But what I think they could do more effectively is:
0. Recognize the disposition of their opponents (they’re belligerent and you should start there).
1. Try more, it’s not a nobody-gets-hurt game. We put you in power to wield it!
2. Focus more on goals than appearances. Nobody really cares if you look belligerent too. They just say they do. Your focus groups are lying as much as the opponents’ focus groups.
3. Set a better example by ruthlessly policing your own more aggressively. Don’t give anyone the opportunity to say you’re hypocritical.
4. Be willing to lose. It’s hard when you’re disadvantaged in most ways. But don’t play the hard game with all your betting money! Play the harder game with some of it. People are looking for you to be sincere, not just blab values and go fold every hand at the big kids’ table. Sorry for the extended gambling metaphor but it’s what I’d advise.
Ps- I’m not a member of any political party.
Most of the developed world has abortion legal right up to birth; many countries that do so also have a time limit on when it is available on demand rather than with medical need criteria.
But Canada, notably, has no legal restrictions.
As someone from europe, the american democrats are in no way extreme on abortion, I would say they are somewhat centrist, maybe even slightly conservative.
(Rayiner is wrong about the "right up to birth thing"; as many have pointed out, even in Europe, where there are often bright-line cutoffs on abortion by pregnancy week, there's still medical abortion after that. So the answer to his "name another" question is "most European countries".)
Lots of other issues are tied up in this one. E.g. federal funding of abortions would result in public funding on-demand second trimester abortions that would be illegal in most European countries.
The first trimester rules you mentioned are usually what everyone can agree on.
Example one: In my country (Sweden), a high-ranking party-poard member of our conservative christian party just got into a lot of trouble because it was found out that they had been a member of an anti-abortion organization 10 years ago, and now had to publicly state that they now support the first-trimester abortion rules (Personally, I think it's a lie, but this is what you have to do over here to not ruin your political career, even in the conservative christian party).
The current status quo of elective abortions to 24 weeks is already extreme. Few countries have generally legalized abortion past the first trimester (absent health, etc.), and less than 30% of Americans support it. (Why the developed world tends to draw the line there is obvious to anyone whose been to an 18 week ultrasound.)
Abortion should be a medical decision. If a doctor is lying about the medical necessity of an abortion, that is illegal and they should lose their medical license and potentially get prison time. Same if they are giving out pills without necessity. Same if an attorney is caught illegally concealing evidence. I don't understand how it is relevant that you can find dirty doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. Or how the 1900s are related.
> he law provides for exceptions in cases where a fetus has a lethal anomaly (in other words, a medical condition that would cause the fetus to be stillborn or to die shortly following birth) or in cases where a pregnancy would "prevent serious health risk" to the woman.[9] The law also allows abortions to be performed "upon confirmation from a psychiatrist" that a pregnant woman diagnosed with a "serious mental illness" might otherwise take an action that would lead to her own death or to the death of the fetus.[7] The law does not ban procedures to end ectopic pregnancies[10] or procedures in which a dead fetus is removed from the uterus.[7] It does not include an exception in cases of rape or incest.[9]
> Abortion should be a medical decision.
You're arguing with me on substance, but the point of this thread is talking about what positions are "left" or "right." The idea that abortion should be a purely medical decision--that society should completely delegate to doctors the issue of when it's okay to terminate fetal life--is significantly to the left of where most countries are. Most developed countries recognize a significant state interest in fetal life after the first trimester. They make exceptions for unviable fetuses and maternal health, but don't delegate the decision to doctors completely.
This[0] Time article is the [9] from your wikipedia copypasta. It discusses details of 6 pieces of conservative abortion legislation. The Alabama law you link is the only one with a provision to "prevent serious health risk to the mother". The rest all use the much higher bar of "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function". All ban abortions starting within the first trimester, most at 6 weeks. All but Ohio have no exceptions in the case of rape and incest.
Of course I am arguing with you on substance, I am replying to you and your intellectually dishonest arguments regarding abortion. I'm not discussing the upper thread. You are an attorney; this isn't ignorance, it's dishonesty. US abortion laws are not more radical than other developed nations. The WaPo opinion piece you linked is a terrible source[1].
I hate this kind of dishonesty with a passion. If you live in a conservative state in America, getting an abortion is significantly harder than in most other developed countries. Legislation is constantly proposed to try to make it even more difficult.
Most developed countries recognize a significant state interest in the human rights of women. Parts of the United States make exceptions.
[0]: https://time.com/5591166/state-abortion-laws-explained/
[1]: It includes nice goodies, like:
> the Guttmacher Institute’s data suggests that “most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” Just to be clear.
When you chase down the study[https://doi.org/10.1363/4521013], the #1 reason for late abortions is needing to raise funds for the abortion. #2 is not knowing about the pregnancy.
> "...a woman’s perhaps fleeting state would be sufficient to end a baby’s potentially viable life"
Well, you know, women, they're controlled by their emotions.../s
I randomly picked a state I assumed would be the most conservative.
> The rest all use the much higher bar of "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”
You said: “red state abortion laws do not make exceptions for the mother's health.” By your own admission that’s false.
The “higher bar” you mention is similar to the “grave permanent injury” standard used in France. (Note also that France had a seven day waiting period until recently, and Germany still has one plus mandatory counseling.)
> All ban abortions starting within the first trimester, most at 6 weeks.
Yes, but all those bans have been blocked by federal courts, and none have gone into effect, because Roe prohibits banning abortion prior to viability (20-24 weeks). Under Roe, most EU abortion law would unconstitutional for the same reason. That’s why Roe is radical compared to Europe.
> I'm not discussing the upper thread. You are an attorney; this isn't ignorance, it's dishonesty. US abortion laws are not more radical than other developed nations.
One of the central issues Roe and Casey grapple with is at what point is the fetus sufficiently developed that the State has an interest in protecting its life. That’s the whole point of Roe’s trimester framework. It’s also a fundamental moral question about human life. Casey says this about “Roe’s essential holding.”:
> It must be stated at the outset and with clarity that Roe's essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Before viability, the State's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure. Second is a confirmation of the State's power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger a woman's life or health. And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. These principles do not contradict one another; and we adhere to each.
The parts italicized above are ones that most EU countries disagree with. They draw the line at the end of the first trimester. There may be various exceptions beyond that—e.g. impairment of mental health in Denmark—but at that point the ball is squarely in the court of the government to choose what to allow under what circumstances.
What’s “intellectually dishonest” about pointing out that Roe’s viability line is quite radical compared to the ones other developed countries draw?
I just cited the WaPo article for its summery of cut-offs. Here’s another source for the same information: https://abort-report.eu/wp-content/uploads/Abort-Report_Euro...
All but three EU countries limit “on demand” abortions to 14 weeks or earlier. The earliest limit in the US, that has actually been allowed to go into effect, is 20 weeks.
I've been to an 18 week ultrasound and two births, both traumatic (I put a hole in the wall of a bathroom at UCSF after the first), and while we wound up with healthy, happy kids who are the best decisions of our lives, I can't imagine forcing anyone through that experience, and there is pretty much no limitation on abortion I'd actively vote for. Also the notion that people are obtaining abortions like, the day before their due date is just silly. Rayiner, what would an abortion the day before a due date even mean? The other term for that would be "scheduled caesarian".
Abortion being legal up to birth as a medical decision is the norm in the developed world; where there are time limits in the developed world, they are for abortion without medical need (and while most countries do have such limits, Canada, notably, does not.)
Um... what? If you think media is strongly slanted against liberal policies, look at how it treats conservative policies.
All three also seem to support practically any war proposed especially if it involves oil and false weapons of mass destruction to name a few.
True Liberals tend to hate wars and giving tax money to corporations mismanaged by rich citizens.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/liberal
I was not referring to Democrat, but the classical meaning.
But I'd be interested in how you think money is being given to rail companies. Not to passenger rail service agencies, to the actual rail companies.
(And in your list, you forgot the barge companies.)
Maybe that's Republicans' moral failings. Maybe it's that they don't actually believe in their claimed positions. Maybe it's just the reality of politics - when you're out of power, you say what you want to do, and when you're in power, you have to do what you can, not what you want to. But it's been observable (and disconcerting) for a long time.
> In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population.