In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

Way to blame the victim!

by sirius 2007-04-18 09:47AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

The leaders of NARAL and AFJ aren't victims. The millions of women they pretend to represent are.

by Matt Stoller 2007-04-18 10:03AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

The millions of women they pretend to represent are.

Pardon me, Matt but don't you think you should be looking a bit closer to home? How about your friends or the peculiar notion that electing pieces of crap like Casey Jr or Harold ford is in the best interests of women and then justifying that with some tortured logic which would only be compelling to the very young and stupid.

Indeed I've not seen you or anyone at this blog 'representing women' ever and the notion the the Democratic party 'represents women' has been pretty well debunked too.

At least NARAL does not do stupid things like threaten to leave the Democratic party if the Dems have a litmus test on reproductive choice like your friend Markos has done. (I say apply the litmus test, we would be far better off without Markos and that lot of self serving bullies and grifters anyway.)

I just visited my email before reading this. Planned Parenthood has an email and a campaign ready to go. Demonize them, that's what y'all do best. Meanwhile rather than donate to the campaigns of vile pieces of Democratic crap like Casey Jr or Langevin (who you guys failed to shove down our throats only because he had the good sense to drop out) or anti-choice Harry Reid or the utterly vile Rahm Emmanuel I'm supporting Planned Parenthood and I'm never voting for a Catholic Democrat again.

by colleen 2007-04-18 11:40AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

If you want to attack me, first spell my name right. It's 'M-A-T-T', not 'M-A-R-K-O-S'.

I blogged in support of Langevin's primary opponent, and I gave $100 to Casey's primary opponent. For me choice is non-negotiable.

At the same time, I bristle when you attack me and my friends for organizing and working for our values, especially when you do it using false information. You don't get a free pass on this. Organize.

by Matt Stoller 2007-04-18 01:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

I spelled your name right. I pointed out that the Democratic party and some of your friends are a good deal more hostile to women's reproductive rights than NARAL and it's the Democratic party y'all raise money for.

Blaming the mess that led to this decision (with a good many other horrible decisions to come from our Vatican controlled SCOTUS) on NARAL and dissing Planned Parenthood when there are some very large elephants (and donkeys) in the room who actually ARE responsible (for instance the current Chair of the senate Judiciary voted for this obscene piece of shit) is not useful. If you wish to organize I suggest you do so with a more equatable and honest distribution of blame.
NARAL has zip power to affect anything at this point. An endorsement from them is like an endorsement from Madonna.

by colleen 2007-04-18 02:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

"Catholic Democrat"? "Vatican controlled"?

Woh, don't know where the Catholic stuff came from (Reid is Mormon and Emmanuel is Jewish), but whatever. Also, don't attack Matt and claim he hasn't done much. He was one of Lieberman's biggest critics when the guy tried to make it harder for women to get abortions (making them drive a few more hours), and has been extremely supportive of the pro-choice movement, merely believing that the current single issue groups have not done nearly enough in recent times. Also, I'm gonnna call troll here, because when you do nothing but bash liberals, even saying the Democratic Party doesn't represent women, it is difficult for me to take your seriously.

by JewishJake 2007-04-18 03:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

Um, she was talking about the Supreme Court.

There are 5 Catholics on the Court, two Jews, an Episcopalian, and a Protestant.

The decision was 5-4, with the Catholics in the majority and the rest in the minority.

Coincidence? I think not.

In case you hadn't noticed, the Catholic Church is the biggest enemy of womens' reproductive rights (and women's rights in general) and doesn't hesitate to pull political strings.

by hrh 2007-04-19 05:55AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

In case you hadn't noticed, the Catholic Church is the biggest enemy of womens' reproductive rights (and women's rights in general) and doesn't hesitate to pull political strings.

Hmm... tough call. Worldwide, I'd say that the RCC is on up there, but the competition from radical Islam is fierce. In the US, the RCC has formed what one might call an unholy alliance with Protestant fundamentalists on matters of gender and sexuality, and their pernicious contribution is a veneer of the intellectual legitimacy that the Prod fundies lack... but the RCC wouldn't have ever had the energy or political power to do this much damage on their own, before the non-Catholic religious right marshaled their troops. American Catholics, after all, aren't generally fanatical, and statistically use birth control & abort at about the same rates as the rest of the population.

by latts 2007-04-19 06:02AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

Not a tough call at all. The Catholic Church has been repressing women in the US since long before the rightwing Protestant fundamentalists got any political power.

I'm not sure what you mean by American Catholics not being "generally fanatical". Of all the Americans I've encountered who scoff at feminism, believe in traditional gender roles, and look down on women, the majority of them have been Catholic.

by hrh 2007-04-19 06:54AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

Perhaps the differences are regional-- I'm in the South, and the Catholics here have traditionally been politically moderate-to-liberal, well-educated, civilized, etc., while the Southern Baptists, Church of Christers, et al have been much more the knuckle-dragging throwbacks. Fundies have treated Catholics with deep suspicion & contempt in my lifetime-- my mother made a particular point of telling us not to believe what we heard about Catholics ('idol-worshippers" who 'pray to Mary') and Jews ('Christ-killers') among churchy types, since both faiths had much longer and theologically tested traditions than the churches we'd encountered. The RCC has always had capital-I Issues wrt gender and sexual matters-- it's in its theological DNA, I'm afraid-- and has never resisted the temptation of political power for long, but hardcore cultural conservatism in this country is still very much a white, Southern/rural, fundamentalist-Protestant thing that has simply formed some politically useful coalitions. Let's just say that it's no accident that Texas has a disproportionate influence on our political culture these days. And according to pretty much everything I've ever read, American Catholics are at most a swing vote, not a conservative bulwark, and of course they are typically most numerous in the bluest states.

by latts 2007-04-19 07:40AM | 0 recs

permalink

from colleen,

who, apparently, has been banned here:

"the problem lies with the hierarchy, not the laity and the laity do not make policy. Besides, women have no say at all in the formation of the political and moral stances of the RCC. And the hierarchy are fanatical as are the 5 Catholic SCOTUS justices."

by hrh 2007-04-19 06:55AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: from colleen,

Yes, the hierarchy is pretty nuts on these matters, but traditionally the Catholic hierarchy has not wielded much political power in this country. Even now I'd argue that they don't-- what they have is media power that Protestant fundamentalists skillfully use to prop up the political power they themselves actually have. If this wasn't so deadly serious, I'd think it was mildly funny that American bishops are such willing tools for a much savvier Protestant movement that will have no remaining use for them once they've secured power... possibly Rome is hoping that any increase in American political influence, even if only perceived, is beneficial because it translates into greater legitimacy in the rest of the world, but I still think they're playing a fool's game over here.

The bottom line is that almost any place religious fundamentalists hold great political power is a more dangerous, unequal, economically shaky, warlike, undereducated, and is often a generally unpleasant place to live. While I think the RCC is contributing to efforts to make the US one of those places, I still maintain that the driving force here is Protestant fundamentalism.

by latts 2007-04-19 07:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

Let me see if I got this straight. If I am one of the millions of women that they pretend to represent, then I am a victim.

Troll.

by misscee 2007-04-18 01:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

OK, never mind. NARAL has done a great job over the past thirty years. Just super-awesome work all around.

by Matt Stoller 2007-04-18 01:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

NARAL has done a great job over the past thirty years. Just super-awesome work all around.

No I don't think so. However (and sadly) they have done a better job than the Democratic party.

by colleen 2007-04-18 02:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

I don't belong to NARAL never have, never will. So am I still a victim?

Oh, never mind.

by misscee 2007-04-19 05:07AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

No one's blaming the victim.
The fact is, as firedoglake has hammered home again and again, that NARAL (the national org, not the local chapters) has been disgraceful with regard to their mission. They did not lift a finger to stop Alito or Roberts. they endorsed Joe "Rape Gurney" Lieberman and Lincoln "Alito" Chaffee.

More recently, Nancy Keenan, NARAL's president, backed the junk science of the fetal pain act, the only pro-choice organization to do so.

No one's blaming the victims: we're blaming the people who said their mission was to protect the victims' reproductive rights, and on that measure NARAL has failed miserably, repeatedly, and shamelessly.

by brendan 2007-04-18 10:08AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

Thanks for the explanation. I was unaware of the flap over NARAL's recent endorsements. I thought it was very strange to blame women's rights organizations for a right wing supreme court upholding legislation written by a right wing congress.

Perhaps it would be wise, when people are writing about this in the future, to give a bit of background on what the beef is with NARAL before blaming them for something that, in any case, would be very difficult for even very effective organizations to counter when the Supreme Court is so stacked against us.

by sirius 2007-04-18 10:31AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

My wife and her friends ( as a man, I defer to their beliefs about reproductive choice) used to give money to NARAL, but were infuriated by the Lieberman endorsement, and they were disgusted by NARAL's response to their emails.

It's very sad, when liberty and choice are under attack, to have organizations like NARAL dying from their cowardice.

by Aeolus 2007-04-18 12:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

Better to give to Planned Parenthood, which actually provides reproductive health services to women. NARAL is a self-important sipper at the table of power and deserves no contributions.

by Mimikatz 2007-04-18 12:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

we're blaming the people who said their mission was to protect the victims' reproductive rights, and on that measure NARAL has failed miserably, repeatedly, and shamelessly.

As has the Democratic party. And the Dems have gotten a lot more of my money over the past 30 years than has NARAL. And those contributions were based largely on the repeated promise to stand for women and minorities. A promise they have broken again and again.

I would say that what y'all are doing is spinning and trying to deflect attention away from the massive failures of the Democrats and the fact that the party leadership, like the SCOTUS majority is mainly anti-choice and Catholic. Because, once again, y'all want our money and our votes.

by colleen 2007-04-18 12:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

Once again, calm down about the Catholics. Sheesh, what is this, the Nativist Party blog?

by JewishJake 2007-04-18 03:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor

Start a campaign for the heads of these organizations. Either get credible statements by their leadership (preferably including an endorsement by their board of directors) that demonstrates that they've learned their lesson and who will fricking FIGHT for women's rights, or call for the installation of new leadership who will.

This decision is as much a testament to their effectiveness as leaders forwarding this issue. This decision is a clarion call that says that if things don't change, then we can only expect further erosion of our rights. It is not wrong for us to now express our loss of confidence in the leadership here and demand change.

by AmericanJedi 2007-04-18 09:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Thank you Joe Lieberman

You missed this page at NARAL.

by tparty 2007-04-18 09:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Thank you Joe Lieberman

Yeah but what NARAL 'intensionally' neglected was to tell their members who folded, who refused to put on the record HOW BAD Alito would be to woman's rights and the Constitution --- who didn't put their foot down/

19 Democrat Traitors:

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro ll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?con gress=109&session=2&vote=00001#p osition

Also, I wasn't happy about Clinton heavily endorsing and campaigning for Casey (PA) in the Senate - Another anti-choice, anti-stem cell reserach Democrat that would vote in the Senate for the likes of anti-choice, anti-constitution Alito's and Robert's to the court.

Clinton campaigning on the ground both in PA and Chicago giving Casey $10,000 from her pac, whereby only giving $5,000 to Lamont. Go figure!~
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbur ghtrib/opinion/columnists/whispers/s_453 663.html

3 Cs: Clinton in Chicago for Casey
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news _theswamp/2006/04/three_cs_clinto.html

Chicago resident Obama apparently was also involved in the event. urghh.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-04-18 11:46AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

As pro-choice as I am, I'm neither suprised nor particularly disappointed by the ruling. The proper place to fight the ban on PBA is in the legislature. I'm not up on pro-choice activism, but I would hope that NARAL and Alliance for Justice are gearing up their lobbying and public awareness campaigns in preparation for the possible trifecta in 2009. They had better be.

by nstrauss 2007-04-18 10:03AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

Yeah, that'll be a winning fight. I can't wait to see those massive pro-abortion rallies in Oklahoma, Nebraska and the rest of the blood-red states. That's why there's a Constitution and supposedly non-activist federal courts: because the protection of certain rights can't be fully entrusted to local and state politicians.

Actually overturning a prevous Supreme Court case is exceedingly rare. A constitutional precedent is supposed to be just that. You shouldn't have to rally every 30 years to re-change the laws after wingers get sick of the old ones.

But hey, we all know that abortion is "icky," so who cares if individual freedoms like the right to make your own private medical decisions get thrown out like so much trash? Today, it was ID&E, tomorrow there'll be more. The wingnuts must be partying like it's 1999.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2007-04-18 11:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

All Congress has to do is repeal or amend that law and this SCOTUS decision is rendered meaningless.

Easier said than done, but only possible if we get the trifecta in 2008.

by LionelEHutz 2007-04-18 12:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

The court operates significantly on precedent, so that's basically just wrong. This case can be used as precedent in future terrible rulings. And even if we do have the presidency to veto bad laws nationally, there will always be State Legislatures here and there trying to push the envelope in terms of terrible laws for the SC to uphold.

by Sam L 2007-04-18 12:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

>> The court operates significantly on precedent, so that's basically just wrong.
>> This case can be used as precedent in future terrible rulings.

But precedent means precedent in interpreting the law. Change the law and the precedent is meaningless.

Still, easier said than done.

by jeko 2007-04-18 11:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

Planned Parenthood Does It Right

Go to Planned Parenthood to see what rapid response is supposed to look like.

by The Cunctator 2007-04-18 10:04AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Planned Parenthood Does It Right

I tend not to go after PP because they deliver services, but I am compelled to respond. How is an ask for money without any direction on where that money will go a useful response?

by Matt Stoller 2007-04-18 10:16AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Planned Parenthood Does It Right

Are you saying that we should only give money to PP if we can attach strings to that money?

by Endymion 2007-04-18 12:32PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Planned Parenthood Does It Right

No, I'm saying that money is not a strategy.

by Matt Stoller 2007-04-18 01:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead

Ugly as it may be, we all know how the fighters of the right would attack this one: find the most attractive petite blonde woman to suffer from this decision, and make her a household name. Why did the right kill Stephanie? Why does the Federalist Society attack women? They'd propose "Stephanie's Laws" in every state, and commandeer the media for a three-month spree.

by BingoL 2007-04-18 10:14AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead

Because Stephanie is a filthy baby-killing, anti-Christian disgusting whore who's burning in Hell and deserved to die! That's what the wingnut Pied Pipers will be saying, and it's what all the rest will be thinking. They want Stephanie to die. They think she deserves to die. For being a woman. For having sex. For rejecting a man's seed. For having the temerity to think she's anything but a servant to the men who own her body.

by libdevil 2007-04-18 02:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

Thanks Matt, I think this is an important discussion. FYI, PFAW sent me this statement earlier today:

PFAW Statement on Gonzales v. Carhart

In response to today's Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart, People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas released the following statement:

"Today's 5-4 decision is further proof that the confirmation of right-wing nominees to the Supreme Court has disastrous consequences for Americans' rights and liberties."

"The replacement of moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with ultraconservative Justice Samuel Alito has brought the Court to the brink of judicial disaster.

"President Bush's Supreme Court nominees are weakening Americans' rights and legal protections. Today's decision will energize a crucial public conversation with presidential candidates about the importance of future Supreme Court justices."

by Bob Brigham 2007-04-18 10:34AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: In Honor of the the Dead Women to Come

Thankfully, Bob Barr and the rest of his libertarian-leaning friends will rush in and attack this disgraceful limitation on individual rights with all their might.

Ha ha ha...whew, I really should do stand-up.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2007-04-18 11:03AM | 0 recs

permalink

Not a winning subject?

If you look past the possible legal consequences of the ruling, and go into what this specific law is about, it is not surprising that pro-choice groups don't pick this particular fight.

The law that was upheld concerns, at least mainly (as I understand it) abortions after viability, during the third trimester. There's a big majority in support of that kind of restrictions.

Why do I say this: I'm from Western Europe, where most (if not all countries) have bans on abortions after viability / during the third trimester, while at the same time having full choice during the first (with the notable exception of Ireland). Both these things are really taken for granted, as in not even open to debate. Which is to say: Consensus can be found, and the slippery slop argument isn't valid, imho.

by PoliticGeek Pro 2007-04-18 11:31AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Not a winning subject?

Not to get into the nitty gritty of the stupidity of this ruling, but I take issue with this: "I'm from Western Europe ... and the slippery slop (sic) argument isn't valid, imho."

Well, gee, maybe that's because the right wing parties in Western Europe don't have orchestrated campaigns to legislatively reduce the availability of abortions for most women, and weaken the legal protections afforded by the courts through this exact type of legislation and ruling. Maybe the 30+ year largely successful campaign leading to this ruling (and probably many worse ones in the future) by people all of whom are admittedly opposed to abortion is what makes us Americans worry. Maybe if Portugal had, like South Dakota did recently, passed a law banning abortion in all cases including rape, you might actually be able to recognize that this is not a good faith discussion to find a consensus, but an all out battle with religious fanatics who think that women's bodies are the property of the state.

But, hey, I'm not from Europe. Maybe I just don't understand about how to build a consensus position.

by Sam L 2007-04-18 11:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Not a winning subject?

First, I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier, I had to rush to work.

I believe we agree more than you think. US politics is much more polarized, on both sides of the public debate. But, polls show, a big chunk of the population, is in the middle.

For reasons I do not comprehend, having to do with culture, voting systems, and the courts having a larges role in the US, the debate is completely different on the two sides of the pond.

I believe that some compromise in the middle would remove most support for the right wing nuts. That's my point.

by PoliticGeek Pro 2007-04-19 12:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Not a winning subject?

NO! there is more to it than that... it could encroach on 'some' surgical abortions at the 12th week too... Also health issues etc.

Planned Parenthood (probably will be updated soon)
http://www.federalabortionban.org/resear ch/impact2003.asp

I think many of the reproductive health sites/organisations are still digesting this ruling to see how far-reaching it truly is.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-04-18 11:54AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Not a winning subject?

And the truth is that I'd quite possibly accept some abortion restrictions-- although not complete bans, for obvious health reasons-- if all American women a) were within easy driving distance from an abortion provider, b) didn't have to contend with the usual secondary roadblocks like waiting periods and lectures, and c) had access to abortion funding through national health care. But none of the above are happening here, so abortions are too often delayed while poor women try to arrange travel, time off work, finances, child care, and just generally try to deal with the myriad of practical problems that not only make abortion difficult, but also make pregnancy & childbearing burdensome. The bottom line is that the American model makes all reproductive-health issues more complicated than they should be. Poorly regulated capitalism and excessive religious fervor tend to do that.

by latts 2007-04-18 12:06PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Not a winning subject?

That's exactly right. But its worth recognizing that that trade off- some restrictions for widespread availability- is something exactly no one on the other side of this fight wants. The difficulty of getting a legal abortion is just another arm of the same movement to ban it all-together. And anyone who thinks that they aren't winning is deceiving himself.

by Sam L 2007-04-18 12:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

Oh, I absolutely agree

wrt their motivations. I'm just saying that Europe's restrictions seem a lot more reasonable when time, distance, and expense aren't major stumbling blocks... not to mention when all kids receive accurate and comprehensive sex ed that makes them less likely to delay abortion in the also-less-likely-than-for-Americans event that they face an unplanned pregnancy.

by latts 2007-04-18 03:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Not a winning subject?

Fair point. I'd like to state that I agree to all this.

In most Western European countries abortions are available exactly like you say, during the first part of the pregnancy, that is a) with easy driving distance,b) without any waiting period, and c) free of charge, payed by the government.

At the same time, there are restrictions on late abortions. IMO, the latter is an important reason why the popular support of the general policy is so large.

by PoliticGeek Pro 2007-04-19 12:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Not a winning subject?

Sure-- I'll throw out two (noncompeting) theories on why this is so, and you can tell me if I'm completely wrong ;):

1. the issues we've agreed on regarding cost, accessibility, etc., simply make delaying most elective abortions completely unsupportable when there are no real obstacles. Here, the second trimester can be well underway before a battle plan is devised, never mind implemented, so being a hardass about it is unreasonable.

2. It seems to me that Europeans (allowing for plenty of cultural differences, of course) are more... stoic, maybe, about pregnancy & birth, even when they're problematic. Here we have extremely high epidural & c-section rates and are very interventionist-- basically, we want as much of the unpleasantness as possible managed by medical professionals. Now, when it comes to fetal problems, pregnancy crises, etc., that make abortion a desirable option, I tend to go along with this-- after all, why make an unhappy situation more difficult?-- but OTOH I think we generally do a very bad job of birthing, with medical management replacing a more woman-centered approach that really makes birth more of a challenge, but also potentially more of an accomplishment.

Anyway, that second point is one I've been pondering as a cultural issue, since the US is so very different from Europe wrt sexual/reproductive health, and it seemed to me that there were some cultural differences that could apply in various ways.

by latts 2007-04-19 12:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Not a winning subject?

We've already covered no. 1. I strongly believe that trading easy access during the first trimester for restrictions later is a very good trade-off, esp. for the women.

As for no. 2: I absolutely have the same impression.

by PoliticGeek Pro 2007-04-20 07:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Not a winning subject?

Do you know anything about Roe v. Wade? Abortions after viability were already restricted here.

This new decision restricts them regardless of the health of the mother.

What are the restrictions in those European countries you mention? Do they take into consideration the health of the mother?

by hrh 2007-04-19 05:45AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Not a winning subject?

Sorry for the late response, I had to run to work. Restrictions vary greatly from country to country. The point is, the restrictions only apply late in the term.

UK is the most liberal, I believe, with no restricions until the end of the 24th week. That limit is under debate, due to the point of viability being pushed back by modern medicine.

Many countries have free choice only through the 12th week, but some application system through the second trimester.

by PoliticGeek Pro 2007-04-19 11:58AM | 0 recs