It's NOT ONLY a Woman's Right to Choose that is Disappearing ...
If the leaked Supreme Court Decision on Roe v Wade becomes reality, then it won't be a Woman's Right to Choose and control her own body that goes by the way-side in Conservative States - it is any previous ruling that is based on the Right to Privacy which will vanish as well.
That is what these extremist, activist Justices are really ruling on. They are claiming that in the United States of America there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE to OUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY!!!
That means Conservative States can go back to making laws to control what you do in private, including the bedroom.
100 years of progress to becoming a society worth living in - GONE.This sucks, Esoteric. It appalls me that the Right is more concerned about the "leak", than its content. They know that this casts a pall over their fortunes, revealing their true objectives to millions prior to the November midterms.
McConnell and others, knowing that this was coming, would have just assume that it stay on the QT.
On another thread, I said that I believed that if Roe is overturned these states banning abortion from conception would attempt to restrict the movement of women who seek to obtain it in another state. Does that seem feasible to you?In a normal society, I would say no, it is not feasible. But with this court, Texas could order women to wear Burkas and the Court would agree.
Next on the chopping block is same-sex marriages.
Here are the immediate consequences if the Conservatives take away a Constitutional Right that people have had all of their lives:
1. A woman who the day before had a constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy will become a felon in many Conservative States the day after the Court screws the country if she does what she has been allowed to do all of her life.
2. If some asshole knows of a person in a Blue state who sends money to a woman in Texas to help her fly to a Free State for the procedure will be able to sue the good Samaritan for damages.
3. If a mother in California helps her daughter, who lives in Oklahoma, to get an abortion, she can be sued for that.
What a sick society we will be.
Hopefully, millions and millions of women and the men who support them will protest in huge numbers in every Red city across the country and then go vote to throw the bums out.Add this on to Disney, and the insurrection and so much aberrant behavior from the Right, it is clear where things are leading once they are in charge.
That's a lot of gall, Esoteric. Where do they think that they are going to get the authority to sue someone living in a state where abortion is legal? Blue states will not tolerate backward Red state legislation affecting people and areas outside of its own jurisdiction.
I wish that they would try it and I am certain that they will. This is more than about controlling access in the state for the procedure and more about controlling the woman and their choices. Otherwise, what is the point of their law or allowing individual civil case intervention?
Instead of the Blue verses the Grey it will be the Blue vs. the Red.Authority? It is in their laws that deputize civilians to sue with impunity anybody "aiding or abetting" an abortion taken by a citizen of their state, regardless of where the suing person lives.
That has passed muster, to a degree, with the extremist, activist Conservative Justices when they didn't shoot it down outright when they had the chance. That signals they will vote to uphold such unAmerican laws.
What is good for the ugly goose is good for the gander - California is passing a similar law to allow private citizens anywhere to sue when California gun safety laws are violated.
Of course, they will protest & rightfully so. America is liberal now as people have become more educated, they aren't about to return America to more regressive times.
I don't think a million women is enough anymore. How about five million for starters.
Hell, the MORE people protest, the better. People have to protest this archaic stance. We WON'T return to being barefoot & pregnant. There are some conservative men who are threatened by women's increasing autonomy. They want women to "return to their place." Well, WRONG. America isn't going to return to medieval times.
Something to think about in your scenario of Social Darwinism, everybody for his or her self, can you see how the system can be rigged against women?
How is a return to "medieval times" or being consigned to "barefoot and pregnant", going to allow you to compete fairly? Don't think for a minute that this type of control over female reproductive choices will not spill over into economic, politics, and many other aspects of the lives of women in this society. How can they really remain separate?
The Rightwingers that you "run for" so often are not so interested in self reliance more than obtaining an unreasonable advantage for some over others. The line this time is in the gender arena.
That has always been the modus operandi of the Right, despite all the glitter on the wrapper, the content of the box is always the same.
"That means Conservative States can go back to making laws to control what you do in private, including the bedroom."
Could it mean conservative states can bring conservative abortion laws that the citizen want? You do realize many conservatives want to dictate the laws to suit their own ideologies in their states. They have the same freedoms as liberal states have when choosing liberal laws.
Not sure why liberals can't understand conservatives have the right to dictate what they want in their states. Conservatives do not abide by government overreach.
Respect the rights of conservatives....I vehemently disagree with this. Conservatives don't have the right to dictate to others how they should live. They should respect other's rights as long that such rights don't infringe upon other people. Conservative, especially conservative men, want to control women, especially their sexuality & reproductive rights. Women have the right to reproductive freedom. No woman should have to endure an unwanted pregnancy.
I think you might have misunderstood my point or I was not clear enough in regard to my thought.
The conversation was in regard to abortion laws being passed in states. I was simply saying --
Could returning abortion laws to individual states give conservatives the right to make laws that suit their own citizen's ideologies. Keep in mind it's the citizens that vote for their representatives. As a rule one votes for agendas they appreciate. Many conservatives are pro-life, should they not be heard and have their rights respected in their given state? As the liberals have a voice in their liberal states.
You do realize many conservatives want to dictate the laws to suit their own ideologies in their states., as do liberals in their states? This is one of the beauties of freedom.
In my view, some liberals appear they can't understand conservatives have the right to dictate what laws they want in their states. I am sure you know, that most Conservatives do not abide by government overreach. So would lean to bring the power of making abortion laws back to the state level.
I don't feel conservatives or liberals have the right to dictate how others should live. I do believe that voters in an individual state have the right to vote on agendas that they appreciate or hope to initiate. Our Democracy gives us the privilege of having our votes heard, and that majority should be respected, at the Federal and state levels.
Abortion is a very touchy subject, and I believe abortion is a woman's decision. I am pro-abortion for many reasons. I am also for respecting the rights of states, and the people (be it liberal or conservative) to have the power to make abortion laws. I don't feel states should be blanketed with Federal abortion laws.
It's a two-bladed sword.
I guess we see things a bit differently, but I see your point and can see you feel very strongly about your view."Many conservatives are pro-life, should they not be heard and have their rights respected in their given state? "
In this matter, no. The reason being that those "rights" (prohibition of abortion) are nothing but the desire and ability to control others. And that is a "right" that, generally, applies only to the safety of the controller. Abortion does not satisfy that requirement."are nothing but the desire and ability to control others"
So, what about a woman that feels abortion is a sin, due to her religion? Or as a nurse might feel she has seen abortion up close and objects to tossing fetuses into a container.
Or a woman that has taken good steps to assure she does not conceive until it is her choice.
Why should the desire of pro-lifers control these women from expressing their beliefs, and protesting against abortion? Not all women approve of abortion for many reasons. I say they have every right to be heard and represented by the representatives that take their voices to be heard in Government be it Federal or State?
I was speaking about the power being returned to the states to determine abortion laws. I can not abide by blanketing women under one blanket --- It's flat-out demeaning in my view.
To simplify my thought --- ALL women have a right to be heard when it comes to abortion. It's not all about abortion, to some it's truely about killing. And many women for one reason or another are against killing. Those women have a voice, and this is very fair.
Abortion will not go away, some states may revise laws, and some women will perhaps not like the laws -- they will still be able to shop around for abortion in many states if their state has laws they do not care for. Maybe even states that will pay for the abortion. Who knows...
I am pretty sure abortion is legal in every state. It would seem women will have ample opportunity to obtain an abortion.
IT almost seems as if pro-lifers are having their rights smashed. They hope their voices are heard when they speak for the unborn.
I come from a place first as a woman and secondly as a nurse that has experience with abortion. Not selected abortions, but spontaneous abortions brought on for one reason or another. Which results in the death of a woman's baby. So, naturally, I see the sorrow of a parent or parents that lost a baby. I know what a fetus looks like at all trimesters. And I can verify even at 12 weeks you know a fetus is a baby.
So all the talk of zygotes and embryos. is fine, and in an early pregnancy yes a mass of what appears to be tissue. Spontaneous abortions as a rule produce a dead baby, but not always... In a legal Abortion, the fetus is killed in the womb, removed, and disposed of.
So, I truely think women that support pro-life need to be heard, as much as those that are pro-abortion. At the end of abortion, there is a dead fetus. You can take that to the bank...
Not sure the simplicity of this fact is so overlooked."they will still be able to shop around for abortion in many states if their state has laws they do not care for." - No they won't if they live in Texas, Oklahoma, or Missouri. People helping them can be sued by vigilantes. Also, ONLY the rich will have that option.
"IT almost seems as if pro-lifers are having their rights smashed. " - How is that even possible unless you are talking about their right to tell others how to lead their lives. If it is, then that "right" should be stripped from them." No they won't if they live in Texas, Oklahoma, or Missouri. People helping them can be No they won't if they live in Texas, Oklahoma, or Missouri. People helping them can be sued by vigilantes. Also, ONLY the rich will have that option.. Also, ONLY the rich will have that option."
I have not found any laws such as what you mentioned. Could you offer a given state that signed this into law? I certainly have seen what if's on your accusation. But no laws...
Pro-lifers have a cause, they believe killing is a sin. They have the right to follow their religious beliefs. And ask for laws to support their beliefs. As due pro-choice.
" How is that even possible unless you are talking about their right to tell others how to lead their lives. If it is, then that "right" should be stripped from them."
They feel they are speaking for the unborn, that as of yet have no voice. So, yes as of yet they have not been heard... Do we not still protect women that choose to abort? Yet not the fetus.The Bill of Rights is the basic protection against unreasonable interference in the rights of the individual by the state's executive, legislative or judicial bodies.
So, state legislators can't just do what they want without having to be brought to account based on the Bill of Rights.Do you realize that pro-lifers are also against birth control? They believe that women should have as many children as possible or if single, abstain. Pro-lifers are dangerous people-they are against abortion & to a lesser extent, birth control.
Why should the desire of pro-lifers control these women from expressing their beliefs, and protesting against abortion?
-----
It is one thing to protest and another to actually interfere and intercede without any more justification beyond just your beliefs. Why would I take that as gospel?"So, what about a woman that feels abortion is a sin, due to her religion? Or as a nurse might feel she has seen abortion up close and objects to tossing fetuses into a container"
Then that woman should exercise her right to carry And deliver her baby to term. But do not interfere with the right for others, under a multitude of different circumstances to have a safe and legal abortion at a determined point in gestation. Otherwise, we all know The inhumanity and cruelty that will happen under an abortion ban.
"I can not abide by blanketing women under one blanket ---"
But when supporting an abortion ban you are doing just that. You are compelling all women to come under and adhere to your belief.
Why can there be no compromise? Because a politician wouldn't be able to polarize?I am not and never have supported banning abortion. My comments on the subject are to add a few other dimensions to this conversation. Just to bring the conversation back around full circle.
I do feel handling the power back to the states promotes Democracy. And possibly each state will respect the views of its citizens. I still believe in voting for representatives that will listen to the majority on any given policy, and initiate laws that please the majority.
Yes, it is very evident and has been for many years, that we have women that are very divided on abortion.
But, do we ignore the many on one side, or just let the states decide by considering the voice of the people in a given state?
Pro-life women have the right to have their voices heard do they not?
It seems a good solution to "split the baby down the middle --- State by State. It appears that this might be what the Supreme Court has thrown up its hands and may have settled on.
I see both sides as having good reasons to fight for their ideologies. One claims the right to choose when to have a child, the other claim they are the voices of babies that have no voice to say "I pick life".
I read your comment in regard to adoption, and foster care, abuse, t rings so very true.to what I have witnessed. So, many unwanted children, are born into situations where from day one they had little chance to thrive normally.That is why access to abortion is very crucial. There should be no unwanted children. To prevent abortion access is very totalitarian in scope. Women have the right to reproductive freedom which includes abortion. I support abortion 1000%. Women should have reproductive choice/freedom. Women shouldn't be saddled with unwanted children which will curtail her future.
I hate to say this, But I support abortion perhaps for different reasons. Yes, I have listed the problems with unwanted children that are abused and left in foster care, and many have no real chance of having any form of fulfilling life.
But I am also in some respects very disappointed in some women for not coming to the point that they realize how to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Most women should realize if they have unprotected sex it could result in pregnancy.
In my view, we have a long way to go, and the fact we can't understand birth control said little about intelligence. So yes I must agree it is better for a woman to have reproductive choice/freedom at this point.
Because just the vast number of abortions that are performed yearly show --- we have a hell of a long way to go. And one could say -- why should children be born unwanted, and be saddled with a parent that offers them no chance of a normal future?
Yeah, thus far I am on board with legal abortion and don't see much hope of ever banning it --- women need the option..Yes, they do need options. Thank you Sharlee.
I agree, while Conservatives may make terminating a pregnancy illegal, they will never stop it. If I remember my history correctly, they didn't even slow it down. All they did accomplish was making more women die from unsafe procedures and increase the misery and grief of millions of women.
I wonder if we could be sued for speaking in such a way? I can see a Conservative construing such speech as "aiding and abetting" someone from the unFree states in getting an abortion.First, you presume it is all conservative women that are pro-life. Liberals blanket frequently... As you have just done. This is not true. And you are most likely correct pro-lifers will never stop in their quest to prevent abortion. They believe in their cause.
I am not sure what this refers to? "I wonder if we could be sued for speaking in such a way? I can see a Conservative construing such speech as "aiding and abetting" someone from the unFree states in getting an abortion.""First, you presume it is all conservative women that are pro-life." - Where have I ever presumed that??? I use Conservatives the same way you use Liberal. I know you don't mean ALL Liberals and you know I don't mean ALL Conservatives. Nevertheless, we both know what the other means without having to waste words being more precise.
The THAT refers to are the laws Texas and others have passed that make allow ANYONE aiding and abetting a female Texan in getting an abortion to be sued by ANYONE, ANYWHERE to sue for damages. SO, since you and I both agree abortions should be legal, and IF a female Texan reads such a thing, I can easily see one of your Conservative friends suing us for helping the woman decide about getting an abortion. We "aided and abetted" her decision - or at least that is what can be argued.
Because the "other side" does not want one, it is "my way or the highway".
"Why should the desire of pro-lifers control these women from expressing their beliefs..."
Because the goal is to control what others do according to their beliefs, and when it has nothing to do with them. We continually complain about such things (can't have a big gulp, have to have a vaccination, can't carry a gun, etc.) but somehow when it is US forcing OTHERS instead of the other way around it's different.
Why can't we just leave each other alone to live as they wish? Why must we force OUR beliefs onto others, why must we continually force others to live as WE think they should?
I do agree, though, that the concern of murdering other people could be a deal breaker...if there were arguments supporting the claim that a fetus is a person. Not to be snarky (I really did appreciate your thoughts there), but something more than "I think it looks human and therefore it is".'Yeah, why can't we all just get along!'
GA ;-)I can see your point. But abortion has two sides no matter how you look at it in my view. It's all about life, is it not? Snuffing out an unwanted life or arguing that the life should not be snuffed out. Ultimately it comes down to women having the freedom to decide if a life is allowed to be born. The other side claims they are the voice of the unborn., and the unborn should have rights.
I guess it comes down to what you said --- "I think it looks human and therefore it is"."
One side does not see a fetus as a person due to not being born.
The other sees a fetus as a living being.
I say as a person that has seen many fetuses can truely say --- If it looks like a baby, and has a beating heart of a human being --- it's a human being. And no it has not formed a personality or the life experience to develop a character or personality... IT was a living being.
So, is this so cut and dry? I say not really. And as I have shared this society does need the option of abortion. For several reasons. WE have not evolved enough to handle the problem in a common-sense way. Which simple is birth control. And yes there are incidents where pregnancies occur by some form of force, these are exceptions.
I look at the problem of unwanted pregnancies as a problem that could be solved via education."If it looks like a baby, and has a beating heart of a human being --- it's a human being"
LOL You do realize that you simply stated that "If it's human then it's human"? Ten lashes with a wet liberal noodle for poor reasoning!
But seriously, you are right - we do not seem evolved enough to even discuss, let alone handle, the problem. Mostly because we have become an all-or-nothing society; I either get all I want or I will fight until I do. I will not compromise on anything, nor will I consider (let alone discuss) the objections of anyone else.
I do disagree that education is the solution, though - I can't imagine there are more than a handful of men or women (post pubescent males or females) that do not know where babies come from and do not know that contraception will aid in preventing them. They know, they just don't care. Some want a baby (at 14 years old), some think "It won't happen to me", some have reasons for ignoring their education. But they already know.Do you have children? If so when your child was born, did you consider it of the human species? I don't see your logic. I do know many share it. To be honest, I was going to say but thought it a bit much --- If it quacks like a duck... It's a duck.
"I do disagree that education is the solution, though - I can't imagine there are more than a handful of men or women (post pubescent males or females) that do not know where babies come from and do not know that contraception will aid in preventing them."
So, am i to believe we have come to the point as a society that has become so unintelgent to not think when we have unprotected sex?
Perhaps with the option of abortion, it seems a better choice not to use birth control on the part of women and men? You have truely brought up the head of the problem --- stupidity on the part of women and men. Lack of intelligence in my book. The number of abortions that grows rapidly should judge the mentality of our society when it comes to birth control. Many choose abortion a medical procedure that can leave women with real problems down the road... or just finding a suitable birth control.
I think it important that before talking about abortion one knows the science and well-spread myths -- WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN?
"SCIENTIFIC" MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.htmlSo much misinformation spreads among our youth about what can prevent pregnancy. I'm going to forego listing some of these. Sometimes parents are not taking the lead in sex education and contraception. Public school curriculum in this area is woefully lacking. What are they left with? The widely circulated belief that if you just urinate afterward you'll be okay. I'm sorry, I had to.
But that's just the younger group who may seek an abortion. I think we also need to consider the 20 somethings who possibly have a failure in contraception and aren't in the position financially or otherwise to support a child. The lack of exception in the majority of these states for rape or incest is also exceedingly cruel. And the other consideration would be those who have a genetically or physically catastrophically affected fetus. Oklahoma is still considering including ectopic pregnancy in terms of its ban. A condition that would surely lead to death for most females and never leads to a viable baby. And of course we have those that use abortion as birth control. I agree with you that we can reach them also. Birth control options should be easily and readily available and free. Unfortunately, it is not especially in southern states.
I'm just really struggling with the veracity politicians are going after women. Do we want to try to prevent this issue or would we rather focus on punishment?Faye, we need solutions, we have for decades. Abortion is used as a political fuel... It is to be expected. The more division the better, and the more fires the better.
Thank you Faye for your eloquent synopsis. There should be more comprehensive sex education in the schools. There are parents unfortunately the more religious who refuse to veer from their abstinent stance regarding sex education- that is the problem. America is still a religious country. Of all the Western nations, America has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates although the percentage of such is decreasing. Studies also show that 50% of pregnancies among married couples are UNPLANNED. There is a religious ferocity regarding women's sexuality & reproduction. Either women are virgins or mothers, nothing in between. Something is amiss here-SERIOUSLY AMISS.
I remember from decades ago a 60 Minutes episode where college girls from Louisiana or Mississippi firmly believed that having sex standing up would prevent babies from being born. I guess it had something to do with gravity getting in the way of fertilization.
Exactly! So much misinformation and myths abound.
Yes, I have children, 2 of them. And they were human when born. What does that have to do with a 6 week old fetus, except to note that it did develop into humans?
"So, am i to believe we have come to the point as a society that has become so unintelligent to not think when we have unprotected sex?"
Well, a member of my extended family was a father at 16 (now caring for the child alone as the mother disappeared into the woodwork)...even though he had condoms in his pocket that night. His parents tried - they did the talk and provided materials - but he wasn't interested in actually using them.
Your link was an interesting read (thanks), and makes at least an attempt to resolve the problem. It distinguishes "human" from "person", which I can accept, and claims that a zygote is a "human", or a member of "homo sapiens", which I also accept, basing the arguments on science.
But it then goes on to discuss the philosophy) of "personhood" (which is key IMO) and falls apart rather badly. Even though indicating that it [i]is a philosophical determination the writer insists that science, not philosophy, must make that determination as well. This I disagree with, for that "personhood" (using their terminology, which I find relevant) is a matter of definition, not science fact.
That link might be a good beginning to a discussion/debate on the matter.My point, you have two children, I will guarantee you that at 10 weeks, that fetus had a heartbeat, at conception, it has the DNA of the parents. If you chose to abort your two children you would be aborting a fetus that was growing, was human with human DNA, and although small one could determine it as a human species.
No, we could not determine its personality, but we could say if born this baby would develop its own unique personality.
Please don't get me wrong, I am pro-abortion. I am also for having true information on what is being aborted. Is it not fair to face the truth of what a fetus is and the facts about what is being aborted? Not to mention the fact at the end a fetus has been killed.
Our society has accepted abortion as a problem solver, I admit it is needed... But, I also face what abortion is. I have witnessed the results of spontaneous abortion. I can truely say when disposing of a fetus from about 9 weeks on --- I can guarantee anyone that it was not a cow, or a pig, but a human species. A delicate little human that for one reason or another spontaneously aborted. I never could imagine purposely
killing a fetus. Ultimately is taking a life. I don't dance around the subject, I come by my view through experience.
So yes, those that use the solution of abortion have the right to make the decision. This solution is expected, and our society dictates the need for this solution. But, my gosh lets at best realize and face some truths about abortion."And they were human when born. " - And that meets the legal definition of being a human being
Obviously, I agree with the construct that fetus' have human rights that supersede the mother's rights before they are born so long as they are more likely than not to be viable if extracted from the womb prior to a normal birth.
Everyone knows where babies come from. People have to be more responsible regarding sexual & contraceptive matters. There are people who have irresponsible sex (both single & married). Yes, there are married people who have irresponsible sex-where do you think large/very large families come from-from those married couples who have irresponsible sex. Those (single & married) who have irresponsible sex are quite problematic. This is why there should be mandatory birth control & sterilization.
I would be satisfied with a better form of sex education, that includes information about abortion.
Here's a thought, the only education that might work is to expose them to the experience of teenage-parenthood. Add a full summer semester during the freshman high school year.
A full three months of beautiful summer weather and teenage parent responsibilities. The girls would have days full of childcare responsibilities, and the boys would have to work 60 hours a week to support his 'wife and baby'. All while their upperclassmen friends are having a fabulous carefree summer.
That might work, nothing else has. From grandma's quarter-behind-the-knee lesson to our modern sex education efforts, human instinct still wins. That school-of-hard-knocks semester will probably only put a dent in the problem.
GAWhat you have presented is a great lesson. My second youngest aunt got pregnant as a teenager. Her life, in essence, was ruined. Instead of college & a better life, she had to work in a factory. She was miserable. Observed her & learned the GREATEST lesson. If going to have sex, USE BIRTH CONTROL or DON'T HAVE SEX AT ALL. TEENAGE PREGNANCY=RUINED LIFE OF VERY LOW EXPECTATIONS. Yep, great lesson learned.
I can't disagree, nothing thus far has worked, the abortion rate proves your view is right on the money.
It is pretty clear we might as well give up, and deal with what we have accepted as a society to handle an unwanted pregnancy. Abortion is a very easy solution. I mean could we even ever hope for common sense to be involved in intercourse?
I am also pro-abortion. We need abortion out of necessity.Here's another thought. Pro-abortion and pro-choice may be intended to mean the same thing, but they present two different messages. I'm going with pro-choice.
GAI agree. It seems to me that the right to terminate a pregnancy is a subset of the Right to Privacy. Fifty years ago, the wise Justices on that Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision decided the Right to Privacy is implied in both the 9th and 14th Amendments (not to say Common Sense). From that Right (and a few before it based only on the 4th and 9th) flowed many other decisions that moved the needle forward to a More Perfect Union and more civil society. Ever since, Conservatives have been fighting very hard to move that needle backwards.
I am surprised originalist, activist Conservative Justices don't understand the concept of implied Rights. The framers of our Constitution didn't think they NEEDED to [b]specifically[/b[ include the liberal ideals of the next 10 Amendments because they were clearly implied in the original text. Well, the Conservatives of the day whined and whined until Madison promised to include them, if only people would ratify the Constitution.
The Right to Privacy is a bedrock principal of the liberalism on which our nation is founded, which is probably why Conservative oppose it so much. On the other hand, telling people what they can and cannot do is a bedrock principal of conservatism - at least that is the way it has played out in America. So, obviously, telling 1/2 of the population of America they do not have a right to control their own bodies just comes naturally to conservatives.It looks like what you are saying is that you are surprised those Justices don't understand the concept of implied rights as you do.
I agree with your idea that the Founders didn't consider some inclusions because they were so basic that they couldn't foresee the need. And that they did have a firm sense of the implied rights in their workings. However, that might not be the right argument to support your thoughts about what could be considered implied rights.
Imagine if any of today's hot social issues, (abortion, LBDT, et al.), were considered in the writing of the Constitution. I bet there would be an anti-abortion clause. This would show your view of their implied rights intentions to be clearly wrong—I think.
Don't get carried away now. I am agreeing with you that the Constitution does include a lot of implied rights. I am just unsure of the extrapolations we have seen, (and those proposed), that are drawn from the 9th & 14th that you cited.
GAI bet there would be an anti-abortion clause.
Maybe not.
Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900. Many tribal societies knew how to induce abortions. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening, the highly subjective term used to describe when pregnant women could feel the fetus moving
.
"At conception and the earliest stage of pregnancy, before quickening, no one believed that a human life existed; not even the Catholic Church took this view," Reagan, a professor of history, medicine, gender, women's studies and law at the University of Illinois, wrote.
The surprising of abortion in the United States
"Not until 1869, at about the same time that abortion became politicized in this country, did the church condemn abortion; in 1895, it condemned therapeutic abortion," meaning procedures to save a woman's life.
Abortions would become criminalized by 1880, except when necessary to save a woman's life.Thank you, abortion is being politicized to punish women's sexuality as well as women's bodies. The premise of this is that women have sex, she should "accept the responsibility" of having the child whether she wants it or not. She should suffer through "motherhood". Also, there is the thought that if a single woman has sex, she should "be punished" by pregnancy as she "has no business" having sex in the first place.
Just as a side note the first recorded abortion was 1550 B.C., so its been around since who knows when. It has been controversial since that time too. I am pro-choice, yet against abortions.
Anyway, if any are curious below is a link to a brief history of abortion from Bionity.com. It is not current going to 2007. One may say it has an evolutionary trend to it.
https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia … f_abortion
And, for more insight at how different mainline religious people view it next is a Pew Research study on it. It is an easy skim being graphs. Unsure how current it is, yet it caused me to consider freedom of religion . . . consider meaning a passing thought.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/re … -abortion/
Finally, from Pew Research Jan 16, 2013, so may have changed in relation to today.
Religious Groups’ Official Positions on Abortion
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/20 … -abortion/Well damn, maybe not. As a surprised neighbor might say, "I had no idea . . . "
I had a whole big argument to support my thought and you just shot it all to hell. ;-)
GANope. Grateful. I had a "misperception." Now, maybe not.
GA
One of the beautiful things about what our founders' crafted is it was meant to change with the times. They knew that what they believed then (slavery being the best example) would not be what would be believed a century later. Therefore, they left a lot up for interpretation - on purpose.
The problem with the "originalists" view is they don't think that is true, despite all that was written about a "living" Constitution. They want to believe that the moral code prevalent in the 1700s is the same moral code prevalent today.
Now, I am certain you are right about how our founders probably felt about abortion (maybe) and gay rights (almost certainly). But, they were liberals, after all, and crafted the Constitution such that the majority shouldn't have the power to be trampling the rights of the minority.My perception of the 'Living Document" stance isn't a good one. That perception, reinforced by your word choice of "change" brought out the contrarian in me.
If we could find a middle ground that spoke to planned interpretation as times change, I think your point is right. I do think the Constitution is just the foundation and it was expected that future times would bring future unforeseeable applications and interpretations of it.
Whether it is hair-splitting or just semantics, I see extrapolations from the basics to be different than changing the basics.
GAJust think of the term "Originalist" and add a little bit of elasticity. That is the distinction.
GA
I had to look. Between 2010 and 2019, the total number of reported abortions, abortion rate, and abortion ratio decreased 18%, 21%, and 13%, respectively.
I doubt that will change much with the repeal of Roe. What WILL increase is the number of mothers who die from abortions or the lack thereof.
Actually, I think a few progressive schools actually tried a version of that years ago. While a great idea, I don't remember it going over very well.
As would I, but Conservatives oppose such a sinful thing.
You are blanketing, instead of looking at people as individual Conservatives. I find this as ill- logical.
I realize this form of thinking is part of some ideologies today. I have come to look past it. But I feel this kind of blanketing needs to be pointed out.
Not all conservatives are pro-life or are they pro-abortion. As a conservative, I find abortion a necessity for many reasons. None of which you would appreciate. But, I do support abortion, while my values find it deplorable, my common sense tells me as society needs the right to abortion to decrease problems that can occur when a child is born unwanted.No, I am certainly not "blanketing". Those Conservatives they feel the way you do about such things are in the very distinct minority. Therefore, I a properly using the term Conservatives. (Also know that when I use the term Conservative, I am talking about Social Conservatives)
I bet when you dig down deep in your soul, you will find you find you disagree with most social conservative principals and begin to wonder why you consider yourself Conservative at all.
That's a pretty broad statement. You should add some definition; such as; conservatives think your perception of sex education is sinful.
I say no amount of sex education is going to stop the instinct to have sex—a human survival instinct that has been reinforced since birth by our societal preoccupation with it.
What do you think sex education should focus on to be successful? What focus do you think past sex education programs have failed to teach?
GATo interject, sex education should be age appropriate & comprehensive. Emphasis should be placed upon the relationship between sex esteem & sex. If one has high self-esteem, h/she would be more responsible as well as respectful regarding sexual matters. Also birth control methods as well as abortion should be taught, even stressed. Abstinence education is really superfluous as far as sex education goes.
Although there is sure to be disagreement about the right "age" for different teachings, I think you are right that it should be age-appropriate. I'm not sure what your "sex esteem & sex" point meant. I also had the perception that birth control contraception was already being taught, (somewhere in the pre-teen years?), and available. I'm sure I recall stories about condom jars in the nurse's office, (in high schools).
I'm not a fan of what I perceive to be meant by "comprehensive" sex education. I support basic sex education: this is the body, this is what sex is, this is how you do sex, and this is what sex can cause.
Of, course those wouldn't be Neanderthal courses, they would include all aspects of those basics, but self-esteem and respect, and such, are life lessons, not sex education lessons. Those basic courses would also include the nurses' condom jars. ;-)
GA
I think that will get you thrown in jail in Florida now a days. If it doesn't, then DeSantis is working on it.
DeSantis appears to be very well-liked in Florida. Perhaps they appreciate his agenda. he polls high.
He is liked among some, I live here and that sentiment is hardly universal.
Do you consider 54% a "high" approval rating? I am not surprised by that.''
- Republicans somewhat outnumber Democrats here.
- Unlike Republicans in states like California and New York are much more moderate than they are here.
- Likewise, independents in Florida lean a lot more Republican than are truly independent.
An amazing 13% if Republicans don't think DeSantis is doing well.
As for Independents, 34% think he is rotten.
Also surprising is that 21% of Democrats think DeSantis is doing OK. That said, it was pointed out to me there are a still a large number of conservative Democrats in Florida who vote Republican.
As to your article, beyond wondering where this person learned to write, I much ask the question - "so what?"
We all can stipulate that at the time of fertilization the components for a viable, potential human being with rights exists. But, without the mother, that set of 26 chromosomes will not become "life" as we commonly understand it. It is "becoming alive" that defines a "Human Being", not, as the author suggests, the combination of an egg and sperm.
Legally, this is what a "human being" is (1 U.S. Code § 8):
(a)In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
Contrary to the authors OPINION, being a "human being" is political/philosophical construct, not a "scientific" one.
"https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/06/media/mark-esper-trump-missiles-mexico-defense-department/index.html"- Have ALL of us become that or just some segment? I would argue the latter.
"The other sees a fetus as a living being." - And that side is going to force you to agree with them under penalty of jail.
"Which simple is birth control. " - The problem there is that Conservatives will target that next. There is also the issue that no birth control is full-proof. My becoming great grandfather is proof of that. My grandson's girlfriend was not as careful with her pills as she should have been. He is 18 and she is 20 and both immature as hell. Fortunately, they both want to do the right thing and keep/raise their soon to be son.
But, in many states now, she would have been precluded from terminating and having a kid when she is really ready to.
"I look at the problem of unwanted pregnancies as a problem that could be solved via education." - [i]I agree, but unfortunately, way too many Conservatives do not.
"Why can't we just leave each other alone to live as they wish? " - Why can't we just let restaurants serve arsenic if they want? Isn't that the same thing as selling pure sugar drinks to obese adults?
Rather than force kids to get the measles vaccine, isn't it better 1) to let them catch it and die and 2) before they die, pass it on to others? Yes, that is the Conservative ticket.
And yes, we should let every lunatic, wife-beater, and terrorist carry a gun if they feel like it. That makes all the sense in the world."Why can't we just leave each other alone to live as they wish? " - That is exactly what Liberals wish for (so long as another's rights aren't violated in the process). Unfortunately, the same is not true of Conservatives.
"Could returning abortion laws to individual states give conservatives the right to make laws that suit their own citizen's ideologies." - What if that Conservative value became slavery again? Would you think it alright for states to institute slavery again if the "people" want it? Careful what you ask for[, you may get sued for being pro-choice now./i]
"I don't feel states should be blanketed with Federal abortion laws." - [i]To me, that is saying you don't think the Right to Privacy is a protected right and just depends on the whims of one's political beliefs.I don't find your analogy makes much sense. Would it not take Congress to change a law? Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865, the 13th amendment abolished slavery in the United States.
Do you feel our Congress would overturn slavery? Do you in all good sense feel Americans would support overturning slavery? Your analogy is hyperbolic.
Killing is killing, sorry I don't find killing a right. Yes, we can pass laws that dictate a woman has the right to kill via an abortion. Which has been done. Could they perhaps pass some laws to kill our infants if they become a burden? If one kills a 6-month-old, should they be allowed the right of privacy to do so?
As I said --- So, I truely think women that support pro-life need to be heard, as much as those that are pro-abortion. At the end of abortion, there is a dead fetus. You can take that to the bank... And I will add --- it's all legal.
Not sure the simplicity of this fact is so overlooked.
"I don't feel conservatives or liberals have the right to dictate how others should live. " - If you truly feel that way, then why are you supporting a state's right what women can do with their bodies?
"Could it mean conservative states can bring conservative abortion laws that the citizen want? " - Except that citizens DON'T want this - by a large margin.
So, Hitler had a right to dictate whatever HE wanted in Nazi Germany? Is that what you are suggesting?
No, Conservatives DO NOT have the right to oppress their citizens and take away their liberties. I am sad to see that you think they do.Oh My, the Hitler word is being pulled out. I did not say conservatives have the right to oppress their citizens and take away their liberties. I said this
You do realize many conservatives want to dictate the laws to suit their own ideologies in their states. They have the same freedoms as liberal states have when choosing liberal laws.
Not sure why liberals can't understand conservatives have the right to dictate what they want in their states.
I was referring to conservative citizens, not conservative representatives. The people or citizens in a given state have a right to be heard be a red state or blue state. Did I word my comment to mention lawmakers or State representatives? I was speaking about citizens and their ideologies.That over half the states are poised to enact legislation severely limiting or banning abortion outright rather gives a lie the the claim that a large majority want it available.
You are smart enough to know you are misrepresenting data. Those states account for around 44% of the population, not over 50%, '
Anyway, you know as well as I do, I am talking about opinion polls.
6 out of 10 people still support Roe v Wade, and according to Pew, that is growing rapidly.And if every person in the remaining states want abortion that would be 56% of the population. Hardly the large majority you report.
I understand it is from polls. Perhaps those polls never asked anyone in Texas or those other 25 states? We both know just how easily polls can be manipulated. I will stand behind my comment that when over half the states are set to severely limit abortions it is very difficult to believe that a large majority support it. Or even a lesser amount of only 60%.Just keep your head in the sand and living in your alternate reality.
" We both know just how easily polls can be manipulated." - No, we don't know that at all, at least not with reputable ones.
My perception is in that PEW range, (70% is my guess); on the simple question of 'choice or no choice.'
I think the exactness of the percentages could be influenced as much as 5 or 10 points by the poll itself, but that doesn't make the trends they indicate wrong.
But, what happens to that trend when the questions are conditional, such as 'choice or no choice at late-term', or 'choice or no choice at 4 weeks'?
Constitutionally, I think returning this power to the states is right, even if I think the results of Roe were mostly right. I think the "states'" positions are the real indicator of the divide. So, even as the majority of 'national' opinions support Roe, a majority of 'state' opinions do not.
Who ya gonna call?
GAGus what you have elucidated is true. More progressive states such as New York & California are more pro-choice. The Midwestern & Southern states are more pro-life, especially in the Bible Belt. My cousin & I discussed this. We are both vehemently pro-choice. I have been pro-choice since I was in college. Anyone who doesn't believe in abortion is ----- in my estimation.
Why did you mince words at the end? It seems you feel very strongly about your pro-choice perspective. Formed in your college years and held firmly ever since. Sounds like a core belief to me. I can understand that. I am also pro-choice, but for reasons of my own that aren't really negotiable.
That you didn't name your adjective, (for those that aren't pro-choice), certainly means it wasn't a positive one. Why do you so vehemently reject others that have their equally deeply held perspectives?
Come on Grace, give your estimation a little nudge, there's room for discussion.
GA
"I think the exactness of the percentages could be influenced as much as 5 or 10 points by the poll itself, but that doesn't make the trends they indicate wrong." - Yes, no doubt.
If the states can limit this fundamental right, then why shouldn't they be able to limit all rights? I fall back to my old standby - why can't states decide on the legality of slavery (at least before the 13th Amendment was ratified).
I can tell you for sure, you and James Madison would be in a big fight over this issue, lol.Now that IslandMom has prompted a perception adjustment, maybe Jimmy and I would be having martinis instead of a fight. (assuming you are speaking to his desire for a federal veto power)
I'm still working through this one. My perception of the religious component of abortion belief—in the period of the Constitution's writing, was wrong. Maybe not completely wrong, but wrong enough to shake my faith in how right I thought it was.
I am thinking that, like everything else in life, this is another issue of degrees. As in, abortion may have been accepted as a reality of life occurrence or necessity of the times, but would not have been accepted as a life-style choice, which is how I see our current abortion debate.
I'm not ready to pivot on my 'states' rights' thought, (yet?), but the foundation for that thought has a chink that I didn't see.
Maybe this might be an issue that supports Madison's reasoning. I'm working on it.
As for your "old standby", your own caveat shows how much of a stretch that comparison is.
GA
No, half the Trump Republican legislatures and governors want to take away peoples liberties. That does not mean the people want such a horrific thing. A new poll out today says two-thirds of American want to keep Roe. But who cares so long as Conservatives get to tell you what to do.
I have been debating on a title for my new book. Maybe something like The Resurgence of American Conservativism and the Fall of American Liberty
or
"The Rise and Fall of American Liberty - The Fall and Rise of American Conservatism[/i]
Conservative states also had laws prohibiting miscegenation 60 years ago. A 1967 Supreme Court ruling stated that people could associate, marry or cavort with whom ever they choose.
So, what conservatives States decide to legislate may be well null and void as they cannot ignore basic constitutional protections. And this issue may well cross that line.But Liberals realize that there are pro-lifers but they don't interfere with the latter's belief system; however, Conservatives WILL INTERFERE with those w/differing belief systems. Conservatives WILL CURTAIL those w/more liberal views.
By leaving the decisions up to individual states, the abortion laws could be voted on, and the majority would make the laws in their state.
But the legislatures of red states are already blocking, in a completely indiscriminate and cruel manner, the rights of ALL women in their states. This is authoritarianism in a very sweeping manner. Again, a vote sounds somewhat democratic but I don't think your neighbor needs to determine the ability for you to have autonomy over your own body.
And I have to bring up the obvious rebuttal. Would you accept the majority of voters in a state bringing back slavery?
As James Madison often said "Some things should not be up to the State". That is what is research into state governments taught him.
Your right to vote was once up to the states and Conservatives denied you that right. It took a Constitutional amendment to beat back conservative values in that case. Do we need a Constitutional amendment that delineates ever possible right a person should have? That would be a very long amendment indeed.What if the majority voted for slavery? Is that OK? There are many things where the majority SHOULD NOT rule, IMO.
And THAT is the point isn't it. Liberals, by and large, are live and let live while Conservatives are "live the way we tell you or you are a criminal".
If conservatives don't approve of abortion, they don't ever have to be forced to get one.
But as follows, you shouldn't be able to force someone to carry a child she may not be able to support. I am sick of the Christian Taliban forcing it's views on everyone else. I know many women, some only teens, who get pregnant and have boyfriends who leave them, because THEY have FUTURES. Many have conservative Mothers who never discussed birth control with them. What about HER future? Grandma works now and can't babysit. So a young, pregnant woman forced to have a baby won't finish HS, and by the time the kid goes to school, Mom can get an entry level job which isn't going to pay enough to support them. She never will have the time to go to college. She's way behind other women her age and has little life experience, because she's saddled with a child she was not ready to have. This happened to my best friend.
None of you crazies care about the girl's future. Many women need abortions because they are too young, or not financially able to support a child alone. Birth control often fails, and now conservatives want to come after IUDs and the morning after pill. Plus you want bounty hunters being paid to nose into a women's private business too?
You have no right to force your narrow views of the world on everyone else. Also, many menopausal women get pregnant when they no longer think they can, and often have a "D & C", to avoid a very high risk pregnancy. You Republicans only care about the child while it's in the womb anyway, not any programs to help single women raise the actual child. Many religions believe life starts at birth.Stop trying to to return us to laws from the 1700s. Get out of other women's private lives and bedrooms.Haven't seen you around in a while, Jean, nice to have you bring so candid a viewpoint to this contentious issue....
You don't get it, do you, lol. Conservatives aren't content with controlling their own lives - they are compelled to control yours to. And I am not talking just about American conservatives, this is a characteristic of Conservatives everywhere.
While I am not Christian (if I am anything, I am a Pantheist), and hold many of them in high disregard, I will defend them to this degree. "Christian Taliban" = Evangelical, Fundamentalist, and other Conservative Christian sects.
There are millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc out there who try to do good in this world. But there are also millions who do bad.WOW! Not sure if you follow my post here or realize I am pro-choice.
My comment, the one you felt the need to respond to, was simply offering a view, another view that perhaps worth some consideration. I don't feel there is one side to the abortion issue. I keep an open mind and attempt to respect others as much as possible here at HP. I am accustomed to the mindset that many have adopted in our current society, and make every attempt to understand others' views.
Here is my comment. Please note the first sentence, this is what inspired me to respond with my own view.
"That means Conservative States can go back to making laws to control what you do in private, including the bedroom."
My response --- Could it mean conservative states can bring conservative abortion laws that the citizen want? You do realize many conservatives want to dictate the laws to suit their own ideologies in their states. They have the same freedoms as liberal states have when choosing liberal laws.
Not sure why some can't understand conservatives HAVE THE RIGHT to dictate what they want in their states. Conservatives do not abide by government overreach.
Respect the rights of conservatives....
I am pointing out something that liberals seem to not understand... CONSERVATIVES HAVE RIGHTS --- PERHAPS TIME TO RESPECT THEM.
DO you realize how very derogatory some of your statements sound?
"None of YOU crazies care about the girl's future."
" Plus YOU want bounty hunters being paid to nose into a women's private business too?"
"YOU have no right to force your narrow views of the world on everyone else. Also, many menopausal women get pregnant when they no longer think they can, and often have a "D & C", to avoid a very high risk pregnancy. "
" YOU Republicans only care about the child while it's in the womb anyway, not any programs to help single women raise the actual child. Many religions believe life starts at birth.Stop trying to to return us to laws from the 1700s. Get out of other women's private lives and bedrooms."
Part of the problem we are having today. Many are not even open to listening to the other side, but just dismiss their beliefs as wrong.
Because they don't match your own.
Instead of even taking the time to determine my thoughts on abortion, you got up on a pedestal and chose to provide a length blurb, with words that sought to insult not only me but Republicans in general.
I am proud to say I am open-minded, I don't join in groupthink or pedestals. I feel very comfortable and as I said proudly to keep a very open mind to others' thoughts, and feelings. So, I will step away from this conversation.Sharlee: You are calling them conservative states. Which connotes that the majority rules in those states without protecting the rights of the minority. That is not the way our constitution works.
As I understand it, Roe v. Wade was and still is settled law by the Supreme Court which protects the rights of the minority by Article 6 of the Constitution. Now what conservative states are trying to do is subvert that right's of the minority by overturning settled law because of one justices' draft opinion.
What you are saying, if I understand you correctly, is you are respecting the rights of the majority in those states, but not the rights of the minority. But if Roe V, Wade is overturned that is what will happen. The majority will rule and the minority right's will not be protected.
https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/glos … ty-rights/
https://constitutionus.com/constitution … /article6/Once again you deflect from my given comment... However, your question does relate to the subject of this thread.
It is very obvious that we have conservative and liberal states. We as a nation governed by majority rule. Our Federal and State representatives vote and make our laws, by a majority.
I can even comprehend why anyone would be overly upset at this point with states receiving the right to make their abortion laws. We vote and send like-minded representatives to support our views, do we not? Did it ever occur to those that are up in arms, that some red states may very well prefer new abortion laws that suit their ideologies?
Yes, in every state there will be a minority... Even in the blue states where some might very much hope to have stricter abortion laws.
Why can't liberals understand, that many Americans are very much against abortion? Most likely they could be the minority.
It's apparent liberals fear red states will make stringent abortion laws. Why not leave it up to the people that live in that state to handle that by just ridding themselves of representatives that are not making laws that suit them. It is very apparent that it disturbs some liberals that all won't buy into their pro-choice ideologies. And they may be just can't stand it that many states want new abortion laws that suit their conservative
ideologies.
We live in a democracy, In my view, we need not divert from this way if governing. Majority rules. No one party or group was ever meant to rule over another. Our votes speak for the majority, and the rest need to respect this form of rule.
If Roe is overturned it will nullify the present abortion laws, and send the law-making back to the states. By rule of the Supreme Court.
Yes, I am respecting the majority of representatives in a given state to make abortion laws that respect the voice of those that put them in office.
If and when people in a state become unsatisfied with their representative's decisions on abortion, it is up to them to be heard with their objections, and their very votes. This is what is known as a Democracy.
Why are you so concerned about what conservative states will do in regards to abortion? Do you feel conservatives pose a threat, just due to perhaps preferring other abortion laws than what you feel is fair?"Why are you so concerned about what conservative states will do in regards to abortion? Do you feel conservatives pose a threat, just due to perhaps preferring other abortion laws than what you feel is fair?"
Given that conservatives are concerned for lives, and the taking of those lives, in the abortion issue when liberals are in power, is it really that different when liberals are concerned with the rights, and the taking of those rights, when conservatives rule?
First they came for (fill in your particular blank) and I did nothing because I wasn't a ___________. Is it so difficult to understand that the liberals, caring for the rights of the minority in a conservative state has the same kind of reaction to conservatives caring for the lives in a liberal state? And will protest such a thing, just as conservatives do?"Given that conservatives are concerned for lives, and the taking of those lives, in the abortion issue when liberals are in power, is it really that different when liberals are concerned with the rights, and the taking of those rights, when conservatives rule?"
I look at the situation this way --- It appears that the SC will rule to pass down the right to make abortion laws at the state level.
The Blue states will have the same rights to make abortion laws as the red states. This is where we most likely will stand.
So, the individual states will hopefully hear the voice of their majority. The rest can continue to protest, and do whatever they please.
Personally, I am sick of hearing about this. I actually feel there will not be one state that bans abortion... Yet we argue back and forth about the issue. We argue about when a fetus is a human, we argue how many weeks should abortion be allowed, and we are about "what if more women;s rights will be taken" .
Nothing thus far has happened. Every state today allows abortion.
May e we should wait and see how this all plays out.
This week has been a very trying week, and I have come to the conclusion, that I don't care one bit about the abortion issue. I care more about all the very horrendous problems that we have in this country. Starting with the fact that we have no one at the helm but an empty shell of an old politician that could not on a good day tie his shoes.
Sorry, but over the abortion crap.Not over, right thinking(pardon the pun) people are going to fit hell or high water for a woman's right to an abortion. Abortion is a necessity. It is needed. Abortion has always & will continue to exist. Hopefully with more advanced techniques of contraception for women & men(yes, men fit into the equation), abortion will be significantly reduced. Yes, I CARE %$ DEEPLY about abortion. With abortion, girls & women are not saddled w/children they aren't ready for or don't want so they can use their fullest potential & not be condemned to poverty. Yes, I support abortion 10000000%.
Maybe it would be smarter, and show more intelligence not to get pregnant.
Ending up with an unwanted pregnancy does not say much in regards to a woman's intelligence. You do realize abortion is a man's best friend? Oh well... Hey, with the general mentality of women today, I so agree abortion is so needed. I so agree with you, but as you see for a different reason."Maybe it would be smarter, and show more intelligence not to get pregnant." - MY GAWD!!! Spoken like a true conservative. Tell that to the rape victim (or are you one of those conservatives that think it is the victims fault? Or the incest victim. Or the leaky condom victim. Or the millions of other ways a woman can get pregnant without wanting to.
it's just rude to insult the intelligence of a woman who has an unexpected pregnancy. Often they are young and had no guidance regarding birth control. Conservative states won't allow it in schools, and they may have been brought up in the Bible belt with Moms who got pregnant at 16 and still won't tell her daughter she can't have sex and not get pregnant the first time. Yes, this is still a common misconception. I work with a lot of young people. They are not informed enough about birth control. Plus all the burden is on women or younger girls. Why isn't more research done for male birth control? We have to be responsible all our child bearing years. When I was in HS, there were condoms in the school clinic at least.
I agree girls and women need to be more vigilant. But birth control is not foolproof. What if she's raped? What if she's at a serious point in a career she worked so hard for, and can't have a child right then? It's not a decision anyone takes lightly. But it should be a personal one. The State should not make that decision for a woman. The majority of people in the U.S. support a woman's right to choose. Again, if you are in the minority, nobody is forcing you to have an abortion. Have at it. Have ten kids. Start at 16 when you have nothing to offer them and bring a bunch of unintelligent kids into an overpopulated world because no parent has adequate time to spend with that many kids. Very large families who constantly reproduce are often highly dysfunctional families. Parents don't have enough to offer them.Sorry, you see my view on the matter as rude. I shared my true thoughts on the subject.
Our views differ, mine yes, is not consistence with groupthink. I always think outside the group. No apologies in that respect.
I will agree to respect your opinion, but we must agree to disagree.Apparently, Jean, you are consistent with "groupthink".
Ironically, studies show clearly that "groupthink" is a major characteristic of the conservative mindset."Ironically, studies show clearly that "groupthink" is a major characteristic of the conservative mindset."
LOL As we continue to hear from the left about gun controls, about women's rights to their bodies and the life of the child within, about victimology for anyone not born with a silver spoon, about the ever growing (broken) welfare system, about a dozen other things common to the groupthink of the left.
Groupthink is hardly limited to one political party, nor is it a major characteristic of just one political party. It is the result of accepting whatever we are told without any real consideration.Groupthink - a mode of thinking in which individual members of cohesive groups tend to accept a viewpoint or conclusion that represents a perceived group consensus, [u]whether or not the group members believe it to be valid, correct, or optimal]/u]. Groupthink reduces the efficiency of collective problem solving within such groups.
How the left views human rights is not an example of "groupthink". How Conservatives view a woman's right to chose, is.Sorry - your own definition says that how liberals view a woman's right to kill her child IS groupthink. How conservatives view that same "right" is also groupthink, with the only difference being that everyone in the country believes it is wrong for anyone to kill a child. Of course, that view that it IS a child is groupthink from the right only; liberals disagree with their own groupthink that it is only a fetus, not a child.
Which is rather a quandary as I think it is only a fetus (in the earlier months), but the idea of being part of liberal groupthink is more than a little abhorrent. Better to be dead!
And again, no it isn't. I see my underline didn't work. It said whether or not the group members believe it to be valid, correct, or optimal. It also said "cohesive".
First, studies clearly show that the left/liberals are not particularly "cohesive" while Conservatives are, especially the more high-scoring RWA followers they are.
The fact that many Liberals come to the same conclusion based on objective and subjective evidence is not an indication of groupthink.
The fact that many Conservatives take up a view because their pastor or chosen authoritarian leader or Conservative talking heads tell them to IS a major indicator of groupthink.
A good example of groupthink is the false equivalency that a non-viable fetus is the same thing as a living, breathing child. Those that hold this view ONLY do so because their religious leaders tell them to. There is no conclusive objective evidence that this is true.
The best evidence of that it is NOT true is what happens when you take a non-viable fetus out of the body. It will not come to life no matter how much medical personnel or praying is done.
I suggest if you have a comment you hope Jen will see, you post it to her, not me.
I do not consider myself a product of groupthink. I am merely stating a belief a woman should control her own body. Certain people said, "My body, my choice" and refused Covid vaccines and got others sick with it. Then it was OK for THEM to control their own bodies? Let's be consistent.
This is not directed at you, Jean. It is I was just now triggered by the phrase, "Group Think", which is tossed about in a sense of being a pejorative as if its meaning is the individual is incapable of critical thinking. I say, BS!!
Besides that, though used in the sense of pejorative, it has nothing to do with what its meaning is. According to most dictionaries its meaning is, "the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility." Doesn't that describe the voting process and the apparent loyalties to a particular party? In other words vote the party line and not good conscience.
An interesting article about group think follows:
Group Think
"Group Think is a psychological phenomena that occurs withing groups of people when the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives.
https://jackwestin.com/resources/mcat-c … groupthink
After reading that article one may discover group think is a positive thing.So what you are saying is that "making a realistic appraisal of alternatives" is a negative thing?
I don't know how you got that?? How did I say 'making a realistic appraisal of alternatives' or critical thinking was negative? I am lost, oops!
It is in the context of what you wrote. Specifically -
"Group Think is a psychological phenomena that occurs withing groups of people when the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives. Followed immediately by [i]After reading that article one may discover group think is a positive thing.{/i]
Simple logic says that if one thing (groupthink) is positive, its opposite (overriding a realistic apprail of alternatives) is negative.
Sorry. I think I was being sarcastic and should have ended with an "lol"
I don't think your personal opinion or l should say logical view applies to "groupthink". You shared your true individual thoughts.
And I would agree. It is holding an illogical opinion that is not supported by facts and other evidence that is what qualifies as groupthink.
I received this in a lecture many years ago where the lecturer related this true event about a Trip to Abilene:
In the days before air conditioning, a husband and wife were visiting her parents in a small West Texas town. As they were relaxing one Sunday afternoon, the wife's father suggested that they all drive to Abilene for dinner at a cafeteria. The son-in-law dreaded the hot, dusty drive to a town 53 miles away, but said OK to avoid being a rude guest. The wife and mother-in-law both said it sounded good to them, so off they went to Abilene.
It goes on to say that when they all got home, everybody started complaining.
The cafeteria food wasn't very good, and after returning home hot and sweaty after the 106-mile round trip, the complaining commenced. The mother-in-law said they never would have set out on the abortive trip if it had been up to her. The son-in-law objected, saying that he never wanted to go, but acquiesced because the others wanted to go. His wife said she just went along with the Abilene suggestion to be agreeable, but would have preferred not to take a road trip. Finally, the father-in-law said he only suggested it because he thought the younger couple might be bored sitting around the house.
That is an example of groupthink and it exists the more extreme you get, in either direction.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog … -get-alongGroup think is what George W. did along with his neoconservative (neocon) staff when he invaded Iraq. Everybody who was involved in the planning and execution did not want to say no.
Even Colin Powell knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, but being the good soldier that he was, he presented artist renderings of WMDs at the UN meeting.
Even I knew if they didn't have real photos then something was wrong with what they were presenting, but they invaded anyway. There were no WMDs and many lives were lost over many years for something that did not exist...just an excuse to justify invading Iraq.THAT is even a better example. And throw in most of Congress in that groupthink. Only a very few of them had the guts to say no when Bush and company were making this stupid decision about so-called "patriotism".
Another example are most of those who voted not to convict Trump in either impeachment (boy, what a terrible legacy). Privately, it has been reported, most of those who voted no actually thought he was guilty. They just didn't have guts to vote their conscience - sort of like those that went along on the trip to Abiliene."Privately, it has been reported, most of those who voted no actually thought he was guilty. They just didn't have guts to vote their conscience - sort of like those that went along on the trip to Abiliene."
So secretly they think he is guilty. And how, if I may ask, did YOU come to acquire this information? Were you there when they "privately" made the statement? Did you get it second, third or fourth hand? Was it something you read on the internet, where liars abound?
Or are you simply making it up because you like the sound of it?I guess you don't understand the concept of talking to reporters on background. While the reporters can't name the source, they can tell about the conversation. SInce I listen to real news, that information is reported all of the time.
Remember, we are talking about gutless wonders - the Trump Republicans.
Unlike you, I make nothing up.You just made up a statement in regard to the secret service drive claiming Hutchenson's testimony was "RIGHT ON".
You really need to check the real news. https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sho … -rcna36405
Not one name, all hearsay, and drummed up by a biased media outlet to muddy waters. You have offered unproven misinformation. Plus, you may want to read the full article, it in no respect verifies Hutchenson's testimony. In fact, it shows her story to be very flawed.
The bottom line is we now know the two secret service men have denied her account, and are willing to go under oath to clarify what did happen in that limo ride.
This committee needs to rectify this account. Period. You may be satisfied with a second-hand, no names account, I am not. You are spreading information that holds no facts whatsoever. The worse kind of garbage, is hearsay, without anyone to back it up.
Plus your source does not actually fully back up Hutchenson's account.
Here is the article you offered ---https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/secret-service-sources-reportedly-bolster-hutchinsons-testimony-rcna36405
"But there was another part of this week’s hearing that wasn’t nearly as substantive or as legally significant, but which generated plenty of conversation: Hutchinson described a scene, which had been described to her by Tony Ornato, of Trump going a little berserk after his Secret Service agents told him he was being taken back to the White House after his speech at the Ellipse, not to the Capitol.
While the right has targeted this story in recent days, CNN published a report this afternoon, which HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED by MSNBC or NBC News, that appeared to bolster the revelations from Tuesday’s hearing.
Then-President Donald Trump angrily demanded to go to the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, and berated his protective detail when he didn’t get his way, according to two Secret Service sources who say they heard about the incident from multiple agents, including the driver of the presidential SUV where it occurred.
In case anyone needs a refresher, after he riled up his mob with lies, the then-president returned to his vehicle, where things reportedly got weird.
According to the version of events that had been described to Hutchinson, Trump got into the backseat of a presidential suburban and said, “I’m the f’ing president, take me up to the Capitol now.” When that didn’t happen, again according to the version of events that had been described to Hutchinson, Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of the Suburban he was riding in.
According to the former White House staffer’s understanding, Trump also reached toward the throat of Secret Service agent Robert Engel during the incident."
"The former president has subsequently insisted that there was no such skirmish, but CNN’s sources said stories about incident — including the details Hutchinson described in her sworn testimony — circulated among Secret Service agents early last year. From the network’s report:
While the details from those who heard the accounts differ, the Secret Service sources say they were told an angry confrontation did occur. And their accounts align with significant parts of Hutchinson’s testimony, which has been attacked as hearsay by Trump and his allies who also have tried to discredit her overall testimony. Like Hutchinson, one source, a longtime Secret Service employee, told CNN that the agents relaying the story described Trump as “demanding” and that the former President said something similar to: “I’m the f**king President of the United States, you can’t tell me what to do.” The source said he originally heard that kind of language was used shortly after the incident.
One of CNN’s sources said, in reference to Trump, “He had sort of lunged forward -- it was unclear from the conversations I had that he actually made physical contact, but he might have. I don’t know. Nobody said Trump assaulted him; they said he tried to lunge over the seat — for what reason, nobody had any idea.”
CNN’s report added that the same unnamed source said he’d heard about the incident multiple times as far back as February 2021 from other agents, including some who were part of the presidential protective detail during that time period but none of whom were involved in the incident.
It would appear that the right’s desperate efforts to undermine Hutchinson’s credibility have just suffered another blow."
This article by no means supports the vivid story Hutchenson gave under oath.
This woman's testimony needs clarification. IF SHE LIED UNDER OATH SHE NEEDS TO BE PROSECUTED. We have laws, and Donald Trump has the right to be protected via
our laws. If her account can't be proven, she slandered a citizen.
And you should be more careful with your posts, you posted an obligation that in no way has been proven, and the article recants the fact they can't verify the information."This woman's testimony needs clarification. IF SHE LIED UNDER OATH SHE NEEDS TO BE PROSECUTED. We have laws, and Donald Trump has the right to be protected via
our laws. If her account can't be proven, she slandered a citizen."
I believe her account will be corroborated. The committee consists of some very skilled lawyers. There is, in my mind, not a chance at all they'd have her testify without having corroboration for her testimony. They knew the questions they would ask her during the hearing and they knew, based on her previous testimony to them exactly how she was going to answer.
But I am sure that you have heard Mr Trump's comments toward Miss Hutchinson. I hope you'd consider slander charges for him also.Sharlee: Some how this forum devolved into Trump and Jan.6 when it really is about abortion rights. As far as the Jan.6 committee goes. Here are the facts.
Trump lied about the losing the election. His conversation to Raffensberger is recorded as irrefutable evidence that he asked to find 11,000 more votes
He and his cohorts planned and instigated Jan.6 He allowed arm rioters to enter and damage the capitol while trying to stop the certification process.
He wanted to switch valid voting slates with fake ones that showed he won the election.
People died and many were injured. He wanted to go to the capitol while the riots were taking place, whether it was in a car or on foot.
Whether Hutchinson's hearsay is proven or not depends on whether the secret service people come forward and testify under oath. It is my personal opinion that I doubt they will.
The committee has stated they have evidence of witness tampering by Trump and company.
Now can we get back to abortion rights on this forum?I have no problem with all you have listed. I did not find the other witnesses untruthful or has anyone stepped forward to say any one of them has lied.
I do have a problem with someone lying under oath. Just want this all clarified before the committee moves on.
"The committee has stated they have evidence of witness tampering by Trump and company."
This is a Federal offense, and it is now up to the committee to also clarify these claims from the two witnesses. I would assume both knew who they were threatened by.
This will now be on my list of "things to clarify". I don't like any form of mistruths. Be it a witness or a Republican Congresswoman. Cheney needs to prove these allegations, before moving on.
It is my hope both will be true, I will be disappointed if this investigation is based on lies and Congressional propaganda.I had asked her if Hutchinson LIED about Ornato telling her about the Beast incident. She never responded with a direct answer.
Do you think the TRUTH really means anything to Trump supporters?This is such a silly statement. In several comments here on HP, I have shared my view of Hutchinson's testimony. I have said we need to hear from the two secret service men to clarify her testimony. I have said if she is found to have been untruthful, she needs to be prosecuted.
I have left it open to whether she is lying. I certainly have given her the benefit of the doubt. However, I have no intention of believing her testimony until it is collaborated by the two secret service men that can give first-hand information on what happened in that car on Jan 6th.
I at this point don't have any idea if she lied... The committee needs to clarify her testimony quickly. Her allegations are damming, and need to be vetted with the men that were in that car.
I do realize you believe any accounts you obtain from media --- I don't.
I think he just said he did not know her, or something about her wanting a job when he left the White House. This is all I could find
Trump -- "So Cassidy Hutchinson was all set and ready to go to Florida with the Trump Team long after January 6th. She knew I did nothing wrong. She was a big Trump fan - but my people didn’t want her. What happened? Why did she so dramatically change? All lies. I guess even she didn’t believe her own bull.…!”
Legally --- Depending on the context, calling someone a liar could be defamatory, causing harm to a reputation. But, more often than not, calling someone a liar may be simply an expression of opinion.
If she is proven to have lied, he will have a slander case, and he would most likely win it. Rember Stormy sued him for suggesting on Twitter that she lied about a man allegedly threatening her to keep her quiet about a sexual encounter she claims to have had with the president.
She lost and had to pay all court costs over $300,000 dollars.
https://people.com/politics/stormy-dani … nst-trump/
I hope her story is corroborated. It would be very sad to think anyone would say such things if not true.
If she lied, it will certainly taint this committee for not vetting witnesses' testimonies.Sharlee: Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but not their version of the facts. Trump claims he doesn't even know who Hutchinson is, but yet she worked right down the hall from him as Mark Meadows primary aide.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cassidy-hu … k-meadows/I don't think he said he did not know her. I tried to find that quote and could not locate it. So, I must correct myself and apologize for that misconception.
Have you found a quote where Trump said he did not know her?
The only quote I could find was
"Trump -- "So Cassidy Hutchinson was all set and ready to go to Florida with the Trump Team long after January 6th. She knew I did nothing wrong. She was a big Trump fan - but my people didn’t want her. What happened? Why did she so dramatically change? All lies. I guess even she didn’t believe her own bull.…!”
And this I found on TS This is where Trump shares at this point.
In a recent post published via his Truth Social app, Trump downplayed her role in his administration and accused her of lying.
"I hardly know who this person, Cassidy Hutchinson, is, other than I heard very negative things about her (a total phony and 'leaker'), and when she requested to go with certain others of the team to Florida after my having served a full term in office, I personally turned her request down,"Sorry to say, it was easy to find if you stay away from right-wing media.
'I hardly know who this person, Cassidy Hutchinson, is, other than I heard very negative things about her (a total phony and "leaker"), and when she requested to go with certain others of the team to Florida after my having served a full term in office, I personally turned her request down,' Trump posted to his social media site Truth Social as 25-year-old Hutchinson's testimony was ongoing.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … inson.htmlTrump can say anything he wants when he is not under oath. He can fabricate stories until the cows come home and there is no way to tell if he is telling the truth or not. Of course he heard negative things about her. That is one of his biggest ploys on those he attacks, "Many people say..."
He is a chronic liar and will say anything to save his a**. The fact is she worked down the hall from the oval office. You mean to tell me Trump hardly knows who she is?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5021873/ … -west-wingDoes hardly know to mean the same as I don't know her'? It still shocks me how some just can't in any respect pick up the context in a given sentence.
AS I SAID I HAVE NOT FOUND A QUOTE THAT TRUMP CLAIMED HE DID NOT KNOW HUTCHINSON. Still have not located that quote. Your quote in no resect makes that claim.
ECO COMMENT -- "'I hardly know who this person, Cassidy Hutchinson, is, other than I heard very negative things about her (a total phony and "leaker"), and when she requested to go with certain others of the team to Florida after my having served a full term in office, I personally turned her request down,' Trump posted to his social media site Truth Social as 25-year-old Hutchinson's testimony was ongoing."
In my understanding of the English language ""'I hardly know who this person is," does not in any respect convey "I don't even know this woman".
CONTEXT just matters. You seem to have a problem with word context.
This is a real problem when conversing with persons that comprehend context.
Plus, Trump is a micromaganger and doesn't let very much get by him, especially the senior aide to he Chief of Staff. Trump is also a well known liar.
Wilderness:
You have generalized it to just fill in the blank for both sides. It's not as simple as coming for your guns and your money as it is for the rights of a woman to do what she wants with her body.
So you are comparing legal minority rights to have an abortion to the majority states rights of stopping abortions and declaring them illegal?Which state has declared abortion illegal? You are borrowing problems that have not occurred. We have lots of ongoing problems. Do you ever discuss any of them? This should give you pause to think, why not?
Sharlee: When I was in the Air Force, this was called a "cocked pistol configuration." They are all set to go. That's what their trigger laws are.
Yes I do discuss on going problems. Arguing with you about Biden is an exercise in futility. You made up your mind many years ago about him and almost everything you say about him supports your bias confirmation. from years ago. I say almost, because you did support his infrastructure bill. I will give you that.
You want to talk about mass shootings? Another exercise in futility because of the 2nd amendment and gun rights people. Our thoughts and prayers are with you and your family B.S.
You want to talk about inflation? Just blame Biden.
You want to talk about supply chain issues? Just blame Biden.
You want to talk about Ukraine? Just blame Biden
You want to talk about his cognitive deficits...just blame him. Feebleness, incompetence...him, virus...Biden.. baby formula...guess who? Did I leave anything out?
https://news.trust.org/item/20201231112641-qfynt/Leave something out? Yes you did. The sun rising in the East each morning. Storms, tornados, climate change, sea level rise, all Biden's fault. To Sharlee and her conservative peers, you name it and it is Biden's fault.
That is why they can't be taken seriously."They" sounds like you and Trump?
'The sun rising in the East each morning. Storms, tornados, climate change, sea level rise, all Trump's fault. To My Esoteric and his liberal peers, you name it and it is Trump's fault.'
GA
"Another exercise in futility because of the 2nd amendment and gun rights people."
After the Texas massacre, and considering this statement, what have you and the liberal faction done to prevent another mass killing? Outside of taking guns away, that is? Except for limiting gun ownership as much as possible, what have you proposed? What have we tried, from the liberal side of the fence?
Or are you and the liberal faction stuck forever on a single solution doomed to failure?"Outside of taking guns away, that is? - Another lie
Reasonable people want and try to do a lot to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. It is your side who wants all Americans to have multiple weapons and will stop any action that makes America safer.
What have reasonable people tried, you ask? Universal background checks for one. Red Flag laws for another. Universal training for a third. Shall I go on?Wilderness: This forum is about women's rights; however, since you asked, here is how I feel about the gun situation..
As long as there is a 2nd amendment and big money gun industries, there will be no solution for ether side. When was the last time this country was attacked by foreign tyrannist and defended itself with a well regulated militia of civilians?
The 2nd amendment gives everybody the right to bear arms, even domestic/foreign terrorists, and the mentally ill. What great solutions have conservatives come up with?
I'm so sick of hearing cars, knifes and forks, clubs and everything else can kill people as well and there are more cars that kill people than mass killings...so what? Quoting statistics is not a solution, but that is one of the favorite ploys that conservatives use. The other is a gun is piece of inanimate iron.
Conservatives want to control a women's body, but don't take away their guns, no matter how many mass shootings there are. Yes, it is an exercise in futility because of the 2nd amendment. We are the only country that I know of that has a 2nd amendment and gives everybody the right to bear arms. That is so antiquated and it is only perpetuated by by big money interests.
My brother and his friends all have assault style weapons, including ghost guns. They use them for target practice and buy thousands of rounds of amo from Germany. I'm sure they would never harm anybody, but by the same token, there are those out there that have access to the same weaponry as them and sure as hell would harm others.
At one time assault weapons were banned and then the sunset laws kicked in and the laws were never renewed. Gun people like to play the game of how do you define an assault weapon, because there are so many variations of the same thing.
There are so many laws in so many states. I think the whole thing should be controlled by the federal government in a uniform manner across all states, just like the FAA, FCC, et al, The 2nd amendment is a federal constitutional right, it seems fitting to me the federal government should control its laws as well." The 2nd amendment is a federal constitutional right, it seems fitting to me the federal government should control its laws as well." - Perfect Reasoning!
We must also keep in mind that the 2nd Amendment itself does not give a person a right to bear arms for personal protection, just to protect their state. The latest SC ruling by Scalia that said it was (a position I happen to agree with) is simply a construct. It was not based in the written word of the Constitution but rather a tortured reference to laws from a century before.
And before you go there Wilderness, show me where the 2nd Amendment says a word about self-defense of one's person. It took an activist Justice to come up with that.
"Given that conservatives are concerned for lives, a" - You could have fooled me.
I don't need to - you fool yourself by thinking that everyone has to think like you do and therefore the lives of unborn children are not a concern.
Sharlee: You are calling what the states want as "other abortion laws". They are really anti-abortion laws. Right now a woman has a legal right to get an abortion or not as settled by supreme court ruling. With states anti-abortion laws, it will be illegal for women to have an abortion in those states with anti-abortion laws. Here are the effects of what those laws will bring as stated by Scientific American studies.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/podc … oe-v-wade/I have no idea what any state will do in regards to abortion laws. And neither do you. As I said today a woman can get an abortion in every state in America. Maybe get back to me, when you have something to complain about.
Your link is also an IF COME... You may be borrowing problems that may never occur. My gosh, don't you see what you do? You reach into the future and predict problems that might occur.
Just like you did with the voter suppression crap in Georgia. They had a record turnout in primaries, with no real issues at all.
Do you remember your dismay over Georgia tweaked voting laws?
Let's wait and see if problems occur with abortion laws.
Again you did not answer my questions.
Why are you so concerned about what conservative states will do in regards to abortion? Do you feel conservatives pose a threat, just due to perhaps preferring other abortion laws than what you feel is fair?Sharlee: I answered your question with a link that sums if up for me.. Here it is again if you did not read it.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/podc … oe-v-wade/I read the two other links you offered. I read your recent link. Did you note this paragraph in the article? To me, it is a very important point.
"Lewis: That’s Diana Greene Foster, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco. She led the Turnaway Study, a longitudinal study of nearly 1,000 women seeking abortions who either got them or were “turned away” because they were just past the gestational cutoff."
Can you agree that the women that were refused an abortion were refused, not due to abortion not being legal in their state, but refused due to the gestation law?
Every state has gestation laws. These laws are made for several reasons, mom's risk of death, mom's risk of future conception, and moral reasons, in regard to fetus formation. After about 16 weeks the fetus is well developed, and science dictates the fetus can feel pain. In many states at 22 weeks, a physician is required to sedate the fetus before the abortion to prevent pain.
So, should we expect women to be at best responsible to follow the time limits in their states? In my own opinion yes, we have many women that have a lack of intelligence to at best make themself aware of abortion laws. But I agree we need laws that dictate gestation.
I think if more people educated themself about why we have set abortion laws it would beneficial, more would understand why laws are in place.
I have witnessed women almost bleeding to death due to a spontaneous miscarriage. Yes, this is unusual, but a risk of abortion, legal or illegal.
I don't think it wise for laymen to question gestation risks when it comes to abortion.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6314567/
https://www.societyfp.org/_documents/re … 2013-1.pdf
https://www.cspregnancycenter.com/top-7 … tion-pill/
Not sure if you realize I am pro-abortions, safe abortions, and prudent safe laws. It is odd that so many here are not realizing the fact I am pro-abortion and seek to just assume for reasons unknown I am arguing the need for abortion. It seems some are stuck on "Shar is a conservative so she must be against abortion"...
This kind of mindset shocks me every time I witness it. Do I need to repeat "I am for legal safe abortions 100 times for it to get past the liberal mindset?
I am for abortion for many reasons, that would be insulting to some women if I put them in writing.
I am also for safe abortion and abortion that is done at a proper gestation where the fetus does not feel pain. This should clarify once again my views on abortion and abortion laws.
Most importantly as I said we just do not have any confirmation on any new abortion laws in any states. I suggest we wait and revisit the
conversation if we see problems with any new laws that are questionable. I will be more than glad to converse if we see abortion laws that are worthy of discussion. Not at all trying to insult you or anyone here in regards to this ongoing abortion discussion. Just as of yet I have not seen anything in regards to set laws.
You should realize by now, that I am not one that buys into "if comes". So much of the time many wring one's hands, and overwork one's brains with unnecessary concerns that just never come to fruition.Sharlee: I agree with you totally on the gestation laws. What I don't agree with prolife people on is that life begins at conception and therefore it should not be aborted, even at that stage.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articl … on#summaryAs I said, I believe our society needs the option of abortion. Science is relevant in determining al,l the many stages of gestation from the moment of conception to birth.
I don't feel it necessary to offer my true thoughts on when life begins. Does it matter? I agree we need an abortion? I set my morals aside to adopt common sense when it comes to abortion, we need it due to societal flaws.
As a nurse, it is harder for me to have this view. I am aware of the science of conception. I am very aware when a fetus can feel pain, can be identified as a male or female, when it appears to be a baby, even though it can fit in the palm of my hand.
I hope when all is hashed out in regards to new abortion laws gestation will be considered when making those laws. Many states today allow abortion up to 22 weeks. I hope abortions are legal for up to 12 weeks. (three months).
"It is odd that so many here are not realizing the fact I am pro-abortion and seek to just assume for reasons unknown I am arguing the need for abortion. " - No, it is your comments defending a states right to ban abortions that give us pause.
"I have no idea what any state will do in regards to abortion laws. And neither do you." - Of course we do. We follow the news and watch all of these states pass laws against women that will take effect when the conservatives kill Roe. Those laws are all over main stream news.
"We as a nation governed by majority rule." - Once again, I have to ask where the hell did you ever get that idea, especially when minority rights are involved? That is simply not true in America. Even in the House, which is the closest thing we have to democratic mob rule, they have some procedures to protect the minority. Certainly in the Senate that is not even close to being true given the filibuster.
Not to be rude, but as I shared in a prior comment, I don't respect your views, and I don't intend to converse.
Studies show that is the normal response from somebody that does not have truth on their side and more, doesn't want to hear it.
Sharlee,
An individual woman who has an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy should not be ruled on by the state she lives in. It's a personal human right that she control her own body. As I said, pro choice believers never force a pregnant woman to have an unwanted abortion. Pro life believers should never be able to force a woman to bear an unwanted child. What's fair should be equal.Greetings Jean, I can appreciate your sentiments, they are based on good logic, and very much common sense. Abortion rights have become so complicated, that I feel that the Supreme Court should have left well enough alone. It would seem the majority of the Nation is very much conflicted, and need to be not only heard but listened to. It seems to be a problem where --- no one is right, but no one is wrong.
Hello Again Sharlee,
Yes, these are all complicated issues. It is hard to see people so conflicted, and especially so unwilling to listen to each other. I hope I didn't offend you. I get passionate sometimes.Jean, I welcome your views, always very much common sense, and I appreciate the manner in which you converse. Yes, I agree people are very conflicted today. However, a forum such as this one offers a good place to listen, and take in others' views.
Jean, +10000000000000000. It is PRO-CHOICE women who value human life. Pro-choice women believe in the QUALITY & DIGNITY of human life. They believe that every child should be planned & wanted. They believe that if one becomes a parent, they should be loving & responsible.
Ironically, it is the so-called PRO-LIFE women who don't value human life per se. They want bodies only. They could care less about children being birth. They could care less if the child is born into abject circumstances because the mother wasn't prepared for the child. They could care less if the child suffers abuse/neglect because the child wasn't wanted by the mother.
It is PRO-CHOICE women who are FOR LIFE while the so-called PRO-LIFE women who really don't give a hoot about the child- all it matters that the child is born no matter what. I was watching BLAZE TV on youtube, a pro-life woman indicated that it really doesn't matter if the child is unwanted & born into poverty-at least the child is born. THAT is the attitude of the pro-lifer. Pro-choicers want the BEST POSSIBLE life for children.In 1962 Sherri Chessen was a married mother of four, and star of "Romper Room," a children's TV show in Phoenix, where she was known as Miss Sherri, when she became pregnant. To treat morning sickness, she took a sedative her husband, Bob Finkbine, brought back from Britain.
That drug, she later discovered, contained thalidomide, a chemical linked to severe birth defects. "What I did was poison myself with a drug whose name I didn't even know," she said in a 1998 interview.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/abortion-s … roe-v-wade
"WOW! Not sure if you follow my post here or realize I am pro-choice." - We realize you are personally pro-choice, but that seems to be the extent of it. You spend most of your comments defending those states to pass draconian laws simply because their legislatures decree it so. They aren't taking a vote of the people, they are simply declaring it.
And even if the majority of the people would vote to take away a woman's right, that doesn't mean they have a right to do that - not in this country. Russia maybe, or Iran, but not America. By siding with the conservative states you are declaring, whether you realize it or not, that you oppose minority rights.What I said is not derogatory, or meant to be. But you still want the states to decide what a women can do with her own body. It should be a Federal law in favor of safe and legal abortions. Say, like Roe V Wade. Reproductive rights are extremely personal. States like TX are forcing women to have children from rape or children who can't get adequate care from young Mothers. It's not a Conservative/Liberal issue. It's a Women's issue. I would never tell a religious person she must have an abortion if it was against her beliefs. But she wants to tell me I can't and perhaps have an unwanted child? (Not that I am of that age). Please take religion out of it, and the woman should decide, with a partner if possible. You can't have it both ways, to tell some women what they must do, but they can't tell you what to do. It's a false equivalency.
I did not take your comment as derogatory, I respect your view it is shared by many Americans. Our views are slightly different. I don't see the reason as of yet to become up in arms in regards to what will occur if and when Roe is overturned. For one thing, we need to know what problems, if any do occur to prevent women's rights.
"Texas Governor Greg Abbott defended his state's strict new abortion law, saying that it doesn't force victims of rape and incest to carry their pregnancy to term because it "provides at least 6 weeks for a person to be able to get an abortion."
If a woman is raped they can ascertain within days if they are pregnant, and get an abortion. Yes, I see a problem, a woman or girl might be very fearful to even say they were raped. But is it fair to say a law would prevent them altogether from getting an abortion? In my view, women should be able to get an abortion up to 16 weeks. This would be my preference.
Not sure why you feel I brought religion into my view, I did not. You may have not understood my comment?
I was simply saying if the SC hands the responsibility of abortion laws to the state, we need to let the citizens of each state's voices be heard.
This seems to really upset many. I think we need to respect each state, and the women in each state to make their voices heard, on what they feel are fair abortion laws.I just don't get the mind set that seems to think one should do nothing while watching a tidal wave roll toward your house until it gets there. Personally, I would start putting up sandbags or something rather than wait around to see if the tidal wave hits you. But that is just me.
In the end, all your hand wringing and sanctimonious words change nothing.
So, all your sandbags would do, is get your very sore muscles building your big sand wall when the SC will knock it down.
I don't live my life spinning, it would make my days unpleasant.That is interesting to, inscrutable, but interesting.
It was in response to your comment
"MY ESOTERIC WROTE:
I just don't get the mind set that seems to think one should do nothing while watching a tidal wave roll toward your house until it gets there. Personally, I would start putting up sandbags or something rather than wait around to see if the tidal wave hits you. But that is just me."
My response --- SHARLEE01 WROTE:
In the end, all YOUR hand wringing and sanctimonious words change nothing. So, all your sandbags would do, is get your very sore muscles building your big sand wall when the SC will knock it down.
I don't live my life spinning, it would make my days unpleasant.
To clarify. I don't worry about something I have little chance
of changing with hand wringing and sanctimonious words.
Or would I think your sandbags work to change anything either? So all your "sandbag pretty much is useless. They leave you spinning within and in the end and have accomplished nothing.
"I think we need to respect each state," - It is interesting to note that many writers of the Constitution, including James Madison, did not respect or trust the State governments. They thought they were terrible relative to their citizenry. It seems to me their view of State governments is justified when you consider the horrible things Conservative state legislatures visit on their people. Just saying.
You are very likely right, both in what Madison thought and what happens today in state laws. Of course, it is a matter of opinion - for instance many states allow the death penalty while those that do not are incredulous at the actions of those that do.
But even if both are true (I think they are) never forget that it was states, not individuals, that joined together to form our union, and if all rights were taken from states there would not be one at all.That was on the table for a brief moment - no states. The problem the writers faced, of course, was that the states had to ratify their work. Serious consideration was given to Madison's plan of a federal veto over any state law. Probably for the same reason, that was not adopted either.
Consequently, the writers gave the states as little power as they thought they could and still get the thing ratified. Even there, they had to add an "explicit" bill of rights even though they argued all of those rights were "implied" in what they crafted.
Personally, I am pro-death penalty, but with this caveat - multiple pieces of forensic evidence is needed and no circumstantial evidence allowed.You are pro-death sentence, only if there is solid, (forensic), evidence of guilty, right? How can you measure that evidence when it is not known—at the time—that it is corrupted, either by lab mistakes, human mistakes, or purposeful actions?
There are plenty of examples of a process conducted with the best intentions and procedures, with the appearance of concrete-solid evidence, that was found to be wrong—after the conviction.
I don't have a problem with a 'pro' position, I just can't find confidence in qualifiers such as yours. They have been found to be wrong too many times. I'm sure you recall past incidences of bad lab work, or faked lab work. Those 'labs' are where your "forensic" evidence comes from.
GA"How can you measure that evidence when it is not known—at the time—that it is corrupted, either by lab mistakes, human mistakes, or purposeful actions?" - [i[Because in this day and age forensic analysis, the chances of a mistake, especially when it is corroborated by other forensic analysis, are minimal. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence, corrupt DAs, incompetent/corrupt cops are well known to put innocent people in jail and on death row. Nothing is 100%, but the chances of putting an innocent person to death go down exponentially and maybe to zero,[/i]
I agree here - the chances of putting an innocent person to death are far lower than what they were even 20 years ago.
When only forensic evidence is used. Circumstantial evidence is still putting a lot of innocent people away.
Yes, but how many get the death sentence? If I were a juror I'd have a hard time with that, "beyond a reasonable doubt" or not.
I meant that if only circumstantial evidence is presented I highly doubt I would agree to a death sentence. And I doubt even more that 12 jurors would.
I have voted to convict (a car thief) based on only circumstantial evidence but although I accepted that it was "beyond a reasonable doubt" I don't think I could accept that as sufficient to execute. Beyond ANY doubt, not just a "reasonable" doubt."And I doubt even more that 12 jurors would." - And that is the rub, isn't it, especially if the defendant is black. Almost all those saved by the various innocence projects were convicted solely or almost solely on circumstantial evidence. Most have been overturned because newly available forensic evidence came to light AND they could find a judge who had an open mind. As you can see from recent Conservative Supreme Court rulings, it is getting harder and harder for innocent people who have been convicted to get new trials. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/23/supreme … e%20court.
Your last statement is my position as well although I still stick with "reasonable". By limiting it to ANY doubt, you are stuck with the dilemma GA brought up about the not zero chance an error was made with the forensics. If it were as common as bad cops, prosecutors, defense counsels, he might have a point. But from what I have read, the former has a negligible chance of happening while the latter happens often enough to be concerned about it.I think we're nitpicking over terminology, but I don't see circumstantial evidence as "beyond a reasonable doubt" when it comes to the death penalty. There is always doubt, whether it be the possibility of lying witnesses, faked recordings, planted evidence, etc., but can be enough to convict. Just not to kill, IMO.
The obvious, and expected response to your "negligible" significance is that it is not negligible to the innocent man that is executed.
Although sounding like a rhetorical question, with your "reasonable" qualifier you should be able to answer, at least for yourself: How many innocents are worth executing to be sure you execute 100 guilty criminals?
That is the support for my objection. In this case of punishment, I think even one innocent life is too many. To that thought, I think the only possible rationalizations against it can be money and retribution. Money, in the cost of incarceration, and retribution, an 'eye for an eye' perception of justice. Pretty poor justification for guesswork.
GAYou make great points. The answer back then is during trial, the competence and veracity of the forensic lab is also put on trial. They prove they didn't screw up, which in most cases should be easy to do. If they stumble, then the death penalty is off the table.
I meant that if only circumstantial evidence is presented I highly doubt I would agree to a death sentence. And I doubt even more that 12 jurors would.
I have voted to convict (a car thief) based on only circumstantial evidence but although I accepted that it was "beyond a reasonable doubt" I don't think I could accept that as sufficient to execute. Beyond ANY doubt, not just a "reasonable" doubt, and that pretty much excludes a case of only circumstantial evidence.
"There are plenty of examples of a process ..." - Can you provide a source(s) for those "plenty" in say the last 15 years? Truthfully, I don't think there are that many.
One with the first sentence in the last 15 years, not just the latest attempt to clear a sentence handed down 30 years ago.
Take your complaint up with the Supreme Court. It is apparent they trust states to make their individual abortion laws. As do I.
So the CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court carries more weight with you than those who wrote the Constitution or Liberal Supreme Court Justices. Interesting view, I must say.
Exactly Jean. I find it inhmane to be against abortion. Abortion is a necessary fact of life. Although there is birth control, accidents occur. It is misogynic to be against a woman's right to choose. In fact, it is sinful. No woman should be forced to endure a pregnancy she doesn't want. It is physiologically, emotionally, psychologically, even psychic damaging. I left the Catholic church in my twenties because of their draconian laws against birth control & abortion. I have fought for reproductive rights even since. Thank you Jean for edifying this point.
Great to "see" you Grace. It's the tyranny of the minority, something the Founding Fathers had concerns about. Do you notice we seem to be going back to laws from the 1700s?
Sen Susan Collins will have been lied to and three Justices will have perjured themselves in sworn testimony if they follow through on killing Roe v. Wade.
Which ones flat out stated they would never vote to kill RvW?
Not, mind you, comments that it was established law, that current thinking was that it was a good law, etc. But a flat statement that they would never vote to change it.
You claimed perjury; can you back it up or do you have to twist, change or "interpret" their words to get there?All you have to do is listen to Gorsuch and especially Kavanaugh. They were extremely clear the Roe v. Wade was settled law in their testimony. I don't know if Barratt went that far, but she got close.
I think it is time for Corporations to pull their operations out of oppressive States.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/04/economy/ … index.htmlAnother thing on the chopping block now is birth control. I suspect shortly after the extremist, activist Justices abort Roe v Wade, they will start to limit a woman's ability to prevent pregnancy.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/04/politics … index.htmlYes, this is a very slippery slope. I am extremely pro-choice. I believe that women have the right to control their reproductive lives. No woman should undergo an unplanned pregnancy. People have to be vigilant regarding abortion rights. Such is the law of the land. I have suspected that anyone who is against abortion rights is also against birth control. These extremists are threatened by women's freedom & want to return them to when there were no reproductive freedoms a/k/a handmaiden's tale & the quiverful movement.
I am a bit more complex. I oppose abortion and think fetuses should be carried to term and put up for adoption. That said, I am even more opposed to white conservative men (or anybody else, for that matter) telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies!
Yep, it seems strange that for the American right-wing who are always bitterly promoting ‘freedom of choice’ at any cost e.g. “freedom of speech”; are so adamant in denying American women freedom of choice!!!!
Again, you are denying any rights to the second person involved in an abortion. You won't even give them the right to life, let alone more esoteric rights such as choice or speech.
It's not my fight, as what America decides to do or not do in this matter doesn't affect Europe; I was just giving an opinion e.g. that a woman's choice is considered a given right in Europe, and to deny that right is considered a retrograde step by Europeans.
Yeah, if a woman chooses abortion then it does deny the unborn child a life; which is why the subject of abortion is an emotive subject.But that is the point. Until viability, there is no "second" person. There is only the living, breathing woman that has full rights. The fetus has only the "rights" the mother wants to give it - it is hers, after all and nobody else's.
I think we all know that we are headed toward an embryo being given person status as soon as the Republicans gain a majority. They will blow up the filibuster for this also. I mean corporations now are essentially people thanks to citizens United so why not embryos right?
The last time I looked women could get an abortion in all states in the US. Reading the brief everyone is up in arms about does not abolish abortion, it sends the states the right to make abortion laws. And yes we have many women that are against abortion, they have the right to free speech and to dictate per their vote what goes on in their given state. The majority will rule in our states. And yes, red states may very well limit abortion as we see it now. And blue states may afford one an abortion up to labor, who knows. But if the majority speaks in a given state --- so be it.
The State Government should be making abortion laws in my opinion. Let the people of a state dictate the laws they live by when it comes to abortion. Let all women be heard, not just the ones that scream the loudest.
This is how we do things. And yes we can make wrong choices... But thus far it is still up to us to make those choices.
At one point Americans respected the other side's opinion... At this point, we are divided, on almost everything.
But we still have free speech --- So, thus far a woman can choose, she can choose all day long, and some women can vilify those who chose abortion. freedoms can be hard, but well worth the fight.I’m just saying that if the States are free to choose, and some States do decide to abolish abortions then women in those States no longer have freedom of choice; their only option will be to give birth even if they’re too young or otherwise unsuitable to be good mothers.
It’s up to American to choose what path it wants to take, I’m just saying that from a European perspective, abolishing the option of abortion would be seen as a retrograde step.Point well taken, and yes the problem will still be there due to the split in women's opinions on the issue. However, it's a split the baby down the middle issue. Women may need to consider we still thus far live under a democracy. This permits the whole population to choose who represents all the citizen's wishes by the majority.
I do think this is a women's issue, and they should have the loudest vote.
Yes, the minority will go unheard or perhaps states will compromise on the abortion laws to suit all wishes. This would be the optimal solution.
It is clear and has always been that Americans have perspectives on many things. I agree that abolishing abortion would be a backward step, and unfair to so many women.
What would be my solution, and which I feel will happen, some states will change the laws in regards to when a woman can legally abort, some states will increase gestation weeks some will decrease weeks
of gestation
This leaked brief is not banning abortion, it is sending the decisions to the states.
I do not feel any state will ban abortion.14 states had crafted so-called trigger laws that would automatically go into effect when Roe falls.
Guttmacher Institute, a research firm that tracks abortion policy and supports reproductive rights, has estimated that 27 states are likely to ban abortion once Roe is gone. These include: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
Some of these states are already adding criminalization for abortion as well as travel bans for those seeking abortion in states with reproductive freedom.
Some feel that the leak was to essentially give a heads up to conservative states to adopt the most restrictive laws possible. And boy are they going at it.I have not looked into the trigger laws, I have picked some of this up on TV media. I also have read the Texas laws that are very harsh.
In my view, our society needs the option of abortion. I am considering the unborn, not the mom.I think there is a religious aspect to this as well. From a religious standpoint the right to life is a very high human need. In my observations, conservatives tend to be more religious than liberals. They see abortion as killing a human fetus, no matter at what stage it is in. They see genetic material as a living being. I think the GOP is playing into that need from not only at the federal level but also the state level.
Liberals, on the other hand don't seem to be as religious as conservatives and look at abortion as a practical effort to fulfill a need. Conservatives care about the fetus as long as it is in the womb, but in cases where the abortion was done for rape or other economic reasons, as soon as the baby is born, they could care less about it's well being from that point forward. In fact they may look at it as a potential welfare recipient.
The leak is about the Right playing to a political spectrum of the religious side and wanting to know who or what caused this leak. While the Left is seeing their long standing law protecting women's rights being removed.
In the final analysis it is all about who is going to get elected in the next election cycle. It also takes the focus off the Jan. 6 investigations...Just my two cents.Hold on a minute, I'll get your change.
*I used a real emoji just for you Mike. It was a joke.
GAGA: I'm laughing all the way to the bank, but with inflation, it will probably be worthless by the time I get there.
Peoplepower, Conservatives are far more religious than Liberals. They also have LARGER families. It is nothing for Conservatives to have large to very large families. In large & very large families, there is inculcation that sex should be for marriage & procreation. In such families, birth control & other preventives are seen as unnatural mortal transgressions. Large & very large families are pro-life. They are against anything that goes w/ the "natural flow". Also in large/very large families, men/boys are dominant while women/girls are slated into more submissive roles. Conservatives, on average, are against any form of preventives as well as abortion.
Liberals are ones who believe in reproductive autonomy. They are less religious, seeing religion as an atavistic measure which impedes progress. Liberals also have smaller families than Conservatives. Liberals believe in sexual & reproductive freedom. Liberals believe that reproductive freedom is integral to a high quality of life. Parents of small families believe in providing their children with a high quality of life beyond being pregnant & giving birth. Parents of large/very large families like Conservatives don't care about children's lives beyond pregnancy & giving birth. They feel that being pregnant & giving birth is enough.
" as well as travel bans for those seeking abortion" - Want to bet the Conservatives on the Court will uphold such an unAmerican law?
If you are right, and no State ban abortion, then fair point. However, the proposed changes does leave the door open for individual States to ban abortion; and that will be tragic to those women in that State who want to have the choice.
Yes, America is a democracy, but making laws Juridical or Legislative at Federal level doesn’t necessarily make it any less Democratic. That being said, we have similar law making processes in the UK e.g. such laws are not always made at the national level for the whole of the UK all the time; the other nations of the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, don’t always adopt laws passed by the UK Government in Westminster, London, England.
For examples:-
• Abortion was legalised in Great Britain (but not Northern Ireland) in 1968. Abortions didn’t become legal in Northern Ireland until the UK Government forced it through in 2019, against the wishes of DUP (Democratic Unionist Party); but that’s another story.
• Same-sex marriage became legal in England and Wales in March 2014; Scotland followed suit in December 2014, but again the UK Government forced it through for Northern Ireland in Jan 2020, against the wishes of DUP (Democratic Unionist Party); but that’s another story.
• The Scottish Government reduced the voting age to 16 in 2015; the Wales Government reduced the voting age to 16 in 2020; while the Conservatives have no intention of reducing the voting age in England, and DUP has no intention of reducing the voting age in Northern Ireland.In my own view, without all the politics --- I truely feel our society needs the option of abortion. We have used abortion as a solution for decades, and it is well expected by many as a way to solve the problem. of an unwanted pregnancy.
Second nature. If one loves coffee, they head for Starbucks. If one has an unwanted pregnancy head for planned parenthood.Evidence that has accumulated over several decades shows that when family-planning programs are in place, women have between 5% and 35% fewer children and space their pregnancies further apart. When given resources and access to affordable contraception, girls and women fare better in terms of education, participation in the workforce, job choice, health and much more. And their children, and often their entire communities, also benefit.
At the same time, 75% of women requesting abortion in the US are living below the poverty line (per Guttmacher Institute). What a connection especially in terms of what research tells us is beneficial for this group.
A vicious cycle is being perpetuated when we have solutions in front of us. Programs that reduce abortion through family planning can at the same time also have some positive effect on breaking the cycle of poverty. Research is showing us the connection. Seems that politicians would Rather have us in the mud fighting on who we can vilify more rather than attack the issue at the root.
Bodily autonomy is a human right But we can work to reduce abortion.
As a side note, Louisiana is moving to make abortion a homicide.+100000000. Louisiana has always been a backwater state in terms of ideology & politics.
I would speculate Justifiable Homicide could enter into the fray with that.
All of what you have said, certainly is why our society needs the option of abortion. Very much all true. I have seen abused children firsthand. From cigarette burns to supper gluing an infant's eye shut to incest or merely tossing a two-year-old off a second-story breaking both legs due to yp that toddle peeing himself...
So, I think I can say firsthand why I have come by my very own jaded view of why we need legal abortions.
I also find it necessary to point out facts that many that choose abortion do not want to face. The killing part... Because I also know what a 10-week, a 20-week fetus looks like --- a baby, with all the wonderful human features that make us human beings.
Abortion is and will always be a two-edged sword. One of which we as a society truly need. Hopefully with some good parameters.
But, the way we seem to be headed it is likely we will allow abortion to the point of almost full term.
"This permits the whole population to choose who represents all the citizen's wishes by the majority." - America is not and never has been the pure democracy you suggest. In fact, our founders strongly opposed such a system and were very afraid of it, rightly so. In America, the majority gets to rule SO LONG AS the minorities constitutional rights aren't trampled upon.
One of the large differences between Conservatives and Liberals in America is that Conservatives don't mind trampling on minority rights while Liberals very much do.You may "see" it that way, but it is still morally, ethically, and legally wrong.
I am not even sure what your last comment was in response? Here is our ongoing conversation... And what I disagreed with. I kept it simple to just share my view --- Not really willing to have a back and forth about my beliefs.
MY ESOTERIC WROTE:
"This permits the whole population to choose who represents all the citizen's wishes by the majority." - America is not and never has been the pure democracy you suggest. In fact, our founders strongly opposed such a system and were very afraid of it, rightly so. In America, the majority gets to rule SO LONG AS the minorities constitutional rights aren't trampled upon.
One of the large differences between Conservatives and Liberals in America is that
And find it almost laughable in light of what we have been living without of the current Democratic administration.
"Sharlee --Disagree. I see it just the opposite."
I don't agree Conservatives don't mind trampling rights. In fact, I feel that would be the polys Dermacrats use frequently.
I find it almost laughable in light of what we have been living without of the current Democratic administration. However, I kept my reply very simple, just can't see any sense in a back and forth.
Wonder why worshippers did not have their right to worship in a peaceful atmosphere this morning. I feel their rights were stamped on by liberal nut jobs this morning. A picture is worth a thousand words.
Anti-abortion activists and church members are confronted by a pro-choice activist outside of a Catholic church in downtown Manhattan (Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)
Glad she is one of yours ---LOL"I don't agree Conservatives don't mind trampling rights. In fact, I feel that would be the polys Dermacrats use frequently." - Then explain why
- Conservatives oppose the rights of the LGBTQ community while Democrats do OR why
- Conservatives oppose the rights for Blacks to vote while Democrats support it OR why
- Conservatives want women to be second class citizens with fewer rights than men while Democrats think they should have equal rights OR why do
- Conservatives oppose the right to health care while Democrats support it OR why do
- Conservatives oppose the right of students to learn ALL of American history while Democrats think we can learn from being taught our flaws OR why do
- Conservatives oppose sex education while Democrats support it OR why do
- Conservatives oppose (and the list keeps on going)
"Wonder why worshippers did not have their right to worship in a peaceful atmosphere this morning. " - [i]For the same reason women who want an abortion are terrorized by the anti-CHOICE side when they go try to get one.Not sure why you even would take the time to make this list. It is not true in any sense. Not even sure how you believe this kind of crap.
I am sorry, it is ABSOLUTELY true in each case, you just have blinders on.
How can you NOT believe those truths? There is decades of actions by Conservatives to support each of those realities.
Many Conservatives believe alternative lifestyles are a SIN.
Most Conservatives support all of the voting restrictions that Conservatives have made into laws in so many states.As I said you read into statements, you don't seek facts.
It is clear Conservatives have very different mindsets when compared to liberals. That's not news. And they certainly have a right to feel and think differently. Being a conservative I find many of their ideologies abhorrent.
However, I do not condemn them or do I push my own ideologies on others. But I certainly have no intentions of changing my beliefs to suit others' ideologies.
This is one of the great differences between Conservatives
and liberals. I could care very little about what liberals say or do. I keep to my values, and ideals, and live and let live.
I have no way of knowing if most conservatives support their state voting laws. I would think they might, Conservatives share like values.
Should you think blue states dictate what goes on in all states? LOL
Get real, we are very much divided, and conservatives won't be dictated to. Come around to reality. My God"It is clear Conservatives have very different mindsets when compared to liberals. " - Doesn't your previous statement apply to this "factless" decree? Obviously, what you said is true, but it is nevertheless said without a foundation of facts, isn't it?
"That's not news. And they certainly have a right to feel and think differently." - Sure they do, but that Right ends when they try to put into practice those ideas that hurt other people, such as reversing Roe v Wade
"I have no way of knowing if most conservatives support their state voting laws." - Sure you do. The same way you know that Biden isn't thought of well right now in America
If you live in one of the 10% of U.S. counties that still has an abortion clinic, there is probably a group of picketers outside of it right now. They might be holding gruesome signs with doctored photos of bloody fetuses. Some might be yelling into megaphones, accosting every person who walks by the clinic. Others are probably holding up their cell phones, capturing patients’ faces as they enter the clinic’s doors, posting them online when they get home. They’re swarming patients’ cars. Then they’re slamming their signs into car windows. And they’re shouting, “Don’t murder your baby!” in a girl’s face. For blocks, they follow people. “You’re going to hell,” they shout. “You’re going to die inside that butcher shop!” They pray and prey, over and over again.
Their goal? To make it as difficult and traumatic as possible to access an abortion.
Abortion opponents have admitted as much. In a 2019 NPR interview with Terry Gross, Reverend Robert Schenck, a former militant antiabortion protester in the 1980s and ’90s, explained their rationale and tactics: “Of course we engaged in mass blockades. Sometimes we would have a dozen people in front of the doorways to a clinic. Other times, it would be hundreds. On occasion, we actually had thousands. We created human obstacles for those coming and going, whether they were the abortion providers themselves, their staff members, of course women and sometimes men accompanying them that would come to the clinics. And it created a very intimidating encounter.”
"I remember women—some of them quite young—being very distraught,” Reverend Schenck repentantly told Terry Gross. “Over time, I became very callous to that. They were more objects than they were human beings with real feelings in real personal crisis.”
https://time.com/6163613/abortion-clinic-escorts/
It IS a retrograde step, as is the Conservative push to deny voting rights and civil rights.
I believe whether a woman gets an abortion or not is a moral issue, not a legislative or religious issue. I don’t believe getting an abortion should result in criminal charges against all of those who are involved in the process of abortion.
The right to privacy that a woman has to her body should be an inalienable right. That is the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Even if each case is treated on its own merits, there are too many conditions and variables to make laws handling each specific case.
It’s interesting to note, that many of the same law makers and others who are anti-vaxers are against abortion. They claim they have the right to autonomy of their bodies, but not the right for the autonomy of a woman’s body.I agree it is a moral issue, but legislation or court rulings are needed to keep it that way.
Yes, anti-choice people who are also anti-vaxxers are clearly being hypocrical.
"The last time I looked women could get an abortion in all states in the US. " - As a practical matter, not in Texas, Oklahoma, and Missouri (and maybe a couple of others).
"The majority will rule in our states. " - [i]Which means the Minority has no rights at all. Any right you say they have can be overruled by the majority according to your view[. Is that what you REALLY mean to say?/i]
Hi, I agree with everything you said. I believe the government should stay out of our bedrooms and do their jobs we voted them in to do. I do not believe in killing babies--however, there are events that prompt a woman to make a choice about her body and what is her right to do so. They are not God--and neither party is in my good graces at the moment.
I do thank you for your opinions and sometimes I do not agree, but this time I do.
Thanks, Bobbi PurvisAnd to think that I have to listen to all this "original intent", "strict constructionist" BS regarding Conservative judges on the bench as being better interpreters of the law than the more progressive jurors on the bench.
Alito does not make a convincing distinction between what he himself would acknowledge as privacy rights and draconian abortion restrictions (those that apply at conception itself). The distinction that he attempts to make is just so much rubbish.
Just another Rightwinger bible thumper who wants impose his views on others. Even though he is a Supreme Court Justice, it is still just another myopic view and not some overriding Constitutional principle from which he makes his decision. With rightwing Jurors, you would get the impression that decisions were handed down by God, almighty, himself.
-------
"Alito disingenuously tries to distinguish abortion from other rights which the Supreme Court has upheld under the 14th Amendment’s protection of liberty. “Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage,” Alito writes, “but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called ‘fetal life’ and what the law now before us [the Mississippi abortion ban] describes as an ‘unborn human being.’”
To make this distinction, he must adopt the Mississippi legislature’s fundamentalist Christian view that an unborn fetus is a “human being.” A few pages later, Alito quotes the Mississippi legislature’s “factual findings” characterizing a fetus as an “unborn child.” He essentially imports the religious views of the Christian right into his opinion.
"But even this attempt to distinguish abortion from other “unenumerated rights” that the Supreme Court has previously upheld is hard to square with the legal reasoning in the rest of Alito’s draft opinion. He seems to acknowledge that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment may protect some rights “not mentioned in the Constitution,” but only if they are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition … The right to abortion does not fall within this category.”https://news.yahoo.com/louisiana-lawmak … 09118.html
The Right gets draconian and ridiculous, did I not say that this was what you could expect? You think that they won't tie women up and restrain them from getting abortions elsewhere? Think again....
If Roe is overturned, you can expect "Civil War 2" the sequel.It is going to be more than Civil War 2. There is going to hell to pay- it will be WELL-DESERVED.
How did those minimizing the insurrection on Jsn 6th against America put it? ?I don't approve of violence but maybe these people thought they were doing the right thing to protect women from death or jail from illegal abortions"
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/08/us/anti- … index.htmlAnd the PROTESTS are just beginning and will carry through to November when the bad guys who took away a woman's right to choose will be kicked out of office!
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … -politics/As I have predicted - Conservatives have put Contraception on the list of things to ban.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/08/politics … index.htmlMany far right conservatives believe that life begins at fertilization. I predict they will introduce personhood legislation for the embryo, effectively banning birth control.
Yes, effectively interfering with sexual relations among consenting adults. Who is going to live with it, the anxiety the Right has over not having control over your personal affairs?
I think several states like OK, MO, and TX has that teed up to pass on a moments notice.
Important context. Your comment is missleading.
"Mississippi governor declines to rule out contraception bans, saying his state 'isn't presently focused' on it"
Here is your comment -- As I have predicted - Conservatives have put Contraception on the list of things to ban.
I note the worst "HAVE PUT Contraception on the list of things to ban.
I saw no list in the article, and no indication that it was even banning contraception was being considered.
No list, nothing in the article to suggest it was even being seriously considered. Once again you're presenting a "what if'... Just not executable, this kind of what-if does nothing but feed into the emotions of those that want to hear such rhetoric.Yes, I read what he said - but we also know what he meant since he didn't say no.
Your crystal ball has once again failed you, just as it did in Trump's insurrection. You simply do not have the ability to read minds, and your assumptions come from a political bias, not from reason or facts.
This is your problem --- you read into others' thoughts, and just add your own context.
You are back to believing people are brainless. Apply what you just said to a jury.
Sharlee:
Law experts say if Roe were overturned because a right to choose an abortion isn't constitutional, other rulings could be next.
One ruling, in particular, Griswold v. Connecticut, could be at risk because a right to privacy isn't mentioned in the Constitution.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/law-e … li=BBnb7KzDo you feel our justices will ignore the constitution when considering doing away with Roe? I am ready to respect whatever the SC rule.
If the law-making is left to the states, I will hope that each state listens to the people, and make laws that suit the majority in that state.They will be overturning the decision of the 1973 Supreme Court who found the right to abortion to be protected by the constitution. Which group of justices is correct? Which do you trust more? And these are somewhat rhetorical questions but It's certainly presents an issue of credibility of the court in my mind. Why is the reasoning of the current court more credible or sound than that of the court of 1973?
I don't feel this current court is more credible than our past court.
I will wait and give them the curiosity of waiting to see the final ruling on Roe. I am disappointed that the boat has been rocked. I feel well enough should have been left alone.
This could just deepen the divide. We have no real solutions that work on the root problem of abortion. If the SC tosses out Roe, we will divide up states and it will show the deep division in ideologies.
But will anyone really win?This subject, human rights, is important enough that the boat needs rocking. The fundamental issue is do American people have a constitutional right to privacy. I don't see how there can be any more important question.
Throughout the history of the Court, save for when conservatives were in the majority, the Court has always voted to expand freedom and liberty. It is a fact that when Conservatives run the Court, freedom and liberty are reduced, e.g., the decision that Blacks aren't citizens and don't have the protection of the Constitution.Just a reminder that the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade was written by a lifelong Republican. Justice, Harry Blackmun, wrote the majority opinion in the case, which basically stated that state laws that unduly restrict abortion were unconstitutional, not specifically because a woman had a right to choose to have an abortion, but because of a the right to privacy under the 14th amendment.
Isn't that something? How far we've come?
In fact, it was mostly Republican-nominated Supreme Court Justices who made the case for choice in 1973.
Roe vs. Wade was decided with a 7-2 vote, and not along partisan lines. Those who ruled in favor were as follows, with the president who nominated them and the party of that president indicated in parentheses.
Harry Blackmun (Nixon, R)
Lewis Powell (Nixon, R)
Warren Burger (Nixon, R)
William Brennan (Eisenhower, R)
Potter Stewart (Eisenhower, R)
Thurgood Marshall (LBJ, D)
William Douglas (FDR, D)
Those who dissented on Roe vs. Wade:
Byron White (Kennedy, D)
William Rehnquist (Nixon, R)Where do you come up with this kind of information?
Roe vs. Wade was decided with a 7-2 vote, and not along partisan lines. Those who ruled in favor were as follows, with the president who nominated them and the party of that president indicated in parentheses.
Harry Blackmun (Nixon, R)
Lewis Powell (Nixon, R)
Warren Burger (Nixon, R)
William Brennan (Eisenhower, R)
Potter Stewart (Eisenhower, R)
Thurgood Marshall (LBJ, D)
William Douglas (FDR, D)
Those who dissented on Roe vs. Wade:
Byron White (Kennedy, D)
William Rehnquist (Nixon, R)I study history is where I "come up with those statements". You might research who was behind such decisions as:
- The gutting of the Voting Rights Act in 2009 (Conservatives)
- Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842) - Upheld the right of a slave catcher to kidnap a former slave and her free-children and sell them back into bondage. (Conservatives)
- Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), - Ruled that Blacks weren't American citizens. (Conservative)
- PLESSY v. FERGUSON, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), - Ruled Blacks are Separate but Equal from Whites (Conservative)
- HAMMER v DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251, 38 S. Ct. 529, 62 L. Ed. 1101 (1918). - Ruled child labor was OK (Conservative)
- "Slaughterhouse Case" in 1877, - Helped gut the 14th Amendment and brought an end to Reconstruction and Black freedom.
.
https://hubpages.com/hubtool/edit/4667608 - I need to get back to finish this hub. You see, you learn a lot of things when you study history.
If Roe stands, then everybody wins. Those who oppose abortion can keep on opposing it while those that believe in a woman's right to chose won't become criminals.
If Roe dies, then everybody loses, including those that fought so hard to restrict your liberty. Why? Because there will be at least on daughter of the anti-choice group who will die getting a back-ally abortion or will commit suicide because she can't get an abortion. That said, I suppose it is always possible that the anti-choice parent will say their daughter got what she deserved. I hope not, but some people are just that callous.Not sure if you ever read my comments or if you just can't comprehend the context. I am pro-choice...
I feel Roe should be left alone. Overturning it will cause many problems, it's a slippery slope, I don't think we should go down due
to having no solutions.
I do feel if it is overturned and passed to states we will need to live with what the majority vote in their own states.
And we need to consider we live in a democracy and need to
respect it.I understand you are pro-choice and I wasn't saying you weren't.
It is statements like this that make me scratch my head - "I do feel if it is overturned and passed to states we will need to live with what the majority vote in their own states." - which sounds very much like capitulation to me.
Especially when you follow it by "And we need to consider we live in a democracy and need to respect it." which tells me that if the majority in a state voted for slavery, that you would say "oh well, that is what 50% plus one voting people in state want, so I must respect that it is OK to have slavery in that state" That attitude just baffles me.Your anolgy is outragous. As If I would ever promote slavery... Do you ever think before insulting others?
Not sure what you feel could be done if the Supreme Court passes the problem to the states what we could do. Other than the people in their individual states making their voices heard when they vote on abortion laws. Do I have the right to tell the citizens of another state they must abide by what I feel is fair in regard to abortion laws?
We live in a democracy, I think this is something many Democrats want to change, and I don't feel they will succeed. Americans basically are just not wired to accept autocratic demands from the left.
You are being overly dramatic by comparing slavery to abortion. This makes me wonder what a black person would think of
your comparison.
What in the world will you do if or when the SC gives the states the right to make individual abortion laws?
I will use my vote to be heard in my state because this is what one does in a democracy. I feel the majority has the last word. This has worked well for America, and I am not willing to ever abide by mob rule. This to me is unacceptable.Sharlee: If Alito's draft opinion had not been leaked, we would not even be having this conversation right now. We can thank Trump for fulfilling his promise to stack the courts so that Roe v. Wade can be overturned.
This is a red state, blue state conflict, where the blue states want the SC to decide and the red states want the states to decide. The conservative will win because they have been preparing for this for a long time.
It will be just like gun control laws, If you can't buy a gun in your state, you go to one where it is legal. However if a woman lives in a state where she needs an abortion and can't afford to go to a state where it is legal, what does she do? Oh that's right, she shouldn't have gotten pregnant in he first place...except what if she was raped?"We can thank Trump for fulfilling his promise to stack the courts so that Roe v. Wade can be overturned.
Can you give a link to when Trump promised to "stack the courts so that Roe v. Wade can be overturned"? Or is your statement a complete lie, coming only from your dislike of Trump and a willingness to spin what is said into what it never was?Donald Trump said the overturning of the landmark Supreme Court decision giving women the right to abortion "will happen, automatically," if he is elected president and gets to appoint justices to the high court.
Pressed by Fox News host Bill O’Reilly on whether his chosen justices would overturn Roe v. Wade, Trump said, “They will be pro-life, and we will see what about overturning.”
Also Mr. Trump's stated "If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that will happen. And that will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."
I think Mitch McConnell's maneuvering had a bigger part in the composition of the court we have today.
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-i … -case.htmlThat he did - McConnell broke every moral code regarding the duty of the Senate that existed. And he is prepared to break more if he gets into power once again. He is as dangerous to democracy as Trump is.
Yes we can thank Trump for destroying that part of America. One of many things he ruined, I might add.
I am flabbergasted you even had to ask for a link. That says something about you. But in any case, here is one of hundreds.
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-i … -case.html
No, if we did not have the leak we would not be having this conversation, it would be put off until June. Which would have been closer to Nov... And perhaps could have been an issue in the Nov elections. This uproar will have fizzled long before Nov, it's already losing steam.
And it is true Trump promised to put in conservative judges. However, Trump has never explicitly vowed or promised to overturn Roe v. Wade, he has described multiple times as "pro-life" and expressed his intentions to appoint justices who were conservative. The Republicans have long wanted Roe overturned, this comes as no surprise.
I as I said am pro-abortion. I am also very much for keeping our democracy, and majority rules.
It's very much a women's problem, and I think women should all be heard. Does it scare you what women in red states might choose?
I don't have the right to dictate what other states do... Let's leave that up to the women that live in red states. They will have no say in Blue states.
Not sure why liberals are so afraid to hear what all women think about abortion.
Majority rules in my book. Hey, if my state has a vote I will support the majority. I might not be happy with the voice of the majorty. But I won't stamp my feet, and disrespect the majority.The question is would you like to see more of our rights that are protected by the constitution to be sent back to states from a majority rule? Is it acceptable?
I had to think about your question. I think we are at the point we may need to realize we have two sides, both have completely different ideas on which way they want the country to head.
It would be very unfortunate if we stay from the Constitution. But, it is very possible we are headed in that direction. We need to have a leader that can help the country, and try to bring people together. It's clear at this point the right finds Biden to be ineffective at bringing the country together, in fact, many feel Biden works to divide.
So, where do we go? I have no answers. We can hope that neither party tries to stray from the Constitution.
I can see your point, if abortion laws are handed to the states, will it be the old "give an inch take a mile"...
I certainly would not like or be satisfied with losing any of the freedoms I enjoy. I don't want to assume what women in red states would vote on in regard to abortion. But, I can't see them banning abortion."But, I can't see them banning abortion."
I do....The red state just might. We know the blue states will have the same right to change or add new abortion laws.
If the SC does away with Roe and states are given the opportunity to make their own abortion laws --- and these laws are voted on, should we not respect the majority vote... The same goes for blue states. Both could vote on extremes red states could ban abortion, and blue states could take all restrictions off obtaining an abortion.
Realistically it will most likely come to this. Should we respect the majority vote in the end?
I do not think red states will ban abortions, I do think they will restrict the weeks one can get an abortion, as most states already do.
I wish Roe was left alone... We as a nation have no solutions to decrease the need for abortion."I wish Roe was left alone... We as a nation have no solutions to decrease the need for abortion."
I'm with you on that. Life is shades of gray. In this case it's shades of purple. But do you notice that politicians never want us to think of issues in these terms? We are given a red choice or a blue choice. It's always black and white and polarized to the extreme. Always ignoring the shades in the middle which is really where reality exists.
Some red folks support a woman's constitutional right to make decisions for her own body. A lot of blue folks would never terminate a full-term baby and are actually responsible people. There are a lot of variations on the stereotypes we are constantly fed. It's not really all the fire and brimstone were led to believe. There is a whole lot of middle ground for people to congregate on if politicians would just let us get there.But, you have to admit, it is going to be a mess. McConnell said to"hell" with states rights, we will pass national legislation banning abortion as soon as they can get control of congress and the executive branch.
I don't know if it is just states rights that conservatives are defending or is it total control of abortion access in all 50 states?
As I said before, States Rights are not sacrosanct. What would you consider rights that state legislatures cannot simply legislate away for anyone, majority rule or no?
There needs to be a line drawn, where is it for you?
That is the question before us now.
Btw, check out the Louisiana legislation that is on the table to ban abortion from the point of conception.
You really don't think that they will follow through? How many states do not even consider rape or incest as exemptions to their bans, how reasonable is that?
If I were female, why would I want to have to carry a baby, a product of rape, to term? I think that is torture.I am still amazed you even ask this "Should we respect the majority vote in the end?" when you are talking about people's rights - YOUR RIGHTS - and the loss of them.
You have yet to answer my oft repeated question that if the majority voted to reinstate SLAVERY, that you would go along with it as you say you will for women losing their right to chose?
To be non-hypocritical, your answer must be yes, Slavery is OK if the majority of people says it is. Your silence leads me to that conclusion.Do you even read a comment before responding? Women in red states will be heard. They will dictate what they feel abortion laws should be. Their rights will not be taken away, but they will have the right to vote on abortion rights, and if displeased vote representatives out.
This is a wonderful opportunity for women, all women to be heard.
Are you so afraid of what they will say?
I did answer your question on slavery. I said it is a crazy analogy. Women are not losing their right to choose... We are gaining our right to make abortion laws we can support. All states will have that very opportunity. This is a very democratic way to solve the problem.
Slavery is imprisoning people against their will. The will of women all over the US will be heard. This seems to really scare liberals. AS it should... I think red states will have strict abortion laws.But essentially a majority vote for a ban on abortion means subjugating and taking away the rights of the minority. If this is the logic, why not move to the popular vote as the method to determine our presidential elections?
In a democracy, a minority does need to live with a majority vote.
This is a vote of ideologies, values, and morals. Like people are drawn to like states. I could not abide by some of California's laws, as they could perhaps not abide by laws in my state.
I really feel states making their own laws is very fair, and should not even be concerning to anyone. Yes, a minority in both red and blue states will not be heard. But, this is to be excepted in a democracy.
Do blue states far outnumber red states is it fair that only blue states are heard on such values and moral-based issues?
Are you fearful that your beliefs in regard to abortion will not be supported in red states? Does this upset you? Do you feel only your beliefs are valid in regard to abortion?
I really feel it's time for all women to be heard, and have the laws they can comfortably live with. Not one side should dictate to the other.
As I said, I think red states will come up with abortion laws that suit their morals, and what they can feel comfortable with, as will blue states.
This should not be threatening to either side. But the left seems to be having problems with this form of solution. Maybe just respect the rights of the other side.
Ultimately it looks like states will be creating their own abortion laws. However, the final decision may not have been made.I do vehemently disagree that the unenumerated constitutional right for a woman to choose and make decisions for her own body should be sent to a popular vote. I respect anyone's right to disagree with abortion and to not seek one But to use your view, to impose your view on another as to prevent them from exercising a right is unconscionable in my mind. Hold your view, by all means but you cannot legislate it onto another. I say this, a sitting within the borders of a blood red state who will ban abortion and leave many to seek other means. The wealthy will flee the borders, those who don't have the finances will resort to their own self-induced methods or seek help of those who may choose to act outside the law.
Again, I just don't understand the logic. A majority will be denying rights to a minority.
In a democracy you are guaranteed fundamental human rights. No one, not any person, government, nor the majority
can remove these rights from you. This is called the Majority Rule, Minority Rights Principle, which holds the twin pillars of democracy.
The Majority Rule, Minority Rights Principle practiced in a democracy protects minority rights by ensuring that even if a majority decision is followed, that decision should never impinge on the fundamental human rights of the minority.
In every genuine democracy today, majority rule is both endorsed and limited by the supreme law of the constitution, which protects the rights of individuals. Tyranny by minority over the majority is barred, but so is tyranny of the majority against the minority.
This fundamental principle of constitutional democracy, majority rule coupled with the protection of minority rights, is embedded in the constitution.
"Women in red states will be heard. " - No they won't. White men have already chosen for them
I have a really hard time believing there are more "white men" than all shades of women. Seems to me that womens vote will override that of one race of men every time.
What about the concerns and rights of the minority though?
Tough to protect when a majority are adamant that they have the right to control everyone. A pitfall of democracy, particularly when coupled with a legislature that cares not for the people but only for their personal power base.
In case you're wondering that holds true for both sides of our congress. Neither red nor blue cares one iota about the people or the minority.Yes, but, whether others want to believe it or not, we don't live in a "democracy". Rather we live in a representative Republic.
By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority.
Whether some people believe it or not, we live under a Constitution that gives EVERYONE a Right to LIFE, LIBERTY (including health), and the pursuit of HAPPINESS (which includes a Right to Privacy).
The so-called majority has no say in the matter. That is why, as a couple of people on this forum would have you believe, a state CANNOT vote to reimplement Slavery. In that, and so many more instances, the "Majority" does NOT RULE.
I hope you agree with that.
I do not agree with your last statement. By observation, only part of one side - the Trump Republicans - do not care one iota about the people, especially the minority.
The rest of that side do care about people and the minority "to some degree".Suppose a SCOTUS determination is not a valid determination that your mentioned Rights are not in the Constitution, (per your disagreement with this Court's probable decision). In that case, it doesn't seem logical that you would use a SCOTUS determination as proof that they are in the constitution.
So what supports your claim that those Rights are in the Constitution?
GAMainly Common Sense. Why bother with a constitution that promises rights to Life, Liberty, and Happiness if it didn't include a right to privacy. How can you have liberty or be "happy" (Jefferson actually used Plato's definition of happiness) if gov't can invade your privacy whenever they feel like it (or more likely a conservative church tells them to).
These conservative Justices, when they need to in order to impose their personal moral code, search for specific words in the Constitution. If these particular words are missing, then ergo, it is unconstutional.
Of course that doesn't hold when it comes to things like the 2nd Amendment when they had to be very creative to make the recent rulings they did. Where are the words "to protect ones home" in the 2nd Amendment. Yet somehow they twisted things around to pretend that they do exist.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander.I'm a fan of a "common sense" rationalization, but it doesn't make my support for something validated by it to be anything more than what I think it means.
My common sense reasoning is that if it's not stated in the constitution, then it's up to us to determine what implications are in what was stated. We do that with legislation and SCOTUS.
You approve of that method in the original Roe ruling but not in this one. So things boil down to one fact that you appear to agree with—it's not stated in the constitution, but you say it is implied because you think it should be.
It is just as you said, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
GA
Doesn't this go to the overall legitimacy of the court? What do the current Justices have on the the 1973 Justices who decided the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction?
Which court ruling will be more valid? Which court "got it right?"
Over the centuries, courts have stated many reasons they should adhere to precedent. Precedent promotes uniformity and consistency in the law.
But this court believes differently? They see it differently than the groups of justices over the past decades that have upheld Roe?
I'm losing faith in the legitimacy of the court. Although maybe this is just a rogue court.You have me in the corner of both agreeing and disagreeing with your thought.
I do agree that the legitimacy of the Court is a question, but I doubt we would agree on the degrees of delegitimization these current times are having on it.
Someone suggested looking at past precedent reversals and it appears that the precedent of reversing precedents started almost with the first Court decision that was deemed to be precedent. There is nothing new about this potential reversal, including the arguments of those for and against it. The arguments are usually the same: one court got it right and one court didn't.
You can't get much more subjective than that. For you, this Court is a rogue court, but for, (probably), an equal number of folks Roe was the
rogue Court.
I still have great faith in the institution of the Court and its justices. Whether I agree with them or not, I think they are all trying to do the right thing to the best of their abilities. Cultural biases will, (and I say should be), be a part of the process. I trust the judges to also understand that and keep it in its place in their deliberations.
GAI suspect any court with a majority of arch-conservatives on would be a "rogue" court. What action has a conservative taken that has increased freedom and liberty and made a more perfect union or a more civil society.
I have studied a lot of history and the only examples I can find that fit that criteria are what used to be known as liberal conservatives (that is what I considered myself once upon a time).
"and these laws are voted on" - What makes you think they will be "voted" on. These oppressive laws are already baked in.
Most definitely, states with Republican lead legislatures have been rushing to enact anti-abortion bills anxiously awaiting Roe being overturned. There have been no measures put to the voters of any of these states. State legislatures will be pivotal for determining what abortion laws take effect in the absence of Roe. I suppose that citizens of these states will have to try and overturn the restrictive laws.
Since you equivocated, I guess your short answer is YES, it is acceptable in your view.
"This uproar will have fizzled long before Nov, it's already losing steam." - Then tell me why there are over 200 demonstrations in all 50 states today? That doesn't sound like "already fizzling" to me.
"But I won't stamp my feet, and disrespect the majority." - Then shouldn't you move to a nation where pure democracy exists? Oh, right, there is no such place in the world, certainly not here in America where our founders fought so hard to prevent it from happening.
Isn't it a wonderful thing that it was leaked, because, as you said, we wouldn't be having this necessary and critical conversation right now. Their wouldn't be over 200 protests in all 50 states opposing this draconian assault on our freedoms.
Why is it a wonderful thing, do you expect the reaction to change the Court's mind, or push legislators to finally act?
GAYes, it might change one mind, probably Kavanaugh who was the most vocal about Roe being settled law. And yes, it might spark Congress to get off its lazy ass and do something positive. It has before, it might again.
I suspect it won't be that long before we see marches from Selma to Montgomery again in order to reestablish Blacks right to vote unimpeded.Oh geez . . . More Selma marches? Here's what you should do; find a big tree to stand under so the falling pieces of sky don't hit you.
You picked Congress as the legislature to act, hopefully, you could accept state legislators getting off of their butts too.
GAAnd we are ready to resurrect Dr. King and the entire movement if necessary to reiterate the point....
Won't go back..I am guessing you will need to because conservatives won't quit trying to diminish the rights of minorities and women. There will be a lot more people like me who will back such a movement because each generation since the 1960s has become more egalitarian and liberal minded (even if they won't vote).
I wonder if I can find some statistics on the aging of conservatives.
(time passes)
This one doesn't have any valuable stats, but I like this opinion piece began -
"For those opposed to the current president who believe most Democrats are socialists or Communists, I propose a new party. It would keep wealth in the hands of the wealthy by continuing to lower taxes. It would keep a strong military complex, support police (except those who protect the Capitol), keep health care expensive and in the hands of major corporations, believe climate change is cyclical and unrelated to human pollution, limit voter rights and gerrymander political maps, keep businesses open during a pandemic despite thousands of deaths, and keep borders closed, especially to people of color.
Whoops! I’m sorry, we already have that party. No need for a new one." - from the Desert Sun, LTTE, Palm Springs.
(more time passes)
I found the answer in a pair of Pew Research papers - Conservatives are a dying breed! Thank God.
Their methodology was to ask people how they approved of various presidents in their first year in office (the links give an age breakdown of the various generational groups). Their finding is that as time passes, each new generation is becoming more ethnically diverse and more liberal in their outlook.
When asked after their first year in office what they thought of the then current president, it broke down like this for APPROVAL:
CLINTON:
-- Greatest - 47%
-- Silent - 46%
-- Boomers - 46%
-- Gen X - 50%
BUSH
-- Greatest - 59%
-- Silent - 64%
-- Boomers - 65%
-- Gen X - 63%
OBAMA
-- Silent - 49%
-- Boomers - 57%
-- Gen X - 58%
-- Millennial - 64%
TRUMP
-- Silent - 46%
-- Boomers - 44%
-- Gen X - 36%
-- Millennial - 27%
TRUMP - in 2020 Survey
-- Silent - 57%
-- Boomers - 48%
-- Gen X - 42%
-- Millennial - 32%
-- Gen Z - 22%
As of 2020, here is the breakdown of the population by generation:
-- Greatest - 0.4%
-- Silent - 7.3%
-- Boomers - 23.7%
-- Gen X - 21.8%
-- Millennial - 24.2%
-- Gen Z - 22.5% (but most can't vote YET)
To a statistician, that speaks volumes about where the country is headed politically. Based on the above, I would have to say conservatives are on their last legs politically and has less than a generation to cause problems.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/20 … -politics/
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-tren … -so-far-2/"There will be a lot more people like me who will back such a movement because each generation since the 1960s has become more egalitarian and liberal minded " That's not what polls say.
"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The way Americans identify themselves ideologically was unchanged in 2021, continuing the close division that has persisted in recent years between those describing themselves as either conservative or moderate, while a smaller share identifies as liberal. On average last year, 37% of Americans described their political views as moderate, 36% as conservative, and 25% as liberal."
https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/pol … s-tie.aspx
Curious in the Obama years the those that identified as Conservative or moderates rose. And in 2021 a smaller share identifies as liberal.Those charts "appear" to support the Pew findings. It is a bit hard to tell since the generational break down is not provided.
What I see is steady growth among those identifying as liberals (17 to 25%), a surprising (to me) decline in moderates (43 - 35%), and no trend in conservatives (36 - 36%). For some reason, it seems moderates are switching to liberal.
So, yes, that is what the polls are showing. What does conservatives holding steady and liberals trending up tell you? The moderate-liberal trends also speak to why we are more divided.The chart shows in 2021--, continuing the close division that has persisted in recent years between those describing themselves as either conservative or moderate, while a smaller share identifies as liberal. On average last year, 37% of Americans described their political views as moderate, 36% as conservative, and 25% as liberal."
Actually, my link offers a chart that breaks it all down into subgroups.
Americans' Political Ideology by Subgroup, 2021
https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/pol … s-tie.aspxThose weren't the subgroups I was talking about. I was talking about Generational subgroups, Gen Z, Gen X, Millennial, etc. That is a much better way to understand changes over time.
Are you telling me that in the charts you initially presented that liberals didn't GROW from 17 to 25%?? That Moderates didn't FALL from 43 - 36%? That conservatives didn't remain constant? Did you not just change the subject to talk only about the last couple of years??
Nevertheless, the charts in your link do prove interesting.
One shows that Democrats identifying as liberals, as would be expected, grew significantly between 1994 and 2001. Why? Partly because the conservative wing jumped ship and went to the Republican Party. Another thing this chart shows is that while it is changing, the Democratic Party is still a "big tent" party open to all views.
The next chart shows that Independents have not changed much over time in their identification of conservative, moderate, or liberal.
The third chart in that series confirms that the Republican Party has become a one trick pony, almost totally conservative. I was surprised by how small the liberal contingent was back in 1994. I thought it would have been significantly larger (I belonged to this group back then).
Now, I re-ask my question "So, yes, that is what the polls are showing. What does conservatives holding steady and liberals trending up tell you? "There is a chart at the lower part of the page that breaks down age groups, gender, education, and race you name it...
Not sure what poll you're talking about, my polls show the very opposite. I could have missed your link. I have not found any indications of liberals trending up.That was your chart I was talking about. To a statistician, when in 1992, 17% leaned liberal and in 2021, it was 25%, that means it is a significant upward trend - at least that is what I was taught in getting my bachelors in statistics.
What were you taught?
The second American civil war is already occurring, but it is less of a war than a kind of benign separation analogous to unhappily married people who don’t want to go through the trauma of a formal divorce.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/ … li=BBnb7KzI came to that conclusion some time ago. I mean we elected a man that had no political experience, that many in the country literally hated. Should it surprise anyone that we are now more or less two countries? One red, one blue.
Just take the abortion problem --- many are up in arms, and many just hope states are handed the right to make their own abortion laws.
One side is so fearful that if red states vote on new abortion laws they will truely curtail or even ban abortion. Not sure why? After all blue states can also make their own abortion laws, and have the right to have an abortion up to the birth of a child.
I think in the end voting in states will happen. And we need to expect the red state's laws as well as the laws of the blue state.
I think it's time to say --- each side will get what they want...
Unfortunately, some don't realize all the protesting will do little to nothing the power will be given to states --- red and blue, never the twain shall meet. Not sure why the left does not realize they will continue to be able to have abortions, but they have no right to dictate what abortion laws will be in red states, and vice versa.
I don't think America will ever be the same, but hopefully, we can just go through the motions without too much turmoil.We have been two countries from the get go. First you had the Federalists who wanted a United States and the Anti-Federalists, who didn't.
Then you had conservatives who wanted to keep slavery and liberals who didn't. That division led to a Civil War.
Then you had the successful conservative battle to undo the results of the Civil War which led to the negation of all the rights the Blacks gained from the North winning.
Then, after world war and a Great Depression (all under conservatives rule mind you) liberals got control of the Courts and gov't where things got decidedly better.
Then the conservatives dug in their heals and attacked Americans for having so-called Communist leanings and was taking America backwards again. That was the beginning of Trump Republicans, we just didn't know it yet. Along came the liberals again to save the day and lead us to the longest period of sustained economic growth to that point. Liberals also returned the civil and voting rights to Blacks that conservatives took away a century earlier.
Then what I now call the Trump Republicans went dormant until Ronald Reagan, I am sure much to his chagrin, released the monster once again. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan went a very long way to healing a very divided nation. Unfortunately, with the "Reagan Revolution" came the seeds that has led to today's divided nation between what I perceive as good and evil.
Gingrich was the initial Great Divider and marshalled the uber-conservative voices and gave them a power base. But it took Trump to give the masses of what would have been in 1790 the Anti-Federalists a Voice.
The abomination that is apparently going to happen with Roe is the culmination of that drift backwards to the morals of Dred Scott and the 1880s.
And add to that - benign neglect to the destruction of our democracy. People should be up in arms about that and rushing to the polls to stop it. But, sadly, almost half the country, including many on this forum, want to see Trump succeed in finishing his elimination of democracy in America. Keep in mind, he has succeeded in at least 1/3 of the states - you can no longer trust their elections to reflect the will of the people because he has rigged them so badly.
In places like Michigan you can still believe the results because the Democrats have successfully pushed back against the anti-democratic Trump Republicans. Democracy in America is under attack just like it is in Ukraine, just without the bombs and bullets.
It is a fact that Criminalizing women's health care won't save lives while it is likely that it will cost some women their lives.
Do you feel the way that I do, that this governor (like DeSantis and Trump) has no moral compass?
I am guessing he believes the rape victim is at fault or something. Way too many conservatives do think that is true.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/15/politics … index.htmlWhere is the vote?
Republican Gov. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska said Sunday that he will call a special session of his state's legislature to pass a total ban on abortion if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade this term.
"Nebraska is a pro-life state. I believe life begins at conception, and those are babies too," When asked if he thought the state should require a young girl who was raped to carry the pregnancy to term. "If Roe v. Wade, which is a horrible constitutional decision, gets overturned by the Supreme Court, which we're hopeful of, here in Nebraska, we're going to take further steps to protect those preborn babies."
"Including in the case of rape or incest?" Bash asked. To which the governor replied: "They're still babies, too. Yes."
https://www.axios.com/2022/05/15/nebras … ortion-banWell this is where we are folks. The Oklahoma Legislature passed a bill that would ban abortion at conception, making it the most restrictive abortion ban in the country if it goes into effect when Roe is overturned.
The bill, HB 4327, which would go into effect immediately if signed by the governor, is modeled after a controversial Texas law that opens up providers and anyone who "aids and abets" an abortion to civil lawsuits.
A wonderful enshrinement of vigilante justice. But again, where is the vote on this???
This is real: in Oklahoma, a post-Roe world has arrived.That would ban the "morning after" pill, I presume.
Wonder how they will work with the contraceptive pill? One of it's functions is to prevent implantation into the uterine wall after fertilization (conception) - what is said about that? Or will they ban that as well?I think the ultimate goal is to ban any form of contraceptive. It sounds absolutely ludicrous but I think this is where it's going.
After contraceptives are banned, what is next? Restrain the women from getting the procedure done in states without the ban. They will attempt it, as they could not resist the opportunity. If Righty can take their "Oklahoma compromise' to like minded states.....
I sort of hope that Roe is overturned, the firestorm that will erupt in this society, once women sucking up to Republicans finally figure out the real motive and the result.
We will keep that cauldron churning and burning right up until November....The media has pretty much dropped the leaked brief. I think it's old news, many are just waiting to see what happens in their own states in regards to new abortion laws.
Perhaps when the ruling is reported we will have some protests, and maybe they will even become violent. Not sure how that will work out for Dems in Nov. I think Americans prefer law and order.
I think Dems would have got more bang for their buck if they waited for the ruling in June. But, perhaps it was a Republican that leaked the brief and knew the story would fizzle quickly, as it has.Well, I don't think it will be violent but it will mirror the marches that we saw women make just after Trump was inaugurated. It got a lot of coverage and had far and wide participation. The implications cannot be ignored by the politicians who will have to affected at the ballot box.
This issue is far too grave for it to just fizzle away, Republicans are going to pay. How would those women react to the "law and order" associated with being a mere handmaiden or incubating unit? This will awaken many.
The old biddies won't be moved but many of the younger women will be outraged, I know that I would be.I think Putin's psych op crew created the leak. He is very good at creating turmoil in other countries. He knows we are a divided country and he wants to divide us even further. The more divided we are, the weaker we become to take on challenges from foreign entities. This is part of his payback plan.
Trump was inaugurated did get a bit of coverage over the weekend it was held, and by Tuesday was an old story.
I feel we will see lots of violence, that's what Democrats have become known for, in my view. Hence your very view -- "Republicans are going to pay.". IT seems some don't understand Republicans have been behind 59 years of fighting to have Roe overturned
Gosh, these "old biddies" are moms of young women. Women they brought up with many values that daughters respect.
I do feel Democrats will certainly incorporate the subject in their campaigns, as well will Republicans making the claim after 50 years we won. Touting new safer abortion laws.Have a look at this, Sharlee, the march seems bit more involved than just a mere flash in the pan to me. Gosh, there was even a march in Antarctica, now that is what I call worldwide.
This abortion thing has the same potential and should galvanize women even more so. That women's march was peaceful as well as universal, I have no reason to believe that the next salvo of protests will be any different. By payback, I speak solely in political terms. You can see how this was a left oriented initiative against Trump over how he campaigned and what he represented.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Women%27s_MarchYes, It was the largest single-day protest in U.S. history. I said it did not receive media attention past Tuesday after the protest was held. I did not want to make it sound as if it were not a substantial worldwide protest. It was, it got its 15 minutes, and poof...
I was just saying, it would have been more prudent to wait for the ruling. I am very sure there will be a huge protest, and as I said it most likely will become violent this time around. Let's face it the temperature here in the US has changed over the past years, and most protests attract troublemakers.Sharlee: This was just from Trump's inauguration month.
January 2017
Protest in Chicago on January 20
January 20 – Fifty women from El Paso, Texas and Ciudad Juárez, demonstrated against the proposed wall and the Trump Administration immigration policies by standing on the US/Mexico border, linked by hands and braiding scarves or hair together between 7 am and 9 am.[287][288] The women were part of an organization called Boundless Across Borders.[288]
January 20, inauguration – Multiple protests took place in connection with the inauguration of Donald Trump as the president of the United States of America.[289]
Women's March in Washington D.C.
January 21, Women's Marches – A series of political rallies known as Women's Marches took place in locations around the world.[290][291] Estimates suggest between 3.3 and 4.6 million people took part, making it the largest protest in United States history.[292]
January 25 – Seven Greenpeace members climbed a construction crane belonging to Clark Construction and displayed a large banner saying "Resist", blocking traffic and interrupting work on a new office building a half-mile from The White House.[293]
'Trump Immigration Order Sparks Protests at NY Airport' report from Voice of America
January 28 – Protests occurred at airports across the US,[294] including O'Hare International Airport in Chicago,[295] JFK Airport in New York, SFO in San Francisco,[295][296] LAX in Los Angeles[297] and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.[298]
January 29 – Protests against executive order 13769, banning travelers and refugees from certain countries continue at airports and public spaces, continue in the United States[299][300][301] and internationally.[302]
January 30 – A protest occurred at the U.S. Consulate in Toronto, Canada in the wake of Trump's executive order on immigration.[303] A demonstration by Democrats was held outside of the Supreme court to protest the executive order.[304] Across major cities in the United Kingdom, large crowds varying from over 200 people, protested against the Trump Administration's order on banning travellers and refugees from certain countries, as well supporting the petition to ban the Trump state visit to the U.K, which gathered over one million signatures in two days.[305]
January 31 – Protests against Executive Order 13769 continue. In Las Cruces, New Mexico, demonstrators showed up outside the Islamic Center to show support for the Muslim community.[306]AND??? So what's your point?
Never made any claims that the women's march was not a very big worldwide affair... I just pointed out that the Women's March protest did not get much media coverage beyond a couple of days. Cred and I were discussing what might happen if Roe is overturned in regard to abortion protests, he felt they would be peaceful, I disagreed I feel we will see riots and violence. lawbreaking. We were NOT conversing about all the protests that occurred against Trump. Just sharing our views on would the protests be peaceful or not if Roe is overturned.
I am aware that many protests were held against the new president. And I am very sure there will be protests against Roe being overturned. I think many have come to expect these kinds of protests from disgruntled Americans.Sharlee, you accuse me of not reading your comments (I do, every word), but it seems you didn't read PeoplePower's. In your latest comment you expanded "a day" to "a day or two". You apparently missed where gave you examples that went on more than "a day or two".
You appear to be twisting your previous words to fit your latest defense.
Yes, that is "gone by Tuesday" alright, lol.
What supports Sharlee's point is that in Oct 2021, Republicans had an 11-point gap in enthusiasm. In Jan 2022, it was 14 points, and in Mar 2022, it was 17 points.
That also explains the 2.1 point edge Republican's have in the Generic Ballot (down from 4.1 in Feb 2022).
The Generic Ballot numbers are current and are starting to reflect the reaction of women's rights being taken away. The enthusiasm numbers are from March, before the news that women will be second class citizens broke.
According to a May 3, YouGov poll, the enthusiasm gap has shrunk to 8 points .
Another interesting note in that poll is that 84% of Democrats view Biden Very or somewhat Favorably. Harris - 77%, Sanders - 74%, and Cortez - 68%.
On the Republican side, Trump comes in at 81% (lower than Biden, I see), Ted Cruz - 73%, DeSantis - 69%, and Pence - 65%
"Trump was inaugurated did get a bit of coverage over the weekend it was held, and by Tuesday was an old story." - Always minimizing, I see. That is not how I remember it. It got big play for quite awhile and it was repeated big time around the world. In fact, it is now part of the Smithsonian, so it is not going away like you want it to. https://americanhistory.si.edu/creating … march-2017
"I feel we will see lots of violence, that's what Democrats have become known for, in my view. " - And THAT is a great example of projection. Projecting what is known as a right-wing/MAGA characteristic on to peole like Sen Joe Manchin.
Boy, what a thing to be proud of - Conservatives winning by making Women lose.It is very clear once again you apparently did not read my comment or the ongoing conversation that preceded my comment.
First -- I did not speak of the size of the protest or mention anything other than it was only covered by the media for a couple of days.
Cred and I were conversing about the prospect of the protests that would most likely occur when the Roe ruling is handed down.
I am not projecting anything, I gave my view on what I feel will happen. I feel the Democrats promote violence and hate., and I most definitely feel there will be violent protests after the SC hand down the ruling to overturn Roe.
In no respect did I share my feelings in regards to the Republicans finally getting Roe overturned after 50 years. I simply said, " IT seems some don't understand Republicans have been behind 50 years of fighting to have Roe overturned". I do also feel many Republican citizens will be pleased if Roe is overturned. People have different opinions on the subject of abortion, and all need to be respected. Not sure why you don't see this or comprehend others' opinions matter.
My statement indicates Republican representatives in Washington. have been working for 50 years to overturn Roe. Nothing of my feelings about the decision.
Sick of needing to explain my comments to you --- read them and stop adding our own context to very clearly worded comments.Your comments are very clear.
You said ""Trump was inaugurated did get a bit of coverage over the weekend it was held, and by Tuesday was an old story."" - I said "Always minimizing, I see." - which is exactly what that statement was intended to convey because "a bit", when it was a lot, is minimizing to most of us
You said, to paraphrase for conciseness "Democrats are known for violence". That is NOT true, whether that is your view or not. You were projecting the Right-Wings penchant for violence onto the objectively MUCH MORE peaceful Democrats.
No, you said " I do feel Democrats will certainly incorporate the subject in their campaigns, as well will Republicans making the claim [b]after 50 years we won. Touting new safer abortion laws." - To which I properly responded - "Boy, what a thing to be proud of - Conservatives winning by making Women lose." Don't you get it? We Won followed by Touting It is obvious what you were trying to say
You are too late, Credence. Texas, Oklahoma, and Missouri (and probably some more) will make felons out of women in their state who go somewhere else to get an abortion.
I think it is time for women to pack up and leave these semi-slave states and move to a place where they have human and civil rights.
If you want to understand the future of medical care for pregnant women in a post-Roe world, look no further than what is happening in Alabama.
Doctors are now afraid of alleviating a woman's suffering in a miscarriage for fear of performing any procedure that can be classified as an abortion.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 … abama.htmlSadly, just the outcome that Conservatives were hoping for.
I'm glad I don't live in your hate filled world, where half the population wishes to cause pain to someone else.
It isn't my world that is "hate filled", that belongs to your side.
It isn't Democrats who are gleefully making women second class citizens, it is conservatives
it isn't Democrats who are deaminizing immigrants, especially ones from Latin America. It is the conservatives doing that.
It isn't Democrats taking away people's right to vote in order to rig the election in their favor. That is conservatives are doing.
It isn't Democrats that are holding up funding for more vaccines. Conservatives are responsible for that.
It isn't Democrats and a few sensible Republicans who didn't want to have an infrastructure bill that Presidents from both parties have been trying to get for decades. It is conservatives who are turning their backs on America
It isn't Democrats telling the Big Lie that is tearing American democracy apart. That belongs to conservatives as well.
All of those things, and many more, are causing pain to someone else and it is the conservatives causing it, NOT Democrats.Only someone consumed by hatred could possibly think that a goal of half our population is to cause pain to pregnant women during a miscarriage.
From your post at https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/355 … ost4244761 :
Fayes comment: "Doctors are now afraid of alleviating a woman's suffering in a miscarriage for fear of performing any procedure that can be classified as an abortion."
Your reply: "Sadly, just the outcome that Conservatives were hoping for."Oh but it is happening. Abortion bans will harm people who miscarry, too
Regardless of their stance on abortion, people who miscarry may have limited options to manage their miscarriage if they live where abortions are banned.
When a pregnancy ends in miscarriage and the fetus is not expelled naturally, the pregnant person has three options: wait for their body to expel the pregnancy on its own (called “expectant management”); take medication, typically mifepristone and misoprostol (commonly called the abortion pill); or use surgical management, including dilation and curettage (D&C) and aspiration to remove the tissue from the uterus.
Some states could implement abortion bans that take the latter two options away from people experiencing miscarriage, as the medication and surgical procedures used are the same as those used for abortions.
When a medical professional says: “I worry so much that instead of being able to dedicate all of my expertise, mental energy, and attention to treating my patient in front of me, I have to also think about whether or not I will face consequences, some criminal, for offering the most appropriate, individualized, and evidence-based care.”
https://prismreports.org/2022/05/13/abo … -miscarry/I understand that. I merely commented on the statement that causing pain and suffering is the goal of conservatives.
As far as I'm concerned such a statement is completely over the top, is a gross exaggeration and spin of what the goal actually is (to save the lives of innocent children), is extremely offensive and is intended to insult and degrade those that find a fetus to be a person. It is a good example of why our society is so divided and why online forums so often become so ugly.I am not sure I used the word "goal". I believe that is the way you characterize it. But, given that harm to others is often the outcome of so many conservative policies, why wouldn't "goal" be appropriate?
"the goal actually is (to save the lives of innocent children), " - No, the goal is to save a fetus (or now, a single fertilized cell), at the expense of a living human being. The construct used by these Trump Republicans is given to them by the conservative wing of the Christian (and a few other) churches. They are in the vast minority now a days (including America without the "vast")
I wonder which state will be the first charge a woman who miscarries with involuntary manslaughter? It is not unheard of. I think a woman in North or South Carolina was charged with that because she used drugs. I believe it was thrown out of court.
in states where abortion will become illegal then I suppose every miscarriage is a potential crime. Without the protections enshrined in Roe, there will be little preventing prosecutors from criminalizing pregnancy outcomes in states without such protections. These laws will certainly make miscarriage more traumatic for women.
And what is your evidence that those opinions are not well founded? My evidence is the fact that so many elected Trump Republican representatives are voting to make women felons if they want (or need) to terminate their pregnancies.
BTW, I am not claiming "half the population", you are. Find out what percentage of the population are Trump Republicans (who currently represent so-called conservatism) and that is the percentage I can agree with.You mean they become felons if they take the life of another.
I know that, you know that, but you continually set it aside in your efforts to degrade people not of your own opinion.
Your comment was "Sadly, just the outcome that Conservatives were hoping for." Not Republicans approving of Trump, but Conservatives.
Not that it makes any difference; whether 50% of the population or only 25%, I don't want to live in a world so filled with hate.Most Republicans approve of Trump otherwise he would not have access to the national bullhorn that he continues to enjoy.
Of course you say that as a Republican, speaking for your fellow Republicans.
I don't thinks so. Personally I don't know a single Republican (most of my family and friends are at least Conservative and mostly Republicans) that approves of the man. Most of his policies and ideas, yes, but not the man.Sharlee can give you the multitude of polls that prove Credence correct and you wrong.
Then you must not know very many Republicans, because 8 out of 10, or thereabouts, think Trump is god's gift to humanity and will follow him anywhere.80% of Republicans think Trumps is god's gift to humanity.
I want some of what you've been smoking!Maybe if you sent me some of your "special stuff"?
"You mean they become felons if they take the life of another." - Except they are not because a fetus is not "a another"?
"I don't want to live in a world so filled with hate."- Then why are you a conservative?"Except they are not because a fetus is not "a another"
And, of course, your opinion takes precedence over that of anyone disagreeing. Because you know everything and never make a mistake, right?
I don't live in your world, where half the population is considered hateful and wishes harm to everyone else. I could be wrong and reality is that world, but if so I prefer my fantasy and will keep it. I will not descend to your level of believing so many are evil.It is not my opinion, it is the law. The OPINION is the one held by those who want to take away a woman's right to choose - a minority opinion at that.
Do you think the die-hard followers of Hitler, Stalin, Un, Xi, Hussein, Maduro, bin Ladin are evil? Do you think the white supremacists, Nazis, and their ilk are evil?
If you do like I do, then you have to think those that are blind, brainless followers of Trump, i.e. Trump Republicans, are evil as well, because they are all cut from the same mold, whether you want to believe that or not.I'm sorry, but it is not the law. Not even RvW defined what a person is. You know that, I know that, much of the country knows that. The only question is why you would produce such an outrageous lie.
Which leaves it back to what I said; your opinion. But even if the law did define "personhood" it would still be no more than opinion, for the law is not known for reason, just for politics.Of course it did. It is implicit in the "until viability" part of their Roe ruling.
You mean an "opinion" just like the one from some churches? Why should their opinion carry any more weight than the laws? At least the law is based on reason and logic.
"You mean they become felons if they take the life of another." - Except they are not because a fetus is not "a another"? Which you know.
"I don't want to live in a world so filled with hate."- Then why are you a conservative?
Here is a tutorial.
There are fiscal and social conservatives. Clearly, common sense tells everybody that fiscal conservatives are not part of this equation - unless if they also have a social agenda.
So, that leaves us social conservatives. You have several types of those.
Liberal conservatives - back in the day, they did exist. One good outcome from them was our public school system. If they existed today, most of these conservatives would be pro-choice; but, they are basically extinct today.
Then you have the Cheney type conservatives, who oppose woman's right to chose but is at least sane about it. I just see her or conservatives like her criminalizing women.
Finally, you have that 25% - 35% you were talking about - Trump Republican's. They are absolutely off the rails and they have existed throughout our history.
They are the bigots.
They support or are part of the white supremacist types.
They are the homophobes.
They are the intolerant.
They are the isolationists.
They were the ones that violently supported slavery.
They were the ones who tried violently to stop the ratification of our Constitution.
They ARE the ones trying to criminalize women while destroying American democracy..
That is their history and future.I am willing to work with conservatives on fiscal and budget matters, as long as they don't get ridiculous or extreme about it.
As would it, after all, that is where I started until the social conservatives ruined everything.
Well, Eso, it is starting just as we said that it would.
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/23 … abortions/
"Right winger" and "reasonable"has always been a contradiction in terms AND Texas sucks.
I told everyone this was the part of a natural progression and desire of the Right to enslave everyone. Why can't the corporations be free to pay for abortion procedures for their employees in states where it Is legal?
Texas: how is that any of your business?
Just how far does it get, give a Rightwinger an inch and they will take a mile, every time?
I want to hear from the pro life hypocrites who were telling me to expect a responsible and reasonable retreat from Roe vs Wade by these deplorable Red States once it was overturned.
Progressives and Liberals: it is not like you haven't been warned in advance as what to expect. We need to "kick ass" this coming November.
Women of Texas: is the idea of being reduced to state property that appealing for you?"Why can't the corporations be free to pay for abortion procedures for their employees in states where it Is legal?"
This sounds much like the "reasonable" demands of liberals when they tried to force employers to pay for counselling and cosmetic surgery to turn one sex into a neuter because they want to be the other sex.
Unlimited control; the liberal mantra, and not much difference at the root than what you are complaining about. Seems to me that both sides of the aisle absolutely insist that they will force others to conform to what the fringes want. Control is the goal for both and, yes, it is very often quite unreasonable of both sides."This sounds much like the "reasonable" demands of liberals when they tried to force employers to pay for counselling and cosmetic surgery to turn one sex into a neuter because they want to be the other sex."
Can you support that with a source?Biden just tried to force religious employers to pay for the services of transgender people in their quest to become the other sex. It was in all the news; you should not have a problem finding a source.
Since we haven't seen such a preposterous thing in the news, you need to be specific. Show us you aren't twisting what you see into something that isn't really true.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … ospitals-/
If you need more I can give you a dozen or so, with a single search.It seems to me Biden wants Doctors and Churches to follow the law. Apparently, that conservative judge and you want them to discriminate against women and transgenders. Apparently, conservatives don't think all people should be treated like humans.
"A federal court this week blocked the Biden administration’s mandate requiring doctors and faith-based hospitals to perform abortions and transgender surgeries." (This case was referring to abortion and transgender surgeries. These are elective procedures. a doctor can refuse his services.)
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that everyone in the United States has the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all.
Physicians have all the same rights as any other American. They can refuse to do anything that goes against their religion.
Doctors take an oath to save lives. They certainly could not be forced to perform an abortion or transgender surgeries.
All people have a right to medical care, abortion and transgender surgeries are surgeries of choice. A doctor can refuse to participate.
What kind of Country would we become when we could force a doctor to do a procedure against their will? This kind of autocratic belief sickens me to my very core."What kind of Country would we become when we could force a doctor to do a procedure against their will? This kind of autocratic belief sickens me to my very core."
The same paternalistic, autocratic country that forces a 13-year-old raped by her her mama's boyfriend to carry that baby to term.Your statement is hyperbolic in my view. No physician should be forced to kill a human being. EVER.
Are there any states that do not allow a 13-year-old to get an abortion with parental consent? I know of none.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/abortion … te-2611267
What state forces a rape 13-year-old rape victim or teen for that matter to carry to term?
Please don't provide me with "if comes" not interested. As I was not interested when many here went hyperbolic on Georgia tweaking their voting laws... They had a record turnout in the primaries. Seems all worked out pretty well for voters in Georgia.
I prefer one talk about a true problem, instead of if comes. Just saying.I would be shocked if any of the conservative Justices reversed themselves. But in the meantime, our states are preparing themselves.
In my state, Republican governor of Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson, has admitted that an anti-abortion trigger law that he signed on to the books would lead to “heartbreaking circumstances” if Roe v Wade is overturned, in which girls as young as 11 who became pregnant through rape or incest would be forced to give birth.
He had signed the Arkansas trigger law, Senate Bill 6, which would ban almost all abortions the instant Roe were reversed, even though he disagreed with its lack of exceptions for incest and rape.
Asked why he had put his signature on the law, despite the fact that it would prohibit all abortions other than in cases where a pregnant woman’s life were in imminent danger, he said: “I support the exceptions of rape and incest … I believe that should have been added; it did not have the support of the assembly.”
Oh my, what happened to the support of the people?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … hutchinsonA trigger law is a nickname for a law that is unenforceable but may achieve enforceability if a key change in circumstances occurs.
Thus far we have abortion laws in all states a teen rape victim can get an abortion.
I will wait and ascertain new laws if and when they are put into law. I don't wring my hands and scream fire until there is one. Just makes no sense to me to live my life that way. Most of the time there turns out to be no fire.
As I said I don't become upset with "if comes".
Think back to how upset you were that Georgia changed their voting laws... They had a record turnout for primaries.I guess you wouldn't have "wrung your hands" in 1937 worrying about Hitler, had you been alive then. To me, that sounds like a cop out and shirking of responsibility.
I thought he vetoed that bill but was overridden by the Trump Republicans. Maybe I am thinking of a different bill.
If a doctor can't follow the Hippocratic oath and "do no harm" by refusing treatment, then they need to chose another occupation.
"What state forces a rape 13-year-old rape victim or teen for that matter to carry to term?" - As soon as activist conservatives on the Court overturn Roe, there will be several. Oklahoma for sure (their governor made that very clear) and I think Missouri and Arkansas.
"They had a record turnout in the primaries. Seems all worked out pretty well for voters in Georgia." - Again, you are not understanding "cause and effect" very well. You seem to rely on coincidences to form your opinion. The high turn-out in GA was in both in spite of and because of those massive changes in voting laws that weren't needed in the first place.
The "in spite of" is that some of the laws clearly and demonstrably made it harder for people to vote - that is undeniable as exemplified by the almost elimination of drop boxes.
The "because" of is due to those oppressive laws firing up Democrats to go out and overcome the obstacles placed in their way and vote anyway.
"I prefer one talk about a true problem, instead of if comes. Just saying." - Then you ought to try that yourself.We have different values and morals. This comment is not worth replying to.
I have no respect for your view, so time to step away from this conversation. Placating is not my thing. So, I choose to follow HP's rules and keep it none personal.Spoken like a true very high scoring Right-wing Authoritarian Follower.
"This sounds much like the "reasonable" demands of liberals when they tried to force employers to pay for counselling and cosmetic surgery to turn one sex into a neuter because they want to be the other sex." - Show us a similar article that supports this unlikely claim of yours
"Seems to me that both sides of the aisle absolutely insist that they will force others to conform to what the fringes want. " - Again, some evidence please. I don't see what you are talking about happening on the liberal side.
Yes, I have heard about the assault on businesses as well (DeSantis in Florida is doing the same thing). More reason for businesses (and women) to leave the unfriendly lands of Texas
Faye, I noted that the name of the physician making these claims or actually any names were offered in this article. Has this article been fact-checked?
The article was written from the viewpoint of the doctor who had witnessed the incidents.
Additionally,. Stephanie Mischell, a family medicine physician in Texas and fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health, said this is already happening in states like Texas, which bans abortion after six weeks.
“I’ve had patients who were 15, 16, or 17 weeks pregnant when the fetus died and had to carry it around, and I’ve seen patients who had been told they can’t get care for miscarriages, even though these services are completely legal for miscarriage,” Mischell said.
Doctors may be fearful of being construed as helping someone have an abortion, according to Mischell.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n … -rcna27349That is so disturbing, something you might expect to see in the dark ages not 2022 by so-called Americans. ( and Wilderness wonders why I have no respect for Trump Republicans and think them a danger to a civil society, lol, and am writing a book to document how they have held American back for these last 200 years or so)
George Carlin sums it all up about the conservative attitude towards women's rights and abortions.
https://youtu.be/vkMbMidsYIMThat's a good one. From 50,000 feet he is spot-on. From ground-level, maybe 'not quite'.
GALoved it. It is so depressing to realize nothing has fundamentally changed with Conservatives since 1996. I didn't hear one thing that isn't true today. Maybe I was channeling him when I was coming up with my list earlier of good things Conservatives (meaning Trump Republicans) oppose. Didn't Faye just mention another one, baby formula? I also think I forgot to add to my list, supporting Ukraine lately; it seems we have given them too much stuff now. Even Mitch McConnell had scolding words for them on that topic.
It has to be anti woman, after all McConnell did say that he would consider a nationwide ban on abortion. So much for the idea of states being allowed decide. This goes beyond controlling the procedure within your own jurisdiction, and more like trying to control women's bodies from coast to coast. I can't imagine anything more sinister or disgusting.
Carlin is spot on, I continue to miss his timeless humor.
I have been hearing more than a whisper or two, that contraception and birth control is next on their agenda....I used to appreciate George Carlin's humor and laughed a lot about his predictions for the future. I watched the 2 hour HBO special about him and did not laugh once, because we are now living what he predicted.
It is almost frightening, how right on he was, including viruses, government control, big moneyed interest, saving the planet, war/religion, and women's rights. He died in 2008 and his insight and wisdom is more relevant now than it was when he was alive.
Faye, I wanted to wait until I could reach a good friend that is a physician. I sent her the article, and I simply asked her to read it, and give me an opinion on why a Doc would let a 15 -16 o17 week fetas be expelled naturally instead of doing a quick ERPC (evacuation of retained products of conception)) which as I remember was done frequently in the very early weeks of pregnancy when a spontaneous abortion occurred.
She said after 14 weeks they do as a rule give the mom the option to choose to go home (even if the fetus is dead) wait a couple of days to go into natural labor. She said this option should be considered to cut down on complications that can occur with induced labor or surgery. However -- A mom is also given the second option of inducing labor to bring it on in the hospital. If the mom chooses to go home and wait, she is told she can wait no longer than 48 hours. If natural labor has not occurred the mom can choose to take surgical action at that point. It sounds like a good Doc gives a woman choices and advises case by case.
She said it would be unethical to refuse to treat a woman that is miscarried or in the process of miscarrying a fetus. and no woman should be told to go home if they are actively hemorrhaging or in severe pain. She said we look at each case separately, and take everything into consideration, including mom's emotional state.
Sounds like things are not being done properly in Alabama, and Texas in regards to how a woman is being treated for spontaneous abortions.
The medical community must step up and take the responsibility to point out any and all that are unethical.What you've said makes perfect sense. I very much appreciate the direct professional comments. I would agree that this would seem to put doctors in a very tough position in certain states. I hope their ethics win out. It's a shame to see some suffer because a doctor is afraid of legal reprisal. We have to let the medical community do their job. We have to trust them to do their job. I have faith that the great majority will act in a patient's best interest.
I think many expect physicians to put their patient's best interests first. It is very sad to hear these kinds of stories, and like I said hopefully more Docs stand up and tell the truth about these poor practices. It is hard to think of a Doctor causing unnecessary trauma and pain, as well as emotional pain that comes with a miscarriage.
One would hope, but when you are facing down jail time for doing your job ...
If I were those doctors in states like Texas, Oklahoma, and Missouri - I would set up practice in a Free State where people still believe in the rights of others and not risk jail time. Either that or get out of obstetrics altogether.
Can you imagine what is going to happen the cost of malpractice insurance in those states take away a woman's right to choose?
As a nurse, Sharlee, who is pro-choice, what would you do if you lived in Oklahoma? Would you stay there and fight a losing battle or leave?As a nurse, I am sworn to be a patient advocate. If I witnessed something I felt was in wandering a Pt. whether physical or mentally I would first bring it up immediately with the doc, and if they did not rectify the problem, I would report it to administration, and if they did not rectify the problem, I would notify the media, and step up and report what I witnessed.
What Faye shared in the article she posted was shocking, and the medical staff needs to step up to stop this form of unethical treatment.I understand that view, although that could possibly put you in jail with some of these laws. But the hard question is if your job was assisting/advising these women about abortion in a state where that is illegal for you to do so - what would you do when a patient comes to you?
I think we are talking about two different things. Faye's article spoke about Doctors sending women home when they were actively having a spontaneous miscarriage or what id called spontaneous abortion. In the case of a spontaneous miscarriage is nothing to do with the abortion that the woman chose to have. A physician has every right to treat miscarriage without fear of any form of breaking any laws. Spontaneous miscarriage is an emergency that involves a fetus being unnaturally expelled before its due date.
The article talks about doctors not helping women with pain, and active bleeding that presents themself actively experiencing a miscarriage.
The Doctor can suggest a woman go home, but this should depend on the woman's not only physical condition but her mental state.
It appears some in Texas and Alabama are opting to send moms home that should not be sent home to naturally evacuate the fetas. That should only be one choice, the other choices should be to induce labor in the hospital, and if needed surgery. Many women do choose to go home, but some are very upset and need to be kept in the hospital and labour induced, and monitored due to their emotional state.
No solution is pleasant, but in some cases keeping a mom in the hospital for her own well-being.
As a nurse. if a woman asked me about abortion, in a state where it was illegal. I would request she verbalize what she wanted to know. And answer her questions, without providing my personal views. I think listening to a woman is the best way to ascertain a bit of what might concern her about abortion, and how much she knows about abortion. I think just listening and answering questions is the best and fairest way to handle assisting or advising a woman in regard to abortion.
For example -- some women are concerned about the procedure itself. Will it be uncomfortable? Will I need to be off work? is it costly?
Is it safe? Will it affect the chances of conceiving when I want to have a baby? Some have very clinical questions.
Some might be concerned about the fetus --- how big is the fetus at a given week of gestation? Does the baby have a heartbeat? Can the fetus feel pain? When would be the best and safest time to abort?
Women are very individual, and questions vary. I would be responsible and answer questions in a clinicle manner.
After helping with any questions. I would tell her if she intends to get an abortion to go to a state where it is legal." Faye's article spoke about Doctors sending women home when they were actively having a spontaneous miscarriage or what id called spontaneous abortion. In the case of a spontaneous miscarriage is nothing to do with the abortion that the woman chose to have. " - My, and I think Faye's, point here is that in some states now, their laws have blurred this distinction to such a degree that medical professionals are at risk when even dealing with miscarriages.
You are trying to think logically about a set of illogical laws designed to restrict women's freedoms.Yes, One Texas law passed last year lists several medications as abortion-inducing drugs and largely bars their use for abortion after the seventh week of pregnancy. But two of those drugs, misoprostol and mifepristone, are the only drugs recommended in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines for treating a patient after an early pregnancy loss. The other miscarriage treatment is a procedure described as surgical uterine evacuation to remove the pregnancy tissue, the same approach as for an abortion.
“The challenge is that the treatment for an abortion and the treatment for a miscarriage are exactly the same,” said Dr. Sarah Prager, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington in Seattle and an expert in early pregnancy loss.
Herein lies the problem; Dr. Lauren Thaxton, an OB-GYN and assistant professor at the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas-Austin, has already heard about local patients who have been miscarrying, and couldn’t get a pharmacy to fill their misoprostol prescription. “The pharmacy has said, ‘We don’t know whether or not you might be using this medication for the purposes of abortion,’” she said.
The new laws are creating uncertainties that may deter some doctors and other providers from offering optimal miscarriage treatment. Mostly because they can be fined and face civil action. Anyone can question their intent: Are they helping care for a miscarriage or facilitating an abortion?
People who miscarry will have limited options to manage their miscarriage if they live where abortions are banned.I tried to get a straight answer out of Sharlee on what she would do in the cases Dr. Thaxton are speaking of. But I don't think she understands the issue you are trying to explain.
I think some doctors will go to jail because of these new laws. One would HOPE that the courts would protect them, but given the activist conservatives on the Court, I suspect they will let them remain there.
Question - Does your physician friend live in a state where a doctor can be put in jail for assisting an abortion?
If she doesn't, she needs to factor that reality into her analysis.I wonder. If push came to shove in a courtroom, could a physician be charged with abortion when they remove a dead piece of flesh that used be a living fetus? That one could go to the SCOTUS once again.
Do you really think the five far-right conservaites on the court wouldn't go along with it. After, it will have been a consequence of them killing Roe, if that is what they end up doing. It is a state matter, not theirs, after all.
I am thinking about my own experience with Pt. that had a spontaneous miscarriage. Some were sent home, somewhere kept in the hospital depending on several symptoms/problems or the Doc noted extreme emotional distress. I do know Docs prefer that the Pt go through the labor and pass the fetus naturally to decrease problems for the mother. But, a woman's condition is evaluated, and they are given the options. And their choice should be totally respected.
What I witnessed and what my friend shared, --- a woman is treated with respect, and given options. Many do choose to go home, some are more comfortable staying in the hospital to complete the miscarriage.
I am sure some doctors at this point push the option to go home. But I don't think most would send a Pt home if they required hospitalization. I have no way of knowing if this is happening. I believe her article represents an unknown physician's frustration with what they are witnessing.Well, it was bound to happen. Conservatives are bringing the Supreme Court down to the same level of disrepute as they have Congress. Because the much more liberal Court in the past 70 years did such a credible job - in the 60 - 75% range,
But, as Conservatives started chipping away at civil and voting rights more and more people don't trust them. The latest polls only has them at 40 - 45% approval rating - quite a drop.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/25/politics … index.htmlGreat Question!
"Watch: Camerota asks Texas Republican why GOP works quickly to protect embryos but not 10-year-olds"
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … nr-vpx.cnnIt will not only be women who red states are decimating.
The central paradox of the abortion debate is that the red states racing to outlaw or severely limit the procedure may be the places least prepared to deal with the practical consequences of the new restrictions. And that, experts project, could mean significantly more infant and maternal deaths and childhood poverty in states that, as a group, already rank at the bottom on those critical outcomes for kids and families.
Of course that is of no nevermind to those who want to tell others what they can and cannot do with their bodies.
New research shows that the states banning abortion could see up to hundreds of thousands of new births each year, most of them unplanned, and concentrated among lower-income families already facing the greatest financial and health care challenges. Social scientists have consistently found that those unplanned pregnancies tend to produce worse outcomes for kids and mothers -- and, with abortion prohibited or severely limited, they now will be rising precisely in states, including most of the South, that traditionally have invested the least in health, education and other social supports for families.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/05/politics … index.htmlIt seems like voters [i]may[/b] be reacting to the demise of a person's Right to Privacy at the federal level. The two blockbuster decisions by the Supreme Court that set America back almost a century are overturning Roe v Wade and taking almost all controls of buying a gun (when will people be allowed to buy machine guns now - WAIT - maybe they can)
Anyway, there seems to be movement in the polls in the Democrats direction. Not enough to make people think they can keep the House, but maybe enough to not lose as many seats. It also makes keeping the Senate easier.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/07/politics … index.htmlInteresting. Woman claims fetus now qualifies as a passenger in her car as she fights an HOV traffic violation in Texas. It might work since many in that state claim that unborn life (an oxymoron) is an actual person.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2022/07/1 … ng-videos/Yes they have to pay taxes before they are born.
That was sarcasm big time.
But as the US is a capitalist country it wouldn't surprise me if a couple with a woman in waiting will be seen in the near future as a three-person household and financially treated as such!!!I am not entirely sure I see the connection with the so-called "personhood" debate and an economic theory, but you must.
Would the issues be any different in a socialist or communist or fascist society?The issue is that a fetus in a womb is not the same as a human being. But if you accept this ridiculous idea then it's logical that you have to treat a fetus in the womb with all the same paperwork as a newborn baby. It needs a passport I guess to travel, it needs to have a social security number, etc.
It's easy to see the absurdity of the situation.
So when do you have to ask for a passport, when you are two days pregnant?
You don't even know the gender yet!! And how long does it take to apply for a passport in the first place...This is from the Guardian:
To date, 39 states have “fetal homicide” laws. Fetal personhood also lives in the Republican party platform and in a number of state laws that have been blocked by federal courts thanks to the protections that the supreme court’s draft opinion undoes. They have been the subject of ballot initiatives in Mississippi, North Dakota and Colorado – where they failed by a wide margin, in part because of their implications for in-vitro fertilization – along with Alabama, which approved a fetal personhood amendment to its constitution in 2018.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/ma … micide-law
If the fetus has personhood, does that mean it can be claimed as a dependent for tax purposes? This is what happens when there is no separation of church and state. I hope she wins and this goes to the evangelical supreme court justices.
It's interesting, and to me personally disturbing when some in our society can make light of, and actually make jokes about an unborn human being. Seems almost grotesque.
The fact is a woman's womb is where life begins, and no matter what one hopes to believe, a growing fetus is a human being. Have we become somewhat deadened to that fact?
Glad I can say I have held onto an innate human empathy, while so many others have not. My, what does this really say about
our society?
I must say this is a perfect example of groupthink. I will leave you with one word --- YUCKSharlee, are you a vegan?
Do you think that eating dead animals is morally acceptable?
Do you think that animals that are born and bred in farms with the single goal to be eaten by humans are acceptable? In most cases in cruel conditions.
If you think this is not okay and should be forbidden by the high court right away then you score a point.
Otherwise, you measure with two standards. A grown cow or even a chicken is more intelligent and more independent than a fetus.
Don't you think they have a right to live?This is an area where the Christian theology, especially the right-wing element of it, falls apart and starts contradicting itself.
Yes, and in my view, a lot of troubles begin.
And why groupthink for that and not for the opposite?
From where I sit, neither can be classified as groupthink (with the possible exception of the right-wing faction of the church telling its members what to think.)The subject is divided and does produce groupthink on both sides. I guess an easy way to explain my comment would be it's the mindset, one respects fetal life totally, and one has no respect for fetal life. Bot exhibit a form of groupthink.
(the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility.)
I think one that looks at an abortion that saves a mother's life or is necessary due to rape or incest or even a woman that just can't afford
a child or give a very good reason for the need for an abortion, and not just as an actual right stand out from the crowd, and do not necessarily ascribe to the division of groupthink on abortion.
Actually, there are three groups when it comes to abortion. For, against, and maybes. The maybe's truly don't join in with either for or against.And what "group" got together, even a very large one like a political party, to decide that so-called "fetal life" was or was not real? Did these people come to that conclusion on their own volition because that is what they think the facts tell them? Or, did they all give in because they didn't want to make waves? Were they allowed to exercise their own judgement without fear of recrimination?
I haven't heard that the Democratic Party has a plank declaring that fetal life doesn't exist. But Mike pointed out the Republican Party does. The implication is that if you are a Democratic Party member who happens to think fetal life is real, they won't be ostracized by the Party for holding that belief.
On the other hand, if you are a Republican who says fetal life doesn't exist, you may be called a RINO and kicked out of the Party.
You notice I didn't use a loaded word like "respect" which automatically baises the comment.Ultimately I do not feel women see abortion as a political party issue. As I said I think we have three groups, Pro-life; pro-choice; for abortion under certain conditions.
I don't feel all Democrats are pro-choice Republicans are all pro-life.
I think women come by their own beliefs about abortion due to individual life experiences, lack of scientific information on reproduction, or being well educated in the science of reproduction, or being affiliated with a religion that forbids abortion or religion that does not have a problem with abortion.
I feel there are many variables that go into coming up with a personal belief on abortion. It is clear we have a majority of women believe that abortion is a human right. In my view, women have the right to make their own choices regarding abortion. As do pro-life women have the right to their individual beliefs.
I think I see both parties pretty well dug in about abortion. When on the carpet they stick with their party. I am sure on both sides there are exceptions.
I felt Roe should have been left alone. It was not, this is unfortunate. I since have felt that we need states to offer abortion options on the ballots of states that are choosing to change their abortion laws. I don't feel it is fair for legislators to make these decisions and would protest against this kind of overreach. The women of individual states should have the right to vote. Getting rid of Roe, was unfortunate, but we now need to deal with them here, and now. The women of any state that is changing abortion rights need the right to vote on what they want in regard to abortion laws.
Here in Michigan, there was an immediate action to obtain a signature so abortion will be put on the ballot. This week, more than 750,000 signatures were submitted —( which they say is a "historic" record) — to state election officials in hopes of having the amendment appear on the November ballot.
If just over half of those signatures are validated, voters in Michigan will decide whether to amend the state's constitution to guarantee broad, individual rights to "reproductive freedom," including abortion, contraception, and any fertility treatments. Also, it would allow abortions later in pregnancy, IF the patient's "physical or mental health" is at stake.
The best thing we have now is our voices, our signatures. Just being angry, will change anything. Actions, and work, are the only way to get an abortion on the Nov, ballots.
Let the majority voices be heard.
I don't think that it is a matter of for or against but, who it is that gets to decide.
I agree.
I felt Roe should have been left alone. It was not, this is unfortunate. I since have felt that we need states to offer abortion options on the ballots of states that are choosing to change their abortion laws. I don't feel it is fair for legislators to make these decisions and would protest against this kind of overreach. The women of individual states should have the right to vote. Getting rid of Roe, was unfortunate, but we now need to deal with them here, and now. The women of any state that is changing abortion rights need the right to vote on what they want in regard to abortion laws.
Here in Michigan, there was an immediate action to obtain a signature so abortion will be put on the ballot. This week, more than 750,000 signatures were submitted —( which they say is a "historic" record) — to state election officials in hopes of having the amendment appear on the November ballot.
If just over half of those signatures are validated, voters in Michigan will decide whether to amend the state's constitution to guarantee broad, individual rights to "reproductive freedom," including abortion, contraception, and any fertility treatments. Also, it would allow abortions later in pregnancy, IF the patient's "physical or mental health" is at stake.
The best thing we have now is our voices, our signatures. Just being angry, will change anything. Actions, and work, are the only way to get abortion on the Nov, ballots.
It has come down to --- let the majority be heard.
I feel it will be on our Michigan ballot, and many states will also get the signatures they will need to get abortion on their ballots.I think the problem is much more fundamental as to who has the right to abortion. The problem is the supreme court justices who are basing their decisions on evangelical religious bias. For conservative justices there is no separation of church and state.
They have done the same thing with abortion as they have done with gun control, let the states decide. Therefore we have people going to other states to buy guns, the same as they do for abortions.
This all comes about from the originalist interpretation of laws from the time the constitution was written and trying to apply those laws to today's modern world, where they don't fit.
The conservative justices are out of step with the modern world. It easier for them to base their rulings on precedent instead of using common sense.
That's my two cents."I think the problem is much more fundamental as to who has the right to abortion. The problem is the supreme court justices who are basing their decisions on evangelical religious bias. For conservative justices there is no separation of church and state."
I have no way of knowing if the judges made this decision due to religious beliefs. I read the decision, and there was made no mention of religion.
Ultimately they gave legal reasons why they ruled that the abortion laws belong to the state. Yes, their own beliefs certainly could have come into play.
Do you have a specific area of the ruling that you felt religion had seeped in? I know the ruling was tedious and long, and I may have missed it.
I do agree this court has taken a stance that has caused undue problems. We as a society were doing fine with Roe in place. We split the baby, those that wanted to get an abortion were able to, and those that were pro-life had a right to their opinions. Myself, I feel we need abortion laws that are sensible.
I can't argue that we long ago passed through a door that the constitution was perhaps in some respect not applicable to suit this century. However, it has done us well in so many respects. So, I did not think Roe was constitutional, I felt Roe met the needs of the 20th century, and beyond.
I agree they certainly appear to be ruling on precedent, and not considering what century we are in, in some cases, not all.
It is clear we need to pick up the pieces and get abortion laws on the ballots of any states that have the idea they can just have legislators write the abortion laws. I totally believe women must be heard in all states. This may not be what many wanted, but it is the very best way women's voices will be heard.
We certainly are very close to 100% agreement on this one...Ultimately in our democracy, we experience tittering between one side or the other. It is in my view how we are progressing to a more perfect Nation. One party fails, we look back to the other, some good as a rule comes out of most administrations (hence the infrastructure bill) and this moves us forward.
Americans' ideologies have always clashed, but we continue to have choices via our voting system.
And yes both parties carry their own biases. Neither party will be pushed out. In my view, I am very satisfied with the systems we live by.
It does become difficult when the Supreme Court is top-heavy with one party, and that voice is heard more loudly.
It would be up to Congress to change the numbers, and I would think the time one can be on the court.
In America we have the free choice of belonging to the party of choice, I prefer this to a one-party system.
We have turmoil now, if history tells me anything --- we will see a move back to a Republican administration, to see if they can fix some pressing problems. Will they --- history said they will have some good comes out of a new administration., as we have with Biden's infrastructure bill, and we will move forward on to the next.Sharlee:
"Ultimately in our democracy, we experience tittering between one side or the other. It is in my view how we are progressing to a more perfect Nation. One party fails, we look back to the other, some good as a rule comes out of most administrations (hence the infrastructure bill) and this moves us forward."
I don't think we are tittering toward anything other than self destruction of the union. The only time this country has been more divided was during the civil war. We have people in congress who have placed politics and money above the well being of the people. We have outdated laws that no longer fit our modern circumstances and we have a supreme court that is locked into archaic interpretation of our laws.
We have a 2nd amendment that gives everybody the right to bear arms, no matter if they are mentally ill or terrorists. No body even knows what a well regulated militia means in today's world, but yet they interpret it.
Armed Para military groups created death and destruction on government property because they have the right to bear arms. All because one man could not accept the fact that he lost an election.
We have women who desperately need abortions who can't even get them under any circumstances. In some states it is now a criminal act to even be associated with someone trying to get an abortion.
In my view, it is the conservative republican's who have brought this upon the nation. I don't see it get better anytime soon, even with a new republican administration."I don't think we are tittering toward anything other than self-destruction of the union."
Yes, we are divided, and I myself, can't see a solution to that problem. It is my thought that conservative and liberal ideologies are so different due to the changing world around us. I don't feel either side will budge on one could say evolving beliefs. Because both have taken giant steps toward different paths. Conservatives over the past 10 years have hardened in their values, and are more than ever ready to defend them with their votes, as have Democrats.
"We have people in congress who have placed politics and money above the well-being of the people. We have outdated laws that no longer fit our modern circumstances and we have a supreme court that is locked into an archaic interpretation of our laws."
I can believe most of what you have said. However, I want to give the Supreme Court a bit long to see how they rule before forming my
opinion.
I believe in the second amendment, however, I feel Congress should get together and make some new laws in regards to how one purchases a gun and strong background checks, and I would like to see our laws, in general, be stiffer for being caught with an illegal gun, and the uses of a gun during any crime. It's also clear we could use a law that makes it clear if a parent is lacking enough where a child uses their gun in a crime, they will do the time if that gun was not secured to keep their child from getting their hands on it.
"Armed Para military groups created death and destruction on government property because they have the right to bear arms"
I don't believe any of these thugs used a gun if you are referring to the Jan 6th riot. I have heard some were arrested with guns on their
person. The only citizen shoot on that day was a woman claiming through a window. The officer was found to be doing what he felt he had to protect himself out of fear. I also realize the Jan 6th committee confirmed there were guns at Trump's rally on that day.
I have given my view on the Abortion issue. I did not want Roe overturned. But it was, so we need to move on with a new plan. That is get an abortion on state ballots, to at best let women be heard with their votes. The water is already split, we can be angry, we can protest. But in my view, we pick up the pieces and reconstruct them by getting an abortion on the ballot. Chickens running around with heads cut off accomplish little, they die.
Here in Michigan, we have already gotten the signatures to get an abortion on the ballot. Hopefully, other states are doing the same.
Here we could not go almost anywhere where people were not asking for signatures. I signed at the beach...
I am in the middle on the abortion issue, I see the logical need for abortion. I also have seen some wild stories that are predicting many other rights will be taken away from women, which certainly may never happen.
I can't agree it was one party that brought on all our woes. I feel both sides' ideologies are evolving. Conservatives over the past 10 years have in my view had a rude awakening, and see the pure need to harden, and fight for their values, and ultimately for America, they cherish. It would seem the other side truely feels we need a new more improved America. And the oil and vinegar will not mix.
It is definitely a new Republican party.
.Sharlee: I believe we should rewrite the 2nd amendment. It was meant for a different time when the country was in a different place. Bearing arms today can mean anything from an AR-15 to cruise missiles. A well regulated militia is the department of defense and all their weaponry. A well regulated militia is law enforcement. Today, we have criminals with the same firepower as law enforcement because of access to the same weaponry and the right to bear arms.
These things didn't exist when the 2nd amendment was ratified. The irony is a well regulated militia today is The Oath Keepers and Proud boys. The 2nd amendment allows them to arm up and play toy solders against our military and law enforcement.
What we need are certifications. Gun shop owners should be certified in what they sell and how they sell it. Gun owners should be certified and licensed to own and use their firearms. Hunters have to have licenses to hunt game. Car owner are licensed to drive cars and they are less of a lethal weapon than firearms. The 2nd amendment is never going to be able to stop mass shootings because it is at cross-purpose with gun control. Its purpose is to allow everybody to have arms, not to create some form of gun control.
I believe there should be an 11th amendment to the bill of rights that gives women the right to having an abortion based on certain circumstances. If we are going to codify it, it might as well be codify as a right and be at the federal level. I doubt whether voting a codified abortion law would get through congress given the composition of congress and the laws that are already embedded in the states.
I know none of these things will ever take place because they will affect the money flowing to the corporations and big moneyed interest who have a strangle hold on our government at many different levels.
It's interesting that conservative want less laws and regulations and reduce taxes to corporations and liberal want more regulations and laws and to increase taxes to corporations. I don't know if there will ever be a compromise.
Thanks for letting me voice my opinion and thoughts.I agree that any weapons of war need to be very hard to get if at all. I don't see any reason to own a rifle that can fire so many rounds. It scarce me thinking how many of these guns could be in the wrong hands.
"What we need are certifications. Gun shop owners should be certified in what they sell and how they sell it. Gun owners should be certified and licensed to own and use their firearms. Hunters have to have licenses to hunt game. "
All great ideas, and should make perfect sense. I am disappointed that our Congress can't come together to provide some common
sense gun laws. I mean no one is banking guns altogether, but just making it safer for our general population.
The problem of abortion laws at state levels I am finding out some states are not even considering putting it on the ballot, for women to vote in their individual states. Faye shared -. Twenty-four states do not feature a process for citizen-initiated measures ballot initiatives or veto referendums at the statewide level.
This is unfair and will cause some women to totally lose their voices. I had been under the impression that all states could put abortion on the Nov Ballot. The only avenue is Congress. Hopefully, Congress can work together to at best make some sensible abortion laws. I don't feel it should be banned unless the people have deemed it to be with their vote.
I hope at some point our Congress will feel the confusion and discontent they cause when they can't at best, show some give and take.
Always enjoy your views and thoughts. At times we are on the same page."Weapons of war" are, and have been for a hundred years or more, difficult to obtain, very expensive and very difficult to get permission to own. Check. (No reason to be scared, for there are very few of these guns in private hands in this country.)
Most guns, outside of 3D printed ones, are good for thousands of rounds, and will remain that way. No legislation is going to change the physics of a rifle barrel. Check.
Can't speak for all states, but would bet that gun shop owners must be licensed in every state, and most will have regulations they must follow to make a sale. Check.
A requirement that a person must be "certified" (whatever that might mean) in order to exercise a constitutional right is illegal (hunting is not a constitutional right, don't forget, but gun ownership is). So no check here, but then your suggestion is not constitutional.I can see you know a lot about guns. Do you think there are any gun laws we could provide, to keep automatic weapons out of the hands of someone that seeks to use them to murder people?
It would seem there could be some form of laws that would help keep these kinds of weapons very hard to get.
"I believe we should rewrite the 2nd amendment. " - I absolutely agree. It has been twisted beyond its original meaning by the conservative Court. That said, I think one is still needed that clearly defines the right to own weapons but also allows the federal and state gov'ts to set the rules of ownership.
I do not agree with the laws some cities and states have that make it almost impossible to own a gun. But I also disagree with the recent Court ruling that allows almost anyone to buy almost any type of weapon so long as they can lift it off the ground.
"The irony is a well regulated militia today is The Oath Keepers and Proud boys. The 2nd amendment allows them to arm up and play toy solders against our military and law enforcement." - I hadn't thought of that but that is the perfect example of what is wrong with the current ruling of the 2nd Amendment. As written, it refers to State militias. As ruled by Thomas, it is now ANY militia. I don't think that is what James Madison had in mind."As written, it refers to State militias. As ruled by Thomas, it is now ANY militia. I don't think that is what James Madison had in mind."
I would disagree with this - you are assuming that Madison, and the rest of the writers, were only concerned with maintaining government control, while the truth is that they were VER"Y concerned with govt. overreach and the necessity that the people be able to protect themselves from overreach by that government. Never forget that they were in the midst of fighting the legal government controlling the people in what was to become the US.Why is anyone assuming that our justices can interpret the original intent of the founders?? I find this more and more ludicrous. Particularly when the interpretations on the same issues change with the composition of the Court over time. It's losing its credibility and legitimacy.
Honestly, at this point why not just consult Long Island Medium Teresa Caputo as to what Madison was thinking? Yes that's sarcastic but Clarence Thomas and his recent opinions hold about as much water.
" I doubt whether voting a codified abortion law would get through congress given the composition of congress and the laws that are already embedded in the states." - And that is why it is SO important that the Democrats pick up two more seats in the Senate (very possible) and keep the House (not so possible). At least they can get rid of the filibuster and wait for the House to flip back Democratic.
"I don't believe any of these thugs used a gun if you are referring to the Jan 6th riot. I have heard some were arrested with guns on their person."
But guns were not mentioned. That "para military group" was armed...with a fire extinguisher and a flagpole. Those were the "arms" that they intended to overthrow the government with, in between swinging from the fixtures and putting their feet on Pelosi's desk. I think it safe to assume that their military training came the kindergarten class down the street.Wilderness: Did you even watch the hearings? If you didn't, your comments aren't valid.
Here is what Hutchinson said about Trump and the magnetometers.
"The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol held a surprise hearing Tuesday where it heard testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.
Hutchinson said former President Donald Trump wanted Secret Service agents to stop using metal detecting magnetometers during his rally on the day of the insurrection. Hutchison recalled how the president had directed his staff to “let my people in” despite being told that some were carrying weapons.
Hutchinson testified that she recalls Trump saying, “I don’t effing care that they have weapons.”
“They’re not here to hurt me. Take the effing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here,” she added, recounting what Trump had said about the thousands of supporters who had gathered at the Ellipse, behind the White House in Washington, D.C.
The testimony from Hutchinson touched on a variety of issues leading up to, during and after the attack on the Capitol.
Today’s hearing was announced unexpectedly by the committee Monday and little detail was given prior to its start. The committee originally said it would resume hearings in July, but said the evidence it had compelled them to hold a hearing sooner.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … tol-attackI don't see anything in your link, or your post, indicating that guns were found in the Capitol. As far as I have heard, there was one single gun, found outside the capitol, on the grounds, and that's it.
I doubt they took the flagpole they were armed with inside, and I believe the fire extinguisher was also left outside. That leaves nothing in the way of arms that this "para military" group carried inside as they attempted to overthrow the US government. Put very simply, then, it is a gross exaggeration of the events of that day. There was no "armed para military group", there was no "insurrection" - there was a riot, nothing more and nothing different from the dozens that had been taking place for months. The only difference was that it scared the powers that be; it was on their doorstep rather than across the country where the VIP's could not be harmed.I believe it was the 5th hearing that Liz Cheney presented law enforcement recordings from 6 January 2021 in which officers described protesters carrying AR-15-style rifles and handguns.
To your point, Faye, not that presenting FACTS matter to the Trump Cult -
As the first House hearing dedicated to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol aired, Fox News host Tucker Carlson repeated the debunked claim that no one in the crowd was found with a gun.
"Just to be clear on terms, an insurrection is when people with guns try to overthrow the government," Carlson said during his June 10 segment. "Not a single person in the crowd on January 6 was found to be carrying a firearm. Not one," he said.
That’s wrong. Court documents, video evidence and news coverage directly contradict this characterization. Several rioters had firearms and dozens more wielded knives, bats and other real and makeshift weapons.
We reached out to Carlson for comment but did not hear back. Of Course Not. Carlson KNOWS he is lying.
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/po … 621149001/
It’s also important to note that an insurrection is a violent uprising against the government, and the definition of "armed" is not legally limited to guns; it refers to any weapon used for defense or offense and as a means of protection. Other items used as weapons on Jan. 6 included bats, crutches, flagpoles, skateboards, fire extinguishers and chemical sprays.
I would agree, this bunch certainly was not what I would imagine a para-military group. They seemed to be a bunch of Yahoos. I mean they entered the capital, they could have literally torn it apart or burned it down. You know like the folks that protested during the Summer Of Love. Now they knew how to destroy.
You are right the guns were not mentioned, the only place I saw them mentioned is when I read the website that listed the persons that were arrested. If I remember correctly some were in the possession of a gun when arrested. And then I hear Hutchenson say she overheard a conversation that Trump said (and don't quote me because I am not most likely using her words) take down the magnets, they are not here to hurt me.
I have not read or heard that anyone used a gun at the Jan 6th riot.
I will also add at this point the better part Hutchenson's testimony has not been clarified.
I do not like secondhand information, so I am biased with what I feel about her testimony. I actually have not watched or actually read about the last hearing. I have lost interest, I really don't feel this committee has anything but more "well Trump said this". And it led to the Capitol being attacked. i think it's water under the bridge, this committee will
do little to change minds, let's face it.
I mean opinions have been formed. I was watching faithfully, but the Hutchinson testimony left a bad taste, I have tasted before with the Democrat's investigations. To be honest, if Trump and Biden go head to head, I will vote for Trump, For many reasons. I hope we get two new fresh candidates.
I can't imagine either party would want Trump or Biden to run.A Washington, D.C., police officer has corroborated to the House Jan. 6 committee details of former President Donald Trump's alleged attempt to commandeer the presidential vehicle the day of the Capitol riot, according to a report.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … -motorcadeI did see these claimes by CNN. However, as usual, they offered nothing in the way of the name of this officer. I will wait to see if the man is produced and gives some form of a statement or testifies. Too many "he said following around.
Just don't like CNN as a source. They are a big part of our problem, in my view. They stir controversy and report little pertinent news. In my view, they feed into hate.(Did I post this in the wrong forum? I thought I put it in the Trump Coup forum, where it belongs). That said -
"I did see these claimes by CNN. However, as usual, they offered nothing in the way of the name of this officer. " - Did Fake Fox-Trump News? Or did they even report it. lol? I just looked, and they didn't.
It is obvious you don't like CNN as a source because they are honest, report all the news, and, unlike your right-wing sources, they tell the TRUTH.
Further, if you don't like CNN as a source, then you certainly don't like Yahoo News, the Washington Examiner, Daily Mail, St Louis Post-Dispatch, and dozens more who thought the CNN reporting was valid and worth repeating."I did see these claimes by CNN. However, as usual, they offered nothing in the way of the name of this officer. " - Did Fake Fox-Trump News? Or did they even report it. lol? I just looked, and they didn't."
I am not sure if they covered the story, I would think due to no actual name to back up the story. Oh no, I don't care for CNN. They retract reports too frequently. As well as have some of the worst examples of just telling untruths.
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andr … 8df193525e
I very rarely offer any article as a source that does offer names of persons they are quoting. The outlets you listed, I certainly would offer as a source if the article had named human beings backing what was being written. CNN is just a poor media outlet in my view.
Their ratings tell me many people have the same opinion.
"I would agree, this bunch certainly was not what I would imagine a para-military group." - Obviously, you didn't watch the videos that were presented showing exactly that.
Not in my view,I did follow the riot reports carefully. Little damage was done, and only one was killed in the Capitol. I do realize some officers were hurt, but no office deaths were attributed to the rioters Nor were any protests charged with murder.
A true para-military group I would assume would have caused much death, building destruction, and perhaps held hostages.(just my view).
"That "para military group" was armed...with a fire extinguisher and a flagpole. " - I am sorry, that is just plain stupid and, frankly, extremely insulting to the 100 some officers who were maimed by that single fire extinguisher and flagpole. You really should be apologize to those police the Trump militia harmed. Hub pages can ban forever for this but the whole of that last missive proves how out of touch with reality your are Wilderness, and the degree to which you are truly unaware of what is actually happening to America.
I don't see anything here denying the total armament of that "militia". As that was the point (that your "Trump militia" was armed with only a fire extinguisher and flagpole to overthrow the US government) the rest of the threat is meaningless. If you disagree you are certainly free to report the post and ask that I be permanently banned for offending you.
Twenty-four states do not feature a process for citizen-initiated measures ballot initiatives or veto referendums at the statewide level.
You are fortunate to live in a state that allows more freedom of it's citizens.
Additionally, Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic bill Thursday that would protect the rights of women to travel to other states to access abortion care legally.
I would consider yourself lucky that you're not feeling the fascist long arm of the Republican Party.
https://ballotpedia.org/States_without_ … referendumThis is not good or fair. I would think the politicians in your state should fear being run out by women this fall.
I certainly hope so - Arkansas need to go Democratic. But, it won't, try as hard as Faye might want it.
I feel the women in these red states need to come together, truely protest in numbers, and let these legislators know they will be voted out if they choose to take away what they feel is their right to abortion. It is all that is left for them to do. Voices would be heard if they are in great numbers, and with social media, numbers can be gotten.
My true feelings about abortion are that it should not be political, not Democrat or Republican --- It is a women's rights issue. We have women on both sides that are pro-life, and pro-abortion. When it comes down to it, women's voices must be heard, and the best way is to cast votes. However, never should women lose their right to leave their state and seek an abortion... Never.
I have to ask you seriously as a conservative.
Don't you think that it "overreach" on the part of any state that is actively attempting to legislate a manner of criminalizing women who seek abortions in states where it is legal?
I told you weeks ago that this was coming and that the Right had the gall to even entertain the idea. It seems so tyrannical and autocratic, how do you correlate that with conservatives supposedly being reasonable people? These ideas are not just isolated in extreme corners but have been considered by many of the red states and they are looking in earnest for a way to make it happen.Only time will tell, but I highly doubt that states will be able to punish someone for travelling to an adjacent state and purchasing a legal product (an abortion) there. If nothing else interstate commerce is pretty well protected.
It might be interesting, and comical, to see a state attempt to punish for bringing an illegal product (an abortion obtained in another state) into the state, though. The popcorn should flow freely for that one.If Trumpists or Republicans take control of Congress, we will quickly see a Federal ban on abortion. Not a doubt in my mind. The midterm candidates are already campaigning on it.
With this new Supreme Court, Wilderness? I bet that they cannot wait to legislate from the bench and find some twisted interpretation of the Constitution to support restraining free, adult people. The lawsuit approach in Texas used to circumvent Roe vs Wade was not contested by this "Court". As, it was clearly not in the spirit of Roe vs Wade but was a method to circumvent it.
I will bring salted red herring snacks instead.....But I think your "bet" is rooted in a hatred of conservatives, not in reality.
Not sure what you're talking about with a Texas law circumventing RvW, but that is the way of our world today. A law is made and immediately people begin to find ways around it. Intent of the law is irrelevant; all that matters is finding a judge/court that will twist things just a little to allow a back door approach. It has been done for decades with everything from gun controls to abortion, and is NOT limited to conservatives. Liberals are at LEAST as guilty in their efforts to circumvent the Constitution.When you are seriously talking about restricting movement of people from one state to another, conservatives have earned my distrust and eternal suspicion as to any of its motives. Hate is an emotional word. I judge "your gang" based on its actions from my point of view.
LOL I just read one of your posts that said something to the effect that conservatives "turn my stomach" and, I believe, have done so for some time.
That attitude has nothing to do with restricting movement, with judges legislating from the bench (something liberal judges are famous for) or much of anything else. It has to do with a difference of philosophy and a refusal to accept that anyone with a different concept has anything good to say.You do the same thing from your side of the fence regarding liberal progressive points of view. And from my point of view there has been little that has been said from your side that has been helpful.
Personally I find quite a difference between people and the misguided and misunderstood points of view they might hold. Do you? Or are the people themselves (as you state) what turns your stomach? That are "fundamentally no good"?
Cred, I fully understand a difference in opinion, even when I find that opinion stupid in the extreme (that a zygote is a person, for instance)...but that does not mean that the person holding that opinion is "bad to the bone". You might want to carefully consider that attitude; that opinions different than yours does not mean a bad person.
