GOP passing anti-abortion laws that permit up to 90% of abortions

[j brown's body]

Nebraska antiabortion groups and GOP lawmakers were stunned. In late April, their effort to ban most abortions was tanked by an unlikely person: 80-year-old Sen. Merv Riepe, a longtime Republican. Instead, on Friday, Nebraska’s conservative legislature voted to ban abortions at 12 weeks of pregnancy — a threshold that significantly narrows the window for legal abortions but still allows the vast majority to occur.

...While the 12-week bans have so far only passed in two states — North Carolina and Nebraska — the proposal has also gained traction with some national antiabortion groups who say they’re supportive of restricting abortions as far as a state can, including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, which has also been pushing for, at minimum, national limits on abortion at 15 weeks.

But the approach has drawn sharp criticism from others in the antiabortion movement, who argue the 12 or 15 week bans don’t do enough to stop what they see as widespread murder, allowing more than 90 percent of abortions to continue. Some Republican lawmakers and antiabortion advocates remain adamant that the only path forward is to aim to eradicate abortion completely nationwide.

Link

I guess it's not murder anymore.

 

[Callen]

Six weeks, 12 weeks, 15 weeks ...it's all arbitrary BS. If you are "pro life" then 6, 12, 15 weeks shouldn't matter , it's all the same. I don't believe in legislation limiting abortion but if there has to be one then the only data point that matters is the fetus's ability to survive outside the womb which is in the 24 week range.

 

[j brown's body]

Six weeks, 12 weeks, 15 weeks ...it's all arbitrary BS. If you are "pro life" then 6, 12, 15 weeks shouldn't matter , it's all the same. I don't believe in legislation limiting abortion but if there has to be one then the only data point that matters is the fetus's ability to survive outside the womb which is in the 24 week range.

Political reality has caused anti-abortionists to pass laws legalizing most abortions while still claiming to be anti-abortion.

 

[cpwill]

Six weeks, 12 weeks, 15 weeks ...it's all arbitrary BS. If you are "pro life" then 6, 12, 15 weeks shouldn't matter , it's all the same. I don't believe in legislation limiting abortion but if there has to be one then the only data point that matters is the fetus's ability to survive outside the womb which is in the 24 week range.

I don't see why that data point should control anything (whether or not we are human is not determined by the current state of medical science), but I certainly agree with the broader point.

But, it's muddled because the American people are muddled on this topic. Republicans are trying to pass what restrictions can be sustained, hopefully in an ongoing ratchet towards protecting the rights of all vulnerable children.

 

[BirdinHand]

It has never been about “life”.

It is about control. Making sure women know their place. That women are not equal. That women do not have bodily autonomy and do not get to make their own medical decisions.

 

[Callen]

Political reality has caused anti-abortionists to pass laws legalizing most abortions while still claiming to be anti-abortion.

I don't see why that data point should control anything (whether or not we are human is not determined by the current state of medical science), but I certainly agree with the broader point.

But, it's muddled because the American people are muddled on this topic. Republicans are trying to pass what restrictions can be sustained, hopefully in an ongoing ratchet towards protecting the rights of all vulnerable children.

It's a mess because it has been made a political issue when it in fact a medical issue that should be governed like all other medical procedures , through medical protocols and ethics rules. Republican politicians, mostly men, may think that they neutralize the issue politically by putting an arbitrary date, and no end of convoluted restrictions, on abortion but women see right through it and are not amused. The GOP may think they can take this issue off the ballot in 2024 but they are wrong.

 

[j brown's body]

I don't see why that data point should control anything (whether or not we are human is not determined by the current state of medical science), but I certainly agree with the broader point.

But, it's muddled because the American people are muddled on this topic. Republicans are trying to pass what restrictions can be sustained, hopefully in an ongoing ratchet towards protecting the rights of all vulnerable children.

Except children aren't involved, but I understand your use of rhetoric.

What these so-called anti-abortionists are doing is putting pro-abortion laws on the books which, in the long run, points to allowing abortions more, not less.

They're like the dog that caught the car. With the elimination of abortion finally in their teeth, they are trying to shake it away.

 

[BirdinHand]

It's a mess because it has been made a political issue when it in fact a medical issue that should be governed like all other medical procedures , through medical protocols and ethics rules. Republican politicians, mostly men, may think that they neutralize the issue politically by putting an arbitrary date, and no end of convoluted restrictions, on abortion but women see right through it and are not amused. The GOP may think they can take this issue off the ballot in 2024 but they are wrong.

There is zero chance that abortion isn’t a part of 2024. And I suspect a rather large part.

 

[j brown's body]

There is zero chance that abortion isn’t a part of 2024. And I suspect a rather large part.

While these anti-abortion legislators feel that passing these pro-abortion laws will help them in a general election, it's quite possible the position could cause them to lose primary challenges.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Women. Rise up.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

But, it's muddled because the American people are muddled on this topic. Republicans are trying to pass what restrictions can be sustained, hopefully in an ongoing ratchet towards protecting the rights of all vulnerable children.

"Hopefully"? That's beyond hope. Republicans are firmly for parental rights over children ... providing by "parent" you mean "father."

 

[BirdinHand]

"Hopefully"? That's beyond hope. Republicans are firmly for parental rights over children ... providing by "parent" you mean "father."

They aren’t for “parental rights”.

They are for forcing people that do NOT want to be parents, TO be parents.

Then they are for forcing THEIR beliefs to be the only thing that children can be taught.

All while also attempting to slash social welfare programs and put additional work requirements on social welfare programs - such as FOOD STAMPS, with the end impact being taking food out of the mouths of the “children” they profess to care so much about.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Nebraska antiabortion groups and GOP lawmakers were stunned. In late April, their effort to ban most abortions was tanked by an unlikely person: 80-year-old Sen. Merv Riepe, a longtime Republican. Instead, on Friday, Nebraska’s conservative legislature voted to ban abortions at 12 weeks of pregnancy — a threshold that significantly narrows the window for legal abortions but still allows the vast majority to occur.

...While the 12-week bans have so far only passed in two states — North Carolina and Nebraska — the proposal has also gained traction with some national antiabortion groups who say they’re supportive of restricting abortions as far as a state can, including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, which has also been pushing for, at minimum, national limits on abortion at 15 weeks.

But the approach has drawn sharp criticism from others in the antiabortion movement, who argue the 12 or 15 week bans don’t do enough to stop what they see as widespread murder, allowing more than 90 percent of abortions to continue. Some Republican lawmakers and antiabortion advocates remain adamant that the only path forward is to aim to eradicate abortion completely nationwide.

Link

I guess it's not murder anymore.

I guess people who don't think that abortion should be available on-demand, right up to the point of birth, are not quite the one-size-fits all lemmings you thought they were.

A supermajority of Americans don't think elective abortion should be legal after the first trimester, but a lot of those don't think that "abortion is murder."

 

[The Stars Tremble]

They aren’t for “parental rights”.

They are for forcing people that do NOT want to be parents, TO be parents.

Depends on what you mean by "parents." I can't count all the times I've heard "they can put the baby up for adoption" and yes, adoption immediately after birth has a good success rate. If you mean forcing women to give birth (a different definition of becoming a parent) then yes, they do seem rather intent on that.

There's a small but significant sector of the population who are served by forced birth and adoption at birth. It's older couples who can't produce any kids (or any more kids) and I'm really not sure where I stand on that. Getting a baby for free doesn't seem fair (on the birth mother) but on the other hand I wouldn't want to discriminate against poor childless couples in the adoption "market". Somehow, the woman who is forced by law to carry a pregnancy she does not want, should get monetary compensation. I'm thinking five figures.

Then they are for forcing THEIR beliefs to be the only thing that children can be taught.

All while also attempting to slash social welfare programs and put additional work requirements on social welfare programs - such as FOOD STAMPS, with the end impact being taking food out of the mouths of the “children” they profess to care so much about.

Food stamps had bipartisan support for decades. I don't believe McCarthy's Republicans are seriously trying to limit eligibility: I think it's a bargaining move. It's calibrated to make Democrats angry, so they'll say dumb things which can be used in next years campaign.

Or Republicans have simply gone mad. 42 million Americans get food stamps, meaning that probably half of Americans have a family member or friend who gets them. If McCarthy is serious about making cuts there, he's just crazy.

 

[Lursa]

Nebraska antiabortion groups and GOP lawmakers were stunned. In late April, their effort to ban most abortions was tanked by an unlikely person: 80-year-old Sen. Merv Riepe, a longtime Republican. Instead, on Friday, Nebraska’s conservative legislature voted to ban abortions at 12 weeks of pregnancy — a threshold that significantly narrows the window for legal abortions but still allows the vast majority to occur.

...While the 12-week bans have so far only passed in two states — North Carolina and Nebraska — the proposal has also gained traction with some national antiabortion groups who say they’re supportive of restricting abortions as far as a state can, including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, which has also been pushing for, at minimum, national limits on abortion at 15 weeks.

But the approach has drawn sharp criticism from others in the antiabortion movement, who argue the 12 or 15 week bans don’t do enough to stop what they see as widespread murder, allowing more than 90 percent of abortions to continue. Some Republican lawmakers and antiabortion advocates remain adamant that the only path forward is to aim to eradicate abortion completely nationwide.

Link

I guess it's not murder anymore.

Interesting insights. I just posted this in another thread because I do believe all this is crap to allow people to punish women for behavior they disapprove of while having no real investment in the unborn.

This is huge piece of it IMO, I agree. This I think, is why so many "pro-life" people are willing to compromise at 15-16 weeks and for exceptions to rape and incest.​

​

Not a one has been able to answer 'why' they are willing to accept any term limit as 'acceptable.' All they say is 'if we have to compromise, it's a compromise.' That's an exceedingly cowardly answer...why wont they commit to why THEY find it acceptable? 9 months of pregnancy changes, can even end, a woman's life, destroy her health. I ask for what reasons, what criteria they base their term limit on...is it about the development of the unborn? Danger to the woman, what?​

​

And no one answers for themselves. IMO, here's the answer...it's more about punishing women and demanding something of them, rather than consideration of the unborn. If they truly believe there's a person in there, how can it be "acceptable" ever? Is it wrong or not? A very few posters here do stand on 'only to save the mother's life'. At least they're consistent.​

​

Any pro-lifer supporters here want to explain their personal reasons?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Why haven't Republicans figured out yet most induced abortions are done early in gestation, when spontaneous abortions are most likely to occur? Banning abortion after 12 or 15 weeks is totally useless because most of them are done for medical reasons then. According to the Guttmacher Institute, there is a huge dropoff in induced abortions after the 12th week. (Ask @weaver2 about this. She posted the chart.) If a woman knew she did not want or can't take care of a baby at the time she had sex she would not put off having an induced abortion until Week 13. She would do it ASAP after learning she is pregnant - which usually is before Week 12. So what is the point of banning abortions after Week 12 while letting girls and women get one when nearly all abortions do happen?

North Carolina's governor was smart to veto a 12-week abortion ban; shame on the state's voters for putting too many anti-choicers in their legislature.

 

[Lursa]

Nebraska antiabortion groups and GOP lawmakers were stunned. In late April, their effort to ban most abortions was tanked by an unlikely person: 80-year-old Sen. Merv Riepe, a longtime Republican. Instead, on Friday, Nebraska’s conservative legislature voted to ban abortions at 12 weeks of pregnancy — a threshold that significantly narrows the window for legal abortions but still allows the vast majority to occur.

...While the 12-week bans have so far only passed in two states — North Carolina and Nebraska — the proposal has also gained traction with some national antiabortion groups who say they’re supportive of restricting abortions as far as a state can, including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, which has also been pushing for, at minimum, national limits on abortion at 15 weeks.

But the approach has drawn sharp criticism from others in the antiabortion movement, who argue the 12 or 15 week bans don’t do enough to stop what they see as widespread murder, allowing more than 90 percent of abortions to continue. Some Republican lawmakers and antiabortion advocates remain adamant that the only path forward is to aim to eradicate abortion completely nationwide.

Link

I guess it's not murder anymore.

Right to the heart of it...why isnt ~90% of all abortions in the first 16 weeks not an acceptable compromise? (with the following ~7.5% due to medical reasons). That's 97.5%

90%

If it's not...what are the reasons/criteria that make that not a compromise favoring the pro-life side? What pro-life supporters can explain this if they're open to compromise at all? (Some are not...ok).

 

[Patriotic Voter]

While these anti-abortion legislators feel that passing these pro-abortion laws will help them in a general election, it's quite possible the position could cause them to lose primary challenges.

Anti-choicers already saw that several times last year.

And it was not just a few blue states showing Republicans they are wrong. Deep red Kentucky voters joined deep red Kansas voters in making sure women's reproductive rights are not taken away!

Also the fact that Proposal 3 was a voter initiative should have sent a message to Republicans: Most Michiganders, not just women with unwanted pregnancies, want their right to bodily autonomy;

 

[Callen]

What is the point of 6, 12 or 15 weeks? Why do pro-lifers feel the fetus' life is less valuable at 6 weeks vs 15 weeks? It's an arbitrary number with no rational basis....it's purely political.

 

[Gordy327]

What is the point of 6, 12 or 15 weeks? Why do pro-lifers feel the fetus' life is less valuable at 6 weeks vs 15 weeks? It's an arbitrary number with no rational basis....it's purely political.

Exactly. At least viability is rooted in medical science.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

What is the point of 6, 12 or 15 weeks? Why do pro-lifers feel the fetus' life is less valuable at 6 weeks vs. 15 weeks? It's an arbitrary number with no rational basis....it's purely political.

There is no fetus at six weeks. They are still embryos at that gestational age.

The value of a fetus can only be determined by one thing: Does the mother want a baby? That is true every week until he or she is able to live without any tubes and machinery.

 

[Blue Dog]

There is political idealism and political reality. The former sounds good while running for office. The latter must be acknowledged if one wants to stay in office…

 

[Blue Dog]

If “Pro-life” politicians believe that life starts at conception, then abortion should be banned. There is no exception and any elected official who says otherwise is only demonstrating that keeping their seat is more important than their stance on the issue.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

If “Pro-life” politicians believe that life starts at conception, then abortion should be banned. There is no exception and any elected official who says otherwise is only demonstrating that keeping their seat is more important than their stance on the issue.

The reality is they are not pro-life. Opposing abortion after a certain number of weeks is being partially pro-choice. The vast majority of Americans who identify themselves as pro-choice support third trimester restrictions. What difference does it make in using the term pro-choices and pro-life whether people want to ban abortions at 12 weeks or 24 weeks, besides the totally misleading use of the word "viability" that is rarely used correctly? With very few exceptions, either everyone is pro-choice or everyone is pro-life.

 

[cpwill]

Except children aren't involved, but I understand your use of rhetoric.

We would disagree on that .

What these so-called anti-abortionists are doing is putting pro-abortion laws on the books which, in the long run, points to allowing abortions more, not less.

As I understand it, abortions are down in the states that have passed sharper restrictions.

They're like the dog that caught the car. With the elimination of abortion finally in their teeth, they are trying to shake it away.

I don't think they are anywhere close to having THAT in their teeth - but getting caught flat footed by Dobbs was political malpractice.