A grand compromise on abortion?

Here is a proposal I came up with. Comments please:

Abortion is limited to the first trimester. But, it is kept safe, legal and confidential.

Everybody agrees that reducing the number of abortions is a goal of public policy. Federal agencies are allowed to run public information campaigns informing women of their options and even explicitly asking them to choose something other than abortion.

Tax credits for adoption are expanded and rules are standardized and simplified across the country.

We pass an Infant and Toddler Bill of Rights. In it, we assert the right of all young children to have food, shelter, decent medical care and access to early education.

The Infant and Toddler Bill of Rights is backed up with adequate funding for a network of resources necessary to make it a reality.

Sorry.

Sorry, we'll keep what we've got.

...in fact, that is the opposite of my intent.

eom

in the second or third trimester that the child they are carrying has terminal defects?

What about the parents who discover in the second or third trimester that the fetus/child has died and is now posing a risk to the mother?

What about the victims of rape who refuse to tell anyone until they are in the second trimester (when they begin to show)?

That stuff would need to be considered.

What if a woman wanted an abortion during the first trimester, but the father, or the father's parents, or some "interested third party" decides to take legal action to stop the abortion?

What if that legal action gets tied up in court for, say, 4 months or more? Could the woman still have the abortion even if she's beyond the first trimester?

I see a law like this playing into the hands of fundies and their lawyers...

...giving anyone the right to interfere with the woman's decision.

But by limiting legal abortions to the first trimester, fundies could devise a way to challenge abortions during that time by tying up the courts with lawsuits. And if those lawsuits consume time beyond the first 3 months, what's the woman to do?

We can see this kind of legal wrangling base on religious convictions with "right to die" cases. Consider what happens when fundies use the legal system to advance their agenda:

Florida Governor Jeb Bush intervenes in “right-to-die” case: A cruel pandering to the religious right

By Joseph Kay
31 October 2003

Florida Governor Jeb Bush issued an order on October 21 directing doctors to resume life support to vegetative patient Terri Schiavo. The order came six days after Schiavo had been taken off feeding tubes. Jeb Bush—the brother of President George W. Bush—acted in accordance with a statute passed that day by the state legislature giving him the authority to overrule a court decision.

At his October 28 press conference, President Bush said he supported the actions of his brother in the Schiavo case.

Terri Schiavo is once again being artificially fed. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, who fought in court for the right to remove the feeding tubes, will file a suit this week challenging the constitutionality and legality of the new statute and Jeb Bush’s order. Michael Schiavo has been opposed by Terri’s biological family, which has sought to block the removal of the feeding tubes.

The legislation passed in the Florida House and Senate and the order issued by Bush are without legal foundation and in conflict with fundamental democratic and constitutional principles. Bush’s order is a cruel maneuver, exploiting a personal and family tragedy for crass political motives. It is calculated to solidify Bush’s support among Christian fundamentalist layers that have taken up the Schiavo case—elements that form a principal base of support for the Republican Party—and whip up the most backward social forces.
(more)
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/oct2003/flor-o31.shtml

These kinds of cases could go on indefinitely with lawsuits, counter-lawsuits, and counter-counter-lawsuits...

This is a medical issue.

The whole point is not that abortion is legal, but that it is between a woman and her doctor.

The problem was that in some cases, groups of doctors used to be called on to make those decisions. That is an unwieldy proposition to say the least.

I can see the point you were making and it was a good try, but this is not an issue to compromise on. There are too many variables to make black and white rules to guide the issue. You could never have enough rules to cover every situation. That's why I'm a small government, classic conservative. Government should be kept out of our business as much as possible.

You see the anti-women folks believe that all of us women (evil bitches one and all) would merely make-up any of those exceptions so that we could have the unspeakable pleasure of terminating a late-term pregnancy.

You see, for them, it isn't about protecting women or respecting women... it's about keeping us in our place as the original evil-doers. They oppose any abortion legislation which contains *any* exceptions -- especially those for rape victims.

Instead of trying to change existing abortion laws, what our society needs to do is determine what women need so they can feel comfortable about continuing a pregnancy. Statistics have shown that the rate of abortion declined significantly during the Clinton administration when our economy was doing well. The more uncertain times that came with the Bush* administration have saw a significant increase in the number of abortions.

Since we already know that making something illegal doesn't stop it from happening, it seems that all sides should be able to agree on trying to maintain those circumstances which led to lower abortion rates.

...and I agree. But I see the nation as being divided over this. I am trying to brain-storm on what rules that most people could live with would actually look like.

Most fetal deformities don't show up until the 2nd trimester. Would you prevent an abortion for this? Read that sad, sad story on another thread. If you read any of the statistics on this, the MAJORITY of 2nd trimester abortions are for extactly this reason.

Sorry, unacceptable.

You summed it up quite nicely - very succinct!

to have argued Roe from a slavery standpoint rather than a privacy one.

Forced pregnancy is enslaving the woman's body to the fetus from a medical standpoint and a physical one.

Any constitutional scholars have thoughts?

And most of them don't care for contraceptives, either.

Why give up rights to gain nothing?

It is only feasible in an ideal world where the RW is not entirely comprised of terminal psychopaths. As much as we believe the world SHOULD and COULD be like that, it's not gonna happen.

Otherwise, yes, in an ideal world I'd consider, say, a 4-month cutoff quite reasonable (plus health risks and other extraordinary situations). But that only IF there is proper education, accessible healthcare, the works.

...the idea that most people are not RW terminal psychopaths and that the RW terminal psychopaths could be marginalized with a compromise most people could live with. And my idea was meant as a way to start a conversation, not as an iron-clad answer that I am "married" to.

All one has to say, if you want to marginalize them, is that whenever an embryo or fetus is given legal status as a person, the legal status of all women is diminished. That is what RW "terminal psychopaths" would like to see happen. Abortion is nothing more than a private, very personal, medical issue that does not require legislation or government interference of any sort. Do you honestly believe that most reasonable people could live with changing the constitution in order to strip women of basic human rights?

You merely point out THEIR goal; don't mess with what we have won already.

you cannot make abortions illegal like that. In the first place, this must be seen as the woman's right to make personal medical decisions without undue interference by the gov't. Secondly, you are aware that many 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are absolutely medically necessary? Would you doom women to death, disability or illegal abortions?

I could live with limitations on late term abortions, so long as they make specific exceptions for the life AND HEALTH (mental, physical -- both) of the woman. This ought to also go hand in hand with greater availability and affordability of early abortions. Right now, many later abortions are performed simply because women can't find a provider or the money.

Likewise, government doesn't need to do PSAs telling women not to have abortions. That's another infringement of women's rights to make those decisions themselves. They can certainly make sure adoption is attractive. But they ought not to be in the business of dictating what choice to make.

The rest of your proposal is fine and dandy.

...exceptions for medical necessity?

in order to attempt to keep most abortions to first trimester. There are fewer and fewer providers around the country. Some states (even big ones, geographically) may have only one provider. They may also have laws (such as 24 hour waits) that make obtaining an abortion prohibitive. (Which, of course, was the idea).

I'd love to see some statistics, but I doubt that many 2nd and especially 3rd tri. abortions are done for reasons beyond medical necessity and finances. I'm still uncomfortable with one part of the "medical necessity" provision as well: this begins to put doctors in the position of deciding who gets and doesn't get an abortion. That's a bad, slippery slope.

I think your other provisions, w/o limiting (any more than they are already limited) abortions would actually make a dent in the number of abortions -- a win for both sides, I think. But making limitations the keystone sort of dooms the rest of the proposal.

Republicans stop deluding themselves into thinking it's a moral issue when it's an economical one. Abortion rates were at their lowest when Clinton was in office, and the economy was booming. People either had the money to support a family so unplanned pregnancies were welcome, or they were putting off family raising to focus on education or career (teenage pregnancy rates also dropped dramatically).

They can either stick cling to their unfair and incredibly stupid economic policies, which hurt most Americans and drive up abortion rates, or they can reduce abortions.

I already know which one they'll pick.

TlalocW

"If you don't like abortion, then don't have one."

Problem solved.

Everyone really should read Roe v Wade. And most certainly you should read it before you propose "compromises."

Roe v Wade was written with the help of doctors. The very heart of the decision is that a woman has rights, in this case to choose what goes on with her body. That when she is pregnant, those rights come into conflict with the fetus only when the fetus becomes viable. Before that, the woman's rights can be unquestioned.

A compromise that completely ignores the reasoning behind Roe v Wade would do much to destroy the decision. It could lead to other people having rights during even the first trimester, like the father etc. I know you say you would craft a law that would not do that, but once you throw the reasoning behind Roe v Wade out the window, what reasoning would you use?

Read Roe v Wade and tell me where there is room for compromise, using the reasoning of the decision. The underlying legal principal is you can't take away someone's rights without a damned good, rational reason. That reasoning informs Roe v Wade and all our laws. If you "bust" it for Roe, what's to stop you from saying, all constitutionally protected rights are subject to "compromise" based on the political climate at the time. If you go there, you go back to separate but equal in a heartbeat.

(edited for clarity and to remove redundancy, aka ranting.)

But in the real world, we need to reach a national consensus on abortion. And as things stand, we're not even close.

the results are in (approx. 2 weeks) and if there are abnormalities parents are under the gun to consult with the OB, pediatricians, other physicians so that if a decision is made to terminate the pregnancy the procedure must be done prior to 24 weeks gestation in this state. States have laws governing these scenarios. The right to life or pro-birth crowd want to insist that no matter what a fetus has the right to be BIRTHED. Doesn't matter if death might occur in utero, during birth, shortly thereafter, etc.

I don't think that anyone has the right to force their views on me as a woman. I don't think that anyone has the best interest of my current children, future ones, or MY life and ability to gestate, in higher regard than I do.

how do you do a national consensus to curtail rights?

Tell me what right is dearest to you. Your right to free speech? Your right to freedom of religion? Pick one.

Ok, imagine this: let's come to some "national consensus" on your right to freedom of religion. Let's say, that because about 25% of Americans are say evangelical, or fundamentalist, (25% being higher than the percentage of Americans who favor no abortion, but about right for evangelicals) we should "compromise" on the right to freedom of religion.

Under this compromise, we will teach that Darwin was wrong, you will be required to go to church, maybe we'll let you choose your church...as long as its evangelical christian, and you must insure that your kids are evangelical christians too.

Once we've made those "small" compromises, what's to stop us from finding a "national consensus" on freem of speech? Or freedom of the press? Or 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizure?

It was the court's refusal to find a "national consensus" over race that brought us Brown v Board of Education. And many more like it.

And, when you talk about "national consensus" have you read the statistics lately? Less than 10% of Americans think abortion should always be illegal. Another 10-15% or so favor abortion only in cases of incest, rape or health of the mother. Most of the other rest of us are either satisfied with the status quo or all ill informed (follow up questions show many people don't understand 3rd term abortions can only be used for the health of the mother).

So, 75% of us like it the way it is just fine.

The "national consensus" is: leave us alone.

If you want to find compromise with the national consensus, you've already got it. The fact that you have a loud, religiously insane minority should NOT inform your efforts to "compromise."

Again, I implore you to read the decision. If you read it and you still don't get it, read other decisions concerning rights.

...the right to have an abortion and the rights of young kids.

Below is a revision of my earlier proposal. I understand your objections and respect them. But I sincerely disagree with you if you think the status quo is politically sustainable.

-----

Abortion is limited to the first four months, except in cases in which the life or health of the mother is at risk, or in which the fetus has terminal deformities or dies. Abortion is kept safe, legal and confidential.

Reducing the number of abortions becomes a stated goal of public policy. Federal agencies are allowed to run public information campaigns informing women of their options and even explicitly asking them to choose something other than abortion.

We pass an Infant and Toddler Bill of Rights. In it, we assert the right of all young children to have food, shelter, decent medical care and access to early education.

The Infant and Toddler Bill of Rights is backed up with adequate funding for a network of resources necessary to make it a reality.

Tax credits for adoption are expanded and rules are standardized and simplified across the country.

Think about what you're saying.

...in a way most people can live with, is better than seeing it made illegal, which is where I see the country heading.

sex ed is allowed in public schools, not this watered-down mubo jumbo and parents from the religious right screaming to remove it, no mention of it and no condoms. After this policy is begun no later than 5th grade and continued through upper level grades for a minimum of 10 yrs. then we'll discuss restrictions. A teenager was suspended for 10 days in my school district because he was part of a pre-prom fashion show and during his last stint of showing a tux he threw condoms into the crowd and made a statement to remind his peers that disease and pregnancy prevention are much more important on prom night than choosing what to wear and the reastaurant. If he felt a need to do this, it demonstrates that this is being removed from public ed. Abstinence isn't enough.

The Infant and Toddler's Bill of Rights is a good idea, but good luck in getting the rwingers to fund that.

why do you think the first 4 months is acceptable to the 10% who hate abortion?

why do you think we should cater to the 10% who hate abortion?

why four months? (This is the HUGE question for me because I'm a lawyer and unless you have some reason for picking 4 months, no court in the land will uphold your compromise law.)

Here is what you don't get: once something as been identified as a right, you cannot limit that right unless you have a rational compelling reason for doing so. What is your rational compelling reason for telling a woman she cannot have an abortion after 4 months? Why did you pick 4 months?

You can talk compromise all you want but if it ain't going anywhere (it will be stuck down as unconstitutional) it is a stupid exercise.

that the rabid pro-lifers are going to be reasonable and just say, "Okay, that sounds reasonable. Why didn't we think of it first?"

The people that hold on to the belief that abortion is wrong, no matter what, will not join hands with pro-choicers.

The only way to reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions is EDUCATION and we're already having an uphill battle there because in many schools sex education has been limited or prohibited, thanks to the fundamentalists. They think education is going to encourage kids to have sex.

Some of your ideas have some merit but the people who oppose any kind of abortion under any circumstances aren't going to listen.

We're dealing with religiosity here, rabid religiosity, not logic;
we're dealing with ranting, raving lunatics who want to enslave women, put them in their place and keep them subjugated. In their world women are NOT equal to men.

No amount of reason is going to change their minds.

That's putting the cart before the horse. That's the WHOLE problem with the alleged "right to life" movement. A punitive approach does not solve the problem they claim they want to solve. It only makes it worse.

The only way to come to a solution or compromise of sorts on this issue is to divide the labor on what can be done to keep abortions safe, legal and rare. Pro-choice will take responsbility for the first two goals, and alleged "right to lifers" must take responsibility for the third one by making the choice not to abort more rational. You cannot accomplish this through punishing people who choose to abort their pregnancies.

The Pro-life movement had ample opportunity to compromise in the 60's and 70's. They declined. Screw 'em. Why should Pro-choicers limit a woman's right to choose now?

Edit: *wishes I could find that damned Koop quote*

or some problem with the fetus are already done in the first trimester.

I don't want anyone but me, my husband, and my doctor involved if there's a problem in a pregnancy I have.

No laws at all.

I admit that I erred in not considering exceptions for medical necessity.

"Abortion is limited to the first four months, except in cases in which the life or health of the mother is at risk, or in which the fetus has terminal deformities or dies. Abortion is kept safe, legal and confidential."

First, the life and health of the mother are always at risk during pregnancy. So who defines when our health is at risk *enough* for a law?

And why does a fetus have to have *terminal* deformities or die? What if I am not in a position to raise a child with significant non-terminal deformities? Why can't my husband and I make the call about what is enough to require an abortion?

...I honestly think that if you insist on having no restrictions at all, we'll end up with a total ban. The idea here is to defuse this as an issue by coming up with a common-sense compromise most people can live with. Obviously, this is a tough issue.

I can guarantee that if I posted this on a conservative message board, I'd get responses saying "How can you compromise on the murder of unborn children?!"

Passions are high on both sides. I am very sympathetic to your position, however.

There are a host of "should's and shouldn't" (and evils) in this world ... but unleashing the brute force of government is very often more of a 'problem' than a 'solution.'

A fetus is a 'citizen' of a foreign land: a woman's uterus. Just as we might profoundly disagree with the sovereign authority of any foreign land, it's almost always more important that sovereignty be respected than to extend the 'might makes right' power of our Superpower government in violation of the sovereignty.

There are two wisely-defined boundaries of government power: national boundaries and personal boundaries. Of the two, the latter is the most important today. It is our individual human rights that are the sole source of legitimacy for any government power. Our government loses some degree of its legitimacy with every violation of such human rights. Whether it be in illicitly presuming that citizens have some greater innate human rights than non-citizens or that personal privacy is violable under an increasing number of circumstances (drugs, abortions, etc.), government takes one more step toward authoritarian illegitimacy with every violation, no matter how temporally rationalized.

More succinctly stated, when government proclaims jurisdiction over a woman's womb, it gains the power not only to prohibit an abortion, but the power to require an abortion. Once gained, government power is only surrendered when massive amounts of blood are shed. The costs are too high.

...let's surgically remove the testicles of any man who plans to have sex with a woman, and only reattach them when they are ready to have children. If surgeory is too expensive, we could do it chemically just as easily.

Regardless of where you stand on the abortion issue, the only thing that is fair to all American citizens is to allow it to be legal and optional.

and expose them as hypocrites.

They would never go for legislation that guaranteed young children food, shelter, medical care and early education.

I think you have an interesting proposal, though.

If they opposed legislation that guaranteed young children food, shelter, medical care and early education, then how could they call themselves "pro family"?.

And why is some guy in Detroit worried about MY reproductive choices?
I am SOOOO HAPPY the only place I encounter these RIDICULOUS conversations is on DU. Gives me a CHOICE! :evilgrin:

Please read TahitiNut's post again for a perspective that seems to have flown over unnoticed.

Polite, diplomatic version:

If you can't trust me with a decision, how can you trust me with a child?

Straight talk (This is a GENERIC response, Detroitguy, in NO WAY personally directed at you, as I accept you are sincere in your efforts to "draw a line" somewhere in order to satisfy sensibilities):

Get your NASSY virus-laden, booger-infested NOSE OUTTA MY DAMN CROTCH! What happens down there, stinkin' to high heaven or fresh as a spring breeze, is MY BODY, MY BIDNESS, MY PRIVATE SPACE and I will talk to those I CHOOSE TO about it and you need to get your OWN life.


Your society is CRUMBLING; your spiritual, economic health is in the TOILET, infrastructure disintegrating, the ENTIRE ROTW be looking on, scratching their heads wondering :freak: :wtf: :freak: done happened to da Amis, dey be going COUNTER to EVERYTHING we admired about them,
you export only LIES, DESTRUCTION, DEATH... You complain ohne Ende about Muslim culture and the "HOT QUESTION" of the day ist about controlling women. My (dated language) question is...

How you gonna show??? :shrug:

Because if you're not, I'm not.

Living in any society involves compromises of absolute freedom.

Which of YOUR rights do you want to compromise on? Why do we have to curtail someone's rights to win elections? If men could have abortions, this wouldn't even be a consideration.

The law already establishes that children must be provided food, shelter and needed medical care. Failing to provide those things gets the child protection people to your doorstep.

I have no patience for those willing to compromise my rights. The viability standardd *is* a reasonable comromise. Most americans are pro-sioce, so why should we have to give away more? The anti-choice camp won't compromise anyhow, they want abortion banned, then they'll come after birth control. It isn't about abortion, they hate empowered women and fear sex.

The first trimester standard is much too early, I know several women who didn't discover thier pregnacy until that point or later, in one case not until she was six months pregnant.

to presume that the Fed Gov't needs to inform them of their options. I don't really have a problem with the first trimester thing but there would have to be an exception for those whose health would be jeopardized in 2nd and 3rd trimesters.

I addressed some of that:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3250458&mesg_id=3250757&page=

Since the rights granted women by Roe vs. Wade have been compromised by many states already....

1) Give us a compromise on the reproductive rights of MEN.

2) Get back to us.

let's compromise instead of being piggish about holding on to all 10 issues in the "bill of rights" we can cut that down to 5. :eyes::eyes::eyes:

Authoritarian men, corrupt governments and hypocritical religious fundamentalist creeps have no business telling me what to do with my body.

NOBODY has the right to take control over my uterus. What I do with my body is between me and my doctor. PERIOD.

Keeping abortion safe, legal and confidential is a given. But neither you nor anybody else is going to control WHEN I have that abortion. I would not have an abortion at four or five months UNLESS abortion was the only chance I had to live so I could take care of the children I already have, OR the fetus was stillborn or had some serious anomaly that would prevent the child from surviving more than a few weeks.

We already have laws regulating when a woman can have an ELECTIVE abortion. Late term abortions ARE NOT DONE BECAUSE A WOMAN JUST DECIDES SHE REALLY DOESN'T WANT TO HAVE THE BABY.

THEY ARE ONLY DONE IN EXTREME CASES.

Please forgive the caps but this issue just makes me crazy. Just leave this very personal, heartbreaking decision between a woman and her doctor!!!

now you're making the cutoff point a month earlier than you did in your last thread? Why do you keep making it even more restrictive each go round?

I'm kind of curious as to what your motivations are here, if they're anything other than drawing flames.

I changed my mind LATER and suggested 4 months rather than first trimester. Want to argue for a later cut-off? I am all ears. But I will not be responsding to this thread anymore.

...you've proposed. However, and I'm rehashing here, what exceptions would you allow/disallow if "things" happen during the 2nd or 3rd trimester?