It's NOT ONLY a Woman's Right to Choose that is Disappearing ...

Jump to Last Post 1-35 of 35 discussions (555 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image84
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      1. My Esoteric profile image84
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

    2. My Esoteric profile image84
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. My Esoteric profile image84
          My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

      2. gmwilliams profile image84
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. My Esoteric profile image84
          My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I don't think a million women is enough anymore.  How about five million for starters.

          1. gmwilliams profile image84
            gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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.

    3. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "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....

      1. gmwilliams profile image84
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. wilderness profile image93
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "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.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              "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.

              1. My Esoteric profile image84
                My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                "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.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  " 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.

                  1. Credence2 profile image78
                    Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

                  2. gmwilliams profile image84
                    gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

              2. Credence2 profile image78
                Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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?

                1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  "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?

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                    Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

                  2. Credence2 profile image78
                    Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Because the "other side" does not want one, it is "my way or the highway".

              3. wilderness profile image93
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                "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".

                1. GA Anderson profile image89
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  'Yeah, why can't we all just get along!'

                  GA ;-)

                  1. Nathanville profile image92
                    Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Yep, I concur smile

                2. Sharlee01 profile image89
                  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. wilderness profile image93
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    "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.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image84
                    My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    "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.

                3. My Esoteric profile image84
                  My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  "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.

                4. My Esoteric profile image84
                  My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  "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.

            2. My Esoteric profile image84
              My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              ?

          2. My Esoteric profile image84
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "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.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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.

          3. My Esoteric profile image84
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "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?

      2. My Esoteric profile image84
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "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.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

        2. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. My Esoteric profile image84
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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%.

              1. My Esoteric profile image84
                My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Just keep your head in the sand and living in your alternate reality.

              2. My Esoteric profile image84
                My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                " We both know just how easily polls can be manipulated." - No, we don't know that at all, at least not with reputable ones.

            2. GA Anderson profile image89
              GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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?

              GA

              1. gmwilliams profile image84
                gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Gus 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.

                1. GA Anderson profile image89
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  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

              2. My Esoteric profile image84
                My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                "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.

                1. GA Anderson profile image89
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  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

          2. My Esoteric profile image84
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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]

      3. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

      4. gmwilliams profile image84
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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.

          2. My Esoteric profile image84
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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.

          3. My Esoteric profile image84
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            What if the majority voted for slavery?  Is that OK?  There are many things where the majority SHOULD NOT rule, IMO.

            1. gmwilliams profile image84
              gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              EXACTY, we need federal law.

        2. My Esoteric profile image84
          My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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".

          1. gmwilliams profile image84
            gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            +100000000000.

      5. Jean Bakula profile image90
        Jean Bakulaposted 24 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

          Haven't seen you around in a while, Jean, nice to have you bring so candid a viewpoint to this contentious issue....

        2. My Esoteric profile image84
          My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

          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.

        3. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image89
            peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

            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/

            1. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

              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?

              1. wilderness profile image93
                wildernessposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                "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?

                1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                  Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  "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.

                  1. gmwilliams profile image84
                    gmwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    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%.

                2. peoplepower73 profile image89
                  peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  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?

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                    Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    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?

                3. My Esoteric profile image84
                  My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  "Given that conservatives are concerned for lives, a" - You could have fooled me.

                  1. wilderness profile image93
                    wildernessposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

              2. peoplepower73 profile image89
                peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                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/

                1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                  Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  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?

                  1. peoplepower73 profile image89
                    peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    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/

                  2. My Esoteric profile image84
                    My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    "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.

              3. My Esoteric profile image84
                My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                "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.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                  Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image84
                    My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

              4. Jean Bakula profile image90
                Jean Bakulaposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                  Sharlee01posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Jean Bakula profile image90
                    Jean Bakulaposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                2. gmwilliams profile image84
                  gmwilliamsposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. peoplepower73 profile image89
                    peoplepower73posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                    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

          2. My Esoteric profile image84
            My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            "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.

          3. Jean Bakula profile image90
            Jean Bakulaposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. My Esoteric profile image84
                My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                  Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image84
                    My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    That is interesting to, inscrutable, but interesting.

              2. My Esoteric profile image84
                My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                "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.

                1. wilderness profile image93
                  wildernessposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image84
                    My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                2. Sharlee01 profile image89
                  Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  Take your complaint up with the Supreme Court. It is apparent they trust states to make their individual abortion laws. As do I.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image84
                    My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

        4. gmwilliams profile image84
          gmwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Jean Bakula profile image90
            Jean Bakulaposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            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?

  2. My Esoteric profile image84
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      1. My Esoteric profile image84
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

  3. My Esoteric profile image84
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    I think it is time for Corporations to pull their operations out of oppressive States.

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/04/economy/ … index.html

    1. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      +1000000000

  4. My Esoteric profile image84
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    Another 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.html

    1. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, 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.

      1. My Esoteric profile image84
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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!

  5. Nathanville profile image92
    Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

    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!!!!

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Nathanville profile image92
        Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

      2. My Esoteric profile image84
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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?

    2. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Nathanville profile image92
        Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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.

            2. peoplepower73 profile image89
              peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. GA Anderson profile image89
                GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Hold on a minute, I'll get your change.  lol

                *I used a real emoji just for you Mike. It was a joke.

                GA

                1. peoplepower73 profile image89
                  peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  GA:  I'm laughing all the way to the bank, but with inflation, it will probably be worthless by the time I get there.

              2. gmwilliams profile image84
                gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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.

            3. My Esoteric profile image84
              My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              " as well as travel bans for those seeking abortion" - Want to bet the Conservatives on the Court will uphold such an unAmerican law?

          2. Nathanville profile image92
            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. gmwilliams profile image84
                  gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  +100000000.  Louisiana has always been a backwater state in terms of ideology & politics.

                2. tsmog profile image84
                  tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I would speculate Justifiable Homicide could enter into the fray with that.

                3. Sharlee01 profile image89
                  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. gmwilliams profile image84
                    gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    +100000000

          3. My Esoteric profile image84
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "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.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Disagree. I see it just the opposite.

              1. My Esoteric profile image84
                My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                You may "see" it that way, but it is still morally, ethically, and legally wrong.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  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.


                  https://hubstatic.com/15990831.jpg
                  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

                  1. My Esoteric profile image84
                    My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    "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.

                  2. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                    Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    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/

        2. My Esoteric profile image84
          My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          It IS a retrograde step, as is the Conservative push to deny voting rights and civil rights.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image89
            peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. My Esoteric profile image84
              My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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.

      2. My Esoteric profile image84
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "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]

  6. PurvisBobbi44 profile image91
    PurvisBobbi44posted 2 years ago

    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 Purvis

  7. Credence2 profile image78
    Credence2posted 2 years ago

    And 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.”

  8. Credence2 profile image78
    Credence2posted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      It is going to be more than Civil War 2.  There is going to hell to pay- it will be WELL-DESERVED.

  9. My Esoteric profile image84
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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.html

  10. My Esoteric profile image84
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    And 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/

  11. My Esoteric profile image84
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    As I have predicted - Conservatives have put Contraception on the list of things to ban.

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/08/politics … index.html

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Many far right conservatives believe that life begins at fertilization. I predict they will introduce personhood legislation  for the embryo, effectively banning birth control.

      1. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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?

      2. My Esoteric profile image84
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I think several states like OK, MO, and TX has that teed up to pass on a moments notice.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. My Esoteric profile image84
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, I read what he said - but we also know what he meant since he didn't say no.

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          This is your problem --- you read into others' thoughts, and just add your own context.

          1. My Esoteric profile image84
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            You are back to believing people are brainless.  Apply what you just said to a  jury.

            1. My Esoteric profile image84
              My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Silence

          2. peoplepower73 profile image89
            peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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=BBnb7Kz

            1. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Do 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.

              1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                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?

                1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  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?

                  1. My Esoteric profile image84
                    My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image84
                    My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    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.

  12. peoplepower73 profile image89
    peoplepower73posted 2 years ago

    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=BBnb7Kz

    1. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I 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.

      1. My Esoteric profile image84
        My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

    2. My Esoteric profile image84
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  13. My Esoteric profile image84
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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.

  14. My Esoteric profile image84
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    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.html

  15. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years ago

    Where 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-ban

  16. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years ago

    Well 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.

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
        Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. My Esoteric profile image84
          My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I bet these sick will try to ban rubbers.

  17. Credence2 profile image78
    Credence2posted 2 years ago

    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....

    1. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image89
          peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. My Esoteric profile image84
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Hey, that is a thought.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Credence2 profile image78
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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_March

            1. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, 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.

              1. peoplepower73 profile image89
                peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                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]

                1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                  Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image84
                    My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                2. My Esoteric profile image84
                  My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes, that is "gone by Tuesday" alright, lol.

            2. My Esoteric profile image84
              My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              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%

          2. My Esoteric profile image84
            My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "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.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. My Esoteric profile image84
                My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                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

    2. My Esoteric profile image84
      My Esotericposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  18. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 24 months ago

    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.html

    1. My Esoteric profile image84
      My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

      Sadly, just the outcome that Conservatives were hoping for.

      1. wilderness profile image93
        wildernessposted 24 months agoin reply to this

        I'm glad I don't live in your hate filled world, where half the population wishes to cause pain to someone else.

        1. My Esoteric profile image84
          My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. wilderness profile image93
            wildernessposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            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."

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              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/

              1. wilderness profile image93
                wildernessposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. My Esoteric profile image84
                  My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  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")

              2. My Esoteric profile image84
                My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

            2. My Esoteric profile image84
              My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. wilderness profile image93
                wildernessposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  Most Republicans approve of Trump otherwise he would not have access to the national bullhorn that he continues to enjoy.

                  1. wilderness profile image93
                    wildernessposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                2. My Esoteric profile image84
                  My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  "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?

                  1. wilderness profile image93
                    wildernessposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    "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.

                3. My Esoteric profile image84
                  My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  "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.

                  1. Credence2 profile image78
                    Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    I am willing to work with conservatives on fiscal and budget matters, as long as they don't get ridiculous or extreme about it.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image89
      Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

      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?

      1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
        Fayetteville Fayeposted 24 months agoin reply to this

        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 … -rcna27349

        1. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

          Thanks for the information.

        2. My Esoteric profile image84
          My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

          That 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)

          1. peoplepower73 profile image89
            peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

            George Carlin sums it all up about the conservative attitude towards women's rights and abortions.

            https://youtu.be/vkMbMidsYIM

            1. GA Anderson profile image89
              GA Andersonposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              That's a good one. From 50,000 feet he is spot-on. From ground-level, maybe 'not quite'.

              GA

              1. Credence2 profile image78
                Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                I don't know, he seems "spot on" at ground level as well. Why isn't he?

            2. My Esoteric profile image84
              My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              Loved 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.

              1. Credence2 profile image78
                Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                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....

                1. My Esoteric profile image84
                  My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  It is more than a whisper.

              2. peoplepower73 profile image89
                peoplepower73posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                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.

        3. Sharlee01 profile image89
          Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image89
              Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. My Esoteric profile image84
                My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                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?

                1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                  Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image84
                    My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    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?

          2. My Esoteric profile image84
            My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. My Esoteric profile image84
                My Esotericposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                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.

  19. Sharlee01 profile image89
    Sharlee01posted 24 months ago

    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.

  20. My Esoteric profile image84
    My Esotericposted 24 months ago

    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.html

  21. My Esoteric profile image84
    My Esotericposted 24 months ago

    Great 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.cnn

  22. My Esoteric profile image84
    My Esotericposted 22 months ago

    It 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.html

  23. My Esoteric profile image84
    My Esotericposted 22 months ago

    It 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.html

  24. My Esoteric profile image84
    My Esotericposted 22 months ago

    Interesting.  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/

    1. peterstreep profile image80
      peterstreepposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      Yes they have to pay taxes before they are born.

      1. My Esoteric profile image84
        My Esotericposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        On what or was that sarcasm?

        1. peterstreep profile image80
          peterstreepposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          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!!!

          1. My Esoteric profile image84
            My Esotericposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            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?

            1. peterstreep profile image80
              peterstreepposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              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...

              1. My Esoteric profile image84
                My Esotericposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                I see your point, for sure.

                1. peoplepower73 profile image89
                  peoplepower73posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  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

    2. peoplepower73 profile image89
      peoplepower73posted 22 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image89
        Sharlee01posted 22 months agoin reply to this

        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 --- YUCK

        1. peterstreep profile image80
          peterstreepposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          Sharlee, 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?

          1. My Esoteric profile image84
            My Esotericposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            This is an area where the Christian theology, especially the right-wing element of it, falls apart and starts contradicting itself.

            1. peterstreep profile image80
              peterstreepposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, and in my view, a lot of troubles begin.

        2. My Esoteric profile image84
          My Esotericposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          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.)

          1. Sharlee01 profile image89
            Sharlee01posted 22 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. My Esoteric profile image84
              My Esotericposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                Sharlee01posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                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.

            2. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

              I don't think that it is a matter of for or against but, who it is that gets to decide.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                Sharlee01posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. peoplepower73 profile image89
                  peoplepower73posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image89
                    Sharlee01posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                    "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...