Nixon vetoes 72-hour waiting period for abortions in Missouri



Just more of the same empty arguments from the pro abort crowd.
Abortion was legalized on the argument that ,through legalization,women would have access to safe abortions procedures.Well,we have now come full circle considering the filthy conditions of many clinics and unsafe ,including PP,who in this article mentions the safety issue.:frowning:


This law did not stop abortions, it merely ensured that the number of late abortions was increased by inserting an unnecessary delay.

Are you in favour of more late term abortions? No, I didn’t think you were. This law had unintended consequences.



I am not in favor of ANY abortions,why did you thnk otherwise?
My reply was re the quote by a PP spokesperson,I was trying to point out the lies and hypocrisy of PP who tout their services under the guise of " women’s health,"their safety record of late is abysmal,with women dying post abortion in their clinics:eek::(:mad:


This is nonsensical. Dead is still dead, even three days later :shrug: I agree with Jeanne that the argument for “safe” abortions (what an oxymoron that is!) goes out the window when you refuse to procure safety measures that are reasonable for any other medical procedure.


The law would have given the unborn 72 hours in which the mother might re-consider their decision getting an abortion. 72 hours. I think that the result would be fewer abortions as the women might have access in that time to advice not to get an abortion.

The other point is what party is the governor? Democrat - what else. The bill was passed in the Missouri legislature along party lines. In other words it got passed by Republicans. Folks, there is a difference between the two parties.

And as for your argument that this would increase late term abortions? Late term abortions happen in the later stages of the pregnancy - often when the baby is viable. How does a 72 hour delay cause late stage abortions? One thing I don’t understand is the pro-abort crowds opposition to even small pro-life measures like a waiting period. Perhaps you could speak to that rossum - why are abortion proponents so afraid of these small measures which might end up saving the lives of some unborn babies?



It is hard to fathom the attitude from the pro-abortion side. They work hard to maintain the legality of abortion, and they also proclaim they are for choice and that they want fewer abortions.

However, when pro-life people propose things like a 72-hour wait period, or ultrasounds in abortion clinics, those same pro-abortion people scream in protest. It makes no sense. What is wrong with asking for a short waiting period for the mother to consider what she is doing? What is wrong with showing the mother that her baby is growing inside her womb? What is wrong with asking women to make a rational, clear-headed, and fully informed choice BEFORE they choose to have their baby killed?

Some of those mothers might **choose **to keep their child if they have to wait three extra days. Some of those mothers might **choose **to keep their child if they see an image of it in their own body. Many of those who choose to not abort because of those reasons might choose adoption–which would be a gift of life for the baby, and a gift of a baby to a some couple wanting to adopt.

I do not get it—I really do not. :frowning:


Whereas I think I nearly fell out with a load of people here regarding the ‘Hobby Lobby ruling’ thread recently - this is something I can get on board with.

My only concern, had this bill become law, is that would it have reduced the number of abortions (a good thing), or led to an increase in the number of (even more-) unsafe (from the mother’s point of view) abortions (not really a good thing)? I’m pretty much in favour anything that reduces the former, but not, ultimately at the expense of the latter (i.e. Can an economically disadvantaged woman afford a 72hr waiting period, especially if she doesn’t live near a centre? If not, and she is desperate, what happens?)

Anyway, at the very least if de-legalising abortions is a very long term (and, as much as we might hope otherwise, possibly unrealisable) goal: ensuring sufficiently sanitary conditions and grace periods seems, (the slight concern above aside), to be a good thing.


Well I had asked rossum for his/her take. But here is mine: I think the pro-abort crowd opposes all pro-life measures, however small, because their case for legal abortion, and for the morality of abortion is built on a house of cards that depends on abortion on demand at all times during the pregnancy and even during birth. Anything short of that threatens their whole case. As soon as we start making exceptions - outlawing abortion in the late term, partial birth, getting parental approval for minors, 72 hour waiting period, - their arguments fall apart.

And they know that.

So they fight tooth and nail against measures that most people would support. Its all or nothing with the abortion crowd. Unfortunately most Democrats are joined with this crowd and can’t or won’t say no to them.



There are no safe abortions, a person always dies.

May God have mercy on us all.


Possibly the best way to drastically reduce the number of abortions is to ensure *everywhere * proper education about sex and contraception, both at school and at home. While I appreciate it goes against the teaching of the church to which most of us on this forum belong, it might be the lesser, as it were, of two evils, in the short term - if in the long term is the aim (of both sides) to have a world where there are no abortions at all…


No. The best way to reduce abortions is to instill a respect for the sanctity of human life - from conception to natural death. The answer is not to say - “have more sex, just use contraceptives” - that has been a failed strategy which has increased the # of abortions due to failures of contraceptives as well as people not using them, even though they have access to them.



We need to continue to pray unceasingly for the end of abortion.


Here’s how it works: “I’m pregnant and I want an abortion and I want it right now! How dare you make me stand here and have this thing growing in me for one minute longer! You’re not the one who is pregnant. Get this THING out of me right now! I have a right to get this over with quickly and if you think you’re laws are going to stop me, well, I’ll show you. If you don’t kill this baby, I will!” Sound crazy? It is. And she will do it.



Abortion was legalized because the belief was,if legal there would be no more coat hanger or back ally abortions,where women not only kill their babies but they too,oftentimes lost their own lives.Also,the time restrictions were that no abortions were allowed after eight weeks.
Fast forward forty years and all of the premises that legalized abortion was based on have fallen to the way side.
Planned Parenthood,the largest abortion mill in the country is also a unsafe option as we have seen recently.
The irony is,abortions by and large are oftentimes no more safe than they were pre Roe v Wade. We now have at our hand useful means of determining the development of the fetus.
via ultrasounds,yet the pro aborts fight this tooth and nail,why baca use as Ishii and others have stated,their argument is built on a house of cards.
Additionally,not only are babies being aborted farther into a pregnancy,it seems some unhinged parents have decided that they can do away with their kids as far out as two years post birth!
This I believe is a consequence of abortion anytime for any reason.


I don’t agree with abortion. However, I don’t think it is a choice that a handful of people can decide for others, like it or not. If we really want to stop abortion then we MUST provide safe houses for girls and women who find themselves with unexpected pregnancies be they from rape, incest or simply the fact that their husbands don’t want them to have another child or they don’t want another child.

We MUST provide shelter, medical care and education to them. We also need to be the ones adopting their babies if they want to give them up. Otherwise we are simply pointing fingers and making a lot of noise.


I agree.Adoption as a loving choice,a choice a woman in crisis can live with after the fact IS the best decision for all involved.


By the time a woman goes to the clinic for an abortion she has already considered all her options and agonized over her decision. It is not a decision taken lightly. This law makes it more difficult for poor woman and those who live in outlying areas to go for a procedure which should be private between her and her doctor.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that protesters have the right to harass a woman going into a clinic because of their claim of free speech. They are not there to talk about it, they are there to harass. Just for the record, Catholics have abortions at exactly the same rate as other women.


Harass?No,lovingly give testimony to life,gently encourage the mother to re insider her decision to abort.sadly abortion touches all faiths and demographics:( the soul wound that post abortive women carry lasts a lifetime.Fortunately,through God’s love and mercy,forgiveness for this grievous act is available,yet the pain of this decision will always linger.


This doesn’t add up. Are you saying that women who never intended to have an earlier abortion will now go to have a late term abortion? We would certainly not prefer that an equal number of abortions be done later rather than earlier. But a smaller number of abortions is always a good thing, even if some of them are a few days later. Almost 90% of all abortions are performed when the baby is less than 12 weeks of gestational age. A 72 hour wait is hardly going to push any of them to a point so late as to make abortion more dangerous (a point that according to PP, is statistically non-existent).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit