Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

[crazy canuck]

By focus do you mean they never mention the other two?

Think about the ways the other two can be interpreted, and you can then begin to understand why it does not create too much cognitive dissonance for the anti abortion crowd.

[Berkut]

That is interesting.

In the US, "SL, R" is used by the pro-choice crowd to make it clear they don't think of abortion as contraception. The "rare" part is stated as a outcome of comprehensive programs designed to educate and empower women (and their partners) to not get themselves (as much as is possible) into positions where an abortion is something they feel they have to do. Basically make abortion the outcome of unfortunate circumstances. The "rare" part is not the primary message - the primary message if "Safe and legal".

I can see how if you have resigned yourself to not being able to ban abortion, you could adopt that mantra, and focus not on the safe and legal, but on the rare. Sure, let it be "legal", and when it happens, it should be safe. But if there aren't any abortion clinics around, why, that would certainly make it rare, right? And if your goal is in fact to make it rare, then you should have no problem with me passing this law to make it so that only doctors with permits can perform them. It is legal of course, but sadly, there are no more permits available.

Etc., etc.

It's pretty clever, actually.

[grumbler]

SLR is a dead issue in US politics.  The Democrats have abandoned the "rare" part of it and the Republicans never really used the phrase at all.  It was originally coined by Bill Clinton to reconcile his earlier opposition to abortion with his ambitions to be President. 

The vague "rare" formulation allowed him to argue that one could oppose abortion in general terms while support allowing it when other contraceptive measures failed.  The abortion rights movements bought into it for a while, but later realized that the "rare" formulation was essentially blaming women for whom abortion became necessary. Hillary Clinton was still using it in 2016, but rejected it later when she began to pursue her own presidential ambitions.

Languish may be the last place where SLR is a contentious issue.

[crazy canuck]

That is interesting.

In the US, "SL, R" is used by the pro-choice crowd to make it clear they don't think of abortion as contraception. The "rare" part is stated as a outcome of comprehensive programs designed to educate and empower women (and their partners) to not get themselves (as much as is possible) into positions where an abortion is something they feel they have to do. Basically make abortion the outcome of unfortunate circumstances. The "rare" part is not the primary message - the primary message if "Safe and legal".

I can see how if you have resigned yourself to not being able to ban abortion, you could adopt that mantra, and focus not on the safe and legal, but on the rare. Sure, let it be "legal", and when it happens, it should be safe. But if there aren't any abortion clinics around, why, that would certainly make it rare, right? And if your goal is in fact to make it rare, then you should have no problem with me passing this law to make it so that only doctors with permits can perform them. It is legal of course, but sadly, there are no more permits available.

Etc., etc.

It's pretty clever, actually.

That is pretty much how it played out in the 80s under the BC Social Credit government (right leaning coalition).  Sure abortions are legal, and if you can get one we're sure it would be safe - but good luck finding a publicly funded doc to do it (cause we ain't funding it very much).  In response private abortion clinics were created - and were the focus points for a lot of right wing protests and some violence.  It became so bad that the court ordered bubble zones around the clinics so that women could actually access them.  Then the government changed and all that nonsense went away (or so we thought).

[crazy canuck]

SLR is a dead issue in US politics.  The Democrats have abandoned the "rare" part of it and the Republicans never really used the phrase at all.  It was originally coined by Bill Clinton to reconcile his earlier opposition to abortion with his ambitions to be President. 

The vague "rare" formulation allowed him to argue that one could oppose abortion in general terms while support allowing it when other contraceptive measures failed.  The abortion rights movements bought into it for a while, but later realized that the "rare" formulation was essentially blaming women for whom abortion became necessary. Hillary Clinton was still using it in 2016, but rejected it later when she began to pursue her own presidential ambitions.

Languish may be the last place where SLR is a contentious issue.

You will not be pleased to know that it has found a resurgence with the Conservative Party of Canada - or at least MPs within that party. That is why BB used it.

[grumbler]

You will not be pleased to know that it has found a resurgence with the Conservative Party of Canada - or at least MPs within that party. That is why BB used it.

Very occasionally you see US public figures use the term, but they quickly regret it and backtrack.  I presume that's not the case with Canadian Conservatives.  Oh, well.  Maybe Bill Clinton is secretly proud.  It worked really well for him (even Planned Parenthood used it for a while after he coined it).

[Barrister]

SLR is a dead issue in US politics.  The Democrats have abandoned the "rare" part of it and the Republicans never really used the phrase at all.  It was originally coined by Bill Clinton to reconcile his earlier opposition to abortion with his ambitions to be President. 

The vague "rare" formulation allowed him to argue that one could oppose abortion in general terms while support allowing it when other contraceptive measures failed.  The abortion rights movements bought into it for a while, but later realized that the "rare" formulation was essentially blaming women for whom abortion became necessary. Hillary Clinton was still using it in 2016, but rejected it later when she began to pursue her own presidential ambitions.

Languish may be the last place where SLR is a contentious issue.

You will not be pleased to know that it has found a resurgence with the Conservative Party of Canada - or at least MPs within that party. That is why BB used it.

I have never heard "safe legal and rare" used in Canada.

The only "resurgence" in Canada has been my use of it over the past several years on Languish.  True pro-lifers in Canada would never use it.  Otherwise conservatives try to avoid the topic as much as they can.

I swear - you hate me so much you have somehow confused me with Canadian conservatism writ large.  Maybe you just don't have any other Canadian conservatives you interact with in real life so you take out all your hatred on me.  I dunno, it puzzles me.

[Berkut]

Beebs, do you support any efforts at all to restrict access to abortion?

[crazy canuck]

SLR is a dead issue in US politics.  The Democrats have abandoned the "rare" part of it and the Republicans never really used the phrase at all.  It was originally coined by Bill Clinton to reconcile his earlier opposition to abortion with his ambitions to be President. 

The vague "rare" formulation allowed him to argue that one could oppose abortion in general terms while support allowing it when other contraceptive measures failed.  The abortion rights movements bought into it for a while, but later realized that the "rare" formulation was essentially blaming women for whom abortion became necessary. Hillary Clinton was still using it in 2016, but rejected it later when she began to pursue her own presidential ambitions.

Languish may be the last place where SLR is a contentious issue.

You will not be pleased to know that it has found a resurgence with the Conservative Party of Canada - or at least MPs within that party. That is why BB used it.

I have never heard "safe legal and rare" used in Canada.

The only "resurgence" in Canada has been my use of it over the past several years on Languish.  True pro-lifers in Canada would never use it.  Otherwise conservatives try to avoid the topic as much as they can.

I swear - you hate me so much you have somehow confused me with Canadian conservatism writ large.  Maybe you just don't have any other Canadian conservatives you interact with in real life so you take out all your hatred on me.  I dunno, it puzzles me.

BB, you defended a conservative MPs position on abortion using that terminology just a few months ago.

Also, you certainly have heard conservatives talk about it if you have been paying any attention to the leadership race

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6439660

"Brown said abortion in Canada should be "safe, legal and, in my opinion, rare." He said that if he's elected, he would not make any changes to Canada's abortion laws."

Please, stop internalizing all my criticism of your political beliefs.

[Barrister]

Beebs, do you support any efforts at all to restrict access to abortion?

Umm, yes?

I'm pretty okay with banning late-term abortion.  You know, like Roe v Wade allowed.  I can't agree with either the hard-core pro-lifers, or pro-choicers: "personhood" doesn't happen at the moment of conception any more than it happens at the moment of birth - it's somewhere in the messy middle.

[Berkut]

Beebs, do you support any efforts at all to restrict access to abortion?

Umm, yes?

I'm pretty okay with banning late-term abortion.  You know, like Roe v Wade allowed.  I can't agree with either the hard-core pro-lifers, or pro-choicers: "personhood" doesn't happen at the moment of conception any more than it happens at the moment of birth - it's somewhere in the messy middle.

Sorry, that isn't what I meant.

I mean do you support restricting access to abortion in any way assuming that otherwise the abortion itself is legal.

IE, you would support making it difficult to open a clinic that provides abortions, or you think there should be rules, laws, or procedures in place that make access itself harder, or more difficult.

Assume for the sake or argument that the legal terms under which an abortion is strictly legal are agreed upon - do you support any laws or procedures that could make it more "rare" simply because it is harder to actually get one (no clinic available, lack of doctors, not covered by insurance, protesters outside clinics, etc., etc.)

[Barrister]

Sorry, that isn't what I meant.

I mean do you support restricting access to abortion in any way assuming that otherwise the abortion itself is legal.

IE, you would support making it difficult to open a clinic that provides abortions, or you think there should be rules, laws, or procedures in place that make access itself harder, or more difficult.

Assume for the sake or argument that the legal terms under which an abortion is strictly legal are agreed upon - do you support any laws or procedures that could make it more "rare" simply because it is harder to actually get one (no clinic available, lack of doctors, not covered by insurance, protesters outside clinics, etc., etc.)

Should access to abortion be made harder just for the sake of making it harder?  Fuck no.

Obviously you should have good-faith regulation over abortion clinics and the like - that's all a part of making it "safe".  You want trained professionals, clean facilities, that kind of thing.  But of course I'm against any bad-faith banning abortion by stealth.

Protestors - well protestors have their own free speech rights of course.  But as long as they're not physically blocking access in any way I don't see it being any kind of stealth ban.  Abortion protests outside of clinics are also just not a thing in Canada (we do have the annual Right to Life march and other protests, just not outside of hospitals).

When I say abortion should be rare, I mean the following: there should be easy access to contraception; there should be easy access to morning after / plan B type medicine (which doesn't as far as I can tell count as abortion anyways); we culturally and societally should encourage women to not abort through better supports for children/pregnancy/adoption.



Tangentially related... I kind of wish we could ban gender discrimination abortion and non-fatal genetic discrimination.  I've mentioned a few times my adorable 7 year old identical twin Down Syndrom nephews.  Doctors didn't encourage both to be aborted, but they definitely encouraged selective abortion of one of them.  But the government trying to make rules about why you can or can not have an abortion is just such an ethical minefield I think it's best left alone.


I'm sure CC will come along any minute now though to explain that what I'm suggesting is just a secret front / hidden agenda however.  I am a member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy(tm) after all...

[Berkut]

Thanks. Nothing there I disagree with, and I certainly don't buy the idea that this is some kind of secret anti-abortion strategy (at least insofar as you are concerned).

[crazy canuck]

Sorry, that isn't what I meant.

I mean do you support restricting access to abortion in any way assuming that otherwise the abortion itself is legal.

IE, you would support making it difficult to open a clinic that provides abortions, or you think there should be rules, laws, or procedures in place that make access itself harder, or more difficult.

Assume for the sake or argument that the legal terms under which an abortion is strictly legal are agreed upon - do you support any laws or procedures that could make it more "rare" simply because it is harder to actually get one (no clinic available, lack of doctors, not covered by insurance, protesters outside clinics, etc., etc.)

Should access to abortion be made harder just for the sake of making it harder?  Fuck no.

Obviously you should have good-faith regulation over abortion clinics and the like - that's all a part of making it "safe".  You want trained professionals, clean facilities, that kind of thing.  But of course I'm against any bad-faith banning abortion by stealth.

Protestors - well protestors have their own free speech rights of course.  But as long as they're not physically blocking access in any way I don't see it being any kind of stealth ban.  Abortion protests outside of clinics are also just not a thing in Canada (we do have the annual Right to Life march and other protests, just not outside of hospitals).

When I say abortion should be rare, I mean the following: there should be easy access to contraception; there should be easy access to morning after / plan B type medicine (which doesn't as far as I can tell count as abortion anyways); we culturally and societally should encourage women to not abort through better supports for children/pregnancy/adoption.



Tangentially related... I kind of wish we could ban gender discrimination abortion and non-fatal genetic discrimination.  I've mentioned a few times my adorable 7 year old identical twin Down Syndrom nephews.  Doctors didn't encourage both to be aborted, but they definitely encouraged selective abortion of one of them.  But the government trying to make rules about why you can or can not have an abortion is just such an ethical minefield I think it's best left alone.


I'm sure CC will come along any minute now though to explain that what I'm suggesting is just a secret front / hidden agenda however.  I am a member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy(tm) after all...

Quite the contrary BB, I have no doubt you would do as you say.  I have much less faith in those you support policitally.

[viper37]

Fear that has been unfounded so far.