Victims of sexual assault and domestic violence will be forced to bear the children of their abusers.
The only exception is if the woman will otherwise die – something that is rare, and often impossible to foresee until it’s too late. Even in those cases, many doctors will be unwilling to risk prison. This cruel, dangerous, archaic abortion ban must be repealed immediately [Kelda Roys, Twitter thread, 2018.06.29].
Roys makes the promise we should hear from every gubernatorial candidate who cares about protecting women’s equality in Wisconsin, South Dakota, and the other backward states that plan to ban abortion if Brett Kavanaugh delivers on Donald Trump’s misogynist if murky promise:
As governor, I will seek repeal of the Criminal Abortion Ban and pardon any provider charged under it [Kelda Roys, Twitter thread, 2018.06.29].
That’s the rallying cry of a real defender of women’s rights.
“for abortion” is a false statement. No one is “for abortion”, just as no one is “against life.” That’s not what we’re asked to vote on. We’re asked to vote on the proper boundaries of government power in the context of women’s bodily autonomy. [Here we go again….]
Jason
Killing a baby has nothing to do with anatomy. You are wrong when you say people are not for abortion.
mike from iowa
Why do you hate the constitution, Troll? THe Scotus- the final arbiter of a law’s constitutionality sez women have the right to terminate a pregnancy.
Are you going to have an abortion, Troll? None of my business, but I’m guessing if you were the Scotus that made the Roe decision would back you to the hilt.
Jason, do you support convicting women who abort their pregnancies of murder?
Roys remains correct: the Wisconsin law, like South Dakota’s, if enacted, violated a recognized and basic constitutional right essential to women’s equal status. Those laws should be repealed, and during any period after enactment and before repeal, conscientious governors should pardon anyone convicted under those unjust laws.
So you advocate arresting, trying, convicting, and sentencing to life in prison a woman who aborts a pregnancy?
Donald Pay
The Wisconsin statutes on this actually were in place before Roe. When Roe was decided, it was simply suspended. It was never repealed. Even under this statute before Roe, abortions had been occurring and prosecutions under the statute were rarely, if ever, brought. Prosecutors are not going to sink resources into cases they are going to lose though jury nullification. These statutes will make some abortions unsafe, though the privileged will always find safe abortions.
Most prosecutors are not going to sink resources into what is a difficult prosecution. The woman will rarely testify against the medical provider. In South Dakota, Janklow brought a case against Dr. Munson for a rare and unfortunate bad outcome in which, I believe, the mother died. It was more of a political witch hunt than a real prosecution, and it was dismissed before it went to trial.
mike from iowa
You are wrong when you say people are not for abortion.
Moved the goalposts again, didn’t you. We (myself and others) have stated we know no one who is pro-abortion. Big difference from ‘for abortions’. The constitution is for abortions, but doesn’t force anyone to have one.
NARAL is working with states that still have inactive women controlling laws on their books that include dictating her medical choices, such as aborting a fetus.
Some states that had such misogynistic laws which were invalidated by the Constitution via SCOTUS in the Roe decision, simply left those laws as they were. That might mean that if the wingnut activist partisan judges invalidated a woman’s right to full bodily autonomy, those laws would become effective again.
The goal of NARAL, most other women’s political organizations, and the majority of US women and other adults, is that a woman’s right to make her health care choices, including aborting a fetus, should not be abridged in any way.
Most US human beings recognize women as the same. A minority think The Handmaid’s Tale is a how-to video.
bearcreekbat
Ben, that is a poweful article by Valerie Tarico and raises an interesting point that may have been overlooked by abortion opponents. Thanks for posting it.
The point that may have been missed is that over our lifetime we humans have literally thousands of potential people in our reproductive capacities. Indeed, Valerie points out that “In humans, an estimated 60-80 percent of fertilized eggs self-destruct before becoming babies. . . .” If we deny a woman the right to decide when to carry through with a pregnancy, we deny every single potential child that she could have concieved and would have wanted to concieve the opportunity for life.
Salon is often a difficult web cite to navigate due to pop up ads. For those who don’t read Salon articles because of that difficulty, here are a couple points from the article.
First, Valerie described a friend who had decided on having two children and ended up with two beautiful daughters who would not have been concieved or born had she not been able to abort prior unwanted pregnancies.
Next, Valerie described her own personal experience in which she and her husband wanted a child, but her pregnancy had problems. She ended that pregnancy, but became pregnant a few months later with her current daughter, Brynn. Had Valerie not aborted the troubled pregnancy, Brynn would not have been concieved and born.
It seems immoral to force an unwanted pregnancy on a woman, while in turn preventing her from concieving the wanted child that could have been, but was denied conception because the mother was forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy. What gives the State the right to deny children like Brynn the opportunity to exist by forcing a woman to carry an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy to term? Children like Brynn and their mothers deserve better.
mike from iowa
The lady says she is pro-abortion. Good for her. Two things, I do not know her personally or in any capacity and she gets to make personal choices that wingnuts need to stay the hell out of.
mike from iowa
BCB was certainly right about annoying pop ups. BCB is always right.
I struggle with choice of language. I go farther than my party’s ticket leaders want to. Others, like the author of the article Ben cites, contend I’m still ceding too much to the opposition narrative.
If I wade into language, I might justify my saying “I’m not pro-abortion” the same way I would justify saying, “I’m not pro-surgery.” I don’t want surgery. I’m not going to go get surgery if I don’t have to. But I’m not going to stand in the way of any autonomous human being who decides surgery is the right thing for her.
I recognize abortion as valid medical procedure serving valid medical purposes. I recognize that the decision about abortion belongs to the pregnant woman and no one else, individual or collective. Do those words sufficiently defend the concept of women’s autonomy?
mike from iowa
And abortion procedures are safer than childbirth.
Two little pills, taken a few days apart, the first given to the woman by her doctor at the office and the other self administered at home.
Of course, the little boys that cry wolf don’t want it trivialized and that simple. They prefer to beat women over the head and use the issue in political campaigns, all the while knowing they are targeting the poor and minorities only.
The koch bros just hop a plane and return from a sunny vacash un encumbered by the little nuisance wingnuts want to force the rest of womanhood to carry full term.
That is right. boys and girls. Abortion is a political wedge issue and as soon as it loses it ability to make wingnut mouths foam, it will remain safe, effective and rare.
What is Sutton’s position on abortion Cory?
As you know, Jason, Sutton’s voting record on abortion is mostly wrong. His running mate’s position is untested, but she professes a superior position.
I didn’t know Cory That’s why I asked.
I would never vote for someone who is for abortion. Will SD Democrats vote for a Democrat who is against abortion?
To take back Congress, Democrats must focus on mainstream electability rather than ideological purity.
“for abortion” is a false statement. No one is “for abortion”, just as no one is “against life.” That’s not what we’re asked to vote on. We’re asked to vote on the proper boundaries of government power in the context of women’s bodily autonomy. [Here we go again….]
Killing a baby has nothing to do with anatomy. You are wrong when you say people are not for abortion.
Why do you hate the constitution, Troll? THe Scotus- the final arbiter of a law’s constitutionality sez women have the right to terminate a pregnancy.
Are you going to have an abortion, Troll? None of my business, but I’m guessing if you were the Scotus that made the Roe decision would back you to the hilt.
Jason, do you support convicting women who abort their pregnancies of murder?
Roys remains correct: the Wisconsin law, like South Dakota’s, if enacted, violated a recognized and basic constitutional right essential to women’s equal status. Those laws should be repealed, and during any period after enactment and before repeal, conscientious governors should pardon anyone convicted under those unjust laws.
Yes I do because it is murder.
So you advocate arresting, trying, convicting, and sentencing to life in prison a woman who aborts a pregnancy?
The Wisconsin statutes on this actually were in place before Roe. When Roe was decided, it was simply suspended. It was never repealed. Even under this statute before Roe, abortions had been occurring and prosecutions under the statute were rarely, if ever, brought. Prosecutors are not going to sink resources into cases they are going to lose though jury nullification. These statutes will make some abortions unsafe, though the privileged will always find safe abortions.
Most prosecutors are not going to sink resources into what is a difficult prosecution. The woman will rarely testify against the medical provider. In South Dakota, Janklow brought a case against Dr. Munson for a rare and unfortunate bad outcome in which, I believe, the mother died. It was more of a political witch hunt than a real prosecution, and it was dismissed before it went to trial.
You are wrong when you say people are not for abortion.
Moved the goalposts again, didn’t you. We (myself and others) have stated we know no one who is pro-abortion. Big difference from ‘for abortions’. The constitution is for abortions, but doesn’t force anyone to have one.
Well to be fair…
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.salon.com/amp/i_am_pro_abortion_not_just_pro_choice_10_reasons_why_we_must_support_the_procedure_and_the_choice
NARAL is working with states that still have inactive women controlling laws on their books that include dictating her medical choices, such as aborting a fetus.
Some states that had such misogynistic laws which were invalidated by the Constitution via SCOTUS in the Roe decision, simply left those laws as they were. That might mean that if the wingnut activist partisan judges invalidated a woman’s right to full bodily autonomy, those laws would become effective again.
The goal of NARAL, most other women’s political organizations, and the majority of US women and other adults, is that a woman’s right to make her health care choices, including aborting a fetus, should not be abridged in any way.
Most US human beings recognize women as the same. A minority think The Handmaid’s Tale is a how-to video.
Ben, that is a poweful article by Valerie Tarico and raises an interesting point that may have been overlooked by abortion opponents. Thanks for posting it.
The point that may have been missed is that over our lifetime we humans have literally thousands of potential people in our reproductive capacities. Indeed, Valerie points out that “In humans, an estimated 60-80 percent of fertilized eggs self-destruct before becoming babies. . . .” If we deny a woman the right to decide when to carry through with a pregnancy, we deny every single potential child that she could have concieved and would have wanted to concieve the opportunity for life.
Salon is often a difficult web cite to navigate due to pop up ads. For those who don’t read Salon articles because of that difficulty, here are a couple points from the article.
First, Valerie described a friend who had decided on having two children and ended up with two beautiful daughters who would not have been concieved or born had she not been able to abort prior unwanted pregnancies.
Next, Valerie described her own personal experience in which she and her husband wanted a child, but her pregnancy had problems. She ended that pregnancy, but became pregnant a few months later with her current daughter, Brynn. Had Valerie not aborted the troubled pregnancy, Brynn would not have been concieved and born.
It seems immoral to force an unwanted pregnancy on a woman, while in turn preventing her from concieving the wanted child that could have been, but was denied conception because the mother was forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy. What gives the State the right to deny children like Brynn the opportunity to exist by forcing a woman to carry an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy to term? Children like Brynn and their mothers deserve better.
The lady says she is pro-abortion. Good for her. Two things, I do not know her personally or in any capacity and she gets to make personal choices that wingnuts need to stay the hell out of.
BCB was certainly right about annoying pop ups. BCB is always right.
I wonder that wingnuts actually go out of their way to force women to become brood mares, but pay so little attention to the devastating crisis of opioid addicted newborns and the grisly costs of paying for them. https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/americas-heroin-epidemic/born-addicted-number-opioid-addicted-babies-soaring-n806346
Wingnut pols have always appeared indifferent to the suffering of kids-after birth. No food? No problem. No insurance, no education- yawn.
These tiny victims are not at fault. The blame lays with certain pols who profess a love for a kristian deity and then ignore that deity’s teachings.
I struggle with choice of language. I go farther than my party’s ticket leaders want to. Others, like the author of the article Ben cites, contend I’m still ceding too much to the opposition narrative.
If I wade into language, I might justify my saying “I’m not pro-abortion” the same way I would justify saying, “I’m not pro-surgery.” I don’t want surgery. I’m not going to go get surgery if I don’t have to. But I’m not going to stand in the way of any autonomous human being who decides surgery is the right thing for her.
I recognize abortion as valid medical procedure serving valid medical purposes. I recognize that the decision about abortion belongs to the pregnant woman and no one else, individual or collective. Do those words sufficiently defend the concept of women’s autonomy?
And abortion procedures are safer than childbirth.
Two little pills, taken a few days apart, the first given to the woman by her doctor at the office and the other self administered at home.
Of course, the little boys that cry wolf don’t want it trivialized and that simple. They prefer to beat women over the head and use the issue in political campaigns, all the while knowing they are targeting the poor and minorities only.
The koch bros just hop a plane and return from a sunny vacash un encumbered by the little nuisance wingnuts want to force the rest of womanhood to carry full term.
That is right. boys and girls. Abortion is a political wedge issue and as soon as it loses it ability to make wingnut mouths foam, it will remain safe, effective and rare.