Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Isn't this current law? I thought late term abortions were already banned except in cases where the mother is in danger. That said, I don't think this should be an amendment.
Yes, they are very difficult to obtain. That is why I am concerned about the possibility that Clinton might be willing to change this.
Yes they are difficult to obtain. Unfortunately in many instances they are grouped together with instances in which a baby dies in utero, and the mother has surgery to get the baby out. That is in some cases considered a late term abortion, which to me is ridiculous. The baby is already dead. Why anyone would think it is a good idea to require a mom to carry a dead baby around is - it is inhumane. But it happens. Actually happened recently to a couple in Kasich's great state of Ohio. Congrats John.
Anyway, the stat I saw a couple months ago when I looked up late term abortions was 3,000 a year, and that includes the scenario I described of aborting a baby who has died in utero.
One challenge with abortion is people don't think a lot about it. You poll people, and they put an arbitrary number - 12 weeks, 10 weeks whatever. But when people spend more time with the question they change their answer. They don't consider the couple who find out about a serious health issue with the baby later on, at 16 or 20 weeks. They don't think about the couple referenced above in Ohio who were forced to walk around with a dead baby. Often they are willing to go later when they hear or are confronted with a scenario. And if you are republican politician who is REALLY against abortion but you knock up your mistress, well then you are okay with abortion in that circumstance:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/05/18/3659910/abortion-vote-desjarlais/
I am trying to give HRC the benefit of the doubt because she's been very clear about abortion to now. I'm not quite ready to freak out yet.