The anti-abortion movement thinks abortion should be illegal. Good for them, go for it, knock yourself out.
I would guess, however, that if they had their druthers, the anti-abortion crowd would also say that if you’re gonna have an abortion you should have it as early as possible. I mean, it goes without saying that if you wait too long, the fetus will grow and grow and grow. And no one likes the idea of abortion at 23 or 24 weeks. Meanwhile, the vast majority of women who get “later” abortions are minors or poor women. But here’s the irony – it might be the anti-abortion movement that is responsible for a lot of these late term abortions.
Hey, Pat, are you off your rocker? Have you totally lost it?
Chill out, folks, lemme explain.
A woman receiving Medicaid assistance gets pregnant and decides to have an abortion. She calls the local clinic and they tell her that the price for a first trimester abortion is $400. That’s a lot of money for this woman. Years ago, the anti-abortion movement enacted the “Hyde Amendment” which says that you cannot use your Medicaid card to get an abortion unless your life was endangered. Now, if there was no such thing as the Hyde Amendment, this woman would just go to that clinic, give them her Medicaid card and have the abortion right away. But, instead, she is now looking for $400 that she didn’t anticipate needing. She doesn’t have a credit card, no bank account to speak of, no rich friends. So, she has to spend precious time finding the $400 somewhere. Meanwhile, the baby is growing. Ultimately, she might get the $400 but by that time she is more advanced and abortions cost more money the later they are performed. It’s a viscous cycle. Ultimately, she might get the cash but she’s now in her 19th week.
Were it not for the Hyde Amendment, the abortion would have been performed within days of her discovering her pregnancy.
Then there are the minors. A 15 year old girl discovers she is pregnant. Now, at that age she might delay any conversation about her situation because she just might not be sure that she is pregnant. But once she verifies it, the chances are that she lives in a state that requires her to get the permission of her parents. These laws, of course, are all courtesy of that anti-abortion movement again. But the girl’s family is not Ozzie and Harriet land. In fact, she is petrified of going to her parents, one of whom beats her on a regular basis. So she waits and waits, perhaps thinking she might have a miscarriage and the issue will just go away. In denial, she remains mum. Then, her stomach starts to expand and, despite her wearing loose clothes, she ultimately is panicking that her parents will notice. Only at that point, perhaps now in her 18th week, does she reluctantly go to her parents to give them the news and, hopefully, get their permission for an abortion.
If there were no parental consent laws in her state and she felt she could not talk to her parents, she would have found a good friend or close relative that she could confide in and secured the abortion much earlier.
Ironic, isn’t it?


July 31, 2010 at 10:05 am
Those are some very good points, Pat.
I also wonder how parental consent laws affect doctor patient confidentiality.
No matter how bad the girl’s situation may seem to us, she has the right to expect privacy and needs to be able to trust the clinic staff.
That can make for a very difficult situation for the abortion provider. They are caught between laws of the state, and the morality of maintaining privacy for the patient.
LikeLike
July 31, 2010 at 1:26 pm
It’s really not a problem, Sugar. If a minor comes in to a clinic and there are parental consent/notification laws, the clinic must be convinced that the minor has fulfilled that requirement. If they are, they perform the abortion. If there are no laws, again, the clinic will perform the abortion to a certain point (I can’t imagine a clinic performing an abortion on a 11 year old, e.g.,) In either case, there is absolute confidentiality, that is extremely important to the doctors and staff at the clinics. Hope I answered your question…
LikeLike
July 31, 2010 at 10:56 pm
For the most part, yes it did.
I was most concerned about her privacy. That is after all, the basis for Roe V wade.
I just see things such as parental consent laws and all of that other rubbish as ways to try and take away the right of women to choose when and of they reproduce.
Nobody can ever know what goes in in the life of a woman who seeks an abortion.
Laws that make it more difficult for her to get one only make the other aspects more difficult as well.
LikeLike
August 1, 2010 at 11:56 am
What kills me is the pro-lifers say these parental consent laws will foster communications in the family, as if that can be legislated. Indeed, read my piece on Sarah Palin and how her daughter couldn’t tell her that she was engaged – she had to announce it in a tabloid…Hey, while I have you, is “Sugar” a man or woman?
LikeLike
August 1, 2010 at 3:24 pm
I am a gay man.
So given that I am not likely to seek an abortion, unless I am helping a friend, nobody can accuse me of having a conflict of interest.
LikeLike
July 31, 2010 at 10:39 am
Another well-written post, Pat, but based on a false premise – killing an older child is worse than killing a younger one. In any tragedy the ages of the victims are mentioned, and the younger, the worse.
LikeLike
July 31, 2010 at 1:29 pm
I’m a little confused, my friend. Let’s say your grandaughter came to you one day and said she needed an abortion. You try to talk her out of it, but you can’t and, being a good grandfather, you offer to help her. Would you not want her to get into the clinic as fast as possible?
LikeLike
July 31, 2010 at 2:47 pm
No, being a good grandfather I just might get up enough courage to go beyond talk. I love my granddaughters too deeply to let one of them have my great granddaughter torn apart. I am sure I’d love her equally intensely.
LikeLike
August 5, 2010 at 10:42 am
What do you mean that you would “go beyond talk?” If she said she wanted an abortion, you’d try to talk her out of it but then when she says “sorry, grandpa, but I have to do it,” would you offer her your support?
LikeLike
August 4, 2010 at 12:43 pm
So, John, you going to raise the great-granddaughter? And what’s your track record for raising grandchildren, just to keep it real?
LikeLike
July 31, 2010 at 11:18 am
Pat,
that was a great post very well put.
LikeLike
July 31, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Thanks, Erica!
LikeLike
July 31, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Pat
This one of your best posts.
It is incredible.
We all thank you for your support for woman to have equality in this nation, defined as a nation of equality but still not there yet.
Gailt
LikeLike
August 1, 2010 at 11:58 am
Thank you, Gailt!
LikeLike
July 31, 2010 at 4:02 pm
That Dunkle is just a waste,
I just reread his statement. He is clearly a old fool that does not get reality.
Sad Dunkle, but true.
Your mind is incoherent.
All you do is blab riddles, and falsehood, and you pulled that fraud stunt.
You harass women,
you stalk women,
You have serious problems,
go away and leave people to themselves.
Everyone that reads your sloth,
knows what you are,
Your actions cannot hide behind your lies by words, and riddles, and
“huh”.
You are the cretin that everyone says you are.
You have failed in your life long cause.
You will die a failure.
LikeLike
July 31, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Interesting point, Pat, and one which I think may dispel what i believe is a false notion in the pro-life moevemnt: namely, that all these laws which chip away at one or another piece of the issue really do mean anything. In essence, if you take them all, add them up, you come up with this: “If you have parental consent, have waited 24 hours, have seen an ultrasound of your child, and so on and so forth…you can have the abortion”. It makes more sense to me to go for a law outlawing abortion outright because this incrementalism still allows for abortion in the end. It’s kind of like our movement’s double standard.
Also, spelling/grammar police: “viscous” refers to sticky liquids.
LikeLike
August 1, 2010 at 12:01 pm
You know, Cmdr N, I had a funny feeling about “viscous”!!! Damn! I hate spelling errors.
Anyway, I think the leaders in your movement know they cannot pass a constitutional amendment banning abortion so they’ve gone to the incremental approach. But you’re right. The bottom line is that most of these laws do not stop any abortions. It’s like outlawing “partial birth abortions,” that didn’t stop one abortion. It was a crock to just raise money.
And, the more I think about it, in the future please DONT tell me I spelled something wrong. It just makes me feel like a fool :)… acdtuallDamnightghe leadghink
LikeLike
August 2, 2010 at 1:04 pm
I think that is the point they are trying to make.
By delaying abortions they think that women will change their minds and not want an abortion.
In my opinion, late term abortions for people who don’t have anything wrong with them should not be permitted. It does not take months for you to realize you don’t want to be a parent.
I understand the whole thing about this law delaying it but it does not make sense to me to have abortions so late in the game.
LikeLike
August 2, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Madeline: How do you define “late term abortions?” As you may know, you usually have an amnio at about the 15 week. What if at that point the woman found out the baby has some kind of serious defect? Would you be okay with an abortion at that point?
LikeLike
August 5, 2010 at 9:55 am
Let me answer your question with a question. How far in the pregnancy do you think is Ok to abort if there isn’t anything wrong with the fetus?
LikeLike
August 5, 2010 at 10:40 am
I’ve said in the past that I think it’s okay to abort up to the point of viability (about 23/24 weeks). After that, I believe there should be very extenuating circumstances like her life is endangered…
LikeLike
May 5, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Thats not just logic. Thats really senilsbe.
LikeLike
August 5, 2010 at 11:03 am
It is obscene to debate over how old someone has to be before you may pull her apart.
LikeLike