Who is the extremist on Abortion?

Who is the extremist on Abortion?
A baby pre-birth

Here is a thought.  Suppose I was to say a political party candidate has imitated Communist China’s abortion policy by allowing sex selection abortions, would you call that Party candidate an extremist? What if I were to say we had a candidate who when a state legislator opposed a bill that would have stopped the murder of a baby who survived an abortion, would he be an extremist?  Or a candidate who viewed late term abortion as acceptable, would you consider him an extremist?

There is a candidate running for office that has supported all of the above, refusing to stop sex selection abortions or late term abortions.  Before I list the candidate, let’s examine one reality, every example of abortion I have given are but a small percentage of abortions performed but these examples show an extremism that exists within the pro-choice movement.  If anything, Pro-lifers have shown more flexibility in dealing with abortions than their pro-choice opponents.  Yes, there are politicians who are against all abortion but there have been numerous opportunities in which Pro-life advocates supported exceptions including protecting the life of the mother or in the case of rape and incest.

The question that lingers is why are those within the pro-choice movement unwilling to set boundaries to protect life in some cases?  Sex selection abortion is a reality in China where China’s aggressive policy to restrict their population has resulted in one child per family.  Many Chinese prefer boys being born as opposed to girls, so sex selection abortion has resulted in a higher ratio of male to females than would normally be seen.  (It has led to a quicker aging of the Chinese population; allowing one pundit to quip that China will get old before it becomes rich.)

What happens when a 23 week fetus is aborted.

During the 1990’s, a neonatologist in Wichita told a friend of mine that he was saving late term babies lives being aborted in an leading abortion clinic in town.  The debate in the 1990’s dealing with late term abortions was that battle over what boundaries would be set on abortion.  Note the phrase, setting boundaries over abortions but not making it illegal.  The pro-choice advocates refuse to be willing to set any boundaries on abortions; leaving aside the question –  are we talking being pro-choice or pro-abortion?   The mantra “let’s keep abortion legal, make it rare” rings hallow when abortion for any reason is allowed.

In New York, there are more aborted African-American babies than born and Hispanics communities are approaching similar milestones.  Overall, two out of every five babies in New York don’t get to breathe their first breath in the Big Apple and that is not a sign of a healthy society or a healthy community.  Abortions among minorities occur at double the rates of whites and every year, we see some one million plus abortions performed; are we witnessing a coarsening of life?

This is the Extremist, not the Republican Party

Pro-choice advocates tell us they stand for making abortions rare while keeping it legal but when you have communities where babies are being aborted in greater numbers than being born, you don’t have a society not trying hard to make abortion rare.

Getting back to my original question:

While in Illinois, Obama had a chance to take a stand for setting boundaries against infanticide when he refuse to take a stand for rules to protect an unborn child who manages to survive an abortion.  That is not abortion but infanticide and it is extremism in the defense of abortion.  Obama has supported late term abortions and is willing to follow the Chinese model of allowing sex selection abortions.  For gay rights advocates, here is a thought to ponder.  If it could be determine if a baby will grow up being gay, Obama would support a parent rights to abort that child.  A President who can’t be bothered to oppose sex selection abortion is not in position to talk about war on women for he is leading a real war on women.  Obama is the extremist on abortion.

Share This Post

7 Responses to "Who is the extremist on Abortion?"

  1. There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around on this issue.

    Anti-abortion supporters almost always insist that there be no exception for the health/life of the mother included in proposed legislation banning late-term abortions. Almost all pro-choice supporters would vote to ban/restrict late-term abortions if an exception for health/life of the mother was included. Anti-abortion supporters do this in order to make pro-choice supporters look bad, and it works, but the result is abortions do not decrease.

    President Obama’s votes as a State Senator in Illinois were based on the same concern, he never opposed any late-term or born-alive bill that included language protecting a woman’s choice. His stated position, in fact, is that he supports late-term abortion bans and supports born alive laws if they are structured in accordance with Roe v. Wade. Anti-abortion supporters refuse to structure proposed legislation this way because their goal is to make pro-choice supporters look bad, not to decrease the number of abortions (I understand their goal is to ban all abortions all the time, but they would rather give up incremental success in favor of absolute victory). Proof of this is the rare occasion when a bill that was properly structured, the Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act, passed the Senate 98-0.

    There is no data that any measurable sex-selection abortion occurs in the US, which is bolstered by the fact that the US male/female ratio at birth is 1.05 in the US. Laws banning sex-selection abortion are ineffective, virtually impossible to enforce, and if passed would likely require an incredible level of governmental involvement in women’s healthcare deliberations in order to be effective. Essentially, such laws would require a woman to provide her reason for seeking an abortion as a predicate to gaining access to abortion services (which is actually none of your, or the government’s, business) and would only ban a woman from saying out loud that she was seeking an abortion for sex-selection reasons. At the end of the day, such a law would probably have no effect on the number of abortions and the only effect would be to intrude further into a woman’s privacy.

    Every study ever done (every sane person on earth knows this) shows that the number one policy that would result in decreased abortion is increased access to family planning/contraception. Yet, anti-abortion supporters frequently not only fail to support this policy, but often work to make access to family planning/contraception either difficult or impossible. President Obama has always been a strong supporter of funding these types of programs that actually result in fewer abortions.

    I will be impressed the first time I hear of an anti-abortion advocate who really truly cares about decreasing the frequency of abortion in this country passing out condoms on street corners instead of sticking their head in the ground, drafting extreme legislation, and then acting outraged that abortions are too common. Unfortunately, I think I will be waiting a long, long time to be impressed. This reality tells you a lot about one of the main underlying motives of anti-abortion advocates (in addition to their concern about the number of abortions)…they are often very preoccupied with the sexual behavior of women and very judgmental about that behavior.

    Anti-abortion supporters win the hypocrisy title and lose the abortion issue.

    Reply
    1. Mr. Harris, since your comments are well thought out and argumentative, I suggest you read Roe v. Wade. If you know the actual decision, you will also know that the precedent of the case will overrule itself eventually. To paraphrase the ruling, the state’s right to control abortion are related to the viability of the fetus. If the fetus is viable outside of the womb, the state’s rights to control abortion outweigh the women’s rights. Prior to viability, it is the other way around.

      I don’t remember the exact science as I was in law school 30 years ago, but I believe viability has gone from roughly 34 weeks in 1972 to somewhere in the mid-20’s now. If someone knows these numbers for sure, please correct me. Accordingly, if viability eventually becomes one week, the state may ban abortions and Roe v. Wade would overrule itself.

      President Obama does not believe in Roe V. Wade but believes in abortion on demand. That is what he has always said.

      However, the reality of the situation is that abortion will probably be a non-issue in this campaign as will be foreign policy as well. This election will ride almost solely on the economy and that is where Mr. Obama is week.

      Reply
      1. Frank,

        I have an MPH, so I have a bit of expertise on this topic. You are correct about Roe’s focus on viability, but when you refer to the fetus’ rights versus the woman’s rights, in those cases where the life of the woman is at issue, the woman’s rights were never intended to be considered subordinate. The limit of viability has declined since Roe due to medical advances, but has remained around 23-24 weeks for the past decade (it was 24-28 weeks at the time of Roe which led to the trimester concept in balancing abortion restrictions). The youngest surviving fetus that has been medically documented was around 21-22 weeks. Surviving fetuses below a certain weight/”age” often suffer from severe and debilitating long-term health issues. It is highly unlikely that viability will drop much lower, but if it does, it will likely have to involve some kind of highly sophisticated artificial uterus which will take the woman out of the equation anyway.

        I am actually paraphrasing President Obama’s position on choice. He has stated many times that he supports a woman’s right to choice consistent with Roe. He has, like many Democrats, voted against bills he would have otherwise supported related to late-term or born-alive abortion restrictions due to the absence of language that would protect a woman’s rights. I don’t think it is honest to try to label someone’s position on this, or any issue, when an otherwise acceptable bill contains flawed language, or certain protective language is omitted by opponents just for the purpose of scoring political points.

        I would be interested in hearing your opinion, or anyone’s, on my premise that the best way to decrease the number of abortions is access to family planning/contraception. I am pretty sure that nothing else comes close regarding the intended outcome – fewer abortions. Yet, ironically, the loudest choice opponents almost always concurrently oppose the one policy that would have the best result.

        Dave Burris

        Reply
  2. My point was the position of Mr. Obama and his position is radical. I made it clear that sex selecion or late term abortions were rare but can any one argue that one should take stand against these excepion? Obama is on record for both. He had numerous opportunities to take a stand against killing an unborn child after a botch abortion as a Illinois representative. One of those bills was similar to a Federal law passed in the United States 98-0 you referenced.

    As for Pro-life hypocrisy, over the past four decades, many Pro-Life groups have established outreach by the thousands to help unwed mothers and for the past decades, pro-life representatives have supported exception to abortions with the various forms of Hyde Amendment. So please spare me the Pro-life don’t care for babies crap and recognize that you are supporting a candidate who has set no limits to abortion.

    Romney is on record for exception for the life of the mother as well as rape and incest which he discussed to CBS news recently (Yes you can make the point Romney position has evolved but he changed to protect life. There have been many pro-life Democrats who switched when they ran for higher office. I will let the reader decide which is worse, going from pro-choice to pro-life or vice a versa.) Obama won’t even support a bill that on paper would ban sex selectior or similar to a Federal Bill to protect Babies after a botch abortion. My position still stand, Obama is the radical on abortion. That point is easy established.

    For the final piece that I love the best as a political strategist; this is a wedge issue that works for Romney. While Frank is right that the economy is the main issues, those who view abortion as a important or the issue in their mind; they will vote Pro-life. There have been surveys over the past decades to show that Pro-life are more intense on this issue. So if 2 or 3% vote abortion as their issue and election is close, Romney benefit. Unlike my fellow Republican strategist, I say to the left and abortion extremist; bring it on. In a country which evenly split on the issue, it is about intensity.

    I will let you and Frank continue to spar.

    Sincerely,

    Reply
    1. Tom,

      You can’t determine President Obama’s position solely based on how he voted on a specific bill that either included or excluded certain language that he felt was important. He has said he would support a bill that dealt with born-alive issues as long as it included language that also protected a woman’s choice. He has also said he would support a bill restricting late-term abortions as long as it contained the same protections. He has never voted against a bill that met his stated requirements. Republicans need to take responsibility for incessantly including or excluding key language that results in some of the bills being defeated. I know of several cases where Republicans refuse to include language that would protect the “health or life of the mother” because they say there are no situations where the health or life of the mother is at risk. Clearly, if that were true, then they should include the language. The two sides have constructed a real Catch 22 on this topic. Republicans have made an industry of parsing a single word in a bill as an excuse not to vote for something, so please don’t hold the President to a different standard.

      I will give you and Frank one last chance, then I will drop this. I repeat my question, why do anti-abortion advocates also almost always oppose family planning/contraception which is the single most effective way to reduce the number of abortions? I am an outcome driven guy and I just don’t get it. They claim that abortion is a terrible thing, but refuse to support the most effective policy to curb it. I am NOT talking about help for unwed mothers, although that is very nice, I am talking about something that would truly decrease the number of abortions. The almost total lack of support for family planning/contraception leaves me to believe that the agenda of many anti-abortion advocates has a lot more to do with women’s sexual behavior than it does with “saving babies.”

      Romney is playing his Romney game. He says he supports an exception for rape, incest and life of the mother, but at the same time, he says he supports a personhood amendment to the Constitution that would clearly prohibit all abortions in all cases. He also says it is not for the President to decide, but rather it is up to the Supreme Court decide. He conveniently leaves out that it is highly likely that the next President will probably replace Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy. If he is that President, Roe will be overturned 7-2. So he would get to decide the issue while hiding behind some black robes. Romney is the master of prestidigitation when it comes to taking both sides of an issue.

      Finally, I don’t think any pro-life voters were in the President Obama column in the first place. However, I have spoken to a number of moderate female voters who are very disturbed by the Republican position on choice and related matters.

      I still see 53-47 for Obama. I can almost taste the dinner I will buy with my $10 winnings.

      Sincerely,

      Dave

      Reply

Post Comment