NOW, NARAL, etc., it's time for a war

[RodPresident]

I would vote for aye. If Democrats dropped only abortion from his national platform, we would save lifes and keeping people that are progressive and pro-lifers.

[TJ in Wisco]

Yeah, most guys, sadly enough, don't understand how a baby is made. If you want to legislate sexual organs then you should at least have a working knowledge of the ovaries, uterus, fertilization, implantation, etc. Unfortunately, this is not usually the case.

What are you trying to say here? If you're asking for politicians to clearly understand whether the "morning after pill" works only to suppress the ovulation cycle and not also to prevent implementation as an abortificant, no one really knows the answer to that.

For example, here is a pamphlet from Duramed Pharmaceuticals that says:

Plan B® works like a birth control pill to prevent pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that Plan B® may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implementation) to the uterus (womb)… (emphasis added)

The reason why this still controversial (I mean in a scientific sense not a political or moral one) is that several studies in the 70s and 80s showed contraceptives preventing implementation and most of the more recent ones have not. However, the theory of contraceptives as abortificants hasn’t ever been disproven.

[Marston]

Yeah, most guys, sadly enough, don't understand how a baby is made. If you want to legislate sexual organs then you should at least have a working knowledge of the ovaries, uterus, fertilization, implantation, etc. Unfortunately, this is not usually the case.

What are you trying to say here? If you're asking for politicians to clearly understand whether the "morning after pill" works only to suppress the ovulation cycle and not also to prevent implementation as an abortificant, no one really knows the answer to that.

For example, here is a pamphlet from Duramed Pharmaceuticals that says:

Plan B® works like a birth control pill to prevent pregnancy mainly by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that Plan B® may also work by preventing fertilization of an egg (the uniting of sperm with the egg) or by preventing attachment (implementation) to the uterus (womb)… (emphasis added)

The reason why this still controversial (I mean in a scientific sense not a political or moral one) is that several studies in the 70s and 80s showed contraceptives preventing implementation and most of the more recent ones have not. However, the theory of contraceptives as abortificants hasn’t ever been disproven.

Actually, in some hormonal contraceptives, they are designed to thwart at least two of the three stages. Most mainline hormonal contraceptives primarily try and block an egg from exiting the ovary. However, they're also intentionally designed to also prevent implantation of the egg as a sort of a fail-safe. So, to make a blanket statement that a life-at-conception amendment doesn't affect birth control is intellectually dishonest. In theory, it may not outlaw all contraceptives but the ones intentionally designed with the implantation-prevention fail-safe could be outlawed - again, in theory. 

[TJ in Wisco]

Ahhh, so that’s the point you’re trying to make: the hypocrisy of the pro-life movement in the US.

If you are looking for more along those lines, it isn’t too terribly hard to find. Starting with the premise that life begins at conception and abortion is murder, we immediately reach the conclusion that there are 800,000 murders in the US every year based just on the CDC’s reported abortion numbers. Yet, most pro-lifers don’t seem to view the issue as an all-encompassing issue that really trumps every other squabble in our politics.

How hard would many on the right fight to prevent universal healthcare from being enacted on the premise that the quality of healthcare will go down, perhaps costing a few thousand lives (and absurd estimate in its own right)? We’ve seen town hall meeting after town hall meeting full of angry conservatives shouting down congressmen over it. Yet, compared to 800,000 murders a year, it is totally insignificant, a mere asterisk on a page.  Or how about 9-11? How much national attention did we give over a couple thousand deaths? We abort that many babies in like a day. Still the conservatives spent years fighting two wars, costing us a ton of money—and more lives—just in the name of preventing some measly attack that might have picked off a thousand more or so. Or the outrage about drugs or gay marriage? Is this some kind of twisted joke?

If everyone who claimed to be pro-life on the grounds that abortion=murder, it ought to be something demanded, the type of issue that we cannot go on living a normal life until it is stopped. But we don’t see this. Instead we see something like this Mississippi referendum that will possibly pass and even if it does will immediately be stopped by an injunction, only to be overturned in federal court. Instead in an attempt to allay a few swing voters we try to somehow argue that if we just grant a rape exception it’ll all be okay, as though people would actually be fine with murder in the case of rape. Or some more liberal pro-lifers will take the position that being pro-life means actively upporting birth control as an alternative to abortion, trying to obfuscate the point you’re trying to make here.

I guess I’m part of the problem too. Here I am sitting in my apartment on my computer when I should be out there doing something to stop abortion right? What does that even mean?

I will agree with you that to believe life starts at conception and to support continued legalization of birth control is a completely contradictory moderate-hero political ploy based on a self-contradictory position better served as a joke than an attempt at a logical argument. If defining life as beginning at the moment of conception means outlawing some birth control methods, then I’m all for outlawing them. If makes me an extremist, I don’t care.

[Ebowed]

That's a good post, though I disagree with the sentiment.

Adding to your comprehensive list of points, one of my biggest problems with the partial birth abortion ban was the procedure being singled out because it is gruesome, when surely all terminations must be just as tragic were abortion to be murder.

[BigSkyBob]

That's a good post, though I disagree with the sentiment.

Adding to your comprehensive list of points, one of my biggest problems with the partial birth abortion ban was the procedure being singled out because it is gruesome, when surely all terminations must be just as tragic were abortion to be murder.

The "partial-birth" part starts to blur the line between abortion and infanticide. Since most folks that are for abortion aren't for infanticide, at least yet, presumably, this is a line neither side wants to see crossed.

[BigSkyBob]

I thought that after the Giffords shooting people we were suppose to stop using rhetoric like "war" to define political action. War is characterized by killing people and breaking things. Is that what NARAL is advocating?

[Harry]

The "Yes on 26" crowd are being total dicks (as if that's a surprise) about this.  MFHF tried to register this website, but somehow the "pro-life" side snuck in and registered it out from under them:
http://mississippiansforhealthyfamilies.com/

That's bush league, guys.

It's also really irritating how they are downplaying that birth control pills and IVF are going to be severely affected, probably illegal.  Most people who vote yes aren't going to realize that fact.  Extremely unethical of the "pro-life" side to scam Mississippi like this.

[Harry]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tzj27zFOVM

Fantastic commercial.  It's apparently aired some (I haven't seen it on tv though), but MFHF needs to find the funds to absolutely flood the airwaves with this.

[Governor Scott]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tzj27zFOVM

Fantastic commercial, but will it even matter?

Interesting campaign tactic, this commercial has.

[Harry]

This vote is overwhelmingly obvious, even if you're ardently pro-life.  It's infuriating that these people from Colorado have come down here and pulled the wool over so many people's eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEsFp46ydp8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d04Ql5dXI3A

[nclib]

Any polling on this (preferably with demographic breakdown)? I doubt we can defeat it in Miss., but if it's close, other states may be deterred.

[shua]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tzj27zFOVM

Fantastic commercial.  It's apparently aired some (I haven't seen it on tv though), but MFHF needs to find the funds to absolutely flood the airwaves with this.

Of course initiative 26 doesn't have exceptions for rape and incest. It's a personhood amendment. Saying that personhood begins at conception except in cases of rape and incest would be the height of stupidity.

[Harry]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tzj27zFOVM

Fantastic commercial.  It's apparently aired some (I haven't seen it on tv though), but MFHF needs to find the funds to absolutely flood the airwaves with this.

Of course initiative 26 doesn't have exceptions for rape and incest. It's a personhood amendment. Saying that personhood begins at conception except in cases of rape and incest would be the height of stupidity.

Actually, disallowing abortions even in the case of rape, incest, or for the life of the mother is the height of stupidity.

[TJ in Wisco]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tzj27zFOVM

Fantastic commercial.  It's apparently aired some (I haven't seen it on tv though), but MFHF needs to find the funds to absolutely flood the airwaves with this.

Of course initiative 26 doesn't have exceptions for rape and incest. It's a personhood amendment. Saying that personhood begins at conception except in cases of rape and incest would be the height of stupidity.

Actually, disallowing abortions even in the case of rape, incest, or for the life of the mother is the height of stupidity.

Actually, it’s the height of having logically coherent positions rather than politically pragmatic ones. Unless, perhaps you support the death penalty in the case of rape and aren’t too picky about killing the right person.

[Harry]

If the "Yes on 26" were upfront about how this has no exceptions for rape/incest and also bans IVF and birth control pills, I wouldn't be so angry.  But no.  Their ads consist entirely of "abortion is wrong, let's ban it"

They are seriously pulling the wool over everyone's eyes.  A Baptist friend of mine from Winona said his preacher spent his entire sermon last week railing on how anyone would votes against 26 can't call himself a Christian.  (Actually, Catholic, Methodist, and Episcopal bishops in Mississippi have denounced the bill.)  I imagine this is happening all over Mississippi in Baptist churches.

It doesn't matter how every day a new medical organization or religious leader comes out strongly against it.  It doesn't matter how logically obvious a no vote is, even for extremely anti-abortion people (just because it's one sentence and so vague).  People with an agenda are probably going to succeed into tricking Mississippians into passing an initiative that they'd vote down if they knew what it really meant.

[TJ in Wisco]

What's the catch as to why pro-life people would vote no? Banning some forms of birth control? At least to me that doesn't seem like much of a catch. Is there something else here I'm missing?

[Harry]

Banning birth control is a really big deal.
Banning abortion even in the case of ectopic pregnancy (the fetus CANNOT be viable and the life of the mother is at extreme risk) is a really big deal.
Banning abortion in other cases when the mother's life is in danger is a really big deal.
Passing a new one-sentence law that will open up countless legal challenges and have a much greater reach than simply banning abortion is a really big deal.

TJ, you're Catholic, right?  I am too.  Our church is against this, despite its reputation for being incredibly pro-life.  So is National Right to Life.  That should tell you something there.

[shua]

Banning abortion even in the case of ectopic pregnancy (the fetus CANNOT be viable and the life of the mother is at extreme risk) is a really big deal.
Banning abortion in other cases when the mother's life is in danger is a really big deal.

The allowance in the law for those things isn't dependent on restricting the definition of personhood.

[TJ in Wisco]

By the looks of this, the NRTL and the Catholic Church aren't opposing it because of its content but because they are afraid passing it in direct violation of Roe v. Wade will result in a Supreme Court ruling overturning other state laws placing restrictions on abortion. I suppose this is a scenario where polticial pragmitism is necessary so as not to strip away all abortion restrictions in states across the country in the last 20 years (which have led to a noticeable decrease in abortions).

That argument actually makes sense. I was rather confused as to why the Church would otherwise oppose this considering all of the things you listed it as banning are against the Church's teachings.

[Harry]

The church absolutely does NOT teach that a victim of ectopic pregnancy should just wait for the tube to burst and see what happens.
The church absolutely does NOT teach that a woman whose pregnancy is threatening her life is just SOL.

I know for a fact that St. Dominics (the Catholic hospital in Jackson) has a supply of the MAP available to give to rape victims.

Unfortunately, the church does have an asinine ban on birth control pills, even for married couples, but most Catholics don't believe that, and even if they did, it shouldn't be telling the other 97% of the state that they're legally disallowed from taking them.

[Harry]

Also, can you cite how conservative states placing restrictions on abortion has led to a "noticeable decrease in abortions?"
Available contraceptives and widespread sex education is likely to be much more responsible.

[realisticidealist]

Harry, what are you worried about? It's not like anyone in Mississippi uses birth control anyway. See highest teen pregnancy rates in nation.

By the looks of this, the NRTL and the Catholic Church aren't opposing it because of its content but because they are afraid passing it in direct violation of Roe v. Wade will result in a Supreme Court ruling overturning other state laws placing restrictions on abortion. I suppose this is a scenario where polticial pragmitism is necessary so as not to strip away all abortion restrictions in states across the country in the last 20 years (which have led to a noticeable decrease in abortions).

That argument actually makes sense. I was rather confused as to why the Church would otherwise oppose this considering all of the things you listed it as banning are against the Church's teachings.

That seems a bit far-fetched. The measure would obviously violate Planned Parenthood vs. Casey and be thrown out, but to think that the Supreme Court would use that opportunity to liberalize abortion laws is a bit conspiratorially-minded with a 5-4 conservative court. I can't see Kennedy throwing out recent precedent like that.

The church absolutely does NOT teach that a victim of ectopic pregnancy should just wait for the tube to burst and see what happens.
The church absolutely does NOT teach that a woman whose pregnancy is threatening her life is just SOL.

I know for a fact that St. Dominics (the Catholic hospital in Jackson) has a supply of the MAP available to give to rape victims.

Unfortunately, the church does have an asinine ban on birth control pills, even for married couples, but most Catholics don't believe that, and even if they did, it shouldn't be telling the other 97% of the state that they're legally disallowed from taking them.

The church teaches that a woman with an ectopic pregnancy should have that tube removed and that the child should then die of "natural causes" rather than be outright aborted. I'm not sure if I agree with that or not as it's a bit deceptive to me, but that's their position. It's not one that I see many liberals liking very much; it's too much of a sacrifice for them.

[TJ in Wisco]

Also, can you cite how conservative states placing restrictions on abortion has led to a "noticeable decrease in abortions?"
Available contraceptives and widespread sex education is likely to be much more responsible.

Here's one example:
Arizona saw a 30% decrease in the number of abortions in September after passing a law requiring a 24-hour waiting period after a conversation before a doctor before an abortion can take place.

This study found Medicaid funding restrictions reduce abortion rates and that parental consent laws showed a negative correllation with abortion rates but it wasn't statistically significant in the overall rates. However, parental consent laws do produce a statistically significant decrease in the abortion rate among minors.

[Harry]

Well, I guess you can lower the abortion rate by harassing women who try to get them or making them get permission from their parents (not likely).  But that doesn't really solve the overarching problem like contraceptives and sex education would.

Nonetheless, I forgot to mention yet another key reason to oppose 26:  It would give DAs the authority to investigate miscarriages as if they were crimes.  I'm sure most DAs would have a shred of decency and not do this, but I wouldn't put it past some of the "Christian" rednecks we have down here.  Don't believe it would happen?  It already is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges

And this is pre-26.  It will happen more often post-26.