Colorado is not the most conservative state. Nor is it the most liberal. It's one of the few states in which elections are consistently competitive in recent years. But it has some pretty substantial social conservative cred within its borders. While Denver and Boulder might be oases of liberal godlessness, Colorado Springs and…well, everywhere else in the state is virtually synonymous with the Christian right. It was unsurprising, then, that it was the first state to put a version of the Federal "Human Life Amendment" – outlawing all abortion, defining conception as the beginning of life, conferring personhood on fetuses, and banning some forms of birth control – to vote as a ballot measure in 2008. What was surprising is how thoroughly the amendment was defeated at the ballot box. I am not a betting man, but I would not have put money on the No vote winning nearly 3 to 1 in James Dobson's backyard.
Encouraged by this remarkable success, I guess, a similar measure is being put to a vote in Florida next year (assuming the backers can round up the necessary signatures). Since state law requires a 60% vote to pass an amendment via referendum, the odds of success where Colorado's evangelical all-stars failed are diminutive. The inability to pass these measures is illogical given the fact that we are supposed to be a nation bitterly divided, 50-50, on legal abortion. Right?
Polling shows that Americans appear to consider themselves Pro Life and Pro Choice in roughly equal numbers, with a tilt toward the latter. Human Life Amendments, however, are not 50-50 affairs. Gallup's polling provides some insight by asking people if they support legal abortion in any circumstances, in no circumstances, or in some cases but not others. Here we see a split of about 1 in 5 Americans taking each of the absolutist positions – always legal, always illegal – and a whopping 60% picking the least helpful answer. What does "In some circumstances" mean?
It could mean one favors exceptions only for rape, incest, or imminent death of the mother. It could mean one favors first trimester availability but nothing after.
https://westsomervilledental.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/jpg/symbicort.html
It could mean one supports abortion for adults but with restrictions for women under 18. Or it could mean that one wants to leave the door open – moral indignation aside – just in case. Going to a private Catholic high school taught me a very important lesson: public schools have teenage mothers and Catholic schools have girls whose parents get them hushed-up abortions. Since I was old enough to form an opinion on the issue, I have always believed that the vast majority of Americans are publicly Pro Life and privately quite amenable to the Pro Choice viewpoint "in certain circumstances." Namely their own. Mom and Dad may cover the Camry with Pro Life bumper stickers and maintain a high profile at their church, but when Mary gets knocked up the summer before leaving for college they take a more open-minded view of the question.
https://westsomervilledental.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/jpg/nolvadex.html
So I read "in certain circumstances" as "In case I/my wife/my daughter needs one.
buy sertraline generic rxbuyonlinewithoutprescriptionrx.net over the counter
" Or, as a great article stated many years ago, "The only moral abortion is my abortion." Perhaps I read too much into it. Maybe the Human Life Amendment failed, and will fail again, because it takes the extra step of banning oral contraception, a step that some legit Pro Lifers might consider too extreme. But I have never been able to shake the feeling that the answer lies in our remarkable propensity for A) saying one thing and doing another and B) making exceptions for ourselves when speaking in moral absolutes. It would not be difficult to outlaw abortion, and when the GOP had control of every branch of government they didn't do it. Politically, they find it more valuable as a carrot to fire up rural America than as a serious issue on their legislative agenda. Practically, maybe they and their Pro Life base subconsciously want to keep the option around. You know, just in case.
Peggy says:
Hear, hear. I went to a Catholic school (1 (noticeable) pregnancy in 4 years, school of 600 FEMALE students) and now I teach in a public school–currently 2 (noticeable) pregnancies and I've met SIX children-of-my-students in 4 years. The school's ENTIRE population is 300, half of which are boys (many of whom have their own kids that I may or may not have met). I will say, though, that the public-school students are pretty vocally, rabidly anti-abortion–more so than I noticed my peers being, despite the Catholicism, but then, that was about 10 years ago, and I think there's been a giant uptick in Crazyface Fundamentalism since then…
JohnR says:
As you know, all moral laws only apply to everybody else. No-brainer.
Patti says:
Oh, Ed. My public high school had parents who secured hushed-up abortions, too. That's what the Upper-Middle-Class does – got to make sure the college application looks spotless.
Shane says:
I am not sure about the logic of the pro-lifers, but I see just as many pro-choicers that actually hold the reverse logic: "I don't think I personally could, but I don't think it is right for me to make that decision for anyone else." Perhaps that is just a public moral stance, but I think most pro-choicers understand the complexity that exists in abortion decisions.
With regards to this specific piece of legislation, it would have been a nightmare for the state. The law gives the full rights of personhood at conception, which means that fertilized eggs (which had never been implanted) would still have all the rights of any child. This means people could sue for the right to represent and sue on behalf of them and that no one could ever destroy a fertilized egg once it had been created. This would be a pretty big complication for those that have difficulty conceiving. State law makers were particularly opposed to the bill because they knew it would require them to spend a lot of money fighting the bill through the Supreme Court.
jazzbumpa says:
Shane –
It's not reverse logic. The pro-choice side recognized the complexity and is not interested in imposing a one-size-fits-all solution. The "pro-life" side is a natural haven for hypocrisy.
Another complication is that people derive their moral-absolutist opinions in a vacuum. Then reality hits, and that is an education.
It's a bit like gay rights issues in that respect. Once you realize that gays are human beings, not demons, and must be seen as individuals, it's a lot harder to maintain the hatred of them as a collective.
Matthew says:
Abortions for all!
Liz says:
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
Daniel says:
I remember being in high school in a Current Events class and being the only pro-choicer. The class was about 15 people and we did debates about high-profile hot topics like Abortion, Death Penalty, etc. After the debate was over the teacher asked if there was anyone who agreed with my points, and of course there were no takers. There simply is a pro-life majority at the high school age, but I think people grow up and see that not everything is black and white about social issues.
Susan of Texas says:
I think it's really funny that the same people who are terrified of government control want the government to control their reproductive system.
Robert says:
This makes me glad – or perhaps 'relieved' is more precise – to have two sons and no daughters. My husband has already had 'the talk' with our twelve year old. Said talk could be summarized as 'if you get someone pregnant before graduating high school, graduating college, getting a job and getting married – I'll make you wish you'd cut it off with a rusty can lid.'
A more emphatic version of 'the talk' will be ready by the time he actually starts dating, assuming he ever does after the first 'talk'. Boys are responsible for pregnancy, too.
SarahMC says:
There most certainly HAS been an uptick in Crazyface Fundamentalism in the past decade, but at the same time, I and a lot of my rabidly pro-choice friends were once "pro-life." We grew up in conservative homes and were only exposed to one side of the argument (i.e. "killing babies is mean. no more questions.")
Once we got to college and had our first pregnancy scares and started thinking more critically about the issue (and began to notice the misogyny inherent in the anti-choice viewpoint), our tunes changed.
ladiesbane says:
The biggest problem in dealing with the anti-choice movement is that their arguments are based strictly on emotion, and there is no way to refute sentiment, least of all with logic. But the problems posed by unwanted pregnancy make for pragmatic (if hypocritical) decisions.
Outlawing birth control is part of the Personhood movement for some groups; another step toward the New Dark Ages and women being incubators and nearly chattel for legal purposes. But again I wonder: if men could get pregnant, would this even be an issue?
Ashley says:
Okay… I disagree, and I know many people who disagree. Most pro-lifers believe the the "fetus" is a life, and it is not right to kill that life, whether it is mine, yours, or anyone elses. I also know many pro-lifers who have had abortions, and feel incredibly guilty about it. In fact, once a woman has an abortion, she is 6 times more likely to be a prolife actiist than a prochoice activist. This is shown by an article in Planned Parenthood's "Family Planning Perspectives". Of the National Right to Life's female membership, 7.5 million have had abortions, while of the women in NARAL, only 39,000 have had abortions.
Secondly, the pro life movement is not based strictly on emotion. IN fact, the prochoice positions relies on emotionalism more than logic, not the prolife position. Prochoice advocates often rely on stories of back-alley abortions and pregnancies due to rape. And sometimes, their factual data is inaccurate.
ladiesbane says:
Ashley, both sides have emotions, and there will always be idiots at the fringe of any movement. I find the emotional arguments of the pro-choice movement, accurate or inaccurate, to be irrelevant to the facts, and the facts are on their side. You said the pro-life movement is not based strictly on emotion; please enumerate the facts and logic behind removing my control over my body — I am curious.
Perhaps neither side, in the main, is made of people who can explain the difference between a zygote and a fetus, but only one side is trying to outlaw my right to control my body.
Sarah says:
At the Planned Parenthood in the town where you and I went to grad school, when we were training on how to escort patients in on clinic mornings, we were told an anecdote: "Don't ever assume anything about anyone. We had a picketer once who was out there every week, and then one week she came in for the procedure, then the next week she was back out on the line." That was the first time I realized that anti-choicers could be massive hypocrites.
Also Ashley, thank you for stating that "their" factual data is inaccurate without pointing out any examples. And for proving the entire point…."Of the national right to life's female membership, 7.5 million have had abortions"…because the only abortions that should be allowed were theirs.
Peggy says:
Also, Ashley, when you return to answer ladiesbane's question about the logic behind the pro-life movement, could you also explain for me how "stories of back-alley abortions and pregnancies due to rape" are emotional and not factual?
SarahMC says:
There is only one fact that matters: Born humans are people, and that includes women. People have a right to control what happens inside their own bodies (and that includes women). Forced childbirth is barbaric and unethical.
Johnnyboy says:
Sarah says: "The biggest problem in dealing with the anti-choice movement is that their arguments are based strictly on emotion"
Sarah, that's the biggest problem in dealing with damn near everything the Crazyface Wingnuts stand for, abortion notwithstanding. Can I paint the Right with the broad brush labeled "Pro Choice" ? Not entirely, but mostly… mostly.