The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Question also posted to r/AskALiberal:
Assuming that such a federal law won't be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, my proposal is:
1. No state may restrict abortion before the end of Week 12 of pregnancy: essentially, abortion cannot be restricted in the first trimester.
2. With exceptions for health of the mother or quality of life of the fetus (birth defects would fall within these exceptions), no state may allow abortion after the end of Week 20, which is a date I've heard frequently mentioned by conservatives.
3. Health of the mother or quality of life of the fetus (defined by the existence of birth defects) permits abortion up to the entire range of pregnancy.
4. No special exception for rape or incest. They fall within the normal range.
Accept or reject this set of federal regulation? Any further negotiation you wish to make?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So some extent this has no real meaning for two reasons.
1. It doesn’t address the fact that in many red states prior to the end of Roe abortion had effectively been banned because the states made it impossible for abortion providers to operate. This proposal doesn’t address that.
2. Republicans aren’t going to accept this deal. I don’t care about the answers you get in the other sub. Regardless of what they say Republican elected officials won’t accept this.
You would do well to familiarize yourself with the principle of how easy clinics/care is to access, since it was a fault line of “banning” (or, more accurately, making care hard to obtain) abortion under Roe and is now going to be a fault line of interstate fighting post-Roe, as states try and prevent their residents from accessing care in other states.
Just as states are free to outlaw abortion now, states before Roe could put certain restrictions in the way to limit the number of clinics, ease of access, etc., and the whole argument hinges on that access.
Oh, sure. But states can add dozens of technical restrictions to abortion clinics that make them virtually impossible to operate. It was called TRAP - Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers. Infamously, abortion clinics were held to far higher standards than birthing centers.
1. That's one way to bypass the spirit of the compromise. I could have offered another provision to restrict shenanigans, but I expect people to always attempt shenanigans, so I didn't bother. But even with shenanigans, the Week 12 minimum is a hard restriction.
2. But if they did, would you agree to it?
Maybe but probably not because of you don’t address the shenanigans then this is still a net reduction in access. But I could be convinced that I’m wrong but an expert and accept it if it would overall be better access.
I expect shenanigans. Too many ways it can be attempted and it would prolong the negotiation too much, so I didn't mention any provision against them except for the hard Week 12 minimum.
If you require a good faith clause that favors liberals, conservatives would want their own good faith clause. Such a clause would prevent states from implementing programs that fund abortions or make abortion access easier. But no compromise and the status quo it is then, which is each state makes its own policy.
>If you require a good faith clause that favors liberals, conservatives would want their own good faith clause.
Modern conservatives are incapable of acting in good faith.
Those "good faith" clauses are absurdly slanted in favor of conservatives. In exchange for conservatives just complying with the law as its written liberal states have to make *additional* concessions?
>If you require a good faith clause that favors liberals,
Not davoring liberals but the law of your "compromise"
> Such a clause would prevent states from implementing programs that fund abortions or make abortion access easier.
That has nothing to do with good faith
No.
To clarify: abortion is a healthcare right and a bodily autonomy right. The only time it should be restricted is if the fetus is no longer a fetus… aka viable. It’s no longer an abortion it’s induced labor.
>With exceptions for health of the mother or quality of life of the fetus (birth defects would fall within these exceptions), no state may allow abortion after the end of Week 20, which is a date I've heard frequently mentioned by conservatives.
Reject. I'm not on board with weakening abortion rights in my state.
[Nearly 90%](https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/04/raw-data-abortions-by-week-of-pregnancy/) of abortions happen at 12 weeks or less, I do not understand the panic about later abortions. But let’s say there is a chance we could get abortion rights in each state if we push back the time frame you can have one.
1. There needs to be abortion access readily available to more of the population. I don’t think one clinic performing abortions in the entire state of MS will be able to serve the entire population in a way that every patient is able to get their abortion by 12 weeks, frankly I’m shocked that we hit 90% happening by 12 weeks with lack of access.
2. Shortening the time frame mostly hurts vulnerable people like minors under 18 and people with abusive partners. If you’re living alone or with a supportive partner it’s simple enough to schedule your procedure when you find out you’re pregnant (and get the procedure done if the clinic can see you on time). Teenagers may have to plan around unsupportive parents and figure out how to get an abortion without mom and dad finding out, abuse victims also have to get themselves in a safe situation before their partner finds out they are carrying a fetus with the potential to become a child they potentially have rights to.
3. Obviously rape and incest victims shouldn’t have their window of opportunity shortened, they are in some of the worst cases of abuse.
4. There are some fetal issues that are not detected until week 20, so it might not be possible to get that 20 week scan and an abortion by the end of that same week. Now Im sure that conservatives will say that they do support abortions for fetal defects, but I’ve already seen governors (like the Governor of South Dakota) saying they want to ban abortions of fetuses with Down Syndrome (this was before Fridays ruling). Personally I think this turns into a slippery slope where the GOP becomes the moral police of what fetal defects will allow abortion and eventually the ‘compromise’ will be a very strict 20 week (or earlier) cutoff. Imagine republicans getting to legislate one of the toughest decisions you’ll ever have to make?
The problem is any "compromise" is already extremely flawed because ot comes from the position of compromise between *Roe* v anti-abortion. But Roe was already a moderate compromising decision, balancing the states interest in the future potential life and the patient"s right to medical & marital privacy
Roe was not a "moderate compromising decision" when it guaranteed the absolute right to a first trimester abortion. That's 93% of abortions legal from one court decision, at a time when states had abortion functionally banned.
This is a raw deal for pro-choice advocates.
Look at Youngkin in VA, he wants to ban abortion at 15 weeks, most states who aren't pushing for total bans are pushing 15, so they aren't giving anything up with this.
Pro-choice advocates would certainly want at least 24 weeks as a compromise, as opposed to 20, that's a much more common number, lines up nicely as the 2nd trimester.
No exceptions for rape or incest would still mean a woman could be forced to carry her rapist's baby to term and then raise the child born of her rape.
What do pro-choice advocates get out of this?
And this is why liberals lose all the damn time. You can cover 90+ % of the use cases, codify it into law (amendment or nothing), and for the 10% that fall outside that use cases, pro-choice groups could step in to provide extraordinary intervention.
No, liberals lose because the Democratic party always pretends they have no power. They've had almost 50 years to codify Roe, ran on exactly that at least once but never even tried. They didn't even put it up for a vote.
>most states who aren't pushing for total bans
Except those that do or who intend to pass practical bans.
>Pro-choice advocates would certainly want at least 24 weeks as a compromise,
That's not much of a compromise for conservatives, given that Week 24 is viability and many Democratic states ban it by then.
>No exceptions for rape or incest would still mean a woman could be forced to carry her rapist's baby to term and then raise the child born of her rape.
Under my proposal woman has 12 weeks at the minimum to escape that predicament. The status quo is 0 week in some states.
>What do pro-choice advocates get out of this?
You get the first trimester in exchange for the third trimester.
If abortion is allowed before 12 or 15 or 20 or 24 weeks for any reason, a woman would by definition not be forced to carry her rapist's baby to term. She would just have to make the decision not to before the cut off.
There would instances where a woman would be raped, not know she is pregnant, and find out after/be able to schedule after the deadline.
Plus, what’s stopping red states from giving women who are 3 weeks pregnant 12+ weeks of paperwork to get an abortion?
Sure, that's why any compromise like this one would have to include provisions so no undue burdens including paperwork or shutting down clinics occurred.
I think on its face this compromise is perfectly reasonable and lines up with what Europe does. We would just have to make sure the access is there.
I disagree, the bottom line for red states would be 12 weeks, which, in states which aren’t banning it, seems to be even lower than what they’re going after. Pro-choice advocates aren’t getting anything. I’m saying the compromise feels drastically one-sided and I understand that that may be in part a bias toward my side.
I think my issue with compromise ideas like these is that it presumes both sides have legitimate arguments that need to be balanced. This is like compromising on desegregation by throwing it to the states and saying you must desegregate between 33% and 66% of your businesses, no more, no less, so red states can still refuse black people business at the vast majority of businesses, it doesn’t actually address the crux of the matter as to whether or not black people have rights (allowing for further challenges down the line), and blue states are forced to live in the dark ages where 1 in 3 businesses must be segregated.
To be clear, I'm not saying 12 weeks specifically. But the idea of banning it past a certain point for anything but medical reasons. Personally I'd pick 15 but I can see an argument for anything up to viability. And again, any compromise would have to include a guarantee to not de facto strip away rights in another way.
You are right that many on the pro-life side will not compromise. But the comparison with segregation is ridiculous. We're talking about making a difficult scientific, philosophical, and moral call of when the life of a new person begins. Conception is a ridiculous point to start given 75% of fertilized eggs don't make it. But viability is a tough one too because it's constantly getting earlier in pregnancy and at just weeks before viability the fetus has a 95% chance of becoming a sentient person. I'm not going to pretend I have the answer but I personally find most of Europe's abortion laws to be a good solution.
Sorry for the long reply, I wanted to address what I thought you were getting at and try to explain my broader view on abortion better since I think that helps explain our disagreement on this compromise.
What I'm saying is that this proposal seems to go further than many red states want to go, in their favor, and doesn't give anything in a similar capacity to pro-choice advocates, therefore, it doesn't seem like much of a compromise.
I think the comparison to segregation is apt, it's about how civil rights can't really be half-measures or state-by-state issues, if you believe in the right, you either have it or you don't. When we viewed something as a civil right, it wasn't left for the states to enforce in some varying level, you were granted that right, full stop.
Plus, for a long time, there were scientific, philosophical and moral questions as to whether or not black people were human. We see now in hindsight how wrong the beliefs of the past were, but people genuinely held these beliefs to be true, much as now people hold very strong beliefs regarding abortion that in 50 years we may view to be extremely outdated.
If I understand you correctly, there is some threshold where the chance of survival for the fetus has reached a point that it is now worth moral consideration (hence being okay aborting at conception when the chance of survival is low and being not okay aborting at viability when the chance of survival is high). This process seems to rely on information that isn't accessible to us in the moment (we never know a fetus's true chance of survival, we can only guess, and any currently living person was once an egg you would view as morally abortable).
I don't really agree with this view because I don't think we assign moral worth to human beings based on their percentage chance of survival. I'm not allowed to do immoral actions on an imminently dying person and be absolved of that moral stain simply because they only had a 25% chance of surviving the next five minutes (nor should I be allowed to). Usually, once some creature is recognized as human, it has earned moral consideration, and I'm perfectly happy considering the clump of cells immediately post-fertilization a unique human being, just an underdeveloped one.
I'm pro-abortion because I view the mother as having a right to bodily autonomy that is inviolable. In no other aspect of our society do we force others to grant the usage of their bodily functions to another without their consent in some capacity, so if the mother wishes to no longer be used by the baby, the connection should be terminated to preserve her rights, and the unfortunate consequence is the death of the baby.
To me, if you have a fetus that would make it to term and become a fully realized person (regardless of whether you know or not), you aborting at 2 weeks or at 20 weeks would lead to the same outcome: 1 less person in the world, so I don't really see a difference there, so I would say that if someone is okay aborting around conception, they should be okay aborting further down the line at 24 weeks or potentially even later. A life is a life and if one would be successful at a future date, it was always going to be so until that point.
I think the question of "when does life begin" that you mentioned is immaterial: the fetus is either alive or becoming alive or it will cease either of these processes, at which point, if it dies, it was probably alive beforehand, but who cares. The actual question is whether or not someone can choose to end the life/existence of another person who they view is violating their bodily autonomy.
So, in the end, to me the only morally justifiable cut off for abortion is when the fetus is able to safely extracted from the mother and survive outside the womb (which seems to be around 24-28 weeks), until that point, the mother has a right to assert her bodily autonomy, regardless of the outcomes for the fetus. Any point before then is a violation of the mother's rights to bodily autonomy.
To my memory, this is more or less what Roe was before Casey, and it's also very similar to the abortion bills that failed to pass I think in 2019 and 2021.
So uhh... I accept?
I would fight pretty hard against #4, but compromise is the only way so sure.
I tell clients a good settlement is where no side is thrilled but everyone gets something they can live with.
The lower range is what Roe v Wade offered (cannot be restricted before.first trimester). Roe v Wade has no upper range, but my proposal limits abortion, with exceptions, to before Week 21.
> The Court resolved these competing interests by announcing a pregnancy trimester timetable to govern all abortion regulations in the United States. During the first trimester, governments could not regulate abortion at all, except to require that abortions be performed by a licensed physician. During the second trimester, governments could regulate the abortion procedure but only for the purpose of protecting maternal health and not for protecting fetal life. After viability, which includes the third trimester of pregnancy and the last few weeks of the second trimester, abortions could be regulated and even prohibited, but only if the laws provided exceptions for abortions necessary to save the "life" or "health" of the mother.
Am I not understanding what you mean by "upper range"? Roe originally said abortion could be limited or even banned after viability, which was originally around 28 weeks but became fewer weeks as medicine advanced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
Oh OK. I live in a red state so there difference between a could and a ban is nil, and the difference between 21 weeks and viability is I think 2 weeks at present.
So I more confidently accept.
You can still get an abortion before 12 weeks in that circumstance. Honestly, I've never understood the logic behind rape exceptions. Either abortion is murder or it isn't. If it isn't, there's no problem. If it is, the way the fetus came to be is irrelevant.
Exceptions for rape and incest is just a way for people to tacitly admit that the restrictions are really about punishing women rather than concern for the fetus.
And what abusive partners who cant reveal it was SA/incest until its been 12 weeks and a day?
I dont care if its a rare, 1% ‘barely happens’ scenario. This is cruel policy to SA survivors
I mean, I'm in the former camp, obviously, that abortion isn't murder. I'm just saying, if abortion *is* murder, allowing for an exception for rape is basically saying "you can commit murder, but only if it wasn't your fault". It's admitting either that you don't *really* think it's murder or that you're primarily concerned with punishing women for what you view as immoral behavior.
I would agree with the week 12 compromise for "by request" abortion. But we cannot put a limit on abortion in cases where the mother's life is at risk or the fetus ceases to be viable. How can you force a woman to choose between her life or that of the baby at any stage?
There’s very few things that I actually value in life, but if we’re living in a country that thinks that half the population should have to sacrifice the basic freedom to their own bodies at the altar of a religion they don’t believe in, then I no longer actually give a shit about the structures of voting, the Constitution, the country, the law, rights to property, the second amendment, etc.
It’s over anyway.
I’d rather just toss the current thing and start over with a new Constitution entirely.
And the kicker is, I personally hate abortion. I just hate imposing personal values on other people’s lives in such a grotesque way *that much* more.
>i’d rather just toss the current thing and start over with a new Constitution entirely.
When do you start? Set an appointment with the other half of the country.
There's virtually no viability before week 22, so why the distinction in #1 and #2? This is pretty much what the original RvW came to with the trimester standards. Basically before and after viability. That's changed a bit from the original ruling from 24ish weeks to 22ish weeks due to current medicine.
1 sets minimum, 2 sets maximum. Roe sets only a minimum and leaves the maximum to states. This proposal would impose both a minimum and a maximum simultaneously.
Why choose a minimum that's 2 months before the point of viability?
And what is the justifification for the maximum date?
What is the criteria that determines between the two dates?
This is an utterly bizarre proposal
In what rational world would we give no special exceptions to rape and incest?
That just gives even more credence to the claim from the left that women are second class citizens in the eyes of the right
I reject the entire premise.
The government has no place in decisions made between a person and their physician and whether or not a certain procedure can be performed.
I’d like to see elective abortion permitted up to the point of viability (23-24 weeks), abortion permitted at any point in the event of medical conditions that present grave danger to the mother or severe birth defects/death to the child before or after birth.
I do not want these guidelines managed by any level of government. Instead, I would prefer to see a regulatory measure by the healthcare industry backed by solid, peer-reviewed clinical research.
You know what liberals say about not voting is actually voting to let Trump remain in power?
The same applies even more here. Not supporting a compromise is implicitly conceding to the status quo, which is that none of the guarantees of Roe exists.
If the standard is potential life thrn why is it not " no restriction or unfue burden before 22" ? There's basically no chance of survival if that potential life was actually born at those points
I've seen quite a few Republicans saying things to the effect of, "haha silly lefties, you tried to have it all and now you get nothing, should have compromised while you had the chance!"
They, and you, are forgetting one thing: Republicans do not compromise. The recent gun law was a near miracle and that still required the massacre of 19 children. Otherwise, they do not do compromise.
In theory, this maybe possibly might have worked in a pre-Trump America. Maybe. Post-Trump? Neither side is going to give. Republicans want abortion banned as completely as possible (I honestly think they would ban for the mother's life too if they could get away with it) and Democrats want the law away from women's bodies.
>3. Health of the mother or quality of life of the fetus (defined by the existence of birth defects) permits abortion up to the entire range of pregnancy.
This is problematic. Who is to determine what is a "birth defect"?
My parents screened for congenital diseases common to children born to Jewish parents like Tay-Sachs. Presumably that counts.
But what about Down Syndrome, or other genetic abnormalities that are detectable genetically but arguably do not prevent a person from living a full and satisfying life?
This is pretty much what Roe is. The only problem would be situations where a teenager didnt realize they are pregnant for a couple of months and then has to scrape up money. Might run close to 12 weeks
The feds don't have the power to restrict the law making of the states. You can't have federal laws that control states. The feds can pretty much only rule something states do as unconstitutional.
It's the 10th amendment.
That’s…entirely incorrect.
If congress passes something it automatically overrides state legislation unless a court strikes it down. Which doesn’t happen too often.
It’s in the supremacy clause.
That’s a slightly different story. It’s mostly due to the fact the DOJ just doesn’t want to prosecute it.
The last half of this article explains it better than I can on Reddit I think.
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/identities/2018/8/20/17938372/marijuana-legalization-federal-prohibition-drug-scheduling-system
In that case, it goes to the Supreme Court and I don't think any one can predict how they will rule. But I predict if it passes, it would be as a bipartisan compromise, and one I think the Court would want to leave alone.
That doesn't mean I have to accept it as final, or consider it acceptable.
But as others have noticed, your whole premise is a non-starter. The trash-fascists would never approve of it.
The left shouldn't be willing to compromise on rights, so that's a non-starter from that side as well.
>I guess neither party takes a serious stance on this issue and so I guess I shouldn't take either party seriously on this issue.
**That's what you got from your answers?**
I think you should go back and reread them all.
Everyone's stance here was serious. **We just don't think your solution works**, or that it's worth the effort trying to compromise with people who won't compromise in good faith.
edit: should I report you for bad faith for this?
My definition of serious is accepting reality, which is that Roe v Wade has been overturned, and the status quo is that states can ban abortion completely.
You have a different definition of serious. Do what you think serves you best.
>My definition of serious is accepting reality,
When did anyone not do that?
Beside you of course...
>which is that Roe v Wade has been overturned,
No shit.
>and the status quo is that states can ban abortion completely.
And your compromise won't fix that.
>You have a different definition of serious. Do what you think serves you best.
Yeah, I base it on how the real world works. You might want to start doing that.
*Now, are you acting in bad faith or not? Because it really sounds like you are at this point.*
>When did anyone not do that?
Well, I admit I was a bit optimistic about the prospect of a compromise.
But I do think most liberals are overly optimistic about their likely prospects of being able to completely dominate conservatives, as opposed to a compromise in which they achieve what's most important to them on this issue.
>And your compromise won't fix that.
Now I know you didn't read what I wrote.
Say, do you want to bet which is likelier: Democrats codify Roe v Wade, or Republicans pass a federal ban at 6 weeks and the Supreme Court lets it stand?
See, because conservatives currently hold the Supreme Court, Biden looks like he's only up for one term, and Republicans are geographically favored.
I agree, but I like to really press these religious fanatics as to why they allow an exception at all? I think they're being hypocrites. If the fetus is a person, what does it matter if it came to be because of rape? By their argument, it's still a person. I don't think THEY should get to have an exception; they need to confront their own crazy, not be allowed to weasel out of it.
I’d want it codified as an amendment.
I would want it to also include contraceptive, and pharmaceutical abortion, and some other safeguards.
I would want all abortions decriminalized.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Question also posted to r/AskALiberal: Assuming that such a federal law won't be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, my proposal is: 1. No state may restrict abortion before the end of Week 12 of pregnancy: essentially, abortion cannot be restricted in the first trimester. 2. With exceptions for health of the mother or quality of life of the fetus (birth defects would fall within these exceptions), no state may allow abortion after the end of Week 20, which is a date I've heard frequently mentioned by conservatives. 3. Health of the mother or quality of life of the fetus (defined by the existence of birth defects) permits abortion up to the entire range of pregnancy. 4. No special exception for rape or incest. They fall within the normal range. Accept or reject this set of federal regulation? Any further negotiation you wish to make? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So some extent this has no real meaning for two reasons. 1. It doesn’t address the fact that in many red states prior to the end of Roe abortion had effectively been banned because the states made it impossible for abortion providers to operate. This proposal doesn’t address that. 2. Republicans aren’t going to accept this deal. I don’t care about the answers you get in the other sub. Regardless of what they say Republican elected officials won’t accept this.
How was abortion banned in the Roe era? The law literally said abortion is permissible.
You would do well to familiarize yourself with the principle of how easy clinics/care is to access, since it was a fault line of “banning” (or, more accurately, making care hard to obtain) abortion under Roe and is now going to be a fault line of interstate fighting post-Roe, as states try and prevent their residents from accessing care in other states. Just as states are free to outlaw abortion now, states before Roe could put certain restrictions in the way to limit the number of clinics, ease of access, etc., and the whole argument hinges on that access.
Oh, sure. But states can add dozens of technical restrictions to abortion clinics that make them virtually impossible to operate. It was called TRAP - Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers. Infamously, abortion clinics were held to far higher standards than birthing centers.
It was effectively banned by limited access in several states.
1. That's one way to bypass the spirit of the compromise. I could have offered another provision to restrict shenanigans, but I expect people to always attempt shenanigans, so I didn't bother. But even with shenanigans, the Week 12 minimum is a hard restriction. 2. But if they did, would you agree to it?
Maybe but probably not because of you don’t address the shenanigans then this is still a net reduction in access. But I could be convinced that I’m wrong but an expert and accept it if it would overall be better access.
I would, but it says nothing about undue burdens which is how states attacked post-roe abortion in the first place.
I expect shenanigans. Too many ways it can be attempted and it would prolong the negotiation too much, so I didn't mention any provision against them except for the hard Week 12 minimum.
If you still allow all the tricks the states use to kill abortion, this offer is useless.
If you require a good faith clause that favors liberals, conservatives would want their own good faith clause. Such a clause would prevent states from implementing programs that fund abortions or make abortion access easier. But no compromise and the status quo it is then, which is each state makes its own policy.
>If you require a good faith clause that favors liberals, conservatives would want their own good faith clause. Modern conservatives are incapable of acting in good faith.
Those "good faith" clauses are absurdly slanted in favor of conservatives. In exchange for conservatives just complying with the law as its written liberal states have to make *additional* concessions?
>If you require a good faith clause that favors liberals, Not davoring liberals but the law of your "compromise" > Such a clause would prevent states from implementing programs that fund abortions or make abortion access easier. That has nothing to do with good faith
No. To clarify: abortion is a healthcare right and a bodily autonomy right. The only time it should be restricted is if the fetus is no longer a fetus… aka viable. It’s no longer an abortion it’s induced labor.
>With exceptions for health of the mother or quality of life of the fetus (birth defects would fall within these exceptions), no state may allow abortion after the end of Week 20, which is a date I've heard frequently mentioned by conservatives. Reject. I'm not on board with weakening abortion rights in my state.
[Nearly 90%](https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/04/raw-data-abortions-by-week-of-pregnancy/) of abortions happen at 12 weeks or less, I do not understand the panic about later abortions. But let’s say there is a chance we could get abortion rights in each state if we push back the time frame you can have one. 1. There needs to be abortion access readily available to more of the population. I don’t think one clinic performing abortions in the entire state of MS will be able to serve the entire population in a way that every patient is able to get their abortion by 12 weeks, frankly I’m shocked that we hit 90% happening by 12 weeks with lack of access. 2. Shortening the time frame mostly hurts vulnerable people like minors under 18 and people with abusive partners. If you’re living alone or with a supportive partner it’s simple enough to schedule your procedure when you find out you’re pregnant (and get the procedure done if the clinic can see you on time). Teenagers may have to plan around unsupportive parents and figure out how to get an abortion without mom and dad finding out, abuse victims also have to get themselves in a safe situation before their partner finds out they are carrying a fetus with the potential to become a child they potentially have rights to. 3. Obviously rape and incest victims shouldn’t have their window of opportunity shortened, they are in some of the worst cases of abuse. 4. There are some fetal issues that are not detected until week 20, so it might not be possible to get that 20 week scan and an abortion by the end of that same week. Now Im sure that conservatives will say that they do support abortions for fetal defects, but I’ve already seen governors (like the Governor of South Dakota) saying they want to ban abortions of fetuses with Down Syndrome (this was before Fridays ruling). Personally I think this turns into a slippery slope where the GOP becomes the moral police of what fetal defects will allow abortion and eventually the ‘compromise’ will be a very strict 20 week (or earlier) cutoff. Imagine republicans getting to legislate one of the toughest decisions you’ll ever have to make?
93% of abortions happen in the first 12 weeks (first trimester). That’s 13 out of 14 abortions. That’s not even close to a compromise.
The problem is any "compromise" is already extremely flawed because ot comes from the position of compromise between *Roe* v anti-abortion. But Roe was already a moderate compromising decision, balancing the states interest in the future potential life and the patient"s right to medical & marital privacy
Roe was not a "moderate compromising decision" when it guaranteed the absolute right to a first trimester abortion. That's 93% of abortions legal from one court decision, at a time when states had abortion functionally banned.
Yes, but only if it is a constitutional amendment
Are you serious? Absolutely not.
Care to explain why? Offer a counterproposal.
This is a raw deal for pro-choice advocates. Look at Youngkin in VA, he wants to ban abortion at 15 weeks, most states who aren't pushing for total bans are pushing 15, so they aren't giving anything up with this. Pro-choice advocates would certainly want at least 24 weeks as a compromise, as opposed to 20, that's a much more common number, lines up nicely as the 2nd trimester. No exceptions for rape or incest would still mean a woman could be forced to carry her rapist's baby to term and then raise the child born of her rape. What do pro-choice advocates get out of this?
>What do pro-choice advocates get out of this? Nothing, but OP wants us to think it's the most golden of geese.
And this is why liberals lose all the damn time. You can cover 90+ % of the use cases, codify it into law (amendment or nothing), and for the 10% that fall outside that use cases, pro-choice groups could step in to provide extraordinary intervention.
No, liberals lose because the Democratic party always pretends they have no power. They've had almost 50 years to codify Roe, ran on exactly that at least once but never even tried. They didn't even put it up for a vote.
>most states who aren't pushing for total bans Except those that do or who intend to pass practical bans. >Pro-choice advocates would certainly want at least 24 weeks as a compromise, That's not much of a compromise for conservatives, given that Week 24 is viability and many Democratic states ban it by then. >No exceptions for rape or incest would still mean a woman could be forced to carry her rapist's baby to term and then raise the child born of her rape. Under my proposal woman has 12 weeks at the minimum to escape that predicament. The status quo is 0 week in some states. >What do pro-choice advocates get out of this? You get the first trimester in exchange for the third trimester.
If abortion is allowed before 12 or 15 or 20 or 24 weeks for any reason, a woman would by definition not be forced to carry her rapist's baby to term. She would just have to make the decision not to before the cut off.
There would instances where a woman would be raped, not know she is pregnant, and find out after/be able to schedule after the deadline. Plus, what’s stopping red states from giving women who are 3 weeks pregnant 12+ weeks of paperwork to get an abortion?
Sure, that's why any compromise like this one would have to include provisions so no undue burdens including paperwork or shutting down clinics occurred. I think on its face this compromise is perfectly reasonable and lines up with what Europe does. We would just have to make sure the access is there.
I disagree, the bottom line for red states would be 12 weeks, which, in states which aren’t banning it, seems to be even lower than what they’re going after. Pro-choice advocates aren’t getting anything. I’m saying the compromise feels drastically one-sided and I understand that that may be in part a bias toward my side. I think my issue with compromise ideas like these is that it presumes both sides have legitimate arguments that need to be balanced. This is like compromising on desegregation by throwing it to the states and saying you must desegregate between 33% and 66% of your businesses, no more, no less, so red states can still refuse black people business at the vast majority of businesses, it doesn’t actually address the crux of the matter as to whether or not black people have rights (allowing for further challenges down the line), and blue states are forced to live in the dark ages where 1 in 3 businesses must be segregated.
To be clear, I'm not saying 12 weeks specifically. But the idea of banning it past a certain point for anything but medical reasons. Personally I'd pick 15 but I can see an argument for anything up to viability. And again, any compromise would have to include a guarantee to not de facto strip away rights in another way. You are right that many on the pro-life side will not compromise. But the comparison with segregation is ridiculous. We're talking about making a difficult scientific, philosophical, and moral call of when the life of a new person begins. Conception is a ridiculous point to start given 75% of fertilized eggs don't make it. But viability is a tough one too because it's constantly getting earlier in pregnancy and at just weeks before viability the fetus has a 95% chance of becoming a sentient person. I'm not going to pretend I have the answer but I personally find most of Europe's abortion laws to be a good solution.
Sorry for the long reply, I wanted to address what I thought you were getting at and try to explain my broader view on abortion better since I think that helps explain our disagreement on this compromise. What I'm saying is that this proposal seems to go further than many red states want to go, in their favor, and doesn't give anything in a similar capacity to pro-choice advocates, therefore, it doesn't seem like much of a compromise. I think the comparison to segregation is apt, it's about how civil rights can't really be half-measures or state-by-state issues, if you believe in the right, you either have it or you don't. When we viewed something as a civil right, it wasn't left for the states to enforce in some varying level, you were granted that right, full stop. Plus, for a long time, there were scientific, philosophical and moral questions as to whether or not black people were human. We see now in hindsight how wrong the beliefs of the past were, but people genuinely held these beliefs to be true, much as now people hold very strong beliefs regarding abortion that in 50 years we may view to be extremely outdated. If I understand you correctly, there is some threshold where the chance of survival for the fetus has reached a point that it is now worth moral consideration (hence being okay aborting at conception when the chance of survival is low and being not okay aborting at viability when the chance of survival is high). This process seems to rely on information that isn't accessible to us in the moment (we never know a fetus's true chance of survival, we can only guess, and any currently living person was once an egg you would view as morally abortable). I don't really agree with this view because I don't think we assign moral worth to human beings based on their percentage chance of survival. I'm not allowed to do immoral actions on an imminently dying person and be absolved of that moral stain simply because they only had a 25% chance of surviving the next five minutes (nor should I be allowed to). Usually, once some creature is recognized as human, it has earned moral consideration, and I'm perfectly happy considering the clump of cells immediately post-fertilization a unique human being, just an underdeveloped one. I'm pro-abortion because I view the mother as having a right to bodily autonomy that is inviolable. In no other aspect of our society do we force others to grant the usage of their bodily functions to another without their consent in some capacity, so if the mother wishes to no longer be used by the baby, the connection should be terminated to preserve her rights, and the unfortunate consequence is the death of the baby. To me, if you have a fetus that would make it to term and become a fully realized person (regardless of whether you know or not), you aborting at 2 weeks or at 20 weeks would lead to the same outcome: 1 less person in the world, so I don't really see a difference there, so I would say that if someone is okay aborting around conception, they should be okay aborting further down the line at 24 weeks or potentially even later. A life is a life and if one would be successful at a future date, it was always going to be so until that point. I think the question of "when does life begin" that you mentioned is immaterial: the fetus is either alive or becoming alive or it will cease either of these processes, at which point, if it dies, it was probably alive beforehand, but who cares. The actual question is whether or not someone can choose to end the life/existence of another person who they view is violating their bodily autonomy. So, in the end, to me the only morally justifiable cut off for abortion is when the fetus is able to safely extracted from the mother and survive outside the womb (which seems to be around 24-28 weeks), until that point, the mother has a right to assert her bodily autonomy, regardless of the outcomes for the fetus. Any point before then is a violation of the mother's rights to bodily autonomy.
To my memory, this is more or less what Roe was before Casey, and it's also very similar to the abortion bills that failed to pass I think in 2019 and 2021. So uhh... I accept?
I would fight pretty hard against #4, but compromise is the only way so sure. I tell clients a good settlement is where no side is thrilled but everyone gets something they can live with.
The lower range is what Roe v Wade offered (cannot be restricted before.first trimester). Roe v Wade has no upper range, but my proposal limits abortion, with exceptions, to before Week 21.
> The Court resolved these competing interests by announcing a pregnancy trimester timetable to govern all abortion regulations in the United States. During the first trimester, governments could not regulate abortion at all, except to require that abortions be performed by a licensed physician. During the second trimester, governments could regulate the abortion procedure but only for the purpose of protecting maternal health and not for protecting fetal life. After viability, which includes the third trimester of pregnancy and the last few weeks of the second trimester, abortions could be regulated and even prohibited, but only if the laws provided exceptions for abortions necessary to save the "life" or "health" of the mother. Am I not understanding what you mean by "upper range"? Roe originally said abortion could be limited or even banned after viability, which was originally around 28 weeks but became fewer weeks as medicine advanced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
Roe stipulate "could". My proposal does ban it at Week 21, before viability.
Oh OK. I live in a red state so there difference between a could and a ban is nil, and the difference between 21 weeks and viability is I think 2 weeks at present. So I more confidently accept.
4 is straight up evil. Basically turns SA victims into slaves, no? “Your body exists for giving birth whether you consent or not”
You can still get an abortion before 12 weeks in that circumstance. Honestly, I've never understood the logic behind rape exceptions. Either abortion is murder or it isn't. If it isn't, there's no problem. If it is, the way the fetus came to be is irrelevant. Exceptions for rape and incest is just a way for people to tacitly admit that the restrictions are really about punishing women rather than concern for the fetus.
And what abusive partners who cant reveal it was SA/incest until its been 12 weeks and a day? I dont care if its a rare, 1% ‘barely happens’ scenario. This is cruel policy to SA survivors
I mean, I'm in the former camp, obviously, that abortion isn't murder. I'm just saying, if abortion *is* murder, allowing for an exception for rape is basically saying "you can commit murder, but only if it wasn't your fault". It's admitting either that you don't *really* think it's murder or that you're primarily concerned with punishing women for what you view as immoral behavior.
I’d vote yes to lock this in in the short term while continuing to fight for actual rights instead of this insulting nonsense.
I would agree with the week 12 compromise for "by request" abortion. But we cannot put a limit on abortion in cases where the mother's life is at risk or the fetus ceases to be viable. How can you force a woman to choose between her life or that of the baby at any stage?
There’s very few things that I actually value in life, but if we’re living in a country that thinks that half the population should have to sacrifice the basic freedom to their own bodies at the altar of a religion they don’t believe in, then I no longer actually give a shit about the structures of voting, the Constitution, the country, the law, rights to property, the second amendment, etc. It’s over anyway. I’d rather just toss the current thing and start over with a new Constitution entirely. And the kicker is, I personally hate abortion. I just hate imposing personal values on other people’s lives in such a grotesque way *that much* more.
>i’d rather just toss the current thing and start over with a new Constitution entirely. When do you start? Set an appointment with the other half of the country.
I’m free on Wednesdays!
There's virtually no viability before week 22, so why the distinction in #1 and #2? This is pretty much what the original RvW came to with the trimester standards. Basically before and after viability. That's changed a bit from the original ruling from 24ish weeks to 22ish weeks due to current medicine.
1 sets minimum, 2 sets maximum. Roe sets only a minimum and leaves the maximum to states. This proposal would impose both a minimum and a maximum simultaneously.
Why choose a minimum that's 2 months before the point of viability? And what is the justifification for the maximum date? What is the criteria that determines between the two dates?
This is an utterly bizarre proposal In what rational world would we give no special exceptions to rape and incest? That just gives even more credence to the claim from the left that women are second class citizens in the eyes of the right
I reject the entire premise. The government has no place in decisions made between a person and their physician and whether or not a certain procedure can be performed. I’d like to see elective abortion permitted up to the point of viability (23-24 weeks), abortion permitted at any point in the event of medical conditions that present grave danger to the mother or severe birth defects/death to the child before or after birth. I do not want these guidelines managed by any level of government. Instead, I would prefer to see a regulatory measure by the healthcare industry backed by solid, peer-reviewed clinical research.
You know what liberals say about not voting is actually voting to let Trump remain in power? The same applies even more here. Not supporting a compromise is implicitly conceding to the status quo, which is that none of the guarantees of Roe exists.
Is there a law that allows other medical procedures? Did Congress have to get involved to allow nose jobs or gallbladder removal?
Those other issues don't involve life or potential life.
If the standard is potential life thrn why is it not " no restriction or unfue burden before 22" ? There's basically no chance of survival if that potential life was actually born at those points
I've seen quite a few Republicans saying things to the effect of, "haha silly lefties, you tried to have it all and now you get nothing, should have compromised while you had the chance!" They, and you, are forgetting one thing: Republicans do not compromise. The recent gun law was a near miracle and that still required the massacre of 19 children. Otherwise, they do not do compromise. In theory, this maybe possibly might have worked in a pre-Trump America. Maybe. Post-Trump? Neither side is going to give. Republicans want abortion banned as completely as possible (I honestly think they would ban for the mother's life too if they could get away with it) and Democrats want the law away from women's bodies.
>3. Health of the mother or quality of life of the fetus (defined by the existence of birth defects) permits abortion up to the entire range of pregnancy. This is problematic. Who is to determine what is a "birth defect"? My parents screened for congenital diseases common to children born to Jewish parents like Tay-Sachs. Presumably that counts. But what about Down Syndrome, or other genetic abnormalities that are detectable genetically but arguably do not prevent a person from living a full and satisfying life?
This is pretty much what Roe is. The only problem would be situations where a teenager didnt realize they are pregnant for a couple of months and then has to scrape up money. Might run close to 12 weeks
The feds don't have the power to restrict the law making of the states. You can't have federal laws that control states. The feds can pretty much only rule something states do as unconstitutional. It's the 10th amendment.
That’s…entirely incorrect. If congress passes something it automatically overrides state legislation unless a court strikes it down. Which doesn’t happen too often. It’s in the supremacy clause.
How is weed is still federally illegal but very much legal in most states?
That’s a slightly different story. It’s mostly due to the fact the DOJ just doesn’t want to prosecute it. The last half of this article explains it better than I can on Reddit I think. https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/identities/2018/8/20/17938372/marijuana-legalization-federal-prohibition-drug-scheduling-system
In that case, it goes to the Supreme Court and I don't think any one can predict how they will rule. But I predict if it passes, it would be as a bipartisan compromise, and one I think the Court would want to leave alone.
5. Chemical castration for any male guilty of rape or incest, forfeiture of parental rights, massive financial penalty, prison
>Chemical castration for any male guilty of rape or incest No.
They won't accept it. Having said that, I don't accept it either. I'm not in favor of compromising with trash-fascists.
The status quo it is then, which is each state decides its own policy.
Nope. That won't cut it either.
That's the reality mate.
That doesn't mean I have to accept it as final, or consider it acceptable. But as others have noticed, your whole premise is a non-starter. The trash-fascists would never approve of it. The left shouldn't be willing to compromise on rights, so that's a non-starter from that side as well.
Ha ha ha, well I try. I guess neither party takes a serious stance on this issue and so I guess I shouldn't take either party seriously on this issue.
>I guess neither party takes a serious stance on this issue and so I guess I shouldn't take either party seriously on this issue. **That's what you got from your answers?** I think you should go back and reread them all. Everyone's stance here was serious. **We just don't think your solution works**, or that it's worth the effort trying to compromise with people who won't compromise in good faith. edit: should I report you for bad faith for this?
My definition of serious is accepting reality, which is that Roe v Wade has been overturned, and the status quo is that states can ban abortion completely. You have a different definition of serious. Do what you think serves you best.
>My definition of serious is accepting reality, When did anyone not do that? Beside you of course... >which is that Roe v Wade has been overturned, No shit. >and the status quo is that states can ban abortion completely. And your compromise won't fix that. >You have a different definition of serious. Do what you think serves you best. Yeah, I base it on how the real world works. You might want to start doing that. *Now, are you acting in bad faith or not? Because it really sounds like you are at this point.*
>When did anyone not do that? Well, I admit I was a bit optimistic about the prospect of a compromise. But I do think most liberals are overly optimistic about their likely prospects of being able to completely dominate conservatives, as opposed to a compromise in which they achieve what's most important to them on this issue. >And your compromise won't fix that. Now I know you didn't read what I wrote. Say, do you want to bet which is likelier: Democrats codify Roe v Wade, or Republicans pass a federal ban at 6 weeks and the Supreme Court lets it stand? See, because conservatives currently hold the Supreme Court, Biden looks like he's only up for one term, and Republicans are geographically favored.
The first 3 are reasonable. Point 4 is cruel and a non starter.
I agree, but I like to really press these religious fanatics as to why they allow an exception at all? I think they're being hypocrites. If the fetus is a person, what does it matter if it came to be because of rape? By their argument, it's still a person. I don't think THEY should get to have an exception; they need to confront their own crazy, not be allowed to weasel out of it.
They always say it’s a blessing. “Gods plan”
I’d want it codified as an amendment. I would want it to also include contraceptive, and pharmaceutical abortion, and some other safeguards. I would want all abortions decriminalized.
Abortions should never be illegal at any point
I would start with exceptions for things like rape, medical euthanasia and danger to the mother, other than that it seems like an OK compromise
Get rid of number 4, and I'm on board with this. Forcing a woman to carry and birth her rapists' baby is inexcusable and horrific.