EXCLUSIVE: The Politics of Abortion - 2007. An hour with 4 proponents of the measure

Whew!

I just got out of a marathon chat session with Representative Al Novstrup, Representative Dave Novstrup, Representative Keri Weems, and Representative Gordon Howie. The past hour and a half was strictly devoted to the topic of the upcoming abortion measure which should have a number assigned to it tomorrow.

Or, you can read it here right now. (and please note that I'm probably the first in the blogosphere to have it) (.pdf warning.)

Yes, I'm one of the fortunate few who has managed to get an early copy, which I'm pleased to share, and this should be the final form.

This group of legislators had cordially invited me up to the Capitol earlier this evening so they might have an opportunity to tell their story on why they believe the time is right for making another run at a ban on abortion. So what did they have to say?

I asked them if they thought they had the votes in the House to pass the bill. Representative (Al) Novstrup noted that they had an expectation of success, and they felt they were in a strong position. As Representative Howie put it, "We wouldn't have dropped it if we didn't expect to win."

As far as the measure's chances in the Senate, where it's already been noted the measure might meet with some opposition, the group indicated that if there is a battle in the legislature, that's where it would be. But, more people are getting on board the measure every day. Al noted that they're feeling better about the Senate all the time.

Given that it's originating in the House, it's not as well developed on that side. Novstrup said.

Representative Howie brought up the fact that last year, with reference to HB 1215, that several legislators noted that if it had just had provisions for rape and incest, it would have been acceptable. And as he stated, he "has to believe that some of them are not being disingenuous in saying that."

(As one of those people, somehow, I don't know if Stan Adelstein is getting his checkbook out just yet.)

I had asked the group if they were worried about issue fatigue - meaning that "we just got through a tremendous battle on the issue, and here we go again." Gordon noted that he didn't think this kind of noise from the opposition was real. Al added, we "don't hear of education fatigue, and that's debated year after year."

I threw out the analogy of attempts to ban video lottery - what happens if we vote on it year after year - those in favor of the measure drop in number because of fatigue on the issue. Representative Weems noted that "it's not a fair analogy, because the state is dependent on video lottery. We're not dependent on abortion."

Representative Al Novstrup noted that he didn't see planned parenthood taking a survey and backing off on the issue because people are fatigued with the issue.

From the discussion, the group is convinced of their potential success. As Howie noted to me when I asked about what steps they'll take if it fails, "they aren't worried about it" and "last year, there was a profound sense of responsibility demonstrated by Legislators." and anyone looking at potential failure "underestimates the level of commitment of this body" on the issue.

Al Novstrup noted that at this time, there is no plan B. In talking to them, the impression comes across that failure is not expected.

Given that we just voted on the issue on a statewide basis, I asked them if they thought bringing it back as legislation was a better course than trying to take it directly to initiative. Al noted that the group had long debates on the issue, but the bottom line was that if it went straight to initiative, it would put them "2 years ahead of the matter being determined" and that during that time, "1600 babies would be aborted in South Dakota." He indicated that in that light, it was better to try it through legislation.

In response to that question, Representative Weems noted that as legislators, you "don't legislate in anticipation of how others are going to react. You do it based on what you think is right."

The group noted that South Dakota has spent years getting to this point, and that from testimony given at various times, including the testimony given at the past year's Task Force on Abortion, "Abortion hurts women." Gordon Howie noted that they're doing "what the voters of South Dakota have clearly told them is right."

I asked them about some more of the criticism that's arisen from the attempt to bring up the measure again, specifically, regarding the divisions of the pro-life movement. The statement given to me by all of them regarding apparent divisions in the pro-life movement was that "if you're on the same side as planned parenthood (or pro-abortionists as was clarified), you're probably on the wrong side. "

Al pointed out that within the pro-life community "either the minority can join the majority or the majority can join the minority. It doesn't make sense to move to the minority," noting where he believes they sit. Representative Novstrup also questioned that "if they were damaging the pro-life cause, then wouldn't planned parenthood be supporting them?"

Al noted that there were members of the pro-life movement who have suggested that they not bring it. But as Gordon noted, there were "those who started off thinking that they'd be better off waiting. But when they look at the evidence and where the group wants to go, they'll join the team."

I asked about the current environment of the U.S. Supreme Court, and whether they'd be friendly to such a measure? Al responded that "The Supreme Court is another argument, but they don't know if it will be better by the time the measure would get there if it's challenged." Representative Weems added, "If we can't speculate who our next president will be, how can we speculate on the makeup of the Supreme Court?"

Hitting them with a tougher question to ponder, I asked them about some of the "poster children" of Yes on 6, those who were victims and children of rape and incest who said that it was wrong to consider them exceptions.

Representative Weems offered that this measure "brings to the people what they've said they want. And by no means is it designed to devalue them as people." Weems "wished people were stronger to do what we need to do," in reference to the children of rape and incest, but they need to "make laws for the greatest good."

Al noted a quote that he said he had read on this website where "politics is the art of compromise - and the desire to go after the possible." It was his hope to save the 800 South Dakotans a year which are aborted, a total of 40,000 since Roe. v. Wade."

Howie opined that in a fire where two trucks are dispatched, "when the first fire truck arrives, they don't wait for the second to pull people out of a burning building. What this bill is, is a good start." Gordon also noted the position of the Sioux Falls' Diocese Bishop noting that it was acceptable to pass measures that aren't a total ban in order to do the greatest good possible at the time.

I asked the group if they felt the battle over HB1251/Referred law 6 contributed to the pro-choice side mobilizing during the election, and whether or not it was a direct cause of Republicans losing seats? In pointing out that in cases where there were 5 incumbent Senators where abortion was a major issue, they found that those on the pro-choice side lost, and that "it was more dangerous to be pro-choice than it was to be pro-life.

Howie was personally more direct, stating "People should lose if they aren't taking the right position on the issue."

I've got a few more things I'll be commenting on later, but I have a ton of reading to do in the meantime, including the intervenor's brief in Planned Parenthood versus Rounds/Long. It was pointed out to me that one Dr. testified that a baby is not a human being until the cord is clamped off. And, I need to sit down and spend some time digesting the measure itself.

I'd like to thank the Representatives Novstrup(s), Gordon Howie, and Keri Weems for taking time out of their busy schedule to sit down with this humble political blogger and giving me their side of the issue. Thank you very, very much.

Comments

Brock said…
ALL WACKOS
VJ said…
Good job pp

This is why you are one of the best blog sites around!
blogaddictfromthehills said…
Fantastic Blogging, it is interesting that Rhoden/Greenfield are not jumping up and down,they must of painted themselves in the same corner as Looby, Nicolay and the RC DOC somehow polically around this rape & incest. I can't wait to read what you dig up from the PP v. SD/Long report. Do tell all for your faithful blogaddicts!
GOP Come Home said…
Issue fatigue is a red herring brought up by many who just don't want to have to deal with the issue.

For the most part I'm glad that these legislators have fashioned a comprimise piece of legislation that should win many over who didn't support 1215.

We will see now how many legislators are actually in favor of the comprimise bill and who supports abortion on demand.

I hope that Jan Nicolay stands up in support of this bill after she spent a year trying to convince everyone that 1215 was too radical and that if it contained the exceptions that this bill does it would be supported by a majority of citizens.
Anonymous said…
I'm glad to have these guys there to run my personal life for me. So much for limited government.

Its all moot anyway because Roe v. Wade is here to stay. Karl Rove once called it "the gift that keeps on giving" because this issue has made some social conservatives leave the Democratic party.

After 34 years of safe and legal abortion, the Supreme Court is not going to get rid of it. Just like Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion upholding the Miranda warnings. Society has just gotten used to it, and overturning it would be a very radical step.

People are used to having this choice, and most women who terminate pregnancies only do it because they desperately need to. My advice to people hoping to see Roe overturned: don't hold your breath.
Anonymous said…
Is that Greenfield that made that first comment?

I know some people have a tendency to write under other people's names, so I have to wonder if that is Brock Greenfield there?

Does anyone know?
Anonymous said…
pp - Do you think these people sat down and talked about this with you just for your benefit? This is a way for them to publicize their cause.

It's a smart move on their part, and they are going to need all of the smart moves they can get.

You have two factions against this: the people who oppose any type of abortion ban and the people who want no exceptions. Does that leave other people for this to fly? Time will tell.

One thing is certain: if it doesn't pass this time, the anti-abortion people might as well give up the battle.
Anonymous said…
The above was supposed to say ENOUGH other people for this to fly. I obviously need to shut off the computer and go to bed!
PP said…
Anon, I'm fully aware that this was a way for them to talk about their message.

Regardless, they were cordial enough to give me the time (and treat me like a real member of the media, albeit the new media) and it's very appreciated.
been there said…
I read the bill and it does seem very well-written. The loopholes for rape-incest-health look very tight, as they should be. Congrats to these brave legislators, you are to be highly commended.
Anonymous said…
pp - I'm glad they were cordial and receptive to you, but don't sell yourself short. Your blog reaches a lot of people, and that makes it an important publicity source for them.

You will get used to being courted as a publicity source over time. It comes with the territory.
Anonymous said…
thanks, God...err Gordie
Anonymous said…
If abortion is wrong, why should there be any exceptions ever?
Anonymous said…
Representative Weems noted that "it's not a fair analogy, because the state is dependent on video lottery. We're not dependent on abortion."

Rocket Science.
Anonymous said…
Is that the final draft? It's a mess. I predict it is headed for the shredder. I can't imagine that any legislator in his/her right mind would vote for such a thing. The same fundamental flaws that HB1215 contained are still there, plus there is now a set of wildly self contradictory findings and a completely unenforcable set of mandates placed on doctors and law enforcement. In short, compared to this bill, HB1215 was a work of art, and that's not saying much.
Anonymous said…
A camel is a horse designed by a committee.
Anonymous said…
Brock Greenfield and Jay Duenwald are the ones to watch. If they do not support this measure, I do not think it will pass the Senate. I would like to see a report on what they think is wrong with this approach. I trust their judgement.
DakotaDemocrat said…
Al added, we "don't hear of education fatigue, and that's debated year after year."

That's because you haven't solved the problem yet, Einstein. And that's your job as a state legislator.

Thanks, PP, for this important post. This is exactly the stuff that makes me come here every morning - covering policy and procedure of politics and governing. Stay with it!
Anonymous said…
dakotademocrat,
"Al added, we "don't hear of education fatigue, and that's debated year after year."

That's because you haven't solved the problem yet, Einstein. And that's your job as a state legislator."

If you think we have solved a problem by killing 800 children per year, you are a sick and hopeless person.
Anonymous said…
I am so glad these legislators have introduced this bill. I also hope that Greenfield and Duenwald realize that they are in bed with Kate Looby and Planned Parenthood if they don't get on board. That's not where I'd want my eternal salvation to rest.
Anonymous said…
anon 8:33

I wouldn't trust their judgement if they are against this. I've heard rumors that Brock is looking to move up in the Right To Life organization and I haven't heard, but I'm sure they completely oppose this legislation.

Just like national RTL opposed 1215, 1166 and are currently opposing the abortion ban down in Georgia as well.

I will be praying for Brock that he casts his vote for the WOMEN OF SOUTH DAKOTA and not for a board out in DC.
Anonymous said…
As a person that has been active in the pro-life movement since 1973, I see absolutely no advantage to passing this bill. Brock Greenfield and Jay Duenwald should be congratulated for not supporting a bill that can only cause damage to the pro-life movement. It is time for egos to be set aside and look at what a bill will accomplish, not how it makes me feel to pass it. This bill would immediately be struck down before it ever went in to effect and the Supreme Court would not uphold it currently.
Anonymous said…
The exceptions in it are a joke. The health exception would make more real health issues not qualify and force women to wait until they are facing death before they could legally terminate a pregnancy. The rape exception that forces victims to press charges even if they don't want to seems like it might be in violation of other laws. Isn't there something that says you can't be forced to press charges? The whole thing stinks, I can see why Greenfield is against it.
Anonymous said…
Anan 7:26 said, "If abortion is wrong, why should there be any exceptions ever?"

I think Bishop Swain put it best, when he said, "while one would prefer to save all lives, saving nine out of ten lives if one is able is good, of course deeply regretting that all ten cannot be saved. Supporting such a position must be done with the clear understanding that one is not compromising the principle of sanctity of ALL life, and that if and when the opportunity arises recending the exceptions would be sought."

I stand for life. I support HB1293, and hope that Sens. Greenfield and Duenwald will stand with me.
Anonymous said…
10:49
I agree, it's atotal trainwreck. By my count, It violates at least 7 of the first 14 Amendmendments to the Constitution. 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13 and 14.
lexrex said…
"... a bill that can only cause damage to the pro-life movement."

that's part of the problem. when people care more about the "pro-life movement" more than the victims of abortion.

i wince whenever i hear what this or that bill will do to the pro-life movement. that shouldn't even be part of the discussion. the discussion should be the merits of the bill. if it's a good bill, support it. if it's bad, oppose it.

you sound like those educrats who are more concerned about the institution than the student.
James said…
anon. 10:39

I don't read anywhere in the law where it says a women has to press charges. She only has to report the crime.

Also, since you are such an expert when it comes to health exceptions. Please explain to me what health circumstance requires the killing of the unborn child to cure the health situation.

While no bill is ever perfect. I hope that both Brock and Jay realize that saving 800+ babies a year and protecting our South Dakota women is the greater good.
Anonymous said…
Annan 9:28, "As a person that has been active in the pro-life movement since 1973, I see absolutely no advantage to passing this bill."

Sometimes the problem with the old guard is that they have been beaten so often that they can't remember how to win. The are blinded to new ideas that can create a positive change.

1/4 of the children concieved the year I was born were killed by abortion. While I commend those that have been fighting this for a long time, the abortion issue is personal to me.

I could have been aborted, but my mother chose life. What a horrible thing to be able to say, "My mother could have killed me."

National Right to Life and Americans United for Life are saying that abortion will be legal for at least the next 30 years under their strategy. They tried and failed to overturn Roe in the 1980s because thier strategy and facts were wrong.

With fresh blood come fresh ideas. New science brings new evidence. Women are hurting. Babies are dying. Generations of South Dakotans are missing. It is time to stop the madness.

No advantage? How about educating the courts? What about educating the electorate that abortion is harmful? What about ending abortion?

I've been pro-life since I was concieved, and I can see no advantage to retreating. Moral conscience requires that I forever press on until no more women cry and no more babies die.
Anonymous said…
PP, when you are reading the Statement of Material Fact from teh HB1166 Planned Parenthood vs. Rounds lawsuit, remember that National Right to Life and Americans United for Life opposed the HB 1166 legislation. They claimed that it could not win in court. Just this month, the 8th Circuit gave Larry Long 2 victories in the case. You tell us who is right, the legislators or the national interst groups?
Anonymous said…
PP, when you are reading the Statement of Material Fact from the HB1166 Planned Parenthood vs. Rounds lawsuit, remember that National Right to Life and Americans United for Life opposed the HB 1166 legislation. They claimed that it could not win in court. Just this month, the 8th Circuit gave Larry Long 2 victories in the case. You tell us who is right, the legislators or the national interst groups?
Anonymous said…
11:10 am said "I've been pro-life since I was concieved...." Really?

How old were you when you understood what what it means to be pro-life? Had you been born yet, or did you comprehend all of that in the womb? If the latter is the case, you need to go on national television and tell your story.

I'm also curious about your gender? Are you male or female?
Anonymous said…
Anon 1:06

Such a snide tone from someone who I would suppose claims to support women.

Yes, I have been working to stay alive (pro-life) since I was concieved. As have you. The very first physiological function is one of self-defense to prohibit other sprem from breaching the zona pellucida. (Don't believe me, take a college level Human Growth and Development course.)

I am a woman who was born after 1973. I first began to be active in promoting an end to abortion when I was a freshman in high school. My parents are not fanatics or even conservative. I actually encouraged them to become more politically and socially active. I was not home schooled or sheltered. I am college educated, at a liberal college. I would say I am a Christian, but I do not listen to Christian music, wear long skirts, or pray in public (besides at church).

I am a true feminist. I believe that abortion hurts women and has degraded women's place in society (that is not a topic for discussion on this string, maybe we can discuss it later). I am open to being married in the future, but I do not need a man to complete me.

So, before you snidely remark or imply that I am a male, uneducated, Ultra-Christian, uberconservative "Wacko" (as "Brock" would say), please think twice.

Instead of making, or preparing an ad hominen attack, please debate the content of my argument. Abortion hurts women. Life begins at conception. The scinence shows this. I support all efforts to put ideology aside and to set public policy based on the science. Stop abortion now.
Anonymous said…
PP,
Good work...and please delete anon 9:21 am. I am trying to get the image of Kate Looby, Brock Greenfield and Jay Duenwald out of my head!
Anonymous said…
So, Anon 1:06, What do you think? Are the old guard pro-lifers blinded to the posibility of victory? Does abortion hurt women? Does the science show that life begins at conception? And if the answer to all three are yes, why should we not move forward with HB1293?
Anonymous said…
anon 2:09- you go girl! We need people like you in Pierre. Well said.
Veritas said…
Anon 2:16, I'm curious, what defines one as a "old guard" pro-lifer? It seems you've created a catch-all category for those of us in the pro-life community who disagree with you not on principle but on timing. I'm assuming you believe our thinking to be somehow antiquated. How so?
Anonymous said…
2:09, as someone who was also born before Roe v. Wade, I think it's an amazing thing that my mother had options. She used birth control when she did not want to have children, and she stopped when she did. I am on this earth because my mother and father chose to have me, wanted to have me, and could afford to provide me a decent life.

I come from a family of six girls and my mother is pro-choice. She is just old enough to have been an adult female before abortion was legal. She knew women in South Dakota who had illegal abortions. She knew their fear. When she heard that abortion would be safe and legal, she was relieved that no woman would need to face an illegal, back-alley abortionist again.

I am confused about your claim that science proves "abortion hurts women." There is no such scientific proof. It is true that some women, for whatever reason, regret having abortions, but you could say that about any life decision any woman ever has to make. My mother regrets not going to college. One of my older sisters regrets marrying her first husband. The fact that a small percentage of women who had abortions regret their decision is no reason to make abortion illegal, nor are these anecdotes "scientific proof."

I think taking options away from women is an anti-feminist position. Trusting women to make good decisions is a feminist position.
Anonymous said…
2:09 pm - So you are a true feminist? I don't believe that anymore than I believe that you have been pro-life since conception. Both statements demonstrate the same lack of thought process.

Feminists do not support legislation that allows the government to make decisions for a woman when it concerns her body.

You say you support public policy based on science. And whose science would that be? Did it, by chance, come from the Leslee Unruh School of Brainwashing?
veritas said…
Anon 4:26, I agree that in most situations a person has the right to decided how to treat and what to do to their body, though the law does place limitations on this, witness prostitution. However, where abortion is concerned, the science of genetics proves there are two distinct human life forms involved. The embryo, from the point of conception, is genetically distinct from its mother. This is not debatable. You may choose not to believe that an embryo is a person, nevertheless it is scientific fact that a human embryo is a genetically distinct form of human life. So please, no more fallacious arguments that someone is free to do with their body as they will.
Anonymous said…
Veritas said: "So please, no more fallacious arguments that someone is free to do with their body as they will."

There is nothing false about that argument, at least not with the present laws concerning early term abortions.

What you are stating is your opinion. In the future, please try to differentiate between your opinion and actual fact before accusing other people of making "fallacious arguments."
Anonymous said…
I have the utmost respect for those that have fought to limit abortions for the past 34 years. If not for their efforts, I would not be pro-life. But, it is time to stop circling the wagons and trying to survive and start pushing for an end to the journey that has literally brought us into the "valley of death" (i.e. legalized abortion-on-demand).

What is "old guard"? "Old guard" pro-lifers are those that are drinking the National Right to Life Kool-Aid. They believe that there can never be an end to abortion in their lifetime. They have been working diligently and faithfully to pass any restriction on abortion, but will not go for the all out ban.

"Old Guard" has nothing to do with age or a lack of respect. They do not need to be put out to pasture. They just should not stifle the new wave of young pro-lifers just because "it has always been this way."
Anonymous said…
Anon 3:53 "I am confused about your claim that science proves "abortion hurts women." There is no such scientific proof."

Anon 4:26 "You say you support public policy based on science. And whose science would that be?"

Open, honest discussion requires evidence to back up statements that are made. First, Anon 3:53 you are wrong, the evidence does exist (keep reading for my evidence). Second, Anon 4:26 When I quote science, I go to "gold-standard", longitudinal, peer-reviewed and published studies. I do not rely just on groups with agendas, such as Alan Guttmacher Institute and The Elliott Institute. Both put out studies, and both have obvious political agendas. I take science very seriously.

On the next post is the abstract from a study published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Volume 46, Issue 1, 2006, on pages 16-24. The researchers have been collecting data on the same set of women in New Zealand for 25 years. The authors have nearly 100 articles published on the health aspects of these women whose health histories are well-documented in the data set. This research is beyond reproach. Not only that, but the lead author is very publicly pro-choice. He admits that he only researched and wrote this paper to discredit Dr. David Reardon of The Elliott Institute. Dr. Fergusson is ethical. He reported his results, despite the fact that they disagreed with his hypothesis.

I will be glad to e-mail the pdf to PP if he wants to post the entire study.
Anonymous said…
Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health

David M. Fergusson, L. John Horwood, and Elizabeth M. Ridder

Christchurch Health and Development Study, Christchurch, New Zealand

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47:1 (2006), pp 16–24

Background: The extent to which abortion has harmful consequences for mental health remains controversial. We aimed to examine the linkages between having an abortion and mental health outcomes over the interval from age 15–25 years.

Methods: Data were gathered as part of the Christchurch Health and Development Study, a 25-year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of New Zealand children. Information was obtained on: a) the history of pregnancy/abortion for female participants over the interval from 15–25 years; b) measures of DSM-IV mental disorders and suicidal behaviour over the intervals 15–18, 18–21 and 21–25 years; and c) childhood, family and related confounding factors.

Results: Forty-one percent of women had become pregnant on at least one occasion prior to age 25, with 14.6% having an abortion. Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors.

Conclusions: The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems.
Anonymous said…
3:53 and 4:26,
If you want to know about being a true feminist, check out the feminists for life website at www.feministsforlife.org
Anonymous said…
Anon 5:20 to Veritas: "What you are stating is your opinion. In the future, please try to differentiate between your opinion and actual fact before accusing other people of making 'fallacious arguments.' "

Annon, I would ask that you do the same. Please back up your statements about the baby being part of the woman's body with fact. The baby may be in the mother's body, but her body stays separate from the mother's.

By 4 days after conception (well before implantation) the human zygote (what those who want abortion-on-demand misidentify as a "fertilized egg") gives rise to the blastocyst stage. The blastocyst has 2 cell layers - the trophectoderm, which becomes the placenta, and the inner cell mass, which forms the fetus. The placenta is only partially the mother's, and is mostly developed by the baby. In fact, the tissues of the baby may touch those of the mother, but they do not merge. The blood supply of the mother is never in contact with that of the baby. I write about the placenta, because that is the only point where there could be contention on where the baby's body ends and the woman's body begins.
Anonymous said…
Here are two studies on abortion with different conclusions.

Researchers: NF Russo and KL Zierk. "Abortion, childbearing, and women's well-being." Published in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1992.

"In another study, researchers surveyed a national sample of 5,295 women, not all of whom had had abortions, and many of whom had abortions between 1979 and 1987, the time they were involved in the study. The researchers were able to learn about women's emotional well-being both before and after they had abortions. They concluded at the end of the eight-year study that the most important predictor of emotional well-being in post-abortion women was their well-being before the abortion. Women who had high self-esteem before an abortion would be most likely to have high self-esteem after an abortion, regardless of how many years passed since the abortion."

Researchers NF Russo and AJ Dabul. "The relationship of abortion to well-being: Do race and religion make a difference?" Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1997.

Women in their study were interviewed from 1979 to 1987, "an intensive examination of the data was conducted, controlling for numerous variables and including comparisons of Black women versus White women, Catholic women versus non-Catholic women, and women who had abortions versus other women, the findings are consistent:
The experience of having an abortion plays a negligible, if any, independent role in women's well-being over time, regardless of race or religion. The major predictor of a woman's well-being after an abortion, regardless of race or religion, is level of well-being before becoming pregnant…Our findings are congruent with those of others, including the National Academy of Sciences (1975)."

The American Journal of Psychology (AJP) was founded in 1887 by G. Stanley Hall.

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice publishes articles on the application of psychology, including the scientific underpinnings of the profession of psychology.
It is published by the American Psychological Association, which is located in Washington DC.
Anonymous said…
The placenta has the same DNA as the infant.
It's cells and the cells in the amniotic fluid are equally as pluropotent. In fact, a good source of stem cells is
the amniotic fluid. Even so, these materials are routinely discarded. What's up with that?

What's up is that none of these things are as yet "persons" dispite their genetic signature.

That is the flaw in your scientific reasoning.

You make an unjustifiable inductive leap without taking into account the whole body of evidence.

And any way you look at it the new organism is at least half "mother". I'd say more because of the mitochondrial DNA.
Anonymous said…
Also, since you are such an expert when it comes to health exceptions. Please explain to me what health circumstance requires the killing of the unborn child to cure the health situation.

I had a cousin 20 years ago who was pregnant and diagnosed with cancer. She chose to postpone treatment until the baby was born and died not too long after that. Had she chose to have an abortion, she could have had treatment that would have allowed her to live to this day and possibly have more children.
veritas said…
Anon 6:29 said: "And any way you look at it the new organism is at least half "mother". I'd say more because of the mitochondrial DNA."

The new CHILD's DNA is a merger of genetic material from both its mother and father. I'm not sure what argument your trying to make here, but if its that the mother can take her child's life because she contributed to half of its DNA, then what of the rights of the father in determining his child's fate? Somehow I doubt you would grant him any.
Anonymous said…
Anon 6:20, I would love to see the entire abstract, and not just the portions you chose to post.

I would question if an 8 year study is long enough to determine long-term effects of abortion. Many women do not report depression and other effects for as much as 7 years after the event. If this was the case, many of the women who had abortions after 1978 many not have exhibited symptoms of psychological stress.

Further, this study also seems to be only quasi-scientific. According to what you posted, only women who had abortions were compared to other women who had had abortions. (i.e. Catholic post-abortive women to non-Catholic post abortive women.)

A true scientific study would have compared Catholic post-abortive women to Catholic women with no abortions and a live birth, to Catholic women with no history of pregnancy. No study of that magnitude has ever been done on American women, and the NIH says they will not fund a study of that type.

If I have analyzed it wrong, it is because there is only limited information available in your post.
Veritas said…
Anon 5:31, if you were in any way connected with the Vote Yes on 6 campaign, you and I stood and worked alongside one another in our mutual effort to ban abortion across the board. I therefore take some umbrage at your insinuation that those of us who don't support efforts to force the issue just now are somehow less committed to ending abortion in our life times. I fear your arrogance jeopardizes true progress and that when this effort fails in the legislature it will in fact hamper future efforts to ban abortion in South Dakota.
Anonymous said…
Anon 6:47

I am saddened by your cousin's death. However, I believe what was asked was for what disease is an abortion a treatment or cure?

In your cousin's tragic case, the abortion would not have saved her life; it would have only allowed her to get treatments earlier. First, in the 20 years since her death, there have been advances in cancer treatment, and some can be done even while the mother is pregnant. Second, in the past 20 years, there have also been advances in neonatal medicine, while your cousin carries all 9 months, today, a healthy baby could be delivered at 7 months and still have a healthy life. Third, under this law, if there is a second, concurring opinion, you cousin could have had an abortion to allow her cancer treatments.

So, since you cousin's worst case scenario is provided for under HB1293, will you support the bill?

Also, I am curious... The child, is she or he allive, going to college, an involved member in your family? 20 years later, can you honestly say that your second-cousin has no right to be alive?
Anonymous said…
Anon 6:29 Placenta & amniotic fluid "are as yet "persons" dispite their genetic signature"?

Your adult bone marrow stem cells are pluripotent, yet they are not classified as a separate person. Forget pluripotency. You hand is not an individual person, neither is your foot nor your brain. These are parts of you. They developed during your fetal stages to serve a purpose.

The placenta, umbilical cord and even the cells within the amniotic fluid (the fluid itself is not pluripotent) were produced by the baby for a purpose. Just as you do not lament the discarding of dead skin cells, or the scab that falls off a health wound, we do not lament when the placenta and umbilical cord separate and the amniotic fluid flows out of the child's amniotic sac. In fact, we celebrate these event because they are part of child birth.

The "whole body of evidence" is that a whole body is an human person; individual parts are not.

Sorry. My science is solid. I am confident that I have a parachute full of knowledge and evidence before I leapt into this discussion. However, your knowledge, evidence and reasoning seems to have holes. Hard landings suck.
Anonymous said…
Anon 6:29 Placenta & amniotic fluid "are as yet "persons" dispite their genetic signature"?

Your adult bone marrow stem cells are pluripotent, yet they are not classified as a separate person. Forget pluripotency. You hand is not an individual person, neither is your foot nor your brain. These are parts of you. They developed during your fetal stages to serve a purpose.

The placenta, unbilical cord and even the cells within the amniotic fluid (the fluid itself is not pluripotent) were produced by the baby for a purpose. Just as you do not lament the discarding of dead skin cells, or the scab that falls off a healtd wound, we do not lament when the placenta and unbilical cord separate and the anmiotic fluid flows out of the child's amniotic sac. In fact, we celebrate these event because they are part of child birth.
Anonymous said…
Anon 6:20

The first study you quote demonstrated a clear need for abortion providers to do a thorough evaluation on the mental health of the pregnant mother prior to an abortion. It also demonstrates why abortion providers should give verbal (in person) and written information on the effects of abortion prior to performing the abortion. Last year, using this study, HB1198 was introduced to the House. It failed, and Kate Looby testified against giving women information about the possible mental effects of abortion, even in the light of this study, which shows that women with pre-existing mental conditions have more negative reactions to abortion than women with no history of mental health disorders.

Why would Planned Parenthood lobby against giving women the information in the study you cite as being scientific? Pro-abortion groups can't have it both ways, either this is valid science (your position) and women deserve to know, or it is not valid science and should not be used for public policy (Planned Parenthood's position).
Anonymous said…
Anon 6:19 pm - You are confusing apples with oranges here.
The point questioned was not whether or not a baby is or is not a part of the woman's body. The point of contention is whether or not someone is free to do with their body as they will.
Veritas said that was a fallacious argument to say that women are free to do with their body as they will. I stated that is only his opinion that women are not free to do that since current laws allow women to make those decisions for early term pregnancies.
You can argue on and on about whether it should be that way or not (and I'm sure that many of you will), but the fact remains that women can presently make those decisions.
Anonymous said…
Lest you be concerned about your writing style being confused with that of a journalist, you need not worry pp. By my count, you used the word "noted" 17 times in this post.
Anonymous said…
Anon 8:16

Sure, under current law, women are allowed to abort the bodies of babies that are growing and living within them.

While you claim that this is "doing what they want with their own body," I am certain that what Veritas and I agree, what she doing is "doing what she wants" with her child's body.

The purpose of collecting evidence and hearing testimony is to determine if current law should be updated to reflect reality. The reality is that women should not have the right to take away the right to life of a unique, individual human being, whose body is separate from the mother's even if it dwells within the mother's. The new law will enforce this.
Veritas said…
Well said Anon 8:16.
Anonymous said…
Veritas, let us not forget that we are on the same side, even if we want different game plans.
PP said…
okay 8:26, I will note that I "noted" a bit too much.
Anonymous said…
Instead of referring to WHEN the law is passed, it would be more realistic to refer to it as IF the law is passed.
After all, you are pedaling uphill on this one since the anti-abortion people can't even agree with each other.
Many voters indicated they would not oppose a well written law with compassionate exceptions in it. At the same time, very few, if any, of those people said they would actively support it.
This subject has been hammered into the ground, and most people are sick, sick, sick of it.
Pushing the envelope this soon again only serves to heighten public hostility.
But go ahead and push it anyway. It makes no difference to us if you shoot yourselves in the foot.
Veritas said…
Anon 9:43 said "Veritas, let us not forget that we are on the same side, even if we want different game plans."

Agreed.
Anonymous said…
The only way Roe v. Wade will be altered or overturned is with another appointment (or two) to the Supreme Court. That takes a sympathetic President and Senate. The problem with the Unruh style tactics is that they forget about these two requirements and shoot for the high publicity, short-term gain.

Allen lost his race for Congress (badly) and Leslee lost the battle for Vote Yes on 6 (handily). They may know plenty about abortion alternatives but they know next to nothing about winning elections.
Veritas said…
Anon 9:54, while I think it's fair to question Leslee's ability to manage a campaign, I completely disagree with your assertion that we must sit and wait for the ideal Supreme Court to come along before we act. That argument is a ready made excuse to never act.
Anonymous said…
Yes, you're right. You don't need to wait for the perfect SCOTUS. All you have to do is get a US Constitutional Amendment passed that defines zygotes and blastosysts as "persons" and abortion as "murder," and then repeal the 13th amendment so that the Federal Government can take possession of women's bodies. Good luck with that.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long