The Iowa Supreme Court ruled today that Iowa’s 72-hour waiting period for abortions violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Iowa Constitution. Could this ruling help us overturn similar anti-woman legislation that Democratic Billie Sutton unwisely supported here in South Dakota?
In Planned Parenthood and Meadows v. Reynolds, State of Iowa, and Iowa Board of Medicine, the Iowa Supreme Court expresses quite well the basis for keeping the government out of women’s pregnancy decisions:
Motherhood compels devotion and considerable sacrifice. Whether a woman is personally prepared and capable of assuming life-altering obligations and expectations is a decision about which the government has scarce insight.
…Autonomy and dominion over one’s body go to the very heart of what it means to be free. At stake in this case is the right to shape, for oneself, without unwarranted governmental intrusion, one’s own identity, destiny, and place in the world. Nothing could be more fundamental to the notion of liberty. We therefore hold, under the Iowa Constitution, that implicit in the concept of ordered liberty is the ability to decide whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy [pp. 50–51].
The Iowa Court acknowledges that the right to terminate a pregnancy, like every other right, is not absolute; under the 1992 Casey ruling, that right is subject to “reasonable regulation” conceived in the state’s interest in protecting women and “promoting potential life.” However, under Casey, such regulations must “inform the woman’s free choice, not hinder it.”
As the Iowa Court explains, the 72-hour waiting period hinders women’s free choice. Evidence from Planned Parenthood of the Heartland shows that making the two visits required by the 72-hour waiting period law that Governor Terry Branstad signed last year imposes prohibitive costs on low-income patients, not just in the actual clinic bills but in the additional burdens of travel, missing work, and arranging child care [pp. 31–35]. Furthermore, the Court found that waiting periods have “no effect on the number of women who changed their minds from being certain in their decision to have an abortion to deciding to continue their pregnancy” [p. 23]. Doctor after doctor testified that women give their decisions “considerable thought” and don’t need the state to impose a waiting period to be the “best judge” of whether they want to continue their pregnancies. The Iowa waiting period thus fails to fulfill its stated purpose of informing women and “protect[ing] all unborn life” and only hinders women from exercising their constitutional right.
Even if waiting periods did produce some measurable benefit to women, the Iowa Supreme Court says Iowa’s 72-hour waiting period is unconstitutionally broad and oppressive:
Even if the Act did confer some benefit to the State’s identified interest, it sweeps with an impermissibly broad brush. The Act’s mandatory delay indiscriminately subjects all women to an unjustified delay in care, regardless of the patient’s decisional certainty, income, distance from the clinic, and status as a domestic violence or rape victim. The Act takes no care to target patients who are uncertain when they present for their procedures but, instead, imposes blanket hardships upon all women [p. 62].
Iowa’s 72-hour waiting period thus deprives women of liberty without due process of law and violates the Iowa Constitution’s due process clause—”…no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”—language identical to which appears in South Dakota’s Constitution, Article 6, Section 2.
The Iowa Supreme Court also finds the 72-hour waiting period denies women their basic equality before the law. To explain the prevailing importance of autonomy, the Court turns to Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
Implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, we recognize today, is the ability to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy. Profoundly linked to the liberty interest in reproductive autonomy is the right of women to be equal participants in society. As Justice Ginsburg once described the issue, “in the balance is a woman’s autonomous charge of her life’s full course . . ., her ability to stand in relation to man, society, and the state as an independent, self-sustaining, equal citizen.” Ruth B. Ginsburg, Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade, 63 N.C. L. Rev. 375, 383 (1985).
Autonomy is key in addressing the equal protection claim presented in this case. Autonomy is the great equalizer. Laws that diminish women’s control over their reproductive futures can have profound consequences for women. Some women embrace them and never look back. Others, however, do look back and see a trajectory in life different from men. Without the opportunity to control their reproductive lives, women may need to place their educations on hold, pause or abandon their careers, and never fully assume a position in society equal to men, who face no such similar constraints for comparable sexual activity. Societal advancements in occupational opportunities are meaningless if women cannot access them. Policies that make education more affordable are meaningless if women are kept out of reach. Equality and liberty in this instance, as in so many others, are irretrievably connected [pp. 66–67].
Here the Iowa Supreme Court says what I’ve been saying about the second-class citizenship to which our draconian abortion restrictions condemn women. In unjustly burdening women’s autonomy over their bodies, Iowa’s 72-hour waiting period for abortions violates the equal protection guaranteed by the Iowa Constitution in Article 1, Sections 1 and 6—language substantively similar to which we find in the South Dakota Constitution in Article 6, Sections 1 and 18.
Thus, given that our constitutional language on due process and equal protection is so similar to Iowa’s, given that the practical difficulties of obtaining an abortion are far greater in South Dakota than in Iowa (only one Planned parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls offering abortion services, compared to five remaining in Iowa—see p. 10 of today’s ruling), and given that South Dakota’s 72-hour waiting period goes even further than Iowa’s and says women can’t think on weekends, this case appears to lay out a clear argument for overturning South Dakota’s insulting 72-hour waiting period.
* * *
The Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling in Planned Parenthood and Meadows v. Reynolds, State of Iowa, and Iowa Board of Medicine states other facts about abortion that bear repeating. First, abortion is safer than several other routine medical procedures and safer than pregnancy itself:
Abortion is a safe medical procedure comparable to other office gynecological procedures such as endometrial biopsies, intrauterine device insertions, and cervical cone biopsies. Abortion is a safer procedure than many office medical procedures, including colonoscopies. The risk of death from continuing a pregnancy to childbirth is fourteen times greater than that of an abortion procedure. However, like all medical procedures, abortion has risks. The risks associated with medication and surgical abortions advance with every additional week of gestation [p. 9].
The Iowa Supreme Court explains that Planned Parenthood (in this case, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, PPH), contrary to the false assertions of Al Novstrup and other fact-free anti-woman, anti-Constitution South Dakota lawmakers, works very hard to make sure women who come to PPH clinics for abortions are fully informed and certain of their decision:
A PPH abortion appointment has several stages. The patient first undergoes a medical screening to identify any health risks and potential limitations on the types of procedures available to the woman. The patient undergoes an ultrasound to date the pregnancy and then is given the option to view the ultrasound and have the image described to her. The ultrasound also confirms that the woman has an intrauterine, rather than ectopic, pregnancy and ensures there are no anatomical issues that may affect the procedure. Any patient who expresses an interest in hearing embryonic heart activity, if any, is given the opportunity to do so. A majority of patients decline these options.
The patient then has her blood drawn to test her Rh factor and hemoglobin levels. She answers a series of medical screening questions that cover her medical, surgical, and obstetrical history. At this stage, a patient has her vital signs taken and is screened for common conditions such as hypertension and anemia, as well as any other complicating or prohibitive medical conditions.
Following the medical screening, PPH completes its patient education process and obtains informed consent from the patient. The education process ensures the patient understands the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the abortion procedure. Educators answer all of the patient’s medical questions, screen for her decisional certainty, and review the informed-consent document with the patient. Patients receive information about the different methods, the efficacy of the procedure, the common risks associated with the procedure and with continuing the pregnancy, as well as alternatives to the procedure such as parenting and adoption.
PPH staff are specifically trained to conduct a decisional-certainty assessment on every patient and ascertain how firm the patient is in her decision. Educators ask open-ended questions that allow the patient to open up about her decision to make the appointment, difficulties in coming to the clinic, and any questions or concerns she has about the procedure. Patient educators specifically target the patient’s motivations and assess whether the patient is truly certain in her decision. As part of the decisional-certainty assessment, educators conduct intimate partner violence screenings, which inquire into whether the patient is safe at home, whether the patient has been threatened or coerced into scheduling the appointment, and whether she has been abused. Educators discuss the alternatives to an abortion and gauge whether the patient has indeed considered other options. As well, educators inquire into whether the patient has discussed the procedure with family, friends, or mentors, or whether she feels unsafe doing so. Further, educators look for “affirmative patients,” who speak with affirmations such as “it is right for me because . . .” and “I feel it is in the best interest of my family because . . . .” Educators are trained to spend as much time as needed with patients in order to completely assess decisional certainty.
Patients are fully informed of the alternatives to the procedure, including parenting and adoption. If a patient expresses any interest in continuing the pregnancy, PPH provides a list of resources for prenatal care, encourages her to begin prenatal vitamins, and can refer patients to obstetricians. PPH has resources for parenting assistance, and educators review all of the information with the patient so she is able to pursue the resources when she leaves the clinic. If a patient expresses an interest in adoption, PPH is partnered with an adoption agency that is willing to travel to meet patients in any PPH health center. If a patient is interested, PPH will facilitate connecting the patient with the agency or will provide additional local resources to pursue adoption. Educators offer patients adoption counseling and can assist patients in creating an adoption plan.
Following patient education, at least 95% of PPH patients remain very firm in their decision to have an abortion. If a patient is not certain, educators speak with her further and help determine the best course of action for the patient given her individual goals, values, and circumstances. If a patient is not completely firm in her decision by the end of the education process, PPH does not perform the abortion and instead advises her to take more time with the decision. If there are any signs of coercion, or that the woman feels pressured by another to have the procedure, PPH does not perform the abortion.
If a patient remains firm following education, the patient then speaks with a PPH physician. The physician again inquires into the patient’s reasons for having the procedure and explains the risks and benefits of the procedure, as well as the risks and benefits of continuing the pregnancy. The physician answers any remaining questions the patient has, as well as ensures the patient is certain in her decision and free of coercion. After the physician confirms the patient’s informed consent, the physician will provide the medication or perform the surgical procedure [pp. 10–13].
The Iowa Supreme Court heard no evidence that Planned Parenthood “has ever pressured a patient to undergo an abortion simply to collect a fee” [p. 24]. The Court also accepted uncontested evidence that “crisis pregnancy centers,” the places South Dakota forces women to go for “counseling” during their abortion waiting periods, peddle false information:
PPH offered evidence, which the State did not dispute, that CPCs frequently misinform women about abortion. For example, many CPCs inform women that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer, despite studies adduced by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists dispelling any association. Dr. Meadows testified that, in her experience, she has worked with patients who received ultrasounds at CPCs who were informed they were weeks or months further along in their pregnancies than they actually were [pp. 30–31].
In addition to subjecting women to misinformation from CPCs, state-imposed waiting periods “exposes women to increased medical risks”:
While abortion is a safe procedure and, in fact, safer than many office medical procedures, the risk of failed or incomplete medication abortion increases with advancing gestational age. The risks of surgical abortions also increase with gestational age, even week by week. A second trimester abortion is eight to ten times riskier than a first trimester abortion.
Dr. Grossman explained that when women do not have access to abortion care, they do not universally decide to continue with their pregnancies. Rather, some women attempt to take matters into their own hands to terminate their pregnancy, at great risk to their own health and safety. He further testified about his research in Texas where he conducted in-depth interviews with eighteen women who reported attempting to self-induce an abortion. The primary reason women were pushed to self-induce was barriers to accessing clinical care. The women reported having insufficient funds to travel to the clinic, having to travel long distances, and other collateral costs, and these barriers all contributed to their decision to self-induce [p. 39].
Abortion is a safe medical procedure. Planned Parenthood provides responsible care. Women make good decisions for themselves and have a constitutional right to make those decisions. Let’s not let the Trump Court take that away from women.
Take that Grudz, who claims to be from South Dakota but I actually believe he is red enough to be a Martian.
iowa’s Supreme Court had a major infusion of hand picked wingnut justices a few years ago after the court made iowa first in the nation gay marriage friendly. Three of the justices weren’t retained after phony kristian groups spent mucho dinero to stir up the voters. Apparently, iowa lends itself to nominating justices that follow the law and constitution.
Other elective medical/surgical/dental procedures are subject to delays during which time patients are encouraged to think it over, get second opinions, & consider their options. That’s the whole point of informed consent. It is strange that what is considered a standard of care for other elective procedures is considered a denial of due process for abortions.
If there are any delays, as Anne Beal claims, they certainly aren’t right wing nut job enforced, not for the health and welfare of the expectant Mother, but to satiate kristian egos and a desire to force religious views on others that wingnuts themselves don’t aspire to.
Besides, other procedures aren’t constitutionally protected rights whether you agree with Roe or not.
As the Iowa Supreme Court makes clear, Anne, Planned Parenthood already follow a rigorous standard of care that requires no government intrusion or second-guessing of doctors or women. But Anne, can you give us an example of an “elective” medical procedure on which the state imposes multiple regulations in an attempt to back-door outlaw the procedure?
Multiple regulations is important here: I didn’t discuss it in the original post, but the Iowa Court referred often to the concomitant 20-week ban, which makes it much harder for women to obtain abortions from the time they discover they are pregnant to the arbitrary time limit set by the Iowa Legislature.
The Iowa Supreme Court says:
Cory notes:
I oppose government-mandated waiting periods on libertarian grounds. Until abortion is recriminalized, arbitrary restrictions on it do indeed violate due process. But I also see a flaw in the court’s reasoning.
I agree with the court that the right to shape one’s own identity and place in the world is fundamental to the notion of liberty, but abortion violates the child’s right to shape his or her identity and place in the world, completely and permanently.
I also agree that no person should be arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty or property, but abortion arbitrarily deprives the child of all three, completely and permanently.
A fetus is not a life until it’s born and God breathes life into it.
The Bible does not consider a fetus a full human life or the killing of a fetus murder? The verse most on point when it comes to abortion is Exodus 21:22-25. Do you think the Bible would proscribe a monetary punishment for the killing of a human being? The Bible does not even deem the act of wrongfully causing a miscarriage as criminal. It’s obvious that based on a literal reading of this passage, the Bible does not view a fetus as a full human life or abortion as murder.
It is also noteworthy that as early as Genesis 2:7, the Bible states that life begins at birth, declaring that God “breathed into his [Adam’s] nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul.” The verse implies that until Adam took his first breath he was not considered a living being.
Furthermore, you can scour the Bible with a fine-toothed comb, yet you will not find any passage that describes a prohibition or penalty for a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy.
A fetus has no rights, regardless of what godless wingnuts decide, unless and until it can remove itself from its safe harbor and survive on its own. Which it can’t survive without maternal or paternal care until it is old enough to support itself and work/pay taxes.
But, in the spirit of pragmatism I’m on Amy Coney Barrett to be the Supreme Court nominee for 75 shares at .26 each. (that’s 3.85 to 1 odds)
You’ll know on July 9 unless drumpf is lying again. Sez he has picks whittled down to 9. He must want an entirely new court and the activist nuts on this one would probably allow it.
Porter Lansing writes:
The first chapter of Matthew’s Gospel says Mary was “with child” during her pregnancy.
As I’ve been telling you since January of 2017, Porter, the Hebrew verb for miscarry is shakal. The Hebrew verb in that passage is ytsa’, which refers to live birth:
https://dakotafreepress.com/2016/12/15/abortion-doesnt-hurt-mental-health-denying-abortion-does-briefly/#comment-70438
You abandoned the debate here:
https://dakotafreepress.com/2016/12/15/abortion-doesnt-hurt-mental-health-denying-abortion-does-briefly/#comment-73180
That verse doesn’t say life begins at birth.
“mike from iowa” writes:
You’re saying a fetus has no right to life until it’s old enough to pay taxes. Would you say it should be legal to kill an inconvenient three-year-old?
Hey Mr. Evans, get off your high horse and go tell your boy to stop kidnapping those who are born from their parents. When you guys start to defend the children, then you can have a voice for the unborn, until then, what you say is all a big fib.
Would you say it should be legal to kill an inconvenient three-year-old?
Maybe not legal, but I guarantee it has been done. A three year old signifies to me someone wanted the child and were not forced by wingnuts to have it or else.
Two thirds of Americans polled say they do not want Roe over turned.
Actually, I never said it had no right to life. It has no rights because it is totally dependent on host womb until viability, where upon it still need years before it can support itself.
Kurt, seriously, don’t you believe there are enough children suffering without legislating more be forced to be born?
Who is going to pay for them? The so called right to lifers won’t do it.
What a nixed up world we live in. One party wants all fetuses to be born and turn around and attempt to stop them from voting- if they survive wingnut’s tender mercies.
Kurt … I didn’t abandon an argument. I won the argument.
1. Mary was with child but the child wasn’t human. Your assertion is wrong.
2. You’re saying that the story of Exodus 21:22-25 recounted by thousands throughout history as being what I relayed is wrong? She didn’t have an accidental miscarriage? She had a live birth? C’mon, Kurt.
“mike from iowa” asks:
Yes I do, and we could eliminate all child suffering if we killed every child, but I’m not convinced that’s the correct answer. America’s Founding Fathers declared that we’re all endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to life.
Porter Lansing writes:
You were debating what the Bible says, Porter, and the Bible says Christ was human.
The story you relayed hasn’t been recounted throughout history. Here’s a link to arguably the most highly regarded literal translation of the Hebrew, the same link I gave you in February of 2017 when you abandoned our previous debate:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&search=Exodus+21:22-25
https://dakotafreepress.com/2016/12/15/abortion-doesnt-hurt-mental-health-denying-abortion-does-briefly/#comment-73180
~ The Bible teaches that Jesus was both divine and human. Humans are ONLY human.
~ The story I relayed HAS been recounted throughout history. Moreover, why would a monetary sum be given for a child that was a live birth?
In victory let me say … this blog is for entertainment and our rehashing an argument we’ve had before isn’t entertaining. I’ve done extensive research on you, why you are the way you are and what it is you psychologically need. That might be entertaining, but only to you.
With that, I’ll concede that I’ll agree to disagree because Biblical interpretation is opinion.
Porter writes:
Yes, and the first chapter of Matthew’s Gospel says Mary was “with child” during her pregnancy.
Actually it hasn’t.
Presumably because labor was prematurely induced by an act of violence:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&search=Exodus+21:22-25
I’ve done very little research on you, Porter, but I think you psychologically need better hobbies.
Some opinions are better than others.
According to the Bible, when Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting in Luke 1:41, the “baby” (John the Baptist) leaped for joy in Elizabeth’s womb. I’m wondering whether Porter would say the Bible teaches that John was a human.
According to the bible, what??? How did Luke see that kid leaping for joy? What kind of doctor was Luke? The Mormon Bible says that Missouri is the promised land that Jesus will come to and even gives the date, how about that? “On January 2, 1831, several months before revealing the location for the temple, the Lord said that He would give His people “a land of promise.” He declared, “I will give it unto you for the land of your inheritance, if you seek it with all your hearts. And this shall be my covenant with you” (D&C 38:18–20). On June 6, 1831, the Lord commanded Joseph Smith and others to preach the gospel in the state of Missouri and to prepare for a conference there. He promised that if they would be faithful, “the land of [their] inheritance” would “be made known unto them” (D&C 52:5).”
So then, this Books seem to be at odds then. Oh well, good the the Iowa Supreme Court recognizes what is called “due process and equal protection”.
Semantics and language translation fallacies. Find any Biblical passage that describes a prohibition or penalty for a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy.
Exactly, Jerry. I believe in God and I believe Jesus was the son of God and our savior but I don’t believe every word or passage in the Bible. Kurt does and that’s often why I reject his assertions. There’s no way a debate or discussion between us can come to an end because we play by different rules. Besides, who can morally dispute another man’s faith? Not me.
There is not a one Porter. Not in any of them from any religion. Look, I get it if Kurt is against abortion. That is fine, but don’t bring up the lie that it is in a book written centuries after Jesus was born. His is a personal thing, not a thing that was written in the bible.
I’d written:
Jerry writes:
He obviously didn’t. Luke says he learned about the events in his Gospel from “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses” (Luke 1:2). He was presumably told about this particular event by Mary, who’d most likely taken Elizabeth at her word.
I believe the Greek indicates he was a physician.
Traditional evangelical Protestants generally don’t believe it.
Porter writes:
Most traditional evangelical Protestants, myself included, don’t advocate penalties for the mothers.
Jerry writes:
The assertion that the Bible is based on eyewitness accounts is written in the Bible.
Kurt employs Fundamentalist Taqiya. (i. e. – He makes up a lot of stuff to support his beliefs.) The question is, “What was missing from his childhood that created this need for religious absolutism?”
Porter writes:
“Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Traditionalists like myself, don’t believe what you say. I understand you are against abortion, me, I am for having women make up their own minds on their own. I am also not to keen on any opinions that were written centuries after what may or may not have happened. So you see, this is not a religious fundamental decree, it is your opinion. BTW, the Iowa decision was not an opinion, it was based on democracy.
You’re right, Kurt. You ARE projecting your need for Biblical absolution and your propensity to invent answers, upon everyone who questions your validity. It’s healthy that you realize it, even if it’s only subconsciously.
So true, Jerry. The issue concentrates down to women’s rights and men who need to control women. Renaming fetuses with emotional word picture phrases to cause guilt when fundamentalist religious involvement in supporting children in crisis is nearly nonexistent is transparency exemplified.
Sadly, many women who have had abortions report (1) that they were forced into the clinic by parents who consented on their behalf, or they were coerced into consenting by boyfriends husbands or (2) that they gave their consent freely and realized later that it was a terrible mistake. These are the women who show up to speak at pro-life fundraisers, and there are a lot of them out there. I am personally acquainted with someone who said “within an hour we knew we had made a terrible mistake and we couldn’t take it back.” My daughter related the story of a coworker who tried to talk another woman out of it, saying “I’ve done it and it was the biggest mistake of my life.”
Then there are the women who coast along until they hit menopause, realize the career they thought was so important is a drudge, the man they were trying to please is long gone, and the child they sacrificed would be all grown up and keeping them company. For these women there is alcoholism. I have a lot of dead friends.
PP might talk a good game about how careful they are but that’s not what their former clients are reporting.
Right, and that means what then? That mothers take their children in for an abortion. Where was that mother when the daughter was first thinking about sex? Was the father a white kid or was he Native or some other color other than white? We are speaking of white’s correct Anne Beal?
You seem to be speaking for all women when you condemn them for not having children or choosing not to have children for any reason…it is called choice. They live with that and the ones I have spoken with do not want to be judged. What gives you that right to judge Anne Beal? Who gave you that right? PP offers birth control, I am sure you never needed it with the herd of children you have? Others may not have the same resources you had, maybe they are still with the same man who impregnated them 40 years ago.
Anne has a habit of exaggerating. Among South Dakota Catholic women an abortion is called a “forced miscarriage”. The guilt she claims is prevalent is nearly nonexistent. I call them Deutschisms and they’re just made up stories to scare the timid.
Planned Parenthood does not force anyone anywhere to have an abortion. Planned Parenthood offers so much more in the line of women’s health and well being you’d think any right thinking kristian would hit their knees giving thanks for Planned Parenthood.
My best guess is having a bunch of rabid anti-abortion protesters with pics of aborted fetusses screaming in women’s faces on their way to PP for a PAP smear or checkup doesn’t help your cause, Ms Beal. Nor does calling these women murderers.
Anne, the Iowa Supreme Court found Planned Parenthood’s testimony more believable than yours. They heard no evidence that contradicted the evidence they received from multiple sources that while the choice is difficult, women who have abortions don’t spend the rest of their lives wracked with the guilt you want to project onto them to make your argument for you.
Mike does a good job of opposing Kurt’s value claim by pointing out that it’s hard to ascribe superior rights to an entity that is completely dependent on the mother.
But even if we granted Kurt’s framework, even if we accepted that abortion is a case of equal and competing claims to life and liberty, we would not get resolution. In Kurt’s framework, no matter which choice we make, we destroy someone’s liberty.
Perhaps the flaw in Kurt’s reasoning is the failure to recognize the difference in actors. In aborting a pregnancy, a woman exercises autonomy over her body. In restricting abortion, the government imposes its preferred choice on women in a way that denies them equal citizenship. The Constitution (Iowa, South Dakota, United States) establishes the scope of government power within the context of the pre-existing, inherent rights of individuals.
The Constitution does give government power to abridge individual rights in various situations; for instance, we can use government to arrest, convict, and imprison miscreants who have infringed on the rights of others. But we don’t arrest every killer. We let soldiers, police, and civilians kill when competing claims of liberty weigh in their favor. Even in Kurt’s framework, we can argue that a woman choosing to end her pregnancy is exercising a claim of liberty that outweighs the claim we might make on behalf of the entirely dependent entity that is growing inside her and taking her liberty.
Granting fertilized eggs human rights does not slam-dunk the argument for anti-abortion activists. We can still argue that women’s autonomy is the superior moral claim and that government lacks the authority to deny women that autonomy.
Correction, I reported yesterday Drumpf would make his pick on July 9. That was incorrect. He will wrap it up in fireworks and announce on the 4th of July.
Excellent, Mr. Heidelberger. I stand in awe of your reasoning ability. South Dakota would be improved with you in the legislature.
In a society that claims a certain degree of morality, no person has absolute liberty.
Do abortion proponents truly believe that a woman has an unfettered right to
kill the child in her womb? I shudder to think that is what you actually believe.
And if there is a debate on when life begins, why would we not err on the side
of caution?
Cory, there is no way I could ever agree with your reasoning. You can split hairs all
you want, but abortion ends a human life.
Sometimes moral society forces us to take responsibilities we didn’t want but
brought upon ourselves. I believe that when a woman conceives a child her
first responsibility is to that child as is the father of that child.
There is no such thing as sex without consequences.
Sometimes moral society forces us to take responsibilities we didn’t want but
brought upon ourselves. I believe that when a woman conceives a child her
first responsibility is to that child as is the father of that child.
There is no such thing as sex without consequences.
First off this is not a morality play. Anti women, anti women’s right people and so called right to lifers want to control women’s reproductive lives and want to use the government to force their religious views on others.
Wingnuts do not really want to outlaw abortion. It works too well as a dividing wedge issue in political elections and wingnuts score a heap of points with their constituents by claiming to be pro life.
Your last sentence is a killer. Ever heard of rape and/or incest? You pro life people want to punish rape and incest victims that end up preggers by forcing them to carry their shame full term for your amusement. There is no moral justification when your side refuses to accept financial responsibility for your political decisions forced on others.
It would appear to me if you make exceptions for rape and incest, you aren’t pro life. And I do not know a single soul who is pro abortion and doubt anyone else does, either.
Edwin … Your argument is fluffy anthropomorphism. You’re giving human characteristics to a fetus to emotionally bolster a scientific event. Human cells reproduce before life begins and human cells reproduce after you’re a corpse.
But, to explain it in the realm of emotion. It’s not a human life until it’s born and God blesses it with a soul.
What becomes of fetal rights when a fetus is born alcoholic or a addicted to meth? Does that baby get tossed in jail or forced to pay fines?
I guess that’s what we call irreconcilable differences.
I stated on this blog some time ago that I would make exceptions
for rape and incest. Those things are tragedies.
Porter, your logic is in the words of the Pope, brutal and gruesome.
What I have stated here is formed by religious belief.
It is also, as far as I’m concerned, self evident common sense.
Awwwwww … you hurt my feelings, Edwin. But, I’ll take one for women’s rights.
Also, there’s a line of reasoning that believes the Catholic church is more concerned with having as many future Catholics alive to donate money and pay to attend Catholic school than they’re concerned about poor agnostic Mothers and non-Catholic children in crisis.
Maybe we need to let Republicans remake longstanding Federal abortion law so that little girls will die from pregnancy – so that we can put faces and names to little girls who were murdered by public policy – so that conservatives can see their policies in action and learn how they have truly become Radical Ass Clowns. Apparently, some women just don’t get it, but if we can just allow conserva-women to murder their daughters, it would make for some high leverage advertising on how conservatives have devolved into cross eyed dirty animals whom suburban Americans would be smart to distance themselves from.
Once suburbia sufficiently rejects rural culture, America will be great again.
Adam and the rest of the left don’t understand Consrltitutional law. When Roe v Wade is overturned as it should be each State will decide their abortion law. You will still be able to murder a human legally in California and New York.
The left is afraid to put the issue to a vote of the people.
Nope, not afraid dude, even in South Dakota the people voted to no abolish abortion.
That vote was before the new scientific findings. I’m Ok with what the voters decide. The left never is unless it goes their way.
I’m guessing that vote will different in SD in the future.
Why would any female terminate a pregnancy in South Dakota? Go to Minnesota where it’s clean. Need an appointment? Go here. No protesters present.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/medical-abortion/about/pac-20394687
Mike makes a couple of on point statements. That the conserves love abortion as a wedge issue and he has never met a person that is pro abortion. Obama, in one of his debates with Hillary said something to the effect that no one likes abortion.
Abortion has been around as long as mankind. You can pass a million laws against it and it will still be with us. You may reduce the number of abortions; but will in turn increase the number of women’s deaths from back-ally operations. Roe vs. Wade was passed to provide women with a safe alternative to such operations.
The best way to control abortions is to provide potential mothers with the education, the income, the sex education, the birth control and the information they need to make such decisions. Put them in a better place to make a better choice.
Terrified at the thought of the loss of their favorite wedge issue the pro-life????? people call birth control abortion. They tell their daughters to say no to sex before marriage.(has that ever worked?) The moron himself has floated the idea of punishment for the crime of abortion. Extremists in Central America are jailing women who have miscarriages. In CO. a successful trial of providing birth control to high school girls was immediately shot down as soon as the pro-life people got the power to do so.
Actions happening on our southern border gives lie to the family values tribe. Is “hypocrisy” even in the conservative dictionary?
From 2016- ccording to new data from the Guttmacher Institute, politicians at the state level have passed 288 restrictions on safe, legal abortion since the 2010 elections. In fact, one-quarter of all abortion restrictions enacted since Roe have been passed in the last 5 years—despite the public’s overwhelming support for women’s access to safe, legal abortion.
“Politicians in North Dakota and South Dakota have spent years passing abortion laws and restrictions—making them two of the most difficult states in the country to access safe abortion,” continued Stoesz. “Were it not for Governor Dayton, legislators here in Minnesota would have taken us down a similar path.”
Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans support access to safe and legal abortion and Planned Parenthood. Since July, there have been 14 national polls measuring support for Planned Parenthood—and every single one of them shows strong support for Planned Parenthood and access to reproductive health care. A recent Bloomberg Politics national poll found that 67 percent of Americans surveyed said the Supreme Court was right to rule that women have a constitutional right to abortion and agree with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. AVOX/PerryUndem poll found that more Americans consider themselves pro-choice than pro-life. Sixty-eight percent of millennials don’t want to see Roe overturned, and 72 percent of Republicans think abortion should be available.
What do the voters want, Troll?
# # #
Troll, read up on the ’emoluments clause’ as it pertains to Putin’s puppet in the WH.
Right, Vance and Mike … There will always be women’s rights no matter what laws are passed by sinners trying to buy their way into Heaven with penance. We the People support Women’s Right To Choose. As for the loudest among the others? The louder the wails the bigger the sin they’re trying to apologize for.
“Autonomy and dominion over one’s body go to the very heart of what it means to be free.”
That’s the point. A living, breathing woman takes precedence over a fetus every time. Every. Time. What the Iowa court said in the first quote is the heart of it. You can argue bible all you want. That’s only relevant to your personal beliefs, not law.
Now, all of you who are arguing that you should have a say in very, very personal and intimate aspects of my life and that of other women and girls — butt the hell out. Get a hobby. Read a book. Fight to get existing children out of cages. Pray more. Take up jogging. Jump rope.
Ed, the anti-abortionists are making the same kind of absolute claim that you say disqualifies my argument. Thus, you don’t have a voting issue.
I’m not splitting hairs. Women have a right to bodily autonomy on which the government has no authority to intrude in this most cases, especially from conception through the first and second trimester and probably the third. I’m open to a discussion of exceptions, but the government simply can’t assert its interest in the fetus without tromping on individual autonomy, without asking personal, private questions that are none of the government’s business.
But Edwin, as I’ve stated before, even anti-abortionists don’t fully mean “abortion ends a life!” because they never advocate for punishing aborting doctors and aborting mothers for first-degree murder. And why does ending a life no longer matter in cases of rape and incest? See? Even you, Edwin, recognize some difference between a fetus and born child, and some supremacy of a mother’s claim to autonomy over the fetal claim to future life. If you can do it, so can I, and more importantly, so can women. Let women decide, without government deciding for them.
I’m not splitting hairs, and you’re not offering caution; in a situation with doubt, you’re advocating more government intrusion, not less, which is big-government authoritarianism against which true conservatives ought to rebel.
Get out of women’s lives: that’s the cautious, conservative governing position.
It’s not murder, Jason, not until you say you’re ready to give an aborting mother a life sentence of the death penalty, as we would for a person who committed actual murder under current law. Don’t use words that you don’t mean.
No you’re not, Jason. You’re only speculating, and you can’t substitute speculation for empirical results.
Plus, the “science” you cite is neither conclusive nor refutatory of the supremacy of women’s autonomy.
If you suffer kidney failure, and if I’m a medically viable donor, your incontrovertible humanity still creates no authority for the government to restrain me and plug my kindey into your body to protect your life.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/in-planned-parenthood-v-reynolds-the-iowa-supreme-court-gives-states-a-post-roe-road-map.html
Just found this from Slate. It is a good read and points out how iowa’s all male Supreme Court has empathy for pregnant women, something the Scotus didn’t show much of.
I think it interesting that it is mostly men debating this issue and men making the decisions for the women. It is the right of the woman to decide and as doctors have stated, they do not take the matter lightly.
MaryD, I agree: pregnant women are the only people with the moral authority to decide whether an abortion should happen, and the only abortions over which they have such authority are their own.