Senate Democrats' abortion vote shows they are determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

[SlackerInc]

Yes, it was a nasty little political trap the GOP set. That sucks. But it doesn’t mean you have to walk right into it! :smack:

Democrats block abortion bill in Senate 

You should see the hyperbolic coverage this is getting on the local news here. FFS :mad:

[CarnalK]

So according to Kaine in that article, there’s already a Born-Alive Infants Protection Act(2002). What would this bill have done?

[Ravenman]

@SlackerInc

Yes, it was a nasty little political trap the GOP set. That sucks. But it doesn’t mean you have to walk right into it! :smack:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/431504-democrats-block-abortion-bill-in-senate

You should see the hyperbolic coverage this is getting on the local news here. FFS :mad:

Funny, I read your post and ALSO thought: “FFS”

[SlackerInc]

@CarnalK

So according to Kaine in that article, there’s already a Born-Alive Infants Protection Act(2002). What would this bill have done?

I don’t know–but why vote against it?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@SlackerInc

I don’t know–but why vote against it?

This sentence is the best thing about the thread. You don’t know what the bill would have done, not having bothered to look into it, but you start a thread anyway to excoriate Democrats for voting against it. This is awesome.

[Icarus]

@SlackerInc

You should see the hyperbolic coverage this is getting on the local news here. FFS :mad:

Sinclair Broadcast Group, perhaps?

[Shodan]

Isn’t this similar to the New York abortion bill that theoretically allowed a baby to be aborted right up to the moment of birth, except on the other side? I thought the New York bill didn’t change anything either, because other laws superceded it.

That bill was virtue signalling, this bill is virtue signalling.

Regards,
Shodan

[CaptMurdock]

So, IOW, Democrats dared to stand in the way of the so-called Right-to-Lifers (who wouldn’t throw water on a toddler if it were on fire, BTW) once again making women into Brood Mares for the State. Tacit exemptions for the mistresses of rich white Christians, of course. :rolleyes:

[Velocity]

The GOP is really overestimating public outrage over late-term abortion. They seemed to think that the public would respond to New York’s law with outrage, when in fact the public was largely a “meh.”

[dalej42]

@Velocity

The GOP is really overestimating public outrage over late-term abortion. They seemed to think that the public would respond to New York’s law with outrage, when in fact the public was largely a “meh.”

Exactly. And anyone who is that obsessed about abortion, either pro-choice or anti-choice, already has their mind made up as far as which party they’re voting.

[Chronos]

And let’s not forget that, when given the choice between Obamacare-with-the-Stupak-amendment and Obamacare-without-the-Stupak-amendment, Senate Republicans unanimously chose the version without, just because they didn’t want Democrats to have any successes, not even successes at decreasing abortion. The Republican party is pro-abortion.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Shodan

Isn’t this similar to the New York abortion bill that theoretically allowed a baby to be aborted right up to the moment of birth

Where do you *get *this kind of shit?

The RHA permits abortions when — according to a medical professional’s “reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case” — “the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”

In other words, women may choose to have an abortion prior to 24 weeks; pregnancies typically range from 38 to 42 weeks. After 24 weeks, such decisions must be made with a determination that there is an “absence of fetal viability” or that the procedure is “necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” That determination must be made by a “health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized” under state law, “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice.”

Previously, abortions after 24 weeks were justified only in cases where the mother’s life was at risk — which was inconsistent with a part of the Roe decision, as we explain later.

Roe v. Wade held that states may limit abortions after fetal viability, except in cases “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother” (New York’s old law, which predated the decision, only allowed for late-term exceptions to protect the mother’s life.) Fetal viability was defined as being the point when a fetus was “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.”

New York’s new law does not explicitly define “health.”

In what is considered a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”

New York’s RHA also repealed a section of the public health law that required the following: that abortions after 12 weeks be performed in a hospital; that an additional physician be present for abortions after 20 weeks to care for “any live birth that is the result of the abortion”; and that such babies be provided “immediate legal protection under the laws of the state of New York.”

No, it did not legalize killing babies, even if Republican propaganda is that it did.

[BobLibDem]

OMG! Does this mean that anti-abortion voters won’t be voting for Democrats in 2020! What will we do? We’re doomed, doomed I tell ya!

[ElvisL1ves]

It also means the Republicans don’t really want abortion banned (or guns required or Mexicans deported en masse), because that would deprive them of those issues in future elections.

[SlackerInc]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

This sentence is the best thing about the thread. You don’t know what the bill would have done, not having bothered to look into it, but you start a thread anyway to excoriate Democrats for voting against it. This is awesome.

What I know about the bill comes from the local news reports, plus the Hill article I posted. The latter had several quotes from Democrats, but none that explained why there was any reason to vote against it (it being redundant is not a reason). You don’t understand politics at all (not surprising) if you think I should have more information than that before judging Democrats to have committed political malpractice here. In fact, more detailed information that most voters are not privy to would be a *barrier *to my ability to analyze the potential effect on elections (and this is the Elections forum, not the Very Serious Policy Debate forum).

@BobLibDem

OMG! Does this mean that anti-abortion voters won’t be voting for Democrats in 2020! What will we do? We’re doomed, doomed I tell ya!

:smack: This kind of snarky whistling past the graveyard is exactly the sort of idiocy that results in the kind of Democratic own-goals that drive me crazy. Republicans blow elections on abortion, too (see Todd Akin), but this fealty to NARAL extremism is our version.

Either you are ignorant of public opinion on abortion, or you are so stupid you think 25% is a majority:

Though abortion is a divisive issue, more than half of U.S. adults take a non-absolutist position, saying that in most – but not all – cases, abortion should be legal (34%) or illegal (22%). Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be either legal (25%) or illegal (15%).

Bills like this, or at least the way it is reported in the media (which is all that matters in politics, FYI), are the very definition of “but not all”. This vote by Demicratic senators was quite obviously intended to placate the 25% (who disproportionately vote in Democratic primaries) without regard to how the other 75% see it (or, more germanely, how another 30% or so see it, the 30% we need to vote Democratic along with that 25%). That’s assuming there are no Republicans in the “always legal” group, which is probably wrong: there are probably at least two or three points’ worth there as well.

[SlackerInc]

Missed the edit window. I forgot to link to the abortion polling cite:

Public Opinion on Abortion | Pew Research Center[/url
Gallup also asked a similar question, and got a slightly higher 29% for “legal under all circumstances”. But only another 14% answered “legal in most circumstances”. So a majority thinks it should be illegal in all or most circumstances. Put that in your snark pipe and smoke it. :dubious:

Abortion

[Babale]

Is there any evidence that this 2002 bill was even necessary, either? I would think that once a live baby is out of the womb, they’re already protected by the same laws that protect everyone else. Do you have evidence that this is not the case?

The 2019 law was obviously not needed since the 2002 law already exists.

[SlackerInc]

Bob, my apologies. This thread started to have such a familiar vibe, like Pit threads I’ve been in, that I momentarily forgot where I was. Mea culpa.

[SlackerInc]

@Babale

Is there any evidence that this 2002 bill was even necessary, either? I would think that once a live baby is out of the womb, they’re already protected by the same laws that protect everyone else. Do you have evidence that this is not the case?

The 2019 law was obviously not needed since the 2002 law already exists.

So what’s the harm of just voting for it again? Or for the first time in many cases, if you weren’t in the Senate then?

[k9bfriender]

@SlackerInc

So what’s the harm of just voting for it again? Or for the first time in many cases, if you weren’t in the Senate then?

Well, voting for it means that you risk being primaried by a pro-choice democrat.

Voting against it means losing the vote of pro-life republicans who would never in a million years vote for a democrat.