Comments on "Compromise" on abortionTypePad2010-11-29T21:03:36ZRick Garnetthttps://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/11/compromise-on-abortion/comments/atom.xml/David Nickol commented on '"Compromise" on abortion'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e2013489a254cd970c2010-11-30T23:54:18Z2010-11-30T23:54:18ZDavid NickolIs there truly anyone in the "pro-life" movement who would be willing to accept a compromise that freely permitted first-trimester...<p>Is there truly anyone in the "pro-life" movement who would be willing to accept a compromise that freely permitted first-trimester abortions in exchange for very strict limits on second- and third-trimester abortions? After all, 88 percent of abortions are done in the first trimester. One pro-life leader told me in an online discussion that he had no problem making an alliance with Orthodox Jews to try to outlaw all abortions except the 1% where the life of the mother was threatened, and when that was achieved, he'd then turn around and try and prohibit that 1%. I don't foresee any grand compromises.</p>sean samis commented on '"Compromise" on abortion'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20147e045f5ef970b2010-11-30T23:04:49Z2010-11-30T23:04:49Zsean samisIf maternal health is too thin a reed to use to justify prohibiting second trimester abortions, then perhaps opposition might...<p>If maternal health is too thin a reed to use to justify prohibiting second trimester abortions, then perhaps opposition might be overcome by State provided health care for mothers who are injured or claim injury due to their carrying to term and birth of a child. If injury is transient or treatable, and the law places no financial burden on the mother, then most cases could be disposed of that way and leave us with the "real" life-or-death/grave-injury maternal health cases which are likely to be a small part. It's a step in the right direction, but will never happen because few leaders want a solution that is not a all-or-nothing answer.</p>
<p>sean s.</p>Jonathan commented on '"Compromise" on abortion'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20134899f77ef970c2010-11-30T14:08:36Z2010-11-30T14:08:36ZJonathanI agree with John Breen. As long as "maternal health" means not only physical damage to life or limb but...<p>I agree with John Breen. As long as "maternal health" means not only physical damage to life or limb but any claim of harm to mental or physical health as determined solely by the mother, there is no way to plausibly limit abortions to the first trimester. </p>John Breen commented on '"Compromise" on abortion'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20147e040ee65970b2010-11-30T04:42:40Z2010-11-30T04:42:40ZJohn BreenYes, by abandoning the exceedingly broad definition of maternal "health" adopted by the Court in Roe's companion case, Doe v....<p>Yes, by abandoning the exceedingly broad definition of maternal "health" adopted by the Court in Roe's companion case, Doe v. Bolton.</p>WJ commented on '"Compromise" on abortion'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20147e0409593970b2010-11-30T03:28:17Z2010-11-30T03:28:17ZWJDavid Nickol, My layman's impression is that the Supreme Court may decide anything it likes!<p>David Nickol,</p>
<p>My layman's impression is that the Supreme Court may decide anything it likes!</p>WJ commented on '"Compromise" on abortion'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20147e04092cd970b2010-11-30T03:26:19Z2010-11-30T03:26:19ZWJDavid Nickol, My layman's impression is that the Supreme Court may decide anything it likes!<p>David Nickol,</p>
<p>My layman's impression is that the Supreme Court may decide anything it likes!</p>David Nickol commented on '"Compromise" on abortion'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20134899b211f970c2010-11-29T21:31:15Z2010-11-29T21:31:15ZDavid NickolQuestion for anyone: Could a case be brought to the Supreme Court that might plausibly result in more restrictions than...<p>Question for anyone: Could a case be brought to the Supreme Court that might plausibly result in more restrictions than Roe without Roe being simply overturned completely, with the issue going back to the states? Is it possible (or remotely plausible) that the Court could rule in such a way as to allow much tighter restrictions on second- and third-trimester abortions without making a change in the law for first-trimester abortions? </p>