Lion of the Blogosphere

Women in jail for abortion, already happening!

mikeca writes in a comment:

Polling and focus group data all show that putting women in jail for getting an illegal abortion causes wavering voters to rethink whether abortion should be made illegal. So they all have agreed that they will say women will not punished. They all know this is a lie. If Roe vs Wade were overturned, abortion would be instantly made illegal in many states and there would be criminal penalties for getting an abortion.

The truth is there already are women in jail in American for getting illegal abortions. Jennifer Whalen went to jail for ordering a RU-486 pill for her daughter online. There are several other similar cases.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

April 1, 2016 at 12:35 am

Posted in Politics

23 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. They all know this is a lie. If Roe vs Wade were overturned, abortion would be instantly made illegal in many states and there would be criminal penalties for getting an abortion.

    There would be penalties in states where the people wanted them.

    Lloyd Llewellyn

    April 1, 2016 at 1:22 am

  2. ALSO people who think abortion is akin to murder and that women who procure abortions should not face any punishment are incredibly fucking stupid. People who just think abortion is bad and should be illegal but that women shouldn’t be punished are stupid.

    Lloyd Llewellyn

    April 1, 2016 at 1:33 am

    • Yes, a ban would mean society has decided that abortion kills babies. Once society makes that decision, of course the ban should be enforced through punishment,


      April 1, 2016 at 10:36 am

  3. At some point, taking this to its logical conclusion, some woman is going to get life in prison/the death penalty for having an abortion. Do you think the pro life movement will survive that?


    April 1, 2016 at 5:08 am

  4. As usual, reality is being defined around Donald Trump, rather than concede for a moment that the Dear Leader was wrong about something.

    If the abortion debate is stupid, then what does it say about a presidential candidate who can’t just say so?

    This was an opportunity for Trump to ditch his pro-life act and admit he’s pro-choice. Instead, he has doubled-down on wanting abortion to be illegal. He has merely clarified the terms of doing so. This will not be a vote winner in the general election.


    April 1, 2016 at 9:48 am

    • Trump believes he can’t win the Republican nomination without being pro-life, and it’s a reasonable belief to have. I expect him to pivot after he wraps up the nomination.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      April 1, 2016 at 9:51 am

      • So basically you want him to establish a brand as being completely and utterly untrustworthy and disingenuous on the issue. That certainly worked well for Mitt Romney.

        I thought the appeal of Trump was that he didn’t care about GOP orthodoxy but just spoke his mind and did his own thing. But here he is madly genuflecting before the most sacred of Republican sacred cows.

        And the best defense is “oh well, maybe he’s just a habitual, opportunistic liar.”


        April 1, 2016 at 11:33 am

      • No, the appeal of Trump (at least around here) was his position on immigration, trade and a few other issues. Most people coming to LOTB don’t agree with the Republican position on abortion but long ago reconciled themselves to it in the interests of coalition building. Pro-lifers have been ineffectual anyway.


        April 1, 2016 at 2:17 pm

      • If he’s lying about abortion he could also be lying about immigration. On both issues he’s flip-flopped repeatedly.


        April 1, 2016 at 10:01 pm

      • Of course. But immigration and trade have been animating interests of his campaign while abortion has been an afterthought. Also, it’s not a question of “Trump, Yes or No?” It’s Trump or one of the other guys, and those other guys have bigger holes on those issues. Most commenters here have been realistic about Trump’s flaws.


        April 2, 2016 at 4:09 am

      • It’s the same logic that meant Obama’s core gave him a pass when he said he was against same-sex marriage. They knew he was lying. They knew he’d pivot and they took a very temporary rhetorical hit for the wider cause.

        And whaddaya know, they ended up winning on that topic.

        I was skeptical at the time, because it seemed crass to talk about supporting someone not just in spite of their being an obvious liar, but because of it. But looking at Trump, it makes more sense. (Although it helps that I’m strongly pro gay marriage, pro choice and anti immigration. I can’t lose.)

        An interesting point someone here made is that it’s a choice between people who *will* hurt the US, and someone who *might* do so. Trump is not ideal – if Elizabeth Warren became an immigration patriot, she would be. But you should never make the perfect the enemy of the good.


        April 2, 2016 at 10:13 am

      • I think you can make the case that he cares honestly about trade. He speaks about that issue with genuine intensity, because he conceptualizes it in terms he can understand: deals. I personally think he does not understand trade at all, in terms of policy or theory, but I do accept that he believes he does, and his motivation for what is basically a protectionist cause is genuine.

        I honestly don’t know about immigration. For most of his life he has said very politically correct things on the topic, has used open-borders and illegal labor to his own advantage — claiming it just makes economic sense. I think “the wall” makes sense to him as an easy answer to the complex problem of illegal immigration, but I do think it would be a far less dominant theme of his campaign had he not been so clumsy in talking about the issue at his campaign launch.

        If he had never gone on his stream-of-consciousness “their/they’re rapists” rant I think his entire brand could be completely different. The fact that he constantly says “I made illegal immigration an issue” has always struck me more as damage control than anything else. He got sort of carried away, then faced backlash, but also support, and now he is trying to own it.


        April 2, 2016 at 12:44 pm

  5. Abortions won’t be a big issue once we have sexbots, and we are getting thrillingly close:


    April 1, 2016 at 10:50 am

    • Having sex with a sexbot doesn’t give one STATUS. In fact, it probably does the opposite.

      The only hope is if having sex with the sexbot is SO GOOD that it makes up for the loss of status of not having sex with much less capable humans. And I think we have a long way to go before a sexbot could be that good.

      • In Ex Machina the guy who created the killer sexbots had high social status.

        slithy toves

        April 2, 2016 at 3:17 pm

    • Uh… women will still be having sex with (real) alpha males.

      Anyway, I always find all this “sexbot” talk fairly annoying, as if very many real-live people would actually use such a thing. Can you imagine giving friends a tour of your home? “This is the kitchen… this is the living room… and this is the sexbot room…” Not happening.

      Samson J.

      April 1, 2016 at 2:55 pm

  6. Why isn’t one of your options, “availability of abortion should be left to the voters of each state, out of respect for democracy as the primary value”?


    April 1, 2016 at 1:17 pm

    • Oh come on, no one really wants that or believes that it’s realistically going to happen except for a tiny handful of eggheaded constitutional scholars.

      As soon as Roe v. Wade is overturned, the anti-abortion people will want Congress to make abortion illegal everywhere.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      April 1, 2016 at 1:21 pm

      • You are probably right that anti abortion groups would want some sort of federal law outlawing abortion if the courts overruled it, but the status quo was that it was up to the states, and we were a lot less contentious about it.

        Mike Street Station

        April 2, 2016 at 11:59 pm

      • For 40 years, Christian Churches have made Abortion the world’s Number One Evil. Christians want to save the babies by making it illegal everywhere. That can’t be turned back. Abortion will NEVER be allowed to be decided at the state level.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        April 3, 2016 at 1:25 am

  7. The reality is that the “pro-life” movement is fundamentally equal to the “no-life” movement and all this squabble is just sideshow. BOTH SIDES AGREE in the “right” to self-annihilate. For the “no-life” movement and its support for abortion, THE BELIEF in the “right” of females to self-annihilate, ie., literally, KILL A PART of herself, is axiomatic. And for the “pro-live” movement, it preens and postures in its willingness to advocate on behalf of its would-be murderer in a fit of liberated “universalism.” So the “no-life” side advocates female self-annihilation and the “pro-life” side advocates annihilation by future hostile alien.

    The correct position for any politician is two-fold. First, simply state that one does not believe in his mother’s “fundamental right” to have killed him in utero. And secondly, because the abortion act itself is an act of female self-annihilation, one rejects advocating for female self-annihilation and recognizes “abortion” as inherently a self-inflicted punishment.


    April 1, 2016 at 4:48 pm

  8. I agree that abortion should be free and universally available in order to reduce the breeding of the lower classes. Affluent, high IQ women will always have access to it, regardless of what the laws say, and they will require the procedure less often as well. If you believe that having an abortion will send you kicking and screaming into hell forever, fine, don’t have one. But you shouldn’t be able to force your views on others. There have been over 50 million abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade was decided – that’s 50 million, by definition, unwanted babies, most of them prole and low IQ, growing up under deplorable conditions. By now, they would have bred another 50 million or so unwanted babies. Sheesh! We can’t even take care of the people we have now! How would we care for another 100 million?

    That said, what Whalen did was stupid. The drugs, mifepristone and misoprostol, are fairly safe but not totally so. The state of Pennsylvania, like most other states, requires that they be administered under a physician’s direction. One may agree or disagree with this, but it’s the law. The abortion produced by the drugs is indistinguishable from a spontaneous one, which is fairly common in early pregnancy. Whalen should have just taken her daughter to the hospital and not mentioned that they had induced the abortion.

    Further, it seems that Whalen received bad legal advice. She apparently was offered the opportunity to plead guilty to three misdemeanors but declined because it would have caused her to lose her job. She she decided to plead guilty to a felony (!) and got a 9-18 month sentence, albeit with work-release, so it’s not clear exactly how much time she’ll serve. But I doubt she’ll be able to keep her crummy job after that.

    I agree that the sentence seems way out of proportion to the crime, but there it is.

    Black Death

    April 1, 2016 at 6:25 pm

  9. Women in jail for abortion, already happening!

    Excellent. Now for the monsters who perform them.

    Seriously, I will never forget the time, during my second year of medical school, when I was walking home with a classmate and she nonchalantly mentioned that she spent the summer doing “terminations”. What a freakshow.

    Samson J.

    April 1, 2016 at 6:40 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: