What is it about this video that has spiked our stats and spooked the left blogosphere?
Yesterday, Digby, who really should know better, wrote the most ridiculous post about right wing framing and the phrase “safe, legal and rare”. It was so illogical, so twisted, that it could only have been suggested by some very pushy Democratic party loyalists who are freaked out that their lightbringer is not measuring up in the area of reproductive rights for women.
I can almost see them now with their fingers stuck in their ears and hear them shouting. ”La-la-la, she’s not all that. La-la-la- Third Way, Third Way, Third Way!”
Yeah, it was the Third Way detail in her post that was the dead giveaway. Someone is very worried that the above video is going to make Hillary Clinton look good at Barack Obama’s expense. And a small minority of the party has the official position that they hate Bill and Hillary Clinton for, er, *something*. We’re just not sure what, the target keeps moving. But for sure, someone is pissed that there will be a lot more women who didn’t know that video existed until last week who will be kicking themselves for voting for the dude in 2008.
And as long as we’re on the topic of the Third Way, why don’t we take a look at this graph of where exactly our most recent presidents are on the liberal-conservative spectrum. This is from a recent Paul Krugman blog post:
I didn’t have to see this graph to know where Obama stood in relation to Clinton. Let’s not forget that Clinton put up with eight. long. years. of relentless special prosecutor investigations and was blindsided by movement conservativism. He learned from his mistakes. It’s too bad Obama didn’t learn from Clinton’s mistakes. Never in my wildest dreams could I see Clinton doing what Obama has done. For damn sure he wouldn’t have squandered two years of having a filibuster proof majority of his own party in Congress during a major economic crisis. And from what I can tell of Hillary’s voting record and public statements, she’s even more to the left than her husband. (And that, my friends, is why she didn’t get the nomination in 2008. With almost a guarantee of a filibuster proof Congress, she was too much of a threat to the finance guys) So, all you people screaming about the Clintons being Third Way while defending Obama’s Republican positions can stuff a sock in it.
The party faithful could respond to this in one of two ways. They could go to Obama and say, “See this video? See what Hillary did here? Do it like that from now on or we aren’t going to vote for you.” Or they could slime her and try to ruin her reputation again by accusing her of right wing meme framing. They have chosen the latter.
Let’s look for the briefest of moments at the utterly nonsensical idea that “safe, legal and rare” is some kind of acknowledgement of a right wing frame. To those of us who remember history as it actually happened, “safe, legal and rare” meant that abortions should be unnecessary. The idea is that if you provide low cost contraceptives, make them easily available and educate people about their sexuality and good family planning, you will reduce the number of people facing unwanted pregnancies. Of course, accidents do still happen even under the best of circumstances so abortions need to be safe and legal. But if we do everything right up front on the prevention end of things, abortions will be rare.
How is this a right wing frame of the abortion argument? I’m not religious in any way shape or form. I have relatives who are batshit crazy and inflexible about abortion. I’m talking about foaming at the mouth, fetus romantics whose position I think is about as far from sane as it is humanly possible to go. In fact, I don’t agree with them on so many things it’s not even funny. Their framing of the abortion issue is completely divorced from reality. And as far as I can see, “safe, legal and rare” is not anywhere near the same frame that they’re living in.
BUT, the idea that we must reject “safe, legal and rare” because it is too far right is going to play right into the hands of the right wing nutcases. Because they’re going to say that to the left, abortion is a picnic at the local clinic. It’s no big deal. Now, I’ve never had an abortion but I’ve had friends and roommates who have and no matter how relieved they were afterwards, an abortion was definitely not a picnic. Some people wrestle with the ethics of abortion before they have one, some just want to get it over with but in neither case was it a day at the beach. To denigrate a perfectly respectable idea like “safe, legal and rare” cheapens the seriousness of abortion.
Just for kicks, I looked up the abortion laws of some of the world’s most progressive countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland. In most of them, you can get an abortion on demand up to 12 weeks. It’s probably a medical abortion at that point. After 12 weeks, most of those countries make you get approval from a committee or a couple of doctors and there is a cut off unless there’s something wrong with the fetus or the mother. That’s because after a certain point, there is a gray area about viability and if you’ve dithered past three months, you’re starting to push it. Dithering suggests uncertainty. So there’s hoop jumping. But then again, in Scandanavian countries, the social insurance system is so good that having a baby is less likely to ruin your life if you’re not quite ready for it.
Then again, the health insurance in these countries is good so getting contraceptives is not a problem. In Finland, expectant mothers get a baby box filled with all kinds of clothing and baby essentials and it also comes with a six pack of condoms and lube. Isn’t that thoughtful of the Finnish government? THAT is the epitome of “safe, legal and rare”. I look forward to the day when conservatives in Congress have a shit fit over whether to include the lube in the American Baby Boxes. Safe, legal and rare means responsibility. How does a lefty reasonably argue against that?
Well, a lefty can’t *reasonably* argue against it. Political operatives who are worried about the viability of their candidate can though. They must be really nervous about the wimmin’s vote if they’re asking Digby to push the idea that the socially and medically responsible position “safe, legal and rare” is some kind of right wing meme. I’m a lefty and “safe, legal and rare” seems like the de facto position to me and always has even before I ever heard the phrase.
What I can’t understand is how attacking Bill and Hillary Clinton and “safe, legal and rare” is supposed to make Obama’s non-defense of reproductive rights better. The problem isn’t with the Clintons. It’s Obama who’s not setting a standard. I mean, you could successfully trash two of your most loyal party members who will slavishly campaign for you in the homestretch and they’ll be doing it for a dude who doesn’t share their values- at all.
The Obama loyalists have to explain why they are so devoted to this guy. Why are they willing to ruin the credibility of two people they depend on to defend a guy who really *does* buy into the right wing memes. It’s almost like the Democratic operatives are attacking their greatest strength and projecting their own conservative right wing values onto the Clintons. They’re the ones who are so enveloped in the right wing frame that they can’t tell when they’re unquestioning support of Obama’s weak position on reproductive rights is seriously out of step with their own party base and most women in this country. We’re supposed to turn our backs on a principled defense of reproductive rights so that we don’t embarrass Obama for not having any principles at all in this regard? How the hell does that make any sense? Remember it was OBAMA who said that a woman who was contemplating an abortion should get the consent of her family and pastor, as if she wasn’t capable of making this decision on her own. That’s what Digby is defending when she attacks the Clintons on his behalf. Does Digby really want to do that? Wouldn’t it be better for women if Digby refused to play along? Yes, it won’t look good for Obama but the election is still eight months away. The party has time to figure this out. But giving in to the right wing on contraception and abortion is not the way to retain your women voters.
Well, anyway, the video has struck a chord. Yep, and that’s good. It’s set the standard for the passionate and principled defense of reproductive rights. It’s grounded in reality while still acknowledging that people’s opinions on morality may differ. Obama’s crew should adopt it instead of criticizing it. Wanna see it again with a shorter blah-blah-blah from Chris Smith? Let’s watch together, shall we? (This one has a better ending)
Like this:
Filed under: General Tagged: | "safe, Barack Obama, Chris Smith, Democratic Operatives, Digby, Hillary Clinton, legal and rare"
This woman does not and never did back down on women’s reproductive rights. She thinks women are adults capable of making choices for themselves. Obama can’t even come close to that kind of clarity on this issue. He is NOT strong on this issue, he is a panderer, has no real thoughts except an overall kind of icky feeling that women are getting away with something.
We need a new leaner meaner women’s movement. Who is going to lead it. Go away NOW, Emily’s List, Naral, Ms Mag, etc…
The idea that we have all these women this ignorant about Hillary Clinton embarrasses me. It’s because they are followers and mostly they are following men with an agenda to use women and NOT to share power with them.
Apart from being gobsmacked (yet again!) that pregnancies/ abortions seems to (yet again!) become an important topic in the upcoming presidential election – to the benefit of both parties as the fight can (yet again!) turn into: Innocent Fetuses vs Deadly Coathangers – it also both surprises and bothers me, that the term “pro-life” has been adopted as the legitimate term for stating the “anti-abortion” position. Even by people who are “pro-abortion”.
As any “pro-” position must logically be counterposed by an “anti-” position, by legitimizing the term “pro-life”, one actually – maybe unwittingly – states that the opposite position must be “anti-life”: If you’re not “pro-life” you simply must be “anti-life”.
But where’s the logic anyway when you can be “pro-life” and simultaneously be “pro-capital punishment”?
I heard “pro-life” once from Clinton in that second clip and the word “choice” several times.
Recently, I don’t use “pro-life”. I say anti-choice.
Forced pregnancy?
Just for the record, my comment had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. And … I like “anti-choice”. It makes so much more sense to juxtapose two opposite positions with pro vs. anti.
yes, I always try to use anti-choice which is what their position is. Either you believe women can chose or they can not. It pisses off the anti-choice but too damn bad.
There was once an informal agreement in the media that they would use “pro-choice” and “pro-life” because that was how the groups identified themselves. It was supposed to reduce the rage and invective that dominated the battle. I’m not sure when it started but I remember when it ended. My conservative hometown newspaper published an op-ed in 2004 by someone on the right who used “pro-abortion”. It was a nationally known columnist and another nationally known columnist wrote an op-ed calling him out on it. I remember thinking that the anti-choice people were never going to give an inch. I was right.
I also remember reading several feminist blogs in 2007-08 where posters were excoriating both Clintons for including the “safe, legal and rare” goal in the Democratic platform. For some unknown reason, those posters who claimed that the Clintons had betrayed women by using that description were promoting Obama who had implied that some women have late term abortions because they’re “blue” and that he would put a stop to that.
The mind reels.
When I was first introduced to the debates on abortion on blogs in early 2008, I always had to stop and turn the phrases “pro-choice” and “pro-life” in my head, to make sure I knew exactly what position was expressed. Not all that different from people who don’t instantly remember what’s left and what’s right, but also have to stop and “figure it out”. To me it’s pure illogic, pure confusion, when opposite positions are both described with the prefix “pro”.
And the “safe, legal and rare” to me always seemed brilliant. Short, succinct, to the point, the word “rare” signifying a humanistic concern, a concern for the woman involved, and never as anything neither political nor religious.
You’re right, the mind reels.
“Forced pregnancy” and “forced birth” are my terms terms of choice these days.
While we’re mesmerized by this farce, the banks, enabled by their pet in the White House, are pushing through an atrocious mortgage settlement. And the wars grind on. And … and … and …
Obama cannot succeed on his accomplishments. He can only succeed by tearing down his rivals, real or perceived.
Around April 30, 2010, Hillary visited Canada and made another strong statement for abortion rights. The story links to a video, and other videos are at google.com/search?q=Hillary+abortion+Canada&hl=en&rlz=1C1CHMC_enUS396US397&prmd=imvns&source=univ&tbm=vid&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=8V9CT_CGM6qW2QWf0aSXCA&ved=0CEMQqwQ
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/787841–hillary-clinton-stirs-the-pot-on-afghanistan-abortion-and-the-arctic
[She told] a Gatineau meeting of G8 foreign ministers that any initiative to improve maternal health – Ottawa’s signature global project this year – must include abortions, an option the Conservative government has tried to avoid.w
“You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health and reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortions,” Clinton said Tuesday.
“I do not think governments should be involved in making these decisions. It is perfectly legitimate for people to hold their own personal views based on conscience, religion or any other basis. But I’ve always believed that the government should not intervene in decisions of such intimacy,” she said.
If Mittens gets the republican nomination there is a real chance Obama will be out after one term. The Dem elites are sweating bullets over that one because their stupid decisions made in 2008 will be readily apparent to all.
Well . . . that is why I am voting for Romney in Michigan’s upcoming primary. A Romney nomination could open a door for serious fumigation and de-contamination of the so-called “Democratic” Party.
I realize I’ve said this on TC before, but I suspect the Malefactors Of Great Wealth (aka The 1%) have already decided that Obummer has served them well enough that they want him back, and so they’ve ordered the GOP (since they own both major parties now) to take a dive in the presidential election.
I doubt the Talibangelicals will turn out in sufficiently enthusiastic numbers to vote for Mittens, since to them, he’s a heathen who wears magic underwear. As for anyone else becoming the Reptilian nominee, fuhgeddabowdit. That was all theater from Day One. Mittens will bear the Reptilian standard this time around.
If the MOGW and I are mistaken about Mittens’ unelectability, then the MOGW will be just as happy with him as with Obummer.
Yes, but if Obama loses, then he and the Obamacratic Party are both weakened. He is a weakened force within it and it becomes weakened enough that Demwing Democrats can either reconquer and disinfect the party, or else disestablish it and begin decontaminating the political superfund site left by its passing. Seen that way, does the prospect of an Obama defeat appear attractive enough that a
Romney nomination is worth working for?
Because if the Rs nominate something like Santorum or Gingrich or Paylinn, I’m voting Obama to avoid those others.
Always vote the Party, never vote the man, r u reddy.
Well, if one votes for the “Democratic Nominee” which will be Obama, what does one get with that vote, really? Voting the Party became obsolete when the Democrats were penetrated and subverted by the DLC-Third Way-Wall Street Conspiracy. Voting the “Democratic Party” nowadays will probably get you a Goldman-Sachs Rubinite-Summersite unless you have the chance to vote for an Economic Patriotectionist legacy-Democrat.
Marcy Kaptur is one of those Economic-Patriots-against-Free-Trade-Treason legacy Democrats, but as others have pointed out elsewhere; she is an anti-choice member of Ladies Against Women on certain big issues. But many posts ago, Riverdaughter advised that if one is going to be “single-issue”, perhaps that “single-issue” should be economic survival.
So . . . is the anti-choice Ladies Against Women Democrat Marcy Kaptur worth voting for on the issue of economic survival through resistance to the International Free Trade Conspiracy?
We should be able to beat the anti-choice community into forced-acceptance of pro-choice behavior on everybody else’s part; but if the Free Traderites burn America’s economy all the way down to the ground as intended, we won’t have the natural resources left to rebuild any part of it back up ever ever again. (When the Genghis Khan Mongols invaded Iraq, they destroyed all the vast irrigation-canal works and those works have stayed destroyed unto this very day. And so it is with the Genghis Khan Free Trade Barbarians in our own time and place).
So . . . vote Obama to vote “the Party”? I’d rather not have to. That is why I want the Rs to nominate Romney. He’s not so much worse than Obama that I couldn’t stand the prospect. And a defeat of Obama by Romney would create an opening for legacy Democrats to reconquer their party and purge the DLC Rubinite-Summersite Third Wayvians all the way out of every trace and corner of the reconquered Party.
Well, r u reddy, the problem with “vote the man, not the Party” is that, if he wins, you don’t just get “the man”. The entire adminstrative, ideological and political machinery of the Party he’s a member of comes along with him. This is the fundamental flaw in the so-called “political independent”‘s way-of-thinking about politics. He erroneously thinks his vote has nothing to do with political parties, because he “votes the man, not the Party”.
So, if you do get your wish and Romney gets the RP nomination, and you vote for him in the general election and he wins, just remember that the entire RP comes along with him for the ride, and the RP is a deeply conservative political organization, as is Romney himself. He’s basically Bush I. Nice guy to have as your neighbor or living in the flat above yours, but still +0.6 as a conservative on the above Presidential scale.
If you don’t care for the way Obama and his co-horts are running the DP, you have a number of options. You can abstain from voting on the Presidential line in the ballot. You can get back in the DP trenches and fight for an alternative to Obama and his co-horts within the DP organization. Or, if the answer, after deep reflection, is that you no longer believe in what the DP stands for politically, you can move to another party, be that the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, or perhaps even the Modern Whig Party.
But voting for the RP for President–and like it or not, that IS what you will be doing; you won’t simply be voting for “the man Romney”–strikes me as a clear-cut case of being eager to cut off your nose to spite your face.
Always vote the Party, never vote the man, r u reddy. That goes for whatever political party you happen to support.
Government is a trust, and the officers of the government are trustees. And both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people — Henry Clay
Nakajima Kikka,
You must be even newer here than I am. And here I thought I was the very newest person on these threads.
If you will take the time to go back and read prior posts and the prior threads that were attached to them, you will see that I have by-now-often said that if Romney is nominated, I will consider myself set free to vote for a Class War and Justice third party alternative. My comments are all here in the record. The Cofluence keeps complete accessible archives of what everybody said and did here. If you can find a comment where I said that I would vote for Romney over Obama in the general election, please feel free to reproduce it here in this thread along with a link back to its provable original presence. Also, if you can find a comment of mine where I suggested that others vote for Romney in the general election, please feel free to post a link to that too.
If the election comes down to Romney versus Obama, I get the same party of Goldman Sachs privilege and FIRE sector lawbreaker immunity whether I vote for Romney the man or Obama the man. Whereas if I fail to vote most effectively against Gingrich the man or Paylinn the woman if either of them becomes the nominee, then I get an extra dimension of violent vicious evil to go with my Goldman Sachs crimelord racketeering.
So that’s why I want the Rs to nominate Romney. So I can forget about Obama and vote for the Class War and Justice candidate of my dreams. And that isn’t Obomney.
No, r u reddy, you would be voting for Romney the Republican or Obama the Democrat. The party affiliation is the key; the particular man representing the party is almost incidental. Look at the above graph again. All the DP presidents are quite close to each other politically, as are almost all the RP presidents. That shouldn’t be surprising, given that it is the party that nominates the candidate, not the other way around. The only exception is Eisenhower, and that’s because of his unique background and experience as SCAF-Europe in WWII. Ike was always his own man, and the only example in the 20th century where the parties came to him.
The other interesting thing about the graph is that, Goldman Sachs notwithstanding, it starkly shows that vast difference in political perspective between the RP and DP, at least by the standard liberal-conservative yardstick. The members of the two parties seem to be from completely different planets, in terms of their basic worldview. This puts real limitations on the ability of any particular candidate to not hew pretty close to whatever the Party Line is on any particular issue.
So Obama may seem “conservative” compared to, say, Jimmy Carter (the last trully liberal DP President), but compared to any RP President since 1968, Obama is “extremely liberal” (and Carter is “off the deep end”). So, it’s still the party that matters, r u reddy, not the man. Ike excepted, of course.
So, what is the political platform of this Class War and Justice Party?
Americans, indeed all free men, remember that in the final choice a soldier’s pack is not so heavy a burden as a prisoner’s chains. -Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States.
safe legal and very rare.
Mr. Mike: If only. A president with a R after his name would make it harder for the bankers to take over Social Security, which is likely their big goal during the second Obama term. Unfortunately, the Bankocrats probably have this election in the bag already, thanks to the nutters in the Republican party. They are alarming mainstream voters. After taking a drubbing in November, the Rs will split along nutter and moderate lines, giving us a third party some time in the next few years.
Well . . . that is why I will vote for Romney in Michigan’s upcoming primary. If enough DDs (Disgruntled Democrats) can get Romney nominated, then we have a greater freedom of action for exterminating the Obamacratic Party as it deserves in hopes of someday being able to grow a legitimate political party in its place.
I guess they’re going to have to stealth-ban some more folks over at the Hullabazoo. There’s quite a Clintonite rebellion going on in the comment thread to the article RD linked.
Just before I got to your comment, I was thinking how interesting an experiment it would be for Riverdaughter to write a comment on Hullabaloo linking back to this post. The experiment would be to see how fast it came down, or whether it even went up.
We know certain people are decietfully banned in secret. We can guess that Digby will decide which commenters are most counter-Obama effective over time and deceiftfully stealth-ban them in secret as well . . . while lyingly pretending the whole time that she doesn’t ban people or censor comments.
Weirdly enough, she doesn’t ban me. I think I serve a useful purpose by saying things they don’t feel comfortable saying. Or she just hasn’t got around to banning me yet.
Otoh, I don’t really want to antagonize her on her own site. Sentiment is going against her as it is on this post. No need to pile on at hullabaloo. The whole thing just doesn’t make sense anyway. She’s a smart writer so I can’t for the life of my figure out why she wrote this piece unless someone told her it would be good for her advertising revenue.
Fair enough.
Another reason she does not ban you may be because you have a well known blog. Banning you might have repercussions ( if only reputational) that banning unknown nobodies like R U Reddy and Sarah B and others too numerous to remember by now just doesn’t have.
Monster from the Id,
I have a sudden question. Has Digby banned people like Lubyanka and Jose Chung and so forth? Or are they still free to comment whenever they like?
RUR–I haven’t seen either one of them lately, although I don’t check every H-zoo thread for their presence. Also, I haven’t seen the obnoxious fellow I dubbed “The Troll of a Thousand Names” recently, nor have I seen the other fellow who also used many names, but was not nearly as obnoxious. The second fellow was the guy who nearly always double-posted because of some failure of Echo.
The (not so) stealthy purge continues, it seems. *adjusts Wrap Cap*
“The Right Wing Is Taking Rights Away From Women, But Were They Really Using Them?”
I have to agree with Potty Mouth Lee Camp above, they ‘MEN’ want to keep the power all to themselves and women claiming they are voting for a FeMANist are helping them keep women out of power and reproductive care/family planning out of reach for women.
Thanks for the POST RD.
Happy President’s Day to everyone! A Happy Birthday to our first president, George Washington:
Similar idea:
How to drive Planned Parenthood out of the abortion business.
Look, I voted for Hillary whenever I could (for Senate, in the presidential primary) and actually worked for Bill’s first campaign. I love the Clintons, and don’t much like Obama.
Buuuuut, not everything has to be seen in those terms. I think “safe, legal and rare” DOES play into right wing memes. Becuase, if the rate of abortion doesn’t go down, then the “rare” part ends up biting us in the back. Sure, sure, contraceptives upon demand, family planning, access for teenagers, etc, etc. But, still, abortion is not going away. Nor should it. I don’t care about trimesters. Besides the isssue of birth control, there are medical (mental and physical) issues that develop during pregancies. There are also cases where the severe disability of the fetus is not clear early on. In other cases, women don’t have the money, or the opportunity (abortions are extemely hard to get in many States), during the early weeks. In still others, women think they have a support system in place, but the bottom drops out during the pregnancy.I’m not “pro choice,” I’m emphatically and wholeheartedly pro abortion. If some Scandinavian countries actually have laws that are less liberal than ours, then so much the worse for them. For all their virtues, they aren’t perfect. To me, forced parenthood, forced child bearing, and forced pregnancies are an abomination. They are the essense of totalitariansim, where not even the body of the individual is immune from Big Brother. They also have the effect of objectifying a woman, transforming her from a person, from a moral end in and of herself, into a thing, a means to an end, a baby machine. I don’t care if abortions are “rare” or not. For the sake of the women themselves, fewer abortions are probably better than more. But, as a policy goal, as an indicia of whether our regime of reproductive rights and freedoms is working, I think any focus on “rarity” is a trap.
Nor do I care about “viability” or “grey areas,” those issues are for a woman to consider, if she chooses. As far as I’m concerned, if its in her body, she can abort it at any time, including after it is “viable.”
Of course, Obama with his nonsenses about a woman’s family and “pastor” was full of shit. Of course he is not at all to be taken as the standard on this, or any other, for that matter, liberal position. But that doesn’t immunize the Clinton formulation of “safe, legal and rare” from any and all criticism. Digby might have shit motives, but that doesn’t invalidate the critique of the “rare” part of the Clinton triad.
Rare is a goal. What is so difficult about this to understand?
Your position is like saying HPV happens, let’s not get all upset about it. It’s just an STD.
This is the right wing frame. HPV happens. The difference is they want you to feel guilty about contracting it and would prefer that you suffer lifelong health consequences. But in either case, you’ve still got HPV.
It is NOT a right wing frame to say that no one should get HPV and everyone should be vaccinated. That’s the enlightened position.
So, no this argument of Digby’s is just silly and I’m surprised you bought into it.
Abortions are not analogous to STDs. STDs are always a bad thing. Abortions are not. The rarer the STD, the better. The rarer the abortion, not necessarily. I’m surprized you would make such a silly comparison.
Having a tooth pulled is not morally bad, but it’s painful, expensive, and dangerous — thus always ‘a bad thing.’ Better to ‘prevent extractions’ — by preventing decay.
One other thing, I absolutely disagree with you about viability. You should not be able to get an abortion if the fetus is in the viable stage. It’s hard to believe that anyone would wait until this point to have an abortion. Yeah, I know teenagers are into denial. But once it’s at this point, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the state telling you to wait it out. This is not a religious thing. It’s a human thing. Once you’re delivered, you can always say you’ve fulfilled your obligation and sever your parental ties without guilt.
I’m sorry but I have to draw the line somewhere. To me, up to 12 weeks on demand via a medical abortion is perfectly fine. From 16-20 weeks, you should have to do a little hoop jumping to get a surgical abortion for one reason- the possibility of coercion. Once your health care providers are sure that you made decision on your own, there shouldn’t be any barriers. Past this point, I think you’re getting into an area where fetal abnormalities and maternal health should be the only reasons for termination. Even I have to draw the line somewhere and since this is the way many more civilized countries have formed their abortion laws, it makes sense to find out why they did it this way.
Just because we aren’t religious doesn’t mean we are without ethics and values.
I have ethics and values. They are based on the dignity of the person. No, a woman should not be forced to “wait it out” simply because another being, which hasn’t even been born yet, might be able to make it on its own, theoretically, if it was removed. Your argument to the contrary (“Once you’re delivered, you can always say you’ve fulfilled your obligation and sever your parental ties without guilt.”) would apply throughout the pregnancy. And I don’t believe a woman has any “obligation” to a being living inside her body. Coerced abortion should never be permitted, just as coerced pregnancy should never be permitted. Again, the trimester has nothing to do with it. As for having to draw the line somewhere, I don’t think this is a problem, as I draw it at birth. Birth is a real event, it means the other being is no longer in the woman’s body. Trimesters are bogus constructs.
You are being grotesque and childish to make a point. Stop it. No doctor aborts a perfectly healthy viable baby just because a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant. It is not legal nor should it be. Woman who abort after 23 weeks do so because the fetus is not viable with life and never will be. If it is a matter of saving the woman’s life, they deliver and try to save a baby. Trimesters are not a bogus construct, they are a matter of biology. Please refrain from the BS liberal lingo….. (construct my ass) This is a serious subject, not a college debate class.
….
“You are being grotesque and childish to make a point. Stop it. No doctor aborts a perfectly healthy viable baby just because a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant. It is not legal nor should it be.”
You don’t know what you are talking about. Abortion on demand is the law of the land durng the first trimester. A woman can abort during that time period for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.
“Woman who abort after 23 weeks do so because the fetus is not viable with life and never will be”
Even that is not true. Abortions are permitted even after 23 weeks for other reasons as well.
“Trimesters are not a bogus construct, they are a matter of biology. Please refrain from the BS liberal lingo….. (construct my ass) This is a serious subject, not a college debate class.”
Trimesters was the compromise that the Court reached in Roe. They are more a matter of law than they are of biology. And they are bogus in that there is no hard and fast distinction between them. The woman’s right is, or should be, the same, first, second or third trimester. And the issue is deadly serious, and so am I. Forced pregnancy, forced childbirth and forced parenthood is an abomination. No decent society would countenance it.
Um, I didn’t mention trimesters. I’m going by the types of abortion you can get based on their simplicity and efficacy.
Medical abortions are performed before 16 weeks using RU486 and some other drug, like methotrexate. After 12 weeks, this method is a little less effective and or uncomfortable.
Surgical abortions come after that. But when you get to around 20 weeks, you’re talking about a more invasive procedure.
I can’t possibly understand how you could ask for an abortion at the point when the fetus is viable unless there’s a problem with the fetus or your own health. You don’t all of a sudden wake up in your 24th week of pregnancy and decide you want an abortion that day. That makes no sense. At that point, you’re six months pregnant. Even the dimmest bulb in the box has to know she’s pregnant long before this point. So, what could possibly motivate you to want to abort a viable fetus at this stage? Just because you have the right to do it? If you’ve gone 6 months, you might as well go to the end. If it’s a matter of economics, do an open adoption. Your scenario is very disturbing. Yeah, it would suck to be a sixteen year old who waited too long to have an abortion but somewhere you have to draw the line. Too many micro preemies born at this age are surviving and thriving.
One of the primary reasons the state might want to restrict abortions at this point might be cost. It costs far less to wait and deliver naturally than to treat a micro preemie. I don’t know whether that’s a factor in some of the abortion laws in scandanavian countries.
On the other hand, I fail to see why it is such a burden to ask women to make up their minds before 20 weeks. What would take so long?? Either you want to be pregnant or you don’t. It doesn’t take THAT long to come to a decision.
“I can’t possibly understand how you could ask for an abortion at the point when the fetus is viable unless there’s a problem with the fetus or your own health. You don’t all of a sudden wake up in your 24th week of pregnancy and decide you want an abortion that day. That makes no sense. At that point, you’re six months pregnant. Even the dimmest bulb in the box has to know she’s pregnant long before this point. So, what could possibly motivate you to want to abort a viable fetus at this stage? Just because you have the right to do it.”
No, because circumstances can change duriing the course of the pregnancy, as I mentioned. Severe birth defects, even though not going to “viablilty” can be discovered. The mother may have thought she could count on support, like from the father or her own parents, and then have that fall apart. A woman may have a hard time getting the money together for an abortion (abortion is not covered by medicaid). Or, a woman may have a hard time reaching a State, or a place within the a State, in which abortions are actually provided, The “why” of it shouldn’t matter, that’s how it is with rights.
“If you’ve gone 6 months, you might as well go to the end. If it’s a matter of economics, do an open adoption.”
No reason why you couldn’t say that at three months, or even one month. Which is one reason why “trimesters” are bogus, whether use the term or not. You are relying on them to make distinctions, and to restrict a woman’s rights.
“Your scenario is very disturbing.”
I find forced pregnancy and childbirth to be “disturbing.”
” Yeah, it would suck to be a sixteen year old who waited too long to have an abortion….”
But not “suck” enough for the woman to have a choice?
“… but somewhere you have to draw the line.”
Draw it at birth. A nice, bright line. Easily determined and enforced.
“Too many micro preemies born at this age are surviving and thriving”
Which is of no consequence if your concern is not the “viability” of the fetus, and mine isn’t. It is the right of the woman.
“One of the primary reasons the state might want to restrict abortions at this point might be cost. It costs far less to wait and deliver naturally than to treat a micro preemie.”
Sickening that the issue of “cost” could override such a fundamental right.
“On the other hand, I fail to see why it is such a burden to ask women to make up their minds before 20 weeks. What would take so long?? Either you want to be pregnant or you don’t. It doesn’t take THAT long to come to a decision.”
Maybe not, in ideal circumstances. But not all circumstances are ideal. Again, things change during the pregnancy. And getting to the point where the woman has the money and is present at a real abortion clinic sometimes takes more than twenty weeks.
@freemansfarm. Good point. My mother was 20 months pregnant before she suspected it. (It was a happy surprise to her, though.)
Sorry, I disagree with you. Also, not knowing you’re pregnant until you’re five months along is pretty rare. The vast majority of people know a lot sooner than that.
I have a lot less of a problem with an abortion at 20 weeks than at 24. That’s because if you gave birth at 24 weeks, that fetus has a much greater chance of surviving with medical technology. So, in one case, you may let the creature live, in another you’re ripping it apart. Yeah, I think that’s where I draw the line. And I suspect I’m not the only person who feels this way. It has nothing to do with religion or ickiness. It has to do with not wanting to inflict more harm on the world than I have to.
There are only a handful of countries in the world that allow abortion on demand at any stage of gestation. The most progressive, women positive countries in the world do not. You have to ask yourself why that is and I think that society figures out that for most of the women in their country, nipping it in the bud early on is acceptable and they’re all for a woman’s bodily autonomy. But when the pregnancy advances too far and the fetus can survive outside the uterus, then there are two bodies to deal with and it feels too much like infanticide. And I happen to agree with this. An abortion at this stage *could* be like an early delivery. But in that case, the cost of supporting the fetus without long term damage could be pretty expensive. And a state health administration might feel that the money would be better spent treating someone for breast cancer instead of letting someone deliver early. A couple of doctors should make the call and decide whether the fetus is developed enough to be viable. If it is, then the attention should shift to helping the patient through the last few months with economic, social and psychological support including setting up an adoption. It’s not the end of the world, unless some right wing loonies chase you around and make you feel shame and guilt for not accepting your parental responsibilities. Recovering from an abortion at 6 months is probably not a whole lot different from recovering from a delivery at full term.
I think there are very few people in our country who would not be horrified at an abortion past the stage of viability. Of course there will always need to be exceptions for health reasons or fetal malformation. But other than that, it’s like giving birth and then exposing the kid to the elements. We don’t do that anymore because it’s barbaric.
@freemansfarm, note that in 2009 and 2010 statements, Hillary has dropped the ‘rare.’ Do you think she has changed her mind? More likely the context has changed and a Rightwing meme has grown up around the phrase.
I remember the 90s. At that time, the Clintons’ use of ‘rare’ was almost a shock. It had a science fiction sort of effect. They were saying that contraception and sex education could be increased so much that abortion would no longer be worth discussing because it would become unnecessary; the occasions for it would become rare, a negligible number.
And during the Clinton era, this was happening. Use of contraceptives was going up — and the abortion rate was coming down. See good statistics at http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/human_nature/2012/02/the_komen_fiasco_how_to_drive_planned_parenthood_out_of_the_abortion_business_.html
and at
slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2006/09/where_the_rubber_meets_roe.html
“Hillary has dropped the ‘rare.’ Do you think she has changed her mind? More likely the context has changed and a Rightwing meme has grown up around the phrase.”
Yes, I agree. More likely the latter, and that’s my point. A right wing meme has grown up around the term “rare.”
“I remember the 90s. At that time, the Clintons’ use of ‘rare’ was almost a shock. It had a science fiction sort of effect. They were saying that contraception and sex education could be increased so much that abortion would no longer be worth discussing because it would become unnecessary; the occasions for it would become rare, a negligible number. And during the Clinton era, this was happening. Use of contraceptives was going up — and the abortion rate was coming down. See good statistics at…”
The statistics show that the abortion rate was going down, whether it had become “rare” is another question. Sure, education and available contraceptives will prevent some abortions. And education and contraceptives are good things in and of themselves anyway. But I seriously doubt they would reduce the amount of abortions to a “negligible number.” And, when they don’t, the Right pounces….”See, abortion is NOT becoming rare, your policies have failed….blah, blah, blah.” Best to not go there in the first place, as Hillary is now doing.
“The statistics show that the abortion rate was going down, whether it had become “rare” is another question.”
No one said it “had become” rare. The Clintons said it COULD become rare — because unintended pregnancy could become rare or non-existent — and they were working toward that, with contraceptives, education, etc. Those Slate links show many studies proving that the more contraceptive use, the fewer abortions (duh!). (And after the Clinton era, the trends leveled or reversed.)
Another factor is developing improved contraceptives, without side effects, and easier to use properly. (There’s now an implant that lasts 4 years — who knew?)
The number of aborions never even got close to “rare.” And it never would, no matter how much education and contraceptives were available. Circumstances change during pregnancy. Birth defects show up. A woman’s health can go south. Support systems can fall apart. No amount of good policy will make these things rare, much less non existent. Which is why making rarity a measure of success is a trap. Abortions will continue to occur. No matter how few, the Right will never agree that they are “rare.” And, thus, they will hoist us on our own petards. Better to leave rarity out of it. Then, we don’t have to apologize or equivocate when it doesn’t come about.
“No matter how few, the Right will never agree that they are “rare.” And, thus, they will hoist us on our own petards. Better to leave rarity out of it.”
Too late now. The Right has built their own meme, and apparently they’re trying to make abortions ‘more rare’ by adding more and more obstacles — unlike the Clintons, who both prevented unwanted pregnancies and added resources for dealing with unwanted babies.
Aside from word gotchas, the practical issue remains as the Slate articles described: prevention greatly helps the actual situation. Given the figures, reasonable people on both sides can see that. Unreasonable people will never be reasonable, no matter how we adjust our wording.
Here’s Bill’s 1996 speech. I’ve seen posts referencing Hillary’s “safe, legal, and rare” as the end of a sentence about contraception.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/convention96/floor_speeches/clinton_8-29.html
We respect the individual conscience of every American on the painful issue of abortion, but believe as a matter of law that this decision should be left to a woman, her conscience, her doctor and her God.
But abortion should not only be — abortion should not only be safe and legal, it should be rare. That’s why I helped to establish and support a national effort to reduce out-of-wedlock teen pregnancy, and that is why we must promote adoption.
Last week, the minimum wage bill I signed contained a $5,000 credit to families who adopt children — even more, if the children have disabilities.
If we consider this to be ‘pandering’, note that Bill is only talking about feelings (“painful issue”) — and in the same sentence comes down hard defending the LEGAL RIGHT to abortion.
The practical sops he offers the anti-abortion crowd, are in fact useful things for the woman — not extra hoops for her to jump through, like Obama’s ‘contraceptives offered by the insurer rather than default in the policy.’
I worked in a woman’s clinic where one of the services we offered was abortion up to twelve weeks. We also taught birth control so that there would be less need for that service. Obviously everyone there was pro-choice, apologetically so. We referred women to clinics where they could abort after 12 weeks, we offered sterilization procedures for male and female patients. Almost everything we did was focused on making abortion rare.
Rare is not a trap. Rare is about education and easy access to contraception. That’s all, and there is nothing at all wrong with that.
There is no stronger advocate for a woman’s rights than Hillary Clinton, period.
I agree with you on the leftist nations where they are controlling women. Screw them and that is a perfect illustration of why I am NOT interested in living in a socialist authoritarian society.
un-apologetically so..damn you auto correct…..
“Rare is not a trap. Rare is about education and easy access to contraception. That’s all, and there is nothing at all wrong with that”
What’s wrong with it is that those things cut the abortion rate, but they don’t make abortion “rare.” Especially as that term will be interpreted by the right. In the aggregate, Statewide, countrywide, or worldwide, there will be always more than enough abotions, as an absolute numer, so that the case for rarity will be hard to make.
“There is no stronger advocate for a woman’s rights than Hillary Clinton, period”
Agreed. But does everything have to be considered in those terms, and those terms only? Hillary is a staunch, perhaps THE staunchest advocate of woman’s rights. But does that mean that any and every formulation she happend to use, at any time in the past, is necessarily the best one? Why is this the hill to die on?
It was a good one at the time. Since the anti-choicers are twisting it, we need to untwist it. Especially since this lets us bring in FACTS about the link between prevention and lack of need for abortions; which is more clear now that we’ve seen the results of the Clintons’ approach and then the results of Bush’s abandonment of their approach.
So in other words, Digby et al thinks the left attitude is that abortion shouldn’t be rare? If nothing else, don’t they understand the potential health risks of abortion (things like infection, botched procedures, etc.). These are risks with any medical procedure, so all medical procedures should be safe, legal and rare.
Should childbirth be “rare?” There are certainly medical risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth. There should be just the amount of abortions, no more and no less, as pregnant women want there to be. Just as there should be just the amount of pregnancies carried to term, no more and no less, as pregnant women want there to be.
A very clear statement of the issue, and framed within a Market-based perspective as well.
” there should be just the amount of pregnancies”
There should be just the amount of pregnancies as women want, period.
Agreed. And that means, if and when women want to end them, they should be able to. Even if that means, in aggregate, that abortions are not rare.
‘Rare’ is a relative term (and yes, the Rightwingers will twist it anyway). In issues like this, there is no ‘absolute rare’; used by sensible people, it means ‘more rare’, ie ‘less common’. The Slate articles point to times and places where it has become less common. Imo the best response is not to argue semantics or extreme positions, but to show the correlation between incidence of abortion (or of unwanted deliveries) and the use of contraceptives. What’s important is what does work — not what someone’s statement decades ago can be twisted into.
During the democratic primary race in 2008, the Illinois National Organization for Women declined to endorse Obama because of his repeated failure to vote for pro-choice legislation, despite representing a very liberal district. All references to the Illinois NOW’s statement about how he was not there for women when they needed him are unavailable on the Web. National NOW, for some inexplicable reason, did not pick up on the state’s observations. The real Obama was the one who voted “present”, functionally a “no” in the Illinois legislature (and Planned Parenthood denied the meme that the present votes were part of a strategy to protect liberals in conservative districts from losing re-election bids.)
How much information like this was suppressed all over the MSM and the MSI (Main Stream Internet) in the 2008 runup? Since most people only have the time and energy to view/read a few MSM or MSI info-sources, keeping this information out of those few basic MSM/MSI info-sources will keep this information out of most peoples’ hands. How extensive and widespread was the pro-Obama information suppression campaign in 2008?
It’s typical that they would obsess over a rhetorical issue (words) rather than pay any attention to what has actually been done or not done on this issue. The level of abstraction and glorification of tribalism over any concern for the real world is pretty striking.
Good point. Yes, that is how we arrived at this point, with the fan base valuing the words over the substance.
They value the “idea” of reflecting the will of the voters over actually doing it. Oh, and cheating is good strategy as long as some lofty ideals get their lip service.
words over the substance.
worked very well in 08
Damn! Hillary is so impressive! No wonder she scared the hell out of male Dimocrats.
I bungled my last attempt to post a comment. The gist was that in Bill Clinton’s 1996 DNC Speech where he said “Abortion should not only be safe and legal, it should be rare.” -BILL CLINTON, speech at DNC, Aug. 29, 1996- He also laid out proposals to help families afford to “choose life.”
Economic hardship makes abortion less rare. I had links to support this but I lost them. Sorry.
As I pointed out above, getting an STD should also be rare. Does that mean we shouldn’t say “it should be rare”?
Also, as Hillary pointed out, it should be your choice. If you don’t want an abortion but you don’t have the money for an unplanned pregnancy, are you saying we *shouldn’t* help people choose to deliver? I’m very confused by this reasoning. If someone is pregnant but they can’t bear the thought of abortion, shouldn’t we help them to do what feels right to them? Shouldn’t we offer them health care so they can get good prenatal care and a safe delivery? If they decide to give the baby up for adoption, how is that a BAD thing?
Again, the best thing is to prevent all of these scenarios from happening in the first place.
I still don’t see where this is playing into a right wing frame. It just seems like common sense. As I’ve said before, I’m not religious and I’m pro-choice so, this argument that “safe, legal and rare” is pandering to the right is just bizarre. It’s the wisest, most rational SOP.
“As I pointed out above, getting an STD should also be rare. Does that mean we shouldn’t say “it should be rare”?”
How can you repeat that analogy? It is totally ihapposite. An abortion can be, under the circumstances (health of the mother at risk, fetus with severe abnormalities) the best choice. Under those terms, it is a good thing—good as being better than the alternative. But an STD is never a good thing. The alternative, NOT having an STD, is always better. That’s why the rarer the STD, the better. But not necessarily so with abortion. An aboriton foregone when the health of the mother is at risk helps make abortion rarer, but it is not a good thing.
“Also, as Hillary pointed out, it should be your choice. If you don’t want an abortion but you don’t have the money for an unplanned pregnancy, are you saying we *shouldn’t* help people choose to deliver? I’m very confused by this reasoning. If someone is pregnant but they can’t bear the thought of abortion, shouldn’t we help them to do what feels right to them? Shouldn’t we offer them health care so they can get good prenatal care and a safe delivery? If they decide to give the baby up for adoption, how is that a BAD thing?”
None of those are bad things. But they won’t make abortion “rare.”
“Again, the best thing is to prevent all of these scenarios from happening in the first place.”
Sure, but that still leaves situations in which the health of the mother detiorates during pregnancy, in which severe abnormalities of the fetus develop during pregnancy, and so forth. These alone will lead to more than enough abortions to make the goal of rarity unachievable. And then the Right will say that we have failed, and use our own words against us.
“I still don’t see where this is playing into a right wing frame. It just seems like common sense. As I’ve said before, I’m not religious and I’m pro-choice so, this argument that “safe, legal and rare” is pandering to the right is just bizarre. It’s the wisest, most rational SOP”
Simply not true. And you don’t see it because you don’t want to see it. Sometimes, you let your love of Hillary cloud your vision. I’ve explained to you, repeatedly and in depth, why it is a bad formulation and how it plays into right wing memes. And you have offered virtually nothing in rebuttal. But, Hillary said it, so you will defend it to the death….
We are not talking about abortions when the health of the mother or fetal malformation is a problem. I don’t think you will find anyone on this board who will argue with you on that.
We are talking about abortions for reasons *other* than the health of the mother or fetal malformation. And I think you will find that if it is health of the mother, an early delivery is not uncommon when the fetus is viable.
So, I’m not sure what it is you have a problem with here, except that to you it seems there is no boundary and to me, there is.
I think this society will have to set a boundary at some point and craft laws that make it easy for women to exercise her rights before that point but more difficult afterwards. And I would prefer that women set that boundary and not some crazy bunch of right wing religious fanatics, as they are doing right now. And that means that there has to be some kind of maturation process on our part to own up to this responsibility. Safe, legal and rare was the first part of that process.