The "that doesn't count as an abortion" argument should scare the **** out of folks

[maxrandb]

So, during recent hearings, much was made of a witness claiming that a 10 year old rape victim who has any abortion "wouldn't count" as an abortion.

We can mock them for being stupid, but what if the "that doesn't count as an abortion" response it exactly what they mean?

More than likely, what they want is not only to ban abortion, but also "define" what the state considers an abortion

It's not much of a stretch to "oh, you're on public assistance and pregnant"? "Terminating that is not an abortion, that's 'in the public interest'".

It's not a stretch to "oh, you're incarcerated and pregnant"? Terminating that is not an abortion, that's 'public safety'"

If they are able to change the definition of what counts as an abortion, it seems that they could not only restrict it, but also require it.

Think along the line of the Retrumplicans "legitimate rape" argument, and you can be terrified at where it could lead us.

What would stop them from forcing an abortion if they can argue "that doesn't count as an abortion"?

[Walleye]

1. I wouldn't put it past them. They are probably thinking about it already

[Freddie]

2. They can also decide what does count for an abortion

Like using Plan B, an IUD or the Pill. Even though these things don’t cause abortion, if they say so, it will be true.

[ck4829]

3. K&R, a very good point. I hope you don't mind, but I added this to a wiki that looks

at contradictions and contrasts.

http://cococo.pbworks.com/w/page/149864895/That%20does%20NOT%20count%20as%20an%20abortion

[MiniMe]

4. It's more "you're white and want to terminate your pregnancy? No way."

[Wounded Bear]

5. They're always playing word games. It's all bullshit, all the time...nt

[WhiskeyGrinder]

6. A state that can force you to give birth can force you to abort. It's that simple.

[Retrograde]

9. Or be sterilized against your will

I'm sure Alito will argue that this is permissible because of the Supreme Court's ruling in 1927 in Buck v. Bell (why yes, I think he does pick and choose past rulings to support his biases - why would anyone think otherwise?)

[scarletlib]

7. That's true. It's just one more small step to get there. No one is safe.

[TheFarseer]

8. It's like they are ashamed of this

They are ashamed they finally accomplished their 50 year goal. It’s impossible to explain away why women that have pregnancy complications have to risk death so they just deny it’s happening- just like global warming.