Joe Biden, Me Too..

[Tassman]

As I said, "the majority of Americans don't want abortion completely outlawed," but even this poll reveals that the majority want to see it restricted what with 55% wanting limitations and another 16% wanting it illegal (that's 71%). Only 22% want what the Democrats have been pushing for, namely unrestricted abortion.

It all depends upon what’s being “outlawed.” The Alabama Law is unacceptable just as unrestricted abortion is equally unacceptable. Both positions are unacceptable to the to the majority.

But what both sides need to take into account is that: “About six-in-ten U.S. adults (58%) said in a 2018 survey that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, compared with 37% who said it should be illegal all or most of the time.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...te-in-america/

The rest is detail.

[rogue06]

It all depends upon what’s being “outlawed.” The Alabama Law is unacceptable just as unrestricted abortion is equally unacceptable. Both positions are unacceptable to the to the majority.

But what both sides need to take into account is that: “About six-in-ten U.S. adults (58%) said in a 2018 survey that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, compared with 37% who said it should be illegal all or most of the time.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...te-in-america/

The rest is detail.

Other polls find a much stronger desire to more tightly regulate abortion. As I already noted

the annual NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll on abortion, consistently shows that even among those who self-identify as "pro-choice" over 60% of them want abortion restricted to the first three months (first trimester). Among Americans overall, three-quarters of us want that or even more.

And this is corroborated by Gallup which also has consistently shown that Americans want tighter restrictions and notes that

53% want abortion to be illegal in all or most circumstances. In fact, since 1994 when Gallup started annual tracking of attitudes toward abortion the combined percentage of people who said they believe abortion should be illegal in "all circumstances" or legal "only in a few circumstances" has exceeded 50% every time.

Further, there is recent Harvard/Harris poll found that 36% of respondents said that the SCOTUS should modify Roe and 18% want the ruling to be overturned altogether meaning that 54% want it modified or overturned.

[Tassman]

Other polls find a much stronger desire to more tightly regulate abortion. As I already noted

the annual NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll on abortion, consistently shows that even among those who self-identify as "pro-choice" over 60% of them want abortion restricted to the first three months (first trimester). Among Americans overall, three-quarters of us want that or even more.

Limiting abortion to the first trimester is virtually what R v W already does. And, given that the first trimester is when the vast majority of abortions actually occur, we are already where the 60% want to be anyway.

[Cow Poke]

Limiting abortion to the first trimester is virtually what R v W already does. And, given that the first trimester is when the vast majority of abortions actually occur, we are already where the 60% want to be anyway.

The "new democrats" want to go far beyond the first trimester. They want no limits whatsoever. Long gone is the deceptive "safe, legal and rare" claim.

[rogue06]

In reality Roe is largely the result of a deceptive propaganda put out by the pro-abortion crowd and uncritically regurgitated by an all too willing press. They lied through their teeth about just about everything.

Bernard Nathanson, co-founder in 1969 of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) and one time director of New York City’s Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health (who later found God and became a very vocal Pro-Life supporter) exposed how the pro-abortion movement deliberately fabricated statistics concerning the number of deaths linked to illegal abortions in order to garner support for legalizing abortion. To give an example of just how outrageously their lies were, Nathanson confessed that he and his fellow travelers constantly fed the media the lie that 10,000 women a year died as a result of botched illegal abortion when in fact it was but a tiny fraction of that (in 1972, the year prior to Roe v. Wade, 28 deaths were reported from illegal abortions). And of course the MSM dutifully and unthinkingly parroted these numbers.

I've noted elsewhere that this particular falsehood is still being cited. For instance, this year Leana Wen, the current President of Planned Parenthood has pushed the claim variously through Twitter

00000000000000ab000-00abc2.jpg

as well as on radio and TV. In the latter case, on MSNBC's Morning Joe Wen declared:

We’re not going to go back in time to a time before Roe when thousands of women died every year

Even the solidly pro-abortion Washington Post awarded the claims "Four Pinocchios." That's the maximum negative rating.

[Tassman]

The "new democrats" want to go far beyond the first trimester. They want no limits whatsoever. Long gone is the deceptive "safe, legal and rare" claim.

Some do but it's not the majority position and it will not become a part of the Democrat platform. What's at stake is retaining R v W as is.

[rogue06]

Some do but it's not the majority position and it will not become a part of the Democrat platform. What's at stake is retaining R v W as is.

It's the part that are driving all the Democrats into seeing who can be further to the left of the others -- and that is the part currently controlling the party.

But you're right in that it would be surprising if they are that open about it in their platform. More likely they'll just have some empty platitudes about protecting the right of a woman to kill her unborn baby which will of course now includes right up to the moment of birth but won't explicitly say that.

[rogue06]

It's the part that are driving all the Democrats into seeing who can be further to the left of the others -- and that is the part currently controlling the party.

But you're right in that it would be surprising if they are that open about it in their platform. More likely they'll just have some empty platitudes about protecting the right of a woman to kill her unborn baby which will of course now includes right up to the moment of birth but won't explicitly say that.

I should also note that AFAICT, the very few presidential contenders asked about the legislation passed in New York and Illinois, none of them have expressed disagreement with it.

For instance when asked about it as well as comments by Virginia governor Ralph Northam in support of allowing even those already born to die on The View by Meghan McCain, Amy Klobuchar first feigned ignorance and then tried to change the topic until Joy Behar stepped in claiming that third term abortion are so rare that the point is essentially moot^[1].

Likewise, Bernie Sanders employed almost identical tactics to avoid answering whether he supports these measures when asked by Martha McCallum at a townhall event sponsored by Fox News.

Even Biden, who once opposed late-term abortions has backed away from that position.

And who could forget how nearly every single Democrat voted against the 2019 Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act -- which does NOT restrict abortion rights but would instead extend legal protection to infants born alive after attempted abortion procedures.

And then there's this from the Democrat's most recent standard bearer on Face the Nation making it clear that she opposes any and all limits on abortion at "any stage of pregnancy"

It's all about "respecting a woman's right to choose or not. And I think that's what this whole argument once again is about."







1. A common erroneous claim spread by pro-abortion supporters. As Ramesh Ponnuru has pointed out, there are more late-term abortions committed annually in the United States than there are homicides committed with guns (roughly 12,000 to 11,000).

[Sparko]

I

[ATTACH=CONFIG]37755[/ATTACH]

After Roe v Wade millions of babies die every year.

[Cow Poke]

Some do but it's not the majority position and it will not become a part of the Democrat platform. What's at stake is retaining R v W as is.

I don't think you can predict, in this current political atmosphere, what will not be included in the Democrat Platform. Who would have ever imagined that they would have had a contentious time just allowing God to be on the Platform?

[Tassman]

It's the part that are driving all the Democrats into seeing who can be further to the left of the others -- and that is the part currently controlling the party.

This is the direct consequence of a slew of state laws barring any access to abortion. It is this that has thrust the issue into the national spotlight and set up a potential court battle.

But you're right in that it would be surprising if they are that open about it in their platform. More likely they'll just have some empty platitudes about protecting the right of a woman to kill her unborn baby which will of course now includes right up to the moment of birth but won't explicitly say that.

But no political party, including the extreme “leftists” in the Democrat Party, is going to override the two thirds majority of the population that want to keep R v W as is and restrict abortions to the first trimester.

https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2019/...ws-poll-finds/

It’s not in their political interests to do so.

[rogue06]

This is the direct consequence of a slew of state laws barring any access to abortion. It is this that has thrust the issue into the national spotlight and set up a potential court battle.

You've got that backwards. The passage of the heartbeat laws themselves are in direct reaction to the laws passed in places like New York, where they even had a massive celebration (lighting up skyscrapers and bridges in pink etc.) , and comments from Democrat politicians including Gov. Ralph Northam (D - Va.) calling for post-birth abortions.

Get your history straight.

But no political party, including the extreme “leftists” in the Democrat Party, is going to override the two thirds majority of the population that want to keep R v W as is and restrict abortions to the first trimester.

https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2019/...ws-poll-finds/

It’s not in their political interests to do so.

I wouldn't bet any money on that

[Tassman]

You've got that backwards. The passage of the heartbeat laws themselves are in direct reaction to the laws passed in places like New York, where they even had a massive celebration (lighting up skyscrapers and bridges in pink etc.) , and comments from Democrat politicians including Gov. Ralph Northam (D - Va.) calling for post-birth abortions.

I’m unaware of any direct connection between that and the Alabama Heartbeat law et al. But even if there was it’s a ridiculously extreme reaction.

I wouldn't bet any money on that.

Well I would. With two-thirds of Americans wanting the Supreme Court to keep Roe v. Wade as it stands now (according to polls) it would take a very rash politician to try and have it overturned. .

[rogue06]

I’m unaware of any direct connection between that and the Alabama Heartbeat law et al. But even if there was it’s a ridiculously extreme reaction.



Well I would. With two-thirds of Americans wanting the Supreme Court to keep Roe v. Wade as it stands now (according to polls) it would take a very rash politician to try and have it overturned. .

The Democrat candidates for president that have commented on the legislation passed in some states allowing abortions to be performed up to the last moments before birth are either in support of them or steadfastly refusing to oppose them. And the very fact that blue states keep passing these laws demonstrates that the Democrats don't care what two-thirds of the public supposedly wants. And then there is the fact that the Democrats in Congress almost unanimously oppose extending legal protection to infants born alive after attempted abortion procedures.

[Tassman]

The Democrat candidates for president that have commented on the legislation passed in some states allowing abortions to be performed up to the last moments before birth are either in support of them or steadfastly refusing to oppose them.

Yes, I’m aware of that but still contend that the majority of Democrat candidates are not such extremists; it’s highly unlikely that one of them will be the Democrat candidate for president. Two-thirds of Americans want the Supreme Court to keep Roe v. Wade as it stands now and I expect that the Dem candidate will reflect the majority values.