Do YOU admire Jane?

Fox

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 2:27 pm

I'm going to shock everyone and praise the Clintons.

When President Clinton was pressed on the topic of abortion, he used the phrase, "safe, legal, and rare."

That resonates with a majority of Americans. Pew studies, if I recall correctly, indicate that about 70 percent of Americans prefer no or few restrictions on abortion. That figure is consistent for Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, whose religious beliefs equate abortion with murder in all or most cases. An addition percentage believe it should be legal with some restrictions.

Despite the amount of noise they make, hard-line pro-lifers represent a very, very tiny fraction of Americans. Question a lot of people who claim to be "pro-life," and you discover that they really mean is that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare."

Unfortunately, pro-choice organizations -- specifically Planned Parenthood -- made some horrible rhetorical choices in how they dealt with hard-line pro-lifers. Planned Parenthood had largely overcome their association with Margaret Sanger and earned a reputation for themselves as the "good guys" -- focusing on providing contraception and generally advocating for women's health. Unfortunately, under Cecile Richards' direction, they became an activist organization, associated with "Shout Your Abortion," "Abortion is Self-Care," and similar stunts. They scaled back other health services in favor of becoming an abortion provider.

Which, of course, makes the hard-line pro-lifers dig in even deeper and makes a pro-choice stand harder and harder for normal people who want abortion to be legal but nevertheless consider it a tragedy.

None of us know anything about Jane's circumstances. She could be a cartel plant, the victim of slave traffickers, the victim of rape (as 80 percent of illegal immigrants coming through Mexico from Central America are). She could be a naive child or a cynical woman. We just don't know.

But what we do know is that she is an individual, not a legal case or a statistic. That's how every abortion should be regarded. I realize that I'm being somewhat Pollyanna-ish here. Obviously, there are laws that must be followed and public policies that have been put in place. Nevertheless, I feel like we would make more progress if everyone would return to President Clinton's ideal. Yes, abortion should be legal and safe. But every abortion should be one too many.

simcha2

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 2:59 pm

But this wasn't really a question about abortion, or illegal immigration. It was a question about whether kavanaugh is willing to adjudicate according to the law, even when he disagrees with one premise of the law.

Say, it had been a completely different scenario. A frum family with 8 kids applied for food stamps. They fulfill the income criteria and have correctly filled out all the forms. They don't get the food stamps. They go to court to protest their right. The judge, who is known for thinking that anyone with more than 3 kids is a leech on society, tells them "even though you have fulfilled all the requirements correctly you need to also meet with someone to counsel in family planning".

That was what the question was about, how he administers his decisions when he doesn't like the set of facts to which they pertain.

Now, as I've said in previous threads I don't have a strong opinion on kavanaugh one way or the other. Although I'm very upset with the lack of procedural integrity. But, thinking the question is about abortion or immigration is missing the point.

33055

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 5:35 pm

pesek zman wrote:

17 year olds are still minors. She entered as a minor

I suspect there would have been sequence of events had she been 18 years old

This is what you first posted, and I responded to:

pesek zman wrote:

The parents, the adults, are responsible for bringing the children to the US illegally. The child is not.

First you say the adults are responsible for bringing her to the US illegally. I pointed out there are no adults involved.

She acted in a criminal manner to obtain services she isn't entitled to. To say she was an innocent bystander is not true and that why she is entiled to a Medicaid funded abortion is another false statement.

pesek zman

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 5:56 pm

Squishy wrote:

I don't understand your post but I suspect even if I did we wouldn't see eye to eye. No matter. Shana tova one and all!

33055

Sat, Sep 08 2018, 8:54 pm

pesek zman wrote:

I don't understand your post but I suspect even if I did we wouldn't see eye to eye. No matter. Shana tova one and all!

You said that her parents are responsible for bringing Jane here illegally, and therefore she is entitled to medicaid. I pointed out that she is here without her parents because there is a need for a guardian.

It is not fair that she get her Texas abortion paid for by medicaid when American 17 year olds in Texas can't.

Please explain why illegal Jane is entiled to more than Ameican Janes from American tax payers?

nylon

Sat, Sep 08 2018, 9:37 pm

But it wasn't about money. the government wanted to prevent her from having an abortion, on anyone's dime. They didn't want her to access the service. Does that change anyone's opinion of the government's actions?

As per NPR:

https://www.npr.org/sections/t.....ation

Sarah adds, "Attorneys for the girl note that she is not asking the federal government to pay for the abortion, only to allow her to leave the facility to obtain it."

33055

Sat, Sep 08 2018, 10:03 pm

nylon wrote:

It doesn't change my mind. The statement obviously was not written by a 17 year old child not in school. It is a contrived plastic communication obviously drafted for PR which may or may not be true.

This article doesn't say who pays for this abortion. I am curious where an illegal immigrant gets money to pay for an abortion.

This is a bad situation all around.