E
estesbob
Guest
It is indeed a canard Prior to the imposition of Roe 92% of abortions in the US were performed by licensed phyasicians in a sterlie enviroment. The number of maternal deaths from abortion was under 400
- Status
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
For the entire history of the US up to Roe? I doubt it, what date range does the 92% refer to?
If, for example, you mean 5 years before Roe, then my point stands, if you continued the graph back for those 5 years, you would likely see a smooth curve with no jump corresponding to the decision. Instead, the increased incidence would be due to women recognizing abortion as a safe option.
E
estesbob
Guest
You would see a quadrupling of the abortions after Roe was imposed.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Maternal deaths from abortion became rare with the advent of anti-biotics in the late 1940s. Of course maternal deaths from childbirth also plummeted-for the same reason.
From the 1940s through the 1960s, in fact, the best available evidence shows a dramatic decline in abortion-related deaths occurring even before the first states liberalized abortion laws in 1967. The Journal of the American Medical Association quotes official estimates from the National Center for Health Statistics showing an 89 percent decrease in abortion-related deaths by 1966. That is based on counting the number of death certificates that listed complications from abortion as the cause of death. The numbers reported for any given year are assuredly low since doctors could easily misstate the cause of death to protect the family. Still, these are the only figures that allow comparisons over time. There’s no reason to think that the rate of under-reporting would vary from one year to another, and so little reason to doubt that a steep downward trend took place long before Roe was decided.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
The pill has been around since the 1950s, abortion was much higher in the 1990s than it was between 2000 and 2005 when Bush was in office.
G
gnjsdad
Guest
This is what I wrote that you are caling “a school of Red Herrings”…
I could change my response to this…
and it still would not detract from my main point that the Republican party has made all of these more important priorities than making abortion illegal, even with its anti abortion platform. Surely you would not disagree with that.
You could search my posts in this thread and I don’t think you’d find that I said the Republicans have done “nothing”. Putting the word in quotes implying it’s a word I used in that context is misleading.
Let’s get back on topic and discuss the email exchange between Kagan and Tribe
I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan wrote, in an email obtained by Judicial Watch, on the day Obamacare passed through Congress.
“And with the Stupak group accepting the magic of what amounts to a signing statement on steroids!” Tribe added in delight, and in derision for the pro-life Democrats.
First off, I believe the OP is an opinion piece, espicially WRT this email exchange.
Second, look at what Tribe is saying about Stupak and the pro life Democrats. He is referring to them “in derision”. Now many Republicans here have accused Stupak & Co. of “caving to Obama”, unmistakably implying that Stupak and Obama are of one mind, ultimately, on abortion. Question: Why would Tribe, an obvious pro choicer, respond “in derision” of the pro life Democrats if they were really on the same side? Doesn’t make any sense to me.
I
ishii
Guest
Wow. If I were ever to teach a class on the tactics of pro-abortion rights Democrat catholics I would use this thread as a teaching tool.
To LisaA: Your points are irrefutable. Thanks for your posts. I would add that until the overturning of Roe V Wade we won’t see any major progress on abortion. This will require a Republican president who will nominate justices in the mold of Scalia, Thomas, etc and a senate who will approve them. This has been the main story since the 1980’s: GOP president nominates a justice who will probably vote to overturn Roe V Wade. Senate Democrats fight tooth and nail to derail nomination. Roe V Wade and abortion on demand in the country continue. Pro-abortion Senate Democrat catholics like Biden, Barbara Mikulski, John Kerry, lead the fight to keep it legal. That is the story and any poster who says otherwise is either ignorant or wants to keep abortion legal.
To the pro-Democrat posters: why is it that you don’t understand that Roe V Wade could be overturned in the next few years (or sooner) by a fifth and deciding vote on the Supreme court? Is it that you don’t think its possible or do you really not want the decision to be overturned?
Overturning Roe V Wade will not end abortion, but it will allow states to restrict it, whereas they can’t now. So I have a question for any good catholic or christian who would like to see abortion restricted but is on the fence this election. Who do you want to pick the next supreme court justices? Barack Obama, or a GOP president?
Ishii
To LisaA: Your points are irrefutable. Thanks for your posts. I would add that until the overturning of Roe V Wade we won’t see any major progress on abortion. This will require a Republican president who will nominate justices in the mold of Scalia, Thomas, etc and a senate who will approve them. This has been the main story since the 1980’s: GOP president nominates a justice who will probably vote to overturn Roe V Wade. Senate Democrats fight tooth and nail to derail nomination. Roe V Wade and abortion on demand in the country continue. Pro-abortion Senate Democrat catholics like Biden, Barbara Mikulski, John Kerry, lead the fight to keep it legal. That is the story and any poster who says otherwise is either ignorant or wants to keep abortion legal.
To the pro-Democrat posters: why is it that you don’t understand that Roe V Wade could be overturned in the next few years (or sooner) by a fifth and deciding vote on the Supreme court? Is it that you don’t think its possible or do you really not want the decision to be overturned?
Overturning Roe V Wade will not end abortion, but it will allow states to restrict it, whereas they can’t now. So I have a question for any good catholic or christian who would like to see abortion restricted but is on the fence this election. Who do you want to pick the next supreme court justices? Barack Obama, or a GOP president?
Ishii
G
gnjsdad
Guest
For that, don’t you need some examples of pro-abortion rights posts on this thread? I’m sorry, but questioning the efficacy and tactics of the Republican party doesn’t qualify.
How about answering my question regarding the email exchange between Elena Kagan and Laurence Tribe? Why would the pro-abortion Tribe regard his ostensible ally Stupak with derision? If Stupak and his confederates were indeed doing the dirty work of ensuring that there would be easier access to abortion under the new healthcare law, one would think a tone of appreciation would be more in line.
I
ishii
Guest
The thread turned into a question about so-called pro-life Democrats in general and their failure. Then the usual suspects began listing the tired litany of reasons why the GOP is not an authentic pro-life party. My post was an observation of the tactics employed by the Democrat catholic posters when confronted with the truth about the overwhelmingly pro-abortion nature of their party in contrast to the overwhelmingly pro-life nature of the GOP.
As for your point about the email exchange, I can totally imagine Lawrence Tribe regard Stupak with derision because he thinks Stupak was a gullible fool. Doesn’t it make sense that he would regard Stupak with derisionn in light of Stupak’s opposition to Obamacare on public abortion funding grounds? Wasn’t Stupak a thorn in the side of Obama for a while because of this? Wouldn’t that frustrate a guy like Lawrence Tribe and isn’t it probably that Tribe would let his sentiments come out in a private email? (perhaps thinking that it would never go public). Makes more sense to me than your interpretation.
Ishii
G
gnjsdad
Guest
An opinion I, for one, do not share. Stupak was heroic.
I’m not sure your interpretation is all that different from mine. What can obviously be gleaned from this email exchange is that Stupak and Tribe were not on the same side when it came to provision for public funding of abortion as part of the health care reform.
Tribe was expressing an opinion, one that many other experts in the law disagree with, that the Hyde Amendment’s prohibition of public funding for abortion as incorporated in the executive order would be relatively easy to circumvent. As far as I can see, that does not appear to be the case.
E
estesbob
Guest
Stupak was instrumental in destroying the myth of the pro-life Democrat congressman He actually thought he could betray his pro-life constituency! It is good he is out if Congress
I
ishii
Guest
I fail to see how capitulating to Obama is heroic. In any case, Stupak’s efforts failed.
G
gnjsdad
Guest
Stupak did not “capitulate” to Obama. Obama capitulated to Stupak, who forced Obama into the executive order provision.
Were it not for Bart Stupak, we could very well have public funding for abortion.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
He caved, and then bailed with his tail firmly between his legs.
But for leftists, this is as heroic as they come.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
There were many Catholics that used the example of Stupak as the pro-life side of the Democrat party. Nary a one of them here came to the support of Stupak here when his actions were threatening to topple passage of Obamacare.
Nary a one.
1
1voice
Guest
Get a clue democrats …
If you vote democrat … no matter what your reasons … you will get what you are getting from democrats where abortion is concerned … anything that democrat leadership/ elected officials say about restricting abortion is a bald faced lie. Plus nothing.
People like Kagan will be appointed and will not recuse themselves no matter how wrong anyone thinks it is.
Those that voted for Obama and all of the other democrats are getting what they voted for.
If you voted democrat … on any level … for any reason … take your lumps. If you do it again … no matter what your logic … dont complain about what you bring upon yourselves … and the unborn children.
If you vote democrat … no matter what your reasons … you will get what you are getting from democrats where abortion is concerned … anything that democrat leadership/ elected officials say about restricting abortion is a bald faced lie. Plus nothing.
People like Kagan will be appointed and will not recuse themselves no matter how wrong anyone thinks it is.
Those that voted for Obama and all of the other democrats are getting what they voted for.
If you voted democrat … on any level … for any reason … take your lumps. If you do it again … no matter what your logic … dont complain about what you bring upon yourselves … and the unborn children.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
If no one had voted for Obama or all of the anti-life Democrats in Congress, we wouldn’t even be talking about this. But since this happened, I agree that if it wasn’t for Stupak, we could possibly have public funding for abortion.
L
LisaA
Guest
No you are not correct. Had Stupak and his supposedly pro life Dems held firm to a TRUE pro-life position and voted AGAINST Obamacare, not only would we have been spared this incredibly poorly constructed bill but there is not a smidgen of evidence that we would have had public funding for abortion. Obamacare would not have passed without Supek and his group saying yes.
It was Stupek CAPITULATING and accepting the sham of an executive order in return for voting yes on Obamacare that forced this monstrosity down our unwilling throats.
Lisa A
D
Darryl1958
Guest
Yes, and liberal Catholics heaving a collective sigh of relief that Stupak and his allies did not hold up the passage of the bill, which was, by all appearances, their only priority
C
Captain_America
Guest
This really broke my heart and told me more evil would follow. . .
G
gnjsdad
Guest
You haven’t shown any correlation between taking a “TRUE pro-life position” and voting against “Obamacare”. Did it ever occur to you that one can be pro-life and at the same time favor such insurance reforms as are enacted in “Obamacare”? That there isn’t necessarily a moral exclusivity between the two? I say necessarily because the only way that voting for the health insurance reform would be morally objectionable would be if it allowed public funding for abortion – something which did not happen with this law, thanks to Stupak forcing Obama to include the executive order.
Your response is a perfect illustration of what I’ve been saying about the tragedy of pro lifers being co-opted by one of the major political parties. Democrat Bart Stupak was a pro-life member of Congress. He also happened to favor passage of insurance reform. In partisan terms, and in partisan terms only, that combination is unacceptable. In partisan terms, he became a traitor, he “caved” out of some venal ulterior motive that of course remains unclear. As a result, we spend more time fighting each other over partisan issues and end up dividing ourselves when we should be uniting over what should unite us…the common belief we share that abortion is evil and should be outlawed.
- Status