Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Lefkow roundup
Next Post: Happy Pulaski Day
Posted in:
My newspaper column this week deals with a possibly historic compromise on the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act.”
And then something truly unprecedented happened — lobbyists for both sides, pro-life and pro-choice, sat down and worked out a tentative compromise.The lobbyists had never even spoken to each other before. “Compromise” was not a word in their vocabularies. If you’re not with them on everything, then you’re against them and are automatically branded an enemy.
There is still at least one major hitch remaining. Read the whole thing for more.
posted by Rich Miller
Sunday, Mar 6, 05 @ 3:43 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Lefkow roundup
Next Post: Happy Pulaski Day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Rich,
You neglected to include the most relevent language of Illinois’ Born Alive Infants Protection Act in your piece today:
“Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive, as defined in this Section.”
This guts your theory that Born Alive “probably would mean that many abortions would be outlawed.”
The mother (pardon the pun) of all abortion laws, Roe v. Wade, is a federal law that the federal Born Alive bill (identical to the IL Born Alive bill) would have gutted were your theory correct.
There is no way NARAL and the AMA would have gone neutral on the federal bill had they thought Born Alive would outlaw any aspect of abortion. Neither would abortion proponents Boxer, Kennedy, Nadler, and Conyers have spoken in its favor in floor debate.
Thirty states and Washington, D.C. have also enacted virtually identical Born Alive legislation.
So the fringe element of which you spoke in your piece is actually on the pro-abortion side, ones who would sanction infanticide of survivors of botched abortions to preserve the unfettered right to abort.
Regards,
Jill Stanek
Comment by Jill Stanek Sunday, Mar 6, 05 @ 5:12 pm
Ms. Stanek,
Your statements are so inherently (intentionally?) flawed, it is amazing. Surely you of all people understand that the Roe decision said that the STATES can regulate abortion. Hence, all abortion laws are at the STATE level, not federal level.
As such, the federal Born Alive Act does not, and could not, in and of itself impact any controlling law allowing a woman the right to choose an abortion. THAT is why NARAL stayed neutral and why the aforementioned legislators voted for it.
This bill at the state level has a very different potential, hence the strong concern from the pro-choice community. Even the original author of the bill said it was intended to be a step toward banning abortions.
This is far too important an issue to play fast and loose with the facts - or worse yet, not to understand them.
Comment by Anonymous Sunday, Mar 6, 05 @ 9:30 pm
Dear Ms. or Mr. Anonymous,
You have it exactly backward.
You are incorrect on the cornerstone for legalized abortion.
On January 22, 1973, in one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned every state law prohibiting abortion. As long as Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, no state can make a law stopping it.
The Supreme Court determined in later cases that states can set certain limits on abortion, like establishing parental notification/consent laws (which IL does not have), informed consent laws (which IL does not have), and clinic regulations that make abortion clinics at least as safe as veterinary clinics (which IL does not have), but states cannot stop abortion.
You’re right that Born Alive cannot impact a mother’s right to abort.
You’re absolutely right that this is too important of an issue to play fast and loose with the truth. Children’s lives literally hang in the balance with the passage of the Born Alive bill.
Regards,
Jill
Comment by Jill Stanek Sunday, Mar 6, 05 @ 10:45 pm
Ms. or Mr. Anonymous,
An AP story yesterday reporting on a speech by Supreme Ruth Bader Ginsberg synopsized the status of abortion law in the US. As I said, you got it exactly backwards in your post.
Ginsburg Speaks on Abortion
AP
3-11-05
http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/1356932.html”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg generally has supported abortion rights as a justice on the US Supreme Court.
But facing University of Kansas law students Thursday and discussing the court’s historic 1973 Roe versus Wade decision, Justice Ginsburg said, “that seemed to me not the way courts generally work.”
Before she joined the high court in 1993, she had said the nation might have been better off if abortion rights had been established more gradually. The Roe decision legalized some abortions in all states.
Ginsburg told the KU students the law was changing at the time, with women lobbying on the issue. She said the Supreme Court stopped all that by deeming every law, even the most liberal, as unconstitutional.
Comment by Jill Stanek Saturday, Mar 12, 05 @ 6:04 am