The New York Times wrote today about a moderate Republican woman who loathed the Dobbs decision removing the constitutional right to abortion:
As Gov. Gretchen Whitmer prepared to kick off a round-table discussion about abortion rights at a brewery recently, Alisha Meneely sat at one corner of the table, feeling politically abandoned.
“This scares me a lot,” said Ms. Meneely, 43, who described herself as a “pro-choice Republican” in an interview shortly before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. A few days later, as many Republican officials embraced the far-reaching implications of the decision, she was unequivocal. “This,” Ms. Meneely said, “is not my party.”
Let's think out loud about this. Toss out a few guesses. Run some ideas up the ol' flagpole and see if anyone salutes.
The target for Democrats is obviously center-righties like Meneely. The true believers won't give us the time of day and will never vote for us. So what do we know about these people?
First of all, feelings about abortion are just those: feelings. Science is of no help here. Science can tell us that a human blastocyst is created by a human egg and human sperm. It can tell us when a heart starts beating. It can tell us when brain activity is detected. It can tell us when a fetus is viable outside the womb—although this changes as technology improves. But it can't tell us whether a fetus deserves the same full protection of the law given to a human who's been born. That's an issue for religion, the law, and public opinion.
So why do some people feel that abortion is wrong? We liberals are fond of saying that it's because conservatives are misogynists who want to control women's bodies and punish them for having unapproved sex. And that's probably of true of some of them. But among moderate conservatives, there are really only two things we know for sure:
- A large majority of moderates on both sides have feelings that are basically shaped by shape. That is, they don't think a little ball of cells looks human but they do think that a sonagram taken at 18 weeks does. That's why they mostly approve of Roe v. Wade. They don't care if it makes legal sense, they only care that it jibes with their intuition.
- When Dobbs was finally handed down—that is, when endless talk turned into a real, concrete attack on abortion—support for abortion rights went up. We political junkies all expected Roe to fall after Trump appointed three right-wing justices to the Supreme Court, but ordinary people didn't. They were shocked and surprised when it happened.
These seem like the natural points of attack for liberals who want to persuade conservatives to support broader abortion rights. But how? It's easy to imagine how we can take advantage of scary conservative ideologues. They're scary. But how do we take advantage of the shape thing? After all, it makes a lot of sense for a pattern-matching species like us. If it looks human, it probably is human.
I don't know. The obvious solution is to support abortion until, say, 18 weeks but not after. But that's not what progressives believe.
We could try to convince people that "looks like" isn't "is." But that's a pretty tough row to hoe. I'm not sure how we could go about it.
We could begin a campaign to emphasize how a 20-week fetus isn't like a newborn baby.
We could splash social media with pictures of the 2001 fetus, emphasizing how creepy and alien it is.
Anybody else have some ideas? I know that lots of people have been trying to figure this out for decades, but with Roe gone it gains a certain salience that it didn't have before. What's our best way of handling it?
Science can tell us that a human blastocyst is created by a human egg and human sperm. It can tell us when a heart starts beating...We could splash social media with pictures of the 2001 fetus, emphasizing how creepy and alien it is. Anybody else have some ideas? I know that lots of people have been trying to figure this out for decades, but with Roe gone it gains a certain salience that it didn't have before. What's our best way of handling it?
The best way to handle this question is to not focus on fetuses and theological debates about the status of embryos and blastocysts.
Rather, keep the focus on women and girls, full stop—and the terrible costs to them flowing from a policy of forced pregnancy.
Exactly, forced pregnancy is slavery, and forced birth is poverty and destitution.
And you will lose.
As broader humanity also thinks about the potential child.
A combination of focus on forced and on medical viability, and aspects of saving the potential mother's life, pragmatism over ideology would potentially be appealing out of the pre-sold.
As broader humanity also thinks about the potential child.
While that's very true, nearly all US voters who highly prioritize the potential child are already in the Republican camp. (The opposite is obviously the case with respect to voters who highly prioritize reproductive rights.)
While the modest number of up-for-grabs-voters is no doubt a mixed bag, my sense is focusing on the real world outcomes of using police power to ban abortion is likely to yield better political dividends for Democrats than acceding to the GOP's preferred terms of debate. Also, what Kevin Drum is proposing isn't a focus on "the potential child." What he advocates (if I understand him correctly) is precisely the opposite: talk about why it's merely a clump of cells. To me, such a strategy seems obvious and plainly ill-advised.
What about the living, breathing, person who will die without access? How many https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar will we let forced-birthers kill?
I think the Family Guy paintswatch macro applies here.
Bollocks. Folks might express squeamishness about abortion and worry about "the babies" but will fall into the pro-choice camp as they quickly realize that pro-life means forcing a ten year old rape victim to have the baby. If you sacrifice women's agency to "compromise" you lose far more casual female voters than you gain.
Exactly this! Kevin is making a debate/messaging 101 error. Don't fight on the grounds and terms republicans want to use. Talk about the horrors this inflicts on women and children. Their lives, their rights, their freedoms.
I get your point, but I wonder if it is obsolete. Shape arguments worked when Roe was law and the right could focus on late term abortions.
Now Roe isn't law and blastocysts are the terrain the other side has chosen. I suspect now shape works to their disadvantage.
Abortion should be rare..safe…and legal…..I think bill clinton said that….set a deadline for terminating pregnancy…and provide counseling and services if you wait too long and are on the path of delivering the child….women need to just stop entering into endless discussion…grab your rights and say “who the hell do you think you are” to anybody who wants to tell you what to do…with the possible exception of the father…
The rare part is only possible if contraception is readily available, understood, & used.
But GQP is coming for that next.
The GOPuritan position is that there would be no demand for abortion if heterosexual intercourse not intended to result in reproduction (post-menopausal women and their partners excepted) stops occurring. This position is both true and totally unrealistic.
What about man on woman boofing? Will Ken Paxton at least exempt Supremes from sodomy law?
I still remember when the Left dogpiled on Big Bill for this remark. They didn't like the "rare" part, as it suggested abortion wasn't a totally good thing.
Honestly, for a political "side" that prizes "nuance" and taking multiple viewpoints and priorities into account, we Lefties have really been blowing it lately. Like for the last 50 years.
But getting back to the topic: the human fetus looks amazingly like the fetuses (feti?) of other mammals for a long time during development. Using these -- like maybe a fetal giraffe, or dog, or pig, or mouse -- and showing how you can't tell which one is "human" : might that have some impact?
Americans can’t solve problems because they get wrapped around the axle in every discussion…dribbling off into the weeds…every position overly nuanced and overly complicated…abortion rights..gun rights…here’s the news…both sides must abandon maximalist positions…accept compromise…limit on window to terminate( exceptional late term abortion excepted….guns ban assault rifles..age limits and expanded mental health resources…and women need to be the cones who clearly delineate the parameters of the issue….and refuse to entertain any deviations…
"I still remember when the Left dogpiled on Big Bill for this remark."
I don't.
Lucky you! The professional Left hated Big Bill nearly as much as the Republicans did!
"Clinton's job approval rating ranged from 36% in mid-1993 to 64% in late 1993 and early 1994.[1] In his second term, his rating consistently ranged from the high-50s to the high-60s.[1][2] After his impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999, Clinton's rating reached its highest point at 73% approval.[3] He finished with a Gallup poll approval rating of 65%,[4] higher than that of every other departing president measured since Harry Truman"
So, i'm not sure who you classify as "the left" or "the professional left", but clinton was one of the most popular presidents in US history.
The rare part was only because "operation rescue" types were practicing terrorism against providers, and Red States were enacting Trap Laws to make it nearly impossible to operate clinic. Abortion should be there for women who need it. Period. Also good solid health care for women and children should be there along with affordable child care and other safety net items that make it so hard to raise a kid in the US these days.
Safe, legal, and rare was the political sweet spot, and still is. Leaving that behind was political malpractice.
Cast it as regression, the shedding of liberty to older, more barbaric times when women had to sneak and then suffer shame...
Notice there are no sneaking or shamed men?
Thank you.
I liked beer! I still like beer!
... Maybe I liked beer a bit too much.
Thank you painduode - far to many men are willing to bargain away women's rights in a veritable Munich Pact when it's obviously clear that the Pro-Life camp is more Hitler & Stalin than pro-life. 50 years of Roe v. Wade and it's painfully clear that any previous compromises were only a bid to buy time to lard the Supreme Court with compliant justices to turn back the clock.
Au premier ils sont venus pour les femmes...
For me it's very simple. Nothing good comes from forcing someone to go through a pregnancy they don't want.
Fintan O'Toole has helped me realize this.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-how-i-discovered-what-i-felt-about-abortion-1.3471554
Yes to Fintan O'Toole. Roe v Wade was an imperfect political stop gap at the time. I think Kevin and others are needlessly complicating things. There may be some
(mostly hypothetical) edge cases but really for 99% of the unwanted pregnancies the answer is simple: it's not for anyone other than the mother, hopefully with good medical advice and care, to decide.
In retrospect Roe was a great compromise. Most people think a woman should have the choice, but that after 20 weeks or so another life starts to have an interest too. Conservatives want to tear up an ok world and return is to 1850. No wonder their states are so poor. That’s what I’d say.
return us*
Don't forget that at the time RvW _was_ the compromise, and it was widely viewed even then to be less juridical than it was political. I know, because I was there in real time. All this fooforaw today is just 'conservatives' welching on the deal they made fifty years ago and counting on the cupidity of their audience.
Precisely. In some states, the alt-left may be forced to "re-compromise" on a ban after 18 weeks, but that doesn't mean the alt-left shouldn't continue to push for the right laws in all states.
The alt-left, as it exists, actually stands with the GQP on abortion, as it's a group who consider abortion & contraception "gonadal politics" (a la Nader) & a product of the "neoliberal establishment dictating terms to the workingclass" (as Bernie said of Planned Parenthood), & unnecessary to a civil society. Now, some go even further, viewing an unwanted pregnancy as a punishment for fallen women (the Men's Rights Movement, from the Left, of Chapo Traphouse & CunTown), or an act of God trying to steer those disgraced women to salvation (the TradCaths, like the Bruenigs, et. al., & if I am being honest, likely also Jane O'Mara Sanders*), but in sum, the OurRevolutionaries, the Sunrisers, the JusticialDemocrats couldn't really give a shit less if ob-gyn can fully ply their trade. I mean, those ( ( ( doctors ) ) ), anyway, are just part of the horror of America's health care ripoff & need to be punished, too.
*TradCatheterization is damn well why I am 100% sure that Bernie's Medicare4All would absolutely have excluded abortion services in its coverage, & likely contraception.
CORRECTION: CumTown.
I regret any offense to the denizens of that humble burg.
Isn’t offense their stock in trade?
Indeed.
It was indeed a compromise, an imperfect political compromise, and they should have left it alone.
Over 90 % of abortions occur in the Ist trimester. Accept the 18 week limit as long as access is made far easier and there are exceptions to protect the health and life of the woman after 18 weeks. After Casey too many states got away with regulations that technically allowed abortions but created obstacles for many, especially poor, women. 18 weeks with easy access would actually be better for most all women.
My point too. Elective abortions after 12 weeks are in single digits. Elective abortions after viability are less than 1%. Viability at 23-24 weeks if born prematurely still requires a lot of luck and heroic efforts to survive. Abortions at this point are nearly all medical emergencies. The police state getting involved right at the moment families are dealing with a tragedy seems exceptionally cruel.
And these are elective abortions, dwarfed by the number of spontaneous abortions. That vast majority are embryos. They aren't babies.
You gonna pay for all the funerals for the women with late term non-viable fetus who die from infections?
It may sound callous (but not as callous as forcing a women to give birth against her will, or risk her life, taking away her bodily autonomy, etc. but I digress): maybe they'll just have to live with our society agreeing upon something they dislike. For example, I sure as hell hate the death penalty, but I have live with it here in America. We all have to live with stuff we dislike.
I agree on 18 weeks. It's a hair longer than four months (average is 17 weeks and a day). But I disagree on "but not after". Yes, to "not after" on truly "elective" abortions, but if the life of the mother is in serious danger there should be NO time limit. I can agree that if it is in any way possible to deliver the fetus alive in a crisis pregnancy, doctors should do so, but the mother's life must not be sacrificed to the fetus' benefit.
On the daddy issue, every mother who is forced to give birth in the "but not after" scenario should have herself and the baby DNA tested as soon as possible and put the kit on all four databases: Ancestry, Family Tree, 23 & Me and GEDMatch. Start with Ancestry because they don't accept uploads, but then download the Ancestry results and upload them to the other three sites.
Then employ a genetic genealogist to find the father. Most women of course have a small pool of "sperm donors" who might be the father, so the search should be very easy. Then sue him for support, publicly. He won't stand a chance.
When this happens to a few thousand guys, men will keep it zipped and start pressuring their state legislatures to repeal the state ban.
Pretty sure the Six GQP Supremes will find a way to reinject the penumbra of privacy into the judicial record to ensure men's right to privacy won't be imperiled by posting their chromosomal contribution to a pregnancy & birth on the Internet.
If a pregnancy must be terminated after viability, and the fetus is healthy, the pregnancy can be terminated by Caesarean section, resulting in a live baby. However, the cases where a late abortion is called for are almost always cases where the fetus is so damaged that it is not and never will be viable.
Canada has no abortion laws whatsoever. Late term abortions in Canada are vanishingly rare and almost always involve one of those inviable fetuses. The whole controversy about late term abortions is a red herring. The way to prevent late abortions is to make early abortions easily available.
Unfortunately a ban at 18 weeks isn't the answer. I'm a labor and delivery nurse, so I am involved in terminations of pregnancies that are far enough along that induction of labor is the chosen method. Every one of them is a tragedy. Last week we induced a woman whose baby was diagnosed anencephalic at the 20 week ultrasound. This week, we induced a woman whose kidneys were failing. She had hoped to hold out long enough to get the baby to the edge of viability (23 weeks) but her condition was deteriorating rapidly. She will need a kidney transplant before trying again. Both women sobbed through their inductions and deliveries and as they held their very wanted children for the last time. If you can't imagine what that looks like, look for the photo Chrissie Teigen posted while sitting for her epidural. She had a chronic abruption and had been transfused twice, and her pre-viable fetus had stopped growing, so she had to terminate her pregnancy to save her life. Preterm rupture of membranes is another common reason for second trimester termination. Note that these women are often too sick to travel to another state. You can't get on a commercial flight while bleeding heavily or leaking amniotic fluid. We also see children who didn't even know what pregnancy was, until a teacher noticed physical changes. If you want to legislate morality and punish women, regulate the first trimester terminations...but leave us the second trimester. If you knew their stories, you would support their choices.
Exactly. This affects all women. Republicans are making it very dangerous to be pregnant in a red state, even if you're rich. We need to publicize these stories, before Republicans legislate to create thousands more.
This.
As a medical student, I attended two D&Es (dilation and extraction, the famous "partial birth abortion). There was only one doctor in the state and the surrounding states who did them. They were both wanted pregnancies. One was a trisomy (non-Downs) that was not going to survive until delivery, the other was a 19 week fetus with anencephaly and a fluid filled skull that was already larger than that of a newborn. At that point neither woman was yet in danger, but forcing them to carry dying fetuses further would have been cruelty.
The kind physician who did this procedure would never have done it for a woman who merely wanted to terminate a unwanted pregnancy.
We need your testimony everywhere.
Thank you for speaking up. I get highly enraged at men who are all to willing to compromise on women's healthcare as if it's "nothing". No it's most certainly something.
Why not use the same arguments "pro-choice Republicans" used to make before that term sounded like an oxymoron: Abortion is always a difficult choice, and difficult decisions are usually best made by those most closely involved, not by people who wear robes to work or by part-time legislators who barely know how to pass a budget, much less make intimate personal decisions about total strangers.
What crispdavid672887 said...
Or to put it differently: remind people that what Democrats are in favor of is not "abortion" but reproductive freedom.
Acknowledge that the morality of abortion is a deeply contested issue among Americans, and *because* it is contested, we should not go passing laws that make these moral choices for us. We should say that perhaps, these decisions are not best made by politicians and judges telling women that they should be forced to remain pregnant for many months --because that is what the anti-choice side is fighting for: the right of the government to force women have children.
Maybe people fighting for abortion rights can channel their inner Ronald Reagan, at least when he was talking about taxes, and say Get The Government Out of Our Lives, and Don't Let Politicians Force Us to Have Children!
And even the Catholic Church made a decision in the 19th century to be anti-choice- despite Catholic & other conservative websites & individuals making the false claim that the church has always, consistently, prohibited abortion.
It has not, but perhaps maintaining or even increasing the number of church members is a factor (despite climate change making increasing worldwide population growth an important issue).
While it's true that the "life begins at conception" doctrine is a modern one, the Christian church was always anti-contraception/anti-abortion. The distinction was between terminating a pregnancy prior to the "quickening" of a fetus, vs. after. In penitential theology, the former was treated as a sin similar to contracepting pregnancy whereas the latter was considered akin to murder.
This of course never stopped women from managing their fertility. In every medieval library alongside penitential books prescribing severe punishments for contraception or abortion were numerous pharmacological works that told you exactly which concoctions to brew in order to end a pregnancy.
And Benjamin Franklin's “The American Instructor or Young Man’s Best Companion”, published in 1748 included information on effective abortifacients known and used going back to the time of the ancient Greeks. If Alito did not do anything resembling actual research into practices of colonial times.
One tactic is to stop indulging the metaphysical life debate and start talking about personhood instead.
It seems to me that Democrats should be able to advocate for a compromise.
Before around 18-20 weeks, there's no real brain activity beyond low level stuff to keep a heart beat going. Yet, 18 weeks should be enough time for someone to decide whether they want to have the baby, and to perform genetic testing if they want.
So, allowing elective abortion up to 18 weeks, and after that point, ending *elective* abortion of a healthy fetus is a pretty good compromise between the rights of the pregnant woman and the rights of a potential child that at that point has real brain activity.
But **pay attention to shamhatdeleon** -- no matter what, we have to recognize that the female reproductive system fails more often than we'd like. If the placenta disconnects pre-viability, even if it is at 6 months, the woman will bleed out quickly, and though I'm not a doctor, my understanding is that an immediate abortion is the only way to save the woman's life. You need a bureaucracy-free way to just get it done.
And note: this affects rich women and poor women. It affects women who want a child, and ones who don't. Republicans are making it very dangerous to be pregnant in a red state, even if you're rich. Maybe that will change things 🙁
So, yes, elective abortions should be limited to something like 16-20 weeks. But there will *always* need to be fast access to abortions up to viability, where (I'm guessing) you'd just deliver the baby via C section if something went seriously wrong.
Further, sometimes the fetus is so damaged that it will suffer and die within a few days of birth. In those cases, I'd think a humane approach would be allowing an abortion in those cases as well.
This isn't that hard to explain -- there are enough horror stories like those told above to convince anyone with any empathy. And we should hammer Republican candidates for what they are: people who are willing to kill women in medical emergencies just to make a political point.
Democrats did advocate for a compromise. It was called Roe v Wade.
Re: Horror stories. Yes.
If you have ever attended a legislative hearing dealing with abortion, you will see a parade of "witnesses", all telling awful tales that they heard from their brother in law, who heard it from a person who works in some hospital who heard it from a nurse... yada yada, the doctor delivered the healthy baby and then murdered it and threw it into the garbage can, etc. Never any names, much less venue, date, nothing; and for something that should have been reported on the spot as a crime ... by someone.
Nurses and would-be parents who have these REAL stories about necessary abortions and why need to stand up as well, and have all the details that the legislators can use to confirm their stories. PUSH BACK!
Maybe the personal details can be provided confidentially to the legislative committees, so the abortees and medical personnel are less likely to be threatened with violence. But it's inconscionable that only the lying liars get to put out their manufacturered horror tales while the real stories go unheard.
At the other end of life, the ‘brain death’ criterion is the law in every US jurisdiction, and has never been controversial (perhaps except the politically-contrived Schaivo case). The general acceptance of this standard is certainly not about appearance - only an EEG can distinguish someone in a persistent vegetative state from a potentially recoverable coma. Granted that science can’t decide legal personhood, yet it can influence our thinking about the issue.
I agree with the many commenters who want to stress women’s rights and privacy rights in general, but pro-choice/pro-rights supporters also need an answer to the assertion of fetal rights. The ‘brain life’ argument seems a pretty good one to me.
One last thing -- we need to make the abortion pill as easy to get as possible in red states. Make sure people know about Aid Access and similar sites.
Also, perhaps some combination of VPNs to blue states, mail forwarding services in those states and telemedicine can be combined in a simple package to get medical abortions to women in those states more directly. Obviously, this isn't the optimal approach, but along with changing the laws, we should try to make this Republican victory in the Supreme Court as pyrrhic as possible.
I think I support abortion rights broadly, but I’m not sure trying to convince people to change their (considered) opinions is the right thing to do. Maybe if their opinions aren’t well-considered, you can make it real for them. If this is the road you wanna go down, appealing to their racism is probably efficacious. Seems to work in every other sphere of our lives.
Target them with social media ads using their profile data: “your daughter is pregnant from her boyfriend (insert the appropriate scary name here - black/white/Jewish/Arabic, whatever elicits the preferred response).
Copy: “Imagine the rest of your life with holiday dinners with his (her) family.”
That kind of thing.
I hope that Democrats never employ this tactic; that argument is best left for actual bigots.
Indeed.
There are vanishingly few, if any, Democrats remaining who would use that framing. So few, I don't even know of any. Maybe the Now More Than Ever Podcast Bros who genuflect at the altar of Lester Maddox's Chief of Staff Zell Miller?
Also, hard cases show up bad laws.
The effects of abortion restrictions on pregnant women who are NOT seeking an abortion are an excellent point to raise repeatedly, especially as more instances of ectopic pregancies and other complications multiply in forced-labor states. A few ads featuring ob-gyn physicians (women, naturally) would test very well, I think.
"A large majority of moderates on both sides have feelings that are basically shaped by shape. That is, they don't think a little ball of cells looks human but they do think that a sonagram taken at 18 weeks does."
This has been obvious from the beginning. It's the way most people think, and that's why the policy with broadest support is one that conforms to the trimester division. First trimester, it's not human. Third, it is. Middle is where the assessment of humanness varies and where tests are applied.
I don't know why Kevin is perturbed by the "shape" argument. A fetus in the womb one day before birth looks like a baby one day after birth. Virtually everybody would oppose terminating either lives. And that's based on shape.
You really want to fight for abortion rights, under all circumstances, up to the moment of birth? Why not just hand government over to Trump? Restricting abortion after 18 weeks might not be what progressives believe, but they'd better get on board with this crazy thing called "compromise" unless they want to lose everything.
This kind of summarizes what Kevin seems to be saying. And it sounds like bullshit. I'm completely missing where the radical left-wing alt-left progressives are demanding abortion up to the moment of birth. In fact, I'm hearing them say that abortion-just-before-birth never happens. So, references, Kevin, or else it's a strawman argument.
He seems to be fixated on the utterly quixotic task of bringing unpersuadable people over to his bioethical worldview. A) It's not going to happen. B) It doesn't need to happen for Democrats to make the right pay a steep political price for their radicalism: just concentrate on the many horrendous real world consequences that will be visited on American girls and women as forced birth becomes an increasingly widespread legal mandate.
Abandoning women in their time of need is the perfect way to split the party and hand the country over to the zealots. Just campaign on a platform of 100% appropriate healthcare for women with grave warnings about what happens in countries where abortion is strictly outlawed, the Irish women who died of sepsis, a woman in El Salvador who has been in prison for 50 years after her miscarriage etc.
I couldn’t agree more. Here in Pennsylvania, where abortion is still legal, there is a good chance it will be outlawed next year…the legislature is already very conservative. If Mastriano, the Republican, wins the governor’s race in November it’s all over. He’s as right-wing as it gets, and he will push PA rightward to somewhere between Mississippi and Afghanistan. The key here (and probably many other states) is to come across as providing common-sense solutions that appeal to the 5-10% of right-leaning people who can be persuaded.
As an aside Mastriano is as bad as it gets. If he wins, no Democrat will get the electoral votes in 2024 as he and the legislature will decide who gets those votes.
Been through this with the Mrs.
Our second child is one of the twins. The other had defects which threatened its life. We were informed early in the pregnancy and we openly discussed abortion but we made the choice to go as far into the pregnancy as we could. The Doctor and both of us prioritized the 3 individuals involved. #1 was health of the Mother, #2 was health of the "healthy" fetus and then the other fetus. At one of the checkups the doctor noted that the healthy fetus was showing stress so we went ahead with a C-section birth. 13 days after the delivery the unhealthy one died. She had multiple birth defects. She died in our arms. We look at our beautiful 38 year old daughter and STILL wonder what life would have been like had the other survived. Those thoughts of having twins still resonate to this day and they will never go away
THAT'S why we believe there should be exceptions to abortion bans. The trauma of rape, and incest will forever be with the Mother of that child that was illegitimately conceived. For two old Catholics we believe that the Jewish religion has the right idea regarding abortion. Health of the Mother first and foremost and that includes her MENTAL health.
Our third pregnancy was almost terminated because the Doctor had cautioned us after the twins that future pregnancies COULD be difficult, and initial testing indicated that something was awry. The doctor told us to hold off on a final abortion decision (we were at the midpoint of the first trimester). We waited 3 more weeks and did some more testing and found that the things had returned to normal. After THAT pregnancy we went ahead and the Mrs had her tubes tied. NOT because birth control is her responsibility exclusively but because she bore all the risk should any BC fail in the future. It was the Mrs health we all thought about. It's the way it should be
I am so sorry that you & your wife experienced all this. Your view & the Jewish tradition are compassionate but above all are based on common sense.
The mother may already have children who need her, and even if she doesn't at this time, could be saved to have a child later. But if there are risks to both the woman & a fetus, allowing the woman to die to save the baby presumably leaves a dilemma for the father of that infant, or less than ideal circumstances for the child.
I don’t think this is an issue which will change voter behavior regardless. That republican person who thinks abortion should be legal in some way voted for Donald trump. Twice. Suddenly they will get squeamish over this? I don’t think so. Give it a shot. I’ve got nothing. You have to convince them that this is more important than anything else. More important that trump. More important than business friendly tax cuts, hating on trans, and owning the evil liberals. Fat chance.
Will they call their republican state reps and tell them to go easy? They haven’t done it yet in red states. They aren’t going to start now.
I suspect the abortion issue is more likely to build a fire under those people who rarely vote and who might be stirred by this loss of previously held rights. In particular, women, young women, and maybe even young men (those who aren't gun-waving MAGAnuts, at least.)
Lately, races tend to be won be just a few percent, or less. Any changes in voting along the margins can end up being enough to win with.
Appealing to non voters is a different thing than getting pro choice (or ambivalent waffling) republicans to change their votes to democrats. In any event, I don’t know what will work in either case. If someone is on the fence, we would have to acknowledge that conflicted view and try to craft something which addresses their concerns. Maybe they think some women are being irresponsible for getting pregnant when they shouldn’t… engaging in risky behavior etc. If someone has moral qualms about abortion generally then it might be difficult to get past the sense it is being used to cavalierly and needs restrictions.
It’s likely impossible to craft some policy to address that kind of concern. It would seem like surrender to the hard core.
Either a woman has control of her body or she doesn't. Really that simple. Either they are autonomous beings or not.
Men would never accept this kind of control.
We let Fauci lock us down & mask us up for three years & counting!
You also let "the authorities" make you wear pants in public places. Neither masks or pants are in any way comparable to abortion, or to reproductive rights generally.
The Naked Bike Ride should be everyday.
I'm cool with the tyranny of pants.
I stand opposed to Lamestream Media Stooge Ron Burgandy & his Pants Party.
Antipants is the way.
Are there really Americans left who haven't heard all these arguments non-stop for 50 years or more? The American voters have been informed on this subject and attempting to shift the needle seems utterly pointless to me.
The new argument you could make, and that might be effective, is that the American people didn't vote the way Republicans wanted, so the Republicans took their right to decide away and gave it to the Supreme Court. This isn't just about women losing the right to choose, it's about all Americans losing the right to choose if they don't vote the way Republicans want.
Funny, but this argument reminds me of a math professor I once had, who had been teaching his calculus course for 20-odd years and had grown frustrated that each incoming class of students STILL didn't know the subject... (I think he either retired or had the proverbial nervous breakdown shortly thereafter.)
Let's be honest: it's going to take a Savita Halappanavar scenario to stem the rising tide of America's domestic supply of infants.
Nearly included her in my previous comment, but doubt very much that the anti-choice people care about the case of a woman in Ireland with a name that likely doesn't rouse any sympathy. Then there's the woman who had to be flown out of Malta after some difficulty. These are people who do not care that the body of a 10 YO rape victim is not up to a 9-month pregnancy & delivery. Indiana's
In short, their empathy is either nonexistent or limited only to themselves, their nearest & dearest. A protest sign with Savita's photo means nothing to them.
Intended to add that Indiana's politicians are apparently already considering removing anything that would protect any 1YO seeking an abortion. The Kristi Noems of the world care about winning power, not about raped children.
They've got a different New Testament than most people.
I saw a short transcript of an interview with Noem where she said that the decision to abort should be between the woman and her health care provider. She then immediately pivoted to talking about all the laws coming on-line or proposed in a lot of states that explicitly took that decision away and put it in the hands of state legislators who (with few exceptions) knew nothing about medicine and how that was somehow a good thing...
I wasn't able to watch more than a few minutes of her interrupting Dana Bash repeatedly asking about that raped child. Could not bear to hear more, knowing of that girl's ongoing trauma.
Norm was elected for what? Her good looks? I don't want to sound sexist - plenty of men have succeeded at least in part due to appearance- but she doesn't seem particularly capable, & her daughter had a similar problem, I seem to recall.
And hey, there are no experts they believe now unless they are far rightwing loons, even their lawyers & doctors.
Imagine if Kristi Noem & John Edwards could make a baby... America's sexiest president, coming up.
What - no cutesy names for them - or for us to decipher?
Millton Freedom.
First, you need to record people asking politicians what they would do if their 10 year old girl were raped and became pregnant.
Then, run ads pointing to the 10- year old girl who was raped and had to leave her state to get an abortion, followed by comments of those politicians.
For reference: https://bityl.co/D6Jx
End the political ad with different voices:
"I won't let a rapist control my daughter's life."
"I will not stand with Republicans who let rapists control my body."
"Rape is not a gift from God. I will not let Republicans sell this lie."
Old Testament Libel.
Like +50. Send this to every Democratic organization you can! (Or maybe some of us could help...)
Two points:
1. This example woman: How may of those people are there? My guess is not many. To make compromise mongering* a strategy you need lots of people who are susceptible to it.
2. The leadership is presently working on legislation that codifies Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade IS a compromise (about along the lines that civilized nations have solved the problem), in fact exactly the compromise that Kevin wants Democrats to support. So what is the point of this post, Kevin? Should the leadership compromise even more?
* Compromise mongering has been the Dem leadership's preferred strategy since before the Clinton era and look where we ended up. Mind you, I am not opposed to compromise. What I do not want to see is preemptive capitulation.
There's no David Brooksian or Will Saletanesque grand compromise to be made that the forced birthers will accept. Roe was the compromise. They never accepted it. They want to outlaw birth control as well. Since there's no possible compromise to be made, why not continue fighting for full female bodily autonomy?
Where are Leo Burt, David Fine*, & the Armstrong Brothers when you need a Leftist Eric Robert Rudolph to blow up crisis pregnancy centers?
*LOL at him getting rejected multiple times from joining the Oregon Bar Association. I guess some lawyers have some sense of decorum. (But where is Johnathan Turdley to argue against the good barrister Fine's kancellation by the WOKE Willamette Mob?)
Also, if the goal is to persuade red state Republicans, I would like to point out that they were very much against wearing masks and taking a vaccine to mitigate against a disease that has killed over 1 million Americans. They're not going to lose any sleep over women dying due to denial of reproductive freedom. They're absolutely fine with killing women to own the libs.
Also, killing women to own the women.
"if the goal is to persuade red state Republicans"
The goal is to persuade SOME red state Republicans; after all, we don't need to have everybody on our side, just a winning majority. Accordingly, imagining everybody on the other side to be unconvincable zealots is defeatist thinking.
Not much to ad to excellent discussions here.
Just please avoid using the Republican's terminology. The "fetal heartbeat" bills proclaiming a fetal heartbeat when there is no blood being pump nor an actual heart muscle. It's emotionally evocative, hence the use, but also wrong.
Yes, exactly; any sound at 6 weeks or so is not the sound of a developed heart. But they are not people given to any belief in science or even common sense.
I think the premise is wrong and for most anti-abortion people it is the fact that women are having sex for pleasure and aren't being punished for it. It is the same reason that gay and trans people make them feel queasy. You aren't going to change that by talking about how the fetus looks. Maybe we need a new generation of Dr. Ruths that don't have a problem persuading people that sex for pleasure isn't a sin.
Oh, but "the Bible tells me so."
I don't recall all of the lyrics, & I think it wasn't from my family's church, but the small, less liberal one a couple of blocks away to which Mother could manage to take 3 children when our father had taken the car on out of town business.
There are so many Christians who claim to take their beliefs from the teachings of the New Testament, yet they love to cite the old when demonizing the daughters of Eve & the sons of Ham.
Incidentally, I disagree with Kevin about how many hypotheticals are really out there; further, if they can't be reached by reason, I find it hard to believe that any sort of emotional appeal will reach them either. What these oh-so-coy hypotheticals want is attention. What they want is to be courted and catered to. They're perfectly happy to lap up all your time, attention, and effort, and after having done so will be equally happy to pull the lever for the R candidate anyway. In short, the odds are extremely high that Ms. Meneely is nothing more -- and nothing less -- than a troll. Let her do her duty as a citizen and prove otherwise.