Obama, Notre Dame and Abortion

[the Ogre]

I do not think Obama describes it as infanticide. I think abortion is, but many others do not. When the President is discussing abortion, he is discussing a woman's reproductive rights. He is a feminist and prioritizes the rights of the mother to decide when she will have children over the russian-roulette of birth control. In the face of declarations like abstinence or celibacy, a feminist will respond that is not a woman's right to be sexually active is a decision that she alone can make. He would also believe that those who would believe a woman must be celibate are those whose opinions are the result of a parochial, patriarchic society unable to truly understand the rights of a woman and women in general, even if those who hold those beliefs are women. He might feel those who disagree are the products of societies, educations, and religions that are patriarchal and archaic who are themselves victims of an oppressive environment.

To some, I am a misogynist pig because I oppose abortion. To some I am a liberal fiend, nay child of satan, because even though I oppose abortion, I agree most American culture is the result of an oppressive, patriarchal, parochial middle-class more interested in maintaining the status quo than considering dissent and differences.

[MarginOfError]

MOE, the issue isn't whether he enjoys it. I doubt (to invoke Godwin) that Hitler got his jollies trudging through Auschwitz, either. The issue, when all is said and done, is whether Obama knowingly and intentionally enables the practice. He obviously did.

I'd be worried about my comments harming the pro-life cause, if I thought Obama was willing to compromise. But I don't think he is. The guy will talk 'til the cows come home, but he's going to do what he wants to do--which, incidentally, is why I'm not too concerned about the prospect of him sitting down and talking with Iran, Syria, or anyone else (he's not going to use American resources to push the Jews into the sea just because Ahmadinejad tells him he should).

So far, the evidence runs contrary to your conclusion. So far Obama has compromised or changed position on military tribunals, indefinite detention, rendition, abuse photos, and state secrets. The man can be persuaded, but he requires reasoned arguments that are founded in an arena that people of all faiths (or no faith at all) can appeal to.

If the president wanted to reduce the number of abortions, he'd have included substantial measures to that end in his 2010 budget. Aside from "modest" increases in contraceptive funding and a new post-delivery visitation program, he didn't--no adoption subsidies that I'm aware of; no beefed-up counseling on abortion alternatives.

As long as moral interpretations of abortion are left out of the counseling, go ahead and put them in. So far, I've never heard of such a program. Moral counseling about abortion doesn't belong in the medical field, it belongs within the family unit and the church.

If you want to require that a pamphlet or leaflet be distributed that indicates where a patient may go for more information on adoption, or for financial counseling that could help the individual find a way to afford the child, that's fine too. That leaflet could be distributed during the initial consultation. But I imagine leaflets and pamphlets are what you want from "beefed-up counseling."

"Progress", for pro-lifers, would involve making nice and appealing to President Obama's better nature. But the evidence is that, on this issue, Obama has no better nature. That's simply a fact that must be taken into consideration when formulating a political strategy.

And, yes; it's also demonization. The guy is willing to trade the lives of living, breathing children in order to assure his constituents' right to consequence-free sex, for cripe's sake. Outrage and social opprobrium are perfectly in order.

I would argue that Obama has a much better nature than you on the subject. For starters, he's willing to listen and understand. And wisely, he makes no concession until you offer the same courtesy. It is foolish to change the status quo whimsically, which is what most abortion tries to do. There's no long term thought as to what could come out of the legislation. And there's absolutely no point in passing legislation on such a narrow majority that it can easily be reversed in the near future.

A far superior strategy would be to carefully and slowly construct legislation that two-thirds of the populace can stand behind comfortably.

And if you're going to knowingly engage in demonization, then you can't complain when I describe people of your mindset as ignorant, self-righteous, simple-minded and inconsiderate hacks that have no concept of what women go through when they face an abortion and no comprehension of what kind of fall-out the country would face if they got their blanket ban on abortion.

Isn't that so much better than discussing what kind of changes we would like to see regarding the issue?

[Just_A_Guy]

So far, the evidence runs contrary to your conclusion. So far Obama has compromised or changed position on military tribunals, indefinite detention, rendition, abuse photos, and state secrets. The man can be persuaded, but he requires reasoned arguments that are founded in an arena that people of all faiths (or no faith at all) can appeal to.

For the most part, I don't think that's genuine persuasion. I think it's mostly attributable to his position giving him access to information that he didn't have before, forcing him into the realization that in the above-stated issues he had no other logical course of action.

What would you tell President Obama about the results of a botched abortion that he doesn't already know? He knew the results intimately in 2002 when he fought against a born-alive bill. After that legislative session, he went home to his wife and children--including a baby girl named Sasha.

As long as moral interpretations of abortion are left out of the counseling, go ahead and put them in. So far, I've never heard of such a program. Moral counseling about abortion doesn't belong in the medical field, it belongs within the family unit and the church.

Your assertion appears to be that state governments have no prerogative to try to encourage their citizens to engage in--or avoid--certain behaviors that society deems undesirable. I disagree.

I would argue that Obama has a much better nature than you on the subject. For starters, he's willing to listen and understand.

I never once attempted to block legislation that would have ended the practice of "doctors" neglecting babies to death. Obama did. Not once. Not twice. Three times.

And, quite bluntly, when he had a chance and the funding (this year) to reduce abortion through the methods pro-choicers always claim to support--he didn't.

A far superior strategy would be to carefully and slowly construct legislation that two-thirds of the populace can stand behind comfortably.

That's what born-alive legislation attempted to do, as did the partial birth abortion ban. Obama opposed both, dismissing them as "backdoor" attempts to limit elective abortions in the future. What now?

And if you're going to knowingly engage in demonization, then you can't complain when I describe people of your mindset as ignorant, self-righteous, simple-minded and inconsiderate hacks that have no concept of what women go through when they face an abortion and no comprehension of what kind of fall-out the country would face if they got their blanket ban on abortion.

I've never supported a blanket ban on abortion, MoE. And my criticism of Obama does not, in this case, come from his support of abortion; it comes from his opposition to born-alive legislation. If it were Hillary Clinton or John Edwards speaking at Notre Dame, and no evidence of either of them having opposed born-alive legislation had surfaced; then I wouldn't be having this conversation with you.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[MarginOfError]

For the most part, I don't think that's genuine persuasion. I think it's mostly attributable to his position giving him access to information that he didn't have before, forcing him into the realization that in the above-stated issues he had no other logical course of action.

What would you tell President Obama about the results of a botched abortion that he doesn't already know? He knew the results intimately in 2002 when he fought against a born-alive bill. After that legislative session, he went home to his wife and children--including a baby girl named Sasha.

Your assertion appears to be that state governments have no prerogative to try to encourage their citizens to engage in--or avoid--certain behaviors that society deems undesirable. I disagree.

I never once attempted to block legislation that would have ended the practice of "doctors" neglecting babies to death. Obama did. Not once. Not twice. Three times.

And, quite bluntly, when he had a chance and the funding (this year) to reduce abortion through the methods pro-choicers always claim to support--he didn't.

That's what born-alive legislation attempted to do, as did the partial birth abortion ban. Obama opposed both, dismissing them as "backdoor" attempts to limit elective abortions in the future. What now?

I've never supported a blanket ban on abortion, MoE. And my criticism of Obama does not, in this case, come from his support of abortion; it comes from his opposition to born-alive legislation. If it were Hillary Clinton or John Edwards speaking at Notre Dame, and no evidence of either of them having opposed born-alive legislation had surfaced; then I wouldn't be having this conversation with you.

But the laws to prevent what you are describing already exist. What's the purpose of writing the law a second time?

[DigitalShadow]

But the laws to prevent what you are describing already exist. What's the purpose of writing the law a second time?

The purpose is apparently so that you can point at the people who vote against it and say they have the exact opposite view of the bill because they voted against it regardless of their reasons.

[the Ogre]

The purpose is apparently so that you can point at the people who vote against it and say they have the exact opposite view of the bill because they voted against it regardless of their reasons.

Ah, politics over real intent. Sounds vicious.

[MarginOfError]

The purpose is apparently so that you can point at the people who vote against it and say they have the exact opposite view of the bill because they voted against it regardless of their reasons.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Johnny, tell us what Digital Shadow has won!

Well, Bob, it's a brand new...PIN CUSHION COSTUME!! This deluxe hand made pin cushion costume is an exact replica of the one given to President Obama by the Republican Party on Inauguration Day so they would have plenty of space on which to pin all of their problems on him!

Congratulations, DS! Wear your pin cushion costume with pride!

[the Ogre]

Dang it . . . I wanted that one.

[Just_A_Guy]

But the laws to prevent what you are describing already exist. What's the purpose of writing the law a second time?

Only partly right.

1) Before passage of the federal act, Illinois legislation left a "gap" in the classes of "protected infants". This was the gap that born-alive legislation sought to plug. See here.

2) The Federal version passed in 2002--after Obama had twice opposed such legislation at the state level.

Obama's rationale for opposing state legislation in 2003 was not that the laws already existed; it was the (false) assertion that the state legislation was materially different than the federal legislation.

If you want to try to hash out a settlement with President Obama that will reduce the number of abortions performed in this country, feel free. But don't be surprised if some of us snicker after he tells you (very nicely, to be sure) to go pound sand.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[the Ogre]

If you want to try to hash out a settlement with President Obama that will reduce the number of abortions performed in this country, feel free. But don't be surprised if some of us snicker after he tells you (very nicely, to be sure) to go pound sand.

My concern is that they will be able to "redefine" a few types of abortion through regulation changes so the actually numbers stay up, but the "redefined" abortion numbers go down. A type of statistical semantics game.

[MarginOfError]

Only partly right.

1) Before passage of the federal act, Illinois legislation left a "gap" in the classes of "protected infants". This was the gap that born-alive legislation sought to plug. See here.

2) The Federal version passed in 2002--after Obama had twice opposed such legislation at the state level.

Obama's rationale for opposing state legislation in 2003 was not that the laws already existed; it was the (false) assertion that the state legislation was materially different than the federal legislation.

If you want to try to hash out a settlement with President Obama that will reduce the number of abortions performed in this country, feel free. But don't be surprised if some of us snicker after he tells you (very nicely, to be sure) to go pound sand.

It's interesting to me that the more you post about why this legislation should have been passed, the more I am against its passage. According to what you've provided, if a fetus comes out of the womb by any method with a heart beat, a pulsation in the cord, or signs of breathing, then it must be given rights, treated as a child, and given full medical attention. As I read the last link you provided, I realized what it was about this legislation that bothered me--there is no consideration for viability.

Very few abortion procedures abort the fetus in the womb. In the first few weeks of a pregnancy, an abortion may be completed using hormone supplements that weaken the attachment of the fetus to the womb and may even kill the fetus in early development. But the efficacy of these drugs isn't well established. Furthermore, these drugs are most effective in the first few weeks of pregnancy, which is likely to be a time when the woman hasn't yet realized she's pregnant.

These drugs aren't commonly used in later abortions because then you deal with all the side effects of the pregnancy, followed by side effects of the abortion cocktail (usually a mixture of 3-4 hormones), followed by the side effects of the ended pregnancy. Rather than put the woman through all of that, they forego the cocktail and cut down on the hormonal train wreck a little.

One of the preferred abortion techniques (due to safety, ease, and limited side effects) involves, essentially, vacuuming the fetus out of the womb. This usually occurs at about 12 weeks. Whereas a fetus usually develops a heart beat around 5 weeks, and because it is preferable not to administer the drug cocktail at even this late in pregnancy, the fetus would be considered alive upon extraction in this procedure. Thus, under the legislation you cite, full medical care and full human rights would have to be granted that 12 week old fetus because it had a heart beat when it came out of the womb. Yet, there is no possible way with our current technology that such a fetus could survive.

So yes, indeed, the legislation you cite is bad legislation. I also agree with Obama that such legislation is a starting point for legislation against abortion in general, as it could easily be extended to say that any abortion procedure that does not fully terminate the fetus in utero is an illegal procedure, regardless of the fact that to comply with said law would put the mother through unnecessary hardship. The legislation is too easily distorted for the purpose of overturning Roe v. Wade.

Now, if there were some clause about viability of the fetus, then I would have a much easier time accepting it, i.e., if the fetus could survive with reasonable medical care.

[Just_A_Guy]

One of the preferred abortion techniques (due to safety, ease, and limited side effects) involves, essentially, vacuuming the fetus out of the womb. This usually occurs at about 12 weeks. Whereas a fetus usually develops a heart beat around 5 weeks, and because it is preferable not to administer the drug cocktail at even this late in pregnancy, the fetus would be considered alive upon extraction in this procedure. Thus, under the legislation you cite, full medical care and full human rights would have to be granted that 12 week old fetus because it had a heart beat when it came out of the womb. Yet, there is no possible way with our current technology that such a fetus could survive.

If you're talking about a D&E, my understanding is that that procedure usually results in the fetus being ripped apart in utero. I doubt a fear that doctors would be forced to try to resuscitate dismembered limbs was behind President Obama's opposition to the bills.

I also agree with Obama that such legislation is a starting point for legislation against abortion in general, as it could easily be extended to say that any abortion procedure that does not fully terminate the fetus in utero is an illegal procedure, regardless of the fact that to comply with said law would put the mother through unnecessary hardship. The legislation is too easily distorted for the purpose of overturning Roe v. Wade.

A court would have to do that; not a legislature.

Now, if there were some clause about viability of the fetus, then I would have a much easier time accepting it, i.e., if the fetus could survive with reasonable medical care.

I could agree to that if all abortions were being performed in hospitals or there were some other means to make sure that the determination of "viability" were going to be made by a disinterested observer.

But as it is now, it is in nobody's interest to deem the fetus "viable"--regardless of whether it actually is.

[MarginOfError]

If you're talking about a D&E, my understanding is that that procedure usually results in the fetus being ripped apart in utero. I doubt a fear that doctors would be forced to try to resuscitate dismembered limbs was behind President Obama's opposition to the bills.

Actually, that would be a D&C (dilation and cutterage). D&E (dilation and evacuation) is a procedure that is essentially a hybrid of the vacuuming and the D&E, usually performed earlier than a D&C. The choice of procedure is almost entirely dependent on the size of the fetus. But this is entirely tangent to the point. Should a botched abortion result in the delivery of a fetus at gestational age of 16 weeks, then 'life' has to be recognized for a fetus that still doesn't have lungs. And in the earlier procedures, if a fetus is vacuumed out of the uterus, it has a heartbeat and must be given medical attention, despite the fact that the fetus is the size of a pea. Yet, if allowed to simply pass, could legally be classified as homicide by negligence.

A court would have to do that; not a legislature.

Not so. The Roe v. Wade decision stated that it did not know when life began and that given scientific evidence, the decision would necessarily have to be altered. The legislation you discuss circumvents the decision with an implicit and objectively determined definition of life (that is, it makes no faith statement of when life begins). But it's still a lousy definition as it is unverifiable by objective means.

I could agree to that if all abortions were being performed in hospitals or there were some other means to make sure that the determination of "viability" were going to be made by a disinterested observer.

But as it is now, it is in nobody's interest to deem the fetus "viable"--regardless of whether it actually is.

Then the legislation needs to be altered before it is voted into law. Let's not put bad legislation into effect hastily because it wreaks havoc on the system.

As a corollary, if I were to propose a compromise, it would be something to the effect of allowing a woman to have an abortion within 8 weeks of a medically confirmed pregnancy, but not to be later than 24 weeks gestational age.

[Just_A_Guy]

Should a botched abortion result in the delivery of a fetus at gestational age of 16 weeks, then 'life' has to be recognized for a fetus that still doesn't have lungs. And in the earlier procedures, if a fetus is vacuumed out of the uterus, it has a heartbeat and must be given medical attention, despite the fact that the fetus is the size of a pea. Yet, if allowed to simply pass, could legally be classified as homicide by negligence.

Is it negligent homicide to not give medical attention where it is physically impossible to give medical attention--i.e., we can't use a ventilator because there are no lungs to ventilate, or whatever? It may be that in such cases, born alive legislation simply requires physicians to do what they always do in hopeless cases--make the patient as comfortable as possible and wait for the end. That was, all too frequently, not what was happening.

Not so. The Roe v. Wade decision stated that it did not know when life began and that given scientific evidence, the decision would necessarily have to be altered. The legislation you discuss circumvents the decision with an implicit and objectively determined definition of life (that is, it makes no faith statement of when life begins). But it's still a lousy definition as it is unverifiable by objective means.

Even if a state legislature did have the authority to override a constitutional interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court (which it doesn't), one legislature's determination that "life" begins at birth is distinguishable from Casey's definition of "viability" as "the earliest point at which the State's interest in fetal life is constitutionally adequate to justify a legislative ban on nontherapeutic abortions". In other words, just because something is "alive" within the mother doesn't necessarily mean that its interests and rights per se trump the interests/rights of the mother. In fact, I think you can make a good argument to the contrary.

Then the legislation needs to be altered before it is voted into law. Let's not put bad legislation into effect hastily because it wreaks havoc on the system.

Like the "havoc" wreaked on the system by the federal government's adoption of born alive legislation seven years ago?

As a corollary, if I were to propose a compromise, it would be something to the effect of allowing a woman to have an abortion within 8 weeks of a medically confirmed pregnancy, but not to be later than 24 weeks gestational age.

Make it 21 weeks and I'd find that acceptable for the short term.

But what happens if and when the technology becomes available to either save embryos younger than 21 weeks, or transplant them into the womb of a willing surrogate? If a woman is 1 week pregnant and doesn't want the fetus, can/should she be required to donate the embryo in lieu of abortion?

Edited May 27, 2009 by Just_A_Guy