Discussion of Abortion Law on Maddow

Spread the love

You don’t see this too often. An “expert,” in this case a journalist that covers the issue, presents a case, and Rachel Maddow looks at her like, “what, are you nuts or something?” then politely tells her so.

Starting after about 8:20.

I’m thinking they are both probably right.

Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:

In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.

Spread the love

16 thoughts on “Discussion of Abortion Law on Maddow

  1. The fact that these bills have nothing to do with “protecting” anyone is clear. They are, purely and simply, bills written by ignorant people to punish women (which is always fine for the religious and political right), plain and simple.

    However, aside from the massive evil and dishonesty demonstrated by the people who passed and signed, and support, these bills, we also need to recognize their astounding stupidity.

    One of the sponsors of the Ohio billed believes that ectopic pregnancies can be “cured” by transferring the fetus to the woman’s uterus, and stood by that after there being testimony from doctors who said that the procedure he described was impossible.


    The next item is a great reminder that Alabama ranks at the bottom in education.

    In Alabama, when Senator Clyde Chambliss, a Republican, was asked if the law would allow for incest victims to obtain abortions, he responded: “Yes, until she knows she’s pregnant.”. He didn’t offer any indication how a woman would know to get an abortion before she knew she was pregnant, other than responding (when pressed) “It takes time for all the chromosomes to come together.”

    We’re starting to see a push for a similar bill here in MI, although Governor Whitmer has said she will veto it. That’s caused one of the most vile and dishonest organizations in existence, right to life, to say they’ll mount a petition drive to get the bill on the next ballot. Why? Under the previous administration the right hammered through a law that says any ballot issue that passes cannot be reviewed or altered by the state government.

    All of these are prime examples of how the right’s claims to love freedom and personal choice are pure bullshit.

  2. From a science point of view, the right argues that a fetus is a human. With just a few cells, this is hard to see – but after a certain point it is hard to argue this (after viability for example). Whether it is heartbeat, brainwave or ability to survive outside the womb – science will clearly come down on the side that a fetus is human at some point before birth(in my opinion). It would be interesting to do a survey on this question – when does a fetus become human? Even if just limited to doctors the results would be interesting. But among all scientists, the results would also be interesting. Or among all voters.

    From a religious point of view, the right argues that it doesn’t matter how life begins – the life itself is still innocent. So rape and incest don’t matter from a religious point of view. Again, after a certain point the rights of the baby weigh more than the rights of the mother. Even Roe talked about the rights of the fetus weighing greater to the state in the third trimester.

    Would it be ok to argue that it is not murder to kill a child who was less than 2 years old, IF the child was created by rape or incest and the mother chose to carry it to term? No – that would be crazy, because even the pro-choice people agree that once born you have rights. The right is just pushing that back into the womb – and at some point a line will get drawn prior to full term. I am kind of surprised that a state doesn’t do the Alabama ban, but at the end of the second trimester – just based on Roe.

    Where to draw the line – that is the question. Maybe six weeks is too early. Maybe 12 weeks would work better. Maybe they will take the Solomon approach and split the baby – call it 18 weeks. Maybe it will be at the end of the 2nd trimester. Who knows?

    Worst case scenario – Roe is overturned and it goes back to the states, and each state will draw its own line (abortion on demand, no abortion after 12 weeks except for the life of the mother, and so forth). Nothing will change in Minnesota (where I live) or many other blue states.

    It always puzzled me how the Supreme Court got into this area in the first place. Crime and murder – including the murder of fetuses (or baby’s if you prefer) has always been a state jurisdiction thing. There are plenty of feticide statutes at the state level, but you will never see one at the Federal level. States handle crime, including defining it (except interstate crime of course – like the Mann act and so forth).

    1. Re: “the right argues that it doesn’t matter how life begins – the life itself is still innocent”

      In basic Christianity, humans are poor miserable sinners from conception on. That’s why people need a savior and why unbaptised children are hellbound.

  3. Not a surprise at all that the always despicable facist-lover brings the stupid on an issue — completely missing the fact that the laws that are being passed are exactly the reason individual states should not be the ones having the final say on this, as decisions made on his level of dismissal of rights for others will be the norm.

    1. Next up, once Roe V. Wade goes down (which it almost certainly will before the next election) will be an attack pon Brown V. The Board of Education and if that’s successful you can expect them to start continue away at the 14th Amendment – given an opportunity, as in enough thoroughly red states, it would not be a surprise if they removed that amendment altogether. Bring back slavery anyone? (no but they’ll get as close as possible without starting another civil war.) Don’t ever underestimate these assholes they cotton only to the uber rich and those people like their labor as cheap as possible. This is not the GOP of say Eisenhower – today’s GOP has been taken over by ignorant and vile cretins for whom there is no barrier so low they will not cross it.

  4. Doug

    The Board of Education and if that’s successful you can expect them to start continue away at the 14th Amendment…

    Indeed and that will demonstrate how facile arguments against changing the Second Ammendment are. But, why expect logic where there is none to be found. It would appear that:

    “Seventy-two per cent of Republicans oppose Western world’s standard numeric system…” because they are known as Arabic numbers.


    Truly a new dark age is amongst us as Trump wants new anti-abortion standards to be the norm globally. The US of Trumpistan has its own Taliban.

  5. Part IX of Roe v Wade, says that if the definition of a person includes a fetus, the case or Roe falls apart.
    The Alabama bill includes fetus in its definition of a person.

  6. “If the definition of a person includes a fetus…”

    You omit this

    If this suggestion of personhood is established,

    but then opponents of Roe V Wade have never been, and are not know, known for either intelligence nor integrity.

  7. It isn’t only the lawmakers (and the local trump supporters who posted above) who don’t have a problem with rape.


    Scum like this have been around for years — it just took trump and the republican leadership to make acceptance of rape and punishment of women seem acceptable.

    1. They should change the law to fix that. That should take care of this issue going forward. It seems they only need to add this particular medical issue to the list and problem solved.

    2. A decent person would say there shouldn’t be any laws restricting this or any other abortion since it’s nobody’s business but the woman’s (and anyone else she chooses to include).

      That’s what a decent person would say. but your question was asked of a magat republican, so…

  8. dean:

    The Supreme Court says that abortion is the business of each State. Even under Roe v. Wade and its progeny, the state had the right to restrict abortion post-viability.

    Of course, viability is constantly moving to earlier in the pregnancy, so the States rights are growing and the mothers are shrinking as technology improves. Eventually an artificial womb will be developed and if the mother wants an abortion, the state will have the right to transplant the fetus into the artificial womb and save the life of the unborn child.

    It will be interesting to see what arguments the mothers come up with to argue that the fetus should be killed rather than transplanted to an artificial womb. Some will argue they would rather kill their unborn child rather than have it grow up abandoned by its mother, as a ward of the state. Or they would feel guilty. Or the child might find out who their mother is later in life and want a relationship. It all will come down to guilt. I am not sure that these arguments will fly – but we will see.

    It is interesting that some only focus on the rights of the mother, and forget about the rights of the other person involved (the unborn baby).

    My body, my choice – said the unborn baby.

    1. and as expected, the magat’s response doesn’t address the issue of the right wing pro-lifers (a lie of a term if there ever was one) saying a woman should have no control over her body. Nothing but pure BS (artificial womb, crap about viability moving earlier). Just what we’ve come to expect from people who don’t think women should have rights. Very sad.

    2. If a totally functional and reliable artificial womb is developed, and is accessible (in terms of cost), I would imagine pregnancy would become rare. Many women report that they never feel better than when they are pregnant, it is like a great drug. The few women I know who claim that have a lot of kids. For them, maybe pregnancy will still be desired, though I’m pretty sure the feeling of euphoria from pregnancy can be mimicked by the same advanced technology that creates actual full-blown “test tube” people.

    3. Greg:

      Yes – I agree. Why take on the burden of pregnancy when technology can do it for you. That promise of future technology gives us hope that the abortion debate will someday end.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *