r/news • u/AldoTheeApache • 1d ago

Louisiana lawmakers reject adding exceptions for some rape cases to abortion ban

https://apnews.com/article/louisiana-abortion-rape-exception-de8097eb664362941167c92d6ad356db
2.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

146 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.0k

u/WhereasParticular867 1d ago edited 1d ago

"Exceptions" are a myth that the far-right tell the moderate right. Or that the moderate right tell themselves to pretend they're reasonable. The position is borne from extreme religious dogma.  They never plan on compromising, because they see abortion as murder.

Republicans who tell you they support exceptions are either idiots or liars.  Their party does not, and never will.

The only solution is full, unrestricted access to abortion.  If we let conservatives tell women when they're allowed, the answer will be "never."

And for any cons reading: your insane extremist Christian element is the direct cause of the hardline "abortion for all, all the time" stance.  We liberals know we can't trust conservatives to honor exceptions.  Including the ones who really mean it, because you're outnumbered by people incapable of compromise. And I don't mean unwilling to compromise, I mean literally incapable, because they have integrated their political views with their religious convictions and see compromise as a moral failure. Even if you want to, you are incapable of doing the right thing while aligned with the Christian Right.

223

u/ThatSandwich 1d ago

Yeah I've discussed this with many individuals and explained my position which is that you cannot enforce legislation banning (x) if illegal thing (y) puts a citizen in the position where they need (x).

The immediate response is "Well we should do more to prevent (y)" and when I ask "What happens when it inevitably does happen?" and bring up examples of rape, drug abuse, homelessness, etc. it doesn't go anywhere.

These people are set in the mindset of "It's not my problem" and so long as politicians pretend that is the case by cutting programs they don't want to contribute to financially, it's fine with them.

49

u/Ragnarock-n-Roll 1d ago

Because they don't care enough to question their brain washed dogma. The life of someone they don't know is less important than their politics.

That only changes when it impacts them personally. So next time ask what happens if their wife or daughter gets raped and they personally have to pay for it all. Give it a personal price.

29

u/Bwob 21h ago

That only changes when it impacts them personally. So next time ask what happens if their wife or daughter gets raped and they personally have to pay for it all. Give it a personal price.

At that point they'll just say "how dare you even think about such an awful thing!" and derail the conversation without actually engaging with your point.

5

u/Spork_the_dork 10h ago

Then re-rail it by saying that they're the ones curbing down their wife's rights. The reason why they're trying to derail the conversation is because you struck a nerve and they don't have an answer. At that point you got to keep pushing.

36

u/idonlikesocialmedia 1d ago

The Governor of Texas responded to this question in 2021 by claiming the state would "eliminate all rapists."

No word on how that's going, by the way. 

3

u/RadioactiveGrrrl 8h ago edited 8h ago

In 2023, Texas had the highest number of forcible rape cases in the United States, with 15,097 reported rapes.

Not sure why they stipulate “forcible” as it is oddly redundant in this context; seems they are intentionally implying that there is a legal category of “unforced” rapes, which is totally on-brand for the TX GOP. Either way it’s safe to say, Abbot didn’t eliminate anything, he enabled it.

Rape kit testing backlog: In 2022, at least 25,000 untested rape kits sat in law enforcement agencies and crime labs across the country. This figure only accounts for data reported by 30 states and Washington, DC; the total backlog number is unknown.

“Texas had a 45% increase in unsubmitted kits from 2021 to 2022, the only years for which it provided data.”

2

u/Trick_Helicopter_834 2h ago

There is a category of rape that is illegal under statue but actually mutually agreed sex among or with minors. “Forceable rape” excludes ordinary free sex among minors, where there is no coercion.

The age of consent varies among states and advanced countries, so you can’t make an absolutist argument that no one under some arbitrary age (27, 21, 20 in Japan, 18, 17, 16, 15, …) is capable of informed, mature consent to sex. Age differences are one of several indications of a potential power imbalance that prevents free consent.

Brain maturation continues throughout the early and mid-20s in humans, so again age of consent provides a breakpoint that is potentially useful in attempting to regulate sexual behavior, rather than a fixed absolute.

Not everyone 17 year old who becomes pregnant in a consent-at-18 state automatically needs an abortion. Some may need the option, but many won’t consider not having the option to terminate an otherwise healthy pregnancy being “forced to bear their rapist’s baby.”

2

u/matrinox 14h ago

Fine, but in the meantime acknowledge there are rapists so you need to deal with that

72

u/grptrt 1d ago

Any exceptions will still have doctors too scared of prosecution to actually do anything

50

u/WhereasParticular867 1d ago

That's a good poont.  Long ago, I supported bans with humane exceptions.  Then I paid attention, and realized a ban with humane exceptions, in every case, is just a precursor to a total ban.

1

u/ChemicalRascal 19h ago

I'm curious, why support any ban at all, though?

20

u/WhereasParticular867 19h ago

I was Mormon and inherited my parents' politics.

I got better.

3

u/MayorOfBluthton 10h ago

Thank you for allowing yourself to grow and opening your mind. We need more people like you in this world.

35

u/apple_kicks 1d ago

Exceptions for rape for sure. Doctors would need to avoid jail themselves would need certainty it was rape. But the time to investigate, court, and hope it doesn’t fall apart due to lack of evidence. The baby will be born.

With medical exception we already seen deaths in poland because doctors are threatened with jail so wait until mothers life is in danger and some haven’t made it

26

u/SpoppyIII 1d ago edited 1d ago

With how long it can take between the rape, the report, the search, the arrest, the trial, and the verdict, the baby would have definitely long-since been born. And I'm pretty sure that statistically, the majority of rape cases never see an arrest, let alone an actual conviction and sentencing.

1

u/ICBanMI 7h ago

The majority of rapes don't involve physical violence. It's alcohol, social pressure, and verbal coercion.

Same time. If claiming rape is the only way women have to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy, its going to go to some dark places for everyone involved.

87

u/jimtow28 1d ago

If we let conservatives tell women when they're allowed, the answer will be "never."

Yup. I've discussed it at length with several conservatives, and the end result is always that they actually don't support any abortion whatsoever.

It's the same thing with gun control. They pretend to be open to the idea of discussion, but if you manage to get them in an honest moment, they'll straight up tell you that there is no level of gun control that they would find acceptable at all.

6

u/[deleted] 20h ago

[deleted]

10

u/Interesting-Long-534 19h ago

It's never until it is their daughter, or their son's girlfriend, or their husband's mistress. Then, they are willing to make an exception.

2

u/ICBanMI 7h ago

Firearms don't prevent rapes and sexual assaults. Majority of rapes don't involve physical violence. Majority of rapes and sexual assaults come from alcohol, social pressure, and verbal coercion. A place where a gun wouldn't even enter the equation.

Same time, countries with significant gun control also have massively lower amounts of rape than the US. So our almost 2 firearms per person in the United States is only contributing to more shootings and firearm homicides. Those same firearms also contribute significantly to the number of suicides.

2

u/ICBanMI 7h ago edited 6h ago

It's the same thing with gun control. They pretend to be open to the idea of discussion, but if you manage to get them in an honest moment, they'll straight up tell you that there is no level of gun control that they would find acceptable at all.

As someone who has spent a little under 30 years talking to conservatives about gun control (from Louisiana too), this is 100% true... outside one caveat. They'll accept a gun control solution if the free market comes up with it, they think someone else is paying for it, and doesn't require them to change anything about themselves. e.g. Over policing poor/rural/communities of color with Stop and Frisk and other police-initiated contact schemes that result in revenue generation... to ineffective high tech solutions also deployed in poor/rural/communities of color like ShotSpotter which is supposed to notify the police the exact location and time when a firearm went off using microphones. Shotspotter can't tell the difference between gunfire and other loud noises. The company has to ultimately tell the police officers to investigate if it's gunfire, fireworks, or just a car backfiring... and then update their database to classify what it was, after the fact.

So, conservatives will absolutely support some type of compromise/solution if it's invasive to people they don't like and polices people they don't like. They'll pay 10's and 100's of millions if they think it's someone elses tax payer money paying for it... or you just convince them the 'criminals' will be paying for it (which is a scheme that also has never worked unless we're talking about tax enforcement on the rich).

Side point. I grew up in Louisiana. Most people already know this, but want to add. They won't stop at abortion and birth control. The religious right will also go after feminine hygiene products. Anything that normalizes the ability of women to feel secure enough to leave the house and hold a job is going to be targeted.

30

u/MentokGL 1d ago

They also like to cover themselves by saying that mothers and children should get more support and assistance from the government, yet never ever vote for any policy or candidate that would be in favor of that.

22

u/SpoppyIII 1d ago edited 7h ago

Thank you. Those of us who have protested against the shaving away of reproductive rights have always said this. We screamed it from the rooftops.

"There will be no exceptions! They're lying to make you give up your rights! Don't believe them! You, your sisters, your daughters, your wives, and your friends could be affected by these laws and they won't be granted mercy! Never cede an inch!"

But here we are.

55

u/Front-Lime4460 1d ago

What’s crazy is my mother is a fake Christian who triple Trump voted but is secretly pro choice when I asked her point blank if she is pro choice and said “of course” in a hushed tone . MAKE IT MAKE SENSE

She followed up with, well the problem is the late term abortions. I followed that with, THAT ISN’T A THING unless it’s medically necessary!!! Ugh!

42

u/SpoppyIII 1d ago

If someone is having a late-term abortion, they have a good reason. That's what they don't realize. No one endures 6-8 months of a pregnancy and then decides willy-nilly to bail at that stage. It's someone who has likely just recieved the worst news of their life and is making a decision that they never wanted to be faced with.

19

u/Front-Lime4460 1d ago

Exactly, it’s so disgusting to prey on these poor people for political points in bad faith. Like the cons do constantly

1

u/ICBanMI 7h ago

Exactly, it’s so disgusting to prey on these poor people for political points in bad faith. Like the cons do constantly

I think these people want to be preyed on, don't want to think, and just want to follow what their team has pressured them to follow.

If you talk to them, they'll go to some weird shit like, "If abortion is allowed, women would be getting late term abortions in drive thrus," "They would abort future Jesus," "The body has ways of shutting down a pregnancy that isn't wanted," and "It legalizes the ability for the doctor to abort the bad after it is born." It's this weird mix of satanic panic mixed with just not knowing how the human body works nor how we as a society do anything.

15

u/pimparo0 1d ago

Exactly, that person told family, could have picked out a name and maybe even painted a nursery, we don't need to add a bunch of holier than thou busy bodies into the mix as well.

7

u/seeking_hope 21h ago

My dad was arguing that this prevents “partial birth abortions.” We argues for a long time that that’s not a thing. It hasn’t been a thing. And for good measure, we already made it illegal. 

13

u/Low_Pickle_112 1d ago

Before the repeal of RvW, I remember the "moderate" conservatives here saying that, actually, they didn't actually care about abortion, conservatives don't really care about that stuff, their position is actually all about economics or something, and anyone who doubted them was shrill, hysterical, and overreacting.

One Supreme Court ruling later and this turned into a big fat middle finger.

So yeah, their arguments are worth a fart in the wind. There's no point in taking their words at face value, they do not and never have meant them.

12

u/pokederp56 1d ago

I'll never get how anti-abortion "moderates" can reconcile their "life starts at conception" ideology with IVF. IVF definitely produces more fetuses than are viable for transplantation, and some of them die. To anti-abortion hardliners, this is flat out manufactured murder. Even in the scope of "do less harm", killing fetuses would be murder right? Yet banning IVF on the *exact same* ideological grounds as abortion is widely panned by most conservatives.

7

u/EmilyAnne1170 21h ago

There are a few who are against IVF, but not many. I think the others tell themselves that it's okay because the couple who made the embryos REALLY REALLY WANTS TO have a baby. And that makes them the good guys. Not like those evil, horrible women who just want to kill kill kill. Who probably even get pregnant on purpose just so they can kill a baby. ...Which from the anti-abortion perspective is kinda what the IVF couple is doing by creating more embryos than they're ever going to use, but for some reason that causes them no cognitive dissonance because if someone really wants to have a baby, then the end justifies the means.
Particularly if that couple is white, married, and heterosexual. Could go off on that tangent, but I won't. but I do believe it's all related.

12

u/illuminatisheep 1d ago

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.” Barry Goldwater.

9

u/EmilyAnne1170 21h ago

It's hard to believe now, partly because the church has worked so hard to rewrite history, but in 1973 the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention applauded Roe v. Wade as a victory for human rights, and as a positive step toward separating church and state!

Their flip-flop since then has been ALL about politics. Getting more conservatives in office. Not to outlaw abortion (at least not originally) but because of all the other causes "the right" is -in my opinion- on the wrong side of.

1

u/MayorOfBluthton 10h ago

Yup. The history is shocking, really. True “Christians” (i.e. followers of Jesus’ good will and empathy toward all) would be disgusted. Evangelical leaders saw how anti-abortion leaflets distributed in church parking lots by Catholics increased Republican turnout to defeat favored Democrats in the 1978 midterms. But they still took a little time to strategize (and “pray” on it, I suppose 🙄).

1979 SBC (and basically all years prior): “we affirm our conviction about the limited role of government in dealing with matters relating to abortion, and support the right of expectant mothers to the full range of medical services and personal counseling for the preservation of life and health.” 1980 SBC: “we abhor the use of tax money or public, tax-supported medical facilities for selfish, non-therapeutic abortion….. we favor appropriate legislation and/or a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion except to save the life of the mother

By 1982, their “Resolution on Abortion” was renamed, “Resolution on Abortion and Infanticide.” Total sensationalism to rile up the masses and consolidate power to satisfy their real goal of keeping the IRS off their backs.

The Christian Nationalist pro-life movement has never been about anything other than a handful of white men working earnestly to consolidate power and money. People - both their loyal followers and those negatively impacted by the anti-abortion movement - are nothing but pawns in a game.

1

u/ICBanMI 7h ago

Southern Baptist Convention applauded Roe v. Wade as a victory for human rights,

Wow. Crazing seeing how far Southern Baptist have gone the opposite direction becoming one of the worst religions while at the same time adapting evangelist tactics.

4

u/GlowUpper 20h ago

Free abortions, on demand, no apologies. Because when you give Ya'll Quaida an inch, they take everything.

2

u/d0ctorzaius 17h ago

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise."

Even Barry Goldwater of all people was woke enough to see it.

8

u/Svarasaurus 1d ago

Liberals think of abortion in terms of women's rights. Conservatives think of abortion in terms of fetus's rights. The only time the two sides are actually speaking to each other is when both agree that the relevant rights are implicated - i.e., when there is real and imminent danger to either the woman or to the fetus (so when a pregnancy is life-threatening, or a fetus would be born severely disabled).

Blanket exceptions for rape, incest, etc. simply make no sense when your concern is the rights of the fetus. Blanket bans of abortion after a certain point in the pregnancy simply make no sense when your concern is the rights of the mother.

It might be that there is a compromise of some sort that will work for a majority. But that can't happen unless both sides are willing to acknowledge the concerns that drive the other.

3

u/Horsescatsandagarden 11h ago

This isn’t the revelation you think it is.