tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1279973426476621559.post3677824563022089751..comments2023-04-03T05:20:01.318-04:00Comments on Young, Hip and Conservative: a skeptical blog: No national abortion regulation debateMichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00427964335321253510noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1279973426476621559.post-30636933616603002282013-05-15T08:02:52.126-04:002013-05-15T08:02:52.126-04:00Well said Derek. Clearly the regulations would hav...Well said Derek. Clearly the regulations would have to originate from the left, as the ones concocted by the right were designed to shut down abortion clinics, not increase safety.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00427964335321253510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1279973426476621559.post-13509093955774677082013-05-15T01:26:57.671-04:002013-05-15T01:26:57.671-04:00I think such a proposal would be a good idea. Or a...I think such a proposal would be a good idea. Or at least not a bad one.<br /><br />I'm certain the reason the vast majority of pro-abortion rights voters would be extremely skeptical of such a proposal is because it would most likely originate from an avowed enemy of abortion rights. Recent history shows plenty of examples of not earnest legislation designed to protect women choosing to undergo abortions, but attempts to essentially regulate abortion rights out of existence through forced waiting periods, parental/spousal consent, forced ultrasounds, scripts about fetuses feeling pain, onerous taxes and safety practices, etc.<br /><br />However, I would take the legislation at face value. The difficult part would be selling it to the broader public. A necessary PR campaign would involve prominent, very liberal, pro-abortion rights women out front and leading the campaign. Someone like Barbara Boxer would have to cosponsor the bill and include broad language ensuring that none of the regulations would prevent a woman from choosing an abortion. Perhaps it would also involve increased federal actions to pre-empt state laws that clearly violate Roe v. Wade (like North Dakota's).<br /><br />Sort of the inverse of the recent gun control debate: When people like President Obama and Chuck Schumer are the public face of the push for gun control, I suppose I can understand the skepticism of any card-carrying NRA member or gun owner more generally towards the final legislation (though I think gun owners should have supported it regardless).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13912979790230062211noreply@blogger.com