For years, there has been a raging debate within the anti-abortion movement about whether to take an incremental approach to restricting access to abortion versus going for the whole enchilada, i.e., banning abortion outright in the Congress or through the courts. Fortunately, they’ve taken the wrong approach.
For years after Roe v Wade was decided in 1973, the anti-abortion movement focused most of its energies on trying to pass the “Human Life Amendment” and/or the “Hatch Constitutional Amendment.” The HLA was a non-starter from the beginning. That legislation, introduced by the late Senator Jesse Helms, simply declared that “life begins at conception” and that the fetus was a “person” from the moment of conception. That one was laughed out of the room. The more serious effort was the Hatch (as in Senator Orrin Hatch) Amendment which basically overruled Roe v Wade, thus sending the issue of the legality of abortion back to the individual states. After years and years of furious lobbying, however, that measure was handily defeated in 1981.
Badly beaten, the anti-abortion movement started coming up with ways to make it more difficult to obtain an abortion in this country. They were successful early on in restricting the use of federal funds for abortions. Then they started looking to the state legislatures for help. They came up proposals imposing 24 hour waiting periods, requiring minors to get the permission of their parents to get an abortion, mandating that clinics show women pictures of fetal development and others. Then there was the famous “partial birth abortion” campaign that took place on both the national and state level.
In many states, these efforts were successful. Or I should say they were successfully enacted into law. But if the goal of the anti-abortion movement is to “save babies,” well, these laws hardly had an impact.
The fact is that the desire to have an abortion can be so strong that most women will walk over burning coals to get one. So, having to jump through some additional hoops and fires is not the deciding factor for most women. And before you pro-choicers start jumping all over me, I will say that, yes, having to wait 24 hours when you’ve traveled across the state will mean an extra expense. And the minor who feels she cannot talk to her parents might wind up going to an adjoining state that doesn’t have any restrictions. These are very unfortunate situations, but while it’s impossible to prove a negative, my gut tells me that the number of abortions has not dropped dramatically because of these laws. Babies have not been saved, folks.
Then there’s the “partial birth” abortion law. That one is the biggest joke and biggest scam. I can tell you for a fact that this law has had no effect whatsoever. That’s because abortion doctors have other procedures at their disposal to do late term abortions. Yes, the pro-choice groups argued that the “partial birth” abortion procedure as defined in the legislation was so vague that it could apply to most abortion procedures but, guess what, not one doctor has been prosecuted under this law. Geez, were our friends hyping things a little?
The fact is that the number of abortions has been decreasing every year, but lemme tell you honey, it ain’t because of these pesky little laws. It’s because young people are getting smarter, pure and simple. Just sit in on an 8th grade sex education class in your local high school and you’ll see what I mean.
If I were running some anti-abortion organization, I’d be looking at the Supreme Court. I’d be anticipating a one-term Obama presidency and I’d be trying to pass some outrageous anti-abortion legislation, just outlawing it outright, in the hopes that 10 years from now it would reach a possibly more conservative Court. But if the anti-abortion movement wants to waste their time on 24 hour waiting periods, I say go for it…..


August 9, 2010 at 1:59 pm
The movement pro life will try anything to stop abortions but we can not let them do that.
No one can infringe upon my rights as a woman to decide if I will or will not have a child.
What can I do as citizen to support this cause?
Please let me know since you are so knowledgeable about this subject.
LikeLike
August 9, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Madalene: There are so many things you can do, depending on your energy and your resources. Give money to the National Abortion Rights Action League. They go out and try to elect pro-choice legislators. Call your local clinic and see if they need escorts. Volunteer to be on the board of your local NARAL affiliate. Write to President Obama thanking him for being pro-choice.
LikeLike
August 9, 2010 at 7:06 pm
You make some interesting points in this blog, Pat, but I am still concerned with the antis chipping away at the rights of a woman to determine her reproductive health.
As a matter of fact, that concerns me more than if they tried outright to get a ban on abortion. I worry that if these laws continue to pass, abortion for all practical purposes will not be legal in some places.
When rights are taken away in small increments like that and nobody worries because it seems such a small thing, it is just a matter of time before waking up and realizing that a fundamental right has been taken away.
We must remain vigilant of such things.
I must agree with you, though on these laws having little effect on the decreasing abortion rate.
The rate of abortions have decreased because of education and birth control that is both affordable and easily accessible.
Still I worry about them chipping away at the right of a woman to determine the process of her reproductive health.
If abortion becomes too difficult to obtain because of legal processes, it won’t decrease the rate of abortions. It will decrease the rate of safe legal abortions.
LikeLike
August 10, 2010 at 10:40 am
I hear ya, Sugar. But honestly, I can’t think of any law that has generally resulted in restricted access. Except maybe when a state passes a law that imposes a lot of regulations on a clinic, so many regulations that it forces the clinic to close. that happened in South Carolina a few years ago. But, again, if a woman wants an abortion she can usually get one.
LikeLike
August 9, 2010 at 9:07 pm
This is one of your favorite themes, Pat, but it’s getting old. Anything that makes it harder for one person to kill another is good; anything that makes it easier is bad.
LikeLike
August 10, 2010 at 10:42 am
Since you are so passionate about saving the human life, are you doing anything to help the ones that are already here?.
Millions of kids are dying in all over the world every year. I’m sure God does not want that to happen right?
And please, please answer one more question for me, it is a little bit off the subject but I’m so curious I can not help myself, do you think that the war that we are in is justified?
LikeLike
August 10, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Yes and right. Answer to third question: no.
LikeLike
August 10, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Wow! I am surprised.
In your own words, you believe that abortion at any stage is killing correct?
I really believed that you were for the war. I picture you as a die-hard republican who believed we shoud be in the middle east fighting while killing thousands of innocent people.
LikeLike
August 10, 2010 at 5:49 am
Pat….I agree with you!! In SC we worried when the anti’s were successful in getting laws passed 1 hr waiting now 24 hr’s, required book to be read (50 pgs) and another 1 hr wait after reading, mandatory sonogram (now with detail exp), clinic requirements that are cumbersome and very expensive, labratory laws that are ridiculous, and with all that over the last 15 yrs the cost of abortion has gone up a good bit (but not out of sight…in comparison to other medical care) and the women still come and the numbers have decreased some but I agree that is because of good reproductive education and availability of birth control to everyone that wants it…..NOT because of the people that think they know what is best for YOU!!! So they are going to have to change their tactics to acomplish their goal (minding YOUR business)they will just have to have more “tea parties” to bitch about their tax $$$ being spent on those “lazy welfare moms” just churning out one baby after another…those “young unwed teenagers” getting knocked…and those damned mothers that abuse and/or kill their children…that ought to still keep them busy don’t you think???
LikeLike
August 10, 2010 at 10:43 am
The funny thing, Lorraine, is that I remember a clinic owner in an urban area tell me that having a woman come in for the initial visit, then having to come back the next day actually made for a better, more relaxed patient. Yes, that’s okay in an urban area where the clinic was a subway ride away, not practical in South Dakota.
LikeLike
August 10, 2010 at 12:36 pm
ANY laws that have a possibility of restricting any kind of reproductive health care puts women in rural areas at particular risk.
LikeLike
August 11, 2010 at 2:21 pm
You’re correct, Rogelio. As I said, these laws are a burden on people in places like North Dakota. Still, the desire to terminate a pregnancy is incredibly strong and women will for the most part overcome the obstacles.
LikeLike
August 11, 2010 at 8:25 pm
thank you
i am pro-life, but the way to reduce abortions isn’t by legal means.
it’s by getting to the core of the problem and removing situations that make women seek abortions to begin with.
pro-lifers need to learn that we can’t just say “BAD, BAD, BAD!” and offer no other solutions to the trials that a woman seeking an abortion faces.
passing restrictive laws does nothing to reduce the number of abortions.
LikeLike
August 12, 2010 at 8:57 am
Well said, Rogelio. Are you the same “Rogie” that was kicked off of abortion.com Facebook page?
LikeLike
August 13, 2010 at 10:34 pm
jajajaja
that would be me.
LikeLike
August 10, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Pat, I like all of your suggestions but the one that involves money. I rather donate my time first and see if the organization is really serious about the cause.
I will follow the rest of your advise.
LikeLike
August 11, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Good point, Madalene. If you need any help finding a local cause, tell me where you are and I can help. Good luck!
LikeLike
August 11, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Pat…you are right it does put a big burden on the woman from a rural area or the woman that has a problem with child care for two visits! However…all of the hurdless that have been put up by the radical anti-choice legislators have failed to acomplish their goal of limiting abortions!
Welcome Rogie…glad to see you found this site…
LikeLike
August 13, 2010 at 10:40 pm
saludos, lorriepoo!
i didn’t see your welcome to me until now. forgive me.
i actually have seen this blog before, and read some of pattypoo’s interesting thoughts, i have just never posted.
for some reason, when i start to reply, it has the wrong email addy, but it lets me post.
although i can’t post in the FB group, i still read the posts there.
it’s a shame that they are dealing with some of the venom from some people there.
i’m glad that this blog hasn’t been subject to that level of harrassment.
LikeLike
August 12, 2010 at 9:31 am
Pat, you’re missing a bigger picture with this piece– the so-called “pro-life” movement has shifted tactics heavily toward campaign finance. Struggling in the street and in state legislatures to little avail, they are now pushing as hard as they can to further corrupt the political process. The “Right to Life” committee in my state launched a lawsuit that went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in their favor. The ruling? That the state could not impose contribution limits on donors to candidates. This of course was followed most recently by the woefully evil Citizens United ruling.
What they cannot gain at the clinic entrance or in the referendum they hope to buy at the ballot box. The deplorable state of political discourse in the US Senate at this time is due largely to the fact that our Senators have largely been bought (and bought cheaply).
The movement is very astute at making this switch from the public arena to the purchase of influence. It is going to be a significant factor in Congress overriding the will of and working against the interests of the vast majority of Americans.People who are “pro-choice” should pay attention to campaign finance reform, espcially Vendor-Based Oversight.
LikeLike
August 13, 2010 at 11:28 am
I know they’re working on this stuff but the purpose is so they can elect more pro-lifers so they can get their stuff passed in the Congress and/or the legislature.
LikeLike
August 12, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Man, Ali, but you have got to age a bit! You sound like you’re 14!!! Take it from me at the other end of the spectrum– women are PEOPLE, and you don’t have to treat them as sex objects. Unlike sexual orientation, you have a choice in this matter.
LikeLike
August 12, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Geez, Ali, take a hike. You contribute absolutely nothing to the conversation. Your stuff is unreadable…
LikeLike
August 12, 2010 at 3:37 pm
I second that can we just “boot” Ali because I can’t read all that …. Makes my eyes hurt…and “I trust women”….
LikeLike
August 12, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Ali, the problem with many Muslim societies is that it is the men who determine whether your hair and curves are temptations. Do you feel it is proper for you to wear a veil or a burka, the custom in quite a few?
LikeLike
August 12, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Ali’s comments are typical of a person at the second level of cognition (cf. Belanky et al, “Women’s Ways of Knowing,” but it applies to men as well in many respects). Ali acts upon “received knowledge;” that is, he/she (Ali McGraw, perhaps?) has no self-developed standards based on life experience and therefore blindly accepts as Gospel (or in this case, Koranal) truth as the standard for life.
there’s no guarantee he/she will ever leave this level, but if that happens, the next stage will be to throw overboard a lot of what passes for infallible doctrine and use the remainder as a cudgel in his/her exploration of what it means to be autonomous– the “teenager” stage of cognition.
Ali is not “pro-life” in his/her comments here, but just using tools given to pass on the dictates of those in power in his/her world.
LikeLike
August 13, 2010 at 4:04 am
I got a sign you’d like, Ali: WHY DO CHRISTIANS AND JEWS, BUT NOT MUSLIMS, KILL THEIR CHILDREN? On the back — LEGAL ABORTION SENDS CATHOLICS TO HELL.
LikeLike
August 13, 2010 at 5:59 am
Hey, John! Why not invite him/her to your next stalking?
LikeLike
August 13, 2010 at 10:52 am
Charles, I do not stalk!
LikeLike
August 15, 2010 at 12:58 am
Then what fake word to replace the act of Dunkle stalking with?
Why don’t you use the real words for things.
You seem to know English, you cannot admit you are an obsessed stalker?
We saw the definition here before, and it fit you perfectly.
Why not admit what you do?
It just makes you appear more disingenuous then you already do.
LikeLike
August 13, 2010 at 10:46 pm
JAJAJAJAJAJAJA
LikeLike
August 14, 2010 at 11:31 am
Rogie! Welcome to this page! I followed your adventures on the Facebook page, not sure why you got kicked off. I look forward to your comments on my thoughts! JAJAJAJA
LikeLike
August 19, 2010 at 8:21 pm
awwww
you laugh in spanish! I don’t worry anymore about why i was booted.
they claim i wasn’t, but there is no option for me to post, so whatever.
the owner directed numerous questions to me, and i was able to answer them on a factual medical basis as well as my own moral basis.
i was warned directly, not to make threats or use foul language ( which i never did ), yet when someone else threatened me with physical harm, and another made xenophobic comments to me using foul language, and it was directly pointed out to them, by several people, not a word was said.
at any rate, you are very gracious, i’m sure.
god bless you
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Actually, Rogelio, a few other people can’t access the facebook page as well, including a pro-choicer that I know. Anyway, I hope you will continue to read my stuff and share your thoughts with me…
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 7:23 pm
i would be up for that.
I have a friend in real life who is choice and posts there quite a bit, and has posted here as well.
i actually was in a FB group for a while and made quite a few friends, but they were all choicers.
The majority of the pro-life people had a serious problem with me being civil to people who are pro-choice.
mutual respect is a virtue
LikeLike
August 13, 2010 at 1:11 pm
John, if you were doing that to me, I would be in fear of bodily harm from you. In Florida, now that they have a very liberal concealed carry weapon law, it is becoming common for juries to acquit people who kill another because they feared for their lives. To get rid of my fear for my life, I would kill you, and Florida would let me go free.
I advise you to do a paranoia level check of your next victim to ensure that he or she doesn’t fear bodily harm. If it’s present, then yoiu are indeed stalking. What you perceive it as doesn’t count.
LikeLike
August 14, 2010 at 11:29 am
Be serious, CG. You would actually be in fear of bodily harm if John were outside your house? Gimme a break. As John has said, he is basically a coward.
LikeLike
August 14, 2010 at 11:36 am
In court, the evidence is what counts, Pat. If the jury were presented the paper trail that showed I have consistently been fearful of strangers lurking around me, they would have ample reason to acquit, particularly in Florida; not so much in my state. As it is, I have stated to John that I am, and such evidence would certainly be introduced in my defense. As to John’s harmlessness, where was he when Kitty Genovese was killed? They never found her killer, and John was in the area at the time….
LikeLike
August 15, 2010 at 1:12 am
John,
Is a danger,
What he says means nothing.
CG should let everyone know about these laws and empower the victims of pro life hate crimes.
It is about time.
Yes, one should have every reason to be concerned about Dunkle, anyone that calls multiple convicted murderers Martys and burns a flag, we need to be concerned about.
I heard on NPR about prisoners at Guantanamo bay that have done less. Not defending them just making the comparison.
CG is right as I reviewed many similar state laws.
LikeLike
August 15, 2010 at 7:00 am
Hey, Ali~~ You never answered my question about if you’d wear a burka!
You realize of course that by fixating on your spiel rather than engaging in dialogue, you reinforce the “aborticentrist” image? That you’re a person unable to expand his scope of concern beyond his fixation on abortion?
LikeLike
August 16, 2010 at 6:19 am
Ali focus on Abortion and stop prosteltyzing
LikeLike
August 16, 2010 at 7:36 am
What Bailey is saying is that you should stop talking in tongues. Your constant reference to YOUR holy book is boring and for most people totally irrelevant.
LikeLike