Walz on Third-Trimester Abortions: We Want Roe, Should Be Between Women, Doctors

[mystery-ak]

Walz on Third-Trimester Abortions: We Want Roe, Should Be Between Women, Doctors

Ian Hanchett 31 Oct 2024

On Wednesday’s broadcast of “CBS Mornings,” 2024 Democratic vice presidential candidate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) responded to a question on if there should be any abortion limits by stating that the Harris-Walz ticket’s position is that we should “restore the right of Roe v. Wade, making sure that women and their healthcare providers — because these services are health care — making sure those decisions are made in the best interests of the health of the mother.”

Co-host Adriana Diaz asked, “One of the things that Vice President Harris says she wants to do is restore abortion rights. Should there be any limits on abortion, including limiting third-trimester abortions?”

Walz responded, “Look, the Vice President’s been very clear, making sure that we restore the right of Roe v. Wade, making sure that women and their healthcare providers — because these services are health care — making sure those decisions are made in the best interests of the health of the mother. And that’s exactly what we’ve talked about the entire time. So, for 52 years, we were very clear on where things were at. Donald Trump gleefully talks about the beautiful thing that he’s done, which means women having miscarriages in parking lots. I’m down here, and was in Georgia yesterday where Amber Thurman died, and it was totally preventable had we not had a Donald Trump abortion ban. So, we’ve been clear about that. Restoration of Roe, that’s what we’re looking for.”

Diaz then followed up, “Should there be a federal third-trimester abortion ban?”

Walz responded, “Look, I’m going to go back again. Roe was very clear on what they did. We want the restoration of Roe, and that’s the position we’re taking.”

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2024/10/31/walz-on-third-trimester-abortions-we-want-roe-should-be-between-women-doctors/

[mystery-ak]

Dem Rep., Harris Surrogate on if Unborn Have Rights: It’s Right of Women to Make Choice for Their Bodies

During a town hall on NewsNation on Wednesday, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who is also a Harris-Walz surrogate, responded to arguments that the unborn have rights by stating that “We had Roe v. Wade for many, many years. It was a right of women to make that choice for their bodies.”

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2024/10/31/dem-rep-harris-surrogate-on-if-unborn-have-rights-its-right-of-women-to-make-choice-for-their-bodies/

[Fishrrman]

Forgive me folks, I'm dumb.
But didn't the Roe decision contain Harry Blackmun's famous "trimester" doctrine, in which states COULD choose to ban abortions in the third trimester?

It was only in the first trimester that Roe prohibited the state from intervening.

Even Roe acknowledged that in the second trimester there was an increasing interest in the right of the state to protect the fetus.

This is why I've stated in earlier posts that the rights of the fetus were actually BETTER PROTECTED "under Roe" than they are TODAY, in those states where voters have the option to enact state laws or even to amend state Constitutions (as was recently done in Ohio and may soon be done in Florida).

Those states mostly in the Northeast don't have initiative and referendum, but they tend to be leftist anyway, and the legislatures have already liberalized abortion.

[Smokin Joe]

Forgive me folks, I'm dumb.
But didn't the Roe decision contain Harry Blackmun's famous "trimester" doctrine, in which states COULD choose to ban abortions in the third trimester?

It was only in the first trimester that Roe prohibited the state from intervening.

Even Roe acknowledged that in the second trimester there was an increasing interest in the right of the state to protect the fetus.

This is why I've stated in earlier posts that the rights of the fetus were actually BETTER PROTECTED "under Roe" than they are TODAY, in those states where voters have the option to enact state laws or even to amend state Constitutions (as was recently done in Ohio and may soon be done in Florida).

Those states mostly in the Northeast don't have initiative and referendum, but they tend to be leftist anyway, and the legislatures have already liberalized abortion.

Well, to be honest , it depends on the State law under which the little one lives (inside mom). In our State, from the detection of a fetal heartbeat, only medically necessary abortions to preserve the life of the mother are ok. In other States, the law is far more lax. At issue is the debate over when that 'fetus' (literally, "baby" in Latin) becomes a "life". Some of us hold that life begins at conception, others not until the baby draws its first breath on its own or even later.

It's a question of where to draw the line, and which circumstances permit killing an innocent child.
It stops being all about 'mom' when that baby starts. If mom didn't want to have a baby, she should have made sure to prevent conception. That doesn't always work, I have two generations in my family (mother/daughter) who were on the pill, but also taking an antibiotic, and got pregnant. (All babies kept, BTW). The result is that I have a beautiful granddaughter, and a beautiful great grandson (and another on the way)
But our family values life, children are a precious gift, and we are willing to work together to provide for them if need be.
Would that all saw it so. No greater theft of joy exists than in people being convinced that children are just a burden, rather than the incredible source of joy and love they are.