- The group has scored its legal checkmates by breaking ranks with the other, more idealistic branch of the pro-life movement—the one that aims to end abortion entirely. This more absolutist flank has faltered, since the majority of Americans think abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances, even if they disagree with the practice on moral grounds. (For example, two so-called “personhood” initiatives, which would have established that human life begins at conception, failed last fall at the polls.) The AUL, meanwhile, pursues a more pragmatic “incrementalist” strategy, in which pro-lifers chip away at the total number of abortions by helping to enact new constraints.
Took a required seminar last semester that's focus was reproduction in politics. My professor was actually doing some work on the informed consent laws. She has been collecting all of the information that is given to a women during the process of getting an abortion, and actually combing through for scientific inaccuracies. This is of course with the help of numerous scientist in the respective fields. Her goal is to determine how scientifically accurate the state mandated information actually is. Although she has just begun her research, she remarks that a lot of this information required by the state is actually made by the state (The state which has no actual expertise in the field). Eh there kinda is, it's just the definition of "undue burden" has been warped EXTREMELY over time. In Casey v Planned Parenthood the SCOTUS established the undue burden measurement in which as long as any law did not place any undue burden upon the women's ability to receive the abortion it was legal. These waiting periods, and admitting requirements have had a severe effect on underprivileged women's ability to receive the procedure. Most of the pro-life movement deny those numbers though. Well, it only makes sense that they would quote that, but it's wrong. The way the CDC defines an abortion-related death is ridiculous, and in no way do they define it as only direct. I mean look at that, seriously? That is pulled directly from the report published by the CDC. These groups are really hard to get along with honestly. The pro-life movement is simply an anti-abortion movement. The group itself doesn't actually fight for any other cause, but abortion (Unless you count the most recent fight over doctor-assisted suicide). What about genocide, famine, war, and all the other issues plaguing life?Also this year, Arkansas enacted HB 1578, based on AUL’s “Women’s Right to Know Act,” which requires that doctors who perform abortions describe to women “the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at the time the abortion is to be performed.” The law also includes AUL-suggested language instructing doctors to tell women that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks of gestation—even though ACOG says it’s unlikely pain is felt before 29 weeks. (Arkansas’ law also includes the chemical-abortion reversal provision.)
“States can't outlaw abortion,” McConchie responded. “That does not mean there's a constitutional right to abortion being convenient.”
This liberalism breeds what the group believes is a wildly under-regulated abortion industry. In 2010, the most recent year for which CDC data are available, 10 women died as a direct result of an abortion.
An abortion-related death is defined as a death resulting from a direct complication of an abortion (legal or illegal), an indirect complication caused by a chain of events initiated by an abortion, or an aggravation of a preexisting condition by the physiologic or psychologic effects of abortion (37). All deaths determined to be related causally to induced abortion are classified as abortion-related regardless of the time between the abortion and death. In addition, any pregnancy-related death in which the pregnancy outcome was induced abortion regardless of the causal relation between the abortion and the death is considered an abortion-related death.
Thanks for the additional insight. I find the last part of your comment troubling. There will always be a minority group trying to shove their oppinion down everyone else's throat, the real problem is the system, that let's them. The sole purpose of a state is to better the inhabitents lifes. If a government fails to protect from AUL etc, the government has failed.
I'm glad I could provide more insight haha. I actually had to stop myself because it really isn't worth making conversation. I've debated, discussed, and any other type of exchange of words with members of the pro-life movement. The problem is there are no concessions with them. Maybe 90% of the members I've spoken with entered the conversation with the mentality that "I was wrong and they were right."
It's kind of terrifying the amount of hypocrisy shown this group who rails against the supposed unsafeness of abortion but won't take the opinion of any medical association into account. That's an interesting point considering how people riled up by the recent same-sex marriage decision left no wiggle room at all. This make me wonder if the court realizes the mess that the abortion debate became after Roe v. Wade. Speaking of the supreme court they also recently granted a reprieve to the clinics tageted by the laws sponsored by the AUL.Thanks to AUL, Arizona doctors are now required to tell women who undergo chemical abortions that the procedure can be reversed midway through if the woman changes her mind. Some pro-life doctors claim to have executed this procedure successfully, but the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says it is not safe, or even routinely possible
The law also includes AUL-suggested language instructing doctors to tell women that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks of gestation—even though ACOG says it’s unlikely pain is felt before 29 weeks.
All Roe v. Wade did was tell states they can’t make abortion illegal outright. Almost every other half-measure is fair game. Roe v. Wade didn’t solve the abortion question, in other words. It just “created 40 years of trench warfare,” McConchie said.
I'm sorry to see that you've felt spurned by STEM. Having been around it in several fields I've not seen this circl jerk in real life, but from what I've read it must be happening somewhere. That said, even if it was all present, it's not why scientists aren't more vocal and preemptive. There's three main reasons why they aren't: 1) A lot of scientists don't feel it is their place. They're trained in research, not public policy, and therefore should stick to what they know. 2) It's not easy to break down scientific findings in a way that is meaningful and interesting to the public/legislatures.
Additionally science seems to have an uphill battle, as so many people seem to take delight in how little science they're familiar with and just simply refuse to learn anything that doesn't fit inside their preestablished world views. 3) It's impossible to predict what arguments will be used by antiabortion lobbyists before they actually start pitching it.
“Yes,” McConchie said. “It's the will of the people within that state to be able to act in that manner.” “One of the things I love about America,” Yoest said, “is our federalist system.” Ick. Tyranny of the masses.I asked if AUL would be okay with a state opting to ban abortion entirely, in that case.