Good for Charlie Crist

[hortysir]

Well fer sure we wouldn't want all those women to see that "baby" that they are getting ready to abort.

If what YOU want is paramount then you won't mind coughing up the $2,229 average cost for the MRI in Orlando.

Who gets an MRI during pregnancy?

 

[geauxtohell]

blaa blaa blaa.
do you think if it "did" save one baby's life it would be a GOOD THING?
probably not.
so now go out and cast your vote for Christ just over this ONE subject.

I don't think I could be anymore clear in my statements that this was bad law.

I don't live in FL, so I won't be voting for or against Crist. I just admire the fact that he stood up to the wingnuts in his former party.

As for this abortion being a "single issue voter" thing: please. That is never more true than in the anti-abortion camp.

lol, since when did a lefty-liberal give a crap about a "bad" law that tries to impose morality on someone.

take abortion and gay marriage for starters.

What an idiotic deflection.

BTW, please point to the law that makes abortion legal and the liberals who enacted it.

 

[blu]

religious nuts are such pussies. abortion is legal and instead of trying to make it illegal they keep sticking road blocks into it for mothers. quit being pussies and try to repeal roe vs wade

 

[Foxfyre]

Well fer sure we wouldn't want all those women to see that "baby" that they are getting ready to abort.

Blah, blah, blah, "dead babies". Blah, blah, blah, the ends always justify the means on this even if it's bad law. Blah, blah, blah.

Hey Stephanie, if these women are as evil as you think they are, do you really think an ultrasound is going to change their mind?

blaa blaa blaa.
do you think if it "did" save one baby's life it would be a GOOD THING?
probably not.
so now go out and cast your vote for Christ just over this ONE subject.

First, I am 100% pro life. I believe life begins at conception and that abortion ends a human life.

Second, I would not support abortion for any reason being outlawed because there are legitimate reasons that abortion is indicated.

Third, I don't presume to judge those who determine legitimate reasons differently than I would.

Fourth, I want the federal government out of abortion and allow the states or preferably the local communities decide their own policies.

Fifth, I would think requiring an ultrasound for a mother who was having to make the heart wrenching decision to end an unviable or dangerous pregnancy would be extremely cruel. However, because I believe abortion is ending a human life, in the case of abortion for convenience, I have a hard time thinking it unreasonable to advise the mother of all the ramifications of what she is doing.

So I guess for me, I would settle for a hospital or clinic having the legal right to require just about anything before they would perform an abortion for convenience. And I very much want us to get back to the social norm where they would feel it the moral choice to do so. I don't want the state or federal government getting involved in that, however.

 

[geauxtohell]

Blah, blah, blah, "dead babies". Blah, blah, blah, the ends always justify the means on this even if it's bad law. Blah, blah, blah.

Hey Stephanie, if these women are as evil as you think they are, do you really think an ultrasound is going to change their mind?

blaa blaa blaa.
do you think if it "did" save one baby's life it would be a GOOD THING?
probably not.
so now go out and cast your vote for Christ just over this ONE subject.

First, I am 100% pro life. I believe life begins at conception and that abortion ends a human life.

Second, I would not support abortion for any reason being outlawed because there are legitimate reasons that abortion is indicated.

Third, I don't presume to judge those who determine legitimate reasons differently than I would.

Fourth, I want the federal government out of abortion and allow the states or preferably the local communities decide their own policies.

Fifth, I would think requiring an ultrasound for a mother who was having to make the heart wrenching decision to end an unviable or dangerous pregnancy would be extremely cruel. However, because I believe abortion is ending a human life, in the case of abortion for convenience, I have a hard time thinking it unreasonable to advise the mother of all the ramifications of what she is doing.

So I guess for me, I would settle for a hospital or clinic having the legal right to require just about anything before they would perform an abortion for convenience. And I very much want us to get back to the social norm where they would feel it the moral choice to do so. I don't want the state or federal government getting involved in that, however.

Thanks.

FWIW, the move of medicine away from paternalism and towards patient autonomy means that we taught in school not to moralize to patients in most instances. For instance, it would be inappropriate to tell a patient to stop drinking because you are morally opposed to alcohol. However, it's appropriate to advise a patient to stop drinking because their liver is hanging on by a thread.

I think don't think the being a moralist is a yolk that most health care providers want to wear. The basic medicine is sufficiently difficult without going into ancillary issues.

An interesting aside to this line of thought is the Quinlan case were the Catholic Hospital she was at refused to remove her life support on the grounds of moral objections. I think the family took them to court and won on the matter.

It's off the top of my head, so I could be wrong.

I know Quinlan set the stage for Cruzan which set the stage for Schiavo.

 

[Immanuel]

G-T-H,

I see it differently than you do. I see this as being an attempt to inform rather than harass. In my opinion, take that for what you will, the left wants to deceive mothers into believing their babies are not human. This law is intended to correct that mis-information.

It does not prevent an abortion should the mother choose to take it farther. It simply provides further information. And as for cost, ultrasounds should be a part of the procedure itself. I suspect any legitimate providers already have ultrasound machines so they are not going to have to go out and upgrade their equipment.

Why would the left not want to provide complete information, is what I want to know.

Immie

I respect your opinion on the matter, I just disagree. I don't see this (now dead) bill as being terribly nuanced. I see it as an attempt to shame women into changing their minds. Obviously the law can't ban abortion, that would get struck down immediately. However, it attempts to co-erce people's decisions. That's just wrong. If you want to make a law then it should be a rather black and white matter (i.e. legal or illegal) not a matter of "Well, we can't make this illegal, so instead we are going to use the law to try and shame mothers into doing our bidding. Furthermore, it mandates an un-necessary medical procedure.

I really doubt that women who are undergoing an abortion need to be given a visual on the fact that they are about to terminate a life/fetus/baby (whatever semantics you adhere to on this issue).

First let me thank you for the respectful reply. I much prefer discussions that start out this way. We disagree, but we live in America and we can freely disagree.

Second, I don't see this as an attempt to shame a mother-to-be out of an abortion. This is why. Who provides the Ultra-sound? My understanding is that it can and would most likely be the abortion provider. Am I correct in that assumption? If so, do you really believe "shame" will be involved? Will an abortion provider tell the woman she is "evil" (I am NOT saying she is) because, "look at that cute little nose and ahhhh, see, she's sucking her thumb?" No, I don't think that is how things will go down. The mother-to-be will simply see the fetus within her and then be allowed to determine on her own, whether or not she wants to go on with this procedure.

Of course, it would still depend on the honesty of the provider. I'm no ultra-sound technician, but I have seen ultra sounds and I can say, that when the technician told me, "there is your daughter's head, I can't be certain that it is a girl, but I think so, she's modest, her hand is covering the important areas". I had to take her word for it. The tech could have been showing a picture of my wife's gallbladder for all I know!

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

First let me thank you for the respectful reply. I much prefer discussions that start out this way. We disagree, but we live in America and we can freely disagree.

Second, I don't see this as an attempt to shame a mother-to-be out of an abortion. This is why. Who provides the Ultra-sound? My understanding is that it can and would most likely be the abortion provider. Am I correct in that assumption? If so, do you really believe "shame" will be involved? Will an abortion provider tell the woman she is "evil" (I am NOT saying she is) because, "look at that cute little nose and ahhhh, see, she's sucking her thumb?" No, I don't think that is how things will go down. The mother-to-be will simply see the fetus within her and then be allowed to determine on her own, whether or not she wants to go on with this procedure.

Of course, it would still depend on the honesty of the provider. I'm no ultra-sound technician, but I have seen ultra sounds and I can say, that when the technician told me, "there is your daughter's head, I can't be certain that it is a girl, but I think so, she's modest, her hand is covering the important areas". I had to take her word for it. The tech could have been showing a picture of my wife's gallbladder for all I know!

Immie

No, I doubt the abortion provider would moralize during the procedure. In fact, I would suspect that they would be sufficiently annoyed that they had to do this.

What's at issue is that this procedure is not necessary. Thus, the only reason this law was passed (prior to it's veto) was to try and change women's minds.

As I said, I don't think the law should get into coercion.

 

[Immanuel]

First let me thank you for the respectful reply. I much prefer discussions that start out this way. We disagree, but we live in America and we can freely disagree.

Second, I don't see this as an attempt to shame a mother-to-be out of an abortion. This is why. Who provides the Ultra-sound? My understanding is that it can and would most likely be the abortion provider. Am I correct in that assumption? If so, do you really believe "shame" will be involved? Will an abortion provider tell the woman she is "evil" (I am NOT saying she is) because, "look at that cute little nose and ahhhh, see, she's sucking her thumb?" No, I don't think that is how things will go down. The mother-to-be will simply see the fetus within her and then be allowed to determine on her own, whether or not she wants to go on with this procedure.

Of course, it would still depend on the honesty of the provider. I'm no ultra-sound technician, but I have seen ultra sounds and I can say, that when the technician told me, "there is your daughter's head, I can't be certain that it is a girl, but I think so, she's modest, her hand is covering the important areas". I had to take her word for it. The tech could have been showing a picture of my wife's gallbladder for all I know!

Immie

No, I doubt the abortion provider would moralize during the procedure. In fact, I would suspect that they would be sufficiently annoyed that they had to do this.

What's at issue is that this procedure is not necessary. Thus, the only reason this law was passed (prior to it's veto) was to try and change women's minds.

As I said, I don't think the law should get into coercion.

Please explain to me where you see coercion in this case.

The law as I understand it, does not attempt to prevent abortions in any manner. It only attempts to give the mother-to-be a clearer picture as to the stage of development of the fetus within her.

Why would you think that would not be necessary? I would agree that it may not be medically necessary, but in my view, as much information as possible is necessary. The fact that abortion providers want to hide that information is alarming to me.

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

blaa blaa blaa.
do you think if it "did" save one baby's life it would be a GOOD THING?
probably not.
so now go out and cast your vote for Christ just over this ONE subject.

First, I am 100% pro life. I believe life begins at conception and that abortion ends a human life.

Second, I would not support abortion for any reason being outlawed because there are legitimate reasons that abortion is indicated.

Third, I don't presume to judge those who determine legitimate reasons differently than I would.

Fourth, I want the federal government out of abortion and allow the states or preferably the local communities decide their own policies.

Fifth, I would think requiring an ultrasound for a mother who was having to make the heart wrenching decision to end an unviable or dangerous pregnancy would be extremely cruel. However, because I believe abortion is ending a human life, in the case of abortion for convenience, I have a hard time thinking it unreasonable to advise the mother of all the ramifications of what she is doing.

So I guess for me, I would settle for a hospital or clinic having the legal right to require just about anything before they would perform an abortion for convenience. And I very much want us to get back to the social norm where they would feel it the moral choice to do so. I don't want the state or federal government getting involved in that, however.

Thanks.

FWIW, the move of medicine away from paternalism and towards patient autonomy means that we taught in school not to moralize to patients in most instances. For instance, it would be inappropriate to tell a patient to stop drinking because you are morally opposed to alcohol. However, it's appropriate to advise a patient to stop drinking because their liver is hanging on by a thread.

I think don't think the being a moralist is a yolk that most health care providers want to wear. The basic medicine is sufficiently difficult without going into ancillary issues.

An interesting aside to this line of thought is the Quinlan case were the Catholic Hospital she was at refused to remove her life support on the grounds of moral objections. I think the family took them to court and won on the matter.

It's off the top of my head, so I could be wrong.

I know Quinlan set the stage for Cruzan which set the stage for Schiavo.

But don't they still teach ethics in medical school? Would you remove a healthy hand or foot because somebody had some kind of mental fetish and wanted you to? Is there no room left for a hospital or doctor to refuse to perform an abortion for convenience, not because the mother is 'evil', but because they value that human life that would be killed?

Again I try hard not to get into the area of judging other people. But if I was medical personnel, I would not want to be put in the position of having to assist with ending the life of an unborn child for no other reason than the mother didn't want it.

And because I believe people should be free to follow the dictates of their own conscience, that is why I wish they would just leave the policy to the local community and/or hospital and/or clinic.

 

[geauxtohell]

Please explain to me where you see coercion in this case.

What other intent would there be behind requiring an ultrasound prior to termination of a fetus? Do we require people to see a picture of cancer before it's removed so they are adequately informed about exactly what is about to be taken out of their body?

The law as I understand it, does not attempt to prevent abortions in any manner. It only attempts to give the mother-to-be a clearer picture as to the stage of development of the fetus within her.

Why would you think that would not be necessary? I would agree that it may not be medically necessary, but in my view, as much information as possible is necessary. The fact that abortion providers want to hide that information is alarming to me.

Immie

Abortion providers aren't hiding anything. If any woman who was about to get an abortion requested an ultrasound on her own accord, she would be provided one. That's quite a different matter than forcing the ultrasound on her. If the mother has made up her mind to have an abortion, than why is the stage of development of the fetus important? Again, if not coercion, what is the point of this?

 

[Immanuel]

Please explain to me where you see coercion in this case.

What other intent would there be behind requiring an ultrasound prior to termination of a fetus? Do we require people to see a picture of cancer before it's removed so they are adequately informed about exactly what is about to be taken out of their body?

Education, information, truthfulness to name three.

The law as I understand it, does not attempt to prevent abortions in any manner. It only attempts to give the mother-to-be a clearer picture as to the stage of development of the fetus within her.

Why would you think that would not be necessary? I would agree that it may not be medically necessary, but in my view, as much information as possible is necessary. The fact that abortion providers want to hide that information is alarming to me.

Immie

Abortion providers aren't hiding anything. If any woman who was about to get an abortion requested an ultrasound on her own accord, she would be provided one. That's quite a different matter than forcing the ultrasound on her. If the mother has made up her mind to have an abortion, than why is the stage of development of the fetus important? Again, if not coercion, what is the point of this?

This is one place where you and I disagree completely. You see, when I hear abortion proponents telling us that the fetus is nothing more than a "clump of cells". I know that is dishonest, because the fact is that even if this issue were brought up 10 days after conception which it is not, then that so called "clump of cells" is a developing human being which makes it more than a "clump of cells".

I see this as nothing more than an attempt to rectify those dishonest tactics. Again, there is no judgment placed on the mother-to-be in this law and nothing prevents her from going forward with her decision after the information is provided. All this does, is to help to insure that she has a clearer picture before she moves forward.

Call it... "Truth in Advertising"!

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

But don't they still teach ethics in medical school? Would you remove a healthy hand or foot because somebody had some kind of mental fetish and wanted you to? Is there no room left for a hospital or doctor to refuse to perform an abortion for convenience, not because the mother is 'evil', but because they value that human life that would be killed?

Again I try hard not to get into the area of judging other people. But if I was medical personnel, I would not want to be put in the position of having to assist with ending the life of an unborn child for no other reason than the mother didn't want it.

And because I believe people should be free to follow the dictates of their own conscience, that is why I wish they would just leave the policy to the local community and/or hospital and/or clinic.

Sure. I've actually had more "ethics" classes than I care for personally. After a while it starts to get repetitive. Modern medical ethics really came about after the Nuremberg trials and are guided under the six tenets of the Belmont report:

* (1) Respect for persons: protecting the autonomy of all people and treating them with courtesy and respect and allowing for informed consent;
* (2) Beneficence: maximizing benefits for the research project while minimizing risks to the research subjects; and
* (3) Justice: ensuring reasonable, non-exploitative, and well-considered procedures are administered fairly (the fair distribution of costs and benefits to potential research participants.)
* (4) Fidelity: fairness and equality.
* (5) Non-maleficence: Do no harm.
* (6) Veracity: Be truthful, no deception.

With autonomy being at the top of the list. Patient autonomy means that patients are allowed to make their own decisions on matters without un-necessary coercion by medical staff. It's a move away from the days of old when Drs made all the decisions and didn't feel the need to include the patient in the decision making process ("paternalism").

As it stands, no medical provider is forced to conduct or participate in an abortion (it even extends to residents and medical students during their training). That's the way it should be. However, for those Drs. that are willing to conduct the procedure, abortion is legal and this law was just wrong.

On the larger issue of "morals" the obviously tricky question is "whose morals"? The law (I believe) accepts that institutions can be guided by certain moral principles, but only to an extent. For example, I don't think Catholic hospitals can be forced to provide abortions. However, when they tried to block the Quinlan family from removing her life support on moral grounds, they lost.

 

[geauxtohell]

Education, information, truthfulness to name three.

None of which mandate an ultrasound.

This is one place where you and I disagree completely. You see, when I hear abortion proponents telling us that the fetus is nothing more than a "clump of cells". I know that is dishonest, because the fact is that even if this issue were brought up 10 days after conception which it is not, then that so called "clump of cells" is a developing human being which makes it more than a "clump of cells".

I see this as nothing more than an attempt to rectify those dishonest tactics. Again, there is no judgment placed on the mother-to-be in this law and nothing prevents her from going forward with her decision after the information is provided. All this does, is to help to insure that she has a clearer picture before she moves forward.

Call it... "Truth in Advertising"!

Immie

Actually, I think the semantics behind what is being terminated during an abortion are silly and generally a waste of time. I just used the term "fetus" because it's a proper term. However, I don't deny that life is being destroyed during an abortion.

I just don't see it as relevant, frankly. The only reason people are wrapped up in the definition of "life" versus "cells" is simply so the term "murder" can be incorporated into the act. That's just more silly semantics.

To me, the only relevant issue is that abortion is legal. Other people can split hairs over nuance.

As for truth in advertisement, noting stops any woman who is getting an abortion from requesting an ultrasound if she so chooses.

That's a far cry from requiring that she get one.

 

[Immanuel]

Education, information, truthfulness to name three.

None of which mandate an ultrasound.

This is one place where you and I disagree completely. You see, when I hear abortion proponents telling us that the fetus is nothing more than a "clump of cells". I know that is dishonest, because the fact is that even if this issue were brought up 10 days after conception which it is not, then that so called "clump of cells" is a developing human being which makes it more than a "clump of cells".

I see this as nothing more than an attempt to rectify those dishonest tactics. Again, there is no judgment placed on the mother-to-be in this law and nothing prevents her from going forward with her decision after the information is provided. All this does, is to help to insure that she has a clearer picture before she moves forward.

Call it... "Truth in Advertising"!

Immie

Actually, I think the semantics behind what is being terminated during an abortion are silly and generally a waste of time. I just used the term "fetus" because it's a proper term. However, I don't deny that life is being destroyed during an abortion.

I just don't see it as relevant, frankly. The only reason people are wrapped up in the definition of "life" versus "cells" is simply so the term "murder" can be incorporated into the act. That's just more silly semantics.

To me, the only relevant issue is that abortion is legal. Other people can split hairs over nuance.

As for truth in advertisement, noting stops any woman who is getting an abortion from requesting an ultrasound if she so chooses.

That's a far cry from requiring that she get one.

First of all, I do not term abortion as being murder. Murder has a specific meaning and is defined roughly as the illegal killing of a human being. In the case of abortion, since it is clearly legal in all cases, it is not murder. I do believe that abortion for convenience sake, is immoral. It is not murder.

Should the laws change that would be different.

As a pro-lifer, I do not believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, although I would have preferred it never having been decided as it was. If the federal government simply washed its hands of the issue and turned the issue over to the states, you would have states such as mine (well maybe not with Gov. Crist at the helm) limiting abortions or some even making it illegal in all cases and you would have other states such as my former state, now guided by the likes of those witches Boxer and Feinstein, that make it legal in all cases. This in effect would make it legal in all cases for some and cause nothing but confusion.

I would prefer education to making it illegal. I would prefer some restrictions i.e. third trimester restrictions as compared to what we have today, abortion on demand up to and including the moment of birth.

As you can tell, I disagree with you on the "far cry from requiring that she get one" point. If abortion proponents could be honest with their practices things would be different. But, honesty is not the norm from either side of this discussion.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

By the way, I suspect that Gov. Crist's motives for this step are very political. He made this move not because of his beliefs, but rather because after stepping away from the Republican Party he realizes that he had better seek as much assistance from the Democratic Party (by appealing to their base) as he can.

I suspect that negotiations are already underway that should he win the seat as an independent in November, by January, he will be a Democrat. He could not win running as a Democrat in this election.

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

First of all, I do not term abortion as being murder. Murder has a specific meaning and is defined roughly as the illegal killing of a human being. In the case of abortion, since it is clearly legal in all cases, it is not murder. I do believe that abortion for convenience sake, is immoral. It is not murder.

I couldn't agree with you more on the use of the term "murder" in the abortion debate. I wish more anti-abortion people felt that way, but the fact is: "Abortion is murder" is almost a battle cry.

I really respect your logical view on the matter.

Should the laws change that would be different.

As a pro-lifer, I do not believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, although I would have preferred it never having been decided as it was. If the federal government simply washed its hands of the issue and turned the issue over to the states, you would have states such as mine (well maybe not with Gov. Crist at the helm) limiting abortions or some even making it illegal in all cases and you would have other states such as my former state, now guided by the likes of those witches Boxer and Feinstein, that make it legal in all cases. This in effect would make it legal in all cases for some and cause nothing but confusion.

I would prefer education to making it illegal. I would prefer some restrictions i.e. third trimester restrictions as compared to what we have today, abortion on demand up to and including the moment of birth.

As you can tell, I disagree with you on the "far cry from requiring that she get one" point. If abortion proponents could be honest with their practices things would be different. But, honesty is not the norm from either side of this discussion.

Immie

We are just going to disagree on the ultrasound issue. That is fine. I agree with you about Roe and the abortion issue at large. If people want to do away with abortion, they should address the issue from the top. However, I disagree that it should be an issue for the states only for this reason: that's what led to the Roe decision to begin with. If anything is going to come out of this hugely divisive issue legally, then I think it should be federal.

If the federal government banned abortion and the courts upheld it, then I would disagree with, but obviously respect the law.

I see this piece of legislation as an underhanded attempt to humiliate women who choose to have a legal medical procedure done. I don't think the intent was ever education.

 

[geauxtohell]

By the way, I suspect that Gov. Crist's motives for this step are very political. He made this move not because of his beliefs, but rather because after stepping away from the Republican Party he realizes that he had better seek as much assistance from the Democratic Party (by appealing to their base) as he can.

I suspect that negotiations are already underway that should he win the seat as an independent in November, by January, he will be a Democrat. He could not win running as a Democrat in this election.

Immie

Every thing in politics is political. That doesn't mean that Governor Crist couldn't have also acted in good faith on this matter.

 

[Foxfyre]

As a pro-lifer, I do not believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, although I would have preferred it never having been decided as it was. If the federal government simply washed its hands of the issue and turned the issue over to the states, you would have states such as mine (well maybe not with Gov. Crist at the helm) limiting abortions or some even making it illegal in all cases and you would have other states such as my former state, now guided by the likes of those witches Boxer and Feinstein, that make it legal in all cases. This in effect would make it legal in all cases for some and cause nothing but confusion.

Immie

Acknowledging that I cherry picked the paragraph from Immie's post that I wanted to comment on.

If the courts had upheld the spirit and intent of Roe v Wade, the whole debate would be a lot easier. It wasn't that bad a piece of legislation though I wish the court had strengthened the language so that the lower courts wouldn't be able to dicker with it so much. The language that is there is reasoned, sensible, and exquisite, however.

Basically the principle is that in the first trimester, the law should leave it up to the mother and doctor as to what will happen. It is there that personal morality would dictate all decisions and the state will stay out of it.

In the second trimester the state has increasing interest. It is here that it would be reasonble for laws as to what would constitute legal and illegal abortions to come into play.

By the third trimester, the state would have a great deal of interest and could outlaw abortions for most reasons other than to protect the mother from harm or require a court order to get one or whatever.

So basically these days, anything goes so far as some of the courts and pro abortion crowd are concerned, and Roe v Wade is the license for anything goes but is otherwise declared effectively dead.

I am hoping there will be a challenge to interpretation of Roe v Wade one of these days, and the original concept will be strengthened. I think that's the best we will probably be able to do on this issue.

 

[geauxtohell]

blaa blaa blaa.
do you think if it "did" save one baby's life it would be a GOOD THING?
probably not.
so now go out and cast your vote for Christ just over this ONE subject.

I don't think I could be anymore clear in my statements that this was bad law.

I don't live in FL, so I won't be voting for or against Crist. I just admire the fact that he stood up to the wingnuts in his former party.

As for this abortion being a "single issue voter" thing: please. That is never more true than in the anti-abortion camp.

lol, since when did a lefty-liberal give a crap about a "bad" law that tries to impose morality on someone.

take abortion and gay marriage for starters.

BTW, Stephanie.

You'll recall that the anti-abortion party, the GOP, had a majority in the House, Senate, and also the Presidency for the better part of six years.

During that time, to my knowledge, no attempt was made to outlaw abortion.

Now why is that? It's speculative, but I suspect that they GOP knew that, with a court that was historically 5-4, they might have passed a law against abortion that would have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

Then they would have lost one of their biggest issues.

Frankly, I can't see why the anti-abortion movement still hitches it's wagon to the GOP. I mean, the Dems never pretend like they are going to overturn Roe. However, the GOP just keeps stringing the issue along.

 

[geauxtohell]

As a pro-lifer, I do not believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, although I would have preferred it never having been decided as it was. If the federal government simply washed its hands of the issue and turned the issue over to the states, you would have states such as mine (well maybe not with Gov. Crist at the helm) limiting abortions or some even making it illegal in all cases and you would have other states such as my former state, now guided by the likes of those witches Boxer and Feinstein, that make it legal in all cases. This in effect would make it legal in all cases for some and cause nothing but confusion.

Immie

Acknowledging that I cherry picked the paragraph from Immie's post that I wanted to comment on.

If the courts had upheld the spirit and intent of Roe v Wade, the whole debate would be a lot easier. It wasn't that bad a piece of legislation though I wish the court had strengthened the language so that the lower courts wouldn't be able to dicker with it so much. The language that is there is reasoned, sensible, and exquisite, however.

Basically the principle is that in the first trimester, the law should leave it up to the mother and doctor as to what will happen. It is there that personal morality would dictate all decisions and the state will stay out of it.

In the second trimester the state has increasing interest. It is here that it would be reasonble for laws as to what would constitute legal and illegal abortions to come into play.

By the third trimester, the state would have a great deal of interest and could outlaw abortions for most reasons other than to protect the mother from harm or require a court order to get one or whatever.

So basically these days, anything goes so far as some of the courts and pro abortion crowd are concerned, and Roe v Wade is the license for anything goes but is otherwise declared effectively dead.

I am hoping there will be a challenge to interpretation of Roe v Wade one of these days, and the original concept will be strengthened. I think that's the best we will probably be able to do on this issue.

Not "everything" goes. Late term abortions are banned.

Why didn't the GOP try and address Roe through legal channels when it had control of the house and senate?