An Approved Abortion Alternative

The people debating the abortion issue falsely assume that there are only two possibilities for ending a pregnancy.  Wait for the baby to be born or kill it and remove it.

There is a third option which would be acceptable under Roe v. Wade.   When the baby is sufficiently developed to survive outside the mother with appropriate medical care  any doctor attempting to end the pregnancy could  be required  to attempt to remove the baby alive.   The baby would become a ward of the government which would pay  for the operation and subsequent medical care until  the baby is  adopted.   The government would also pay for follow up care for the mother including treating mental health problems such as postpartum depression.

Abortion supporters  could not claim  cost would prevent women from ending pregnancies early because government would pay all  costs.

There are numerous complications from abortions that can adversely affect a woman's physical and  mental health, including fatal bleeding that can be caused by an extremely primitive procedure which  involves pulling the baby out a piece at a time.  The baby's blood can prevent the abortionist from seeing if the mother is bleeding  

Removing the baby using a cesarean section allows the doctor to easily monitor the situation and catch any source of bleeding.  Requiring use of this procedure for premature ending of a pregnancy  would have the benefit  of the child being removed alive.  This approach to ending a late term pregnancy  should  give both sides what they want.  The woman would be allowed to end her pregnancy early and the child would be born alive.  

Roe v. Wade allows "In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger."

A baby shouldn't have to die because the mother doesn't want it.  A right to end a pregnancy prematurely shouldn't include a right to end the life of a helpless baby .

We Need March Madness [rev.]

The  NCAA should attempt the difficult task of conducting its  basketball tournaments in empty  arenas.  We need the positive energy of  March Madness to offset  the negative  energy connected to the COVID-19 virus.  March Madness can provide something to cheer about.

The entertainment industry has a long history of  entertaining military troops on the front lines to help the  morale of the troops.  Television has made it possible for troops on the front lines of  distant battle fields to watch major entertainment events like the Super Bowl.

.We  are all "troops" on a battle field a killer virus has invaded.  We need entertainers to boost our morale.   Unfortunately we tend to have widely different entertainment preferences.  March Madness and the Super Bowl  have a relatively broad appeal.  

March Madness can bring us together socially even if we are physically separate.  Physical separation can lead to social isolation and depression which can increase susceptibility to illness.  March Madness can give people something to talk about on their phones when many places are closed.

The NCAA could reduce the field to 32 teams and spread the opening round  over four days so people could watch all opening round games.

The military  could transport the teams to reduce the risk of  virus contact.

Participants in a March Madness tournament potentially could be safer than in the general population.  All games  could be played in the same arena.   Participants would all stay in the same hotel(s) along with hotel and arena employees to reduce contact with the general population.   People with hotel reservations could be given rooms in other hotels. Military personnel could help disinfect the buildings. Medical  personnel would monitor health  of participants  and   employees.

Placing  big screen televisions around the arena about  basket high would remind players that millions of  people  are watching even though the arena is empty.   The screens would show  groups  of   fans  of  the teams  in that game sent  over the internet.   The  volume would be at the normal crowd noise level.

Uncancel NCAA Tournaments and Other Sports Events

The  NCAA should attempt the difficult task of conducting its  basketball tournaments in empty  arenas.  We need the positive energy of  March Madness to offset  the negative  energy connected to the COVID-19 virus.  March Madness can provide something to cheer about.

The entertainment industry has a long history of  entertaining military troops on the front lines to help the  morale of the troops.  Television has made it possible for troops on the front lines of  distant battle fields to watch major entertainment events like the Super Bowl.

.We  are all "troops" on a battle field a killer virus has invaded.  We need entertainers to boost our morale.   Unfortunately we tend to have widely different entertainment preferences.  March Madness and the Super Bowl  have a relatively broad appeal.  

March Madness can bring us together socially even if we are physically separate.  Physical separation can lead to social isolation and depression which can increase susceptibility to illness.  March Madness can give people something to talk about on their phones when many places are closed.

The NCAA could reduce the field to 32 teams and spread the opening round  over four days so people could watch all opening round games.

The military  could transport the teams to reduce virus contact.

Will the Supreme Court Allow Louisiana to Protect Women?

[Conservatives need to recognize that liberals over time tend to morph into ultraconservatives.  In the 19th Century,   Friedrich Nietzsche noticed that:    "Liberal institutions straightway cease from being liberal the moment they are soundly established: once this is attained no more grievous and more thorough enemies of freedom exist than liberal institutions." ]

The 14th Amendment requires states to guarantee "the equal protection of the laws." Unfortunately ultraconservative Supreme Court justices such as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg don’t believe states should be allowed to protect women from unsafely operated abortion clinics. Supreme Court justices are considering Louisiana's Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, which requires that abortionists in the state have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility
Yes, I said "ultraconservative". I know people such as Ginsburg like to call themselves "liberals", but their attitude to abortion regulations is closer to "ultraconservative" than to "liberal". During the last century "liberals" have attempted to enact regulations to protect individuals from unsafe, unfair, etc. business practices. "Ultraconservatives" have attempted to prevent such regulations or ask the Supreme Court to overturn them.
The ultraconservatives who oppose abortion regulations are like the ultraconservatives who opposed regulations to protect employees from unsafe working conditions a century ago. The probusiness ultraconservative justices oppose any attempt to regulate abortions like probusiness ultraconservative justices a century ago opposed any attempt to regulate working conditions

The liberal mindset believes changes will help.  The ultraconservative mindset cannot conceive of doing anything differently.
Ultraconservatives like abortions because abortions reduce the surplus population: The deaths of women from abortions also reduce the surplus population

How many more women will have to die from carelessly performed abortions before heartless probusiness ultraconservative justices allow states to strictly regulate this  potentially fatal surgery.

Ultraconservative Justices Support Abortion

The 14th Amendment requires states to  guarantee  "the equal protection of the laws."  Unfortunately  ultraconservative Supreme Court justices such as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg don’t believe states should be allowed to protect women from unsafely operated abortion clinics.  Supreme Court justices are considering Louisiana's  Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, which requires that abortionists in the state have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility.       

Yes, I said "ultraconservative".  I know people  such as Ginsburg  like to   call themselves "liberals", but their attitude to abortion regulations is closer to "ultraconservative"  than to "liberal". During the last century "liberals" have attempted to enact regulations to protect individuals from unsafe, unfair, etc. business practices.  "Ultraconservatives"  have attempted to  prevent   such  regulations or ask  the  Supreme Court to  overturn  them.

The ultraconservatives who oppose abortion regulations are like the ultraconservatives who opposed regulations to protect employees from unsafe working conditions a century ago.   The probusiness ultraconservative justices  oppose any attempt to regulate abortions like probusiness ultraconservative justices  a century ago opposed any attempt to regulate working  conditions

Ultraconservatives like abortions because  abortions  reduce  the  surplus population:   The deaths of women from abortions also reduce  the  surplus population