A Romney-Ryan Win Would Mean a Ban on Abortions, But Bans Don't Stop Abortions

Categories: Schutze

SHZ_GetOffMyLawn_TitleImageV2.jpg
Lead editorial in The New York Times this morning -- "If Roe v Wade Goes" -- got me thinking: Let's say the Romney/Ryan ticket wins. How long will it take for Texas to make abortion illegal?

See also:
Rambo Romney Should Call for Restarting the Draft

Romney used to support Roe v. Wade, but now he joins Ryan in proposing that abortion be made a crime except for when incest is involved or to preserve the mother's life. An aging roster of justices on the Supreme Court should make that easy for a Romney White House to pull off.

We spoke here recently about the possible Texas trajectory toward becoming the American Teabagistan, no matter who wins the White House. So if both things happen, the final Tea Party takeover in Austin and Romney/Ryan in Washington, how long will it take for abortion to become illegal here where we live? Ten minutes?

And what would that mean for women in Texas? How would their lives change? That thought put me in mind of another piece I saw in the Times several years ago: In 2008, a retired Boston obstetrician/gynecologist named Waldo L. Fleming wrote an op-ed piece for the Times recalling his own memories of illegal abortion before Roe v. Wade, back when a woman either had to be rich enough to travel abroad for an abortion or brave enough to face the coat hanger. In his years of practice, Dr. Fielding often found himself called to the hospital emergency room to deal with the horrific aftermath of botched back-alley abortions.

I found that piece again this morning. In it, Dr. Fielding recounted that the coat hanger was no mere metaphor: "The familiar symbol of illegal abortion is the infamous coat hanger -- which may be the symbol, but is in no way a myth," he wrote. "In my years in New York, several women arrived with a hanger still in place. Whoever put it in -- perhaps the patient herself -- found it trapped in the cervix and could not remove it."

Coat hangers were not the only things Dr. Fielding found: "Almost any implement you can imagine had been and was used to start an abortion -- darning needles, crochet hooks, cut-glass salt shakers, soda bottles, sometimes intact, sometimes with the top broken off."

Wait. I'm sorry. But I have always believed anti-abortion protestors were within their rights to confront me with blown-up photos of aborted fetuses. Maybe it's because of my work. I believe if somebody shows you the truth, you need to look at it. But you need to look at all of it, and that would include mental images, because we don't have photos, of women -- we men can think of them as our mothers, wives, sisters, girlfriends, perhaps even the daughter we pushed into it -- arriving in the E.R. screaming in a wad of bloody sheets with a broken Coke bottle in her fist or, as Dr. Fielding recounts in another example, a portion of her intestine protruding from her vagina, accidentally hooked and ripped from place by the misplaced coat hanger.

My Voice Nation Help
86 comments
RealityCheck
RealityCheck

Schutze, you are an idiot.  Let's just say that Romney-Ryan win.  And let's just say that they appoint a couple Supreme Court Justices.  And let's just say that an opportunity to re-examine Roe v. Wade works its way up through the trial court.  A couple years after that, it makes it to up through the appellate courts.  A couple years after that, it makes it to the Supreme Court.  Then, and only then, nine Supreme Court Justices reconsider Roe v. Wade and determine that there is no "right" to abortion in the Constitution.  All this means is that each individual state can then decide to make abortion in that particular state a crime.

 

At that point, ALL the legislators in a particular state have to get together and try to convince their electorate that making abortion a crime is a good thing.  Only then, faced with the potential of being thrown out of office next election will these legislators make abortion illegal.  Planned Parenthood, NOW, and every other kooked out liberal organization will be able to pressure each individual state's legislature not to pass the bill.  

 

Some states (including most likely Texas) will pass such a bill.  Other states (including probably California, New York, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, a half dozen New England states, etc.) won't.  

Even if AAAAALLLLLL of these events happen, a woman won't need to be "rich" in order to travel to Europe for an abortion.  She won't need to face a coat hanger.  At worst, she can hop the Big Grey Dog to New York to kill her unborn child.  A minor inconvenience... at least compared to the unborn being chopped up in the womb and sucked into a vacuum. 

 

Of course, in order to avoid having to take a bus ride to another state, a woman can always 1) take birth control; 2)  refuse to have sex with a man unless he's wearing a condom; or 3) a combination of both 1 and 2.

 

 

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

The "pro-life" hypocrites love to go out and gun down animals, just for the fun of killing.  They love war and killing.  They love to execute people who might possibly innocent.  They love to kill the environment, as well.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

All of this is academic, anyways -- if Obama is reelected, we'll all be so poor no one can afford an abortion in the first place.

prochoice
prochoice

I don't understand why republicans aren't pro-choice if they are really racists like the liberals always say, since abortion kills tens of thousands of what would otherwise be future black criminals every year. That's why I'm pro-choice!

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

Romney, during his debate collapse, claimed he had "binders full of women".  OK, Mitt.   Now show us binders full of tax returns.

pak152
pak152

"Let's say the Romney/Ryan ticket wins. How long will it take for Texas to make abortion illegal?"

we've had how many Republican presidents since R v W was decided? and how many SCOTUS Justices have they appointed? and we abortion is still legal. If Romney gets elected abortion will still be (tragically) legal in Texas and the other 49 states and territories of the United States. you're just fear-mongering. you're better than this.

 

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

We have lots of photos like that. Dr. Gosnell in Philadelphia gave them to us. Unfortunately, he was in a crooked, licensed abortion mill and was protected by inspectors who didn't inspect anyone lest they weaken roe v wade.

Shwerp
Shwerp

Does anyone actually think that a president has the authority to unilaterally overturn a Supreme Court decision?  They could propose a bill, run it through congress and sign it into law, but supporters of abortion could challenge this on 10th amendment grounds, namely that the constitution does not confer the authority to the federal government to create laws regulating abortion, either for or against.  It would be sweet irony and a return to principles should such a ban ever be attempted.  There are good reasons to oppose Roe v. Wade other than some moral agenda, like the fact that the founding fathers probably had no concept of purposefully ending a pregnancy for health or family planning purposes, and as much as liberals in a red state like Texas might hate it, states should have the right to set their own policies on abortion.  Disagree with being forced to receive a sonogram before terminating a pregnancy; I do.  But this is only the natural result of deviating from the spirit and letter of the Constitution and legislating from the court bench.  Republicans can't ban it, so they regulate it to death.  Democrats do the same thing with gun control laws, requiring gun locks, enacting taxes on bullets.  We had Bush and a Republican congress for 6 GD years, and they didn't manage to reverse Roe V. Wade, why would having Romney and Ryan be any different?  If Democrats want to end this issue once and for all, then fight for a Constitutional amendment that makes it clear that a woman should have a right to choose.  Anything less is chickenshit, and that includes the chickenshit decision of Roe V. Wade.  

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

Lions, and tigers, and bears! Oh, my!

 

Misogynists, and racists, and Infanticide! Oh my!

 

Janet Napolitano issued a nine-page memo identifying domestic terrorism as the greatest threat.  If that is true, then should we abolish Homeland Security if Romney wins?

 

Governor Romney:  Will you cut Defense spending by eliminating Homeland Security, beginning with the TSA since returning veterans, TEA Partiers, assorted militias and the Bible-thumping bitter-clingers will have been taken out of play?

gold
gold

You left off a trip to Canada, the carribean, Mexico clinics, Bermuda, etc.   If it goes back to the states, some states will make it legal if not mandatory after two kids - NY, CA, WI, MI, MA, ME, VT, NJ, PA, and on and on.  Probably Texas, too.  I wonder at  lib paranoia about abortion when so many of them worship Mao as their philosophical saviour (all power omes from the gun).  The "right" of women to kill their US children ( about 50 million by 2015)  is not going away.  Children are going away, but not the right to kill them before they are technically born.  However, almost all states recognize the murder of an infant in utero by a thrid party as a homocide. Thus, if a perp murders a preganant woman, the perp may be charged with two murders. SO the "right" is the right to kill legally.  Not to worry, though, under Obama-care when you are 65 plus years of age, you will be denied medical care by a death panel whereon practicing physicians (and Catholics) may not sit.  What happens when radicals become mainstream? What happens when they pass the yourthful years of anarchy at Columbia and NYU and become the upper crust of society, the establishment?  They begin killing themselves and everyone else.  The end of anarchy is anarchy. It kills in the womb and kills in old age.  It is of no moment until it comes for them and they must render up their BMW and garage spot to the next sucker.   

JamesMadison
JamesMadison topcommenter

 @RealityCheck , exactly right. The entire issue is a State issue, not a Federal one. We have a US Constitution that spells out what the US Federal government is suppose to be able to do, and we have the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to reserve all other rights to the States and the People.

rufuslevin
rufuslevin

 @RealityCheck Don't confuse Jim S. with FACTS and REALITY...it just RUINS a good blather and screws up his journalistic attempts.

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

 @RealityCheck 

Ummm ... the is no right to abortion as you have described.  What SCOTUS decided in Roe V. Wade in a very convoluted way is that there is a right to privacy in the Constitution even though it is not enumerated.  Based then on the fact that only a women knows when she is initially pregnant, she does not have to share this information with anyone, including her husband if she is married.  The Doctor - Patient relationship is also a confidential relationship where the Doctor cannot voluntarily divulge any information about patients in their care and in fact must have written authorization from the patient in order to divulge patient information.

 

Please go back and read the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade in order to understand the process through which SCOTUS decided that a woman does indeed have a right to an abortion and that abortions may not be outlawed by the several states.

 

When everyone agrees on when life starts then we can have a discussion about abortion.  Currently that is a matter of belief and not something that is scientifically accepted universally.

RealityCheck
RealityCheck

 @Myrna.Minkoff-Katz The only think really needs to be killed is that morbidly obese cat in the picture next to your name.  It would be a mercy killing.  Is that thing yours?  Are you really lecturing others on love of animals while showing a picture of an animal whose owner is so callous as to disregard its health in that manner? 

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

 @prochoice Repubs are big backers of the MIC and they understand that there needs to be an underclass desperate enough to join the military and "Be all that they can be" (read: cannon fodder). After all, you can't expect little Jimmy & Suzie to man those front lines.

 

They're more into "retro-active abortion", so to speak.

 

Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't let a douchebag like yourself in on the secret. You might wanna check your family tree and see what might be lurking back there...

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

 @everlastingphelps Those of us, of a certain age, remember the horror women went through before abortion was legalized.  The rabid, fanatical lunatics who want to overturn Roe v. Wade don't care a fig about the lives of women who are in an extremely difficult situation with an unwanted pregnancy.  The decision to terminate is agonizing enough without the interference of maniacal, right-wing control freaks.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

 @Shwerp The Old Testament prescribes punishment for causing a woman to terminate her pregnancy--it's nothing akin to the punishment for murder, nor did Jesus ever utter a word about abortion that anyone thought was worth recording.  If the Old Testament had rules for this, our founding fathers could have interjected something too. 

 

I appreciate that abortion is no simple issue--the fetus certainly has some rights--though an person doesn't get their full panoply of rights even at age 21.  The GOP could have had a partial birth abortion ban, but they insisted on denying exemptions for the life and health of the mother, (so some judge would throw it out, for partisan gain.)  No one who dislikes abortion should support the GOP on abortion. 

 

Anyway, I support the right to abortions, as I don't support silly gov't prohibitions.  (I didn't read this column, and I'm sympathetic to your argument that the GOP is simply pandering to their base)  Ultimately, the woman has exclusive access and control over the womb, and gov't won't ever be able to stop abortions any more than it can stop pot smoking.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

 @holmantx Domestic terrorists have killed 10 times the people in this country, since 9/11 as foreign, Muslim or swarthy terrorists.   Romney wants to increase defense spending by 200b/yr. 

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

 @holmantx You and Schwerp, eh? Oh, you conservative geniuses.

PrestonHoller
PrestonHoller

 @ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul  @RealityCheck 

 

Wow, Formerly known as Paul, do you read your own writing?  First, you say "there is no right to abortion" and then you tell me to go read Roe v. Wade to understand "the process through which SCOTUS decided that a woman does indeed have a right to an abortion."

 

I'd suggest that you are the one that needs to do a little reading.  But first, you need to learn just some basic logic.  Once that is accomplished, then you need to do some reading yourself.

 

prochoice
prochoice

@RealityCheck @Myrna.Minkoff-Katz It should be obvious by now that "Myrna" is really Jim Schutze himself. "Her" petulant idiocy and non-sequitur responses are almost exactly the same as Jim's. Jim Schuze is "Myrna", I'd bet money on it.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 @Myrna.Minkoff-Katz This is a serious question -- who are you writing these inane comments for?

 

It can't be me.  I honestly don't give a shit what you think, if you ever do.  You're not funny.  The only humor I've seen from you seemed to have been entirely unintentional.  Trolling requires a level of skill in backing off and then returning that you don't display.

 

So seriously, why do you bother?

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

 @TheCredibleHulk  @prochoice Thank you.  I've received many a back-handed compliment in my time, this is my first back-handed insult.  In your comment you managed to categorically describe several million people who chose to serve in the military at the same time as myself as a "desperate underclass".

It must be a terrible burden to carry the weight of such intimate knowledge of so many peoples' motivations, however do you manage?  Knowledge so intimate, in fact, I even managed to keep this little known fact hidden from myself!

 

Perhaps the prefix "un-" should be added to your username?

prochoice
prochoice

@Myrna.Minkoff-Katz Not at all, I'm totally serious. I'm pro-choice BECAUSE abortion kills tens of thousands of otherwise future black criminals EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Abortion on demand is a good thing, they should be free of charge.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 @Myrna.Minkoff-Katz Dr. Gosnell puts the lie to the "before" part.  The rabid, fanatical lunatics who are running the abortion industry aren't any better than the lunatics protesting outside them.

prochoice
prochoice

@scottindallas by "domestic terrorists" you mean the black and Mexican gangs that kill people almost every day in Dallas and every other city where they are found, right? Naive white-guilt libtard!

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

 @JimSX          What video?

 

I was reminded last night of an old Saturday Night Live sketch, in which a wife comes home to find her husband in bed with a bimbo and screams "what's this?" To which he replies: "What's what? I don't know what you're talking about." He keeps up his denial while calmly getting dressed and the bimbo dresses and departs. Stonewalling her rage, he maintains the counterfactual with such puzzled calm and patronizing panache, while making coffee and suggesting that the wife is having blithering fantasies, that she winds up just sitting at the table with him, letting him change the subject to how her day went.

 

The President is a liar.  This is what last night's debate will be known for.  This is the narrative that was on display last night, and what is being communicated to those who did not watch today.

 

The President lost more votes last night and will continue to bleed out the rest of the week because he looked us in the eye and said "I did not have sex with that woman".

 

Romney was speechless, almost.  He will eviscerate the President at the next debate, which focuses on foreign policy.

 

At this juncture, the President will not even capture Gore's 47% (ha!).

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

 @PrestonHoller  @ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul  @RealityCheck

Slip of the fingers ... thanks for catching it.

 

Essentially the ability of the several states to make elective abortions illegal is stymied by SCOTUS saying that there is a right to privacy inherent in the Constitution even though it is not an enumerated right in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.  The steps that the Court went through to reach this conclusion are highly convoluted at a minimum.  They also reach back to Sanger v State of Connecticut in order to do this.

 

BTW, I learned this from a lawyer who had been a Supreme Court clerk in the early 70's at the time that the Justices were considering Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton.

 

Wikipedia puts it very succinctly:

 

The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."[23] Douglas in his concurring opinion in the companion case Doe v. Bolton, stated more emphatically that, "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights."[24]

 

The Court goes on to conclude that from a medical perspective the risks of a first trimester abortion are less dangerous than the risks of delivery from a full term pregnancy.  Thus the Court found that the State's compelling interest in maternal health and potential life is overridden and therefor the decision for a first trimester abortion is left solely to the mother and her physician subject only to the state's ability to regulate the practice of medicine to ensure patient safety.

 

Other aspects of the  Roe v Wade decision that are often overlooked are that the several states may regulate abortion after the first trimester however there must always be an exception for maternal health.  The Court specifically excluded the "fetal right to life argument" essentially sidestepping the argument of when does life begin.

 

In other words, the several states can pass legislation that does outlaw anything other than 1st trimester abortions; provided, that they allow for maternal health.  That is during the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, the maternal health needs always outweigh the potential for life.  Interesting enough, this is a belief held by the Catholic Church.  Hence an outright ban on any abortion in the 2nd or 3rd trimester does not pass muster on several levels.  Among these are the failure of the state to balance the potential for life with maternal health.

 

The dissenting opinions by Justices White and Rehnquist are much more fascinating to me than the majority opinion.  Especially telling is Justice White's declaration that he believe that it was " ... an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power extended to this Court by the Constitution ...".

 

However; you may want to think back to what did occur prior to 1973.  I think that you would know.

 

Thank you for your comments, have a nice day.

TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

 @RTGolden1  @prochoice  Hyperbole.

 

If you read my comment again, you'll see that my reply doesn't denigrate military personnel in the least. I have nothing but respect for those that choose to serve their country militarily. As a matter of fact, I have several immediate family members that have served or are currently serving in every single branch of our military, not to mention a father that served in the Army Air Corps during the Korean war and several uncles that served in WWII.

 

My comment was directed at the idiocy displayed by "prochoice" in that supremely asinine comment, and his ilk, and the seeming contradiction between their wont to protect the lives of the unborn and their callous disregard for the lives of our soldiers - those that are far removed from this reality but bang their drums the loudest about America's need for military strength, whom typically seem to be conservatives. I think they are commonly referred to as chicken hawks.

 

If you were offended by my comment, maybe you should reexamine your own motivations or comprehension skills, or have your sarcasmometer re-calibrated.

 

 

totallyshocked1
totallyshocked1

@scottindallas WOW YOU ARE STUPID. The Virginia Tech massacre was committed by an ASIAN guy. Also, the monthly nationwide death count of gang-related murders far outstrips the death counts of all the massacres you mentioned COMBINED. You would know that if you actually got real news from a real news source instead of getting all your "news" from the propagandists at the DO. As of October 2012, there have been over 400 homicides just in Chicago alone, almost all of them committed by black and Latino gang-bangers, but you would know that if you weren't such a naive white-guilt ridden wimp.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

 @prochoice  @scottindallas No, it refers mostly to fucked up white people, (not unlike yourself, fucked up, I mean) who go postal and shoot a bunch of people.  Remember AZ and Aurora CO?  VA Tech and others.  Racist, selective user of factoids.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

 @carthur27  @holmantx  @JimSX reality has a liberal bias.  And rarely does the manichean approach many "conservatives" apply to complex problems fit the issues. 

 

I won't be supporting Obama, and I've been quite critical of him.  He's perpetuated much of the Bush policies both domestically and on foreign policy.  I've voted libertarian for the last 3 presidential election cycles.  So, your "deduction" is flawed.  But, for someone so quick to see false dichotomies, it's no wonder your fallacious reasoning would lead you to false conclusions.

carthur27
carthur27

 @scottindallas  @holmantx  @JimSX  Scott, Haven't you noticed that the "fact checking" blogs all have political agendas and the majority of them are biased toward liberals? Given those two factors, it's no wonder most "fact checkers" are saying Romney's lies are worse.  It's as easy a deduction as knowing you support Obama. 

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

 @holmantx  @JimSX the fact checkers tend to find that Romney's lies are more transparent and egregious.  Most all the polls suggest that Obama won the debate, though it doesn't seem many voters were swayed significantly by this debate.  The first debate changed/convinced more for Romney than this, but your assessment doesn't seem to be supported by any polling data. 

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...