Poll: Strong majority of Ohio voters back abortion ballot measure

[Fantine]

I did not say abortion reduces poverty. I said that people choose abortion because they are often already poor and are already distributing the crumbs to too many.
I believe in the child tax credit. Did Ohio Republicans in Congress vote to extend it? Asked and answered.
Did JD Vance, who exploited his hillbilly background to criticize them while making millions trading hedge funds?

 

[rambot]

I can see the valid arguments on both sides; but this liberal way of speaking about abortion is just sleight of hand. If you want to be for abortion, then call it what it is. Calling abortion "reproductive health rights" is twisting our language into the incomprehensible.

Abortion is the opposite of reproduction. It terminates the act of reproduction.

You are correct. And given that it's a procedure that is related to reproductive health, that's why the name is there. Having an ultrasound done to confirm the sex of a child is ALSO a reproductive health right but it doesn't cause a baby to be born; ditto genetic testing. If it is related to reproductive health (which abortion is) then it should be so named.

This is made even worse by calling an act that kills a fetus as being about health, therefore treating pregnancy as a disease and the fetus as equivalent to a tumor.

Perhaps you haven't been around a pregnant woman, but being pregnant affects one's health.

And yes, a fetus is a parasite. We imbibe a lot of traits into it (as we should) when we love this wonderful, wanted, desired individual. But fundamentally, it is very much a parasite on a woman.

Finally as far as "rights" to an abortion, there is no explicit right to an abortion in the Bill of Rights or subsequent amendments to the Constitution. To imply a right that is not explicitly defined is what led to Roe vs. Wade being overturned.

There is a right to bodily autonomy. So.....no. Incorrect.

 

[Desk trauma]

If a majority of Ohioans want abortion access, there are things Ohio legislatures could do to change their hearts. They could provide more economic help to single moms. Give day-care subsidies. Make birth control more accessible.

Why would they want to provide that support? The suffering is a feature not a bug. Can’t have people escaping the consequences of having unapproved sex.

 

[jayem]

Finally as far as "rights" to an abortion, there is no explicit right to an abortion in the Bill of Rights or subsequent amendments to the Constitution. To imply a right that is not explicitly defined is what led to Roe vs. Wade being overturned.

But there is the 9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."​

1. Clearly, this means that unenumerated rights exist that belong to the people--not to the states, nor to the federal government.

2. No where does the Constitution state, or even imply, that the unborn are "persons' as that term is used in the 14th Amendment.

3. One of the unenumerated rights can certainly be the ability to make a medical decision regarding one's own body. Which would apply to an obstetrical procedure performed by a trained and experienced OB-GYN, according to accepted gynecologic standards, with the patient's fully informed consent.

It seems to me that when a state government criminalizes such a private medical decision between a doctor and patient, it is violating the 9th Amendment.

Edited to add: More than half of early,1st trimester abortions are now done medically with mifepristone and misoprostol. Decades of studies have shown that the drugs are safe and effective. And again, attempts by some states to block access are violations of federal law.





.

 

[JSRG]

But there is the 9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."​

1. Clearly, this means that unenumerated rights exist that belong to the people--not to the states, nor to the federal government.

That is a common, though not the only, interpretation of the Ninth Amendment.

2. No where does the Constitution state, or even imply, that the unborn are "persons' as that term is used in the 14th Amendment.

This point has been disputed, but I'll concede it.

3. One of the unenumerated rights can certainly be the ability to make a medical decision regarding one's own body. Which would apply to an obstetrical procedure performed by a trained and experienced OB-GYN, according to accepted gynecologic standards, with the patient's fully informed consent.

And here's where the big problems come, even accepting the two previous points. You simply say this is an unenumerated right. Based on what? Why is it an unenumerated right? Did anyone think this was a right back then? The 9th Amendment is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a "grab bag" in which people can just reach into it and pull out any right they think is important and use it to invalidate laws. Even the Lochner era of the Supreme Court, which claimed there was a "liberty of contract" that made it unconstitutional to enact things like minimum wage laws, didn't use the Ninth Amendment to claim this idea (it instead cited, though just as erroneously, the Due Process Clause). If someone can reach into the grab bag and pull out "the ability to make a medical decision regarding one's own body" then one can just as easily reach into the grab bag and pull out "liberty of contract" and throw out every restriction the government has on workplace contracts. Or reach into the grab bag and pull out "housing is a right" and use it to conclude you can't kick people out of your house if they want to live there. Or reach into the grab bag and pull out any other number of excuses to invalidate laws.

If we're going to try to get unenumerated rights out of the Ninth Amendment, we should be restricting ourselves to things that were very clearly considered rights at the time it was ratified. Right of travel is a great example, apparently considered so obvious they didn't even specify it. I'm not aware of any evidence "the ability to make a medical decision regarding one's own body" was one, and certainly not that it extended in any way to abortion.

Indeed, if "the ability to make a medical decision regarding one's own body" is a right, then it seems the government is unable to do any real medical regulation. No drug can be made illegal or even prescription-only, and the same applies to all kinds of other treatments. What, is the government unable to make it illegal to give people cocaine? Or even if one insists that simply selling it isn't a medical decision, does that mean that the government can't make it so doctors can't just give prescriptions of it? It's pretty obvious that the government can enact various restrictions or even prohibitions on medical decisions, and if it actually can't, then a whole lot of laws are going to need to be invalidated.

I should also note that even the dissent in Dobbs (Dobbs was the decision overturning Roe) never, as far as I can tell, raised the argument of the Ninth Amendment. It rooted its arguments on the Fourteenth Amendment, which is incidentally how the previous Supreme Court abortion decision claiming there was a right to abortion justified it also. I don't think there's any right to an abortion to be found in the Fourteenth Amendment either, but my point is that even the people on the Supreme Court who did claim there was a right to abortion didn't claim it was in the Ninth Amendment.

 

[tz620q]

You are correct. And given that it's a procedure that is related to reproductive health, that's why the name is there. Having an ultrasound done to confirm the sex of a child is ALSO a reproductive health right but it doesn't cause a baby to be born; ditto genetic testing. If it is related to reproductive health (which abortion is) then it should be so named.


Perhaps you haven't been around a pregnant woman, but being pregnant affects one's health.

And yes, a fetus is a parasite. We imbibe a lot of traits into it (as we should) when we love this wonderful, wanted, desired individual. But fundamentally, it is very much a parasite on a woman.


There is a right to bodily autonomy. So.....no. Incorrect.

Our rights extend only to the point that they don't infringe on other people's rights. That is why the denial of any rights to an unborn fetus is the critical assumption in any argument for abortion as a right.

 

[comana]

Our rights extend only to the point that they don't infringe on other people's rights. That is why the denial of any rights to an unborn fetus is the critical assumption in any argument for abortion as a right.

As yet, the unborn do not have rights. Giving them rights may well bring about more negatives than it is worth. Would those rights also supersede those of the woman the unborn resides in? Sounds like a legal nightmare.

 

[tz620q]

As yet, the unborn do not have rights. Giving them rights may well bring about more negatives than it is worth. Would those rights also supersede those of the woman the unborn resides in? Sounds like a legal nightmare.

And yet current Ohio Penal code gives the unborn those very rights.

"
(2) In a manner so that the offense is applied or is construed as applying to a woman based on an act or omission of the woman that occurs while she is or was pregnant and that results in any of the following:

(a) Her delivery of a stillborn baby;

(b) Her causing, in any other manner, the death in utero of an unborn that she is carrying;

(c) Her causing the death of her child who is born alive but who dies from one or more injuries that are sustained while the child is an unborn;

(d) Her causing her child who is born alive to sustain one or more injuries while the child is an unborn;

(e) Her causing, threatening to cause, or attempting to cause, in any other manner, an injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its duration or gravity, or a mental illness or condition, regardless of its duration or gravity, to an unborn that she is carrying."

 

[comana]

And yet current Ohio Penal code gives the unborn those very rights.

"
(2) In a manner so that the offense is applied or is construed as applying to a woman based on an act or omission of the woman that occurs while she is or was pregnant and that results in any of the following:

(a) Her delivery of a stillborn baby;

(b) Her causing, in any other manner, the death in utero of an unborn that she is carrying;

(c) Her causing the death of her child who is born alive but who dies from one or more injuries that are sustained while the child is an unborn;

(d) Her causing her child who is born alive to sustain one or more injuries while the child is an unborn;

(e) Her causing, threatening to cause, or attempting to cause, in any other manner, an injury, illness, or other physiological impairment, regardless of its duration or gravity, or a mental illness or condition, regardless of its duration or gravity, to an unborn that she is carrying."

Interesting that it specifically carves out legal abortion, however, sites illegal abortion ( such as the mother or other party intentionally inducing miscarriage) or other harm done to a fetus during a pregnancy.

A narrowly defined right. Get a legal abortion or do not otherwise bring harm to the pregnancy.

 

[Larniavc]

I always wonder why it is OK to take into account a woman’s emotional trauma during a rape pregnancy to allow for abortion, yet the same consideration is not given to other women who are experiencing emotional trauma over being forced to carry a pregnancy and give birth because the “chose to have sex”.

Not wanting to be pregnant is either a valid reason to abort in all circumstances or it is valid in none.

It’s because it is a very infrequent Christian who will blame a woman for being raped but rather a less scarce one who will blame a woman for having sex.

 

[tz620q]

Interesting that it specifically carves out legal abortion, however, sites illegal abortion ( such as the mother or other party intentionally inducing miscarriage) or other harm done to a fetus during a pregnancy.

A narrowly defined right. Get a legal abortion or do not otherwise bring harm to the pregnancy.

I noticed the same thing. You are right to bring up these legal paradoxes. Until recently in New York someone who killed a pregnant woman could be charged with two counts of homicide. They have since repealed that law to deprive the fetus of those rights and only allow a homicide charge if the baby is born alive. This requires some serious debate about the rights of the unborn and when those rights are endowed.

 

[Larniavc]

We have empathy. We are strongly empathetic of the health of the fetus.

Not so much after the birth though.

Republicans approve tax cuts, reject Evers' child care package

Two months after Gov. Tony Evers convened a special session to call on lawmakers to pass workforce development legislation, Republicans in the Wisconsin Legislature on Tuesday passed their version of the bill, which nixes nearly all the governor’s programs, including child care funding and a...

www.wpr.org

What fits the facts is a desire to punish women for not having sex the Christian way.

 

[tz620q]

Not so much after the birth though.

Republicans approve tax cuts, reject Evers' child care package

Two months after Gov. Tony Evers convened a special session to call on lawmakers to pass workforce development legislation, Republicans in the Wisconsin Legislature on Tuesday passed their version of the bill, which nixes nearly all the governor’s programs, including child care funding and a...

www.wpr.org

What fits the facts is a desire to punish women for not having sex the Christian way.

I try not to impute ill will on others or put words in their mouths. Being a Catholic, I could point out all of the hospitals, orphanages, and pregnancy crises centers started by the Catholic church; but I really shouldn't need to. Just go to the yellow pages in your area and search for them.

[Edit] Oops, just noticed you are from the UK. It could be different there than in the U.S.

 

[Larniavc]

I try not to impute ill will on others or put words in their mouths. Being a Catholic, I could point out all of the hospitals, orphanages, and pregnancy crises centers started by the Catholic church; but I really shouldn't need to. Just go to the yellow pages in your area and search for them.

[Edit] Oops, just noticed you are from the UK. It could be different there than in the U.S.

Crisis pregnancy centres in the UK: what they are, how to avoid them and where to find impartial advice - MSI Reproductive Choices UK

In this blog, we explore crisis pregnancy centres in the UK, debunk some common myths about abortion, and share what to look out for online.

www.msichoices.org.uk

It’s hard to think of PCCs as a force for good.

 

[tz620q]

Crisis pregnancy centres in the UK: what they are, how to avoid them and where to find impartial advice - MSI Reproductive Choices UK

In this blog, we explore crisis pregnancy centres in the UK, debunk some common myths about abortion, and share what to look out for online.

www.msichoices.org.uk

It’s hard to think of PCCs as a force for good.

Why? Do you believe that abortion is the natural state of things during pregnancy and trying to counsel women to continue with the pregnancy and provide them with what they need is inherently evil?

 

[Larniavc]

Why? Do you believe that abortion is the natural state of things during pregnancy and trying to counsel women to continue with the pregnancy and provide them with what they need is inherently evil?

But they are not provided with what they need. They need neutral advice, not religious pressure.

I certainly don’t believe CPCs are evil. Just hopelessly naive and dismissive of women.

 

[NxNW]

Why? Do you believe that abortion is the natural state of things during pregnancy and trying to counsel women to continue with the pregnancy and provide them with what they need is inherently evil?

Miscarriage is the natural state of things. Birth is the exception. The number of abortions in the world is trivial compared to the number of miscarriages. And yet anti-choicers make essentially zero effort to prevent miscarriages.

One suspects their motives are unrelated to saving lives.

 

[jayem]

I should also note that even the dissent in Dobbs (Dobbs was the decision overturning Roe) never, as far as I can tell, raised the argument of the Ninth Amendment. It rooted its arguments on the Fourteenth Amendment, which is incidentally how the previous Supreme Court abortion decision claiming there was a right to abortion justified it also. I don't think there's any right to an abortion to be found in the Fourteenth Amendment either, but my point is that even the people on the Supreme Court who did claim there was a right to abortion didn't claim it was in the Ninth Amendment.

An argument has been used in federal court to argue that the 9th Amendment--along with the 14th--protects privacy in certain settings. This is taken from Sec. VIII, ¶2 of Justice Blackmun's Roe v. Wade opinion:

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

I'm sure you're aware that Dobbs didn't overturn Roe nationally. The decision allowed states to individually establish their own take on the legality of abortion. Getting back to my OP, in every state that has so far held referendums on abortion policy, access to abortion--including medical abortion--has been upheld by the voters. The most secure way to prohibit abortion nationally will require a Constitutional amendment.

Honestly, I'm not enamored of terminating a healthy pregnancy. I can agree that it's a tragedy. But sometimes it may be necessary. And ultimately, that decision belongs to a pregnant woman--not to her state legislature. Why not a compromise? The average gestation period is 40 weeks. Split it in half. Up to 20 weeks, termination is a private medical matter between a pregnant woman and her doctor. After 20 weeks, the state can prohibit abortion except for maternal medical necessity. This is fair, reasonable, and workable.