Open Thread: Late-Term Abortion Bill Scuttled
“Open thread” is the cop-out term used by a blogger who has to go to work and has insufficient time to form an informed opinion on a topic. Newspapers and other lefty outfits across the country are reporting this story in this manner:
Abortion bill dropped amid concerns of female GOP lawmakers
House Republican leaders abruptly dropped plans late Wednesday to vote on an anti-abortion bill amid a revolt by female GOP lawmakers concerned that the legislation’s restrictive language would once again spoil the party’s chances of broadening its appeal to women and younger voters.
Voices on the right are making the case that the bill is no different from another one these women supported last year, and that the pulling of the bill reveals the worst about GOP incompetence and lack of spine.
The reason I feel uninformed is because when I read about a provision that requires women claiming rape (as a justification for their late term abortion) to report the crime to authorities, my first reaction is: my, that sounds like a recipe for a lot of fake rape charges. (Also, if the claim is legitimate, the provision creates a built-in defense for rapists in cases where the woman waits to have an abortion.)
Finally, I’m not generally thrilled with federal legislation in an area like this that should be reserved to the states.
So on the one hand, I hate late-term abortions with a passion. And I think Roe v. Wade and its progeny are a constitutional abomination. On the other, I have concerns about federalism and about creating incentives to fabricate rape claims.
Lacking sufficient time to weigh these factors and reach a cogent opinion, I am punting this to the collective wisdom of the readership, while I go off to work. Therefore:
OPEN THREAD!!!!
Why would it be a problem for GOP congresswomen? If it passed both Houses, it would still get vetoed.
The Dana trying for the first comment (f6a568) — 1/22/2015 @ 7:54 amWhat’s the alternative? You just have to tell the receptionist at the clinic ‘I was raped’? I know that’s enough for Rolling Stone but come on…
Georganne (e37667) — 1/22/2015 @ 7:56 amActually, for the GOP congresswomen, the greatest danger to them is that this may set them up for primary challenges. Thanks to our current living patterns, both Republican and Democratic congressmen are very safe in their seats.
The real goal for Republicans has to be making the American people wealthier, because we all know that the more successful people are, the more likely it is that they will vote Republican.
The politician Dana (f6a568) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:02 amI don’t get it. The bill’s restrictions only come in after 20 weeks, which is quite enough time for a woman to realize she is pregnant. Presumably she also knows she was raped. Is there some reason that she cannot know that the rape (as opposed to other consensual sex) caused the pregnancy intil after that time?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:03 amOne real concern for the GOP congresswomen is that it is not only the most successful people who vote for Republicans, but that the more intelligent people are, the more probable it is they will vote Republican. And that means that the GOP base is more attentive to what our congresscritters do, and better able to see through the bovine feces.
The very intelligent Dana (f6a568) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:06 amGood luck with that!
carlitos (c24ed5) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:06 amAnother victory for the liberals’ War on Women. This time it succeeded because some Republican women have Stockholm Syndrome.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:09 amon the one hand the Rs did not run on this so this really isn’t justifiably a priority
on the other hand it would give the Republican Party stamp of approval on abortions under 20 weeks, which is refreshing new ground for our political discourse to explore
so however this goes we’re all good
happyfeet (a037ad) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:12 amIt’s not “lack of spine”: it’s a bad bill.
Aside from the impolitic nature of pushing this highly polarizing kind of legislation when other issues, issues that can be won, and win again, the bill itself was all kinds of wrong.
I know the high purpose of people who support restrictions on induced abortion as a form of medical management, and who naturally are opposed to women choosing an induced abortion a method of avoiding parenthood. You value life. But you just don’t seem to understand how wrong and counterproductive this bill is. The interference in a woman’s very personal medical situation is dangerous and burdensome to her. She isn’t a bottle. She has a right to mitigate her risk to preserve her health. It i. gnores a woman’s natural desire to sustain and give life and preference to do so. And the pregnancies affected by this legislation are the complicated pregnancies; where something is gone wrong – genetic anomalies, malformation, placental/chord defects, strictures. For many of these pregnancies, there is higher risk of intrauterine demise, which sometimes has serious and life theatening complications. Every woman has the right ruin real time, on the ground in her own particular circumstances, to calculate whether the risks of continuing a pregnancy are worth the outcome. This bill presses women into service as human life support machines, who must sacrifice their physical persons for the benefit of another. You couldn’t legally force anyone to do that for a human being outside of her body. This bill would also have the paradoxical effect of encouraging women to end a pregnancy early at the first sign of difficulty – because she will have no agency no matter how serious the problems are, later.
SarahW (267b14) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:22 amTiming matters. Any bill that has the word “rape” in it prominently and as a trigger, in the middle of this fall and winter of manufactured rape activism, smacks of very poor timing. The bill as written will just get media all focused on rape and roe v wade —and not on the real subject and horror of late term abortion of survivable babies, which is the cause we need to emphasize and educate about. I hope a bill addressing late term abortion can be re-crafted, reworded and replayed in the not too distant future, even though Obama will veto anything that’s passed.
elissa (66ef3e) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:26 amout of all the problems we face, why am i not surprised that the GOPe is wasting all its political capital on side issues like abortion?
Newt did the same thing back in the 90’s…
teh party of St00pid is stupid.
unexpectedly!
redc1c4 (6d1848) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:28 amRed,
I think you will find that Newt did very little of that. It was his successor Hastert, and W, who squandered their power on social issues and pork, as per the Karl Rove playbook.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:33 amoh.
i defer to SarahW with respect to the merits of this bill
happyfeet (a037ad) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:35 amI’ve said before: The GOP should adopt the European position on this: Elective abortions allowed in the first trimester. After that it requires a considered medical judgement, and not just the signature of an abortionist.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:37 amSarahW,
Laws restrict medical options all the time. For instance, I can’t go buy a new liver for a transplant if I need one. Laws also result in unintended consequences. But the point here is to limit abortions after 20 weeks, something most people support because medicine has enabled more and more preterm babies to be viable. That is a good thing that your position undermines in the interest of empowering women at the expense of babies.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:42 amGell-Mann Syndrome, anyone? There’s no reason to believe the WaPo’s spin on anything.
nk (dbc370) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:45 amThere is no way to write this bill without the word rape, because that’s the exception we as a society have identified as justification for abortion.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:45 amit is a bit confusing, where they against the contents of the bill due
seeRpea (1d44c7) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:55 amto policy or politics? it is odd that there was nothing communicated when
this old bill was brought up to the docket. Did they not read it till yesterday?
This bill presses women into service as human life support machines, who must sacrifice their physical persons for the benefit of another. You couldn’t legally force anyone to do that for a human being outside of her body.
Children, the new opressor!
felipe (b5e0f4) — 1/22/2015 @ 9:04 amold bill. new congress. lots of bills don’t make it to a floor vote. ask Hairy Reid about it.
elissa (66ef3e) — 1/22/2015 @ 9:07 amThe very intelligent Dana (f6a568) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:06 am
But the more “educated” people are, the more likely they are to vote Democrat.
By the way last year, the bill maybe had no chance of passing the Senate, so it was a throwaway vote.
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/22/2015 @ 9:19 amSarahW (267b14) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:22 am
The premise here is that any pregnancy is dangerous.
I think this must have been Rabbi Joseph Baer Soloveichik’s basis for allowing abortions in the case of Tay Sachs babies, but I am just guessing. He may not have wanted to reveal what it rested on.
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/22/2015 @ 9:23 amI am going by the little I have heard, so subject to clarification.
My understanding is the point of the bill was to point out at what time the developing child can feel pain,
and point out that we put people in jail for doing to a dog or cat, or even a hamster, what is legal to be done to a developing child able to feel pain.
One would think that should be a pretty obvious concern.
One problem has long been that people like to put exceptions in for the “health of the mother”, which is generally interpreted very broadly, such as being upset there would be another newborn and then toddler in the house to take care of.
So one ends up with a nonsensical maze of legalspeak intended to cover every situation with levels of medical and moral complexity.
And the cases of medical and moral complexity are quite rare in comparison with the total number done.
In one way the popularity of abortion for convenience is an indefensible mark of wickedness on our society and should be pointed out for the moral outrage that it is, and ignore the legal stuff as a distraction to the main point;
but since we live in a society where we the people are supposed to take responsibility for the governing of the land,
ignoring the legal issue is untenable as well.
I have much less issue with the individual that chooses to have an abortion than I do with all of those enabling it to be such an easy choice. AFAIK, some of the original women’s rights advocates would have thought abortion, perhaps even trivially used birth control, as a great method to decrease the dignity of women and make them even more as “sex objects”, by removing the consequences of being treated as such.
At the altar of individual choice the whole culture, made up of millions of individuals, is rotted.
There are some politicians who feel strongly against abortion who would likely not make it a major issue, in part knowing that as president what their views are will make little difference to what they could do differently as a president anyway.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/22/2015 @ 9:26 amBut it will get made an issue by those opposing them,
and then the politician and the American people will be given Pilate’s choice.
Hopefully, though, any such politician worth being a candidate will be able to voice a reasoned and strong response that puts his/her accusers on edge.
The Dems and The One win again.
When the GOP goes to pocketbook/waller issues-the economy, jobs, the effects of mass illegal immigration-they win every time.You could here attack funding for abortion generally and PP specifically. We’ve had over 50 years since Roe.Practically nothing has changed. People don’t like abortion, but they aren’t goint to outlaw it. If it were a football game, it would be as if the ball never moved off the 50 no matter who was on offense. We are wasting a lot of time and effort for something nobody can deliver. And may be never should on a federal level.
If abortion is available under a deeply-held right of privacy found in an emanation or a penumbra, pay for such a right yourself. Perhaps the GOP could FINALLY explain to their base that limited coservative governance means respecting the Constitution even if you strongly disagree, and that such disagreements are best hashed out in the states.Ala, the GOP doesn’t really care, like, understand nor give a ___ about being truly conservative.
When the GOP goes to the social issues as here, it loses. Abortion is not getting outlawed. Any limits will be addressed within state law, which is really how it should be.And you give the MFM and the Dems the shovel to beat the GOP off the head with as a “war on women”. It’s not really true or fair, but it’s a reality.
This is like watching Will E. Coyote take an anvil off the head from the Road Runner again.
Bugg (3a2abd) — 1/22/2015 @ 9:57 amI know it seems like I’m pro-life because I often argue that point of view, but I was actually pro-choice for years. It’s only since I had children that my position has changed. Now I view myself as in the middle, which is where I think many people are on this issue.
What bothers me about this story is that the GOP women in Congress squashed it. How much more can they do to make the Democrats’ “War on Women” claim look like a fact? If these women members were objecting to this bill, it’s absurd that the leadership let this debacle happen in public. And if the women members didn’t make their objections heard in advance, then shame on them for handling this so poorly.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/22/2015 @ 10:05 amFor anyone thinking this issue doesn’t matter (or at least doesn’t matter right now due to other issues on the agenda), please check out Kevin Williamson’s latest over at National Review Online….
Georganne (e37667) — 1/22/2015 @ 10:12 amI don’t know that this debacle “happened” in public per se. It seems to me that agenda media on both the left and right made it public. Many/most bills involve political calculations, negotiations and compromises. Many/most bills never make it to the floor for a vote at all. And with rare exceptions those bills usually don’t make headlines and cause blog furor.
elissa (66ef3e) — 1/22/2015 @ 10:17 am“Furor?” “Furor?” Here’s how I feel about the “Furor!”
When the Furor says “you are a big disgrace!”
I heil! Pffft! heil! Pfft!
Right in the Furor’s face!
felipe (b5e0f4) — 1/22/2015 @ 10:21 amConcerning the wisdom of politics about abortion from one of P’s links:
The legislation has been passed by the House in the previous Congress and is extremely popular in national polling. “One of the clearest messages from Gallup trends,” the polling firm reported, “is that Americans oppose late-term abortion.” A Washington Post/ABC survey showed that 64 percent of Americans favor limiting abortion at 20 weeks of pregnancy or earlier. When just women were asked, the figure jumped to 71 percent. Such measures are popular among independents and Americans of various income levels.
There is some argument about what lobbying group got to who and why in order to undermine the effort, and back and forth on whether the bill was changed or not as an excuse for one person to change her mind.
As said above, read everything with the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Syndrome in mind,
and maybe follow the money also.
Nothing is verifiable, absolutely nothing, without passing it by our host’s cross-exam, a water boarding threat by Jack Bauer, and a stare down by Chuck Norris asking, “Do you want to tell me again what you want me to believe, or the truth this time?”
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/22/2015 @ 10:22 amActually, that was just a bargaining ploy, I’ll settle for any one of the three of a person’s choosing.
There are a number of factors to weight in evaluating this or any other measure on its merits. The key issue with the abortion bill, as I see it, has nothing to do with the underlying merits of the bill. The issue is whether Republicans and, most specifically Rene Ellmers, acted duplicitously. I’m sick and tired of Republican who promise one thing and then, stealthfully, do another. It is one thing to change your mind; it is quite another to openly claim one position while secretly working to oppose that position.
This is no new problem. It is a central theme in Capra’s “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”
Although I am troubled by the current state of politics, there are many reasons for optimism. Before the rise of the new media, pols like Ellmers could pull off this sort of disreputable behavior with little fear of being unmasked, especially not in real time. All that has changed. Erick Erickson and other conservative pundits began making hay about her behavior on talk radio and on the internet as soon as they caught wind of it. On Sunday, I fully expect Rene Ellmers’ behavior to make the network political talk shows.
If there is any way to reign in rogue behavior like this, it is through public shaming. It is a tool that has worked very effectively for liberals, so why not for conservatives?
Have a nice day at work and take some more bad guys off the street while you’re at it.
ThOR (a52560) — 1/22/2015 @ 10:23 amGell-Mann Syndrome
What’s that? CalTech grads can’t teach at CalTech until they win a Nobel?
Kevin M (56aae1) — 1/22/2015 @ 10:40 amnamed such by Michael Crichton, who thought he’d name it after Gell-Mann because “he was more famous than I was”, though they independently had made the observation:
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/22/2015 @ 10:49 amhttp://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/08/media-credibility-and-the-murray-gell-mann-amnesia-effect
There is no way to write this bill without the word rape, because that’s the exception we as a society have identified as justification for abortion.
I’m pretty sure that the majority have a wider view of it.
Kevin M (56aae1) — 1/22/2015 @ 11:10 amstolen from Twitter
redc1c4 (589173) — 1/22/2015 @ 11:16 amThe esteemed Mr Finkelman wrote:
The less educated you are, the more likely it is you will vote for Democrats; emocrats carry significant majorities of people who did not finish high school. If you finished high school, you are just barely likely to vote Republican; if you have a baccalaureate degree, you are more likely to vote Republican.
Now, if you have done post-graduate work, you are more likely to vote Democratic, but that’s an statistic which bears explanation: the largest holder of graduate degrees are teachers — 27% of all Master’s degrees are awarded in education — and teachers and their unions are heavily Democratic. Being government employees, for the most part, this is hardly unexpected.
This is the special interest group which skews the statistic: almost every public school system requires teachers to either have their Masters or be working on it, and that pushes that special interest group into weighing down the post-graduate statistic.
The Dana who looks at numbers (f6a568) — 1/22/2015 @ 11:46 am28. felipe (b5e0f4) — 1/22/2015 @ 10:21 am
I see that I’m not the only one who read War and Remembrance.
The literate Dana (f6a568) — 1/22/2015 @ 11:52 am35. But also college professors, who definitely skew Democrat, and what about lawyers?
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/22/2015 @ 12:06 pmThank you for that side note on dem voters who have masters in education
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/22/2015 @ 12:16 pmI bet more MD’s are Dem as well, assuming the notion that Libs are nicer and want people to be well is true, assumed and unexamined
My wife will never vote Republican again because they scuttled that bill. She’ll look for any other candidate who represents her view whether or not they have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. I am not far behind her. Our rep has done the impossible and made his predecessor, Jean Schmidt, look good.
quasimodo (1e0b87) — 1/22/2015 @ 12:50 pmSo what we see is that the “concerns” of the lady Repubs mean more than the “concerns” of the lady fetuses. After all, the lady fetuses don’t vote. And never will.
Patricia (5fc097) — 1/22/2015 @ 12:55 pmPeople just don’t understand how much peace of mind it would bring to so many Republican voters if they’d just stop having so gosh darn many abortions.
They don’t even check first they just do it.
happyfeet (a037ad) — 1/22/2015 @ 12:59 pmLike Ace said, Elmers needs to be one of the 10 we defeat in 2016. She lied to her constituents face.
njrob (8ae1ea) — 1/22/2015 @ 1:16 pmTo paraphrase, how dare we be like those conservative neanderthals in all of Europe when we can instead be much more progressive like those bastions of freedom in North Korea and China. That about sum it up?
5 months isn’t enough time for you to murder a child?
njrob (8ae1ea) — 1/22/2015 @ 1:19 pmThis is exactly the situation why I would like the inconceivable demand for an up and down confidence vote 6 months into office. This lady either would not have made this fuss, or she would be out in 6 months,
and that is what needs to happen a few times.
Somebody should have a sign with a countdown, how many days to the Repub primary for her seat in 2016, and how many days until the end of filing papers to run.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/22/2015 @ 1:34 pmCount it down,
every day
and remind her.
And every public appearance she makes, the updated sign.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/22/2015 @ 1:35 pmPatricia (5fc097) — 1/22/2015 @ 12:55 pm
The thing is, according to one of the links, as Quasimodo’s wife says, the significant majority of women are against late terms abortions.
I do not know what was in the details that made it objectionable, but the general concept to protect preborn women who have made it half-way to delivery is a political winner.
It’s like Hollywood making R-rated movies with sex and violence and claiming that is what people want to see*,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/22/2015 @ 1:49 pmwhen those are not the big money earners.
*American Sniper an exception
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/22/2015 @ 1:34 pm
Well, as is often the case, you are right, doc. It is just a matter of crafting the no-confidence vote into a law – such that it will not be something that I would not like my enemy to have in their hands. I dread going down that path.
felipe (56556d) — 1/22/2015 @ 2:05 pmBut I can see pols sitting on their hands for the “waiting period” to run out and then stabbing their electorate in the back.
felipe (56556d) — 1/22/2015 @ 2:10 pm“I’ll have more flexibility after the no-con period.” will be the new phrase.
Are there laws requiring abortion providers to report cases involving incest or rape?
Guessing there are, I’d guess Planned Parenthood and others would just have a case worker fill in the rape bubble on the form and have the woman check the box on the form saying she was raped about 20 weeks ago by an unknown person at a location she does not remember due to the trauma.
Sorta like the rigorous requirements one has to go through to get a Medical Marijuana Card in Boulder.
However, some women sociopaths would probably blame by name some poor guy who once pissed them off, and since they are sociopaths, not give a rats ass about the damage to some dupe… the women will have gotten what they wanted
steveg (794291) — 1/22/2015 @ 2:23 pmYou are right, MD. If we can figure that out, why can’t they?
I hate to think about it, but possibly they were voting this way on orders from the caucus? I can’t fathom it otherwise.
Patricia (5fc097) — 1/22/2015 @ 3:40 pmThey passed a bill.
The bill apparently had the usual exceptions for rape, incest or health/life of the mother.
Birth defects, as a indisputable reason for abortion, went out of style before Roe v Wade (Planned Parenthood never uses it in its polls) and rape went into style I guess sometimes in the 1970s.
Wrong father was never in style, but gave rise to incest, or maybe it was a spinoff from birth defects.
The original bill would have limited the incest exception to where the woman was under 18 (or became pregnant before age 18?) and the rape exception to when the rape was reported to police.
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/22/2015 @ 3:57 pmWouldn’t the easiest thing to do is just to ban all grants/contracts to PP?
askeptic (efcf22) — 1/22/2015 @ 4:08 pmTelling PP that they can’t use Fed funds to provide abortions is nonsense since, as we all know, money is fungible. So, just stop giving them money and let the Sangerists leech off of someone else.
Since this is an open thread…
One thing Boehner should do right away is schedule votes on some of Obama’s proposals. First up should be the plan to tax family’s tax-free 529 college savings accounts. Love to see if it gets even a vote.
Kevin M (56aae1) — 1/22/2015 @ 4:41 pmKevin M – that is a great idea.
JD (c7fce1) — 1/22/2015 @ 4:49 pmKevin M (56aae1) — 1/22/2015 @ 4:41 pm
They’ll vote no. The proposal is not just for a tax – it’s for a tax combined with some spending – the tax is to “pay for” things – actually overpay, since Obama is against revenue neutral tax reform.
But if they wanted to embarass Democrats they could propose addirional exceptions besides rape and incease to the post-20 week abortion ban. There are some you could think of that they’d be embarassed to vote either way. Of course, they’d be destroying their own bill.
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/22/2015 @ 5:06 pmWhite House says it does not need no steenkin senate.
Jim Geraughty says “holy smokes” and reminds of Article II, sec. 2 clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution which is available to view just down the Street in the National Archives.
elissa (b90fea) — 1/22/2015 @ 5:35 pmhttp://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/396931/obama-administration-we-dont-need-congress-approve-iran-treaty-jim-geraghty
What’s both intriguing and repulsive to me are the perhaps growing numbers of people who get all teary eyed over Fido or Kitty, or the performing dolphins at Sea World, yet shrug their shoulders not just towards abortion on demand, but on under-aged, single, dependent girls who are able to get an abortion without parental consent.
Of course, what really irritates me to no end about all of this is the belief by many people that such a mindset is draped with compassion, kindness, humaneness and sophistication. A side note: Keep in mind that no less a humanitarian and saint than Adolph Hitler was both a vegan and fan of animal rights.
Mark (c160ec) — 1/22/2015 @ 6:52 pmThe text of the bill. It’s not that long.
The relevant part is under SEC. 3.
There’s exceptions for “rape, or … incest against a minor” if the offense was previously reported to an agency capable of taking action, and also for cases in which the woman has a life-threatening physical illness/disorder/condition.
Even in those cases, the physician must use the method which best provides for the survival of the unborn child, unless doing so “would pose a greater risk” of the woman’s death or “substantial … impairment of a major bodily function”.
Ibidem (65d416) — 1/22/2015 @ 7:16 pmTotally agree, Mark. The animal mania has become a little creepy.
patricia (5fc097) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:03 pmhttp://therightscoop.com/scott-walker-on-foreign-policy-we-must-take-the-fight-to-them-before-the-fight-comes-to-us/
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/22/2015 @ 8:24 pmMark@57 Patricia@59
kishnevi (a5d1b9) — 1/22/2015 @ 9:12 pmNo surprise. PETA seems to think that the rights of animals are superior to those of humans.
This National Journal article Says GOP leadership was told there were problems with the bill and that some members couldn’t support it, but ignored the warnings.
So here is one of the new GOP Congress’s first legislative initiatives that they’ve had weeks to prepare for, and it’s a dismal failure. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? If this is true, Obama and Boehner are well matched when it comes to leadership skills, and apparently the country’s in the worst hands at every level. I hope this is not true, and there’s more to this story. I fear it is. Our leaders are lazy and used to making excuses instead of buckling down and getting things done.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2015 @ 6:32 amKevin M,
I disagree. The last thing Congress should do is let Obama set the agenda by voting on his proposals, no matter how satisfying you may find it to see Obama’s ideas voted down. The power is in setting the agenda and Republicans should use that power to change the debate to conservative ideas.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2015 @ 6:36 amno, here is the problem, the reps who wouldn’t have got there, without the republican wave, now have a tantrum,
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/23/2015 @ 6:40 amI suspect this bill was Boehner’s fig leaf to Southern conservatives, and women and Northeastern moderates scuttled it. I expect to see more divisions in the GOP in the coming months. Boehner is reaping the whirlwind.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2015 @ 6:44 amLeadership could stop those tantrums but they don’t so either they’re lazy, complicit or incompetent. Or some combination of that.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2015 @ 6:45 amHad that bill been brought to the house floor and gone down, all those who want something to be changed with respect to late term abortion (which includes most of us here) would be in far, far worse shape than not having the bill voted on at all. History records and remembers the bills that went down or were won –not the ones that did not make it to the floor yet. Assuming we are being told the truth in the media about which R congresspersons or which gender of R congresspersons did not like this bill as written and why (a big assumption there, I might add) then House leader Boehner and the whips had no choice. They count votes before a bill you want is brought and that is their job. You all saw the headlines yesterday. Imagine what the trumpeting headlines would have said had the bill actually been brought and publicly failed. Clearly, there is more work to do.
Republicans don’t always think or act in lockstep. I like that. I prefer that. Unlike most Dems, they think for themselves, don’t like to be told how they must vote, and most try to represent their specific districts as best they can. It fascinates me that second term Ellmers has been particularly singled out for the brunt of wrath by the Right. If people here don’t understand that Democrats are out there fomenting their hideous War on Women thing and featuring how Renee Ellmers is being villified by many in her own party I am sorry, but you are blind.
elissa (950a82) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:33 amWhy should we sacrifice votes and electoral victories on the altar of the unborn. I mean, the unborn are not even Americans!
Michael Ejercito (45f52b) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:44 amIt seems the dissenters were reading from the planned parenthood crib sheet, or Gosnell girl’s speeches, as with the mythical skydragon, or death panels, they are always responding to shadows on the cave wall
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:44 amtell me how we will have confidence in them, from now on.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/22/why-everyone-should-be-terrified-by-the-gops-abortion-bill-debacle/
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:55 amnarciso’s Federalist link also says the Republican leaders are incompetent and spineless. No wonder Obama is looking forward to the last two years.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:26 amRepublicans should think for themselves but leadership has to be competent enough to deal with disagreements before things go public, especially when it comes to big issues and marquee legislation.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:29 amYou want conservatives to think for themselves but you don’t want them to criticize Ellmers because it makes Republicans look bad? Too bad that rule doesn’t apply to Ellmers.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:33 amAnd too bad the leadership didn’t think of how bad this would look until the last minute. It doesn’t inspire confidence in their political abilities.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:39 amBy the way, I don’t care about Ellmers — that’s up to her constituents — but I do care about the GOP leadership.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:41 amI’m sorry those are the takeaways you got from my comment @67 where I was trying to focus on practical politics which I believe is too often overlooked in the midst of whatever passion of the day is being discussed–passionately. I will take some of the blame by accepting that I did not communicate sufficiently clearly. But not all.
elissa (950a82) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:47 amthe practical politics is the Sanger lobby always wins, and real public health, ala Gosnell, suffers,
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/23/2015 @ 9:56 amNo narciso, it’s not. You are talking about policy. Practical politics is writing bills about policy that can muster enough votes to get passed.
elissa (950a82) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:02 amI had a thought. This abortion bill is actually an indication of a bigger problem. Republican proposals have not been thought through, or their are none. When the possibility of a bill passing become serious, then people take a look at it.
It looks to me that it is very hard to carve out good exceptions to prohibitions on abortion. Maybe better would be to forbid any person from charging, either a person, or an insurance company, or a government health program, for an abortion beyond 20 weeks, or charging more than, say, $20. Ad at the same forbidding making anything else a condition for doing it. Like signing up for something or agreeing to some other procedure.
If it truly necessary, the doctors will do it. If it part of long term care it will be done.
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:14 am== you don’t want them to criticize Ellmers because it makes Republicans look bad?==
Whether you mean to or not, this is the kind of thing you are defending DRJ.
http://www.redstate.com/2015/01/23/renee-ellmers-worthy-life/
elissa (950a82) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:16 amRepublicans don’t always think or act in lockstep. I like that. I prefer that. So it’s fine with me for the folks at RedState have their say, and I’m not going to effectively censor them by telling them its not helpful for them to have their say. It’s also fine for Ellmers to have her say. What’s not fine is for the leadership to be so stupid and incompetent that they let this happen in the first month. I hope they learn from this, but I don’t see them learning enough to hold the caucus together when it comes to really contentious issues.
Frankly, what the GOP needs is more lawyers in leadership. I normally don’t feel this way about lawyers because they sometimes cause divisions, but the current leaders are not handling the divided caucus well. Good lawyers typically know ignoring problems isn’t the best way to identify and deal with them.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2015 @ 10:31 amWhat I read, elissa, was that Elmers had previously supported the bill,
in her campaign all of a few months ago promised she would support the bill
then all of a sudden changed her vote
and the reason she gave was that it had been changed from the version she supported
but other people say that is not true, that the bill she is balking on now is the same one she supported before,
and that she is making stuff up
(and there was something about the “insurance lobby” not liking the bill and getting to her)
so I don’t know,
which is why I want Frey, Bauer, or Norris to have a crack at her and get to the truth
other than that, I said my piece at #23 and #29
I just wished they would keep their mouths shut, all of them, until they mean something they’re going to say.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:10 amelissa,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:12 amdo you really want to stand by what you said on #80,
or was that a bit in the heat of the moment?
don’t walk away Renee stay here por favor and do your votings for freedom!
here is a bowl of almonds covered in sumptuous dark chocolate
we had some Pearl Light for you but then they stopped making it
watch whatever you want on the teevee
happyfeet (a037ad) — 1/23/2015 @ 11:26 amI really don’t know what you’re talking about with respect to “standing by 80”, and “heat of the moment”, MDinPhilly. Redstate obviously thinks that type of despicable “discourse” is fine and DRJ seems to say @81 that it’s pretty much OK with her. I don’t think it’s OK, but I understand of course it’s their internet space for Redstate to say whatever they want. So, do you think it’s productive, and OK, Doc?
elissa (eae9cf) — 1/23/2015 @ 12:31 pmelissa, I guess I read DRJ’s comment as saying Red State can say what they want, she is not responsible for it,
in other words, I did not see her endorsing any particular comment
It struck me a little bit like the events in Paris, where we said we were against magazine people being killed, even if the magazine people were producing trash or worse
No, I don’t think the comment was helpful and I would not agree with it and if someone asked my opinion I would have told them not to write it.
But not only did I not write it, have no say on that blog, without looking into it further (which I am not going to do) I have little idea whether it was the post of a genuine pro-life conservative or a liberal plant like someone wearing pro-Nazi stuff at a tea party event
if the facts are that the bill really was changed materially from what she said she supported then she can make a case why she voted the way she did
if in fact the bill was not changed significantly and for some reason unclear to us she not only changed her mind and broke a major campaign promise,
but lied to cover it up
IF the latter is true, then the campaign to challenge her in a primary needs to begin yesterday as I described previously.
So, I guess we saw DRJ’s comment as different shades of meaning, and I thought you were backing her into a corner where all she was saying is they have a right to their opinion.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/23/2015 @ 12:59 pmMD in Philly is right, elissa. I’m not endorsing what RedState said because I don’t care what it says. I don’t even have to read what was written to tell you I support RedState’s right to speak, even if I don’t support the content of what was said. Part of free speech is that the more offensive the speech, the more important it is that it be protected. (See, for example, Skokie and Westboro.)
Do you still believe “Republicans don’t always think or act in lockstep. I like that. I prefer that.” as you stated in your comment 67? Isn’t it more accurate to say you like it when Republicans disagree but only in specific ways?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2015 @ 5:37 pmI would have used more diplomatic language, but the point still stands, she followed the Dem template as resolutely as Scalise’s staffer, who confirmed an event her boss didn’t even attend,
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/23/2015 @ 5:54 pmin light of events in Durham and Charlottesville, her complaint seems tin eared,
http://theothermccain.com/2015/01/23/renee-ellmers-incoherent-logic/
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/23/2015 @ 6:31 pmSome men spend a lifetime in an attempt to comprehend the complexities of women. Others pre-occupy themselves with somewhat simpler tasks, such as understanding the theory of relativity. — Albert Einstein
nk (dbc370) — 1/23/2015 @ 6:41 pmOh come on. Nobody’s talking about censorship here or needing to protect Redstate’s free speech or their “right to speak” and you know it. That article is not about “disagreeing”. It was a vile personal attack, the author as much as admitted it, and it was on a premier right leaning website (not some fringe outfit like Westboro). That sort of bilge doesn’t help our cause, it hurts it, because it looks unhinged. No, you didn’t endorse it, DRJ, but you didn’t condemn its language or at least question it either, which surprises me. Thankfully MD and Narciso both apparently saw and noted that the exact same fair point of disagreement and disappointment could have been made in other, better, more persuasive ways to move the ball forward.
elissa (02d288) — 1/23/2015 @ 6:43 pmreductionism sometimes leads to a blind alley, like here:
http://twitchy.com/2015/01/23/nyt-editorial-writer-healthy-majority-of-whites-support-cops-killing-blacks/
although they have never seen the light, in the first place,
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/23/2015 @ 6:49 pmWell, as the conversation went on I decided to look at your link, elissa.
I don’t know if you read the rest of the article, you didn’t quote from it.
Seems as if the person has some cred to be a bit incensed over it.
yes it was impolite
but somewhere along the way it needs to be pointed out
that dismembering a living preborn human being that can feel pain
ought to considered a horrendous thing, not a protected right.
I do think there are things “we” need to stop being on the defensive on. Being on the defensive means we have already conceded the legitimacy of the other point.
None of us are Jesus, but He sometimes made his point not by being defensive and trying to answer a critic,
but by pointing out the absurdity of what he was being asked
“we” need to do more of that
per narciso’s link
the allowance for an unreported rape is like an exception for the “health” of the mother,
it essentially destroys the law,
anyone can say she was raped, any doctor can sign off that his (adult) patient had been raped
so it is an exception one can fly a squadron of 747’s through
I understand (to the degree that I can), that someone who had been raped may not want to report it and go through an investigation
but it was like I said above, all of the fine legal points, important as they may be, distract from the justifying of treating an unborn human in a way that would put a person in jail if it was a cat or dog
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:18 pmThere may be an emergency room in America that will not give a woman a morning-after pill, antibiotics and an anti-HIV preventative cocktail, with only medically called for questions asked, but you won’t find it in Chicago. Any possibility that it will be found in other places?
nk (dbc370) — 1/23/2015 @ 7:40 pm==but somewhere along the way it needs to be pointed out that dismembering a living preborn human being that can feel pain ought to considered a horrendous thing, not a protected right.==
MDinPhilly this will be my last post of the evening. I do not think there is a single person who habituates Patterico’s site who doesn’t aleady know, and agree with your statement which I just copied again. So it is “the others” on both sides of the aisle who still have to be reached and appropriately chastised/educated/motivated. If there is away to do it, I think Kevin Williamson showed how to do it at the following link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/396944/about-20-week-abortion-bill-kevin-d-williamson
Compare and contrast Kevin’s poignant and well written article- one also coming with “cred”- with the one from Redstate. Now which one do you think is more likely to reach and touch the people who need to be reached?
elissa (02d288) — 1/23/2015 @ 8:07 pmI’m not going to read the things you condemn as unhinged because it doesn’t matter what they say, but it is a form of censorship to argue they shouldn’t write extreme things. Everyday people and even commentators — as opposed to politicians — can say and write what they want about politics. Their opinions reflects on them, not us or our cause, unless we let them … and you only have to read liberal websites to realize that. (Of course, if they sometimes cross the line into actual threats against a politician, the FBI can investigate but otherwise I’m not worried about what people write.)
What I do worry about is why the GOP leadership can’t whip its caucus prior to moving legislation to the floor of the House. Moderate conservative commentators, including people who usually support Boehner, have expressed similar concerns so I would think you’d be worried, too, instead of focusing on RedState.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2015 @ 6:31 amI’m curious, though. What people “need to be reached?” Do the people who read NRO need to be reached more than the people who read RedState, and what makes you think you know the best way to reach them?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2015 @ 6:36 amI usually stay out of these threads because it’s somewhat inappropriate and off topic of me to share opinions about how Republicans should handle an intra-party dialogue.
That said, I think it’s an interesting question: when is it ok to say to other members of a group (of which you are part), “hey, saying what you’re saying in the way that you’re saying it is *not helpful to our overall goals*, and could you please keep that in mind next time?”
I read DRJ in 96 as saying “never”, or at least “within the context of intra-Republican dialogues, never”.
I’m sympathetic to that; freedom of speech is a core value of mine (a position I’ve taken a fair bit of flak for from liberal friends recently), and so I’m very susceptible to the idea that telling someone “knock it off, your outrageous speech is not helpful to the cause” threatens that value.
And yet – I *also* know that there’s a risk of tarnishment by association, and that loose cannons can bring down entire movements when opponents of those movements look at the loose cannons and either honestly assume the loose cannons are representative or dishonestly portray them as representative for personal gain, and I think it’s entirely reasonable to ask people to take that risk into account.
aphrael (34edde) — 1/24/2015 @ 7:01 amAphrael – I wish both sides had to worry about the media portraying their crazies in such a manner.
JD (202fb3) — 1/24/2015 @ 7:11 amcan’t get more riskier than Mr. Todd Akin I tell you what
my goodness
don’t count that baby in a box guy out yet though
happyfeet (831175) — 1/24/2015 @ 7:16 amTodd Akin should have said what I said in my comment 94. No rape victim needs to end up pregnant in America. It’s a fake issue, a squirrel, a red herring, a chimera, a fraud on the credulous. His mistake was trying to play nicey-nice with the “reasonable people” when outshouting them was called for.
nk (dbc370) — 1/24/2015 @ 7:26 amaphrael,
The problem with focusing on “unacceptable” speech is that a movement’s weakest link becomes the focus for everyone. It’s also the reason conservatives are wrong to try to assert a truce on social issues. Then the Akins and Flukes become the center of the discussion when neither one is representative. I think it’s a better strategy to reject attempts to let fringe, extreme or impolite speech define us.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2015 @ 7:27 amIn other words, neither side should be willing to let the issue be about how everyday people debate. So what if Daily Kos or Red State sometimes offer ideas that offend some? The Democrats never agree to let that define the debate. Why should Republicans?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2015 @ 7:31 amIs Aaron Gardner the new Moe Lane at Red State? I thought Moe was the guy they kept in a cage and fed raw meat.
nk (dbc370) — 1/24/2015 @ 7:33 amwe need rape abstinence programs i think
happyfeet (831175) — 1/24/2015 @ 7:38 amThey call it CCW, colloquially.
nk (dbc370) — 1/24/2015 @ 7:39 amAnd yet – I *also* know that there’s a risk of tarnishment by association
Aphrael, I’ll know for sure you’re walking the walk and not just talking the talk if you feel the exact (repeat: exact) same way about the verbiage coming out of the leftists in the Democrat Party.
Mark (c160ec) — 1/24/2015 @ 7:41 amThe abortion issue is the perfect example of what moderate Republicans are doing wrong. Moderates don’t like some aspects of abortion — like late-term abortions and sex-selection — but otherwise it isn’t their main issue. They would rather call a truce on abortion and really wish it would just go away as an issue, so we can focus on important things like the economy and jobs. The problem with that approach is that most Americans agree with Republicans about late-term abortions and sex selection but they are undecided about rape exception and early abortions.
Instead, by calling a truce on some issues, Republicans lose the arguments that resonate with people and the debate becomes things like the rape exception — we saw that in this very post, didn’t we? — so Republicans lose the support of their social conservative base AND the debate is focused on aspects of abortion where the GOP has the weakest support. That’s very hard to overcome.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2015 @ 7:43 amThanks as always for your input, aphrael, and for reminding @98 that it’s really not simple. I’ll trust people here to individually and quietly be their own judge– if they’ll take the time to read, think about, and guess– whether it was Williamson’s, or Aaron Gardner’s (Redstate) piece that was the one probably being emailed around yesterday and plastered on the Facebook walls of thousands and thousands of liberals, and girls and women of all stripes, and why.
Have a great weekend everybody.
elissa (5daa77) — 1/24/2015 @ 7:51 amso we can focus on important things like the economy and jobs.
Not helped by the fact that just about no Republican/conservative ever mentions (at least in a public setting) that one way to help the economy and nurture the type of synergy that encourages the formation of jobs is for a society to instead of being into c’est-la-vie libertarianism and do-your-own-thang self-entitlement and nihilism (“Single motherhood along with people being able to sue bakeries for not catering to same-sex couples are a beautiful form of free expression and ping my heart!”), it’s better for that society to at least be constantly aware of the implications of the following.
Mark (c160ec) — 1/24/2015 @ 7:59 amSo you’re leaving and aren’t going to respond to my question at 97?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2015 @ 8:02 amOkay. I get it. You have a nice weekend, too.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2015 @ 8:04 amaphrael,
You’ve joined in and I know you enjoy a good debate. Will you answer my 97?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2015 @ 8:06 amFor the umpteenth time, let me remind everyone that I am an Independent, and not unlike Aphreal I try to stay out of these type of discussions. That being said:
Mark (c160ec) — 1/24/2015 @ 7:41 am
While I have not read everything Aphreal has written on this site, I can say that he has been consistent in his thinking and I do not believe he needs to clear his bona fides with anyone here. Either you agree with his position or you don’t.
felipe (56556d) — 1/24/2015 @ 8:13 amSorry, aphrael, I misspelled your handle.
felipe (56556d) — 1/24/2015 @ 8:14 amI’m an Independent now, too, felipe. Join in!
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2015 @ 8:18 amI’ll take a crack at #97, DRJ.
The people that need to be reached (i.e., persuaded) are those that do not believe that a pre-born human is,in fact, a human being . A highly effective way is to turn them from the “idea” to the “reality” by showing, not telling.
Abby Johnson was once a clinic director for PP. Fate had her assist with an ultrasound abortion, the viewing of which caused her to resign later. She is now a pro-life activist. Likewise, a nurse has “switched sides” after assisting on a “live-birth abortion” when she was asked to stand by and wait for an infant to die alone in a closet. Her heart broke hearing the infant’s cries.
Only the most hardened of heart can withstand the truth presented in this way. The question is, “how do we present them this opportunity?”
felipe (56556d) — 1/24/2015 @ 8:41 amGood point. I think seeing ultrasound photos of unborn babies helps, too.
So does this mean you see people that need to be convinced as uninformed and thus in need of more information?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:00 amOr is the goal to appeal more to emotions?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:01 amI ask you, is anyone ever completely informed? I would say incompletely informed – as we all are, and thus in need of more information as well as having some information that was deliberately misinterpreted, and, O.K., lied to (“just a clump of cells,” really?). Since those whose worldview places more emphasis on feelings than justice are more likely to be pro-choice, this method might prove to be a better delivery vehicle of the truth of the pre-born’s humanity than an appeal to logic and reason.
I apologize for the unwieldiness of the previous sentence – but there it is.
felipe (56556d) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:24 amFurther, the study found that “[children] of married parents also have higher rates of upward mobility if they live in communities with fewer single parents.”
Well, yes, but to a large degree that’s a statistical race marker.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:27 amDRJ (108), what percentage of people do you think favor a ban on abortions including pregnancies caused by rape? I mean there must be a lot if it’s a central area of dispute. Near as I can tell it is almost the same number of people who would ban all abortions (roughly 15%).
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:32 amYou got the first part of 108 right though.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:33 amWe’re never completely informed and I think it’s impossible for humans to know everything, but I see it more as an issue of experience than information. Is it crazy to say that it’s hard for people who haven’t been around babies to think of them as real people? It sounds crazy to me but I think it’s true.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:37 amGood question, Kevin . I don’t know but my guess is it correlates to the percentage of evangelicals. That was 30% in 2005.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:40 amif lifeydoodles put as much energy into just trying to win people over to where they’re of a mind to not go get abortions when they get pregnant as they do into marshaling the coercive bludgeon of the fascist failmerican state to force people to behave precisely as they would like them to, they’d probably be way more successful and happier people besides
and they’d have more time to live life to the fullest
and really isn’t that what the tao of the lifeydoodle is really all about?
happyfeet (831175) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:40 amDRJ, 30% times some factor, I would assume. Even evangelicals are not a monolith; Bill Clinton won a majority of evangelicals in 1996.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:44 amwhich is precisely why they ban ultrasounds, and any other proof of such life, there is a deeply anti natal streak in the left, typified by Gosnell girl
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:45 amOn second thought, maybe it’s more accurate to say some people see babies as disposable instead of not real.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:47 amI completely agree. I would add that there are people whose only exposure to infants include being annoyed by the infant’s crying (say, on a plane, or in a church*). But ask them to hold and care for an infant (say, one that is kin) and their position may change.
*I recall a homily being interrupted by a crying infant which caused the Priest to ask if any present were annoyed by the crying – the priest then launched into all the reasons why that infant had the right, more than anyone else, to cry in a church.
felipe (56556d) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:48 amMaybe so, Kevin, but there may also be people who aren’t evangelical who oppose abortion. I don’t really know but there is a strong bias for abortion in the media and popular culture, and we still have a sizeable percentage of people who want to restrict abortion. I think it’s entirely possible that opposition for abortion is understated, not overstated, in the polls.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:49 amYes. narciso gets it.
felipe (56556d) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:50 amDRJ,
The experience issue extends other directions. Spend some time around pregnant teen-age drug addicts trying to get clean, or pregnant rape victims, or a parent told their child will have severe life-long deformities and never learn to read, and you might modify some conclusions.
I really really do not like abortion on demand, and abortion as birth control is reprehensible, but I like we-own-your-body even less. Perhaps we should tax it.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:50 amI’m enjoying this discussion and I appreciate those of you who are sticking around. I have to be out for 3-4 hours and this is an old thread, so it may not last long. FWIW, in my question 97, I was actually asking about who Republicans (or conservatives, if you’re like me) should be trying to win over in general — not just on the issue of abortion. I’m also interested in that discussion if anyone wants to address it.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:53 amExcellent idea, Kevin. That would work and I bet we’re almost all against taxes!
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:54 amfelipe,
Patterico has done posts on the ultrasounds. They are very moving and effective.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:56 amPerhaps we should tax it.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:50 am
I think a provision of the PPACA does that.
felipe (56556d) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:57 amI think it’s entirely possible that opposition for abortion is understated, not overstated, in the polls.
It’s quite possible. The collapse of the abortion position circa 1970 had the flavor of a preference cascade, where people who quietly opposed the abortion prohibitions suddenly found out they were not alone. The same social effect may make the seemingly widespread approval of some abortion just as ephemeral and there might e a big swing against it if it seems likely to change.
But, as with most issues, it takes quite a while for those cascades to build, and I don’t think it will change any time soon. We couldn’t even defeat Obama.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:57 amKevin:
I have one of those. I probably would have aborted him if I had known in advance. I’m glad I didn’t, even though it hasn’t been much of a blessing for him or us. I’m glad I didn’t know and God saved me from my selfish agenda.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:58 amI’d pass a law allowing unrestricted late term abortions of abortion doctors and then look up their mothers with a medical consent form.
nk (dbc370) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:58 am“Maybe so, Kevin, but there may also be people who aren’t evangelical who oppose abortion.”
DRJ – Yes there are. 🙂
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/24/2015 @ 10:02 amHeh. John Roberts would have to go along with a tax.
And the real point is that 1) we have decided as a society, for now, not to criminalize abortion. But we use taxes at times to alter behavior (e.g. cigarette taxes). Why not a sizable tax on abortion procedures, rising “progressively” throughout the term? The only real objection I can see is putting a stiff tax on a medical emergency procedure late in a term (and exempting such would be a defeating loophole).
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/24/2015 @ 10:03 amPatterico has done posts on the ultrasounds. They are very moving and effective.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/24/2015 @ 9:56 am
Yes, and heartbreaking.
felipe (56556d) — 1/24/2015 @ 10:08 amDRJ, at 102: I hear what you are saying about focusing on unacceptable speech causing the movement’s weakest link to become the focus for everyone.
And yet at the same time, it seems perfectly reasonable for the leaders of a movement to try to corral their members. Difficult, and possibly futile, and possibly problematic depending on the issue, but in general, yes.
aphrael (34edde) — 1/25/2015 @ 8:07 amMark, at 107 – I think it’s reasonable for the leaders of the Democratic party to try to corral Democrats and keep them on message, and to ask them to think about the effects of their words. I don’t see why you would think I wouldn’t.
aphrael (34edde) — 1/25/2015 @ 8:08 amDRJ, at 97: as I understand your question, you are asking what people elissa was talking about in a previous comment, which I interpret as being about who conservatives need to reach with the message encompassed in kevin williamson’s piece at http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/396944/about-20-week-abortion-bill-kevin-d-williamson.
I am not sure I am able to help you with that, because I don’t actually understand what williamson’s point is. He seems to be making at least two different ones – (a) that abortion is bad because it prevents lives like his, and (b) the majority of the people support the things in the bill (without describing what the things in the bill are).
I’m not sure which of those is the issue under discussion in terms of “need to be reached”.
That said, to the extent that the question is “who needs to be reached with the message that unwanted fetuses are worthy of life” and “which of these two is more likely to persuade them”, I think the answers are
(a) I would assume that most of the readers of both NRO and RedState already agree with that proposition and so to an extent these pieces are preaching to the choir and are not intended to persuade anyone;
(b) I don’t think that either of them will succed in doing so because they fail to engage with the issue as it is seen by the people on the pro-choice side of the aisle, and because it doesn’t engage with their frame, it isn’t going to persuade them.
What you need to do is *not* convince them that “abortion prevents good lives from ever happening” but “the right of the fetus to have that life outweighs the right of the mother to control whether or not she is pregnant”. Unless you can frame it that way, you’re not going to be successful in even getting most pro-choice people to *talk* to you on the subject.
(c) of the two, I find the RedState one *substantially* less likely to persuade *anyone*. it’s way more confrontational and centered on attack. It opens by implying that Renee Ellmers deserves to die. I think most people will read that and be predisposed to dislike and disagree with anything the rest of the article says – except, perhaps, for those who already believe in everything it says, who will vigorously nod in agreement with it.
aphrael (34edde) — 1/25/2015 @ 8:08 amI think it’s reasonable for the leaders of the Democratic party to try to corral Democrats and keep them on message
Aphrael, if you wince not just at members of the Democrat Party going off message, but in particular going off in a very liberal or leftist way, then I can say you’re reacting to both sides of the political divide in a similar manner.
Mark (c160ec) — 1/25/2015 @ 9:03 amMr Feet wrote:
If abolitionists put as much energy into just trying to win people over to where they’re of a mind to not buy slaves when they have work they need done as they do into marshaling the coercive bludgeon of the fascist failmerican state to force people to manumit their slaves, they’d probably be way more successful and happier people besides.
The Southern Dana (1b79fa) — 1/25/2015 @ 9:22 amfilipe wrote:
The people that need to be reached (i.e., persuaded) are those that do not believe that a black person is, in fact, a human being . . . .
There are a whole lot of people out there who do not share ideas about what is right or wrong, but we use the law to compel them to follow what society says is right, or suffer the consequences.
The Southern Dana (1b79fa) — 1/25/2015 @ 9:25 amQuite true, Dana, quite true. But the law can be wrong ( Dred Scott v. Sanford), too.
felipe (56556d) — 1/25/2015 @ 12:05 pmselma!
happyfeet (831175) — 1/25/2015 @ 12:09 pmThe Dred Scott decision came down fours years before the Civil War. Talk about suffering consequences. The slaughter of innocents continues – Lord have mercy on us all.
felipe (56556d) — 1/25/2015 @ 12:13 pmno, happy, I think you mean, “Stella!”
felipe (56556d) — 1/25/2015 @ 12:14 pmThe reason they have this rape (with which they are running into trouble) is because the pregnancy he is totally not the women’s “fault”, and it somehow makes a difference with some people whether or not an abortion id OK, even right before birth, how a woman became pregnant.
Sammy Finkelman (e806a6) — 1/25/2015 @ 12:25 pmSammy, I am going to channel happyfeet and write the following:
some guys back in the Old South wouldn’t drink from the same water fountain as other guys cause, y’know, it made a difference. But today it doesn’t matter at all. So I’m guessing whatever happened to change that is gonna have to happen to change this situation.
So there is a prejudice at work in people’s minds that the how of conception matters more than the implicit dignity of the person conceived. which runs the gamut from “bastard” to “royalty”, from “mutt” to “purebred.”
felipe (56556d) — 1/25/2015 @ 12:38 pmIn the United States, where every citizen has a right and opportunity to be part of the process that elects the people who make laws,
they are in some small part responsible for the laws that are made.
The conclusion from that is that if one believes the purposeful willful killing of a developing child in utero is murder,
to not try to legally affect the political process makes one an accessory to the crime, if only in a small indirect way.
As DRJ said above, if we allow the discussion of anything be dictated by apology for scattered comments of individuals, then you have lost before you have started,
which is why we need to not be defensive but make it clear what people like Wendy Davis and Barack Obama think
What many people need is the courage to act on what they know to be true when they stop to think about it. That does not happen when there are no leaders but only apologists trying to downplay the red herrings.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/25/2015 @ 12:38 pmI completely agree, MD.
The conclusion from that is that if one believes the purposeful willful killing of a developing child in utero is murder,
to not try to legally affect the political process makes one an accessory to the crime, if only in a small indirect way.
That is spot on, sir! Lord have mercy on the U.S of A.
felipe (56556d) — 1/25/2015 @ 12:44 pmIt opens by implying that Renee Ellmers deserves to die.
aphrael (34edde) — 1/25/2015 @ 8:08 am
What was written was this:
Is Renee Ellers worthy of life?…I don’t care if I offend you today. I don’t care if you think it is un-Christian, irresponsible, or just plain mean, that I demand to know whether Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC)51% is worthy of life. Not only will I not care, my conscience won’t be troubled in the least. My indignation is righteous, as is my cause.
To be precise, I think the question raised was whether or not her life was worth protecting.
Which is simply putting a blunt direct comparison to her decision that the lives of pre-born humans that can feel pain are not worth protecting.
But if you want to put it your way, aphrael, then the parallel construct is that (some) pre-born humans that can feel pain deserve to die.
As I said before, it is not a wording I would use and I would not champion it.
If what is needed is convincing people who think differently to change their mind, I agree that it seems not to be a helpful way to go about it.
If what is needed is to give some conviction and spine, i.e. courage, to those who know it is wrong but do not want to risk offending anyone,
then maybe it is more helpful.
I do not know.
But as already said, the argument can only be lost, not won, by apologizing for every comment someone made somewhere that offends some people.
What needs to happen is to make people try to apologize for the torturous death by dismemberment of not a puppy or kitten but a pre-born child.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/25/2015 @ 7:03 pmMake people be apologetic and defensive for that.
MD in Philly – I think there’s a strong contextual implication to be found in demanding that your interlocutor answer the question when it’s posed that way – it really strikes me as being a “justify to me why Renee Ellers is worthy of life”.
Your mileage may vary.
> But as already said, the argument can only be lost, not won, by apologizing for every comment someone made somewhere that offends some people.
Sure. On the other hand, as I understand the question I was asked, part of the question was which of the two I thought would be more persuasive to people who weren’t already on the side of the speaker, and I really don’t see the second one as being persuasive at all. It’s a rallying cry for those who already agree.
aphrael (34edde) — 1/25/2015 @ 7:45 pmlike I say poor choice of words, which undermines the goal of the exercise, but as with MD, the greater rhetorical dodge was the legerdemain that has claimed 55 million lives,
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/25/2015 @ 7:52 pmaphrael,
There is a strong contextual implication that some people don’t give a d*** if an unborn child is literally pulled limb from limb, without anesthesia even.
Yes, John Brown advocating slave revolt was not helpful to the cause of ending slavery, but pointing out his example was not a forceful appeal to continue slavery either.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 1/25/2015 @ 8:02 pmOT is the failure of our policy, not blatantly evident?
http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/25/white-house-chief-of-staff-accidentally-reveals-name-of-american-female-isis-hostage/
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/25/2015 @ 8:35 pmaphrael:
Thanks for replying.
elissa asked above whether the NRO article or the RedState article was better at touching the people who “need to be reached,” and I replied by asking what people she thought needed to be reached. Apparently you both feel the people who need to be reached on the abortion issue are people who are pro-choice or ambivalent about abortion. That makes sense if you are pro-choice, as I’m sure you are. You view the issue as requiring the pro-life people to convince the pro-choice people they’re wrong. That doesn’t make sense to me.
Polls show (e.g., here) that a large majority of people support restrictions on abortions, including 3rd trimester and partial birth abortions. We’ll never get everyone to agree on this or any subject, but the polls clearly support restrictions on abortions and they have for some time. Could it be that the RedState article is more effective at reaching the people who “need to be reached,” i.e., the people who will work to replace Ellmers with a more pro-life representative or to support abortion restrictions pro-life supporters care about?
The only reason for a pro-life person to worry about reaching out to pro-choice or ambivalent people is if they believe they don’t have support in the polls or they can only get legislation when everyone agrees on it. They already have support and universal agreement isn’t going to happen, so it’s a built-in loser for the pro-life crowd if they subscribe to the notion that everyone has to agree — although I’m sure pro-choice people would prefer it that way.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/25/2015 @ 8:37 pmwell it seems they use and discard rationales at will, like twitching to 14th Amendment grounds after case, much like the tax not a tax dodge with Obamacare,
narciso (ee1f88) — 1/25/2015 @ 8:43 pmNot if you read the entire article. Perhaps the author started with a rhetorical grenade but he made his point clear in the rest of the article, and it wasn’t that Ellmers needs to die.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/25/2015 @ 8:47 pmPeople are actually talking about a tax on abortions.
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/201494/
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/26/2015 @ 12:20 am