Addressing the elephant in the womb


Health of the mother, not just life of the mother, and the breakdown of it leads to abortion on demand til birth. Besides that, the new law specifically says you don’t even have to be a doctor to give the ok, it allows non-doctors to give the ok, and actually perform the abortion. If a woman is just upset about the baby that is an emotional enough of a health issue, you need to know Doe vs. Bolton, the companion decision in 1973.

According to Professor Lucia A. Silecchia of the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law, the term is “one of the most notoriously vague provisions in abortion jurisprudence,” and is included in various opinions and laws without any sort of clear definition as to what it actually means.

Because of the ambiguity, Silecchia said, the phrase is “amenable to widely-varying definitions and interpretations” that “leave enormous discretion to the professional judgment of an individual healthcare provider.” Under the new law in New York, which permits non-doctors to perform abortions, this person does not necessarily even need to be a licensed physician.

Silecchia told CNA that she believes the New York law is “as close to an abortion-on-demand statute that can be found in the United States today,” even beyond the 24 week limit.

The 1973 Supreme Court case Doe v. Bolton, which was decided the same day as Roe v. Wade, determined that what was “necessary to protect life or health of the mother” is for the physician to decide based on factors like “physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age–relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.”

“The court believed then that consideration of all these factors was necessary to give the physician wide discretion in this matter,” Silecchia told CNA.

“However, these factors have not been clearly defined and attempts to define them have been criticized as interfering with the exercise of medical discretion,” she added. She said that there is no requirement for a doctor to even consider whether or not there exists an alternative to abortion that could solve the medical crisis.

“It does not seem to require that the physician even ask whether good counseling, material support, or comprehensive mental health care can be provided to the woman facing this difficult time in her life,” said Silecchia.

“While it is true that the statute says that after that point it must be necessary to ‘protect life or health’ of the woman carrying a child, this is a phrase that is so amorphous that it is not a meaningful standard,” she said.

  1. Correct. Your position that govt shouldn’t get involved has not reduced abortion. Congrats!

  2. Your thinking that not approving of abortion might reduce abortions substantially seems like wishful thinking.

  3. Sex only within marriage? That’s pretty rare. I’m not even sure that’s a good ideal. But if it worked for you great!


Grow and develop is will? Does a seed have will?


Government is involved. It approves abortion, assures women they can have abortion no matter how far along they are in their pregnancy. There are all kinds of laws on abortion. Government needs to stand up, just like it was wrong in permitting slavery, admit it was extremely wrong in favoring the taking of any innocent life, no matter what stage that life is in.

Government should say it cannot and does not approve abortion, that abortion will not be funded by government in any way, shape, or form, and nor can insurance cover the cost of an abortion. No advertising for abortion. If a woman decides she wants an abortion she is going to have to find the way and means all on her own, because that is how much society values life.

Let’s take a look at the stats after all of this has been done.

Abortion is wrong. Until government and individuals who claim they would never have an abortion themselves have the courage to stand up and say it is wrong, we will remain the shame of future generations, just like slavery is today. Right is right. Wrong is wrong, no matter how prettily it is phrased.


You’re basically just saying you want government to enforce your religious beliefs about the life of young fetuses


What? So you are for govt telling private insurance companies what they can and can’t insure? Sounds like big govt to me. Or is it all right because it is abortion?

Well, you might be waiting a very long time for that to happen. Meanwhile fetuses continue to be aborted. Doesn’t sound like any progress towards your goal is being made.

Meanwhile, I am offering a plan that would save innocent lives immediately. You can work on your 100% plan in the meantime but isn’t it worth it to save some fetuses today in the interim?

I find it strange that you are willing to allow more killing because you don’t like govt solutions (well, except for govt dictating what private insurance companies can cover).


And you so want govt to outlaw advertising for abortion? I guess you fully embrace govt enforcing this on private companies.



Have the government distribute IUDs to teens. Some plan. It’s like the drug companies pushing opioids for pain, and we all know how that turned out.

Basically, the government is always going to do what society insists upon. If society were to insist upon the return to slavery tomorrow, watch the government in a rush to catch up and pretend to lead the way. When society insists that killing the innocent is not a good thing, watch the government rush to catch up and claim to lead the way.

The first thing that bothers me is that government okays the killing of innocent life. The second thing that bothers me is the, “I wouldn’t do it, but if others want to…” How cowardly. Is it right to take a life or is it wrong? And don’t switch the question to “choice.”



We already know what that looks like…and what effect it would have.


Good thing the govt is involved in restricting the opioid market more, right?

And comparing opioids to sex and IUDs? That’s silly.

You can continue on your high horse preaching abstinence, no govt involvement and everyone magically not choosing abortion and expecting change. How’s that working for you?

(Oddly, you are for the govt telling insurance companies what they can and cannot insure. You are also for the govt telling private companies whether they can advertise their product or not - all while claiming you don’t want govt involved. Can you square that claim?)


Kumbaya doesnt make society move forward


Meri, I also looked up the rate for sexual activity for Colorado teens (had to be careful with search terms there LOL) and in the time of the IUD plan the rate of teens who were sexually active dropped and Colorado enjoyed the lowest rate in the nation.

It seems your fears of the IUD plan encouraging sex are unfounded.


And you credit a drop in sexual activity to IUDs being available? The science teacher in me says there were most likely other variables involved. Either that, or IUDs scared some–as well they should. Nothing like being far away from medical help when one goes wrong.


I noted that the use IUDs did not cause an increase in sexual activity like you claimed they would. Do you acknowledge that?


Insurance companies should pay for deliberately taking a life? Advertisers should advocate and encourage taking a life? Nope. If someone decides to take a life, they are on their own.


So you want to wield the power of the govt to restrict insurance and ads. It seems you like big govt solutions when it aligns with your goals.


Self-defense is an overarching principle in any law that involves the taking of a life. If one life threatens another, we’ve always allowed for the one threatened to defend his life, even to the point of killing the one who threatens him. (And similarly person-C can take the life of person-A in defense of person-B.)

We even extend that to cases where the threat to Person-B might not necessarily be the loss of his/her life. “Your honor, he was about to cut off my hand, and that’s why I stabbed him…”

In my opinion, abortion laws shouldn’t even have to address (and make exceptions for) abortion in the case when the pregnancy harms the mother.

The one concern I have for “health of the mother” is that it opens the door to such perceived threats as financial health, emotional health, and even threats to one’s liberty or lifestyle. Nonetheless, I’d endorse an abortion ban that allows for “health of the mother”. It’s a quantum leap better than what we’re endorsing by law now.


Please provide evidence for this


That’s your religious beliefs on how you describe “life” in moral terms. You want big government pushing your religious morality?


This slippery slope argument is weak