Abortion, Black Women, and the Thirteenth Amendment

by Paul Goldman

I write today to put the abortion debate in its proper Virginia political, social, and legal contexts.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution banned not only slavery but also “involuntary servitude.” “While the general spirit of the phrase ‘involuntary servitude’ is easily comprehended, the exact range of conditions it prohibits is harder to define,” declared the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Kozminski. The decision in United States v. Shackney said the ban on involuntary servitude “was to abolish all practices … having some of the incidents of slavery.” One of those practices, I will argue in this column, was depriving enslaved women the right to end unwanted pregnancies.

Given sympathetic comments by the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority to antiabortion efforts in recent litigation, the nation’s top constitutional scholars say the Court intends to use the Mississippi case argued earlier this year to give state legislature’s wide new latitude to restrict “the right to choose” established by Roe v Wade nearly fifty years ago. The intentions of Governor-elect Glenn Youngkin and his allies, including Democratic Senator Joe Morrissey, remain to be seen. But it is difficult to imagine that the publicly proclaimed foes of abortion will miss this opportunity.

I believe that Governor Ralph Northam and the White Boys Club now running the General Assembly have a moral obligation to call a Special Session to stop such an effort.

I recently finished the manuscript to my new book, “Remaking Virginia Politics,” due out next month, which reviews the state’s electoral history during the two-party era. The book describes how the white male leadership of the Virginia Democratic Party has been slow to embrace women’s rights. The election of Eileen Filler-Corn as the first Female Speaker of the House is said to disprove such a notion. But apparently not. She is acting as if she were now part of the establishment. When Henry Howell and Doug Wilder were in the General Assembly, they were fearless in challenging the backward thinking of the ruling White Boys Club. Speaker Filler-Corn clearly believes back-room dealing on the abortion issue is the better strategy.

This passivity threatens to bring back what Frederick Douglass and other abolitionists said was likely the key political, legal, and economic practice undergirding slavery in Virginia. A quick history lesson is in order.

After “the close of the international slave trade, the only way to legally increase the slave population was through female slave reproduction,” explained women’s rights activist and acclaimed professor Pamela Bridgewater. In the five-and-a-half decades following the termination of this odious international business, the number of slaves grew by 500%, according to a treatise entitled, “The Breeding of Slaves During the Domestic Slave Era 1807- 1863.”

Southern state enacted laws allowing slave masters to treat enslaved females and their offspring as private chattel. In practice that ownership extended to the slaves’ unborn children. In Congressional debates on the Thirteenth Amendment, the legislative intent clearly acknowledges the fact lawmakers realized the brutality and ungodliness of allowing state governments, through such delegation of power, to force a Black enslaved woman against her will to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

The Thirteenth Amendment, a Northern Senator declared, must “obliterate the last lingering vestiges of the slave system … everything connected with or pretending to it … the sacred rights of …hallowed family relations … will (then) be protected.” Black women in Virginia would forever be free of such a state-sponsored nightmare.

I am not suggesting those sincerely opposing abortion see the issue in the context of the treatment of enslaved Black females in the “breeding era” of our past racial brutality. But the 13th Amendment prohibition is not defined by intent or sensibilities but its consequences. The state coercing a Black woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is, as Mr. Douglass said, the very definition of involuntary servitude.

Admittedly, the termination of unwanted pregnancies does not arise in the typical worker/boss context found in the court cases on involuntary servitude. But the lack of any dispute on compensation, working conditions or adhesion contracts inflicting horrendous wrongs on powerless workers does not change the obvious: to wit, the state is taking over a woman’s body, shoving aside those traditional family relations, and demanding she complete the pregnancy or else.

Surely even the blind mice running the Virginia Democratic Party can see today what some of the greatest American reformers saw two centuries ago.

But Governor Northam and his Party Establishment allies will say, “Paul, the GOP will simply overturn whatever we do at a Special Session when taking power a few days later.”

My answer: Who is to say? Would Governor Youngkin, a potential GOP presidential nominee in 2024, or Democratic Senator Joe Morrissey, the lynchpin for any Republican effort to pass onerous anti-abortion laws in the Democratically controlled State Senate, want to reverse laws and resolutions aimed at protecting Black women and atoning for Virginia’s past?

That is for them to decide. If Morrissey wants to turn back the clock on Black women, the same for Governor Youngkin, then yes, they have the power. But I say Democrats need to do the right thing, and then dare those opposed to reverse it.

Paul Goldman is a former chairman of the Democratic Party of Virginia. 

Share this article


(comments below)


(comments below)


77 responses to “Abortion, Black Women, and the Thirteenth Amendment”

  1. It is not about the right of women over their bodies regardless of era or disposition of the powers that be at the moment ~ it is about and only about the destruction of human life in the womb ~ THE CHILD HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO BE DISMEMBERED AND THROWN IN THE TRASH period.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Since it is a fetus and not yet a child, it clearly does not have rights which can be weighed against the clearly enumerated rights of the woman. This is very much about the rights of women and the Republican drive to eliminate those rights.

      1. Fetus = Child
        It has a separate heartbeat
        It has a separate nervous system
        It feels pain and tries to resist the forceps
        Whether the child is born or not, abortion is ending a life.
        Any woman that would kill her child is a monster
        Any abortionist is a murderer.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          A fetus is not a child. A fetus is a fetus. If you wish to extend full human rights to it, you are going to have to do a great deal more than simply end abortion – you will need to require child support for fetuses and embryos, you will have to investigate every miscarriage as a potential homicide, you will need to prosecute any woman who drinks at all (even one drink) or smokes a single cigarette during pregnancy for contributing to the delinquency. That just scratches to surface. You will contend those things don’t apply because you do not really believe a fetus is a child. You are just using the fetus to control the woman and deny her the rights afforded her. It is as simple as that.

          1. YellowstoneBound1948 Avatar

            Silly, if typical, overreaction.

          2. I’ve read better hyperbolic screeds, but that’s not bad…

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            As predicted…

          4. You’re right. I knew you had it in you…

      2. How does Virginia law see it when a drunk driver kills a pregnant woman in a car crash? A single vehicular homicide or a double VH? Enough said.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          Killing of a fetus is not considered murder in Virginia. The charge is “killing of a fetus”.

          Do you claim a child tax credit for an unborn fetus? Enough said.

          1. I see why you are a 1/2 troll, everything you say goes back to what the government allows or gives you, medical science has given us very clear evidence that what is inside a woman, no matter what you call it, is alive, capable of feeling pain and viable after a few months.
            History will look back and wonder at the barbarism of a society that not only fails to protect but actively seeks the destruction of our children in their most vulnerable state.

            You can make a case that I am promoting government getting involved between a mother and her child, but do you promote child abuse outside the womb? It is a very sick mother that would proudly destroy the life growing within her.

          2. YellowstoneBound1948 Avatar

            People like you go through life splitting hairs. Heaven help you if you should discover an immutable truth.

          3. Code of Virginia
            Section 18.2 Crimes and Offense Generally
            Chapter 4. Crimes Against the Person
            Article 1. Homicide

            18.2-32. First and Second Degree Murder Defined; Punishment
            … 18.2-32.2. Killing a fetus; Penalty


            As you can see, 18.2-32.2 is a subsection of 18.2-32. First and Second Degree Murder Defined; Punishment.

            In Virginia, killing a fetus is not only considered a homicide, it is murder.


          4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Notice in 18.2-32.1. Murder of a pregnant woman; vs 18.2-32.2. Killing a fetus. Why not “murder of a fetus”. Because while a terrible crime, it does not involve a person but a fetus. That is why they use the term “fetus of another”. That is the crime and it is against the mother.

          5. The term “fetus of another” is included because abortion is legal in Virginia. It prevents overzealous prosecutors from charging a mother under the statute after she has undergone a legal abortion.

            You have made it clear that you do not consider a fetus to be a human being. That is fine – for you.

            However, your beliefs do not set state law, and killing a fetus (outside of abortion) is a crime under the subsection regarding murder in the homicide statute of the Commonwealth of Virginia. No amount of petty semantic argument from you is going to change that. Why don’t you just admit you were wrong on this one and move on?

          6. Matt Adams Avatar

            “However, your beliefs do not set state law, and killing a fetus is a crime under the subsection regarding murder in the homicide statute of the Commonwealth of Virginia.”

            He always feels his beliefs trump state laws and facts.

      3. Donald Smith Avatar
        Donald Smith

        “Since it is a fetus and not yet a child.” Ultrasounds tell us otherwise.

        Reminds me of Boss Tweed’s complaint about Thomas Nast’s political cartoons that lampooned him: Many NYC voters couldn’t read English well enough to read the newspaper articles that criticized Tweed, but everyone could understand Nast’s cartoons.

        People hear lectures about women’s rights and heartless Republicans…and then they see ultrasounds of unborn babies, and wonder who the heartless ones really are.

  2. I find this post profoundly disturbing. Kaiser Family Foundations stats shows Black women had 46% of the reported 15,601 legal abortions in Virginia in 2019; White women 34%, Hispanic 10%, Other 11%. Personal responsibility and use of contraception could reduce the numbers. Where’s the equity in 46% of terminations? (Illegal acts causing pregnancy should be considered as another matter altogether.)

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      So where is the so-called pro-life initiative to provide women with free and easily obtained birth control… if they are interested in really preventing abortions…?

      1. Abortion clinics would rather cut the babies up and sell the pieces rather than providing counselling and taxpayer funded birth control.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          Abortion clinics dictate the action of the so-called pro-life crowd? Since when? If you claim to be pro-life, the most effective way to reduce abortions would be to provide free and readily available birth control to every woman. Yet you don’t because you are not pro-life, you are pro-control.

          1. Huh? You provide it… it seems you want to use my money to fix your problem.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            And there you go. Your position is “if it costs me money, I won’t do anything to reduce abortions”. That is because you are not really pro-life.

          3. YellowstoneBound1948 Avatar

            Splitting hairs, again. You know what he means.

          4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I do indeed know what he means. He is the one, however, that claims that infringing on a woman’s rights under the Constitution is necessary to save the life of every fetus. I pointed out that there is an easier way for HIM to save fetuses. He transfers the onus onto abortion clinics. He was pretty clear about it and I pointed it out to him. No hairs were split.

          5. Womans right to destroy her ‘fetus’ vs the ‘fetuses’ right to live.
            If that isn’t simple enough for you (using your terms) I rescind my hope for you and consign you to the heap of others that condoned mass murder.
            Good day to you sir.

          6. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            That is the argument in a nutshell. Are the rights enumerated in the Constitution applicable to every fertilized egg or not? If so, then we have a great deal of legal work to do – including changing citizenship status for any child conceived in the US but born abroad. If not, then your abortion laws infringe on the rights of half the population of the US. That you would shrug it off as no big deal is really something.

          7. Matt Adams Avatar

            More hyperbolic rambling from a sad f’with troll.

      2. Plan First covers:
        • Yearly physical exams for family planning (birth control)
        purposes, including PAP test (if appropriate), Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) testing;
        • Family planning education & counseling;
        • Birth control methods provided by a doctor or obtained with a prescription such as contraceptive
        implants, ring, patch, IUDs, birth control pills, diaphragms, Depo Provera, and condoms;
        • Sterilization (tubal ligations, Essure and vasectomies), if that is your choice; and
        • Non-Emergency transportation to family planning services.
        *IUDs, implants and Depo Provera must be provided by the doctor.
        All Virginia Medicaid plans cover contraception (birth control), including immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (LARCs).

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          10% of Virginians are completely uninsured. Female birth control should be dispensed over the counter for free.

          1. So 90% have some kind of insurance, and Plan First covers those without who are not eligible for Medicaid. Female birth control needs to be done with a doctor’s supervision which Plan First covers.
            The Va Dept of Health has a free condom program.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Free OTC birth control for men but not for women… isn’t that convenient. I will note that the only reason most (not free) insurance plans cover birth control is because of the AHA. You know the law that so-called pro-life Republicans and Conservatives tried for years to overturn with zero concern about the resultant increase in abortions. They are simply not pro-life but are 100% pro-control.

          3. Will you also note that there are no medical procedures or drugs involved in providing free OTC birth control to men?

          4. Matt Adams Avatar

            How silly for you to believe that a Physician should be involved in the prescription of hormones.

          5. I know. I must be some kind of nut, right?

          6. Matt Adams Avatar

            I don’t agree with abortion but it’s not my body. The guidelines set forth in Roe should be followed until Legislation is passed codifying the matter (we both know that will never happen).

            I also am of the opinion that it shouldn’t be covered by insurance (we shouldn’t have to pay for others actions) unless it’s rape or incest, as those exclusions I can understand.

            Abortion Clinics Physicians should also have permissions at a Hospital close by in the case of emergency.

            These I believe follow the tenets of safe, legal and rare.

            I also make these statements as the husband of a NICU Nurse and a party of a miscarriage.

          7. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            You do realize that Plan B is OTC, right…

          8. Matt Adams Avatar

            Plan B isn’t birth control and you’re suppose to got to the hospital if you have complications.

            But you’re a f’with who has illustrated they are illiterate in science, law and numerous other items.

    2. Planned Parenthood kills more blacks than all those lynched by the KKK — facts are pesky creatures.

  3. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    I taught school for 27 years. There were far too many empty seats in my classroom thanks to you and your party.

    1. how_it_works Avatar

      The elementary school I would have gone to was closed, like many, many others in the country–due to “declining enrollment” in the late 70s.

      Anyone want to guess why the enrollment declined?

  4. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    Wow. I believe Paul Goldman is the one who invented the “pro-choice” euphemism to hide the brutality and reality of what was happening.
    At the moment of conception, a life has been created. Oh, because of slavery, which ended 156 years ago, we must keep it! Or, to continue the white privilege guilt stupidity, blacks have such high rates of abortion because it was bred into them to be especially fecund and this is another legacy of slavery. And then we have full troll with the Dem talking points…Republicans have tried to make birth control over the counter, but the party that claims to love womyn, and that a womyn who used to have a penis can have a fetus, has blocked those attempts. And there is another strange concept, I think before sexual “liberation” women were more choosy about sexual partners. I think the abortion regime is aimed to benefit the Democrat patriarchy – free love and kill the evidence and convince the women that abortion is A-OK…

    1. YellowstoneBound1948 Avatar

      I have been puzzled over the years by how many Jews (like Paul Goldman) support the slaughter of innocent children. In Goldman’s case, he is so eager to justify the carnage that he has written a little essay linking the pro-life movement to chattel slavery. I can’t define “gibberish,” but I know it when I see it.

      If you don’t know Goldman, Google him now. Get a good look at this guy. Reminds you of the “Chicago 7” doesn’t it? Perhaps he was traveling under the name “William Kuntsler” at the time.

      But, despite the fact that Goodman was born in Florida to an immensely wealthy family, just about the time the death camps were “liberated” in Europe, he insists on advocating for the ephemeral right of a woman to commit a senseless, violent act of brutality.

      For me, it isn’t about a “right” a woman has to kill her fetus (or whatever you want to call it). It’s about civilization. It’s about a nation’s “right” to declare that the nation will not stand for infanticide.

      And for Mr. Goldman: Were you in uniform during the Vietnam War? Didn’t think so . . .

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        I will give Goldman credit for running Doug Wilder’s campaigns. He helped make history.

      2. Peter Galuszka Avatar
        Peter Galuszka

        Does this blatant anti-Semitism represent what’s allowed at Bacon’s Rebellion?

        1. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
          Baconator with extra cheese

          Peter is correct. Pull the anti-Semitic garbage off the thread.

          1. YellowstoneBound1948 Avatar

            Get serious. Goldman does not represent all Jews. I doubt if he is Orthodox. I doubt if he is anything from a religious perspective. There is nothing anti-Semitic about my pointing out the historic irony that seems to have no effect on Goldman and his like. Your proposed censorship is one of the many tyrannical attitudes that have this country ready to blow its top.

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      “Republicans have tried to make birth control over the counter…”

      Not just OTC but FREE and OTC. Make it that and most every Dem (and almost no Rep) would vote for it. Making women’s birth control truly free and easily accessible (OTC) would be the single most effective thing that could be done to reduce abortions across the board.

      1. Nothing is free. Somebody has to pay for it.

        With that said, why should birth control be “free”? Why not available and affordable?

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          If the “pro-life” goal is to actually reduce abortions and they believe that every abortion is actually a murder, then investing in free (to the user) and readily available birth control for women should be a cost that one would think they would be willing to pay. I guess not… Instead they argue that employers should be able to exclude themselves from this requirement (under AHA) if they think birth control is wrong… not very “pro-life” that…. Interesting that they are in effect arguing that the rights of the employer to not pay for birth control trump the supposed right to life of a fetus…

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            Again, halfwit peanut gallery, nothing is free. As for pointing to Insurance, insurance is pooled, therefore you’re forcing someone to pay for something they don’t believe in.

            As for the rest of they skred, put down the bottle and stop being a dumba$ given to screeching in hyperbole.

  5. I find this post profoundly disturbing. Kaiser Family Foundation stats show Black women have 46% of reported legal abortions in Virginia; White 34%; Hispanic 10%, Other 11% of 15,601 abortions in 2019. Abortion or carrying to term are not the only alternatives if more personal responsibility and use of contraception were to be applied. (Illegal acts causing pregnancy are another situation altogether,)

  6. tmtfairfax Avatar

    Policy wise, I don’t have a problem with women making choices about abortion before the fetus can feel pain. We prevent cruelty to animals because we think it’s wrong to impose pain on a helpless being.

    But Roe v Wade was and is a piece of judicial crap. It’s one of the most poorly reasoned and explained opinions in the history of the Supreme Court. It’s right up there with Roger Taney’s Dred Scott for illogical reasoning. Penumbras, emanations and magic happens.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      Roe is also a stopgap and legislation codifying abortion should’ve been passed following it’s decision. However, that codification will never happen because it would set forth a strict set of standards for abortion to occur. As it stands with Roe there are standards but they are often time just ignored, as it stipulates after viability there is no rationale for abortion.

  7. vicnicholls Avatar

    “The state coercing a Black woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is, as Mr. Douglass said, the very definition of involuntary servitude.”

    No one is forcing any female of doing so. There are loads more contraceptive options than previously.

    “But the lack of any dispute on compensation, working conditions or adhesion contracts inflicting horrendous wrongs on powerless workers does not change the obvious: to wit, the state is taking over a woman’s body, shoving aside those traditional family relations, and demanding she complete the pregnancy or else.”

    Society does not OWE anyone for CHOOSING to carry a pregnancy forward. Like other options, we do not FORCE everyone to choose to work, even though that is better for society.

    “want to reverse laws and resolutions aimed at protecting Black women and atoning for Virginia’s past?”

    I did not participate in forcing a female who made the FREE CHOICE to participate in events and risk outcomes from said behavior. Btw, if you know crisis pregnancy center workers (as I have) in years of working there, no one said they came there due to rape.

    Children have rights also. You know the ones that say parents can’t beat to death their 1 year old?

  8. Cathy Robb Avatar

    Paul Goldman’s post is nothing but evil leftist sputum, and I’m disappointed to see it here. Abortion is not liberty. Abortion is taking a human life, and everyone knows it, which is why it’s such a difficult issue. Planned Parenthood preys on poor black women. There are more black babies aborted each year in NYC than are born alive. Democrats have been on a campaign to destroy the black family since FDR. Morality leads to liberty. Education without indoctrination leads to liberty. Personal responsibility without victimhood leads to liberty. Equal justice under the law leads to liberty. Each of these things is being eroded right now by leftists such as Paul Goldman. The last thing any woman (black, white, or otherwise) needs is the government encouraging her to kill her unborn or newborn child. There are other options for pregnant women, but you’ll never hear Democrats promote anything but abortion. I’ll never forget listening to Ralph Northam describe with the calm delivery of a serial killer how he, a pediatrician, would kill a newborn baby. He was trying to defend the hideous late-term abortion bill introduced by Del. Cathy Tran. Praise God that this man – the most destructive and divisive governor in the history of Virginia – is on his way out.

  9. StarboardLift Avatar

    Any of the experts here ever been a patient at Planned Parenthood?
    The legal argument against abortion fails because there is no consistent underlying logic in the pro-life philosophy. Eventually the trail leads to “that’s what I believe” which is not a reasonable judicial argument. Pro-life? Then you should be marching to oppose vasectomies.

    1. Every law which limits human behavior is based on a belief (or beliefs).

  10. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    I am pleased that Bacon’s Rebellion published this post. It shows that the blog is open to discussion from different perspectives.

    That being said, I disagree fundamentally with Goldman’s argument. First of all, I oppose abortion in all cases except those in which the life of the mother is seriously at risk. Abortion ends human life and should not be allowed. Second, his attempt to link the 13th amendment and involuntary servitude to abortion for Black women is stretching the Amendment beyond logical limits. Prohibiting someone from having an abortion is not a form of involuntary servitude. The woman is pregnant due to voluntary acts on her part, knowing that pregnancy was a possible result of those acts.

    I do think that birth control methods, short of abortion, should be abundantly available. I did not know about the Plan First program until Carol Bova described it in her comment. That certainly makes birth control freely available to anyone who cannot afford it and eliminates any excuses for unplanned pregnancies.

    From a different perspective, this post is fascinating. Goldman and Joe Morrissey have been law partners in the past and partners in poking the political establishment. I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall to overhear their arguments on this topic.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      I think we can all see why the Assembly is not rushing back to town to take this up. 🙂

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      As a non-lawyer, I think the better argument is equal protection clause of the 14th. If a state passes a law restricting the ability of a woman to terminate her pregnancy, by definition her right to equal protection is being infringed. The question is whether we are going to extend rights to the fetus so that it’s rights can be weighed (by the states) against the enumerated rights of the woman. I believe the court has said “yes” to the concept after the point of viability (hence the acceptance of late term abortion laws). The “pro-life” argument is that the rights of the fetus should extend to conception. I do not believe this to be appropriate for many reasons – not the least of which is that the government has no business getting involved with a woman’s early pregnancy.

      I agree that an argument centered around the 13th is not convincing but remember that the 14th was enacted to rectify the laws designed to not just impose slavery but maintain white supremacy under the law. In this way, they are related, imo. The law was a big part of the Southern system of enslavement and the concept of forced gestation by the state is what we are facing now in several states. The similarities are chilling.

      1. tmtfairfax Avatar

        The equal protection argument doesn’t make any sense. Who is similarly situated to a pregnant woman? And how are they treated differently? For an equal protection argument to prevail, one must prove two people or groups of people are similarly situated but are treated differently under the law.

        Again, I’m not arguing for prohibition of early term abortions, but I am offended by crap-ass reasoning by judges. And Roe v. Wade is crap-ass reasoning. If I were related to Harry Blackmun, I’d try to find a way to remove the matching DNA.

        1. If I were related to Harry Blackmun, I’d try to find a way to remove the matching DNA.

          That made me laugh. Thank you.

        2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          I assume you would agree that a law compelling a woman to end her pregnancy (regardless of the reason) would infringe on the woman’s Constitutional rights. By the same logic a law compelling a woman to carry a pregnancy to term would also
          infringe on her rights. The question of infringement is really not in dispute, it is that of balancing the interest of the state (or maybe eventually the rights of the fetus) against that infringement.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            None of what you said relates to the Equal Protection Clause, again something you got wrong and can’t seem to freely admit and move on from.

        3. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          The fetus.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        I agree, BUT it’s not the woman’s equal protection, it’s the fetus’. I can well aford to fly a woman to Sweden for a safe procedure, if necessary.

        The fetus of women of means is entitled to the same protections of the law as the fetus of women without the means to travel.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Shari Lewis blows your whole “protect the life” out of the water. These laws DO NOT protect any fetus, even those over 24 weeks.

  11. I can remember when even the pro-abortion crowd wanted abortion to be “safe, legal and rare”.

    Now many/most of them demand that any woman be able to get an abortion at any time during her pregnancy, right up to the moment of birth. Some even support “terminating” the infant post-birth (aka infanticide). And they don’t even have the guts to call themselves what they really are. They are pro-abortion, they are not ‘pro-choice’ or ‘pro-women’s health”, or any other innocuous-sounding euphemism.

    They ignore the last 50 years of advancement in our scientific knowledge about the development of the human fetus: when the brain begins developing, when the heart and the circulatory system form and become functional, when a mostly-developed human being is viable outside its mother’s womb, etc. They also have no use for the developments in medical care of prematurely born babies, which has made it possible to save the lives of “preemies” at earlier stages of development.

    With all the science available on the subject, I find the continuously devolving beliefs of these people quite disturbing.

    PS – I won’t even get into the author’s “13th amendment supports abortion-rights” bullsh!t because it could only have been derived from an interpretation so loose as to have no grip whatsoever on the intent of the amendment.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      Very true, also I believe Roe was decided using the 14th Amendment and not the 13th.

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      “Some even support “terminating” the infant post-birth (aka infanticide).”

      I have seen no arguments by anyone for infanticide (quotes or no).

      1. Matt Adams Avatar

        You don’t see a lot, but that’s because you’re an uneducated half-wit troll who thinks it’s okay to harass people.


      2. I have seen no arguments by anyone for infanticide (quotes or no).

        Here are a few:

        “Since neither a newborn infant nor a fish is a person, the wrongness of killing such beings is not as great as the wrongness of killing a person.”

        Princeton University’s Peter Singer in Rethinking Life and Death

        “When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of the happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.”

        Princeton University’s Peter Singer in Practical Ethics
        “In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice “after-birth abortion”, rather than “infanticide”, to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which “abortions” in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”

        Alberto Giubilini & Francesca Minerva in After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
        “So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

        Virginia Governor Ralph Northam

        Now you have seen some arguments for infanticide (quotes or no). There are plenty more where those came from, but I try to keep my posts to no more than 300-400 words including quotes.

  12. Further evidence that the 13th Amendment doesn’t have a damned thing to do with abortion rights is that in December of 1865 , when the 13th was ratified, the majority of the states had laws in place which either banned or restricted abortion for ALL women.

    There would have been no reason for ‘abortion rights’ for black women to have even crossed the minds of the men who wrote, passed and ratified the 13th Amendment.

    Darn it! Now I’ve gotten into the author’s “13th amendment supports abortion-rights” bullsh!t. Oh well…

  13. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    “Would Governor Youngkin, a potential GOP presidential nominee in 2024, or Democratic Senator Joe Morrissey, the lynchpin for any Republican effort to pass onerous anti-abortion laws in the Democratically controlled State Senate, want to reverse laws and resolutions aimed at protecting Black women and atoning for Virginia’s past?”

    Yes. Where have you been?

  14. WhatMeWorryVA Avatar

    All very interesting. At what point did you think about the dismemberment and tearing asunder of a human being? Oh yeah….just a lump of cells, mere tissue….I’ve sneezed out worse…. You are pathetic.

Leave a Reply