|Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 5):|
State Sen. Donna Campbell, the Republican who helped to shut down Democratic Sen. Wendy Davis' filibuster of the abortion bill on procedural grounds, told the New York Times that lawmakers should be wary of monitoring chemical plants more closely because there's "a point at which you can overregulate.""
Sure, there's a point at which you overregulate. But when your state is one of the most dangerous states in which to work, you haven't reached it.
|Quoting dreadnought (Reply 18):|
but plenty of those who want no restrictions whatsoever - a position I find even more distasteful as it is completely devoid of any sort of compromise or moral compass as it relegates the unborn fetus to the status of a tumor - which we scientifically know is false.
Or maybe we just don't want to put women through the unintended consequences of making certain types of abortion illegal.
Whenever you start introducing exceptions into an abortion law, you open up a whole can of worms. That's true whether you're talking about an exception for rape in a complete ban or an exception for something dangerous to the mother in a late-term abortion ban. Let's take the case of a woman who has been told by her doctor that there is a problem with her pregnancy that could endanger her health and recommends an abortion. She goes for a second opinion, and the second doctor disagrees and thinks that the pregnancy could continue safely. She's past the cutoff date for an abortion, and so will have to qualify for an exception. If she has the abortion, she'd be opening herself up to prosecution by the state (and don't think for a second that there aren't pro-life attorney generals out there who would be happy to do so) for having an abortion when there was an opinion that it wasn't medically necessary. If she tries to sort things out beforehand that there's a more solid case for her having an abortion if she wants to go that direction, the process gets delayed, and if the abortion ends up happening later in the term than it should, which is something nobody wants to have happen. And, of course, during that time the pregnancy could take a turn for the worse and she could get sick and die (as happened in Ireland fairly recently) - obviously that's not a desirable outcome for anyone either. She's in a no-win situation - she's either at risk of being a criminal (and possibly going to jail) or at risk of putting her life in danger. And she's done nothing wrong. How is that fair to her? Yet that's the situation that implementing any sort of abortion ban would put her in.
If you're going to advocate putting people in that position, you'd better show that the potential benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks. If women are going around having late-term abortions of convenience like it's no bigger deal than getting their hair or nails done, then that's despicable and disgusting and wrong and I'd say that getting rid of that would be worth it. But I've never seen anything from the anti-abortion crowd to indicate that that's the case - it seems to be a lot of anger about a problem that doesn't really exist. And it's not right to put well-meaning people in criminal jeopardy over a phantom problem.
I certainly don't view a fetus as nothing more than a tumor, and I certainly have no love for late-term abortions, but I have even less love for legislatures making decisions on what is medically necessary and what isn't. That's an unacceptable government intrusion into what should be someone's personal decision about their health. Not only do legislatures lack the expertise to make such a determination, but legislatures are inherently political, and politics has no place anywhere near such decisions.
Also, it should be said that what angers me the most about the sorts of abominable bills that Ohio has passed, and that Texas tried to pass (and thankfully failed to, at least for now), is not the limit on when you can do an abortion. It's all the other stuff, like how the bills require abortion clinics to adhere to such strict standards that almost all of them in the state would be forced to close, thus imposing a severe hardship on women who want to get even early-term abortions. Ohio's law requires abortion clinics to have a transfer agreement with a hospital, then prohibits a public hospital from entering into such a transfer agreement, leaving mostly religious hospitals as possible candidates (and you can guess how willing they'd be to work out a deal). That's not about protecting women's health at all, that's about trying to impose a complete abortion ban by making it too impractical to get an abortion. If the bills just banned abortion after a certain time period and left everything else intact, I think you'd see far less opposition to them (though I'd still feel uncomfortable with them for the reasons I mentioned above). But that's not the direction the GOP has decided to take.
|Quoting dreadnought (Reply 18):|
As we recently saw with the House bill to limit abortion in the 3rd trimester, the reaction from the pro-choice movement (at least the vocal extremists within it) was the 'Slippery Slope' argument - that no restrictions can be accepted because it might justify future restrictions. No interest in compromise or negotiation whatsoever. That is what offends me.
May I assume, then, that you were offended when the pro-gun lobby raised hell about a background check law because it was a slippery slope to total confiscation of weapons?