The GOP is set to vote on an unconstitutional 20-week abortion ban -- again
The GOP is set to vote on a 20-week abortion ban -- again
The U.S. House is again voting on a 20-week abortion ban. On September 26, members of the House of Representatives, along with prominent anti-abortion leaders, held a press conference to announce an October 3 vote on proposed legislation that would prohibit the provision of abortions after 20 weeks of a pregnancy. The legislation, misleadingly titled the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, includes exceptions for the life of the person seeking an abortion and for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest; but in the case of rape, a patient must have sought medical treatment or counseling at someplace other than an abortion clinic at least 48 hours prior to the procedure. Doctors who perform an abortion in violation of the ban could face up to five years in prison. Previous versions of the bill passed the House in 2014 and 2015. [Facebook, 9/26/17 ; Rewire, accessed September 2017 ; Congress.gov, accessed September 2017 , accessed September 2017 ]
The vote is a political move to “apply pressure” against “vulnerable” Democrats. According to Rewire, Marjorie Dannenfelser, the head of anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List), acknowledged that the bill is unlikely to pass the Senate, but said she sees it as an opportunity to attack Democrats who she claimed are “really having trouble advancing late-term abortion as a humanitarian cause.” Dannenfelser sees the vote on a 20-week abortion ban as an opportunity to “apply pressure to vulnerable Senate Democrats, strengthening Republicans’ majority and ending the legislative firewall between a nationwide prohibition on legal abortion care at 20 weeks.” From Rewire:
An unconstitutional 20-week abortion ban scheduled for a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives next week likely won’t get far in the U.S. Senate. But a prominent opponent of abortion rights hopes the bill will apply pressure to vulnerable Senate Democrats, strengthening Republicans’ majority and ending the legislative firewall between a nationwide prohibition on legal abortion care at 20 weeks.
“There’s a lot of reasons to vote on legislation. One is to pass it [and] have the president sign it,” Susan B. Anthony (SBA) List President Marjorie Dannenfelser told Rewire Tuesday in an interview outside the U.S. Capitol. “Another is to make sure there is a very high-level public conversation,” especially “while we elect new senators who will add to the winning total.”
[...]
SBA List’s strategy plays into another high-level conversation occurring across the aisle. High-profile Democrats have increasingly cast off the notion of an abortion “litmus test” as an indicator of party loyalty, going as far as to invite anti-choice candidates into the fold. Advocates warned that Democrats consequently risked alienating core voters, especially Black women and other women of color. In the words of All* Above All’s Destiny Lopez, “it’s short-sighted and dangerous to pave the path to victory in 2018 at the expense of women.”
SBA List is now pouncing on Democrats’ self-inflicted vulnerabilities.
“Odds are, we’re not going to win this vote [on HR 36],” Dannenfelser said. “But Democrats, evidenced by the big arguments within the Democratic Party about whether this is a litmus test, are really having trouble advancing late-term abortion as a humanitarian cause. That’s what we want to highlight.”
Dannenfelser hopes a vote will prod Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) to break party ranks—and make Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) “very sorry” if she doesn’t, as expected. Both are facing tough reelections in ruby-red states.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is willing to bring up the bill, Dannenfelser said.
“We’ve talked to him many times about this,” Dannenfelser said. “He has no problem bringing it up on the floor as an important thing to get people on record for, to have the conversation, to build the vote ’til next time.[”] [Rewire, 9/27/17 ]
Science does not support 20-week abortion bans
New England Journal of Medicine : A fetus cannot perceive pain until around 30 weeks into a pregnancy. According to The New England Journal of Medicine , “study after study has determined that perception of pain is not physically possible until nearly 30 weeks of gestation, when thalamocortical pathways are present and have begun to function.” A 2010 report from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists stated that “although the cortex can process sensory input from 24 weeks, it does not mean that the fetus is aware of pain. There is sound evidence for claiming the cortex is necessary for pain experience, but this is not to say that it is sufficient.” According to the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics , “a comprehensive, nonpartisan, multidisciplinary review of almost 2,000 fetal pain studies concluded that ‘the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.’” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist also gave a similar timeline -- saying a fetus cannot feel pain until the third trimester. [ The New England Journal of Medicine , 9/1/16 ; Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist, March 2010 ; American Medical Association Journal of Ethics , October 2014 ; LiveScience, 5/17/16 ]
Fetuses recoiling from stimuli does not mean they feel pain. A common reason given in support of a 20-week abortion ban is that fetuses are shown to react or recoil to stimuli in the womb. A 2015 article on FactCheck.org found there was no causal relationship between fetal withdrawal from stimuli and feelings of pain because any “recoil is more of a reflex” that is distinct from “the experience of pain” itself. According to Salon, “Because the neural structures necessary to feel pain have not yet developed, any observable responses to stimuli at [20 weeks] -- like the fetal “flinching” during an amniocentesis - are reflexive, not experiential. Which is to say, the fetus at 20 weeks can’t actually feel anything at all.” [Media Matters , 5/20/16 ; FactCheck.org, 5/18/15 ; Salon, 8/7/13 ]
A 20-week abortion ban is unconstitutional
Guttmacher Institute: A 20-week abortion ban is unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade . The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade established that abortion is protected up to the point of fetal viability. States can restrict abortion access after viability if there are exceptions for the life and health of the mother, which was established later in Planned Parenthood v. Casey . While some state restrictions on abortion pre-viability have been struck down by the courts, 17 states unconstitutionally ban abortion at 20 weeks post-fertilization. [Guttmacher Institute, January 2017 , accessed September 2017 ]
Rewire: “20-week abortion bans are unconstitutional. Full stop.” According to Rewire, “20-week abortion bans are unconstitutional. Full stop. They’ve been unconstitutional since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973.” As Rewire explained, the viability standard since Roe “has been repeated over and over, and the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have never strayed from it.” However, state legislatures “began doing exactly what the Supreme Court said time and again they could not: enacting law that ban abortion before fetal viability.” From Rewire:
Make no bones about it, 20-week abortion bans are unconstitutional. Full stop. They’ve been unconstitutional since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973, and they will remain unconstitutional unless one of two things happens: the U.S. Supreme Court either overturns its landmark decision or reverses 40 years’ worth of case law about the importance of fetal viability.
[...]
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mediamatters/research/~3/q00IzKvz7sI/218095
Tags
Who is online
94 visitors
No bill that is unconstitutional on the face of it should ever be put to a vote in Congress.
I doubt this will be the last time.
I find it curious that the GOP constantly screams about smaller government, less intrusive government and more personal freedoms. Then they pull crap like this? Apparently women don't deserve personal freedoms? Less intrusive government? More personal freedoms...just not for anyone but white males.
Maybe the GOP needs to worry about their vagina's and let others worry about theirs.
Question:::
Is an Ova a living or non living tissue?
Is a Fertilized Ova one that all of science accepts as to " road that can lead to potential life "?
unalienable right to life and happiness, means what?
Note::
See more on en.wikipedia.org · Text under CC-BY-SA license
Where does the " Constitution " say that some one has the right to remove an unalienable right?
Please refrain all answers to Facts and not innuendos!
Depends on the body where it exists. Is the body extant or deceased ?
unalienable right to life and happiness, means what?
What all living breathing humans have of course.
A fetus is not a human. FACT.
Interesting, so tell me if a " termination " is not undertaken, what would be the ( Potential ) end result?
A horse? Ask a silly question...
Is a sperm a living or a non living tissue? Just as relevant, right?
Ever 'spill your essence' for self gratification?
Every sperm is sacred!
Ah, gotta love Monty Python.
I see, so evolutionist accept that " living things come from NON living " and you believe TWO living Cells. are " Not Live " many thanks!
Sperm::
What have scientist recently " discovered about sperm " and why did we not know that in the past?
You're seeing things and you have no idea what I believe.
Oh and BTFW, an ovum is a SINGLE cell. Ova is the PLURAL of ovum.
I know that any thinking person would recognize that if one argues that an OVUM is a 'living thing' they must then agree that an sperm is one too...
Ultimately though, it matters not. Neither an OVUM or a sperm is a person and neither is a fetus.
Thank you for the " self delusions " and answering my Questions by " Screaming Silence "!!
I think Roe vs Wade is a classic example of legislating from the bench and should be overturned. There is no constitutional right to abortion. However, putting Roe vs Wad aside, the constitution gives the federal government only the power specifically granted to it in the constitution and all other power is reserved to the states. As far as I’m aware, there is no constitutional provision under which a federal restriction on abortion would fit and, if so, would be unconstitutional for that reason.
And where in the constitution does it say that you can tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies? Where in the constitution does it say you have the right to get married?
Why do YOU think it should be the governments job to tell women what they can do with their own bodies? What happens when they decide to start making OTHER decisions about what you can and cannot do with your own body? A tumor is alive, correct? What happens when the government says, "well, you have no insurance and since the tumor is technically alive....well, sorry!!!! Please die quickly... "
.
Even the bible says life begins at first breath.
No matter how you answer your questions, there is nothing in the constitution that addresses abortion. The right is a creation of the judiciary.
No where in the constitution does it give anyone the right to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their own body. The SCOTUS has ruled on this already. This, "vote", is nothing more than skirting the ruling without actually violating the ruling. Abortion is legal, it will stay that way.
If I may Ask::
Does the federal Law, Rest on the " Rights of the Citizens " and when states place " risk on life " what does that mean?
The SCOTUS disagrees!
The SCOTUS had to determine the constitutionality of bans on abortion. Their review determined that abortion rights is covered under the right of privacy within the 14th Amendment.
I know what SCOTUS decided and there is no right to abortion or privacy under the 14th amendment.
Then perhaps you should read the multiple rulings and opinions on the matter by the SCOTUS! They do explain it.
I’ve read their explanations. Perhaps you should read the dissents that explain why the majority is wrong.
Too bad you don't seem to get it.
Justices are allowed to dissent and that is their opinions, just as other non-dissenting Justices have theirs. But in the SCOTUS, majority rules.
Do you think that if you throw yourself on the floor and kick and scream that it will matter on wit to the ACTUAL precedential jurisprudence of our nation? Roe V Wade has been upheld multiple times. This is that second time you've expressed your selective desire to overturn the SCOTUS.
Make an argument for your posit. Go back to the SCOTUS rulings and show how they are mistaken in their rulings.
I'll wait...
Too bad you don’t seem to understand why they’re wrong.
I know the majority rules. I also know that fresh blood can create a new majority and change the direction of the court.
Go ahead and explain why then!
Not likely. Abortion has been deemed a right and only reaffirmed over the years. There is no instance of the court overturning rights once they've been granted or recognized.
No, I think that confirming judges who interpret the constitution as written will change the direction of the court.
It’s upheld until it isn’t. The case is one of the clearest examples of the court legislating from the bench and should be overturned because there is no constitutional right to abortion. It is a complete judicial fiction. I thought it was worst case of judicial overreach until I saw the preposterous ruling on same sex marriage.
I agree with the dissents in these particular cases and need not argue them here. Our government is based on a balance of powers. The legislature makes the law, the court interprets the law to determine the intent of the legislature (rather than what the court would do if it were making law), and the executive enforces the law (rather than make law indirectly by only enforcing laws with which he agrees). When courts legislate from the bench (make law under the guise of interpreting it), the court becomes political. When the court becomes political, there will be increasing pressure to appoint judges who have predetermined how they will rule on issues and become more like politicians running for office than judges (who should avoid being political). So I believe we need more judges who stick to their role within the balance of powers rather than judges who usurp the role of the legislature.
If you’ve noticed, liberal excess has led to conservative gains in Congress. Conservatives will push for more conservative candidates to push Congress further to the right. Judges who would overturn Roe vs Wade couldn’t get confirmed before because of democratic opposition. But democrats took the nuclear option when they had control of congress and ended the filibuster for some things. Republicans expanded the end of the filibuster to court nominees which means that more anti-Roe judges can be confirmed (by a more conservative Congress) and, what couldn’t happen before (overturning Roe) can possibly happen in the future.
The dissents did that.
There’s a first time for everything.
And that's exactly what they did. Just because you don't like it or agree with them doesn't change that fact!
As I said, there is no instance in the entire history of the court where rights have been rescinded once granted.
Other than your opinion, you still haven't explained why! Or what makes you more of an expert on the Constitution than a SCOTUS Justice for that matter!
Yes, we know you're against equal rights!
You still haven't explained how the court legislated anything. What law did the court make?
See previous statement!
I guess that means democrats value individual rights.
That’s not what they did. Abortion isn’t in the constitution at all. They made the right up under th guise of interpreting the constitution.
The dissent is as expert on the matter as the majority and I agree with the dissent. I’m not going to derail the thread with a debate on Roe. The thread is about legislation.
Oh, so do you think something must be explicitly stated in the Constitution o be legally valid or applicable?
They interpreted the Constitution to include that right! That is their job!
And the Justices who did not dissent are also experts. And there really is no debate either. Roe is law of the land and not likely to be overturned. Deal with it!
Then explain what "legislation" the court passed! Cite it! I have asked you to do that several times now! Your entire argument, such as it is, seems to hinge on that one little detail of supposed court legislation. Unless you can show what precisely that legislation is, then you have nothing other than your own opinions!
The court can’t create rights.
There is nothing in the constitution that remotely gives the court the right to determine when life begins for the purpose of a state determining whether, and to what extent, that life can be protected. Since the federal government was not expressly delegated such authority in the constitution, then its reserved to the states under th 10th amendment.
i am dealing with it . . . and hope that it’s overtunrned.
The court doesn’t pass legislation but, when it acts to do what it would do if it were legislating, then it’s effectively legislating from the bench rather than interpreting the law as written. Specifically, the court thought women should be able to get abortions so they read something into the constitution that doesn’t exist in order to create a right that they thought women should have.
The compass of precedent rightly guides the 'direction of the court'.
You should go read Citizens United for the best example of a preposterous ruling.
The court, in this discussion is the SCOTUS, which rules on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of legislation. It matters not WTF the legislature's intent is it the law is unconstitutional.
You just admitted that you want to confirm judges who interpret the constitution 'as written' yet you want to pretend that isn't inferring that the court is already political?
Why do you presume to know what I've noticed?
Surely even you have to admit that the above statement makes it clear that you whole heartedly support the politicization of the SCOTUS.
I thought that you said that you were agin' that...
So in your scenario, a state can make a law so that sperm is protected. Monty will be pleased.
Nothing stops the court from having a course correction.
When interpreting legislation, the court looks at the plain meaning of the words and applies it as written. If the words are ambiguous, then the court must determine the intent of the legislature. When examining the constitution, the intent of the legislature may or may not be important in determining whether the legislation runs afoul of the constitution. However, when interpreting the constitution, the court should not be effectively rewriting it (by twisting it to achieve a result) but rather determining what the words mean in the context in which they were used.
Appointing judges who interpret the constitution as written will eventually lead to less politicalization of the court.
All I did was describe the forces at work and explain how Roe could one day be overturned because the very politicalization of the court that led to the decision in the first place may one day be the reason that it is undone.
Yeah, they day after they figure out how to enforce it.
It didn't. It interpreted the Constitution to include rights that were already there. But it speaks volumes about you of how you seem opposed to expanding individual rights.
The court didn't determine when life begins, as that is irrelevant. It determined when abortions is allowed.
And individual rights such as privacy (the basis for abortion rights) fall under the concept of personal liberty which is covered under the 14th Amendment.
Not likely to happen. Especially not after 45 years and numerous challenges and cases.
Since the court didn't pass legislation or do any legislating of its own, then your statement about legislation from the bench is at best flat out wrong, and at worst, a flat out lie!
No, the court thought women had the right to choose regarding their own personal and bodily autonomy under the 14th Amendment. Sad that you think they should not have such a right.
That's precisely what they did with the abortion ruling.
In other words, Justices who agree with you.
All you did was cite your own opinions and wishful thinking. Nothing more!
No, I don’t agree that individual rights should be expanded by judicial fiat and the fact that you do speaks volumes about you. In any event, you agree with the majority view and I agree with the dissent. I want the role of the court to be more consistent with the constitutional balance of powers and you think something else. All of this has been debated to death for years. We can agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Yeah, it says I value and support individual rights and se it as a good thing, whereas you do not!
And the majority view is what's paramount.
The court is doing just fine. You're only whining because you don't agree with some of it's rulings. BTW, I'm still waiting for you to show where anything was legislated from the bench, as you claim!
Media matters?
why not just seed a press release from planned parenthood directly?
Republicans oppose:
Housing for the poor
Healthcare for the poor
Clothing for the poor
Education for the poor
Food for the poor
So why is it that they want to force women to have a child they cannot afford? So they can say, "yay!!!! We forced a woman to do what we wanted them to do, now watch the baby die because the parent cannot afford to take care of it!!!"
Sounds pretty sadistic to me.
.
Ban abortion? Sure, how many are you going to adopt? 50? 100? 1000? Hope you got some deep pockets because the GOP is making sure that if you are poor and have a kid? They will do exactly nothing to help you.
It'd be nice if we could catch up with the rest of the civilized world and ban abortion on babies after 20 weeks. Instead, we like, the Chinese and North Koreans, are one of the handful of countries that allow babies that devloped to be stabbed and ripped apart.
There are no babies in an abortion.
Clearly you have no idea how abortions are performed.
There are no babies in an abortion.
Really? Every expectant mother in the second trimester I've known refers to her baby. I've never never heard an expectant mother say "Wow, that ball of cells sure kicks hard!" Does it magically transform into a non-baby when you decide to kill it?
Clearly you have no idea how abortions are performed.
A former abortionist describes the D & E Procedure used on second trimester babies:
A second trimester D&E abortion is a blind procedure. The baby can be in any orientation or position inside the uterus. Picture yourself reaching in with the Sopher clamp and grasping anything you can. At twenty weeks gestation, the uterus is thin and soft so be careful not to perforate or puncture the walls. Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard – really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about 4 to 5 inches long. Reach in again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same length. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs.
The toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby’s head. The head of a baby that age is about the size of a plum and is now free floating inside the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure you have hold of it if the Sopher clamp is spread about as far as your fingers will allow. You will know you have it right when you crush down on the clamp and see a pure white gelatinous material issue from the cervix. That was the baby’s brains. You can then extract the skull pieces. If you have a really bad day like I often did, a little face may come out and stare back at you.
Congratulations! You have just successfully performed a Suction D&E abortion. You just affirmed her right to choose. You just made $600 cash in fifteen minutes.
Abortion Practice, by Warren M. Hern, M.D., M.P.H. (1990: Alpenglo Graphics, Inc., 1130 Alpine, Boulder, CO 80304), ISBN 0-9625728-0-2
Yes!
She can refer to it as a flying zucchini monster or anything she wants for all I care. But her emotional attachment doesn't change the fact!
It's a "non-baby" until it's born.
I'm familiar with a D&C. The thing is, that procedure is usually performed to remove remaining tissue in the uterus after miscarriage or abortion, or to remove placenta pieces after birth. I can help prevent infection or heavy bleeding. It can also be used to treat other uterine problems.
Nice attempt at an appeal to emotion. Still doesn't change anything!
Why did you post Dr. Hern's name and cite his book?
In REALITY, what you just posted is written by Dr. Tony Levatino, M.D, an anti-abortion doctor.
Well, there goes whatever credibility Sean may have had.
Really? I have news for you. AT five months a woman can feel her BABY move. It is like a slight butterfly movement over the abdomen. It is truly remarkable and beautiful!
So? Is your obvious appeal to emotion supposed to mean anything? And at 5 months, it's a FETUS!
The only thing I'd like to say is IF we ever do end abortions I believe we should increase welfare spending.
Time to invest in wire hanger manufacturers.
And burial plots...
We are always told just how enlightened and liberal Europe is. I support a woman right to an abortion, yet at some point, the fetus becomes a child even within her body. A child is a human being and has, or should have some protections of life. If a fetus can survive outside of a womans body, it is a child. When that is, is up to trained medical professionals, I am not a doctor so I do not know just when that is the case.
In Germany , women seeking first-trimester abortions are subject to a mandatory three-day waiting period and a counseling session. Abortions after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy are forbidden except in cases of grave threat to the mother's physical or mental health. The Netherlands mandates a five-day waiting period between initial consultation and abortion; clinics must provide women with information about abortion alternatives. Abortion is then legal until viability (legally defined as 24 weeks, usually interpreted as 22 weeks). In Belgium , where abortion was illegal until 1990, there's a six-day waiting period and the woman must claim to be in "a state of distress" before receiving a first-trimester abortion.
Many Western European countries have what might seem like odd requirements and exceptions to their abortion laws.
In Finland (home of the now-famous Finnish baby boxes and other enviable government benefits), abortion is available up to 12 weeks of pregnancy, unless the woman is under 17 years old, in which case she may have an abortion until she's 20 weeks pregnant. But even for early abortions, women must provide a "social reason" for seeking to terminate her pregnancy, such as poverty, extreme distress, or already having at least four children. While in practice most abortion requests are granted, it still forces women to prove to an authority the validity of their desire not to have a baby. In Denmark , abortion is available on demand up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. Afterward, exceptions are made for cases of rape, threats to the woman's physical or mental health, risk of fetal defects, and -- revealingly -- in cases where the woman can demonstrate lack of financial resources to care for a child.
read more at link
It's not a child until it's born. But abortions are generally cutoff at the point of viability.
Sure, once it's born.
First you say it's a child inside her body. Now you say it's a child outside her body. Which is it?
My nephew was premature due to complications with his mother's pregnancy, he was delivered at 7 and one-half months by C section. He is doing well now and is 4. Since he lived he became a child, yet was not a human being before the C section? is that your point. I don't believe it was a well thought out comment.
Let me hazard a guess, you are for gun control to save lives right? But believe my nephew could be killed if his mother so desired? Do you believe a doctors scalpel made him a human?
He wasn't a child until he was delivered by C-section.
Nope. I support the right to bear arms. Gun control, while I'm sure is well intentioned, is also ineffective.
That would have been her choice, not mine.
Does the state where your nephew was born allow abortion at 7 1/2 months?
Depends on the body where it exists. Is the body extant or deceased ?
unalienable right to life and happiness, means what?
What all living breathing humans have of course.