The Disatorous Ramifications of the Deadly Reversal of Roe vs Wade.
Assigned sex isn't black and white no matter how much it may be wished. There is intersex that constantly is avoided. Though one may say those cases are obscure or very rare, they still count. To be true, always true.
From Science Daily quoting a paper by the University of Melbourne we see . . .
"Lead author of the study, Professor Andrew Sinclair, said that 90 percent of human DNA is made up of so called 'junk DNA or dark matter' which contains no genes but does carry important regulators that increase or decrease gene activity.
"These regulatory segments of DNA are called enhancers," he said. If these enhancers that control testis genes are disrupted it may lead to a baby being born with a disorder of sex development."
Professor Sinclair, who is also a member of the Paediatrics Department of the University of Melbourne, said this study sought to understand how the SOX9 gene was regulated by enhancers and whether disruption of the enhancers would result in disorders of sex development.
"We discovered three enhancers that, together ensure the SOX9 gene is turned on to a high level in an XY embryo, leading to normal testis and male development," he said.
"Importantly, we identified XX patients who would normally have ovaries and be female but carried extra copies of these enhancers, (high levels of SOX9) and instead developed testes. In addition, we found XY patients who had lost these SOX9 enhancers, (low levels of SOX9) and developed ovaries instead of testes."
Geneticists make new discovery about how a baby's sex is determined Published at Science Daily (Dec 15, 2018)
Medical researchers have made a new discovery about how a baby's sex is determined: it's not just about the X-Y chromosomes, but involves a 'regulator' that increases or decreases the activity of genes which decide if we become male or female.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 … 141333.htm
Also, "An estimated 1 in 100 Americans is intersex. Around 2% of people worldwide have intersex traits."
Intersex from the Cleveland Clinic
People who are intersex have genitals, chromosomes or reproductive organs that don’t fit into a male/female sex binary. Their genitals might not match their reproductive organs, or they may have traits of both. Being intersex may be evident at birth, childhood, later in adulthood or never. Being intersex isn’t a disorder, disease or condition.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/a … 4-intersexIf you are referring to transgender, intersex isn't part of it.
To be transgender you have to BE one gender and then hold the belief you can "transition" to another gender.
That is an old and tired argument that doesn't apply to the topic.Was transgender mentioned in my post? The OP Topic is The Disatorous Ramifications of the Deadly Reversal of Roe vs Wade. So, it appears there has been some wandering since the OP Topic's inception.
And now Southern Baptists have decided to opposed invitro fertilization, which is the only way many children come into this world. I thought they were supposed to be pro-life?
I think somebody on this page said that isn't true - that that article didn't say such a thing.
They are a large voting bloc, how do we think MAGA will respond? Trump has created this movement that won't stop until they have complete control over women's bodies. They will ban contraception and IVF if given the power. Let's not forget that Trump has stated there must be some form of punishment for a woman who receives an abortion. MAGA can not be trusted.
Trump has no chance of reelection if he doesn't have the evangelicals on board. He will have to cater to them.
Republicans just blocked a bill that would enshrine access to IVF... They blocked a bill that would ensure access to birth control. They're laying the groundwork.It sounds like the Trump Taliban!
How can we stop them!
We couldn't defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan... how can we possibly stop a Trump Taliban of millions of Americans!
58% of women voted for Biden last time, polls show 58% still would vote for him... so clearly, one of the biggest problems America has is allowing women to vote.
As for the LGBTQP+ and all the other nonsense related to it, all the more reason to give up on our Christian ideals of forgiveness and acceptance... look where that has gotten the country today.
A Trump Taliban should require all Christians to convert, accept Sharia Law. And since we seem so keen on ridding ourselves of the Constitution and 1st and 2nd Amendment rights especially, lets just replace it with Sharia Law as well.
Taliban to impose their interpretation of Sharia law in Afghanistan
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/15/asia/tal … index.html
Biden helped bring that peace and prosperity to Afghanistan by withdrawing and letting the Afghan Taliban take over there... he should do the same here in America... the Trump Taliban, has a nice ring to it, would bring about a great renaissance to America.
Kinda reminds me of one of my favorite songs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud4acSpOxC8Now you are catching on..
Trump helped bring peace and prosperity to Afghanistan by setting in motion the withdrawal and letting the Afghan Taliban out of prison take over there.
A Trump Taliban might require all non-Christians to convert, accept Southern Baptist Law. You know, that American religion that used to make women ware head scarves and forced them to enter churches through different doors and not sit with the men? I wonder where Sharia got the ideas for their law? (Or maybe the Southern Baptist copied them.)
"58% of women voted for Biden last time, polls show 58% still would vote for him... so clearly, one of the biggest problems America has is allowing women to vote." - I was wondering when you were going to admit that out loud.Surely, you jest about your Trump Taliban or is that what you really want? At least, you do reveal your preference for anautocratic alternative. As a result we are on totally opposite poles. I won't vote for it or anything close.
BTW, I am not much for hip-hop or rap music. Its main entertainers are being paid by Trump.Really, its not home grown natural support?
Makes me wonder, is Taylor Swift or any of the Hollywood elite paid to support the madness of today we call the Biden Administration?
Does this one remind you of something... our forum maybe?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=najeyO0CuXwIt was the same video that "Savvydating" shared with me a couple of months ago. I regard it as so much rubbish. Hmm, maybe you both have something in common? The fact that you use the video to make a point? You both harp on the same themes?
The people I am listening to is our intelligentsia, the people who through achievement and scholarship have a voice that resonates in our communities, not trashy hip hop artists. I can't speak for Hollywood and say that their advocacy of Democratic candidates are different. But, I am coming from a different pole that convinces me that the Democrats are my preference.
Imagine, trading your freedom for a pair of silly gold plated sneakers?And why would Taylor Swift need money? Is she broke or something? No, it is that they love America.
Not sure what you are saying? Do you agree with the maga movement to ban IVF and contraception as well as punish women for abortion?
That says it all, doesn't it. MAGA is a danger to freedom, period.
If I had not walked out of a Southern Baptist Church two years ago over their lack of mercy towards those with sexual orientation different from theirs (in spite of the statistics on sexual abuse by heterosexuals in their own denomination) I certainly would have left now that they are opposed to IVF. My two grandchildren that only exist thanks to this miraculous procedure are too precious to me to tolerate such ignorance in my own religion.
Church is meant to be more than just what you are against."Church is meant to be more than just what you are against."
That would depend on which church it is and which people are in it.So to rephrase you statement you just said that some churches and the people in it are only about what they are against.
They are in it for cash and control, with the "control" coming across as "against". That is my opinion, based on a lifetime of dealing with religious zealots.
I will also say that other churches and other peoples are the salt of the earth and do far, far more good than evil. I have also known some of those.
In my experience, yes. And that list seems to grow with each passing year.
- Vlado - Val Karasposted 13 months ago
0In my opinion it's, as always, merely a psychological warfare leading to nothing but perpetuating itself with some more "believable" threats. Einstein was right when he said that he didn't know what weapons would be used in a WWIII, but knew for sure that a WWIV would be fought with bows and arrows.
While every war is about money, and it's always the elite pushing for it -- this one is way different, because it would mean their spending the rest of life in bunkers for the radiation screwing up the livability on earth.
And that's something that none of them wants, you can bet on it; they love their luxurious living way too much.
Politicians are merely the puppets of the elite, and even in their hottest moments of political antagonism, they will do anything else but trigger that cataclysmic and suicidal idiocy.
Much more likely, they may start some new smaller wars, while also trying to counteract the growing economic and military power of the BRICS alliance.
But, in the military reality, the huge change happened with Putin showing that he was not scared of NATO -- while that was always the strongest card of the West in psychological warfare, now losing its significance.
Well, how the global stupidity is going to play out -- no one knows, but nukes have since ever been the best guarantee against a total annihilation.
In my opinion, if the WWIII was to happen, it would have already happen, there have been enough "reasons" for it in the past decades. Infant mortality rate jumps nearly 13% in Texas...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-anti-a … 49517.htmlI read this same story earlier today as I was perusing th news on my phone. These two lines struck me as particularly heartbreaking:
"In the wake of the law's passage in Texas, more babies died before their first birthday, likely due to birth defects or genetic problems that wouldn't have allowed them to live, the study found. These pregnancies would typically have been terminated by abortion, according to researchers."
Heartbreaking because as much as it would hurt to lose a defective child while still in the womb, to hold and love that child for several months while watching it die, sometimes painfully, seems more unbearable to me.
The article said that they had not studied the emotional effects nor the financial burdens on the families of the babies who were not able to live. I believe there will definitely be prolonged consequences. I also wonder if the effects of the loss of the babies on the siblings will be studied. Nobody ever thinks about the loss or grief of an older child. If the older sibling has never seen, held or loved the little baby that dies, he or she may experience disappointment that the baby doesn't come home with mommy, but not the deep grief of the loss of a baby sibling they loved. But the living don't matter to the Forced Birthers.
"We're saving babies," the Forced Birthers keep trying to convince us. This study shows otherwise.
They are also discriminating against people whose religion doesn't agree with theirs. The Jews disagree that life begins at birth. They believe that life begins when the baby takes the first breath and sucks in the soul. I'm not Jewish, but that has been my spiritual belief for many years.
https://www.ncjw.org/wp-content/uploads … -FINAL.pdf
If the link doesn't work, go to ncjw.org to read the complete Advocacy Resource and other things they are doing to fight what they consider the blatant discrimination against their religion and Jewish women.Thanks for posting the link, MizBejabbers!! That has been my argument/point all along. Not only do some religions have different beliefs about when life begins and if abortion is acceptable, but also some Christian denominations. Not everyone 'believes' what the Christian Right does.
But, they don't care. They are right and that is all there is to it.
The kinds of people who are responsible for all this pain and suffering should be institutionalized, IMO.
Are you really surprised? It is Texas afterall.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/art … Tk5XGeVxNg
Unintended consequences happen when you are absolutely sure that you are absolutely right about something you actually know nothing about.Trump has said he was "proudly the person responsible" for the change brought about by the SCOTUS two years ago, when it overturned Roe.
Is he proud of this?
Nicole Miller had gone to the emergency room in Boise, Idaho, after waking up with heavy bleeding in her 20th week of pregnancy. By afternoon, she was still leaking amniotic fluid and hemorrhaging and, now in a panic, struggling to understand why the doctor was telling her that she needed to leave the state to be treated.
“If I need saving, you’re not going to help me?” she recalls asking. She remembers his answer vividly: “He told me he wasn’t willing to risk his 20-year career.”
Instead, that evening, hospital workers at St. Luke’s Boise Medical Center put Ms. Miller on a small plane to Utah. She was airlifted, so she could receive an abortion.
What I also want to know is who paid for this airlift? The poor family will probably go into bankruptcy over this on top of it.
Doctors in Idaho and other states with near-total bans say that even with the renewed protection of federal law, they have little clarity about what medical emergencies are covered, and little reassurance that they will not face charges, jail time, large fines and loss of their medical licenses if they provide care a prosecutor says was not necessary.
What kind of utter nonsense is this? This is idiotic.
By the time they put her on the plane to Utah, they estimated she had lost a liter of blood.
And cruelty isn't the point of these laws? Please.
The chief of staff from the aforementioned Idaho hospital speaking to his concerns..
"Is she sick enough? Is she bleeding enough? Is she septic enough for me to do this abortion and not risk going to jail and losing my license?" And when the guessing game gets too uncomfortable, we transfer the patients out at a very high cost to another state where the doctors are allowed to practice medicine."
Wow, "where the doctors are allowed to practice medicine".
I ask, what other area would you support politicians determining how a doctor treats an emergency, a health issue? Maybe politicians should give doctor's guidelines on how and when to treat certain types of cancer? Kidney disease, liver disease? Why are we stopping at just women's healthcare?
Trump did this, he owns this. And the fact that he gloats over it is vile.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/e … other.htmlI regularly contribute to places like the Brigid Alliance that pay for travel such as hers and WRRAP that does other good works..
This is where the Republican Party is today - anti-IVF and imprisoning women who get abortions (at least so says Ed Martin, leader of the RNC Platform Committee).
https://www.cnn.com/kfile-ed-martin-rnc … index.htmlFor the record, IVF results in lives that would otherwise never exist. Unimplanted zygotes are no different than fertilized eggs that do not implant in a woman's uterus so flush out of her body through mensuration possibly every month. A zygote is not an embryo until it implants in the uterus.
How do I know this? Two precious grandchildren we only have through IVF.It seems to me there are few idiots on the Right (maybe that Ed Martin) who would arrest a woman for having a menstrual cycle. Things have gotten that ridiculous.
The Southern Baptist Church is closer to Shia law than you might think. It recently voted to deny women IVF treatment, it recently voted to make women second class citizens by 1) supporting restrictions on what they can do with their bodies and 2) prohibiting them from any position that makes them equal to men. It also prefers that women wear short hair and keep it covered outdoors. It shouldn't be long before they are not allowed in public without a male guardian.
The question this article asks is why do some women stay in an organization that treats them so poorly meaning SBC and the Republican Party.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/15/us/relig … index.htmlIt has long been my experience and observation that churches, or all types and beliefs, are not static in their beliefs. Although God supposedly never changes, the beliefs of the church certainly do.
In the distant past, women in particular were little better than chattel, playing no real part in the operation of the world. Many religions not only condoned slavery, but actively supported it.
But ethics and morals change, and religion either changes with it or dies. The SBC is a few decades behind, that's all, and if they continue to hold that their god created women to be slaves they will have no membership whether men OR women.
Esoteric: You just listed all but one of the reasons I left the SBC after a lifetime. What finally drove me out was not the restrictions they were putting on me, but their judgment and lack of mercy towards anyone not exactly like them. That is simply not Christ-like.
I still go to church - just a different denomination.I have been reading a book titled The Pursuit of Happiness by Jeffrey Rosen. It covers how that idea came to ensconced in our Declaration of Independence. It covers what our founders Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and few others read and did to "pursue happiness". Your phrase "Christ-kike" runs throughout it and how they, especially Jefferson, rejected ideas that ran counter to "what Jesus would go".
It also goes into detail I never knew about on how, on a personal level, none of these men could live up to the ideals they set for themselves and others.
I recommend it, it is an easy read.
I will check it out. Always looking for my next "read".
Maybe others of you have read of other documented cases of Trump's abortion ban leading to death of the mother, I am sure there are hundreds if not thousands, but this is the first one I came across.
Doctors advised a Georgia woman never to have any more children (she had 3) because of her fragile health. She had an unintended pregnancy and was starting to suffer the ill effects from it. BECAUSE of Georgia's law banning virtually any abortion, she didn't bother going to a doctor only to be told no. Instead, she tried medicated abortion on her own.
It only partially worked because her body would expel the fetus. Again, BECAUSE of Georgia's near total abortion ban, she could not go to a doctor to have a routine D&C of the partially expelled fetus. Her son says she was in agony and then died at home in bed.
That is a logical and direct line from Trump's proud appointment of three Conservative judges to the SC for the SOLE purpose of overturning Roe v Wade (and two of them even had to lie to the Senate to get confirmed), which they did.
Now a woman is dead because of it.
https://www.propublica.org/article/cand … th-georgiaHmmm. And the results would have been the same if the Georgia legislature had not passed laws banning abortions?
Seems to me that it is the legislature that made the laws that must shoulder the blame, if indeed there is any blame to shoulder. Certainly SCOTUS, interpreting the Constitution as required by our law, did not deny her the abortion. One might blame the writers of that document for not putting in a right to abortion, but that would be rather foolish, don't you think?
And certainly Trump did not pass Georgia laws either. At most he voted for a couple of legislators that did vote for the new laws, but then so did over half the state's population. Maybe they're all to blame?Clearly not. The lady would have had competent medical help to turn to.
Now let's see if can follow this logic, it is easy to do.
Trump stacks the court with Justices who will over turn Roe v Wade. That PREDICTABLY leads to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade. That PREDICTABLY leads to medieval States passing near total bans on abortion. That PREDICTABLY leads to this lady's death.Turns out Trump is responsible for another dead woman in GA. While the last one was too afraid to go to the doctor, this one, a medical student I think, did go to doctors. She went to North Carolina to get supervised medication, took it as prescribed and ended up the same way the first lady did, a partially expelled fetus.
She went to the doctor for a simple D&C and they wouldn't do it. By the time they decided to do the procedure, it was too late and she died.
I suspect that with the publicity these are starting to get, there will be hundreds if not thousands of people reporting similar outcomes from the decision Trump was PROUD to make.
Here is the result from Dobbs in Red States that went to war on women:
- At least two dead women directly related to not being able to access abortion care1
- Hundreds, if not thousands, of dead mothers who died needlessly in childbirth because they were prohibited from terminating their pregnancies. For example, University of Colorado Boulder found that states with abortion bans could see a 24% rise in maternal deaths. . Further, studies show that in states that restricted abortion before Dobbs had an astounding 62% higher rate of maternal mortality than in states were abortion is more readily available.
- Hundreds, if not thousands, of dead babies who didn't survive being born. For example, in Texas, infant mortality has increased 13%.
- Hundreds, if not thousands, of babies born with congenital abnormalities because the mothers were forced to give birth against their will. For example, in Texas congenital anomalies in new babies went up an astonishing 23%!
- Millions of women feeling great emotional stress and harm.
- Millions of families, and their children, facing financial strain.
- States with abortion bans have poorer health care because so many doctors, and probably nurses, have fled to safer ground.
- And yes, more children.More unwanted children who either will be abused, abandoned, or worse.
That would certainly be true of many of them.
"At least two dead women directly related to not being able to access abortion care1"
Two dead women. And how many tens of thousands of children lived because of that same lack of access to abortion "care"? Or does maternal emotional stress trump a babies life?I guess you ignored, or find uninteresting, the bolded items.
- Hundreds, if not thousands, of dead mothers who died needlessly in childbirth because they were prohibited from terminating their pregnancies. For example, University of Colorado Boulder found that states with abortion bans could see a 24% rise in maternal deaths. . Further, studies show that in states that restricted abortion before Dobbs had an astounding 62% higher rate of maternal mortality than in states were abortion is more readily available.
- Hundreds, if not thousands, of dead babies who didn't survive being born. For example, in Texas, infant mortality has increased 13%.
- Hundreds, if not thousands, of babies born with congenital abnormalities because the mothers were forced to give birth against their will. For example, in Texas congenital anomalies in new babies went up an astonishing 23%!All of those events are imagined and without actual data to support them.
Or can you provide a link to thousands of babies born with congenital abnormalities...because an abortion was not a real option? I think not, any more than you can provide actual, real data that thousands of dead babies stillborn because an abortion was not available (meaning they would live if aborted, I guess).
I would particularly like to see the data that thousands of mothers died in childbirth because they could not get an abortion. That one is a really interesting statement!Since they come from studies, I would offer it is you who is uninformed.
You can check maternal deaths as well as I can.To think that I would post statistics that aren't valid. You should know by now, I don't do that.
23% Anomalies: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2024/analy … nto-effect
Maternal Deaths: https://experts.colorado.edu/display/pubid_327591
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/public … e-outcomes
Infant Deaths: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2024/analy … nto-effect
https://kffhealthnews.org/morning-break … rtion-law/
On top of that, Living human beings have more and superior right than a mass of cells that might become a human being someday.Well, let's look at them individually. First, we find a paragraph on maternal deaths with the statements: "We update estimates of the maternal mortality..." and "This estimate quantifies the increase...". It's followed by: "We estimate the number of additional..." and "we estimate increased exposure...". I ask for data and statistics and you produce "estimates" without any facts at all. Just "estimates" by obviously biased people pushing the agenda they like best.
Then we get to the second link that says infant deaths are up - an obvious lie as tens of thousands of abortions (killing of our infants) is not happening. Then it goes on to say that there is a higher than normal rate of death due to congenital deformities because the kids were not murdered earlier - another statement free of any form of reason.
The final link is more of the same: without killing our infants in the womb, infant death is up 15%. A stupider statement cannot be formulated.
I can't figure out if you're being intentionally obtuse or if you actually think that ignoring what half the country thinks about abortion (the killing of our children) is the proper way to address the issue. Pretending that opinions just as valid as yours don't exist is NOT the way to find compromise or solutions. Nor is producing links about infant mortality rates that are outright lies...unless those differing opinions are ignored as non-existent. Put your thinking cap on and find reasons (as opposed to unsupported opinions) to determine that those masses of cells are not human (although they might become human one day). That's where the argument is, not in increasingly stupid statements that ignore the "truth" of the other half of the nation.It is a very simple concept. When there are more infant mortality deaths after Red states restrict abortion and before, and there is no other reasonable explanation, the cause is the abortion law.
When maternal mortality is much higher in states that restrict abortion than in those that do not, and there is no other reasonable explanation, the reason is the abortion restrictions.
Since my career with the military was "estimating" things, then what Colorado did is very reasonable and persuasive. Because you have no background or training in that field, I must take your opinion on the matter with a grain of salt.
I wonder how many other medieval states have tried to criminalize miscarriages like South Carolina did to this poor woman. God will get those sick people in the end for treating his creations (women) so poorly.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/23/health/s … index.htmlDoes it occur to you that God, even your god, dislikes having its creations murdered before they can even be born? If you're going the religious route, at least make it an honest one!
So, which one does your god want to survive for a while: a living female or a fetus that is dead in her womb.
THIS is the great harm Trump is proud of.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/24/us/video … lcl-digvidTrump's abortion ban... cruelty IS the point. This is so very sad...
https://youtu.be/fCI4y4En9vw?si=NZVUOArsshQrDWzsI'm not sure what your logic is in referring to Trump's abortion ban; it makes no sense to me. As far as I know, abortion laws are determined by individual states. Can you explain why you believe Trump has banned abortion? I must have missed something because, last I checked, the federal government had no authority over abortion. Please provide a source that shows Trump has banned abortion.
I would also question that "cruelty IS the point". No one is passing laws banning abortion with the goal being cruelty, and it takes a special attitude to think they are. I would question that statement even more than the idea that Trump banned abortions.
Thanks for bringing that up; I completely agree. The cruelty really does seem to be the underlying sentiment. I found her comments to be quite hyperbolic, but it's evident that's how she genuinely feels. The context clearly reflects that.
I sort of agree, but Cruelty is certainly the by-product.
The rational is pretty simple - But for Trump, none of those states would be taking away women's rights.
Then shouldn't you be blaming those millions that put him in office?
Or wait! Can't we blame his mother? And to a lesser extent his father? Without them "none of those states would be taking away women's rights."
Or perhaps SCOTUS, or at least those jurors that found the law to be wrong.
Last option might be the state legislators that actually voted to ban abortion? A know, a terrible thought as it doesn't put blame on Trump, but we really could blame the people that actually DID ban abortions!If those women know what he had in store for him, they wouldn't have voted him into office and Hillary would have been president and saved us four years of misery. And the lives of many women.
But for Trump, this wouldn't even be an issue. Full Stop, there is no getting around that conclusion..Then it must be those women (whoever "those" are), right? Had they not voted him into office it wouldn't have happened. But it is interesting that I haven't heard of a single woman that died because the law was found unconstitutional. Can you give links offering proof of those "many women" that have died?
(But I still think his mother is the best answer.)
Trump promised to put Supreme Court justices in place that would overturn Roe. He made good on that promise, with the help of the Federalist society, and he has even bragged about it. So yes, we are in the current patchwork of laws all because of Trump. Women are dying, giving birth to their rapists baby, and doctors aren't being allowed to intervene in life threatening circumstances until women are at deaths door, yes all because of Trump. He will certainly be held accountable at the ballot box.
You did not answer my question ---
Willowarbor wrote:
Trump's abortion ban... cruelty IS the point. This is so very sad...
https://youtu.be/fCI4y4En9vw?si=NZVUOArsshQrDWzs
My Reply -- I'm not sure what your logic is in referring to Trump's abortion ban; it makes no sense to me. As far as I know, abortion laws are determined by individual states. Can you explain why you believe Trump has banned abortion? I must have missed something because, last I checked, the federal government had no authority over abortion. Please provide a source that shows Trump has banned abortion.
Please try to stay factual.
Your comment makes some strong accusations, but it doesn't fully address the facts surrounding the Supreme Court's decision on Roe v. Wade or how it impacts medical care and women’s safety. It’s true that Trump appointed three justices, but the overturning of Roe v. Wade was the result of the Dobbs decision, which didn’t make abortion illegal; instead, it returned the decision-making power to individual states. As a result, we see a range of abortion laws across the country, from fully protected abortion rights to restricted access, depending on each state’s elected representatives and public sentiment.
The claim that Trump is solely responsible for today’s "patchwork" laws oversimplifies the situation. Various states have chosen their own paths based on public opinion, reflecting a more democratic approach rather than a federal mandate. In states where abortion is restricted, there are ongoing discussions around exceptions and medical care, but attributing the blame for every instance of denied care or a tragic outcome to Trump doesn’t acknowledge the wider factors at play. Medical intervention in life-threatening situations is generally still protected, though it varies by state, and reforms are already being considered where there have been issues.
It’s worth noting that Trump’s appointment of justices reflects a promise he made to his supporters who value a pro-life perspective. Accountability at the ballot box will be for both parties, as voters respond to how state laws are balancing both the rights of the unborn and women’s healthcare needs.
Pro-life citizens have just as much right to be heard and respected as you do.I would say Willowarbor presented all the necessary facts;
1. Trump repeated said he will appoint justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. Unless you have lived in a cave, you don't need a source for that.
2. Trump did appoint three Justices for the sole purpose to overturn Roe v. Wade, specifically, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett. That is also common knowledge and needs no source unless you are a hermit. (two of those Justices lied during confirmation claiming that Roe was settled law.)
3. All 6 conservative Justices voted to strip women of their fundamental, constitutionally guarantee of Right to Privacy, the foundation of Roe. Dobbs v. Jackson. Collateral damage will be LGBTQ+ protections, gay marriage, contraception, IVF, and possibly interracial marriage.
4. Simple logic does the rest.
You can use Deductive Reasoning
Deductive Reasoning: Deductive reasoning starts with a general statement or hypothesis and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion. Here, we begin with Trump’s general statement (premise) that he would appoint justices to overturn Roe:
Premise 1: Trump explicitly stated a goal of appointing justices who would likely oppose Roe v. Wade.
Premise 2: Trump appointed three conservative justices known for their originalist views, which often lean toward limiting federal interpretations of rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
Conclusion: Given these justices’ judicial philosophies, there was a high probability they would support overturning Roe, returning the power over abortion legislation to the states.
This is deductive because, if the premises are accepted as true, the conclusion (that the justices would favor overturning Roe) logically follows.
You can use Causal Logic
Causal Logic: Causal logic identifies a cause-and-effect relationship. Trump’s campaign promises, appointments, and the resulting Supreme Court decision demonstrate this:
Cause: Trump’s selection of justices who expressed views consistent with anti-Roe interpretations.
Effect: These justices joined in a decision that overturned Roe, as seen in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, leading to immediate state-level actions on abortion.
This causal link is evidenced by the justices’ track records and public statements, which showed a judicial philosophy favoring limited federal intervention in matters like abortion.
You can use Conditional Logic
Conditional Logic (If-Then Statements): Using conditional logic, we can interpret Trump’s actions as fulfilling an “if-then” condition:
If Trump appoints conservative, originalist justices with anti-Roe views, then there is a strong likelihood Roe would be challenged and potentially overturned.
If Roe is overturned, then abortion regulation would return to state legislatures, where numerous states had “trigger laws” prepared to restrict abortion upon such a decision.
Each step logically follows from the previous one, meaning Trump’s appointments created a likely chain of events leading to the outcome of Dobbs and subsequent state legislation.
Finally, you can use Syllogistic Logic
Syllogistic Logic: This type of logic draws on premises that lead to a conclusion. In this context:
Major Premise: Appointing justices with a conservative judicial philosophy makes it more likely for Roe to be overturned.
Minor Premise: Trump appointed three justices with conservative philosophies who then voted in favor of overturning Roe.
Conclusion: Therefore, Trump’s appointments directly contributed to the outcome of Dobbs, enabling states to enact abortion restrictions.
Bottom Line - it is absurd and disingenuous to argue that Trump was not the genesis of the states enacting laws whose logical outcome is the death of many women.
Nobody questions the fact that so-called Pro-Live citizens (I guess it turns on which "life" you are talking about, a mass of cells which can not independently survive or the mother who is actually alive until the law kills her) to be heard and respected.
What should NOT be questioned is they DO NOT have the right to TELL another how to live their life. And that is what has happened, right-wing legislators have TOLD WOMEN they must bear any fetus that is growing in their body whether it will kill them or not or whether the fetus is even growing anymore. That is as immoral as you can possibly get.This was what she said --- "Willowarbor wrote:
Trump's abortion ban... cruelty IS the point. This is so very sad..."
As I said, Trump did not ban abortion. I’m not interested in discussing this further with either of you. I prefer to stick to the facts, and my perspective differs from yours in this case. I don’t appreciate anyone claiming that Trump banned abortion because that is simply not true. That is a lie.But for Trump, this wouldn't even be an issue. Full Stop, there is no getting around that conclusion.
There is nobody else to blame. All the rest was a consequence of what Trump did.
The fact that you choose not to grasp logic doesn't make saying so a lie. It is literally the definition of the truth.
For each one of the women who die from the laws that were created because, and only because, of Trump's initial action is on him.Odd. Had the legislature in Idaho not voted to virtually ban abortion in Idaho it would not have happened. Exactly what you are saying about Trump, but they carry no blame - just Trump? How does that work?
Had just two more SCOTUS justices voted not to overturn RvW, it would not have happened. But they carry no blame - only Trump. How does that work again?
None of the hundreds of people that actually passed laws banning abortion are to blame for it, but Trump is although he made no law and took no action to ban it. Only helped make it possible for others to make the laws.
I think your logic is sadly lacking in logic. It took hundreds if not thousands of people, all acting as they did, to produce the results we have today - putting 100% of the blame on just one of them is irrational.Is this a lie? --- Trump's abortion ban.
"No one else to blame" --- do you not recognize how unrealistic this sounds?
"The fact that you choose not to grasp logic doesn't make saying so a lie. It is literally the definition of the truth."
Whose logic are you talking about—yours? It seems you think your perspective is the only one that matters. Many people don’t respect your logic; we have millions of pro-lifers who strongly disagree with you. Dismissing the views of others and acting as if you know it all is a poor characteristic. That kind of mindset speaks volumes and can come across as illogical in every sense.The logic is that of TDS; everything bad MUST be put on Trump, nothing good can apply to him. It's a special form, so new it hasn't hit the textbooks yet.
I know that sounds snarky (and it is), but it's also truth. There is no possible "logic" in blaming Trump, and only Trump, for the thousands of actions, events and plans that have resulted in the abortion mess we have today.Dan, I agree; the situation has become absurd. These radical voices on the left can't blame anyone else but Trump. Just listen to Harris's daily rhetoric about Trump—it’s telling. They’re the ones pushing division, pointing fingers, stirring up hostility, and misrepresenting his agenda. The lies are blatant and escalating, from the claim that Trump wants to ban abortion to the scare tactics around Social Security and Medicare. These scripted distortions are outrageous and reveal a clear agenda. Hopefully, people with common sense will see through this propaganda and reject it.
In contrast, Trump’s campaign is focused on what he aims to accomplish, highlighting the critical issues that need urgent attention. His approach feels upbeat and even nostalgic, reminding me of how campaigns used to be. No, it’s not all joy—it's about hope. He offers a vision to fix what's broken and move forward to a better America. While he doesn’t shy away from addressing long-standing problems, he does so with a clear message on how he plans to tackle them and bring real solutions.Harris has gotten almost comical; 9 times out of 10 if her mouth is open she is denigrating Trump. That's all she has to say - "We have to get rid of Donald Trump".
When did it become true that telling the truth about someone is "denigrating" them? For that to work, they have to by lying - and Harris is not.
Also, she is not "trying to get "rid" of Trump", she is trying to stop him from finishing his attempt to destroy America.When it is opinion rather than fact. I recognize that you think her opinions ARE fact, but they are not. Neither are the names she calls him factual - they are just derogatory without real meaning. And yes, much of what she is saying is an outright lie. You don't want it to be, so believe it is not, but she is lying much of the time. She lies as much as Trump does - the only difference is that she tries to hide her lies, pretending she didn't mean them, while most of Trump's are just repeating stories and exaggerating them.
Of course she is trying to get Trump out of politics; that has been the goal of Democrats for over 8 years now.
Finally, Harris will do a much better job of destroying America than Trump will. MUCH better.To think, we get to live through this moment in time...
Basement Biden followed by Crazy Kamala... wow... can you imagine the direction the world is going to go in with four more years of such incompetence at the helm of America?If we can avoid WWIII (IF), we will lose the "land of the free" and sink into the abyss that Europe is. We will survive, but at the cost of our country and our souls, becoming nothing more than another slave to those at the top.
Trump has already led us halfway to losing our freedoms. Electing him will complete the job he started in 2016 and hasn't stopped since, including an insurrection to overthrow an election.
Apparently, no one can "imagine the direction the world is going to go in with four more years of such incompetence at the helm of America" and this lack of vision is the problem.
Yes, America will become even greater than Biden/Harris have made it already.
Harris has such vitriol against Trump. It is her aim to DESTROY Trump & those who disagree w/her "policies" whether they are conservative, moderate, or traditional liberal. She views those who love America as totally retrogressive in scope. She even hates those who are Christian-she told two Christian college students to leave her rally because they disagreed w/her. She is a VERY VINDICTIVE person. She & Biden are obsessed w/ destroying Trump.
So many have this OBSESSION for Trump. It is SAD really. Is it envy? Do they secretly wish they WERE TRUMP?
I surmise, it is a love for and an indulgence in glumness and gloom. Whenever anyone tells me to shut up about Trump, they seem so negative. A positive charge about them is absent. They are Sanpaku/very yin. They need to eat more yang vegetables like carrots and beets, perhaps.
https://www.amazon.com/SANPAKU-Ohsawa-G … B00IEWOOUS
So well said... I feel she poses a danger to the country. She just does not have what it takes for the job.
Oh, give me a break.
Here is what Harris has said about Trump:
* Referencing former Trump White House Chief of Staff John Kelly's allegations that Trump sought loyalty akin to that of dictators, specifically invoking parallels to authoritarian figures, she rightfully called Trump a fascist.
* During debates, Harris taunted Trump over the size of his rallies, his previous bankruptcies, and his inherited wealth. ALL TRUE.
* Harris has said factually that world leaders do not take Trump seriously and that he is laughed at on the world stage. That said, world leaders are at the same time Trump will ruin the world order.
* Harris has used Trump's bragging about taking women's rights away to highlight what she describes as Trump's extreme and invasive approach to personal freedoms
Things Trump has said about Harris:
* Trump has called her "retarded".
* Trump has called her a communist and Marxist when she exhibits none of those characteristics.
* Trump has falsely said Harris is "lazy" and "stupid"
* Trump uses a Hitleresque phrase that describes Harris as the "enemy within".
No question Trumps words were more vitriolic.
As to Harris telling two college students to leave --- well that is simply NOT TRUE. https://www.12news.com/article/news/ver … 12840a6462 You will see she didn't say won anti-Christian thing, not one. She did suggest to the hecklers that they were at the wrong rally and probably meant to be at the smaller one down the street.
Please talk to Liz Cheney and hundreds of others Trump has sought revenge against if you are going to talk about someone being VERY VINDICTIVE. She is actually VERY POLITE.
But telling the truth about someone is not an opinion, it is fact.
How come you never use evidence to back up ridiculous statements like "Harris will do a much better job of destroying America than Trump will".
Since you don't, nobody believes you.
TDS has nothing to do with this. Heads in the sand do, however.
OH! I see you just moved the goal post, by adding "and only Trump" to this. But I guess you are right. If Trump did not do what he did, then the following would not have happened:
1. The Conservative Court would not have overturned Roe
2. The States would not have been able to restrict abortion.
3. Women would not be dying due to the restrictions that were passed because Trump appointed those justices.And I gave you an even more complete list of other "if" statements. A list you ignore as if it isn't there...because it doesn't blame Trump for what other people did.
Wild, don't even try. It is totally useless. There are some who blindly follow the Democratic Party, knowing how the Democratic Party put the country in disrepair. There are people who cheerlead for Biden despite his inane & dangerous policies. The Democratic Party is the DICTATORIAL party. Trump wasn't/isn't a dictator. America was MUCH BETTER under Trump than it was under Biden-Harris. It is sad that some people REFUSE to see it.
Knowing how the Democrats fixed or are fixing what Trump broke is more like it. I am not MAGA, therefore I don't follow anything blindly. I go where the truth and facts lead me and not a crazy demagogue.
Still waiting an any PROOF of your claims. I suspect I will be waiting for a long time since there is none.
But, on the other side, besides Trump SAYING he is going to be one, why is it so many Republican legislators tell reporters on background that Trump is dangerous and isn't fit for office yet are so scared of his retribution they are terrified to say it aloud. Cowards all.You are not MAGA and therefore you don't follow anything blindly.
Your logic is sorely lacking. Even if MAGA was about following blindly it says nothing about hundreds of different ways/topics to "follow blindly". From the Pope to Harris, from BLM to WOKE there are many, many ways to follow blindly. And people do, whether MAGA or not.
Yet Trump got the ball rolling, didn't he.
Actually no, his mother did.
But truthfully - the "ball" has been rolling ever since RvW. From demonstrations to murders of abortion doctors to shutting down clinics to prohibiting funding of anyone remotely connected to abortions the ball has been rolling. I suppose, with the tepid response to such things it was inevitable.
Don't you recognize how blind you are to the truth and logic of it. Again, this says it all: But for Trump none of this would have happened. We wouldn't be having this conversation.
Said another way: IF TRUMP had not appointed Justices dedicated to overturning Roe v. Wade, we wouldn't be having this discussion because women would still have their rights. I just do not under stand how you can not see this.
Try another way: Had Hillary been President, then Roe would still be law.
No matter which way you cut it, Trump is at the apex of all this misery.
Pro-lifers. Are you suggesting that Pro-Lifers don't recognize Trump as president. Are you saying they simply don't believe Trump appointed anti-abortion justices to the bench? If they don't believe these simple truths, they have a real problem understanding the real world.Let me clarify my view. I’m simply sharing my own insight, and it’s clear we see things differently. Not everyone shares your views on abortion or Trump’s appointment of three justices. Many pro-lifers celebrate his commitment to appoint conservative justices, and they have every right to their beliefs and to celebrate the overturning of Roe. I don’t understand why you feel that your views should take precedence over theirs; that mindset assumes you’re right and they aren’t. This seems like groupthink, with little respect for others' feelings on the abortion issue.
I don’t dismiss a large group of people—I have my values. Your first sentence, “Don’t you recognize how blind you are to the truth and logic of it,” comes across as an attempt to impose your views on me, as if you hold some sort of superiority over my perspective. That could be taken as insulting, though I’m someone who considers all sides." Not everyone shares your views on abortion or Trump’s appointment of three justices." - That is a curious thing to say. Either he did appoint the justices or he didn't. What does my or their view have to with anything.
Am I missing something?Yes, you miss context due to choosing one sentence, and not reading the complete paragraph.
My comment - Let me clarify my view. I’m simply sharing my own insight, and it’s clear we see things differently. Not everyone shares your views on abortion or Trump’s appointment of three justices. Many pro-lifers celebrate his commitment to appoint conservative justices, and they have every right to their beliefs and to celebrate the overturning of Roe.
More simply put -- Pro-lifers were thrilled and yes celebrated when Trump appointed three conservative justices to the Supreme Court, leading to the celebration of Roe being overturned.I read the complete paragraph. You said these things:
1. You and I see things differently. TRUE, so long as it isn't seeing facts differently.
2. Not everyone shares my views on abortion. NO doubt.
3. Not everyone shares shares my "views" on Trump's appointments. MINE is not a "view", it is a fact that he appointed those justices. Your statement implies some pro-lifers don't think he did. Said another way, if some people disagree with my assertion that Trump appointed those justices, that is the same thing as saying Trump did not appoint them.
4. Many pro-lifers celebrate his commitment ... AND that goes without saying as well.
Other than point three, how does any of that DENY the fact that Trump DID appoint those justices with the STATED purpose to overturn Roe which THEN led to all the other, IMO, bad things happening including the death of at least three mothers.
Remember, the question is did Trump start the series of events that ultimately to those women dying? And, in your answer above, it seems to me you basically agreed with that premise.
Isn't that why the anti-choice "celebrated" Trump's appointments? Isn't it because that because of Trump's actions, they will get their way in telling women what they can do with their bodies?
Attempting to use logic again. If A caused B to happen, and B caused C to happen, THEN it must be true that A caused C to happen.
Or another way: if 2 SCOTUS justices had voted the other way it would not have happened.
Or another way; if state legislators had not voted in new laws banning abortions they would not be banned.
Or another way; if Mary Anne Trump had not given birth abortions would not have been banned.
Or another way; if millions of people had not voted Trump as president it would not have happened.
No matter which way you cut it, Trump is far down the list of people responsible for the ban, and if he had not been President it might have happened anyway. And no, you do not get to claim you know that that would never have happened; people have been working on it for 50 years and showed no sign of stopping.But they didn't, did they and Trump knew that. He had it in the bag because Alito and Thomas were sure anti-choice votes. Those two and the three Trump specifically chose to overturn Roe was enough.
Do they have duplicates of Trump's crystal ball? Because I would sure like one.
And after all the SCOTUS judges voted, he still had to know, somehow, that so many state legislators would vote to end abortion. How do you think he knew what all those hundreds or thousands of people would do?As you keep pointing out, Trump has a lot of common sense. You don't need crystal balls to know how disastrous to women his actions would cause. You just need to be intelligent enough to listen to what people are saying.
Here is more cruelty.
Conservative Supreme Court Kills Another Woman and puts another one in jail.
In 2022, Lizelle Gonzalez spent two nights in jail in Texas for a self-administered medicated abortion. She sued and a judge just said her suit could continue because that wasn't illegal in Texas then.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/25/us/texas … index.html
28-year old Josseli Barnica was told that it would be a "crime" to intervene in her miscarriage because the fetus still had cardiac activity, despite her 17-week pregnancy already resulting in a miscarriage that was "in progress," according to medical records obtained by ProPublica. SHE DIED 40 HOURS LATER. I hope her family sues Texas and files a criminal complaint for manslaughter.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/wo … r-AA1te2D2The subsequent deaths of women due to the reversal of Roe v Wade is the result of politicizing a health issue.
Republicans want smaller government? Start here.For those who don't think cruelty is the point, that this isn't all about power and control...
Researchers calculated the number of pregnancies resulting from rape in states where abortion was banned throughout pregnancy after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision.
"A study estimates that more than 64,000 pregnancies resulted from rape between July 1, 2022, and January 1, 2024, in states where abortion has been banned throughout pregnancy in all or most cases. Of these, just more than 5,500 are estimated to have occurred in states with rape exceptions—and nearly 59,000 are estimated for states without exceptions. The authors calculate that more than 26,000 rape-caused pregnancies may have taken place in Texas alone. The findings were published in the JAMA Internal Medicine."
Trump made it all possible with his SCOTUS picks. States would not be allowed to further victimize women and girls who have been raped without Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … estimates/And because the dice produces pregnancies means that banning abortion is intended to hurt those women. The goal, the whole point of the bans, is to hurt women. (If you think I'm misreading your words, re-read your first sentence).
The only thing that can be said to such a statement is that it is one of the saddest things I've seen printed here, and that says a lot. That anyone could possibly think that the goal of saving the life of 64,000 babies was to hurt their mothers is pitiful beyond belief.
"States would not be allowed to further victimize women and girls who have been raped without Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch"
But those three carry no blame for the abortion bans. Neither does Mary Trump. Neither do the thousands of people proposing laws to implement the ban, or the ones voting the proposals into law. Only Trump. I trust you understand how silly that sounds - the one man that did not propose any bans and did not vote any bans into law, is the only one responsible for the bans.
Candace Fails screamed for someone in the Texas hospital to help her pregnant daughter. “Do something,” she pleaded, on the morning of Oct. 29, 2023.
Nevaeh Crain was crying in pain, too weak to walk, blood staining her thighs. Feverish and vomiting the day of her baby shower, the 18-year-old had gone to two different emergency rooms within 12 hours, returning home each time worse than before.
The first hospital diagnosed her with strep throat without investigating her sharp abdominal cramps. At the second, she screened positive for sepsis, a life-threatening and fast-moving reaction to an infection, medical records show. But doctors said her six-month fetus had a heartbeat and that Crain was fine to leave.
Now on Crain’s third hospital visit, an obstetrician insisted on two ultrasounds to “confirm fetal demise,” a nurse wrote, before moving her to intensive care.
By then, more than two hours after her arrival, Crain’s blood pressure had plummeted and a nurse had noted that her lips were “blue and dusky.” Her organs began failing.
[i]Hours later, she was dead.
Before Trump had vowed to end protections for women, before he appointed three justices to accomplish the deed, and before they did strip women of their rights with the Dobbs decision, the above story would not have been told.
Why? Because of Texas law that resulted from Trump and Dobbs.
"“Pregnant women have become essentially untouchables,” said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law and policy professor emerita at George Washington University.
Texas’s abortion ban threatens prison time for interventions that end a fetal heartbeat, whether the pregnancy is wanted or not. It includes exceptions for life-threatening conditions, but still, doctors told ProPublica that confusion and fear about the potential legal repercussions are changing the way their colleagues treat pregnant patients with complications.
In states with abortion bans, such patients are sometimes bounced between hospitals like “hot potatoes,” with health care providers reluctant to participate in treatment that could attract a prosecutor, doctors told ProPublica. In some cases, medical teams are wasting precious time debating legalities and creating documentation, preparing for the possibility that they’ll need to explain their actions to a jury and judge.
Dr. Jodi Abbott, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University School of Medicine, said patients are left wondering: “Am I being sent home because I really am OK? Or am I being sent home because they’re afraid that the solution to what’s going on with my pregnancy would be ending the pregnancy, and they’re not allowed to do that?”
It goes on to say that "There is a federal law to prevent emergency room doctors from withholding lifesaving care.". But No, Wait. The Conservatives on the Supreme Court ruled recently that essentially the federal gov't is powerless to protect lives in these situations. The federal government must let the states kill these women.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/03/health/t … index.html
What America needs is a compassionate mega wealthy person to set up a foundation that will pay move women who are having problems with their pregnancy out of their state to some safe haven that wont kill them. Either that, or the federal government should do it themselves.Personally I think it would be better (and probably easier) to find enough thoughtful people in every state to re-institute RvW (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) in their state. This has already begun, and I expect it to continue to happen.
The problem with that, as good as it would be, is those people would have to vote out enough of the current set of Republican legislators and vote in ones sympathetic to Roe for that to happen.
If all states allowed referendums. that would be the easiest path, but they don't. Even when they do, governors like DeSantis will actively spend state money (which is illegal of course) to defeat a pro-choice ballot.Oh, I don't think so. The squeaky wheel gets the grease; let the pro-choice group get as noise and obnoxious as the pro-life and legislators will get the message. Either give us abortions or find new work.
And (I think) there are a lot more (a LOT more) pro choice than pro-life) people. Especially now when we are seeing what the pro-life group will do if given a chance.Cart before the horse. First step is to get big and get vocal. Then worry about changing the law, and the DeSantis's of the country will help, not hinder.
I live in Florida and I voted to change DeSantis abortion restrictions thru Amendment ballot today.....
This is what is wonderful about America. You could vote on such an issue, as we did in Michigan. The majority in Florida will win the day.
Some states will not put it on the ballot, and the people need to be heard, and supported."Some states will not put it on the ballot, and the people need to be heard, and supported."
Yes that is true. In my narrow-minded draconian State of Arkansas, I was a legal editor of the Arkansas Code Annotated for almost 30 years. When the people want an initiated act on the ballot, they must get enough signatures on petitions for the act to be put on the ballot. (I assume it works this way in other states, too.) The signatures must be counted and approved, but worst of all, the ballot title and subtitle must be approved by the Attorney General. I've seen many an initiated act not make it to the voters because it wasn't approved by the "right" people in power. It would be thrown out on a technicality that the title or subtitle didn't meet their approval. In a few cases, it was early enough that the people who initiated the act fought it in court and won, and it appeared on the ballot anyway. In some cases, such as legalizing medical marijuana, it took several years as they tried and tried to get it on the ballot before it was successful. Sometimes an initiated act never makes it.You make a very valid point.
In Florida, the Amendment 4 lost with 57% of the vote, it needed 60% after the Republicans changed the rules when some amendments they didn't like were past.
Truth be told, however, I am not sure the 60% test is a bad thing. Way to often emotions get in the way of reason and bad law can be passed or bad people can get elected by demagoguery, 60% may be too high, but I think it needs to be greater than 50%.I can see how frustrating that process must be, especially with so many roadblocks preventing initiatives from even making it to the ballot. Honestly, I didn’t realize just how many stumbling blocks there could be when the decision was handed back to the states. At the time, I thought it would simply mean people in each state would have more say, but I can see now how technicalities and politics can really derail that.
I understand the need for some level of oversight, like making sure ballot titles and subtitles aren’t misleading, but it’s frustrating to think that legitimate efforts could be thrown out on what feels like a power play or a technicality. I hadn’t considered how hard it might be for citizens to actually get their voices heard under this kind of system. It really highlights some of the problems we face in making democracy work as it should.
My bottom line is that women deserve to be heard in every state without unnecessary stumbling blocks. Look at what happened in Michigan—the majority spoke, and their voices were clear.Patiently waiting for the day that the case is brought forward of a fully actualized , human who exists outside the womb attempting to claim the rights that have been given solely to the embryo.
The Conservative Justices on the Court knew exactly what would happen when they used illogic to overturn Roe. I did a little research and if you take their reasoning at face value, then very few individual liberties would pass muster for federal control.
The majority wrongly held that that abortion is neither a constitutional right mentioned in the Constitution nor a fundamental right implied by the concept of ordered liberty that comes from Palko v. Connecticut.[1]
Here is how idiotic their reasoning can get.
Believe it or not, the Right to Vote is not mentioned in the Constitution. Since it is not, they would have to fall back to the concept "ordered liberty" to decide the case.
The Constitution does provide for elections but leaves it up to the states on who may vote. At the time, only property owning white males could vote. Several constitutional amendments were passed to get past the discrimination many states put in place to control who gets to vote. Right now it is anybody over the age of 18 and isn't, some states, a felon.
But that is not 'guaranteed'. Let's take what used to be an absurd hypothetical and say a state wanted only rich people to vote, so they pass a law that says your gross annual income must exceed $10,000,000 and the law is applied across the board: to 18 year old's, blacks, women or anybody currently covered by any of the amendments designed to protect voting rights.
That ridiculous scenario would have to adjudicated by the Supreme Court. Given the current make-up of the Court, I could see this passing constitutional muster.
Consider:
* Voting rights are not mentioned in the basic Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
* Clearly this doesn't fall under the "ordered liberty" exception since every other time a voting right had to be extended it took a constitutional amendment.
I could easily see Alito and Thomas saying that to stop discrimination of poor folk by the states, an amendment must be passed.
And that is how ridiculous the Dobbs decision was.You make some good points. I spent so many years analyzing legal crap, and I don't use the word "crap" loosely, that now that I'm retired, I don't even try anymore. Thank you for your analyses.
My final predictions are:
AZ, GA, NC to Trump
MI, NV, PA, and WI to Harris.
Harris EC 277, Trump EC 263Texas has taken the next draconian step in its war against women - they are suing a doctor in New York for prescribing a Texas women an abortion pill. The suit is civil for $250,000 and not criminal. They are certainly sick so-and-sos (and that includes Alito, Thomas and the other Conservatives who voted to strip women of their God-given right to control their own bodies.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/13/politics … index.htmlWonder how a Texas court will enforce a Texas law on a person living and operating in New York. I also wonder just how they figure they have standing to sue at all in a civil court. I'm certainly not a lawyer, but that sounds really interesting.
The women, particularly white women only have themselves to blame. The majority of them still supported Trump this last November. I tell black women that this "sisterhood" stuff is just a scam and diversion from the reality of the fact that the Anglo women's votes are the opposite of what they have professed. They voted for Trump and Trump will give them what he promised " a handmaidens tale". I have always wondered about the disparity between the votes of black women verses those of white women and wonder if the latter chose to align with their professed tormentors to acquire whatever crumbs are available from the master's table?
To think that Republicans have gaslit this issue to the point where your bodily integrity anywhere is the mere equivalent of casting lots? I am glad that I am not a woman, I would be furious. Through your apathy and duplicity, you allowed this man Trump to prevail, selling out your reproductive options over an increase in the price of ground beef? I thought that you really believed that it was "your body" and after the reproductive rights attacks of the last 3 years, you were not going to let anybody drag you around by your umbilical cords. I was wrong.
I don't feel sorry for you as there will be a modern equivalent of the Underground Railroad for so many women, trying to successfully negotiate the patchwork of state laws regarding the matter. First, it begins with trying to control what you ingest. Next, they will threaten your right to mobility from a restrictive state to another where reproductive rights are respected. Finally a national amendment restricting abortion rights for all women in every state making all blue states as revolting as Texas is now, imagine that? And don't think for a minute that Trump won't give in to the extremists as that is his brand.
But always remember, you asked for it....
-------
Every breath you take
And every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
I'll be watching you
Every single day
And every word you say
Every game you play
Every night you stay
I'll be watching you
The song: "Every Breath You Take"
Synchronicity Album
The Police (1983)Credence, I wish to hell I could tell you that you are wrong, but I can't. You are 100% right. What is wrong with women? Frankly, I don't care what color they are, but if they voted to throw away their rights to Trump, they are either yellow spined or just plain crazy. My reproductive days were during the 60s through the 80s, when women were real women! We fought or equality and got it, and now our daughters and granddaughters have given it away. I do have a millenial granddaughter and I know how she voted, so I am proud of her. But her mother, father and brother all drank the Trump koolaid. This young lady actually had her tubes removed so there would be no chance of an accidental pregnancy, fortunately for her, about a year before Roe v. Wade was slashed from our rights. She was still married at the time, but a very problem pregnancy left her fearing for her life if she became pregnant again. Her husband approved because he was scared stiff that another pregnancy would kill her and he'd be left with two babies to raise by himself, so it affects the men, the potential fathers, too. But back to the brainwashing of women. Now riddle me this:
Why are black women and men turning to Trump as stats showed that he has made progress in that area? This just feels treasonous to me.
I say once again that I am so proud of the brave women of my generation, but did we make things too easy for our children and grandchildren? I expect that we will find out.Well, Ms B. It pains me to express these observations as much as it pains you to acknowledge them. I was simply expecting so much better.
I believe the incursion of reproductive rights is just the beginning, issues
r regarding contraceptions has been discussed within rightwing circles. How much is reproductive freedom associated with freedom in so many other aspects of American life for women? With all the macho "tradwives" stuff from the Neaderthols that are firmly aligned with Trump and his movement, what incursions are next? None of this is going to end well, you can be sure of that.
I go back to Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem during the 1970s when they forced society to change. I supported their rights as I knew how much we had to fight for ours and experience has shown that omelets cannot be made unless you break an egg or two.
You have been around for a while, why did the women sell out?"
To attempt to answer your question, please peruse the article. It is from a black controlled publication, but I suspect that there is no bias.
"Early exit polls from The Washington Post show that 78% of Black men voted for Kamala Harris. The vice president’s numbers were just one point under those who voted for Joe Biden in 2020."
"Nevertheless, Trump still made notable gains with Black men, earning an estimated 20 percent of Black male voters per Politico. In specific states like North Carolina, Black male voters did break for Trump, with 1 in 5 Black men voting for him, which was twice his support in 2020, according to CBS exit polls."
"According to Washington Post exit polls, Black women overwhelmingly voted for Harris, with 92% voting for her — even higher than the number of Black women who voted for Biden in 2020."
"According to Washington Post exit polls, the majority of white voters — 55% — voted for Donald Trump. When broken down by gender, 59% of white men voted for Trump, and 52% of white women followed. There was no massive departure of white female voters from white male voters."
https://thegrio.com/2024/11/06/exit-pol … la-harris/Just to add some context since all white women are being painted with a very broad brush. I think your comments apply to a much smaller subset:
From an NBC exit poll:
* Women who voted for Harris: 53% - common sense says they should have been much higher.
* White Women who voted for Harris: 46%
* Black Women who voted for Harris: 92%!
* Latino Women who voted for Harris: 58%
* Women age 18 - 44 who voted for Harris: 59% (avg)
* White Women with college degrees who voted for Harris: 58%
* White Women without college degrees who voted for Harris: 38%
And finally * White Evangelicals who voted for Harris: 17%
So, in my mind the women who deserve the vitriol are White, not college educated, 45 or older, and Evangelical.You are probably right, but I am going to have to go back and analyze your statistics with those of Credence who also seems to be right. It seems to depend on which medium is the source. I'm just disgusted to see all our hard work of the 60s and 70s flushed down the drain and especially to see the women of any color of today joining them. By the way, I had to fight my own (at that time) husband to be able to be with the brave women in spirit. That is up until 1972, when we split and I could think for myself. Today that man and our oldest son are MAGA hardliners! I hope you understand where I'm coming from.
I certainly do and congratulate you on breaking free.
It's important to be educated about the scientific process of gestation, even if only to understand the science behind what is being aborted. I could ascertain that some women might be interested in the science, and some won't be interested. But at best let's not be fooled by labels that misrepresent science and facts of when abortions are commonly performed.
The most common time for women to get an abortion is before 13 weeks of pregnancy, with the majority occurring very early in the first trimester. Here’s a detailed breakdown based on U.S. statistics from the CDC and other health organizations:
92.2% of abortions occur at 13 weeks or earlier, primarily in the first trimester.
58.2% happen at 9 weeks or earlier, often before significant fetal development has occurred.
34% take place between 10 and 13 weeks.
7.6% of abortions occur between 14 and 20 weeks, during the second trimester.
Only 1.2% of abortions happen at 21 weeks or later (considered late-term abortions).
Why Do Most Abortions Occur Early?
Several factors contribute to most abortions occurring during the first trimester:
Awareness of Pregnancy: Many women discover they are pregnant early and seek an abortion soon after.
Fewer Medical Barriers: Early abortions are often easier to access and less expensive, with more options available (e.g., medication abortion).
Lower Risk: Earlier procedures carry fewer risks and complications.
Second-Trimester Abortions
Abortions later in pregnancy, though less common, often result from delays in recognizing pregnancy, accessing care, or discovering fetal or maternal health complications.
This data highlights that most women seek abortions early in pregnancy, usually before significant fetal development milestones like advanced organ formation or viability.
Most women do not have an abortion during the first 8 weeks, which is the embryonic stage of development. According to statistics from the CDC and other health organizations, the majority of abortions occur later, during the fetal stage. Here’s a breakdown of when most abortions take place:
58.2% of abortions are performed at 9 weeks or later, which includes the embryonic stage and the very early fetal stage.
28.6% of abortions occur between 10 and 13 weeks.
9.4% of abortions occur between 14 and 20 weeks.
Only 1.2% of abortions are performed at 21 weeks or later (considered late-term abortions).
These numbers show that while many abortions happen early in pregnancy, a significant percentage occur after the embryonic stage when the fetus is more developed.
The Life of an Embryo
The embryonic stage refers to the first 8 weeks of development, beginning at conception. This stage is crucial because it’s when the foundations for all major organs and systems are formed.
Timeline and Key Developments
Fertilization (Day 0)
A sperm fertilizes an egg, forming a zygote with unique DNA.
First Week: Zygote to Blastocyst
The zygote divides and becomes a blastocyst, which implants into the uterus around Day 6-10.
Week 3: Early Structures Form
The embryo develops layers that will become the nervous system, heart, and other organs.
Week 4: Heartbeat Begins
The heart starts beating at around Day 21-22, but it’s a simple rhythm produced by a developing heart tube.
Weeks 5-6: Neural Development
The brain and spinal cord begin forming. Basic neural activity starts, but consciousness and pain perception are not present.
Weeks 7-8: Organ Formation
By the end of Week 8, all major organ systems have started forming. Facial features and limbs are developing. After this stage, the embryo transitions into a fetus.
Heartbeat and Brain Function
Heartbeat: The heart beats as early as 3 weeks (5 weeks of pregnancy), but it’s a basic pump that doesn’t indicate full organ functionality.
Brain Function: Primitive neural activity begins in Week 5, but meaningful brain function and pain perception occur much later, during the fetal stage.
Understanding Timing in Context
Given that most abortions occur after the embryonic stage, it’s important to recognize the developmental differences and the science behind them. These details can help inform discussions about abortion and clarify misconceptions about when certain milestones, like heartbeat and brain function, occur.I would assume as a Christian it is at conception. When do you feel it may occur?
I can only offer my personal view, and I believe the topic of ensoulment is very individual. Some people may bring religious or spiritual beliefs into their views on abortion, including ideas about when ensoulment occurs, but these are personal convictions and not legally binding factors in most places. Personally, I think some women, like myself, would truly consider the idea of ensoulment when making such a decision.
My previous comment was meant to highlight the science of gestation.
I don't like when science is first misquoted, and second, when it's used in a way that justifies abortion in someone's mind. When elitists use terminology, they need to understand the facts and not make offhand statements that are unacceptable.
I feel that it's important to be careful when labeling what is being aborted, especially using terms like "zygote" or "embryo." The majority of women wouldn't even know they were pregnant during that early stage. I dislike how some use terms like "a few cells" or "an unrecognizable formation of cells" to diminish what’s actually happening. While this may be true at certain stages, it’s not the full picture. Science can provide clear facts about gestation, and most women don’t obtain abortions during the embryonic stage—it’s usually after 8 weeks.
So, your argument raises another issue for women who believe in the concept of a soul, like I do. It’s just another aspect that some women might deeply consider when making this personal choice. Not sure many women faced with the issue of ensoulment even seek an abortion. I mean, when one has deeply held religious values, in my view, they would likely only seek an abortion in extreme circumstances.20 states in total either ban abortion completely or have a 6 week limit. Politicians essentially bestowing rights upon the embryo that exist for no other being...the government has no business coming between a woman and her physician. It is heinous overreach .
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I value it.
"I would assume as a Christian it is at conception. When do you feel it may occur?"
From my understanding through reading and study over the years the canonical scriptures does not directly address ensoulment nor abortion. Yes, there is scripture that heavily 'infers' ensoulment 'may' be at conception. One is left with their own reasoning, though with study is influenced by authors/others or authorities such as the doctrine of Catholicism.
Anyway for myself, at this time, I have no set in stone belief when it occurs. I tend to lean toward that it is actually a continuum seeking completeness and not a particular instant moment in time.
When discussing the soul one is dealing with the immaterial contrast the material. Science deals with the material and philosophy deals with the immaterial. However, today, quantum theory/mechanics has been in pursuit for it to answer questions of the soul/immaterial. Interesting, yet using a phrase from the '60's or '70's "it is mind blowing".I agree that the canonical scriptures do not directly address ensoulment or abortion, and much of what is discussed relies on inference, interpretation, or doctrinal teachings. As you mentioned, Catholic doctrine and other theological perspectives often point toward conception as the starting point of ensoulment, though this is still a matter of faith and reasoning rather than definitive scriptural evidence.
Your view of ensoulment as a continuum seeking completeness is thought-provoking and aligns with some philosophical and even process-theological ideas that life and the soul unfold progressively rather than appearing in a single instant. This approach also allows space for nuance and exploration, which feels appropriate when addressing something as immaterial and profound as the soul.
That said, opposing views often highlight scriptures where the psalmist speaks of God knitting them together in the womb, as evidence that human life—and potentially the soul—is intentional and formed from the earliest stages. Others may turn to the concept of breath in Genesis, suggesting that life and soul begin with the first breath after birth. These interpretations reveal how perspectives on ensoulment can diverge even within religious thought.
Your point about quantum theory is fascinating. While science traditionally deals with the material world, quantum physics has pushed the boundaries of what we understand about consciousness and reality itself. Some suggest this could bridge the gap between the material and immaterial, though the findings are still far from conclusive. It’s indeed “mind-blowing” and demonstrates how even in modern times, questions of the soul remain both timeless and elusive.
To me, you hit the nail on the head - it is an individual decision based on ones own belief system and shouldn't be subject to another person's view of the world, no mater how strongly they believe it.
The more I thought about your question I felt you deserved a better answer. Simple and truthful.
I believe that ensoulment occurs at conception. For me, it feels like the moment when life truly begins, and I see it as the point at which a unique soul is bestowed upon a new life. While I know others might have different beliefs about when ensoulment happens—whether later in fetal development or at birth—I think it's important to respect all perspectives. For me, personally, it’s something that’s deeply connected to my understanding of life and the soul, and I hold that view with conviction.I appreciate this response with respect. I shared a response at your first reply if you didn't see it.
Sharing, I am always befuddled by the adage, "I am soul blessed with a body". In that context, we have the chicken and the egg paradox at play. Which came first? The cause and effect scenario.
Of course, I consider the atheist's position. In that event it is not the soul in question, yet more than likely consciousness with discussions of personhood related to abortion. That gives cause for my present position of being against abortion, yet pro-choice. Yes, I am odd.This seems a fruitless discussion, outside of satisfying a desire to know what someone else, as clueless as you are, thinks.
Ensoulment - A human fetus behaves no differently than any other mammal fetus, so ensoulment must not have happened.
A human infant is far less capable than nearly any other mammalian infant - there must be no soul yet.
The human toddler suddenly passes all other animals in mental capability around age 2 - perhaps that is the time of ensoulment.
OR...the soul grows and develops just as the body does, whereupon Sharlee could be right. Until we find a soul, and examine it at varying ages, we cannot know. Only guess.
Similarly, which comes first - does God make a soul specifically for every gamete, throwing away billions every day? Or for every zygote, throwing away half of what He creates because of spontaneous abortions? Does God have a storehouse of souls, premade and just waiting for something to put them in? Then He could wait until birth to do it, saving those trillions of souls. Or perhaps they revert to Him and can be "reshaped" for a different zygote if the first one fails.
A fruitless discussion outside of just enjoying concepts."This seems a fruitless discussion, outside of satisfying a desire to know what someone else, as clueless as you are, thinks."
Okay . . .I don't think the Christian bible defines a soul, does it? I became a church dropout when I was about 35 years old because I couldn't find answers in either the church or the Bible. So because of that I studied metaphysics for many years, and I am satisfied with their explanation of a soul as kind of bridge between the physical and the true spirit. I have always thought that the way it is described in metaphysical terms, it loosely corresponded with psychology’s id, ego and superego. I sometimes wonder if the fathers of modern psychology had that in mind. I never cared for psychology either, and I only studied enough of it to graduate from college, so I'm open to being told that I am wrong.
Perhaps we should look to our Jewish friends for their definition of a soul. I believe that their Kabbalah goes into that.Beat you to it, lol, I was 10 when it dawned on me that 1) why is the Bible and God so violent and 2) why can't the Christians get it together and decide on one version of God/? It never made sense to me so I went on my own quest.
I've written several hubs about it but I thinking boils down to this:
In trying to understand how I got here, I look up in the sky and try to imagine what came before the earth, the sun, the universe? How did they get there?
Science has the first part down pat with not a whole lot of unanswered questions. And that is the theory of the big bang, that little packet of energy, it wasn't even matter at that point. which blew up to become - us and everything around us.
But then you ask, where did that little packet of energy come from? I am sure scientists have some theories, but it is beyond my simple mind. Unfortunately, I am stuck in believing one simple fact - there had to be a beginning somewhere along the line. Whatever that beginning is has become my idea of God.
If you ask me who made God? I'll answer God made God and around and around we go. It is unexplainable but I am satisfied with that without building a whole cult around it dedicated to controlling people's lives.
The nice thing about my construct is that one aspect of it doesn't logically contradict another like all religions do.
If one asks does my God have a mind? I'll answer yes, it is the collective mind of all sentient things in this universe and any other universe that might exist.
I could go on, but to find out more, please read my hubs.
It’s not odd at all—the issue is deeply complex with countless variables. It’s an age-old dilemma, yet individuality must still play a role.
Great synopsis. I wanted to focus on the 1.2% late-term abortions. It seems the anti-choice movement goes to great lengths to misrepresent those procedures and spread disinformation far and wide. They try to make it sound like women are just willy-nilly asking for late-term abortions just for the fun of it.
Not only, as you point out, these abortions are rare, the reasons for them are often life and death for the mother or to prevent extreme suffering of a mal-formed baby - which seems of no concern to those who unreasonably oppose abortions. Those reasons are, I think in order of frequency:
1. Severe Fetal Abnormalities - Discovery of significant or fatal anomalies often occurs during the detailed anatomical ultrasound performed around 18–22 weeks.
Conditions might include severe genetic disorders (e.g., Trisomy 13, Trisomy 18), major organ malformations, or anomalies incompatible with life (e.g., anencephaly).
Parents may opt for abortion to prevent the infant from enduring suffering or a short, painful life.
2. Threats to Maternal Health or Life - Physical health complications: Late-term abortions may be medically necessary if the pregnancy exacerbates pre-existing conditions such as heart disease, severe preeclampsia, or risk of stroke.
Life-threatening conditions: For example, a diagnosis of chorioamnionitis (serious infection of the amniotic fluid) or sepsis may require ending the pregnancy urgently to save the mother's life.
3. Delayed Diagnosis or Access to Care - Some women are unable to confirm pregnancy or access prenatal care earlier due to personal, financial, or systemic barriers including state laws that restrict early abortions.
4. Mental Health Concerns - In rare cases, extreme psychological distress or suicide risk may necessitate abortion. This could be due to personal trauma or new, life-altering diagnoses related to the pregnancy.
5. Situational Changes or Personal Reasons - Late discovery of information: Some women learn about unexpected medical or familial issues late in pregnancy.
Partner or family changes: Abuse, separation, or financial upheaval may contribute.
6. Desire to Avoid Infant Suffering - When prognosis shows that a child, if born, would face severe pain, dependence on life-support, or poor quality of life, some families make decisions to end the pregnancy as an act of compassion.
Nowhere in that list do you find someone getting a late-term abortion simply because they "felt" like it.
You would think Trump, the criminal and sexual predator, supporters on this forum would be on here cheering him on in his effort to shut the gov't down for Xmas, destroying this holiday for most Americans, including MAGA. Why the silence? Are they embarrassed to be associated with him now?
The House just voted down the Republican-only plan that was exactly what Trump ordered them to vote on. Now what? They don't know and only have 28 hours to figure it out. Are they turning to Musk and asking "what now boss?"
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … index.htmlYou need to start a whole new forum on this one question. I've been telling people for quite awhile now that Musk is trying to take over the U.S. and is using Trump to do so. What better way to become the dictator of the U.S. than controlling a president with dementia.
Here is another disastrously outcome brought on by conservatives who oppose personal freedoms.
A West Virginia prosecutor is warning women that a miscarriage could lead to criminal charges
Can you imagine this MAGA dream come true. Have a Miscarriage and Go To Jail!!!
Only really sick individuals would conceive of such a thing.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/06/health/m … al-chargesWhy such a hyperbolic statement? "Can you imagine this MAGA dream come true. Have a Miscarriage and Go To Jail!!!
Only really sick individuals would conceive of such a thing. ECO
The article shares simply --- In a recent development out of West Virginia, Raleigh County Prosecuting Attorney Tom Truman warned that women who miscarry at home could potentially face criminal charges if they do not report the event or properly handle fetal remains. He cited a state law that makes it a felony to knowingly conceal a deceased human body, though the statute does not specifically address miscarriage. Truman clarified that he personally would not prosecute such cases but noted that other prosecutors might interpret the law differently. His warning has sparked concern among reproductive rights advocates, who fear it could criminalize natural pregnancy losses and lead to invasive investigations during an already traumatic time. Critics argue that the law needs to be clarified to prevent miscarriage from being treated as suspicious or criminal, especially in light of West Virginia's near-total abortion ban enacted in 2022.Sorry, but when I see the laws being passed by so many of the Red states, have every reason to say what I did. What MAGA stands behind in taking away women's freedoms is what I consider sick.
"Have a Miscarriage and Go To Jail!!!" - Isn't that what some of those WV MAGA prosecutors are suggesting?
The Dobbs decision was handed down in 2022. Many MAGA states rushed to implement laws to take away women's rights and use others to attack women who miscarry. Here are a few examples;
- GEORGIA - In March 2025, a 24-year-old woman in Tifton was arrested after miscarrying at 19 weeks and allegedly disposing of the fetal remains in a dumpster. She was charged with concealing the death of another person and abandonment of a dead body. An autopsy confirmed a natural miscarriage, and the charges were later dropped. https://www.thecut.com/article/why-a-ge … hatgpt.com
- OHIO - In 2023, Brittany Watts experienced a miscarriage at home and was subsequently charged with "abuse of a corpse" under Ohio law. A grand jury later declined to indict her. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_ … hatgpt.com
- SOUTH CAROLINA - In March 2023, college student Amari Marsh miscarried at home and was later arrested and charged with homicide by child abuse. An autopsy revealed the fetus died of natural causes due to an infection, and the charges were dismissed. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2025 … hatgpt.com (This source offers a multitude of examples where mothers who miscarried were prosecuted)
- ALABAMA - While this state's data stops in 2021, it is very hard to think they have stopped prosecuting women. Alabama's "chemical endangerment of a child" law has been used to prosecute women for drug use during pregnancy, even in cases of miscarriage or stillbirth. Between 2006 and 2021, at least 200 women were charged under this law. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2025 … hatgpt.comGeorgia - charges were dropped
Ohio - charges were dropped, with no indictment.
S. Caroline - charges were dismissed.
Which of your examples "took away women's rights"?I guess you missed the obvious - these women were arrested and indicted for having a miscarriage. To be more plain - there should have been no charges to drop or dismiss in the first place.
Related Discussions
- 561
It's NOT ONLY a Woman's Right to Choose that is Disappearing ...
by Scott Belford 13 months 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...
- 186
Progressives: Don't be fooled, the GOP wants a national abortion ban
by Credence2 15 months ago
Republicans always want to take a mile when they are given an inch. Conservatives cheer with the overturn of Roe vs Wade, saying it was a victory for States Rights. So the Red States double down creating a Handsmaiden's Tale environment for its residents. But that has not been enough. Trump remains...
- 28
We Must Rise Up To Force Accountability Using A Diversity Of Tactics
by Sharlee 3 years ago
Left-wing activist groups are planning to send protesters to the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices following a leak indicating the court may soon overturn Roe v. Wade.The activists are organizing under the moniker "Ruth Sent Us" and have published the supposed home addresses of...
- 85
Did Ya Hear What Yellen Said? Is She A Racists?
by Sharlee 3 years ago
Overturning Roe v. Wade would be ‘damaging’ to the economy ... "Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Tuesday said eliminating women’s access to abortion would have “very damaging effects” on the US economy, keeping some women from completing their educations and reducing their lifetime earnings...
- 255
Under his eye... Roe v. Wade
by IslandBites 3 years ago
The Supreme Court is poised to overturn the landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that protects a federal right to abortion, according to a draft majority opinion published Monday evening by Politico. The draft, described as a 67-page document, was circulated in early February, according to...
- 48
SC says no more faithless electors in the EC- what say conservatives?
by Credence2 4 years ago
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … gK1iPD_BwEThis nice reassurance ruling from the Supreme Court may well give the Electoral College a new lease on life and make the institution less troublesome in my eyes than before.No more happenstance, if you don't want something to occur,...