The Next Battle In The Abortion Rights War

[cali]

is called the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. Its sponsors, Rep Chris Smith, R NJ, and Sen. Sam Brownback, R, Kansas, are planning to make a big deal out of this. It's all part of the repub strategy to transform how the American public views fetal life- the it's a baby tactic, and how the public views proponents of choice- bloody minded murderers of babies. The bill wouldn't outlaw any form of abortion, it would mandate that a woman having an abortion at or after twenty weeks, be informed that "there is substantial evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will cause the unborn child pain." The bill also requires that women be offered separate pain relief agents for the fetus, and must accept or refuse by written means.

This is going to be very difficult to battle, and it's as bogus as the "partial birth abortion" law. The anti-choice people have become very sophisticated in their approach to whittling down support for abortion rights.

[bunkerbuster1]

1. The "Abortion is Icky!" act

What a bunch of ratfuckers.

Again, people, we are anti-Criminalization. They are pro-Criminalization.

Lather, rinse, repeat. It's what the "abortion issue" really boils down to, and it's one we'll always win when it's framed that way.

Of course, having a DNC with a pair of functional testes would help tremendously.

[yellowdogintexas]

2. Good phrasing!!!!

I really like that. It certainly defines my personal feeling about it, since I am old enough to remember when it was criminal in almost all of the 50 states, and to have known women who took the criminal route.


when will these people wake up and realize that women who are desparate enough will seek an abortion by whatever means it takes, and that if it is criminalized again, many of them could die (leaving their existing children without a mother)

[politicat]

3. the real evidence is not nearly that clear.

This is posted elsewhere in this forum, but the press release is pretty reasonable, and it works with what is known about pre-natal brain chemistry.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=9001683

The science from the 70s may have backed them up, but it doesn't hold now in the Naughties. The pro-fetus types haven't had any good science in 30 years.

Pcat

[cali]

5. This is NOT about science.

It's all about reframing the right to choose. I've read the other thread. It seems to me that the jury is still out, scientifically speaking, but that's not the point that the bill is addressing. And my point is that you can't fight these tactics with science or reason. This is all about emotion. I don't know how we battle these folks, but I do know that it can't be done by trying to refute them scientifically.

[renaissanceguy]

6. You're right.

Religious extremists refute any scientific fact or theory. I suppose the best way to defeat them is to focus on those in office who DO look to scientific fact. And when it's election time, try hard as hell to get extremists out of office.

[Jackie97]

4. Being "killed" in the abortion?

That's another backdoor way of trying to say that a fetus is a person. Only an organism can be killed, which means they're trying to declare that the fetus is a person separate from the woman.

Why don't they go all the way with the information? Also include the fact that there's evidence to suggest that they can't feel pain until after birth? Why not also include the fact that the woman is given a drug so the fetus won't feel pain (if it's the type of abortion where they do that)?

Why not ditch such a stupid bill? I think this one has a good chance of passing. It's not openly overturning Roe vs. Wade, and politicians know that they can get away with it. We need to fight this one extra hard.

[WildClarySage]

7. If this is so, the logical implication is that fetuses (and embryos)

that miscarry are also going to experience pain. Miscarriage is hard enough on a woman who goes through all the "what did I do wrong?" guilt. Imagine the additional horror these women will experience believing that the fetal death was compounded with pain.

And really, that's at the heart of this. They don't believe women suffer enough guilt over abortion. It's not an informed decision protection. This is a conscience clause designed to make women who are not willing/ready to be moms-on-demand feel guilt over exercising their right to choose. And if they put it into law, a lot of people will believe it's true, even if science indicates otherwise.