13 Comments

Is it me, or is this a bit of wishful thinking on the part of the author?

A Federal injunction on the law means that these “conservative agenda” items are bound to head to the Supreme Court. I don’t know the text of the laws passed, but if they “extreme” I’m wondering if they are baiting the court to weaken Roe v. Wade and the related decisions.

Could you give some examples of the extreme decisions you mentioned?

The Alabama immigration law, for example, goes further than any state has done through such sanctions as criminalizing the giving of rides to illegals and suspending the licenses of businesses. See details at http://csattorneys.com/hb56-alabama-immigration-law/ .

I think that is a good point about the Alabama immigration law. The NYT quoted you as using the plural – are there more bills which qualify as extreme?

The Indiana law forbids Medicaid expenditures to medical providers who also provide abortions, which goes a lot farther than just forbidding the spending of public moneys on abortion. See: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/daily-reports/2011/june/21/states-and-planned-parenthood.aspx .

The Texas law requires doctors to provide verbal descriptions of fetuses before abortion even if neither they nor the pregnant woman want that. See: http://www.npr.org/2011/05/10/136175320/gop-lawmakers-push-for-stricter-abortion-laws?ps=rs

Whether or not these measures would count as extreme in some sort of absolute sense, when launched against the background of a continuing assertion by the U.S. Supreme Court of a constitutional right to abortion, they more or less announce “I dare you to strike me down.”

If you will indulge me in another comment:

I’m not sure which abortion regulations *wouldn’t* be extreme, if these two are.

Indiana decided that taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to give money to abortion providers, no matter how much clever bookkeeping the government uses. Government assistance to one part of an organization’s activities (eg, condoms) frees up money for other parts (eg, abortion).

Requiring a mother to learn about her fetus before killing it is about as moderate as it gets. If the mother doesn’t want to learn, perhaps it’s because she isn’t fully comfortable with an abortion, and that a Sunsteinian “nudge” might induce her to go with some other option, like adoption or raising the child herself.

The Supreme Court forbids “undue burden[s]” on abortion – whether any burden is “due” is something we can only learn when the court rules.

I tend to agree that “I dare you” legislation is a silly waste of time and doesn’t make these Republicans look like serious leaders. On the other hand, when you have federal judges like Sam Sparks dropping snarky footnotes that trumpet his own pro-abortion politics, who does look good? The gimmicks debase the whole process.

Oh, wait. I’m talking about American democracy. Never mind. It’s already debased.

One thing I’ve seen quiet a room when talking about undue burden on a court ruling, was suggesting that the same regulations be applied to something that political party supports.
For example: If an X day waiting period, and background check on purchasing a gun is not an “undue burden” on the right to bear arms, then neither would be a X day waiting period and background check on an abortion.

Bob-

That’s a lot of supposition coming from a person who will never find himself impregnated. Are you seriously postulating that most women who get abortions don’t bother to consider their choice before they already get there? Have you ever actually spoken to a woman who has had an abortion?

Also, your reference to ‘clever accounting’ was a real hoot, but I think more apropos of WND or Breitbart if you want to defend Republicans using dishonesty and not be challenged.

Bob, what’s your defense of these tactics considering Republicans campaigned before Nov. ’10 almost exclusively on a mantra of ‘jobs,’ but instead spent (and continue to spend) millions of dollars attacking a constitutional right and failed to introduce one single jobs bill?

“if you want to defend Republicans using dishonesty”

I am not a Republican – I really don’t care *which* party deals with abortion. Both of the major parties practice dishonesty.

“Have you ever actually spoken to a woman who has had an abortion?”

At least three. One of them thought that she was haunted by the ghost of the dead fetus.

I have seen estimates that at least some women will change their minds after learning more about the child – women strike me as competent enough to assimilate new information and process it appropriately – I don’t get the idea of affirming women by withholding information from them.

“Had I been told of all the side effects; had I been given information on how to raise a child, I would never have aborted my baby.”

http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=1315

“Looking back, I know that child must have been fighting for its very life. If I had only known then what I know now about abortion! I heard what I wanted to hear, blacking out the reality of what I was about to do.”

http://www.priestsforlife.org/postabortion/casestudyproject/casestudy764.htm

“I saw women who were emotionally and physically scarred by their visit to an abortion clinic. They often came asking us if it was a baby, and more often than not, they were lied to and told no. ‘It’s a product of conception,’ we’d say, or ‘it’s just a few missed periods, that’s all.’” – Norma McCorvey, the “Roe” of Roe v. Wade and former abortion clinic worker

For Bob Roberts above,

My first wife and I were very poor students. She got her lady care and birth control at heavily subsidized fees. Planned Parenthood was a godsend for us. I just can’t understand why anybody would want to close them down.

Roughly twenty percent of pregnancies are aborted. How can the procedure be considered extreme? Up to about 1900, infanticide was used to control reproduction. Good birth control beyond “just say no” and safe abortion provide our society the luxury of outlawing infanticide.

Money is fungible; that’s what makes money, money. The common reference to Planned Parenthood’s bookkeeping is sophomoric. I see “right to life” to be ignorant and evil.

The great progress in living stands in China came , to a great extent from restrictions on reproduction. Those blessings were denied to many other countries by the extreme policies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Shame on them.

William Nuesslein,

I think we have different ideas about many things, including China’s forcible “one child” policy. I suppose that one of us is right, but I don’t think we can find out in this forum.

One thing, though – if Planned Parenthood gave up abortion, then I doubt very much that anyone would be trying to cut off their government funding, much less shut them down. If, as they say, only 3% of their work is abortion, they can simply drop that 3% and get back to getting paid by the government for all their other services.