opposed abortion.  “I am not for it,” said Humphrey.  “It compromises the sanctity of life,” said Muskie. The Rev. Jesse Jackson had an even tougher opinion at that time, describing abortion “as too nice a word for something cold, like murder.”)  While McGovern conceded under pressure from feminists, he wouldn’t embrace abortion-on-demand.  There must be regulating legislation, McGovern thought: “You can’t just let anybody walk in and request an abortion.”

   - https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/10/george-mcgovern-rip.php
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What changed?  Science discovered it's not an unborn human life in there??

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 62817
    • View Profile
WSJ: MI Reps show how to lose on Abortion
« Reply #424 on: October 29, 2022, 09:17:21 AM »
Michigan Republicans Show How to Lose on Abortion
Their unwillingness to compromise may lead voters to approve a law more permissive than Roe.
By Nicholas Tomaino
Oct. 28, 2022 5:22 pm ET



Michigan voters may be about to approve an abortion law that would be among the most permissive in the country. If they do, the reason will be a combination of proponents’ dishonesty and opponents’ negligence.

The end of Roe v. Wade has yet to change anything in the Wolverine State. A 1931 law, still on the books but unenforceable under Roe, prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Planned Parenthood both challenged it in pre-emptive April lawsuits. Two courts granted their petitions for an injunction against enforcing the law, and a state judge struck down the law in September.

Meantime, a group called Reproductive Freedom for All gathered signatures for an initiative to amend the state constitution. “It could be a blueprint for many other states,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren cheered in June.

Proposal 3 is styled as a restoration of Roe, but the language goes further. The amendment’s opening clause provides that “every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom,” including “abortion care.” The term “individual”—not “woman” or “adult”—could preclude laws requiring parental consent for minors seeking abortions, says former Michigan Solicitor General John Bursch.

Proponents deny that. “When Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, courts upheld restrictions on minors’ ability to obtain abortions,” writes University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman in an op-ed. “That’s the law that Proposal 3 restores—the protections of Roe. It’s that simple.”

Yet Ms. Litman’s reading contradicts the proposal’s text. It says the right to abortion can’t be infringed absent a “compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” That’s the same standard that applied under Roe between 1973 and 1992, when Planned Parenthood v. Casey changed it to an “undue burden” test.

But Proposal 3 rewrites the standard: An interest is compelling “only if it is for the limited purpose of protecting the health of an individual seeking care, consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence based medicine, and does not infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision-making.”

“Those are connected at the hip,” Mr. Bursch says, “so the state would have to survive all three of those hoops in order to pass muster.” It’s difficult to see how Michigan’s parental-consent requirement would remain intact if challenged. Likewise for other moderate restrictions, such as a 24-hour waiting period or a requirement that doctors performing abortions have hospital admitting privileges.

Proponents also take advantage of public confusion over how permissive Roe and Casey were. A June Gallup poll found that 55% of Americans thought abortion should be generally illegal in the second trimester—yet 58% opposed overturning Roe v. Wade, which required it to be available on demand. Although Proposal 3 would allow the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, it also says it shall be available when “an attending health care professional” determines it to be “medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.” As under Roe, the exception swallows the rule. Nothing prevents mere distress from justifying abortion at any point before birth.


Although the amendment imposes policies that seem inconsistent with public opinion, Proposal 3 has as high as 61.6% support in one recent poll. That disparity can be explained in part by the state’s Republican lawmakers’ refusal to consider relaxing the 1931 law. It’s a principled position, but it’s also highly unpopular.

This was made clearer in August, when Kansans voted 59% to 41% to keep their state’s constitutional protection for abortion. When voters believe they’re presented with an all-or-nothing decision on the issue, most are usually inclined to take the former. In ducking that unfortunate reality, Michigan Republicans risk irreparably damaging the pro-life cause.

If Proposal 3 fails, Michigan’s Supreme Court will proceed with the appeal of the 1931 law. The state high court has a 4-3 Democratic majority, which would become 4-3 Republican if GOP candidates win both seats that are up next month. In that event the Democratic majority might speed up the process and rule before the new term begins on Jan. 1 that the Michigan Constitution protects a right to abortion—though presumably not as expansive a right as Proposal 3’s.

This dynamic provides a convenient out for Republican gubernatorial nominee Tudor Dixon. When asked about the issue in this week’s gubernatorial debate, she said: “The people will decide what they want to do. . . . Abortion rights will be decided by Proposal 3, or it will be decided by a judge.” When pressed again on whether she’d favor amending the law, she demurred.

Republicans are trying to have it both ways, refusing to compromise while avoiding political responsibility for an uncompromising position. The wiser course would be the opposite: not to abandon their principles, but to understand their constituents’ present limits, enact restrictions that have more popular support, and do the hard work of forming a pro-life consensus over the long run.

When the U.S. Supreme Court took on abortion, the Republicans who control Michigan’s Legislature sat on their hands. They had an opportunity to pass legislation amending the 1931 law—by imposing, say, a ban on abortion after 15 weeks—only to have Ms. Whitmer veto it. Doing so would have given them the opportunity to show voters what they would do if not for their extreme governor.

Instead, they countered the Democratic “blueprint” with nothing, which may ensure a political defeat.

Mr. Tomaino is an assistant editorial features editor at the Journal.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16773
    • View Profile
Abortion animation
« Reply #425 on: November 04, 2022, 07:51:28 AM »