good news
 

and i hope the other states trying to do the same get the message. they should quit wasting their time, and the taxpayers' money trying to pass crap that can't pass.

http://news.msn.com/us/supreme-court...a-abortion-ban

Men should have zero say in anything regarding abortion. None.

Are all of women's interests sacrosanct, or just this one?

Happy wife, happy life. But obviously this is kind of a special interest.

Well done.

:tro:

altho revolutionary, i think women should be able to make decisions. we're big girls. :D

:D:tro:

Well, I confess I am not that interested in the opinions of men who object to women's access to birth control, either.

Imagine if women seeking an abortion were forced to undergo a background check along with paying a non-refundable $10 fee to the State they live in and wait up to 30 days for approval? Then once obtaining approval from the State they were forced to leave the city they live in even though it's the 3rd largest in the U.S., pay for the abortion and then come back 3 days later to finally get the abortion?

Think there would be an uproar?

No need for a confession as you're not saying anything wrong, by my reckoning. Can we agree that lack of interest in someone's opinion does not negate someone's right to an opinion?

there's no right to an opinion in the constitution!


lol
couldn't resist. i see that line so often from whomever is in opposition to whatever rights are being discussed.

seriously, anyone can have opinions. it's when those opinions start trampling other peoples' rights that i get a little ornery.

The problem is a large number of men feel that their right to an opinion entitles them to take away women's bodily rights.

Opinions of people, both male and female, are how laws are born. Government is far from perfect. (Naw, say it ain't so!) Some laws bolster rights, while many take rights away. I'm not quite certain that a woman's "bodily rights" supercede the rights of a little person growing inside her. When does life begin? That's a very complex issue. When life or death is in question, I'd rather err on the side of caution.

However, I do not feel that opinions must absolutely be more or less relevant based on the presence of or lack of certain body parts.

A fetus isn't a person. I don't have a strong issue with restrictions coming in during the third trimester as abortions in that period of time are so rare, and usually due to a serious medical issue, as I don't think it imposes an undue burden on women (as opposed to men terrorizing and assassinating doctors who are capable of performing these rare, late-pregnancy abortions, thereby limiting women's access to a safe, legal one). But prior to that, it's not about a baby; it's about women's bodily autonomy.

Men seem to think that pregnancy and childbirth are a walk in the park. As many of them have seen women go through it, I'm not sure why so many legislators cling on to this idea. Pregnancy is very stressful on the body and childbirth sucks. I went into my own pregnancy very healthy (I was still running at the beginning of my third trimester) and by the end I had gestational diabetes and preeclampsia. Had my labor not been induced early I could have died. An acquaintance of mine did die two years ago, delivering twins via C-section. Another friend had a stroke four days after giving birth. We all wanted the pregnancies, but in the wake of pregnancy was left rehab for my friend, and a grieving widower in the case of my acquaintance. I was lucky in that I recovered quickly, but I'm now at a higher risk for Type 2 Diabetes and heart disease in the future. Yay, pregnancy!

People should be honest and call the anti-abortion movement what it is: forced birth. It's a willful choice to force women into a life-threatening circumstance. And yeah, I think the opinion of a gender that will never have to face any of those life-threatening circumstances is less relevant. Unfortunately, it's the gender that has all the law-making power in the nation, so it calls the shots.

"A fetus isn't a person." See, if it was simply about the woman there would be no debate. There is, and should be, in our society a strong presumption against taking life. If not, why the distinction between early versus late term? I believe it's because there is underlying doubt/uncertainty.

Now, if we apply the standard that the only people who should be entitled to make judgements about this issue are the people who are now, or in the future might be, personally involved in this issue, does that standard apply only to this issue? Can someone who is not a soldier or law enforcement officer make moral judgements, as well as legal judgements, as to whether it is proper to kill another person to achieve a military objective, or to kill an armed, deranged person to save nearby innocents, as opposed to killing a fleeing robber after he has robbed you? People consider themselves entitled to make moral and legal judgements about such acts. In this country all are entitled to contribute to these debates. To me no one ought to be dismissed from any debate based solely on gender, race, religion or sexual orientation.

My niece announced at Christmas that she is pregnant. She and my nephew recently married and decided to start a family. She is an RN, smart as a whip, and knows the risks. She is also ardently pro-life. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Yep, 2 bad deliveries for us as well. Not fun at all. Both times had problems.

laws are based on opinions? and yes, a woman's rights supercede whatever 'rights' a fetus has.
i'll err on the side of letting each woman decide for herself. no one has to choose to end a pregnancy, just like ssm marriage doesn't force people to get gay married.

the distinction between early and late term is not some arbitrary number. instead, after the fetus has reached viability, states can, and many do put rules in place after that point in time.
yes, people can make 'moral judgements', and everyone is entitled to their opinion. however, just like you have a right to swing your fist, your right to that ends where my nose begins.
good for your niece.
bad if you think that because you and her believe something, that everyone must not only believe it, but we should legislate laws based on that.

Did I say that? I believe that I said that the opinions (usually strong ones) of people are how laws are born. I don't believe I've ever seen laws debated opinions notwithstanding.

I think it's fair to say that viability is a moving target.

There is and always will be diversity of opinion. All I am and have been saying is that there must be debate, and one's participation in the debate must not be squelched solely because they are male, female, white, black, liberal, conservative, feminist, gay, Christian, Jew, you get the idea.

except it isn't, it hasn't changed. still 24 weeks, based on the law, and survival of preemies.
yeah, debate should continue.
laws changing based on the opinion of some, especially when they will never be impacted is another story. as is anyone trying to base laws on theological opinion and belief, since this is a secular country.

and i'm not so sure, still, about your assertion regarding law and opinions. laws are usually in response to something occurring, that negatively impacts society. that's why murder is illegal, someone decorating their house in purple isn't.

Viability has done no favors to the kids involved. The extreme premie is likely to have serious problems.

No doubt it will.

24 weeks is accepted legally for now. "Viability exists as a function of biomedical and technological capacities, which are different in different parts of the world. As a consequence, there is, at the present time, no worldwide, uniform gestational age that defines viability. Viability is not an intrinsic property of the fetus because viability should be understood in terms of both biological and technological factors."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11753511

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued in a 1983 decision that Roe was on a "collision course with itself." She said that improvements in technology would continually push the point of fetal viability closer to the beginning of the pregnancy, allowing states greater opportunity to regulate the right to an abortion. She had the foresight to see fetal viability as a moving target. See why these things aren't as cut and dried and some today would have us believe?

I would much prefer to see abortions decrease (or end? one can always hope) because of a societal change than by government decree. Government alone is as incapable of eliminating abortions as it is of eliminating poverty or drugs.

except there has been no movement on the 24 week viability. maybe someday there will, and we can cross that bridge if/when we get there. but, in forty years, we haven't gotten there yet. and we all know there are limits to human ability, so there's no telling if we ever lower that.

and they have decreased, as have pregnancy rates across all population segments. not sure what you mean about 'societal changes', but it's felt that the falling rates (which have even fallen for teens) are due to more education and availability of birth control.
i have to say, i don't care if they decrease.i don't feel any outrage at all that they occur, especially when the vast majority occur in the first weeks of pregnancy, altho the pro-life crowd only ever talks about 20 weeks and further (less than 2% of all abortions), because they can try to summon up more emotion that way..

as for the war on poverty, i went back and found this from a few days ago:

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...healthier.html


and if you click on one of the links, it takes you to this:

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine..._realize_.html

And that's fine that she is. As the bumper sticker says, if you're against abortion, don't have one.

Here's an example of the state getting involved. Apologies if it's been posted before and I missed seeing it here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wom...-to-Texas.html

yeah, that's a sad, crazy story. saw today that the husband has filed suit. it seems tho that the hospital is possibly misinterpreting the rules regarding pregnant women, that the statute doesn't extend to brain dead patients. cause...they aren't patients, they're dead. and the woman was without oxygen for some time before the husband found her, and she was never revived. so, that lack of oxygen killed her-i can only imagine the damage to the fetus.

it's unreal. her husband has received death threats. luckily for him, her parents are in complete agreement with him. but that doesn't make this any easier for him or their small child at home.

I'm sorry to hear that. It's a really scary and awful situation when births don't go well.

Yep, they took her speeding away for a C-section when baby's heart beat had problem...wouldn't let me in the room. Nurses nearly screaming, obviously worried I was going to end up with a dead kid....and that was after a smooth 9 months. Baby was fine. They sat me in a doctor's office alone while this was going on. In scrubs...waiting to hear if my now daughter would live. Not enjoyable.

That must have been terrifying. In our case, he was clearly fine from the start (other than being jaundiced- he was a preemie), but I had to be sent off to recovery the first night so they could keep pumping me full of magnesium sulfate. That was really hard- I had less than an hour with him right after birth before they took me away. :(