Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
New York: This is What “I’m Personally Opposed to Abortion, But” Gets You
Gov. Cuomo's Executive Budget Proposal expands abortion coverage to legalize infanticide if an infant survives the abortion attempt. (Catherine MacKinnon posited women's "right to kill" as crucial for equality.) https://t.co/Ab8KW3tt2m
— Maureen Mullarkey (@mmletters) March 16, 2018
From the New York State Catholic Conference Action Center:
In his recent Executive Budget proposal, Governor Andrew Cuomo included a radical bill that would expand late-term abortions in New York State. The language of this proposal is similar to past attempts, but goes even further by legalizing infanticide when a baby is born alive during an attempted abortion. The bill also would eliminate New York’s ban on late-term abortions, empower non-doctors to perform abortions, and remove protections against unwanted or coerced abortions.
This is horrific.
I would hope that any Ricochet members from New York will send a letter to your State Senator to oppose this horrific bill.
Mr. Cuomo claims to be a Catholic. That he not only supports abortion, but now infanticide, is incomprehensible. Where is his bishop on this? A “strongly worded statement” will not do. Disciplinary action by the bishop is the only way to start to turn the tide on these heretical catholic politicians.
Published in Politics
Well, I say one approach makes it more intractable than the other.
Ahah!
I remember when I was pregnant with my first baby, and reading a whole lot of feminist pregnancy books. Caesarean Section was harshly criticized because—it was darkly suspected—[male] doctors preferred elective C-sections because you could schedule them around a golf game.
So of course a late-term abortion is much easier and more convenient for the doctor than having to come in to the hospital in the middle of the night, deliver a baby that isn’t going to make it anyway, deal with the grieving family… So they make it one of those “oh, of course” reasons to have an abortion. “Dreadful fetal anomalies!” But —as I’ve learned from y’all (thanks, MamaToad!) there’s no obvious “of course” about it.
Naturally, the feminists don’t see it that way when it comes to abortion, though they are probably still pretty suspicious about C-sections.
I really hope Roe does get overturned. These conversations so badly need to happen, state by state!
Probably, and I would argue that having normal doctors performing abortion like it’s a regular thing is the approach that would make it more intractable. Even if it were possible, which it probably isn’t, because most doctors want to distance themselves from abortion as much as possible, it would serve to normalize abortion. How would normalizing abortion serve to end abortion?
I live in Massachusetts-not exactly a red pro-life state, but even here, many very successful OBGYNs make a point of letting people know that they don’t do abortions, and won’t refer for them. Never trust a politician who tells you that he is “Personally opposed, but….” however, there are lots of people who don’t get too worked up over abortion, but they definitely do not want abortionists delivering their babies. There is a reason most doctors stay far away from abortion: they know how their prospective patients really feel about it. I haven’t studied the issue, so I could be wrong, but is there anything stopping normal doctors and hospitals from performing abortions, other than their own unwillingness to do so?
I once heard that there are tons of Republicans and Democrats that are lying about their personal views on abortion and there will be many changing their public positions if this happens.
“Normalizing” is your term, not mine. Think about the dynamics I already described. It doesn’t work to end abortion. It puts power and fixed overhead in all the wrong places.
Just making the moral case is going to work better.
Unfortunately, it’s an intractable issue.
Normalizing is what it would do, though. Like I said, I haven’t studied this and don’t know the history, but I don’t think the present state of affairs is something that came about because of pro-lifers: it seems more likely that doctors who didn’t want to actually become pro-life, but didn’t want to be too closely associated with abortion either are probably the main supporters of the status quo.
I mean really. If most doctors refuse to perform abortions, what are pro-lifers supposed to do about that? And why would we object to that?
You can’t change the centralized nature of political power structures in this country. It has to be dealt with realistically. It started with Woodrow Wilson et. al. and it has gone one way ever since. That’s the issue.
If you say so.
Like I said, I really don’t think pro-lifers are the ones behind this. If you want to convince normal doctors that they should perform abortions as a way of shutting down planned parenthood, good luck with that. I don’t see it working, for a number of different reasons.
That is not the original or main purpose for it, as I understand it.
It’s a bit late. So…it is what it is.
I never suggested that. IMO, the first step now is to make it useless for PP to funnel money to K Street. Lower their overhead and give the Left less to be hectoring abut.
@caroljoy: Like I said, I haven’t studied this issue. I do know that where I live in Western Massachusetts, one hospital does late term abortions, and the other two don’t. One of those two hospitals is Catholic, the other isn’t. I am not aware of any local hospitals that do earlier abortions; do hospitals in California do earlier abortions, or are you just saying that they could? I don’t totally understand what you are saying.
I do know that one thing pro-lifers have done is try to require that all abortionists have privelages at a local hospital, and the abortion industry-planned parenthood, whatever you want to call it, has fought this tooth and nail, because many abortionists can’t get those privilages. There isn’t exactly a surplus of respected doctors eager to do abortions.
FWIW, The woman that replaced Al Franken in the Senate made tons in PP salary. Crazy money.
The right to abortion has always implicitly meant not merely the right to be rid of the pregnancy, but also the right to a dead baby.
I apologize. I guess that I got rather apples to oranges.
Hospitals are usually the entities that do late term abortions. Clinics including those that operate inside Planned Parenthood offer first trimester abortions.
And I believe most late term abortions come about due to doctors pressuring women to not bring a “defective” fetus to full term. (There are also late term abortions that occur due to the fetus having died, as well. The health repercussions for a woman to carry an already deceased fetus to full term are numerous, and this is one form of abortion that I would approve.)
My comment was addressing the money making aspect of today’s hospitals. And how if it is true that fetal tissue has a value inside the market place, then it is also true that doctors who oppose abortions probably would be discouraged from mentioning their disapproval at any hospital where late term abortions are occurring.
Understood, and you are probably right. I would quibble with you on one thing, though: if the baby has already died naturally, it isn’t an abortion.
Back in the early 80’s at Notre Dame, there was a very vocal faction that tried to make us feel guilty for not supporting that good Catholic politician, Mario Cuomo.
I wasn’t very politically aware back then, but they seemed to be trying too hard to convince us. Besides, anyone who backed that evil idiot Jimmy Carter had to be a loser in my book.
“In his recent Executive Budget proposal, Governor Andrew Cuomo included a radical bill…”
I’m no expert on New York state budgeting, but is this comparable to a US Presidents budget proposal, as in – dead on arrival? So is it a case of Cuomo pandering to the ultra-left, knowing the legislature won’t do it?
But the question of how Cuomo, or Pelosi, or Biden, etc… can remain Catholic while espousing these barbaric views in direct opposition to Church policy still has to be answered. Has the Vatican ever addressed this?
This issue is addressed in Canon Law and ought to be taken up by the local Ordinary (bishop):
Their public actions by continually and without question voting for and promoting abortion put them in the “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” category. They should not present themselves for Holy Communion until confessing their sin, repenting, and having a firm purpose of amendment to sin no more. Barring that, the bishop should tell them they cannot present themselves for Holy Communion until confessing and repenting.
But most bishops remain spineless and say they don’t want to bring politics into this. BS. It is about causing scandal with the faithful and not upholding what the Church teaches.
Both Cuomo brothers are strange people in my view. The one on TV has to be the dumbest overeducated person on TV, ever.
Yes, in looking at your link it seems pretty clear to me that they are in violation of Cannon Law, but has a modern pope ever addressed this?
The horror of legal abortion had been with us for 45 years, has a pope ever discussed it specifically with regard to US politicians? Do they think God can’t see their hypocrisy?
It logically follows from most pro abortion arguments as does infanticide of older babies that were not from failed abortions and euthanasia at any age. That is where we’re headed. Reversing R v W will speed it up in states like New York and begin reversing the culture of death in other states. Democrats who want choice, should support overturning R v W. Where it all goes in the long run we can’t know, but liberty is rooted in the notion of human dignity so it could not be a bad thing if abortion did not remain the Democrats only unifying theme.
Easter is coming—day one of two where everyone who decides to get their catholic ticket punched gets in line for communion.
Really? That’s your analogy?
Yes, in the document Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding Catholics in Political Life. The document was written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope John Paul II.
And then in 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger sent this memo to Cardinal McCarrick (who at the time was head of the USCCB if I recall correctly) on worthiness to receive Holy Communion. There was much debate over the giving of Holy Communion to “Catholic” politicians and Ratzinger wanted to clarify things. Yet McCarrick, being the lefty he is, did not immediately share the memo with the bishops.
It is a disgrace that so many US bishops continue to remain spineless on this issue.
Easter this year is also the budget deadline in NYS.
Also April Fool’s Day.
It started with the Louisiana Purchase, something Jefferson clearly didn’t have the power to do.