Abortion ban for downs syndrome

OK, I get the reason for this ban in reality...nibble around the edges if you can't/won't get an actual abortion ban...but what's the fake reason the GOP is using to sell this abortion ban?  Cuz I gotta say, I don't understand that aborting healthy babies is allowed but potentially severely handicapped ones must be carried to term and raised (without any help from the government forcing the women to have them, of course).  What next...a ban on aborting babies resulting from rape?

Won't this just be challenged in the courts?  If a woman has a right to personal (medical) privacy, then I don't see how that privacy changes because of the genetic makeup of the fetus inside of her.  If the woman has privacy, how will anyone know the genetic makeup of the fetus?  I suppose they keep coming up with these kinds of laws, knowing they'll be challenged, but hoping one of them will hold up in SCOTUS.  And if one holds up, they come up with more.  Still, Gorsuch just replaced another hard core repub.  Maybe the thinking is that by the time this hits SCOTUS in a year or two, there's potentially a right wing replacement for Kennedy and it holds.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:Won't this just be challenged in the courts?  If a woman has a right to personal (medical) privacy, then I don't see how that privacy changes because of the genetic makeup of the fetus inside of her.  If the woman has privacy, how will anyone know the genetic makeup of the fetus?  I suppose they keep coming up with these kinds of laws, knowing they'll be challenged, but hoping one of them will hold up in SCOTUS.  And if one holds up, they come up with more.  Still, Gorsuch just replaced another hard core repub.  Maybe the thinking is that by the time this hits SCOTUS in a year or two, there's potentially a right wing replacement for Kennedy and it holds.

I'm certain there's a challenge, but what I'm asking is how is the right selling this?  They've sold the unnecessary, transvaginal probe (rape), where they MUST look at the screen, and mandatory waiting periods as a way to just make super duper sure that they know what they want.   I can hear the argument on that..."this is irreversible, and we think it's important that women know exactly what they're about to undertake so they don't make a mistake.  Same people are against waiting periods for guns...you know, so men who are pissed off cuz their girlfriends just broke up with them don't have to have a cooling off period before they get a gun.  But how are they selling this downs law?  "The handicapped should be PROTECTED.  But go ahead and abort the healthy!".  Mind you, yes, they don't NEED to sell this to their rabid supporters...but certainly they have to have something that at least passes for persuasive when they're arguing it in the legislatures and making comments to the press.  So what's the selling point on this?

Sometimes lately there's not really even an attempt to defend things like this.  They just do it and sit back and wait and see what happens.  I've not heard any attempts to explain this piece of legislation.  

I remain confused by all of this stuff, i.e. the rape probe, and the waiting periods, etc.  If the SCOTUS' original ruling was that we have a right to personal privacy, then we have a right to privacy and I'm not sure how someone can deny us of our privacy.  This isn't a pro abortion argument from me.  I've been pretty clear in the past that I don't really support deciding to abort when there are so many unfortunate people wanting to adopt but, regardless, we have a right to personal privacy, so I don't view it as an abortion issue so much as a right to privacy.  If SCOTUS wants to rule that once a fetus is 20 weeks old it's a person with rights that could/would be viable outside of the womb, then so be it.  If it's a person with rights, then that person's right to live is probably more important than the mother's right to privacy.

Beyond all of that, I remain mystified as to how we keep being handed random curtailments of our rights, but we can't dare to think about regulating guns.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:Sometimes lately there's not really even an attempt to defend things like this.  They just do it and sit back and wait and see what happens.  I've not heard any attempts to explain this piece of legislation.  

I remain confused by all of this stuff, i.e. the rape probe, and the waiting periods, etc.  If the SCOTUS' original ruling was that we have a right to personal privacy, then we have a right to privacy and I'm not sure how someone can deny us of our privacy.  This isn't a pro abortion argument from me.  I've been pretty clear in the past that I don't really support deciding to abort when there are so many unfortunate people wanting to adopt but, regardless, we have a right to personal privacy, so I don't view it as an abortion issue so much as a right to privacy.  If SCOTUS wants to rule that once a fetus is 20 weeks old it's a person with rights that could/would be viable outside of the womb, then so be it.  If it's a person with rights, then that person's right to live is probably more important than the mother's right to privacy.

Beyond all of that, I remain mystified as to how we keep being handed random curtailments of our rights, but we can't dare to think about regulating guns.

Just want to clarify, the probe is because of the state laws that require that women who want to get an abortion get an ultrasound to see the fetus, and the woman is required to look at the screen.  In the early stages of pregnancy, the only want to view the fetus is with a wand inserted vaginally.  So basically women are penetrated against their will.  That's rape.  That's your "small government" folks.  

Speaking of SCOTUS, I see that thus far, Gorsuch is aligning himself with Alito and Thomas.  Super.

blondy28 wrote:


Speaking of SCOTUS, I see that thus far, Gorsuch is aligning himself with Alito and Thomas.  Super.

Was there ever a doubt about this?  Gorsuch was known beforehand to be every bit as conservative as any of them.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:


Speaking of SCOTUS, I see that thus far, Gorsuch is aligning himself with Alito and Thomas.  Super.

Was there ever a doubt about this?  Gorsuch was known beforehand to be every bit as conservative as any of them.

If it were me, I'd give 'em something unexpected...try to make myself not so easy to read.  And he was in the minority, so if he were to have joined the majority the outcome would have been the same.  But if he's going firm hardline...he's definitely a jagbag.

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

blondy28 wrote:


Speaking of SCOTUS, I see that thus far, Gorsuch is aligning himself with Alito and Thomas.  Super.

Was there ever a doubt about this?  Gorsuch was known beforehand to be every bit as conservative as any of them.

If it were me, I'd give 'em something unexpected...try to make myself not so easy to read.  And he was in the minority, so if he were to have joined the majority the outcome would have been the same.  But if he's going firm hardline...he's definitely a jagbag.

His previous decisions showed pretty clearly that he was a hardliner.