Thank you for articulating the US legal and constitutional context of what to me has been the inexplicable: why this issue, with its inherent contradictions, is even on the US political radar.

Your seventh-last paragraph encapsulates the contradiction concisely:

"Yet Akin, Ryan and their colleagues say
the embryo-in-uterus – any human embryo –
must have constitutional protection for
full equality. At least, that is how the
amendment projected by the 'Sanctity of
Life Act' is worded. Thus female human
life may be protected equally to male human
life until the embryo, now developed into a
fully formed fetus, is expelled from the womb.
Immediately upon birth, the boy baby has full
14th Amendment protection. The girl baby does not,
and without the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment],
lacks full equality."

The spread of GOP spokesmen and (few) women I see promoting this requirement for constitutional protection can only be, to my mind, evidence of 'groupthink'. So I ask myself, what can most promote subordination of a politician or political candidate to groupthink? The most compelling, if not at first most obvious in a society within which there has been so little historical support for such a view, is that it will have to do with perceptions as to the likelihood of electoral success.

Time, perhaps, to consider whether some of the intimations of electoral manipulation experienced here in Australia that might appear to have a US-oriented origin might also be manifesting themselves within the US electoral process in conflict with historic US, and particularly GOP US, values and outlook. And have an origin external to the polities of both nations as they have been historically understood.

There are a number of Medical reasons to permit legalised abortion.
A licensed medical practitioner presents convincing clinical evidence, that going full term would threaten the life or sanity of the Mother; or where the foetus was the product of rape or incest!?
Rape being defined as non-consential sex, even where there was no violence, just alcohol or date rape drugs excreta etc.
The morning after pill ought not be confused with abortion; given, it simply prevents ovulation, for the entire period any of the sperm remains fertile!
Nobody, but particularly the very young and innocent/unsophisticated, ought not be asked to pay a lifetime sentence of regret and lost opportunities; for unintentionally losing their inhibitions, under the influence of unaccustomed alcohol or conventional, nowadays socially acceptable, party drugs?
There are numerous places where the MORNING AFTER PILL can be bought over the counter, without the enforced embarrassment of having to get a prescription, which may well allow enough passage of time, for the clearly unintended unplanned fertilisation to proceed.
However, given consential sex and fertilisation, abortion ought not be confused with "RESPONSIBLE" family planning or prevention; given condoms, which nowadays can be purchased in almost any super market; and the pill; or, MORNING AFTER PILL.
Simple reversible procedures, like a vasectomy or tubal ligation, would prevent some of this.
These foregoing multiple choices, makes almost any argument, or the case for patently abhorrent, [stilling of a human heart,] abortion on demand, very limited or virtually confined to the simple-minded or intellectually disabled?
That said, any attempt to legislate against abortion, will once again drive it underground, where even worse tragedies, would almost certainly ensue.
Laws have to be enforceable to be actually effective; and arguably the very reason, we are losing the war on drugs or the importation or use of illegal firearms?
At the end of the day, we need to educate not legislate!
Rhrosty.

The notion that a four cell blastocyst has the same "personhood" rights as a fully developed human is too ludicrous for words. Next they'll be giving them the vote.

Humans ought not acquire "rights" until they are humans. And women are not incubators

*Simple reversible procedures, like a vasectomy or tubal ligation, would prevent some of this.*

Well there is the rub, Rhrosty. Try and have these procedures
performed in any Australian hospital which happens to be run by the
Catholics and you will be rejected. So its clearly not just about
abortion, which they have a problem with.

As it happens, Ryan, the VP contender is also a Catholic. Romney
flip flops on the issue, depending where the votes are. Let's hope
that enough women stand up for their rights and vote against the
Republicans to sink Romney/Ryan in November. If this is the issue
that is a vote changer for Obama, I'll be thrilled.

America is the most religious country in the Western world. When
Europeans settled America, they got the religious nuts, Australia
got the convicts. The difference still shows. Lucky us

Sorry, Yabby, I can't accept that...

"America is the most religious country in the Western world."

I think even runner would disagree.

The United States is, though, the most sanctimonious.

The Republicans seem to be followers of Confucious. He say "No such thing as rape, woman with dress up run faster than man with pants down."

>>America is the most religious country in the Western world.<<

I'm surprised you of all people got that one wrong Yabby: the most religious country in the Western world would have to be the Vatican.

Cheers,

Tony

I suppose we are due to be regaled with divers articles about the US Presidential Election over the next few months, and I am greatly puzzled why this is happening.

This is an Australian website, and the overwhelming proportion of readers would NOT be US citizens, and thus would NOT be entitled to vote at this election.

It seems to me, therefore, that attempts to praise one candidate and damn another are totally futile, and without any reasonable purpose.

Too many people today are under the illusion that they are citizens of the world, whereas the fact is that they are the citizens of a nation state. There are lines in the world you can cross, thank heavens, where something is a hanging offense on one side and greatly praised on the other. What a horrendous world it would be if there was one world government.

I would therefore exhort all article authors to view the forthcoming election with detached abandon, something of interest that we cannot possible influence.

N.B. In the 2000 election the Guardian newspaper was misguided enough to encourage readers to approach electors in Ohio to persuade them to vote for Al Gore. This backfired badly with a typical comment being "I thought we got rid of you lot in 1776".

non-consential sex, even where there was no violence, just alcohol or date rape drugs excreta etc.
Rhosty,
I don't think we have to worry about male homosexuals needing an abortion.

Individual, Have you spoken to your Mum and Dad of your inclined interest to anal intercourse !!

*the most religious country in the Western world would have to be the Vatican.*

Ah of course, Tony Lavis. President Benedict and his loaded Vatican
Bank! I kind of meant real country, sorry.

Plerdsus, indeed we cannot vote in the US elections. But given the
effect of US politics on the rest of the world, it makes perfect
sense to understand the situation there and have an opinion. That
is what this site is all about.

Given that Georgie Bush nearly bankrupted America and left a total
mess behind him, many of us had indeed predicted "I told you so"

So wise Americans could indeed learn something from OLO :)

Like make abortion a major election issue and watch the women voters
flee to Obama. Yippeeeeeeee.

Mum and Dad of your inclined interest
Kipp,
Heaven forbid ! Clown ! I didn't make reference to that, Rhosty did. :-) I think we're entitled to a harmless little chuckle.

The US is addicted to the Neo-Slavery of IMMIGRATION, as is Australia.

This raises the prospect of a US hispanic majority and power supremacy within 10 or twenty years. US secular powers of Northern European descent are accutely aware of this unfolding drama and see white supremacist breeding dictums as de jure for redressing the problem.

Thus anti abortion lobbies in Congress are more influential than at any time past.

Australia is the same but its politicians are more Schizophrenic than deliberate.

The Hypocrisy is palpable and renders the human foetus as a Political tool and NO real-entity at all.

With the world teetering on financial and civil collapse because of the ENERGY and solid, liquid &gaseous waste-disposal needs of 75million additional full-born foetuses and their overentitled mothers every year, its time for the US Congress to dictate one-child-per-family laws and enforce them with mandatory abortions.

In essence this is the solution to the US fiscal CLIFF problem. Its easy, its quick and it has an enviable precedence in the gargantuan growth of the one child policy of China.

Its well known that American men are sexually subserviant to their women. But in order for Romney et al to get their once a month nookie is it worth the price of marching America off the fiscal cliff to suck up to their women by outlawing abortion & NOT enacting one child per family laws?

As there is no other way for the US to avoid the fiscal cliff that has already dragged on too long, one child laws will replace anti abortion nonsense sooner than observers imagine.

The key to future growth for any nation is STABLE population platforms with knowable ENERGY inputs and Environmental waste disposal OUTPUTS. The "stacks on the mill" politics of economic growth worked fine post WWII when populations were depleted but this is sorely NOT the current case except in the minds of IMMATURE business executives stoked up on coke and meth. If the US can go to the Moon surely thay can figure this one out before an imminent 2.3 child per woman Femageddon.

For me, this sentence is the most pregnant with implication:

“Perhaps tellingly, the Bill does not define personhood. This may well be intentional, for once questions are raised as to the 'legal and constitutional attributes and privileges' of 'personhood', the issue of sex/gender differentiation and discrimination in law, society, culture, the economy and the polity comes into sharp relief”.

Indeed, it’s good to see Jocelynne Scutt alluding to the panoply of inequality that obtains in this most martial and sanctimonious of nations, though for me economic discrimination patently comes first and sex/gender last. The allusion is all we get though and Dr Scutt predictably pursues her hobby horse thereafter. The constitutional “outrage” she exposes, is an impressive concordance of legal/historical semantics.
If only Dr Scutt would address the real outrages she hints at, that underwrite, are the essence of, US and Western culture generally.

Oh back to the 60's when dishonest abortionist pretend its all out that poor girl who gets raped. Just so happens that over 95% or more of the millions of baby murders are for convenience. Using weasal arguements to distract attention from this holocaust shows how hard and sick the hearts of those are who support it.

Deary me runner, how hard and heartless is your heart, as you flush
those poor little sperms and eggs down the toilet each month. All
those lives denied, when the wife could have carried yet another one.

Your argument makes about as much sense.

Runner "Just so happens that over 95% or more of the millions of baby murders are for convenience. "

Really? I assume you mean abortions?
Where did you get that figure from Runner?

As long as abortion remains legal, I fail to see the point of these sorts of rants...

To call abortion murder simply shows how stupid some people can be. I suppose they'd rather see unwanted or unplanned children suffer from lack of parental & sibling love & care.
Yes they're really caring types those brainless hypocrites. I've yet to see anti abortionists put their money where their mouth is.
Why don't they wait outside the clinics for unwanted babies to adopt ? No, they'd rather take the moral high ground & cause senseless trouble.
Do anti abortionists abstain from sex ? Or do they use birth control ? How come they don't have dozens of children to look after ? How do they prevent having too many children ?
To stop a human being from developing in is no different if you prevent fertilisation via the Pill in the first place or have an abortion.

*To stop a human being from developing in is no different if you prevent fertilisation via the Pill in the first place or have an abortion.*

Well there is the rub, Individual. The Catholics don't even want
women taking the pill, or having the snip. The thought of people having
sex for sheer sexual pleasure, seems to terrify them.

The only method accepted is to stick a thermometer in and measure
the temp and then only have sex at certain times. We know of
course how well all that abstaining works. Its a dismal failure,
including amongst the catholic clergy, many who clearly just can't
help themselves.

Personally, methinks that there is far more behind all this. Some
of the Vatican hierarchy are not silly and for them its all about
demographics. They want as many little Catholics as possible, so
that they are not outbred by the muslims and retain the power of the
church, because without numbers, they lose it

Yabby,
there a stories aplenty of tunnels connecting convents with monasteries. I recall one such secret tunnel having been found in a fortress which doubled as a bishops home. Skeletons of newborn were hidden in the dark catacombs.
The anti abortionists are fools who are fooling even themselves. Get a small dose of reality I say.

'As long as abortion remains legal, I fail to see the point of these sorts of rants... '

Yes Susionline - belting your wife is legal in Islamic nations so why argue its wrong. Your logic is very warped.

Abortion must be legal & must remain the mother's choice. Obviously we can not condone abortion for convenience but if financial hardship or age or too many children are concerned it has to be allowed. Do-gooders must take a backseat, get a life yourself rather than hanging off our aprons.