Uterus vs. womb

Abortion is emphatically a health care issue and it always has been. And there should not be laws getting in the way of my own or any woman's health care decisions. There should not be laws that require me to carry to term a fetus that has very little chance of surviving, for example when its intestines are growing outside of its abdomen. (And, btw, the forced birth coalition is unwilling to pay taxes in order to provide the extensive neonatal care required in such cases, let alone even the basic care of a woman who suffers a a stroke or heart attack during childbirth). There should not be laws that require children to carry to term the baby of their rapist (the rape exceptions require that a child be willing to press charges and name their rapist, which is not always safe for them to do when Uncle has threatened to kill them or their pet if they tell). There should not be laws restricting birth control. Also risk to a mother's life has yet to be successfully defined to the point where doctors are comfortable providing care--in many states, hospitals are now requiring that a patient be in imminent danger of dying and send her home to wait until this is so rather than treat her proactively. Who are the voters to tell me if I am dying fast enough to be treated?

Thanks for a response, Westy

There are a lotta "should's" in your post. Maybe folks who are unyielding in their position on abortion... one way or the other... "should" not be at the forefront of policy decisions.

Would you care to say one way or the other whether you feel the 16 week plan mentioned in my remarks is a good idea? It includes provisions to address issues ... like allowing for abortions in cases where the mother's health is at risk as well as rape... that are concerns for many who share your point of view.

The Amercian electorate is receptive to an abortion policy that allows abortion upon request early in a pregnancy but prohibits late term abortions. Are they wrong?

Baseball season is almost here. I'm going to throw you a curveball. Do you have any children?

Hi Ray, As I mentioned, one glaring problem with the "risk to mother's life" is defining those risks. The voters in some states seem to put less value on my life than I do. Doctors already are sending women home who are carrying a fetus that is dying inside them and telling them to come back when the fetus is dead and/or they themselves are actively dying from sepsis.

Similarly the 16-week ban--The vast number of abortions (96%) occurred at or before 15 weeks gestation, 3% occurred from 16 to 20 weeks gestation, and just 1% of abortions were performed at or after 21 weeks. Those occurring later in pregnancy are usually due either to difficulties in obtaining abortion care earlier or because of fetal anomalies. Before brushing these cases aside, I would encourage people to listen to the stories from women who needed to seek abortions later in their pregnancies. Voters should not be able to decide on health care for someone else, require them to continue to carry a fetus that is unlikely to survive, or continue in a pregnancy that puts in danger their ability to bear children in the future.

Thanks, Westy, for a prompt response.

You know… we don’t disagree too much on the salient points. I’m not a medical expert, but it seems like those who are could develop the criteria for what “risk to the mother’s life” would look like.

Let’s go with your numbers. So, if 96% of abortions are performed before the 15 week mark, then I’m guessing you would agree with the spirit of the 16 week plan. The remaining single digit percentage that might fall into that “risk to the mother’s life” category would be permitted under the 16 week plan. However, an “upon request” abortion beyond that point… assuming no risk to the mother… would not be permitted. Legislation that would enact such a proposal is supported by a majority of the electorate. I just have to ask you again… are they wrong?

The key point at which our viewpoints start to diverge is your position that voters “should not be able to decide on health care for someone else…” Well, once we get past that 16 week mark… and especially when an unborn child has reached viability… who gets to decide on health care for that unborn child? Absent a risk to the mother’s life or a tragic deformity, terminating the life of an unborn child is not health care.

Looks like that curveball got me a backwards K.

" our country was founded on the principle of separation of church and state..." Not too sure about that. Am sure it was for religious freedom and against "established" religion, such as the Church of England. The Constitution is clear on that.

Westy - wrong again. You need to do your homework. The Constitution essentially dictated that the government could not impose a specific religion on its citizens. That was because the various colonies had their individual mandates such as the Church of England in Virginia, the Roman Catholic Church in Maryland, etc. It seems that this provision has been interpreted over time as the separation of church and state which is clearly unintentional, but it serves group thinkers like you. Mr/Mrs Allen is correct.

Where did the separation of church and state come from?

The United States' founders were committed to a government not overly entangled with religion.

In 1644, Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island and of the first Baptist church in America, called for a "wall or hedge of separation" between the secular world and sacred church. He believed that mixing the two would cause both to become corrupt. Williams created a colony where the freedom to worship was a right for all. This influenced American thinking for centuries to come.

Though they didn't use the phrase "separation of church and state," the framers of the Constitution debated the extent to which the government should support religion. Some argued that it was fine to mandate participation in religious services, if a person could choose which ones they would attend. More commonly, many of the founders, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, argued that government compulsion of religion violated a person's natural right to shape their own life according to their convictions.

Jefferson immortalized the phrase in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Concerned about their status as a religious minority, the Baptist community penned a letter to the president expressing fear about religious persecution. Jefferson responded, emphasizing that the First Amendment's free exercise and establishment clauses together built "a wall of separation between church and state."

Hello again, Westy

I don’t think anyone in these pages… from either the left or right side of the aisle… disagrees with the First Amendment prohibiting the creation of an approved religion. Worship the way you want to worship or choose to not worship at all. That’s a right guaranteed to everyone.

With respect to the Constitutional Convention, could you elaborate on your comment, “Some argued that it was fine to mandate participation in religious services…”?

You are correct in that Tommy J and Jimmy M did not approve of the government establishing a state religion. They thought choosing to worship was a personal choice, and that’s probably why they chose to attend weekly church services held on Sundays inside the House of Representatives. Interestingly, the separation described in Jefferson’s letter came 15 years after religious protections were written into the Constitution well before the First Amendment was added with the Bill of Rights. Check out Article VI.