Roe vs. Wade.....

[frugal-one]

Johnson has no serious opposition in the primary, and there are eight democrats vying to run against him in the general election. Alex Lasry seems to have the most money and support in that field right now. He’s sort of the Wisconsin version of Beto O’Rourke. The Lieutenant Governor is also running, but his pockets aren’t nearly as deep.

Johnson wouldn’t be my first choice, but if tha alternative is a specimen like Lasry I will probably vote for him.

I’ve often wondered if you could sue for libel or slander, given some of the smears and innuendo both sides indulge in. I guess political candidates are public figures by definition.

Johnson is trump's errand boy. How anyone could vote for scum like him is beyond me.

[gimmethesimplelife]

ah, your usual insightful commentary.

I was really trying to tease out some discussion of Susan Collins’ words versus those of Biden et al. But not getting anywhere on that front. Got it Rob, America bad. Message received. Yawn.

Clearly President Joe Biden in our White House thinks Congress has clear constitutional authority to make law. That is his opinion and only his opinion. I am thinking that should president Biden and his Democratic cohorts in Congress get their way, any law they pass like the woman’s health protection act would have to be visited by the Supreme Court for its constitutionality. I’m guessing that it would not pass muster by this court.

I was interested, very interested, in the reason why Susan Collins made her own version of the woman’s health protection act because she thinks congressman King’s version violates religious freedoms. I may delve into that later when I have more time.

Another thing I thought about recently is that our city prosecutor would love it if our aldermen set up St. Louis as an Abortion Sanctuary city. She would not prosecute anyone violating Missouri’s strict abortion law. But then of course, she doesn’t prosecute anyone anyway.

To me, insightful commentary is very different. Case in point - should it really pass that women are arrested leaving a red state to abort in a blue state - insightful commentary is - what options are available so said woman's life is not destroyed via arrest? Will one of the many better countries take her in, thereby putting the US as only an unfortunate footnote in her past? I could go on but you get the idea - THIS is insightful commentary. Big diff in what the two of us consider insightful commentary, no? Rob

[Alan]

To me, insightful commentary is very different. Case in point - should it really pass that women are arrested leaving a red state to abort in a blue state - insightful commentary is - what options are available so said woman's life is not destroyed via arrest? Will one of the many better countries take her in, thereby putting the US as only an unfortunate footnote in her past? I could go on but you get the idea - THIS is insightful commentary. Big diff in what the two of us consider insightful commentary, no? Rob

I'm afraid we've allowed a low bar for insightful commentary then. No one is going to be arrested for leaving one state for an abortion in another. That's a fever dream popular among those who hope it happens somewhere, at least once, so they can rant and rave against people who value life in all forms.

I think IL pressed you on this issue in hopes you'd consider why someone like Susan Collins would prefer to hold onto some sort of Federal protection for abortions while simultaneously voting against the Democrats version of a bill which was a little light on protection for the unborn. I think she was hoping to hear someone say "there must be a compromise, we must provide women with options while still protecting the unborn once they reach viability." As long as the fervently blue critical thinkers such as yourself and the entire Democratic Party fail to compromise, the fervently red critical thinkers will oppose you and your plans. The question is, how do we reach middle ground?

[gimmethesimplelife]

I'm afraid we've allowed a low bar for insightful commentary then. No one is going to be arrested for leaving one state for an abortion in another. That's a fever dream popular among those who hope it happens somewhere, at least once, so they can rant and rave against people who value life in all forms.

I think IL pressed you on this issue in hopes you'd consider why someone like Susan Collins would prefer to hold onto some sort of Federal protection for abortions while simultaneously voting against the Democrats version of a bill which would do the same. I think she was hoping to hear someone say "there must be a compromise, we must provide women with options while still protecting the unborn once they reach viability." As long as the fervently blue critical thinkers such as yourself and the entire Democratic Party fail to compromise, the fervently red critical thinkers will oppose you and your plans. The question is, how do we reach middle ground?

I can understand that there is certainly more than one way to look at this issue. It's emotional, controversial, political....it's not pleasant banter at after work drinks (does anybody do that any more, though?). My take as a gay man - immediate sympathy and concern for women whose lives will be destroyed by a Supreme Court who has no problem potentially marginalizing lower income red state women into criminals. Of course as someone who has seen the dark side of America long before it was trendy to do so - this is going to be my niche on this issue. How do we protect women from this and which countries might take these women in?

I can understand such is not your take, Alan, but given my life experiences and the America I know, no surprise this is my take, no? It's all about protecting women and potentially relocating victims of the overturn into better countries.

At this point I'm of the opinion that it may be too late for politics - it's about protection from America)potential relocation. Not too far off likely they will be coming for gay/lesbian marriage - then it's my turn. America sure is showing it's true colors extremely loud and clear these days, no?

Rob

[catherine]

I think IL pressed you on this issue in hopes you'd consider why someone like Susan Collins would prefer to hold onto some sort of Federal protection for abortions while simultaneously voting against the Democrats version of a bill which was a little light on protection for the unborn. I think she was hoping to hear someone say "there must be a compromise, we must provide women with options while still protecting the unborn once they reach viability." As long as the fervently blue critical thinkers such as yourself and the entire Democratic Party fail to compromise, the fervently red critical thinkers will oppose you and your plans. The question is, how do we reach middle ground?

I agree that we must do the reasonable thing and come to common ground and/or compromise on these laws. What I find interesting the "slippery slope" argument is being wielded by both sides: that is, to some people who are pro-choice and to some people who are 2nd amendment advocates, any regulation at all is a threat. I think the "all vs none" mindset is really detrimental in general. That being said, self-determination is what is in the balance. And too often erroneous assumptions drive these attitudes

[jp1]

I'm afraid we've allowed a low bar for insightful commentary then. No one is going to be arrested for leaving one state for an abortion in another.

Next you will be telling us that Obergefell isn’t at risk of being overturned by the activist side of the Supreme Court.

[Alan]

Next you will be telling us that Obergefell isn’t at risk of being overturned by the activist side of the Supreme Court.

I suppose that's a possibility if the Court continues its current penchant for returning authority for things clearly outside the Fed's constitutional authority to the states.
I guess where we differ most is your belief that doing so is the result of an 'activist' court where I would posit that it would simply be reversing previous 'activist' courts decisions.

[jp1]

I suppose that's a possibility if the Court continues its current penchant for returning authority for things clearly outside the Fed's constitutional authority to the states.
I guess where we differ most is your belief that doing so is the result of an 'activist' court where I would posit that it would simply be reversing previous 'activist' courts decisions.

So you don’t think the 14th amendment applies to gay people? Tell me more.

[Alan]

So you don’t think the 14th amendment applies to gay people? Tell me more.

Well, I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar but it occurs to me that the 14th amendment certainly does apply to gay people. I think the problem came about once the Federal Government began to treat people differently depending upon their marital status, such as providing tax and legal benefits or privileges that single people may not enjoy. I'm not convinced the 14th amendment grants anyone the privilege to marry anyone they want as there remains clear restrictions in each state's lawful marriage requirements having to do with things other than sexual preference.

If we want everyone to enjoy the same benefits and privileges of marriage in federal benefits and recognition, the federal government should simply treat everyone the same and stay out of that institution.

[jp1]

Well, I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar but it occurs to me that the 14th amendment certainly does apply to gay people. I think the problem came about once the Federal Government began to treat people differently depending upon their marital status, such as providing tax and legal benefits or privileges that single people may not enjoy. I'm not convinced the 14th amendment grants anyone the privilege to marry anyone they want as there remains clear restrictions in each state's lawful marriage requirements having to do with things other than sexual preference.

If we want everyone to enjoy the same benefits and privileges of marriage in federal benefits and recognition, the federal government should simply treat everyone the same and stay out of the institution of marriage.

You consider it a problem that spouses are able to make medical care decisions if the other spouse is not able to? Who, exactly, do you think should be making those decisions?