My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here’s a part:
Disturbingly, with the U.S. Supreme Court scheduled to rule on two cases that could improve legal protections for babies by reversing or refining the appalling Roe v. Wade ruling, the Republican Legislature is bottling up a bill in committee that would prohibit abortions after the baby’s heartbeat is detectable. While Evers would certainly veto the bill, it would tell voters what Republicans would do to reshape the state’s abortion laws should the Supreme Court return that responsibility to the states.
[…]
We know what the Democrats would do. Given the power, they would lift as many restrictions on abortions as possible. We have seen in other states where Democrats are passing laws allowing abortions up to the point that it becomes infanticide. Pro-life Democrats have long since been purged from the party and there are few members left to moderate the leftist dogma when it comes to abortion.
What would Republicans do? Would they fight to keep abortions completely illegal in Wisconsin? That seems unlikely. Where would they draw the line?
The fetal heartbeat bill is one such line. The bill is modeled after the Texas law that went into effect last year. The law is being considered by the Supreme Court, but was allowed to go into effect, signaling that the court may sanction it permanently. The law prohibits an abortion provider from providing an abortion once a heartbeat is detected. This is usually around six weeks after conception.
[…]
Every person has a line at which they think an abortion is appropriate and permissible. They also have a line at which an abortion is abhorrent.
Given the very high likelihood that the Supreme Court will force the hand of state politicians to rewrite their state abortion laws for a new legal reality, what would the Republicans do in Wisconsin? If they would not draw the line at a baby’s heartbeat, where would they draw the line?
This is a question of life and death that the Republicans must answer before the next election. Their answer must be more than more empty pap at a rubber-chicken dinner. Their answer must have the force and detail of a bill that is passed by their legislative caucuses. How pro-life is the Republican Party of Wisconsin when they can’t hide behind a federal court ruling? Hopefully we will find out soon and babies will be able to live with the answer.
IIRC, if Roe gets reversed, Wisconsin already has a law on the books preventing abortion entirely. It was never repealed.
So–again, if Roe is reversed–SB923 is actually LESS pro-life.
Interesting little twist.
Agreed. I address that in the rest of the column. Essentially, we have to be realistic that the political and cultural landscape in Wisconsin will not permit a full prohibition of abortion to persist. They will be forced to rewrite Wisconsin’s abortion regulations for some point in the continuum between outright prohibition and full infanticide. We need to know where on that continuum the GOP will line up.
Well, it is my hope that except when the life of a mother is physically in danger or in the case of rape, I would hope they would outlaw abortion
The the liberals who support all abortions are rely supporting a racist policy that Planned Parenthood helped develop and that was founded by a horrible racist.
Mar: as you probably know, killing a son for the sin of its father (rape) is wrong.
And that “life of the mother” thing is pure Planned Parenthood propaganda. The Catholic church has ALWAYS taught that a doctor who operates to save a mother and–as another effect–aborts a baby is just fine. Further, medical advances are such that it’s no longer necessary; cases where it IS necessary you can count on one hand in the USA.
Owen: there is a reason that the hard-core pro-lifers are NOT listed as sponsors/co-sponsors. My thought: let the law stand as written. If the babykiller Democrats and Republicans want to expose themselves, let them.
In general, Dad, I wish a woman who is raped and pregnant would deliver tge baby. But I am also a realistic. The woman didn’t plan on being raped or maybe the victim is 12 years old. While I wish the baby was born, I would also not condemn her if she decided to abort.
Yes, medical advances have occurred but there still a chance that if a woman gives birth, she may end up dying and that does happen on occasion. I would put the physical health of another over the baby, if it came down to that.
“And that “life of the mother” thing is pure Planned Parenthood propaganda.”
No, the hardcore pro-lifers that still stand outside abortion clinics are the reason for the beliefs that some religious zealots are against all abortions. Many Baptists do not acknowledge any reason as being okay for abortions. The man I think of as my Pastor and respect immensely did not know what an ectopic pregnancy was and did not want to when I brought it up in a discussion. I could have sworn that when I talked to a Catholic Priest 43 years ago, his position was that abortions were never okay, but I could be wrong and neither of us knew what an ectopic pregnancy was at the time so my argument was in its infancy. I may just not have dug deep enough into it to ask the right questions.
if I had to draw a line that I would stand behind, it is a double strike line beyond the obvious ‘mother in danger’ line. First line, the baby should never be aborted if it can be surgically removed and live. That line will move deeper and deeper into pregnancies as medical practices improve, and it should. Second, adoption practices in the US need to be completely overhauled. Right now our adoption system seems very arbitrary, fraught with inequity, biased to the wealthy and predatory. I think a lot of mothers would be more willing to bear the baby if they thought it was a very good bet that the baby would have a decent life, but the stories they hear and the promises they are not given do not give them those hopes.
Sticking a potential child, a rape or family sexual abuse victim with a permanent emotional and financial baby burden is also a crime in my book. If we do not have an effective alternative means of caring for that baby, sticking it with the mother by force of law is an injustice that I will not support in many cases. The sick fact is that there are plenty of people who want to adopt, and we have a bunch of potential too young or broken mothers who don’t want to keep their newborns, but are prevented from getting together by a broken system.
Personally, I am against anyone getting a voluntary abortion, and I have tried to talk people out of it every time it has touched my life. However, without a legal viable alternative to a “Girl, keep it and shut up” anti-abortion law, I do not believe the Government should be forcing a hardship on female children who were unwillingly impregnated. In traditional Christian homes, the father is the bread winner and the mother cares for the children. Why have all religious institutions agreed that the girl should have the stigma and the entire burden of a child if it was born out of wedlock throughout history? And more importantly to the modern world, why should a secular law continue to place all the burden on the girl?
adoption practices in the US need to be completely overhauled. Right now our adoption system seems very arbitrary, fraught with inequity, biased to the wealthy and predatory.
No question about it.
Meantime………..which is the greater evil? Killing the baby pre-birth, or having the mother care for him/her to her material disadvantage?
Speaking as someone who was afmdoptedcin the early 1960’s to a drug addled mom who.loved the sailors at Great Lakes, I’m glad I wasn’t aborted, if only to be a pain in Lying Karen Le Roi’s STD laden ass.
But if I was born in the 2000’s, especially if my birth mom was born about 70 miles south of Milwaukee, I probably would have aborted.
“Speaking as someone who was afmdoptedci”
Should be As someone who was adopted…
Meantime………..which is the greater evil? Killing the baby pre-birth, or having the mother care for him/her to her material disadvantage?
Why the girl? Why not the boy, or parents of the girl and boy? Are we still in the age of ‘she probably asked for it’? Our laws are.
Tuerqas,
The greater evil is killing the baby for the material benefit of the mother… or anyone else. Your point is spot on, however, in that both parents should be legally accountable for the child’s well-being.
“however, in that both parents should be legally accountable for the child’s well-being.”
Well, good luck with that.
Having worked in the inner city of Milwaukee and Las Vegas, it was pretty clear to me that 2 parents were not in the picture.
And as someone who raised my kids basically by myself without any financial support, 2 parents are infrequent in the poor areas if large cities.
It’s now trivial to determine who the inseminator was. It’s also trivial to apprehend him and ensure that he coughs up the money–or the equivalent in drugs or guns. But no District Attorney will make it so.
Well, hell, if I got a chocolate cream pie once every 2 weeks, I would have been happy
If the Government is determining and enforcing the crime, I would honestly not have a problem with Government institutionalizing the adoption mess. In fact, if they are determining fault and penalty for abortion, I think they should. The first option should be the mother keeping the child, but if it was an unwilling pregnancy and an unwanted child, I think it specifically should be taken away from the mother. And that law should be in place before you start imprisoning a rape victim for aborting the symbol of the crime violently done to her. If you change the law in one area, you have to change it to accommodate the new law. Imprisoning a 13 year old rape victim (or even just putting her on trial for it) for getting an abortion is not just a bad solution, it is an intolerable one.
I don’t think Wisconsin should change the law. There are plenty of states that not only pay for the abortion they also include travel and lodging and maybe a buffet or 2.
Imprison the doctor, not the mother.
Or Wisconsin could go “Texas Style” with the State staying out of the abortion thing altogether.
Interesting politics. The GOP should pass an abortion bill severely restricting abortion.
Then Evers will have a choice, veto the bill and no abortions whatsoever or allow some abortions.
Sucks to be him because he is in a no win situation for him and fellow liberals.
“Or Wisconsin could go “Texas Style” with the State staying out of the abortion thing altogether.”
This is where I really think we should be. There should always be less Government. My statement above was prefaced: IF the State is going to make laws with penalties for the expectant mother, there should also be laws/regs that give the mother legal options besides keep it or go to prison. I don’t think there should be any laws on abortion because the State should not be involved. There should be zero aid to planned parenthood too, because-not involved. I know that puts babies in danger, but perfect worlds don’t exist.
I think If pro-life orgs focused their monies and energies into improving the adoption system, aid to expectant mothers in crisis, that sort of thing, they could reduce abortion more than simply outlawing it and boom, that much closer to the perfect world.
If you don’t have a vagina , STFU
And there is that high school education at work
And if you are not a conservative, don’t comment about conservative issues and STFU.
If you don’t have a pension, then don’t comment on male issues and STFU.
If you are not a teacher then don’t talk about education
See, we can play that game also.
It’s all that Maley has–senseless Lefty bromides from the ’60’s.
MuhMaley demands:” If you don’t have a vagina , STFU”
Congratulations on admitting yours. You and Le Chatte should get together at Women’s March since you both exhibit their (lack of) logic skills.
>If you don’t have a vagina , STFU
That’s quite an estrogen burst.
MHMaley, the liberal Mandalorian. This is the way.,,so everyone else STFU! (oh, and here are some defensive pillows and sheets. It won’t stop a weapon, but it is good enough for our ‘allies’.)
The liberal way definition: If liberal leaders have made a determination, find an excuse and tell everyone else to STFU. Discussion may prove what trash the liberal determination was. It may show the lib determination to be racist, purely political, just profitable to lib leaders, a complete fabrication or worse so libs don’t want any discussion. If the Court is liberal, no more discussion needed ever. Just have the Court make its predetermined judgment and move on. If the Court is conservative, bash them, shame the opposition and then tell all non-libs STFU. Liberal polices, keep’em for yourselves libs. But feel free to talk about and defend them if you dare, my bet is not. The lib argument is to shout down and/or silence the opposition.