By Eric Blauer
Legislation to reduce the number of later term abortions has passed the House of Representatives and President Obama has said he will veto the bill if it passes the Senate.
“The House of Representatives today approved a pro-life bill that bans abortions from after 20-weeks of pregnancy up to the day of birth. The vote for the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act broke down on mostly partisan lines with Republicans supporting the ban on late-term abortions and Democrats opposing it. The House approved the bill on a 242-184 vote with four Democrats (Reps. Cuellar, Langevin, Lipinski, and Peterson) voting for the bill and five Republicans voting against it (Reps. Dent, Dold, Hanna, Frelinghuysen) or voting present (Hice).”
“The vote for the bill came on the anniversary of the conviction of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who killed babies in a live-birth abortion process.
Two years ago today, Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murder, conspiracy to kill and involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment,” Congressman Chris Smith said.
So a woman would have about five months to make a decision about abortion before the child could surely feel a dismembering death.
You don’t want to be a mother?
Give the child up for adoption.
You don’t want to have a baby?
Have an abortion before five months.
If you don’t do that, you are asking a healthcare professional to end the life of a human being that could most likely survive outside the womb.
Your choice has now made another person have to choose, who may have a moral opposition to such an act.
So how is the ‘choice’ of the woman really being taken away by this legislation?
To me it seems like a reasonable bill to support for those moderate opponents of abortion, who agree that we should work to reduce the number of abortions?
I am not sure why reasonable people can’t dialogue or even debate the issue without blasting one another. I didn’t write this piece as a ‘shot across the bow’ but a sincere request for reasonable responses. Obviously this is an explosive issue for many people but almost everyone except the extreme ends of the political spectrums, seems to agree that less is better than more abortions. So what’s the issue with this legislation? It gives every side something they want.
I think we’re dialoguing without blasting right here, right now.
Actually, there are 6 reasonable people discussing this, so, there’s that. Also, if you didn’t say things like, “That’s an illogical argument meant to shut down intelligent…yada, yada, yada,” and lump everyone into mass entities such as “progressives” when they disagree with you, you might get more dialogue. Just saying. When you say these things, it negates the struggle each of us is going through to come to grips with this new situation. Human beings can now decide at what age a child can be aborted, and that’s a horrible decision to have to make. All of us on this site, by definition, are people of faith. Thoughtful, prayerful, morally responsible people. Give us the credit of remembering that we do struggle with our choices as much as you do. Respect our thought processes and our decisions, even when they contradict your own.
Now onto our show…
Have you ever seen a 20-week old baby? Has anyone you know ever had a 20-“weeker” (as the nurses refer to babies) and have you experienced with them the months of trauma, both physical and emotional, that follow such a young baby? My wife is a NICU nurse, and she deals with the tiniest, sickest kids on her unit. She has never, to my knowledge, had a 20-weeker survive. Now that’s not to say that none have, but I hear her months-long sagas on the efforts required to keep a 25, 24, or even 23-weeker alive, and it’s awful. (Calm down. I can feel your blood pressure rising from here.) I am NOT saying that these lives are not worth all our efforts to save them, I’m just trying to give you a glimpse into the serious, life-long struggles these kids and parents will face. Is it worth it to save a life, absolutely! But please understand, that the procedures necessary to sustain their little lives are traumatic, painful, require months of hospitalization, and sometimes lifelong interventions.
Every life is of value. Every. Single. Life. The baby’s, the mom’s, the dad’s, the doctor’s, even the legislators. (though there are times…)
I’m glad you brought this conversation out into the open for us to discuss. Let’s keep the lines of communication open, ok?
Jan,
Point about “progressive” designation taken, I’ll substitute that for prochoice, is that fair?
I haven’t stated a position in my article or in the comments. I’ve asked questions.
I’ve been told I can’t ask or have an opinion because I’m not a woman. Though the prochoice guys can post all the opinions they want and not get one rebuttal from the prochoice folks accept support and praise. Which is typical here but I’ve accepted that fact.
But hey, I still stand by my original list of growing questions like:
Do any of you support any restrictions on abortion at any month?
Nope, I don’t like labels of any kind. Perhaps you could just respond to each person as an individual and leave the labels behind.
You haven’t stated a position and yet you want your readers to? That’s curious. Of course you are allowed to have an opinion, as I’m sure you do have. Simply because one person has stated that perhaps a woman’s opinion might hold some separate truths due to her innate ability to actually have children is no reason for you to not have and state your opinion. Go for it.
And, why are you stating your reply to me, Jan Shannon, in the plural, as in, “Do any of “you” support…”? I am just me. Are you asking me if I support restrictions on abortion at any gestational age? Gosh, as I said in my comment, I think this is a horribly difficult situation that we are in. You want me to pick a number? 20, 23, 25, 30? How can I when each and every situation is completely individualized to that mother and that baby? It’s Sophie’s Choice and I pray for all persons who have to make such a tragic choice.
Exactly. Case-by-case basis. Which is why I think it’s important to err on the side of choice rather than restriction. I honestly don’t know that I know enough about the issue to pick a number of weeks. But 20+ to ban seems not okay to me.
I think what’s been said is that it’s important to listen to women on this issue. Carefully.
It seems you’re intentionally conflating issues, Eric, to scare or confuse people. Kermit Gosnell and his ilk have very little relationship to most late-term abortions. But, to play along: Do you make exceptions if the “baby” has no chance of survival outside of the womb, or if the woman is likely to die in childbirth?
If you’re opposed to abortion, don’t have one. I won’t, and I personally oppose most late-term abortions myself. But I think those decisions should be made by women and their doctors, not by legislators (typically male legislators).
In my opinion the issues isn’t conflated the issues at all when debating ‘late term’ abortions, which is what my article and the legislation is focusing upon. I am sure most reasonable people wouldn’t consider what Gosnell did as a support for late term abortions…do they?
If you’re not trying to conflate the two, why did you bring Gosnell into it?
Because the issue of why 5 months is designated in the bill, is related to the viability factor related to the development of the fetus debate. The impetus for some congressman in this legislation given in the article I quote was the trial and judgment of Gosnell.
So you’re not conflating the two; you’re simply quoting a member of Congress who conflates the two? At least in my view.
It seems to me that “viability” is an overly simplistic measure, the kind favored by (usually) male members of legislatures. And related to that, I’ll now step aside and let you have the last word (if you care to), and leave the discussion to others — preferably women and doctors.
The first person I went to after writing this article was a woman, I know who is about 6 months pregnant. I asked her what she experienced at 20 weeks. We have had four kids, all out of the home now but one 15 year old. I remember vividly the journey of wonder that new life brought to my life. I can’t retell all the ways I was stunned, amazed, terrified, dazzled, frightened, horrified, skeptical, fascinated by the whole experience. I know that I don’t have a ‘vagina’ so in most circles, my thoughts or will in creating a life, have no merit but, I will never allow others to invalidate my responsibility or opportunity in the process. That said, I also recognize that my expeience wasn’t the norm these days it seems.
Hey Eric,
I can appreciate where you are coming from, as well as James.
I also appreciate your sincere reasons for writing this article and wanting to understand the other sides thoughts on the matter.
There is a HUGE Lack of coverage on the reasons why the bill is being opposed.
A person literally has to search through several pages on Google to get the other side of the story.
Eric, I hope what I have found, as well as, my own comments add, in a positive way, to the discussion.
Forty-two states already prohibit abortion after a certain point in the pregnancy, with 10 using the 20-week threshold — so the bill is a little redundant in some ways.
President Obama, who has vowed a veto, states some of his reasoning by saying, “the bill restricts women’s choices at a difficult time for them.”
“The bill continues to add harsh burdens to the survivors of sexual
assault, rape and incest, who are already enduring unimaginable hardship,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said.
While pro-life groups hailed the bill’s passage as a pivotal moment, pro-choice groups said the bill is unconstitutional and unnecessary. Abortions after 20 weeks are rare and usually involve some type of medical complication, they said, so the decision should be left to women and their doctors.
As a pro-choice person, this topic is so emotionally charged for me, just like everyone else.
God forbid any of my female friends or loved ones ever have to make such a tough decision, all I know is, I will be there for them and support them if the time ever arrives.
One of my personal troubling question at play here is for the Republicans:
Given that conservatives routinely argue that government can’t regulate anything without making it worse, how could government regulate one of the most tragic choices mothers face without compounding the tragedy?
I can totally understand people having a problem with abortions that happen later in a pregnancy, I do also, but it’s just not happening other than very rare incidences.
98.5 percent of abortions take place in the first trimester. The rest for health related reasons (mother or baby)
Plus, to me, it takes a rather dark view of mothers as moral monsters to believe that women in advanced stages of pregnancy casually stroll into a doctor’s office and demand an abortion for birth control-type reasons. This is completely divorced from the emotional reality of ordinary women. The fact is that after five months of pregnancy, mothers form very, very deep attachments with their prospective babies, grieving horribly even when they lose them for natural causes.
Much Respect,
Brien
Brien, I appreciate your comment and I agree there is a ton of junk to wade through online. I have a few thoughts after thinking about your comments. My search comes about to around 89% in first tri, so if there are roughly 825,564 abortions per year, that comes to over 90,000 abortions done after first tri. That’s a lot of babies to me. Second, the events of the Gosnell trial and the info that came out about these types of practices, did convince me that such services and those looking for them are realities going on today. It’s not a fictional narrative, its a reality, especially among the poor.
Unfortunately, you and I aren’t going to be able resolve the debate 🙂
But I do have a question,
“that comes to over 90,000 abortions done after first tri.” If your calculation are right and I’m not saying there not. Are you basing 90K on only the 20th week or the 2nd-19th week? Big difference since the conversation/debate is specifically the 20th week. Which everyone, including existing laws, agrees is only for health reasons. So, my question would be out of 90K abortions, how many were in or after the 20th week?
Two other main concerns of mine, especially if I was pro-life and wanted to remove or greatly reduce abortion are:
From a medical stand point,
Should the bill ever become law, the most likely result would be to push women to get early abortions on the basis of far less reliable tests for fetus health. In other words, earlier abortions will be at the cost of sacrificing more healthy fetuses, because from a medical diagnostic perspective the fetus must be developed enough in order to diagnose health issues. To me that’s not a good way to advance the “sanctity of life.”
From a moral stand point,
The GOP’s quest to “save every unborn” by demonizing mothers and using the government to second-guess them and physicians I feel will have the opposite effect. The human condition does not always allow for perfectly moral outcomes at all times (only utopia does)— and the failure to face up to that might make the human fate more — not less — tragic as I pointed out earlier.
Well we all vote and our votes and civic engagement shape our representatives, so such conversations and debates are an important part of the development of policy.
As for the 90,000 number, I know that the 20th week is the crux of development issues and for some women that’s where they decide to keep or abort when they find out about the heath or complications etc. I will have to do more research about what numbers choose to abort due to complications etc at the 20th week. I don’t know those numbers.
You caricatures of the GOP which I was part of for many years, don’t represent most of the people I knew or know. Demonizing, save every unborn etc don’t represent any of the conservative circles I have been within. In fact the stats on abortion reflect that many women are having them, and I think that informs a more sane debate of the issue. It’s not like all the sinners are on one side and all the righteous are on the other throwing rocks. It’s a circle and everyone is inside it. Any rocks thrown will most likely hurt one another due to the close proximity of this issue.
Whoops sorry, I forgot to address the Gosnell trial.
Simply put he’s a dick.
After 20 some years of working in the medical field, I can tell you, and I’m sure it wont surprise anyone, there are dicks in the medical field just like every other field. Fortunately, there are already laws in place that prosecute people like Gosnell and fortunately, Gosnell is not the norm. No more than heartless mothers lining up at the abortion clinics are the norm.
I don’t think it is wise to throw out the entire medical community because of some bad apples or say we need more laws on top of the laws that already exist for abortions.
Thanks Eric
I gotta stop there and pass the conversation along to others.
Brien
When severe abnormalities arise or become apparent around the 20-week mark, and could threaten the mother’s life or ensure that the baby or babies will, if they are even born, live short lives of intense suffering, it seems deeply problematic to me to prohibit terminating the fetus or fetuses involved. To me it seems like part of caring for the not-yet-born fetuses is preventing them from experiencing a brief life of nothing but pain.
Let me ask those who’ve commented so far: Do you support ANY restrictions on abortion?
Well, Eric, I haven’t commented, but I do oppose abortion, as I believe it’s shedding of innocent blood. It’s gotten so bad that some have even advocated post-natal abortion. You read that right, abortion after birth.
I’m reminded of this passage from Amos 1:13: “Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of the children of Ammon, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they have ripped up the women with child of Gilead, that they might enlarge their border:”
Thanks for posting this.
Wow that’s a graphic verse!
Yes, it is, and it’s one that’s rarely mentioned.
How sad that there is no one yet in this thread who has ever been, or could ever be, …pregnant.
Well complain to the ladies who don’t write.
That is, partly, what I thought I was doing.
Things I think about in response to this article and the comments:
– that parenting is both the most joyous and the most difficult thing I’ve ever done.
– that pregnancy and birth, even in this so-called developed nation, are at times perilous to both women and unborn people.
– the fact that current medical technology can keep a baby born as young as 20 weeks alive is both amazing and insane.
– that babies and children are by nature the most vulnerable people on the planet. to simply declare that those born to parents who cannot or will not raise them should put them up for adoption doesn’t address the widespread and systemic abuse of children.
– I feel both called out and annoyed as a woman hearing complaints that no women comment here, this being one of the most reactive and divisive issues folks discuss.
– that women have been pregnant for 5 months without knowing it
– that other women suffer infertility and are hyper-aware of miscarriages as early as 6 weeks.
– that scripture, while our guide and grounding, is limited in its ability to help us as our post-industrial world wrestles with all sorts of life-ending issues that simply are not a topic in the ancient world.
– that for a Christian, trust in the resurrection may inform decisions about abortion, as well as the command not to kill.
– that, while none of this translates easily into policy, I believe universal health care, a raised minimum wage and improved care of mothers and babies would drastically reduce abortions. changing the need for the demand first rather than limiting supply may prove successful.
– I myself am 37 weeks pregnant.
I forgot to include one more thing I think about in response to this article:
– that climate change and its deadly affects on the human population are causing literal spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) as well as infertility, as well as birth defects. perhaps if saving innocents is the mission, we begin there first.
I worked with CPS-involved families long enough to get a sense of how deeply troubled the foster and adoption system is. Adoption isn’t an easy answer, and for some women it just isn’t the answer at all.
Liv, I know you oppose violence, war and the death penalty. I struggle to see how you support abortion in light of your strong advocacy for life?
Did I say in any sentence here that I support it? At best I am confused and sad. I see death on all sides.
Liv Thank you.
I feel that your comment was very insightful.
So many other issues are connected to this issue, universal healthcare, wages, etc. Thanks for pointing that out.
I was also thinking how many abortions could be avoided if there was less
restriction (many times religious) on sex education and access (without
guilt) to contraception.
Abstinence is the only other option and we all know that has never worked.
The more I learn about this issue, to me at least, it is another form of
oppression for women, not just the right to choose an abortion, but the
fact that we limit and control so many other choices for a woman’s body
and well being.
Many times our society condemns mothers no matter which choice they make.
-Abortion condemn.
-Raise a child in poverty and then condemn them for having a child that needs welfare assistance.
-Try to prevent pregnancy with education and contraceptives; condemn them. The list just seems to go on and on.
Even your well thought out comment evoked a defensive reply. Why? Why do so
may men ask women’s opinions and then slam them for giving it. As men we
should have a much lesser position and be less involved in this issue.
These are not our bodies, yet many men, still in the spirit of patriarchy want total control of a woman’s body.
This is just how it seems to me. As a guy I can only imagine what it would
be like to be a woman. Maybe that’s why I’ve always said that if I was a
woman there would be a trail of dead men in my wake 🙂
Liv: Thank you for your many thoughtful comments. I did not call you out personally. You did not have to respond. But, I have felt for decades that it is just all-too-convenient for men to discuss and debate their philosophies on abortion in light of the fact that none of us will ever need to deal with this dilemma personally and directly.
So the stardard should be that no one can talk about any issues unless they are “personally or directly” involved? Do you real stand by that standard Mark?
Relax, Eric. I said nothing about a “standard” or any issues other than this one. This discussion has been all men so far, except for Liv. I’m not talking about you in particular or making any categorical statements. On this issue I always listen more thoughtfully and carefully to women, for what I hope are obvious reasons.
Well I think that’s an illogical argument used to shut down intelligent dislodge and debate about issues every one has a responsibility to engage with through making babies which requires men, raising children which will require men either by participation physically or financially and evryone in voting. Every time this issue comes up progressives try to shut down discussion by such tactics. My article asks some simple questions which were directed to women. The fact that men step up to debate is curious. Almost all comments here are opposed to a limit on abortions. No response to my questions just silence. I don’t know why more women don’t write more content, especially engaging matters being hotly debated.
OK, don’t relax. Just keep putting words in my mouth. There is nothing “illogical” about suggesting that women speak first and men listen carefully when the heart of the issue is pregnancy. I don’t know why women don’t write more content either – but THAT is my point, not any of the labels and assertions with which you’ve responded thus far.
From reading the comments I guess it’s clear that compromise isn’t a reality with progressives. I thought there was a spectrum like there is in evangelical circles but it appears to be onesided. If 5 months is fine for abortion what is wrong with abortion up to 8 months? Is that considered just as much a woman’s right too?
Personally, I would love to see a world without abortion. I doubt that will ever happen, but most goals worth pursuing seem unreachable; that’s never stopped us before. That said, legislation seems the wrong way to go about it. Anti-abortion legislation invokes the coercive power of the state in direct opposition to a choice most often settled upon as the lesser evil. Therefore, if we truly wish to prevent abortions, we need to:
1. Guarantee universal access to safe and effective birth control.
2. Guarantee universal access to fact-based education about sexual and reproductive health.
3. Create protections in the workplace so women* can choose to bear children without sacrificing their careers.
4. Create support systems so younger women aren’t forced to choose between pregnancy and an education.
5. Make prenatal care available to women, to reduce the incidence of life-threatening complications and birth defects.
6. Mandate one year of family leave be made available to every worker.
7. Fix the foster care/adoption system.
8. Provide prenatal screening for serious conditions and, where possible, corrective treatment.
This list is nowhere close to exhaustive, but butil we do *at least* this much, until we address the root causes and conditions that make abortion a lesser evil, we have no business legislating against it. That is a privelege we have not yet earned.
*(I realised about 2/3 of the way through this that not everyone who does (or can) get pregnant is a woman. I thought about attempting a rewrite, but I couldn’t come up with a non-ugsome alternative. I apologise for my lack of imagination.)
Yes I agree with your 1-8…no clue what the last paragraph means. Thanks for sharing some good stuff.
The last paragraph references the fact that many transgender men, as well as many persons who identify outside the gender binary, yet posess the anatomy to conceive and carry a child. I was trying to make the distinction between gender as a cultural construct and reproductive anatomy as a biological fact.
I in fact know several trans men who have been pregnant and had children.
I don’t think Eric can grok that.