The Bottom Line Reality on Abortion and the GOP...

[rasputin1952]

Every time I read about abortion, and the "outrage" from the GOP and RW I immediately see the reality of the situation. I believe we should point out a fact every time the GOP goes into conniptions about abortion. To wit:

For eight years under a Republican WH, a Republican controlled Congress and a Conservative leaning Supreme Court, all the Republicans did about abortion is squeal about it during their electioneering. They had all of the time in the world to actually pass legislation, however, they completely failed in that aspect.

What this means, is that they ceded the issue a long time ago. The only time they bring it up is during an election cycle, and it is used specifically to motivate a sector of society that needs only abortion as a motivator. Single issue voters are out there, abortion is probably the one issue that gets more single issue voters to the polls than any other. The GOP knows this, and they are not about to do anything about abortion...why kill off a "gift" of such a potent issue?

I have sent many a letter to my GOP congresscritters about this, and have challenged them publicly whenever the issue is raised at "Town Hall Meetings" and the like. In each case, they have stood there flabbergasted when challenged on why they didn't do anything when they had the chance, and I ask them why anyone should send them back to Congress when they were obviously so inept.

During the recent Congressional discussions on HCR, abortion has popped up again. naturally, this filters down to the populace. I urge people to remind the anti-choice crowd that they had their chance, but the people they put into Congress failed them time and again, why are they even considering supporting the people that refuse to do anything but talk about this issue when it is convenient for them?

For the record, I am pro-choice. To me it's quite simple, I am a male, and do not face the questions that a woman must go through in making her choice to terminate a pregnancy or carry the fetus through to term. It is, essentially, none of my business. What is my business, is people demanding some kind of "right" over a woman's body. The only person who has that Right is the woman herself.

Stand up against those who use this wedge issue once again. We are entering a new election cycle, we will be hearing more of this from the RW. The GOP will push it hard...I intend to stand up for women. Remember, all choice does is present an option, it does not mandate abortion.

[babylonsister]

1. Rec'd, and thanks for pointing that out. We all should. We know it's

just another form of gop obstruction in a long line of them. That seems to be all they know how to do.

[iamjoy]

2. Uh, They Did Restrict Abortion

Remember This


In 2007, the Supreme Court (with two new Bush appointees) upheld the ban, in effect, overturning Roe Vs. Wade. Expect to see more restrictions.

[rasputin1952]

3. IIRC...that was only late term, and considered Federal funding...

Abortion is still legal under Federal precedent; states have leeway, but they are consistently shot down by the USSC, when they seek a complete ban.

[iamjoy]

5. Well, Technically...

Roe vs. Wade ruled that a woman may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes "viable." Also, the Court said that, after viability, abortion must be available when needed to protect a woman's health.

The so-called "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" banned a procedure that is medically called intact dilation and extraction. The law says nothing about when an abortion is performed. Although the D&X are usually used for late term abortions, that is not always the case. Furthermore, the law had no provision for health of the woman - this would seem to be a retreat from precedent.

In a few years, when another law (either federal or state) restricting abortion goes before the Supreme Court, they will look at Gonzales v. Carhart and see that there has been a precedent for banning abortion procedures with no provision to protect a woman's health.

Interestingly enough, Congress had passed the ban in the 1990's, but President Clinton vetoed it. President Bush signed it into law and two of his SCOTUS appointees voted to uphold it. Elections have consequences, indeed.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm just being an alarmist.

[mitchum]

4. Yes...they are the boy who cried "save the babies!"

It's just a gambit to manipulate yahoos

[asdjrocky]

6. They don't care about it, they never had.

They just lead their base around by the nose with the issue. Kind of the way Dems have done for years with health care.

[Cha]

7. kr

[jenmito]

8. K&R.

[tritsofme]

9. To be fair, Republicans pushed the line as far as they could

with the late-term "partial birth" abortion ban.

The threat of filibuster meant that any more substantial anti-abortion legislation was DOA in the Senate, even when there was 55 Republicans.

Something some DUers may care to remember when pontificating about abolishing the filibuster today.

[rasputin1952]

10. The "partial birth abortion" was a semantic abomination...

"birth" does not take place until the mucus plug detaches, and the baby actually enters the birth canal. If the baby is viable, to perform an "abortion" at that point would most likely be considered murder. Only if the mother's life was immediately threatened would there be any legal, moral or ethical validation.

The RW used "partial birth" to describe 3rd trimester procedures, which are very rare and have little to do with an actual birth. They tried to tell people fetus' were crawling on the floor before they died screaming. It was absurd.

[Hekate]

11. You make some very good points, Rasputin. KnR. nt