In my post about guns, I described what I consider to be a hypocrisy of many on the right: supporting bans on abortions to save the unborn, while opposing stricter gun controls to save the born. Many on the left are guilty of the opposite hypocrisy, though.
I cannot help but wish you had informed yourself better about the actual facts surrounding this issue before you devoted the significant time and effort it took to write such a lengthy post.
One fact: Obama made extraordinary progress towards the goal of making abortion safe, legal and rare. During his administration, the rate of elective abortions declined more dramatically than at any other time. He did not accomplish this through abortion legislation, however. He accomplished it through the ACA.
The ACA requires insurers to cover all costs associated with contraceptive care as one of its designated 10 essential services. This provision radically changed access to long term reversible contraception methods, methods which are far too expensive for most middle and low income Americans to afford without insurance and methods which are the gold standard for contraceptive reliability. After the ACA took effect, all Americans gained affordable access to contraception that works reliably, and as a result, elective abortion rates began to fall for the first time since Roe.
The debate over what legitimate interest government has in protecting developing life was resolved in Casey. The line is drawn at pre- vs post-viability. Specifically what this means is that prior to viability, the right to life, liberty, and freedom from undue government interference lie with the pregnant person. After viability, the pregnant person and the developing fetus enjoy equal right to life, liberty, and freedom from undue government interference.
Medical practice is governed by legal, ethical, and evolving scientific standards. It is laughable that anyone imagines women can obtain abortions for viable fetuses. Doctors are compelled to deliver (not abort? pregnancies that have advanced beyond viability, even when the reason for cutting a pregnancy short is due to medical necessity to protect the life or health of the mother.
There are rare pregnancies that progress past the typical point of viability, but never result in actual viability. Once a medical diagnosis has determined the pregnancy has ended in fetal demise, or that the fetus has developmental abnormalities incompatible with life, all rights regarding the medical treatment of the pregnancy must revert to the pregnant person.
A belief that unique potential human life exists prior to viability is not a justification for governmental intervention to favor the rights of potential life over the rights of the pregnant person. It is important to recognize that, in Casey, the government does not prevent a pregnant person from relinquishing their rights in favor of the developing fetus. It simply doesn’t require them to do so.
What your analysis misses - or fails to address - is the decades-long propaganda effort of those politically opposed to abortion. The ongoing and deliberately inflammatory misrepresentations of pregnancy facts, existing law, political positions, and medical practices have muddied the debate so effectively that it’s nearly impossible to arrive at the middle ground. Fortunately, the majority of Americans see beyond the rhetoric, in part because their own lived experiences inform their understanding. As a result, public consensus on this subject is arriving at a middle ground that has been gaining traction with every month we live post-Roe.
Rational people don’t want lawyers and politicians and preachers to practice medicine without a license. Rational people don’t believe that pregnant individuals are both inhumane enough to murder “unborn babies” and also responsible enough to parent these same babies after birth for decades. Rational people understand that forced pregnancy - let alone forced parenthood - is inhumane. And rational people understand that the inevitable consequence of human sexual reproduction is that the vast majority of human embryos do not survive until birth. The miracle of life occurs at birth - not at conception - as any human being who has experienced pregnancy loss can attest.
Thanks for the detailed post! I'm confused why you think it corrects mine, however, as I see very little in what you said that contradicts things I said. I can't help but think you made some assumptions at the beginning, skimmed the rest, and then started writing your reply without really hearing what I was saying.
My comment about Obama was not to make a statement about what he did or did not accomplish, via other initiatives, around the issue of abortion. It was simply to express frustration that the reason that particular initiative failed was due to a lack of cooperation by partisans on both sides. And my statement "I cannot help but notice that their passion for a government solution to the evil of abortion rarely extends to passion for a government solution to the societal hardships that often lead to unwanted pregnancy in the first place, or continued support of non-aborted children throughout childhood." was intended to encompass all kinds of government initiatives that help reduce demand for abortions, which includes improved access to contraception and other forms of health care. So we're not disagreeing here.
The Casey viability standard is not one I find as compelling as Roe because viability is a moving target, unlike trimesters, but my broader point is that both ultimately involve drawing a somewhat arbitrary line where "early termination is less bad than later" and it's all about figuring out as a society where to draw the line that best balances the competing claims and rights at issue here. Reasonable people can disagree on where to do that, and as both laws are now deemed unconstitutional, neither standard has more legal weight. My point here isn't to endorse one or the other Supreme Court decision, but simply to use the trimester framework of Roe as a useful example which mirrors global public opinion and intuitions on this subject.
Your claim that there are no abortions past viability, even to protect the life of the mother, needs citations. That would suggest that there are zero third-trimester abortions, but while they are rare (as I note), they do happen.
You wrote "A belief that unique potential human life exists prior to viability is not a justification for governmental intervention to favor the rights of potential life over the rights of the pregnant person." I'm pretty sure I made this exact same point, just not specifically about viability, in writing "choosing where to draw the line is not clear-cut, but this at least provides a reasonable framework for a public policy that reflects a broad consensus, does not impose undue government regulation on a question of personal conviction, while still protecting the rights of the unborn once they have developed past a certain point."
"As a result, public consensus on this subject is arriving at a middle ground that has been gaining traction with every month we live post-Roe." - this is pretty much my second-to-last paragraph.
"The miracle of life occurs at birth - not at conception - as any human being who has experienced pregnancy loss can attest." - this is an opinion (and one which ignores the experience of miscarriage), though I make basically this general point about the loss being greater when it happens later.
You say I should have focused on past behavior of pro-life advocates which misrepresented the facts. If my goal was to fact-check or primarily critique past actions of certain pro-life advocates, that would make sense, but it's not. My goal rather is to apply what I consider to be the best arguments of both sides to advocate for a middle ground and recognition of the values important to each side. I'm trying to be constructive here and inform partisans of what I consider to be the reasonable opposing arguments, not engage in ad hominems about which impune the motives or rationality of individuals based on the actions of others who share similar views. This is in fact precisely what I'm trying to avoid in this substack.
Third trimester abortions do NOT occur unless the pregnancy is nonviable. The confusion around this issue is due to political demagoguery and medical terminology.
There is presently one (1) provider in the US that will perform third trimester terminations - none of which are covered by health insurance, and are prohibitively expensive to obtain.
This is just one example of your implicit acceptance of the pro-life framing that dominates this discussion.
I am out of time now. But your points were not as clear as you think and you did not explicitly root your ideas in the thought that has come before you.
Viable pregnancies are not terminated even in the case of grave risk to the pregnant person. Early delivery is induced and premature infants receive care.
I cannot help but wish you had informed yourself better about the actual facts surrounding this issue before you devoted the significant time and effort it took to write such a lengthy post.
One fact: Obama made extraordinary progress towards the goal of making abortion safe, legal and rare. During his administration, the rate of elective abortions declined more dramatically than at any other time. He did not accomplish this through abortion legislation, however. He accomplished it through the ACA.
The ACA requires insurers to cover all costs associated with contraceptive care as one of its designated 10 essential services. This provision radically changed access to long term reversible contraception methods, methods which are far too expensive for most middle and low income Americans to afford without insurance and methods which are the gold standard for contraceptive reliability. After the ACA took effect, all Americans gained affordable access to contraception that works reliably, and as a result, elective abortion rates began to fall for the first time since Roe.
The debate over what legitimate interest government has in protecting developing life was resolved in Casey. The line is drawn at pre- vs post-viability. Specifically what this means is that prior to viability, the right to life, liberty, and freedom from undue government interference lie with the pregnant person. After viability, the pregnant person and the developing fetus enjoy equal right to life, liberty, and freedom from undue government interference.
Medical practice is governed by legal, ethical, and evolving scientific standards. It is laughable that anyone imagines women can obtain abortions for viable fetuses. Doctors are compelled to deliver (not abort? pregnancies that have advanced beyond viability, even when the reason for cutting a pregnancy short is due to medical necessity to protect the life or health of the mother.
There are rare pregnancies that progress past the typical point of viability, but never result in actual viability. Once a medical diagnosis has determined the pregnancy has ended in fetal demise, or that the fetus has developmental abnormalities incompatible with life, all rights regarding the medical treatment of the pregnancy must revert to the pregnant person.
A belief that unique potential human life exists prior to viability is not a justification for governmental intervention to favor the rights of potential life over the rights of the pregnant person. It is important to recognize that, in Casey, the government does not prevent a pregnant person from relinquishing their rights in favor of the developing fetus. It simply doesn’t require them to do so.
What your analysis misses - or fails to address - is the decades-long propaganda effort of those politically opposed to abortion. The ongoing and deliberately inflammatory misrepresentations of pregnancy facts, existing law, political positions, and medical practices have muddied the debate so effectively that it’s nearly impossible to arrive at the middle ground. Fortunately, the majority of Americans see beyond the rhetoric, in part because their own lived experiences inform their understanding. As a result, public consensus on this subject is arriving at a middle ground that has been gaining traction with every month we live post-Roe.
Rational people don’t want lawyers and politicians and preachers to practice medicine without a license. Rational people don’t believe that pregnant individuals are both inhumane enough to murder “unborn babies” and also responsible enough to parent these same babies after birth for decades. Rational people understand that forced pregnancy - let alone forced parenthood - is inhumane. And rational people understand that the inevitable consequence of human sexual reproduction is that the vast majority of human embryos do not survive until birth. The miracle of life occurs at birth - not at conception - as any human being who has experienced pregnancy loss can attest.
Thanks for the detailed post! I'm confused why you think it corrects mine, however, as I see very little in what you said that contradicts things I said. I can't help but think you made some assumptions at the beginning, skimmed the rest, and then started writing your reply without really hearing what I was saying.
My comment about Obama was not to make a statement about what he did or did not accomplish, via other initiatives, around the issue of abortion. It was simply to express frustration that the reason that particular initiative failed was due to a lack of cooperation by partisans on both sides. And my statement "I cannot help but notice that their passion for a government solution to the evil of abortion rarely extends to passion for a government solution to the societal hardships that often lead to unwanted pregnancy in the first place, or continued support of non-aborted children throughout childhood." was intended to encompass all kinds of government initiatives that help reduce demand for abortions, which includes improved access to contraception and other forms of health care. So we're not disagreeing here.
The Casey viability standard is not one I find as compelling as Roe because viability is a moving target, unlike trimesters, but my broader point is that both ultimately involve drawing a somewhat arbitrary line where "early termination is less bad than later" and it's all about figuring out as a society where to draw the line that best balances the competing claims and rights at issue here. Reasonable people can disagree on where to do that, and as both laws are now deemed unconstitutional, neither standard has more legal weight. My point here isn't to endorse one or the other Supreme Court decision, but simply to use the trimester framework of Roe as a useful example which mirrors global public opinion and intuitions on this subject.
Your claim that there are no abortions past viability, even to protect the life of the mother, needs citations. That would suggest that there are zero third-trimester abortions, but while they are rare (as I note), they do happen.
You wrote "A belief that unique potential human life exists prior to viability is not a justification for governmental intervention to favor the rights of potential life over the rights of the pregnant person." I'm pretty sure I made this exact same point, just not specifically about viability, in writing "choosing where to draw the line is not clear-cut, but this at least provides a reasonable framework for a public policy that reflects a broad consensus, does not impose undue government regulation on a question of personal conviction, while still protecting the rights of the unborn once they have developed past a certain point."
"As a result, public consensus on this subject is arriving at a middle ground that has been gaining traction with every month we live post-Roe." - this is pretty much my second-to-last paragraph.
"The miracle of life occurs at birth - not at conception - as any human being who has experienced pregnancy loss can attest." - this is an opinion (and one which ignores the experience of miscarriage), though I make basically this general point about the loss being greater when it happens later.
You say I should have focused on past behavior of pro-life advocates which misrepresented the facts. If my goal was to fact-check or primarily critique past actions of certain pro-life advocates, that would make sense, but it's not. My goal rather is to apply what I consider to be the best arguments of both sides to advocate for a middle ground and recognition of the values important to each side. I'm trying to be constructive here and inform partisans of what I consider to be the reasonable opposing arguments, not engage in ad hominems about which impune the motives or rationality of individuals based on the actions of others who share similar views. This is in fact precisely what I'm trying to avoid in this substack.
Third trimester abortions do NOT occur unless the pregnancy is nonviable. The confusion around this issue is due to political demagoguery and medical terminology.
There is presently one (1) provider in the US that will perform third trimester terminations - none of which are covered by health insurance, and are prohibitively expensive to obtain.
This is just one example of your implicit acceptance of the pro-life framing that dominates this discussion.
I am out of time now. But your points were not as clear as you think and you did not explicitly root your ideas in the thought that has come before you.
Viable pregnancies are not terminated even in the case of grave risk to the pregnant person. Early delivery is induced and premature infants receive care.