Abortion foes put faith in Congress

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

Battles over abortion are likely to be fierce next year when Congress resumes work with a strengthened anti-abortion majority in the House and the Senate.

Just last week, Republicans tucked language into a spending bill to block government agencies from punishing health-care providers who do not provide abortions or abortion counseling. The amendment says agencies cannot withhold federal dollars from such providers.
....
"The conservatives have been emboldened, and the moderates have been minimized," said Rep. Nita Lowey (news, bio, voting record) (D-N.Y.), an abortion rights advocate.
....
"We are going to see a lot of innovative ways to try to whittle away at Roe vs. Wade," predicted Karen O'Connor, director of the Women and Politics Institute at American University.

More (Chicago Trib story posted on Yahoo)

[tk2kewl]

1. When the hell did pro-choice become

"abortion rights advocate"?

This is more puke control of the language. Why are we so stupid as to accept these terms?

[dolo amber]

2. That's been happening for years now

And as I see people on these very boards refer to 'abortion rights' and even PRO-ABORTION (:crazy:) on occasion, some have clearly bought into it hook, line and sinker. Sad.

[asjr]

3. Calling someone "Pro Abortion" really angers me. No one is

pro abortion. These people want to change the Constitution to deny rights of women. I do not want them to tell me what to do.

[question everything]

5. I have always wished that Kerry addressed this head on

That he would say that no one "supports" abortion but that prohibition showed us that we cannot, should not, legislate human behavior; that we cannot, should not, impose our religious beliefs on others.

And I wish that some day we will have a discussion about how much of the debate is about "life" and how much of it is the age-old desire by men to control women.

Complaining that teen agers need parental agreement for ear piercing, but not for abortion is disingenuous. As was with AIDS sufferers in previous decades who had to admit for homosexuals relations, so will teen agers will have to admit sexual activity that led to the need for abortion.

[Maat]

6. The current case law requires 'judicial bypass,'

so that a teenager who was impregnated by her father, say, can go to a judge to secure permission for pregnancy termination. That is the law, via the case law (cases such as Roe v. Wade), and that is how it must be. We cannot have that teenager having to secure her father's permission for pregnancy termination in those circumtances. And, we cannot have that teenager carrying that pregnancy to term, unless we want to write off her and her sanity up front.

And the idea that there are enough parents to adopt the massage amount of children that would be born should there be no ability to legally terminate pregnancies is erroneous (and this retired social worker knows this).

Moreover, it takes a very committed adoptive parent to deal with the ramifications resulting from abandonment or exposure in utero to drugs (both legal and illegal). And there is a shortage of those parents.

And forcing a teenager to get permission prior to terminating the pregnancy just rules out the use of Plan B and RU-486, which used under a doctor's care, are much safer than pregnancy. Time goes by, while the teenager struggles with what to do, and soon, it is D&C time (which is a fairly significant surgical procedure). Or worse, pretty soon we have an infant abandoned in a trashcan, or with 'friends' that just happened to abuse methamphetamine. I've dealt with this as a worker. I have very mixed feelings about requiring parental permission. And judicial bypass is absolutely necessary. Sometimes the judge can identify a relative in whom the teenager trusts, and that relative can see that there is appropriate medical followup.

If a teenager has not told her parents, then there is likely something wrong with the relationship. And requiring her to carry a pregnancy to term in those circumstances is usually a bad deal.

Just food for thought, from one who has dealt with these situations.

[Merlin]

7. Not enough parents to adopt?

"the idea that there are enough parents to adopt the (massive) amount of children that would be born should there be no ability to legally terminate pregnancies is erroneous."

I certainly do respect your commendable service as a social worker. But this is a very questionable assertion, at least as far as white children go.

I would rather see these children born to term and given up for adoption. There are countless parents who would adopt if they didn't have to adopt across racial lines.

Doing so would force women to think more creatively about this problem of unanticipated pregnancies and unwanted babies. The women's movement has focused on abortion as a solution. At first feminists worked hard to popularise "choice." Then they abandoned their posts and left it to the Democratic Party to carry this water; a burden we have undertaken--to our enormous detriment--for 2 generations.

There are other ways to deal with the problem of unintended pregnancies. Wouldn't it be nice if women pushed strongly the notion of bringing the father to justice, forcing the father to pay--even if only for an abortion? Wouldn't it be nice if men were required to bear an equal amount of the pain and suffering and blame and expense that goes along with having an unwanted child? So long as abortions are the easy way out, this will, sadly, never happen.

I say it's about time for the women's movement to get off its collective buttocks and deal responsibly again with this issue, instead of leaving it to the Democratic Party.

I say again, the Democratic Party does not exist to defend abortion rights. It exists to govern the nation.

(Since I am so used to being flamed over my iconoclastic views on this subject, please don't bother accusing me of being a racist or misogynist. I adopted and raised a Vietnamese orphan from infancy. She is now in her 30s, and is a full and loving member of our family.)

[Mandate My Ass]

23. More creative?

How so? Pregnancy is a major life-altering event and carries very real and dire health risks and permanent physiological changes to the female body. Deciding who will raise the baby when it's born is just half of the equation.

How have feminists burdened the Democratic party? Women's rights are human rights, yes?

[Merlin]

29. Feminists have placed an ovewhelming burden on our party.

It is not our job as a party to go out and crusade for issues that do not enjoy public support. That is the mission of special interest groups.

Feminists have dropped the ball on abortion big time. Instead of continuing their crusade for choice that sought to influence women of ALL stripes, they now take the easy way out and just preach to the converted.

Meanwhile, they expect our party to continue to crusade for their position despite the fact that it is killing us at the ballot box.

It is not the Democratic Party's job to throw itself on this sword election after election so that every other component of our important agenda is sacrificed to this one.

Our mission is to do whatever it takes to govern and to implement as much of our agenda as the public will accept. It is not to shove positions down the public's throat.

[Mandate My Ass]

30. Thanks for clearing that up

I wasn't entirely sure you wanted to throw 50% of the population off the life boat by denying them a fundamental human right, but now I am.

Anti choicers are the ones on a "crusade," they are also the ones who are "shoving a agenda down the public's throat."

Ah, never mind. Winning is everything. :eyes:

[Merlin]

39. Yes winning is everything. Now you get it!

Guess what: if you don't win an election, all of your principles are down the toilet!

When a key plank in your platform causes you to lose, you cut it off and run on the remainder. Then when you win, you have influence to be able to sustain the things you stand for.

As for abortion rights being a "fundamental human right," I can tell from that totally naive remark that you are not old enough to remember when it was no such thing.

What IS a fundamental human right is health care, having enough food to eat, having a decent education, living in a world at peace. And all of those things -- every godam one of them -- are down the fucking drain because of this damnable issue. It will take generations to undo what this fucking monster in the WH will do over the next 4 years. And it's all because we're too dumb to understand that winning is more important than everything else. That doesn't mean you surrender all your principles. But it does mean you surrender enough of them to win a majority. That's the nature of politics.

[jdj]

32. In case you missed it, the largest civil rights march EVER

was the abortion rights march in Washington DC this year, by their own count ( and they did count) 1 and a quarter million women showed up. Notice that that same week Ashcroft dropped his probe into hospital records of women having had late-term abortions.

I'm stunned that you think that depite hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of kids languishing in foster care all over this country, that suddenly extra parents will pop up to adopt if Roe is overturned. That is inane.

I cringe at your assertions about "our party". If you think dems will ever win another election in this country without the votes of liberal women, then fall on that sword, why don't you...

[Merlin]

40. That is just so much hyperbole.

First of all, the huge turnout was nothing but the women's movement preaching to the converted. What did they do after the march? Did they send out mailings to non-activists? No. Did they raise money and run ads? No. Did they raise holy hell so it would be impossible for every woman in every state in the country not to realize Roe would go if they voted for W? No.

And so what happened? 51% of white women voted for Bush. That's what.

But my godam beloved Democratic Party that we've all worked so hard for over decades and decades, that we believe in deeply, that has so many solutions to offer, that is the only obstacle to the destruction of so many gains we have made over the past decades both at home and around the world, this great Democratic Party should have to commit suicide every year carrying water for some sacred right that the majority of women don't even support! HORSESHIT!

And my point remains absolute and incontrovertible about adoptees. There is no way in the world that a white BABY given up for adoption won't be adopted in 2 seconds flat--provided it is healthy.

You KNOW I'm right about that. You're talking about older children who languish unadopted. And you're talking crack babies and minority babies who don't get adopted. Yes that's a serious problem.

But--hey--I have an idea. Let's just prohibit abortion for white women. They voted for Bush. Let them carry their unintended progeny to fruition and give them up for abortion. Works for me.

[jdj]

47. that's an interesting solution that the GOP would crucify us over.

like they are trying to crucify us over abortion.

I'd hate to be you. I believe we won this election, and our problem is election fraud. It must be torturous to try to pinpoint some strategy with which to drop a platform that doesn't affect your personal demographic. If we lose Roe, we lose the honest way, we get the pukes to take it from us. Cause if we split over this, then WE get blamed for defecting on Roe. If the pukes take Roe, then they get all the fallout. I'm not saying that will win us rigged elections, but it may incite younger women who know like I do that we are the majority to get out and do something about this election fraud. Maybe one day, we can be a real constituency like, say, the Ukraine.

[Merlin]

51. Yeah, right. And if pigs could fly...

You think we should hang on to a losing cause because--let's see if I understand this reasoning of yours--because otherwise "WE get blamed for defecting" and if we stick with it and keep getting our butts whipped then "it may incite younger women" to do something about election fraud.

That is a perfect prescription for losing elections. That is a perfect way to make sure that the very things you believe in are NEVER IMPLEMENTED. It's a sure way to make sure your enemies are ALWAYS IN POWER.

Now I wouldn't mind so much what you do. Except that it influences what others in our party think and what other American voters think. Please start thinking clearly before releasing your rants and accusations.

Oh, and I nearly forgot to mention. In case you haven't been following it as closely as most of us, the reason more people in our party aren't raising hell about "election fraud" is because THERE IS NO SOLID EVIDENCE OF IT YET. Do you grasp that? Do you understand it's highly likely that we either lost fair and square, or that they stole it from us so cleverly that we will be decades, if ever, uncovering it--like the JFK assassination. In the meantime, the only way to deal with it is to get support of millions of people who are now voting against us. Think about it.

[CTLawGuy]

46. yes it is

a party is supposed to represent the views of its base. In our case, the base supports abortion rights.

here's how it is. In a society, the politically minded and active form a political party with others who have similar views or ideologies. The apolitical and marginally political become the independents and swing voters.

[question everything]

9. Thank you for really sobering thoughts

Unfortunately the people who make the decisions do not care to go down to the trenches to try to understand how women, and girls, really feel when they find out that they are pregnant. I can imagine a judge who is supposed to rule on such a case yet personally opposes abortion and will not grant the girl that permission.

And, I don't think that the images of back room botched abortions is a persuasive reason for these reactionaries. As far as they are concerned, "she asked for it."

Some years back, while volunteering with a local chapter of NARAL, one of the board member, a gynecologist who remembered the days before "Roe," was telling us about working in a home for unwed pregnant girls. They would not provide any pain killers during delivery, she said, so that "she will learn her lesson." How barbaric this sounds now and yet, I am not sure that this would offend the fundies.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

31. I agree with you

I personally know couples who have gone to China to adopt because they don't trust the 'caliber' of white Americans who are sloppy enough to get pregnant and give birth. That's paraphrasing the way they have stated it to me, but they have the perception that white unmarried women who decide to give birth are too slutty and messed-up, from alcohol, drugs or other problems, to either have legitimized the child by marrying the father or acted in a timely enough manner to abort the fetus. They think that the infants are 'purer' in China, where female babies are abandoned to orphanages to make room for the coveted male heir.

I also know couples in which one or both partners are told they're too old to adopt.

And I have done a lot of pro bono work for a well-known adoption agency, and I know most couples want babies. Not toddlers. Not kids. They want tiny, fresh-from the-womb babies. And they want them in perfect condition, refusing to take any with problems.

A lot of adoptive parents also want closed adoptions, and that's another reason many of them go overseas.

I have great compassion for both birth mothers and the women who choose abortion. Either way, it's a terrible position to be in.

[schultzee]

33. Call them pro-enforced pregnancy

[Merlin]

8. What the hell's wrong with "abortion rights advocate?"

Is it not euphemistic enough to suit you?

[tk2kewl]

10. The abortion issue is only one prong of basic the right to choose

Accepting puke language is accepting defeat on the issues.


Tax-relief. Tax-burden. = taxes are inherently bad

tort-reform = litigation is wrong, never mind that someone may actually be injured and deserve justice and reparation

and so on...

[Merlin]

One Prong? Please! It's the entire prong.

And it says it very well.

There may be many strains to the arguments in support of abortion rights. But advocates for abortion rights is precisely what they are.

If we're going to do "reframing" let's have some integrity about it. Our side does best when we stick to truth.

[tk2kewl]

12. got so excited you double posted

you don't think that issues of contraception and sex ed are part of the same fight? creationism vs. science? you are mistaken. it is culture war pure and simple. we want people to be able to choose, they want people to be like them.

[Merlin]

15. Phphatttt! No actually I don't think so. Unless we force it into the same.

Abortion is the issue that has peeled off many who support nearly all the rest of our agenda.

There are huge percentages of people who find it impossible to dodge the moral conviction that abortion is taking a life, and who see that as viscerably more imperative than any other issue.

A great many of these people--and I personally know of dozens--are from the old Christian liberal alliance school of the 60s. They care deeply about liberal moral values like equal rights and human decency. But they see this issue as trumping all others, not unlike the abolitionists felt about slavery.

[tk2kewl]

17. I know

at least two folks from the Christian liberal alliance school of the 60s. My parents. And while both are very devout they still believe in the broader agenda and understand that government and religious beliefs should remain separate.

I guess the problem is that people are willing to blindly believe that life begins at conception. The same kind of blind faith could lead you to believe that one shouldn't spill sperm.

I don't see how you can separate the abortion issue from the broader understanding of individual freedoms without making a "leap of faith", which immediately negates free choice from the get-go.

But alas, logic and rational thinking are quickly becoming a thing of the past.

[The Flaming Red Head]

21. If the Democratic tent isn't big enough to cover my rights over my body

We better find seperate tents.

[Merlin]

28. Oh, my. I shiver in antic................................ipation!

How about this:

If you don't want to do what it takes to win, please find yourself another tent!

[jdj]

36. now that you have typed this, please read all

your posts on this thread.

Then in response to yourself, read this one.

Then resolve to quit whining, and get busy helping dems who really want to win get the DREs and Op Scans banned and get all the conflicts of interest out of the election system.

Hey, I've got a great new slogan! "Republicans aborted my vote!!!"
What say you?

[Merlin]

38. I've been working on the DREs for a year and a half. How 'bout you.

I've also done a thorough analysis of the FL and Ohio vote, and am now in the process of a more thorough one in Cuyahoga County, OH where I grew up.

I don't need lectures from you, thank you very much.

I've worked, contributed, written, networked, phone banked, campaigned and everything else I can do for 40 years since I worked with and for people like Bobby Kennedy in 1968.

If you think we're going to win by whining and moaning about vote tampering, you're nuts. If they didn't rig it, the people have spoken and your point is meaningless.

If they rigged it, they did it so well it will be decades before we know how, and we will still have to climb the mountain of getting a much higher percentage of the electorate to vote with us than we have so far.

The way to do that is to let go of abortion. Period. It's a burden on our party, and it is not our party's job to defend the politically indefensible.

[jdj]

43. Honey, you are so wrong.

It's rigged, it's been rigged, and since it's rigged all splitting the party will do is help us to shoot ourselves in the foot.

In case you didn't notice, the GOP won this election defending the "politically indefensible", the war in Iraq. Please come up with a viable argument.

[Merlin]

52. First of all, I ain't your "honey." Second, you have no proof.

And without proof, all your suspicions will gain you nothing in the real world of real democracy.

They will merely serve to delude your thinking and to betray you to others as somebody who believes in things they cannot prove--kind of like those fundies we bitch about.

[Mandate My Ass]

53. jdj, one thing that came out in the wash of vote fraud 2004

IMHO is the fake "dems" who swear undying allegiance to party while callously advocating throwing women and gays off the plank without a backward look. Un-freakin-believable.

There are times when a setback and a bleak outlook causes those who've claimed all along to be allies (but who are indeed enemies) to surface and out themselves as bigots they truly are. They feign righteous indignation by blaming the victim who is allegedly "destroying the party" and advocate minorities give up hard-won rights for the betterment of the party. Though not affecteed themselves, they claim the refusal to do so will result in greater electoral losses. All this despite ample evidence that when dems have ceded ground on principle for anticipated recompense or political capital, the RW has not only not responded in kind but portrayed any consessions as weakness or lack of moral conviction.

[CTLawGuy]

48. should

the Dems in 1948 have not expressed support for equal rights for african americans, so that strom thurmond would not have walked out of the convention?

Should Johnson have vetoed the 1965 civil rights act in order to keep the south in the Dem. column?

How many people's rights are you willing to give up for the sake of "winning"?

Its obvious you know nothing about winning elections.

Know what a Pyrrhic victory is?

[jdj]

35. then there are all the racists who see nothing wrong with murdering Iraqis

we won this election. we won the last one.

we got suckered in 2000 by Florida, and then got sucker punched by HAVA.

HAVA made it possible for us to get sucker punched all over the damn country this year.

Thanks for helping to implement part two of the GOP plan for 2004. part 1 was rig the election, part 2 is split the dems so the GOP doesn't have to work so damn hard and cheat so much to win.

[Merlin]

41. To see the one who played into Rove's hands, look into the mirror.

There you will see a sucker liberal who just can't resist wrapping his heart around losing political causes like abortion and gay marriage.

Now you want to cling to the hope that we didn't actually get beat, instead we let them steal it from us. Like the one is more redeeming than the other. Like the possibility that they can steal from us with impunity relieves us of the need to make our programs so fucking popular they can't possibly steal it.

Try thinking with your head instead of your heart and other parts of your anatomy.

[jdj]

44. well, aren't you kind.

having read all your posts, I simply don't believe you're a democrat.
Alert! Alert!

[Merlin]

50. A lot kinder than you were.

Seems like you drew that malicious conclusion long before "reading all" my posts.

I have nothing more to discuss with you.

In other words, PISS OFF!

:bounce:

[Merlin]

11. One Prong? Please! It's the entire prong.

And it says it very well.

There may be many strains to the arguments in support of abortion rights. But advocates for abortion rights is precisely what they are.

If we're going to do "reframing" let's have some integrity about it. Our side does best when we stick to truth.

[AndyTiedye]

13. When They Bought The Media

Now they decide what the issues are, and what terms are used to discuss them,
and we are, basically, screwed.

[0007]

16. 'tis as dumb as "partial birth"

[0007]

45. Is it because we're afraid of being ostracized by the Christian

community, and being part of the evil axis of evil? Doesn't the pregnant woman have the right to choose as she has the right to vote? But then again women only had that right since 1922!

Man's freedom ends where woman's nose begins.

[TahitiNut]

4. "withhold federal dollars" = "punishing"?

BUllSHit! Federal funding isn't a 'right' and their failure to qualify by engaging in disonformation and agenda-driven bias isn't a 'punishment'!

[Malva Zebrina]

14. Forced pregnancies are wrong

never should the state take over anyone's body or their choice when it comes to managing their lives and their family.

A woman who has three or four children already, is forced into a pregnancy by the state, and then is expected to give it up for adoption? And what of the other children in the family? What might they think and what message does that send to them? That their Mom is merely a vessel for carrying a pregnancy to term, via the orders of the state.

Forced pregnancy by the state is wrong and I don't care what beliefs anyone has. It is no one's right to determine or demand that any woman be forced into a pregnancy because of their religious beliefs.

An abortion of a fetus that is two or three weeks into development is NOT murder of a child or a baby. The use of the morning after pill and RU486 is NOT the murder of a "baby"

Human beings just latch onto any misuse of the language like lemurs going over a cliff.

Most likely it is the repression of women and their blood and their feelings of sexuality that is punished here by men misusing the language to establish dominence over them.

And the women buy it wholesale.

[potone]

19. abortion

It is naive to believe that the only issue here is the sanctity of life. Many of the same people who vehemently oppose abortion-think of Operation Rescue's founder, Randall Terry- also are opposed to contraception and women's rights in general. These same people do absolutely nothing to make the lives of unwed pregnant women and girls easier, indeed their attitude is punitive, as you pointed out. I do not dismiss all opponents of abortion as misogynists; many of them are motivated by a sincere horror at the thought of abortion and a profound religious, and non-patriarchally motivated, belief that it is wrong. The simple fact, however, is that in this country, with the current administration and Congress, the people in the government who want to overturn Roe v. Wade also are the same people who want to strip all funding for women's reproductive healthcare and are the most hostile to the needs of poor women and their children. In addition, some of them, including Rick Santorum, also want to overturn Griswold (sp.?), thereby denying women the right to the contraceptives that would render abortion unnecessary. Many of them also want to make divorce harder to obtain, thus potentially threatening the lives and health of battered women. We have to view the discussion over abortion as part of a larger issue--that of the control of female sexuality and the domination of women.

[lastliberalintexas]

20. Welcome to DU!

Very good post. And yes, they'd like to overturn Griswold (and Eisenstadt) as well. There was an article floating around DU a few days ago in which these nutcases discussed targeting "deliberate childlessness", and Scalia has very publicly stated he'd like to overturn Griswold. This is about so much more than abortion.

[potone]

25. Griswold

Thank you for your kind greeting. It must be tough politically to live in Texas. Please enlighten me. What is the Eisenstadt case? And while you are at it, since I am new to blogs in general, what does lol and n/t mean? Thank you.

[tkmorris]

27. I had the same question......

So I'll go ahead and tell you what I found.

The Eisenstadt case (Baird vs Eisenstadt, http://www.covermypills.org/facts/baird.asp ) concerned providing contraception to unmarried people, much like the Griswold case addressed to right to contraception for married people did. The USSC eventually found in 1972 that given the precedent set by Griswold guaranteeing the right to contraception to married couples, treating unmarried couples differently would violate the equal protection clause.

By the way, lol is internet shorthand for Laughing Out Loud and n/t means either no text or no thread depending on who you ask. Either way, it means the person has nothing more to add; their point was made in the subject line.

[potone]

42. Eisenstadt case and abortion

Thanks for the web site on the Eisenstadt case. I have no doubt that this legal right will soon be under assault, too. Then we will have the happy situation of women being unable to get contraceptives, being blamed if they get pregnant outside of marriage, denied the right to an abortion, and reduced to poverty as they try to support their children without adequate daycare, government help, or spousal support. This is moral?

[The Flaming Red Head]

22. Also the same ones who just harassed voters at the polls

Same tactics. We might need vote more defenders at the polls for 06.

https://voteprotect.org/index.php?display=EIRMapCounty&state=Ohio&county=Cuyahoga&cat=03&tab=ED04

Read through some of these reports and tell me it doesn't sound familiar.

They don't want to outlaw Democrats voting they just want to make it harder for us to vote.

[Just Me]

18. Putting "faith in Congress"? Isn't that, like, heresy?

Why do conservatives get away with holding themselves out as holding superior faith, superior morals, superior belief in God while simultaneously proving by their actions that they have none of the above? If they truly had faith in God,...why would they attack humanity on so many levels? Wouldn't God correct all ills and injustices? If they truly believe in the power of God,...why would they feel justified in persecuting and destroying others on so many levels?

In my view, these people USE God in ways that are,...like an ultimate sin.

[Zynx]

24. The Republicans will never overturn Roe v. Wade.

It is better to them alive than dead.

[TahitiNut]

26. Well, I'm anti-abortion.

I believe laws requiring an abortion of bastards (any fetus conceived out of wedlock) should be prohibited.

I believe laws requiring an abortion of any fetus conceived in an adulterous relationship should be prohibited.

I believe laws requiring an abortion of any fetus shown to be 'defective' should be prohibited.

I believe laws requiring an abortion of any fetus conceived in a mixed-race relationship should be prohibited.

I don't believe the arguments of religious dogma or taxpayer expense make any such laws justifiable.


I believe any laws requiring an abortion of a fetus should be prohibited.


I support the right of a woman to control her own body without government interference!

[jdj]

34. see, now that's the thing.

why can't we have some dems high-level in the party who can frame debates like this?

If we had more folks like this, we'd a least hold repukes at bay. I know we have problems with ballot tampering/vote suppression and lack of media ownership, but when you add the problem of our party's reps' incompetence when it comes to framing arguments, it becomes a 3rd strike-you're out situation.

[Ima]

37. They need

they cannon fodder. Hitler wanted more pregnancies also, same reason.

[shuffnew]

49. Hitler ...

Ima, good comparison... so, what's next on the Republican agenda? A pure race of right wing extremist Republicans too where they kill after the fact or only allow (rather mandate?) abortions for democratics, but not extreme right conservative Republicans?