View Full Version : Roe vs. Wade.....
frugal-one
7-17-22, 6:23pm
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
7-17-22, 9:44pm
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
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
7-17-22, 10:15pm
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
I don't think that's a problem, and I don't have an issue with everyone being able to have anyone they choose make those decisions. Are you implying that single people should not be able to have whoever they choose fill that role for them?
I don't think that's a problem, and I don't have an issue with everyone being able to have anyone they choose make those decisions. Are you implying that single people should not be able to have whoever they choose fill that role for them?
No. I’m implying that a person’s spouse should have the final say in medical decisions unless that person, for whatever reason, has selected someone else. Otherwise you run the risk of a tragedy like poor Terry Schiavo. Or countless gay men back in the 80’s/90’s whose families refused to acknowledge their lovers or allow visitation while they lie in a hospital bed dying of aids. If gay marriage had been an option back then that would never have happened. Or Janice Langbehn who, along with their children, was denied visitation of her longtime partner while she died in a Florida hospital while on vacation back when only a few states had marriage equality.
No. I’m implying that a person’s spouse should have the final say in medical decisions unless that person, for whatever reason, has selected someone else.
What you're describing is simply a social convention recognized by law, which also recognizes other means of accomplishing the same thing. Since you're basing your argument on the 14th Amendment you'll have a hard time convincing me that gay people are treated differently.
From a legal standpoint marriage is simply a certified partnership, and so is a certified domestic partnership outside the institution of marriage or even a legal document outlining your wishes, they all result in the same legal benefits. If you want to argue that the constitution gives each of us the right to marry anyone we want, does that imply that the states cannot restrict us from having as many spouses as we desire or remove restrictions on interconnecting bloodlines?
What you're describing is simply a social convention recognized by law, which also recognizes other means of accomplishing the same thing. Since you're basing your argument on the 14th Amendment you'll have a hard time convincing me that gay people are treated differently.
From a legal standpoint marriage is simply a certified partnership, and so is a certified domestic partnership outside the institution of marriage or even a legal document outlining your wishes, they all result in the same legal benefits. If you want to argue that the constitution gives each of us the right to marry anyone we want, does that imply that the states cannot restrict us from having as many spouses as we desire or remove restrictions on interconnecting bloodlines?
Do you honestly believe that if Obgerfell gets overturned that Florida hospitals will recognize same sex married tourists from better states as legitimately married? Surely you aren't that naive.
And if I can't marry the person I love simply because they are of the same sex as me, then no, I'm not being treated equally under the 14th amendment.
From a legal standpoint marriage is simply a certified partnership, and so is a certified domestic partnership outside the institution of marriage or even a legal document outlining your wishes, they all result in the same legal benefits.
Yes, you can pay a lawyer thousands perhaps to codify into a contract all of the rights that are automatically granted to heterosexual couples for free (or the local cost of a license) but how is that equal protection?
Do you honestly believe that if Obgerfell gets overturned that Florida hospitals will recognize same sex married tourists from better states as legitimately married? Surely you aren't that naive.
I have no reason to believe otherwise.
And if I can't marry the person I love simply because they are of the same sex as me, then no, I'm not being treated equally under the 14th amendment.
I also have no reason to believe states would disallow same sex marriages or if one or two possibly did, they wouldn't accept a legal marriage in another state in situations you describe.
By the way, just out of curiosity, are you married to your significant other? I know you refer to him often but always as your SO, or maybe you've mentioned your official status in the past and I've just missed it.
I have no reason to believe otherwise.
[/COLOR]I also have no reason to believe states would disallow same sex marriages or if one or two possibly did, they wouldn't accept a legal marriage in another state in situations you describe.
By the way, just out of curiosity, are you married to your significant other? I know you refer to him often but always as your SO, or maybe you've mentioned your official status in the past and I've just missed it.
Guess again. Efforts to remove the currently unconstitutional bans on gay marriage have failed in a number of states because republicans hate gay people so much that they want to keep those bans in place in the hope that a radical supreme court that doesn't give two shits about precedent would overturn Obergefell.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/states-across-u-s-still-cling-outdated-gay-marriage-bans-n1137936
Guess again. Efforts to remove the currently unconstitutional bans on gay marriage have failed in a number of states because republicans hate gay people so much that they want to keep those bans in place in the hope that a radical supreme court that doesn't give two shits about precedent would overturn Obergefell.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/states-across-u-s-still-cling-outdated-gay-marriage-bans-n1137936
Speaking of laws on the books which are no longer enforced, take a look at some of these: Strange-State-Laws.pdf (pgusd.org) (https://forestgrove.pgusd.org/documents/Computer-Lab/Strange-State-Laws.pdf)
Guess again. Efforts to remove the currently unconstitutional bans on gay marriage have failed in a number of states because republicans hate gay people so much that they want to keep those bans in place in the hope that a radical supreme court that doesn't give two shits about precedent would overturn Obergefell.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/states-across-u-s-still-cling-outdated-gay-marriage-bans-n1137936
From what I can tell, they officially hate everyone who isn't old, white, male, cis, and part of the donor class.
Yes, you can pay a lawyer thousands perhaps to codify into a contract all of the rights that are automatically granted to heterosexual couples for free (or the local cost of a license) but how is that equal protection?
My ex-wife and I lived unmarried for ~2 decades, using powers of attorney and contracts to deal with the situation. My wife was an attorney, so we had access to free legal services to accomplish this. It was a pain in the patoot in real life, especially when it came to dealing with medical situations. When our daughter was born, we decided to simply cave in to society and get married. Even that was problematic at times, as we retained our own last names, and things such as border crossings and even routine educational/medical interactions involving the child were sometimes tricky for the parent with the mismatching name.
It's definitely "easier" to be married than to construct your own partnership through contracts and other such things. It's very much still a "Whites Only" drinking fountain separate-but-not-equal situation in our society.
flowerseverywhere
7-18-22, 3:10pm
It's definitely "easier" to be married than to construct your own partnership through contracts and other such things. It's very much still a "Whites Only" drinking fountain separate-but-not-equal situation in our society.
So true. And if your world consists of seeing no hate and prejudice you are lucky. I live in Florida. There are many many people who identify as Christian republicans (they still have trump bumper stickers, signs and flags) who openly speak derisively about non whites, gays and so on. And treat them poorly. I am pretty dark skinned due to African and Native American ancestors but when I pass a black man on the street he will most likely cast his eyes down.
Of course when there was a Trump parade a white old guy screamed "white power" at some peaceful anti trump protesters standing at the side of the road. the national news gleefully broadcast it.
Another woman who was ecstatic about the total abortion ban replied when I asked her who would take care of all the unwanted babies, " well the white ones will be adopted".
There does come a time when being married vs living together can be a disadvantage. I know some older couples who remain unmarried so they can maximize medical, pension type benefits they will lose if they remarry. But by and large being a white, married heterosexual middle class couple puts you in a special class of preferential treatment.
I think we (Washington) still have a domestic partnership law that covers the senior/SS problem. As I noted earlier, there's a strong legal advantage to actual marriage. I don't know how anyone can advocate the "separate but equal" approach with a straight face.(Pun unintended.)
Teacher Terry
7-18-22, 6:47pm
If gay people can’t marry there’s no equality.
ApatheticNoMore
7-18-22, 6:48pm
There are advantages to being married. That occasionally in rare circumstances outweigh the disadvantages to being married :laff:
There are advantages to being married. That occasionally in rare circumstances outweigh the disadvantages to being married :laff:
The important thing is that you have a choice. Clearly, the disadvantages swayed me.
Back when gay marriage was only a thing in a few states one of my insurance clients was a solo lawyer whose main practice was selling what she called a ‘gay package’. Basically for a flat fee of like $3,000 a couple could buy all the various documents that bae mentions to create as close to the equivalent of marriage. But that still was a second class citizen arrangement since she couldn’t put into existence documents that mimicked inheritance laws or social security survivor benefits etc.
Thinking about unintended consequences generally I wonder how she transitioned her practice once her potential client base no longer needed her services. If I recall correctly she had streamlined the process and had enough paralegals(this was actually an issue I had to deal with since lawyers malpractice insurance underwriters don’t like it when too much of the work is done by non lawyers) that she could bring in about $500,000/year.
Back when gay marriage was only a thing in a few states one of my insurance clients was a solo lawyer whose main practice was selling what she called a ‘gay package’.
My Dad and his husband were together 44 years. During much of that time, gay marriage was not legal. Or not legal in all states. They had all sorts of complex plans for dealing with their pensions/social security after retirement, to deal with the problems associated with one of them dying before the other, potentially leaving the other destitute.
The average heterosexual marriage in the USA lasts ~8 years...
Aside from the straw man argument of ‘the federal government shouldn’t be giving benefits to people for being married’ (since the federal government DOES in fact give those benefits and isn’t likely to rescind them in any of our lifetimes since the activist hacks on the Supreme Court presumably are fine with them) I wonder how the anti marriage equality crowd justifies the obvious second tier status for same sex couples that would exist if the obgerfell decision gets overturned.
By the way, just out of curiosity, are you married to your significant other? I know you refer to him often but always as your SO, or maybe you've mentioned your official status in the past and I've just missed it.
So are you going to start asking the pro-choice women on this forum questions like ‘I suspect that you are of an age to have gone through menopause so the abortion issue won’t affect you directly. Am I mistaken?’
gimmethesimplelife
7-19-22, 1:13am
If gay people can’t marry there’s no equality.Thank You. Rob
So are you going to start asking the pro-choice women on this forum questions like ‘I suspect that you are of an age to have gone through menopause so the abortion issue won’t affect you directly. Am I mistaken?’
No, it was just an on topic question regarding a subject that you initiated. None of my business though so, nevermind.
Johnson is trump's errand boy. How anyone could vote for scum like him is beyond me.
The people that will still vote for him simply don’t care that he was an active participant in the attempted coup. I mean, really, why should they care that RoJo’s office received the fraudulent slate of fake Wisconsin electors and then attempted to deliver that fraudulent slate of electors to the Vice President. Shit like that is just standard operating procedure for republicans. Ethics is not of concern to them.
I’m aware that certain parties become infuriated if someone considers Trump World disgusting but not terrifying, but sometimes you need to make choices in an imperfect world. When I look at the list of contenders to unseat Johnson, I’m comfortable voting for him.
As a practical matter, I think the party who campaigns by saying “the other side are awful, awful people and the world will end if you elect them” will be at a disadvantage to the party who says “look how these people have been governing”.
I’m aware that certain parties become infuriated if someone considers Trump World disgusting but not terrifying, but sometimes you need to make choices in an imperfect world. When I look at the list of contenders to unseat Johnson, I’m comfortable voting for him.
As a practical matter, I think the party who campaigns by saying “the other side are awful, awful people and the world will end if you elect them” will be at a disadvantage to the party who says “look how these people have been governing”.
I think if someone was an active participant in a coup attempt, one should not vote for them. Period.
catherine
7-19-22, 12:40pm
As a practical matter, I think the party who campaigns by saying “the other side are awful, awful people and the world will end if you elect them” will be at a disadvantage to the party who says “look how these people have been governing”.
I don't think Dems are throwing stones at the entire "other side." Some Independents and Democrats might be delighted if Cheney ran as an Independent, regardless of parts of her platform. I also believe the "other side" is doing their own stone-throwing at some of their miscreants. It's not as black and white as you would like to make it seem. But as Tybee said, yes, some things are "terrible, awful"--and many members of DJTraitor's own party agree. If the shoe fits, wear it.
And BTW, DJTraitor's governing was not to my liking, and that has nothing to do with his p*ssy-clutching, mob-inciting, hate-inflaming ways. This King Midas would bring down the natural world in a heartbeat if everything could be emblazoned with his name. I don't like him, and I don't like his politics, and I don't like his governing. There are plenty of moderate Republicans I could live with.
frugal-one
7-19-22, 3:20pm
I don't think Dems are throwing stones at the entire "other side." Some Independents and Democrats might be delighted if Cheney ran as an Independent, regardless of parts of her platform. I also believe the "other side" is doing their own stone-throwing at some of their miscreants. It's not as black and white as you would like to make it seem. But as Tybee said, yes, some things are "terrible, awful"--and many members of DJTraitor's own party agree. If the shoe fits, wear it.
And BTW, DJTraitor's governing was not to my liking, and that has nothing to do with his p*ssy-clutching, mob-inciting, hate-inflaming ways. This King Midas would bring down the natural world in a heartbeat if everything could be emblazoned with his name. I don't like him, and I don't like his politics, and I don't like his governing. There are plenty of moderate Republicans I could live with.
Agree. Also HAVE voted republican in the past. Although these days it is uncertain who is a "true" republican. I believe the party has evolved into something unrecognizable.
frugal-one
7-19-22, 3:21pm
I think if someone was an active participant in a coup attempt, one should not vote for them. Period.
That pretty much sums it up!
Agree. Also HAVE voted republican in the past. Although these days it is uncertain who is a "true" republican. I believe the party has evolved into something unrecognizable.
I was even a Republican convention delegate at one point. Today's Republicans are not the same party at all. I'll have nothing to do with them.
ApatheticNoMore
7-19-22, 3:42pm
As a practical matter, I think the party who campaigns by saying “the other side are awful, awful people and the world will end if you elect them” will be at a disadvantage to the party who says “look how these people have been governing”.
and if voters were informed, rational, sensible, knew much about the world*, the critique would actually be about specifics of governing, this or that actual law passed for instance. Not about random stuff that I assume those in power have no direct control over unless a very strong case is made otherwise, like say the state of the economy. Yea, they don't directly control that. The sensible assumption is the state of the economy doesn't have much to do with those currently in power unless proven otherwise.
*Hint: voters are not that. So whatever never mind. I mean a lot of the elections are pretty undemocratic, so it's not the voters to blame. But I am not convinced voters are always drawing the most sensible conclusions either.
Shocker! Asshole pharmacists are trying to impose their religious beliefs on people trying to buy contraception. I imagine they dream of getting to be the defendant in a case that gets to the radical Supreme Court. As has been pointed out before these people don’t care about fetuses. They are lying. They want to control women’s behavior.
https://www.nj.com/news/2022/07/walgreens-boycott-trends-after-birth-control-condom-sales-refused-customer-sent-baby-formula-for-pregnancy-test.html
Back when gay marriage was only a thing in a few states one of my insurance clients was a solo lawyer whose main practice was selling what she called a ‘gay package’. Basically for a flat fee of like $3,000 a couple could buy all the various documents that bae mentions to create as close to the equivalent of marriage. But that still was a second class citizen arrangement since she couldn’t put into existence documents that mimicked inheritance laws or social security survivor benefits etc.
Thinking about unintended consequences generally I wonder how she transitioned her practice once her potential client base no longer needed her services. If I recall correctly she had streamlined the process and had enough paralegals(this was actually an issue I had to deal with since lawyers malpractice insurance underwriters don’t like it when too much of the work is done by non lawyers) that she could bring in about $500,000/year.
I hope she pivoted to drafting pre-nups. :)
ToomuchStuff
7-19-22, 7:00pm
I hope she pivoted to drafting pre-nups. :)
Or went on to deal with common law marriage issues or become a divorce attorney.
I was even a Republican convention delegate at one point. Today's Republicans are not the same party at all. I'll have nothing to do with them.
I shouldn't listen to the news. Ted Cruz was positing that Obergefell wasn't a legitimate ruling, so gay marriage should be left up to the states. He didn't mention Griswold or Loving, but I'm sure they're on their appalling agenda. I can feel myself getting apoplectic. I find myself sputtering. Civil rights, like the right to privacy, the right to vote, the right to marry, the right to travel freely, should be universal. If the Constitution is just going to lock us into an 18th-century, white male-centric world, maybe we should chuck it and start over.
And, in other news, sterilization procedures are at an historic high and show no signs of abating, and bills passed in the House to ensure women's health care rights are stalled in the Senate (permanently, I'm sure).
I'm not interested in living in a Republican wet dream, where pimply-assed bigots roam freely, armed with assault rifles, and women, people of color and gay citizens know their place and meekly stay in it.
iris lilies
7-20-22, 11:18am
I shouldn't listen to the news. Ted Cruz was positing that Obergefell wasn't a legitimate ruling, so gay marriage should be left up to the states. He didn't mention Griswold or Loving, but I'm sure they're on their appalling agenda. I can feel myself getting apoplectic. I find myself sputtering. Civil rights, like the right to privacy, the right to vote, the right to marry, the right to travel freely, should be universal. If the Constitution is just going to lock us into an 18th-century, white male-centric world, maybe we should chuck it and start over.
And, in other news, sterilization procedures are at an historic high and show no signs of abating, and bills passed in the House to ensure women's health care rights are stalled in the Senate (permanently, I'm sure).
I'm not interested in living in a Republican wet dream, where pimply-assed bigots roam freely, armed with assault rifles, and women, people of color and gay citizens know their place and meekly stay in it.
You know there is a clearly delineated procedure for amending the U.S. Constitution, right? We are not locked into any 18th century world.
You know there is a clearly delineated procedure for amending the U.S. Constitution, right? We are not locked into any 18th century world.
As long as republicans control enough state legislatures we most certainly ARE locked in an 18th century world. They have no interest in promoting equality so would not be even remotely interested in amending the constitution in this manner. That would go seriously against their current brand.
iris lilies
7-20-22, 11:45am
As long as republicans control enough state legislatures we most certainly ARE locked in an 18th century world. They have no interest in promoting equality so would not be even remotely interested in amending the constitution in this manner. That would go seriously against their current brand.
oh, you mean your own sensibilities, ideas and goals are not in alignment with those of some other states?
Damn those Founders of our country who couldn't foresee that dichotomy with their insistence on states’s rights.
All sarcasm aside, I can absolutely see and relate to concerns about the ripple effect of this recent Supreme court Dobbs decision and I will not stick my neck out to say all of the “bad” predictions will not come true. I see this period of our history as a sort of day of reckoning when situations we took for granted were built on a house of cards. The house fell down and we have to scramble to understand and work woth the new norm. Smart people will take real action to effect the change they want to see, but must do it with the
understanding that a federated group of states may NOT reflect the same values across the country.
Other houses of cards will cause the same Day of Reckoning when it all tumbles: our government’s insane debt. Climate change. Etc.etc.
You know there is a clearly delineated procedure for amending the U.S. Constitution, right? We are not locked into any 18th century world.
Yeah--I'm well aware of how that works. Still waiting for the Equal Rights Amendment to make me a full citizen.
...
All sarcasm aside, I can absolutely see and relate to concerns about the ripple effect of this recent Supreme court Dobbs decision and I will not stick my neck out to say all of the “bad” predictions will not come true. I see this period of our history as a sort of day of reckoning when situations we took for granted were built on a house of cards. The house fell down and we have to scramble to understand and work woth the new norm. Smart people will take real action to effect the change they want to see, but must do it with the
understanding that a federated group of states may NOT reflect the same values across the country.
Other houses of cards will cause the same Day of Reckoning when it all tumbles: our government’s insane debt. Climate change. Etc.etc.
This is clearly a turning point in history, and it seems the 18th century contingent isn't gonna go quietly. As famous patriot Steve Bannon :laff: recently said "Strap in!"
I think if someone was an active participant in a coup attempt, one should not vote for them. Period.
And yet in many of this year’s primaries, Democrats are providing financial support to these villains against less Trumpy candidates. Like the idiot who recently won the gubernatorial race in Maryland. Either they don’t believe their own rhetoric, or they are at least as cynical as their opposition.
ApatheticNoMore
7-20-22, 2:20pm
oh, you mean your own sensibilities, ideas and goals are not in alignment with those of some other states?
it's as much that the government of those states may not even be in alignment with the wishes of the people of those states, due to heavy gerrymandering etc.. So most of the people of those states may have very little influence on what government they get. WI is the textbook example, a purple state gerrymandered to permanent Republican rule.
So I think what is meant is the sensibility, ideas and goals of some politicians who make the rules may not really represent the population.
States that actually have an economy may regret being sunk by this stuff though, big economic players like Texas. Pretty funny, the lunatics are in charge of the asylum in the Republican party, and it's likely bad for business.
I heard on the news that a bill protective of gay marriage? gay rights? is likely to pass the House, and may have a veto-proof majority in the Senate. (Take that, women's issues...)https://news.yahoo.com/u-senate-leader-wants-call-151252576.html
it's as much that the government of those states may not even be in alignment with the wishes of the people of those states, due to heavy gerrymandering etc.. So most of the people of those states may have very little influence on what government they get. WI is the textbook example, a purple state gerrymandered to permanent Republican rule.
So I think what is meant is the sensibility, ideas and goals of some politicians who make the rules may not really represent the population.
States that actually have an economy may regret being sunk by this stuff though, big economic players like Texas. Pretty funny, the lunatics are in charge of the asylum in the Republican party, and it's likely bad for business.
I would like to believe that people like the legislator in Idaho who stated that the ten year old from Ohio should have had the baby and been happy about it is not in agreement with what a majority of his constituents think is right. It would be supremely saddening to know that the Republican voters are as ugly of human beings as their politicians are but who knows. Maybe they are.
iris lilies
7-20-22, 9:41pm
Jp1, Jane…
I believe you want to see a national standard for abortion.
what gestational age do you want to see protected, if at all, in a one-size-fits-all national standard?
what gestational age do you want to see protected, if at all?
What does "protected" mean, in detail?
iris lilies
7-20-22, 9:49pm
What does "protected" mean, in detail?
excellent question! But in the context of this thread, meaning only “do not abort.”
excellent question! But in the context of this thread, meaning only “do not abort.”
That sort of all-or-nothing do-or-not-do rule is tricky, as I imagine that every now and then even late in a pregnancy circumstances might arise that impact the health of the mother that might require making some troublesome decisions. Infrequent perhaps, but enough that they train people to look for them.
Placental abruption for instance can happen in the 3rd trimester, and then there's the fun of sepsis.
Jp1, Jane…
I believe you want to see a national standard for abortion.
what gestational age do you want to see protected, if at all, in a one-size-fits-all national standard?
I'd like to see women have bodily autonomy. Period. The woman who is pregnant, in consultation with her physician(s), should decide what is best for her. (It baffles me that all the people that screech about nanny G forcing people to do things think that somehow in this one particular situation the government would somehow know better what is best.) Third trimester abortions don't happen for fun anywhere near as often as people like Alan like to fantasize/fear that they do. They happen in almost all cases because something has gone terribly wrong with the pregnancy. Most of the ones that aren't because of a health crisis are because the woman lacked access to abortion earlier in the pregnancy thanks to laws designed to make it difficult to access.
ToomuchStuff
7-20-22, 11:47pm
https://youtu.be/Pa39PUng9to
I agree with bae and jp1. Viability is usually cited, but there are all kinds of anomalous situations that require professional judgment.
iris lilies
7-21-22, 12:53am
I'd like to see women have bodily autonomy. Period. The woman who is pregnant, in consultation with her physician(s), should decide what is best for her. (It baffles me that all the people that screech about nanny G forcing people to do things think that somehow in this one particular situation the government would somehow know better what is best.) Third trimester abortions don't happen for fun anywhere near as often as people like Alan like to fantasize/fear that they do. They happen in almost all cases because something has gone terribly wrong with the pregnancy. Most of the ones that aren't because of a health crisis are because the woman lacked access to abortion earlier in the pregnancy thanks to laws designed to make it difficult to access.
So no limits on gestational age for abortion. That goes beyond the limitation of your own state. It goes beyond the limitations of about 47 states. It goes beyond the limitations of most progressive European countries.
alrighty, then. Somehow, I don’t think “the Republicans “are the only unreasonable wackos in this issue.
iris lilies
7-21-22, 12:58am
That sort of all-or-nothing do-or-not-do rule is tricky, as I imagine that every now and then even late in a pregnancy circumstances might arise that impact the health of the mother that might require making some troublesome decisions. Infrequent perhaps, but enough that they train people to look for them.
Placental abruption for instance can happen in the 3rd trimester, and then there's the fun of sepsis.
Sure. And even my state with its draconian trigger law now in place allows abortion In the case of threatening the life of the mother. That’s not what I’m talking about and you know it.
Sure. And even my state with its draconian trigger law now in place allows abortion In the case of threatening the life of the mother. That’s not what I’m talking about and you know it.
No, actually, I didn't.
iris lilies
7-21-22, 1:04am
I agree with bae and jp1. Viability is usually cited, but there are all kinds of anomalous situations that require professional judgment.
“ Vialbility is usually cited”…
No. What is YOUR Idea of gestational age after which abortion should not take place, codified by law across these United States? Assume here healthy pregnancy, healthy fetus, healthy mother, no medical issues. I do not want know what is “usually cited” Because there is no usual now in the United States, and the European standard is not “viability” that I can see anyway. In fact abortion is outright illegal in Germany but sources are quick to point out there is no prosecution.
iris lilies
7-21-22, 1:05am
No, actually, I didn't.oh ok! But now you do.
oh ok! But now you do.
So, abortion in the case of "threatening the life of the mother" is a step past your previous proposed definition of ""protect" meaning only “do not abort"".
Ok - what standard is used to judge "threatening the life of the mother"?
Who gets to apply that standard?
The facts about third trimester abortions.
https://news.google.com/articles/CBMid2h0dHBzOi8vdGhlY29udmVyc2F0aW9uLmNvbS9sZXNzLX RoYW4tMS1vZi1hYm9ydGlvbnMtdGFrZS1wbGFjZS1pbi10aGUt dGhpcmQtdHJpbWVzdGVyLWhlcmVzLXdoeS1wZW9wbGUtZ2V0LX RoZW0tMTgyNTgw0gF7aHR0cHM6Ly90aGVjb252ZXJzYXRpb24u Y29tL2FtcC9sZXNzLXRoYW4tMS1vZi1hYm9ydGlvbnMtdGFrZS 1wbGFjZS1pbi10aGUtdGhpcmQtdHJpbWVzdGVyLWhlcmVzLXdo eS1wZW9wbGUtZ2V0LXRoZW0tMTgyNTgw?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
I trust women to be capable of making the right decision. Certainly far more than the government. Good god, some of the public statements that male Republican legislators make make me wonder if they have even ever met a woman, much less that they have any knowledge of how female bodies work and what can happen during pregnancy. Trusting them to make decisions about who should or should not have an abortion is just a really really ****ing bad idea. It will result in dead people. But since they are only women I suppose to some people they don’t matter.
iris lilies
7-21-22, 8:15am
So, abortion in the case of "threatening the life of the mother" is a step past your previous proposed definition of ""protect" meaning only “do not abort"".
Ok - what standard is used to judge "threatening the life of the mother"?
Who gets to apply that standard?
Standard medical treatment will decide. That is not the core issue I am sussing out here.
My logic is this: if there is to be a national uniform abortion law as jane, jp, and others say, what IS that one-size-fits-all law across states? Because state laws differ on gestational age of being able to abort, that will have to become the national law.
see, I am ok with leaving the gestational age for protection up to states. Jp1 is not. Jane might be ok with no protection until after “viability” as was the Supreme Court’s Roe vs Wade decision but she has not said for sure. And that, then, would not be uniform abortion allowed for late term abortion across all states.
There has never been a national abortion law to protect right of abortion across the board in all states for 0-9 months.
I think marching in the streets for such is delusional. I think the same rhetoric from elected politicians is also delusional.
Standard medical treatment will decide. That is not the core issue I am sussing out here.
But unfortunately, I think we are already seeing that there is no more "standard medical treatment," and that doctors are now afraid to treat.
I'm OK with a Roe v Wade type framework--it worked pretty well for fifty years. But the final decision, as others have pointed out, should remain with the woman in question and her doctor. Why this whole issue has assumed this hair on fire level of hysteria mystifies me.
For perspective, it's estimated that between 25 and 50 percent (depending on maternal age) of embryos/fetuses are spontaneously aborted through miscarriage. Millions upon millions of potential precious human lives are lost every day in ejaculation (oh, the humanity!) OK. that may be a bridge too far, but really--nature is pretty cavalier about "precious human life." And humans are pretty cavalier about getting into other people's private business.
iris lilies
7-21-22, 9:59am
I'm OK with a Roe v Wade type framework--it worked pretty well for fifty years. But the final decision, as others have pointed out, should remain with the woman in question and her doctor. Why this whole issue has assumed this hair on fire level of hysteria mystifies me.
For perspective, it's estimated that between 25 and 50 percent (depending on maternal age) of embryos/fetuses are spontaneously aborted through miscarriage. Millions upon millions of potential precious human lives are lost every day in ejaculation (oh, the humanity!) OK. that may be a bridge too far, but really--nature is pretty cavalier about "precious human life." And humans are pretty cavalier about getting into other people's private business.
I, too, am ok with a Roe v. Wade type environment because it allows states to put limitations in place on later gestational situations. Again, to be clear, states are still deciding individually what I consider to be the most controversial issue—gestational age of allowed abortion.
Theoretically I am more aligned with Jp1 than not. But Unlike jp, I do not try to scream into the void that my perspective is THE perspective that must drive a national abortion law.
But abortion until “viability of 24 weeks” goes against current abortion laws of many states, I would say 1/3. After looking at the Guttmacher Institute’s map it seems to be 1/3 of the states set abortion limits at a lower gestational age.
Abortion is allowed at any gestational development by these states: Vermont, New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon.
All other states have gestational limitations.
source: Guttmacher Institute with data current as of July 30, 2022.
"Abortion is allowed at any gestational development by these states: Vermont, New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon."
That's why I mentioned the 171 post 5 months' abortions one year in Oregon. It wasn't broken down, but I presume all of these operations were vetted and performed by doctors in accordance with medical standards, and I'm fine with that.
Third trimester abortions don't happen for fun anywhere near as often as people like Alan like to fantasize/fear that they do. How many babies should we allow to be terminated on an annual basis before we begin to think about them as worthy of life?
Trusting them to make decisions about who should or should not have an abortion is just a really really ****ing bad idea. It will result in dead people. But since they are only women I suppose to some people they don’t matter.I think giving legal protection to unborn babies is a really good ****ing idea. Some of the ones you believe undeserving of those protections would grow up to be women.
I don't believe random collections of human cells are particularly "worthy of life"--certainly not more so than all the actual, existing humans who could use our help--like maybe asylum-seekers at our southern border.
I continue to believe that
ApatheticNoMore
7-21-22, 12:03pm
If I had to set a time (although plenty problematic in reality), I would set it at maybe half way through the pregnancy, 4 or 5 months. I don't care about trimesters. I don't see why we should put so much value on fetuses especially if they are female when they will just grow up to live in a country that will hate them as women anyway.
iris lilies
7-21-22, 12:05pm
I don't believe random collections of human cells are particularly "worthy of life"--certainly not more so than all the actual, existing humans who could use our help--like maybe asylum-seekers at our southern border.
But fetuses that are 8 Months 21 days are hardly random collection of human cells.Do you really think they are?
You keep making the easy argument, where most American agree with you that the randoms cells aren't worth protection until 12 weeks. After that, opinion diverges pretty widely.* I would not call a 24 week old fetus a “ collection of random cells” because I don't need to objectify that being in order to justify my preference that parents decide on the abortion time and conditions.
You can use whatever label you like, I know people are far more married to labels than I am. I dont mind calling the 24 week old fetus a “baby.” Just like I don’t need to objectify the cow I eat, a smart sentient being that sacrificed his life for my ease of life. Both are sad situations.
* Most all of Europe protects a fetus after 12 weeks of age. Note specifically those Scandinavian countries we love to hold up as beacons of progessiveness —-ALL set their abortions limits WELL BELOW 24 weeks of viability.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Europe#Abortion_rules_per_country
I don't believe random collections of human cells are particularly "worthy of life"--certainly not more so than all the actual, existing humans who could use our help...
I can agree with that, up to a point, the problem is I don't know where that point might be. Some think it should be when a distinctive heartbeat develops, usually around 6 weeks. Others, including most of the civilized world believe it's on the early side of viability, around 12 to 15 weeks for legal purposes.
I'm always amazed at the sheer number of people in this country who refuse to acknowledge the humanity of an unborn child simply for ideological purposes. You can usually pick them out when they accuse anyone considering an unborn baby to be worthy of life as someone who hates women.
ApatheticNoMore
7-21-22, 12:23pm
Note specifically those Scandinavian countries we love to hold up as beacons of progessiveness —-ALL set their abortions limits WELL BELOW 24 weeks of viability.
I think it probably gets into uncomparable things. Like far more financial help for having a baby including as a single mother, and far more access to healthcare for abortion early on and to birth control. People might claim that Americans have as much access to birth control as Europeans, but it's easily disproven by the birth control American's choose. Americans are more likely to use things like the pill, while Europeans choose far superior methods like IUDs as they aren't limited by cost and access factors the way Americans are. Yes the ACA has helped some. I mean Scandinavia has a low birth rate right? So they are clearly doing something very right in terms of preventing pregnancies or at least proving ready access to early abortion.
I guess the part that I don’t understand is that we have people all in a panic over late term abortions even though they are quite rare and in most cases happen because of medical issues or lack of access to abortion services earlier in the pregnancy but then we just shrug our shoulders at actual real children getting gunned down in schools. What a strange concept of being pro life some people have.
I still don't understand why someone's unwanted embryo or fetus is anyone's business other than that of the woman who is carrying it And I never will.
"You can use whatever label you like, I know people are far more married to labels than I am. I dont mind calling the 24 week old fetus a “baby.” Just like I don’t need to objectify the cow I eat, a smart sentient being that sacrificed his life for my ease of life. Both are sad situations."
I've often said that whomever designed our ecosystem was a jerk. I don't particularly like that we sacrifice healthy, sentient animals for food--the keyword being "sentient." Embryos/fetuses are not sentient beings--a functional brain is required for that label--at least not at the period in their development when they are generally aborted.
I agree--and I will never understand how the "life is sacred" argument only applies to the unborn, out of the 8.5 million species of living animal and plant life out there, including living humans. Life isn't sacred when freedom applies only to some; life isn't sacred when animals are tortured in feed lots; life isn't sacred when rainforests and the habitat therein are raped for paper towels, timber, and coffee; life isn't sacred when beautiful "big game" are gunned down in their own habitat for sport. Life isn't sacred when the the sources of life--earth, air and water--are despoiled irrevocably. And all that happens, not occasionally or only for medical necessity, but every moment of every day with every action of every human being and every government that supports and values GDP above all.
iris lilies
7-21-22, 1:57pm
I think it probably gets into uncomparable things. Like far more financial help for having a baby including as a single mother, and far more access to healthcare for abortion early on and to birth control….
By this logic, Canada must have no support for having a baby and must offer far less access to birth control than here in the U.S. since there are non restrictions on abortion across provinces. Does anyone here believe that?
That is, if I understand your logic correctly.
ApatheticNoMore
7-21-22, 2:04pm
i think those things are the bare minimums to limit access to abortion. I mean the truth is i don't see how limiting access to abortion ever works at all. but if it it does i can try to understand why it might, better birth control, pregnancies easily terminated early on, financial help if you decide to have the kid.
Better birth control, cheaper birth control, better access to birth control, comprehensive sex education...And certainly, better support for parents, if our goal now is to repopulate the earth or to provide white babies to prospective families.
Well said, Catherine. The idea that we should all venerate an entity with less agency or sentience than your average grubworm just shows me that it's easier to worship a non-entity than it is to solve real problems that exist here on planet earth.
rosarugosa
7-21-22, 6:37pm
I personally have no problem with abortion at any stage in the pregnancy, heck, even afterwards (a la TooMuchStuff's comical video on late stage abortion up to age 22). I don't like babies; I think they are creepy little parasites even after birth, but I know that's not a popular stance. I certainly have no expectation for anyone to set policy that would be perfectly aligned with my personal preferences. So to answer IL's question, I would be quite satisfied with a national law that was something along the lines of abortion being allowed without restriction up to 18 weeks (or 12, or 16, or whatever timeframe, as long as it is far enough out that one would expect a woman to know she is pregnant and take action if desired). Beyond that line in the sand, there would need to be a determination of medical necessity made by the woman's physician or medical team.
happystuff
7-21-22, 6:51pm
I agree--and I will never understand how the "life is sacred" argument only applies to the unborn, out of the 8.5 million species of living animal and plant life out there, including living humans. Life isn't sacred when freedom applies only to some; life isn't sacred when animals are tortured in feed lots; life isn't sacred when rainforests and the habitat therein are raped for paper towels, timber, and coffee; life isn't sacred when beautiful "big game" are gunned down in their own habitat for sport. Life isn't sacred when the the sources of life--earth, air and water--are despoiled irrevocably. And all that happens, not occasionally or only for medical necessity, but every moment of every day with every action of every human being and every government that supports and values GDP above all.
Very well said and I totally agree.
I personally have no problem with abortion at any stage in the pregnancy, heck, even afterwards (a la TooMuchStuff's comical video on late stage abortion up to age 22). I don't like babies; I think they are creepy little parasites even after birth, but I know that's not a popular stance. I certainly have no expectation for anyone to set policy that would be perfectly aligned with my personal preferences. So to answer IL's question, I would be quite satisfied with a national law that was something along the lines of abortion being allowed without restriction up to 18 weeks (or 12, or 16, or whatever timeframe, as long as it is far enough out that one would expect a woman to know she is pregnant and take action if desired). Beyond that line in the sand, there would need to be a determination of medical necessity made by the woman's physician or medical team.
I'm not particularly fond of babies, either. A baby's cry is right up there with loud noxious motors and a lot harder to turn off. But I understand there are hormones that are supposed to kick in and render one maternal at some point. I would say the women in my family forgot to get in line when the mest gene was being handed out.
I personally have no problem with abortion at any stage in the pregnancy, heck, even afterwards ...
Well, in Rome, the patria potestas extended to such things, and more.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/637768
Well, in Rome, the patria potestas extended to such things, and more.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/637768
Maybe that was the inspiration for Louisiana's bizarre patriarchal laws, only recently amended.
Teacher Terry
7-21-22, 8:43pm
I am for abortions for any reason up to 16 weeks and then after that because of danger to mother, medical conditions incompatible with life, birth defects, mother too young to safely have baby, etc. I know most late term abortions are done for medical reasons but I suppose you could have the occasional nut job that might wait too long to terminate and then want to and to that I say tough.
iris lilies
7-22-22, 9:00am
I am for abortions for any reason up to 16 weeks and then after that because of danger to mother, medical conditions incompatible with life, birth defects, mother too young to safely have baby, etc. I know most late term abortions are done for medical reasons but I suppose you could have the occasional nut job that might wait too long to terminate and then want to and to that I say tough.
I think this is reasonable for a blanket U.S. law.. Roe V Wade Supreme court decision was more generous though, allowing unrestricted abortion up to 24 weeks.
Your average 16 week old clump of cells is quite a bit more developed at 24 weeks.
iris lilies
7-22-22, 9:06am
I personally have no problem with abortion at any stage in the pregnancy, heck, even afterwards (a la TooMuchStuff's comical video on late stage abortion up to age 22). I don't like babies; I think they are creepy little parasites even after birth, but I know that's not a popular stance. I certainly have no expectation for anyone to set policy that would be perfectly aligned with my personal preferences. So to answer IL's question, I would be quite satisfied with a national law that was something along the lines of abortion being allowed without restriction up to 18 weeks (or 12, or 16, or whatever timeframe, as long as it is far enough out that one would expect a woman to know she is pregnant and take action if desired). Beyond that line in the sand, there would need to be a determination of medical necessity made by the woman's physician or medical team.
This also seems reasonable to me.
I agree that enough time has to elapse allowing abortion where is someone understands she is pregnant. That can be easier said than done. I also say in today’s modern world it is whole lot easier to know immediately you’re pregnant than is past times with the pregnancy detection kits that can be purchased over-the-counter at a pharmacy. They may not be not 100% accurate, but they are good indication. I find nothing wrong with expecting women who do not want to be pregnant to carefully monitor their status.
Morning after pill, long term birth control—-better tools than when I was young.
ApatheticNoMore
7-22-22, 11:39am
I'd just give women more time, 4 or 5 months. i don't particularly think monitoring things all the time is very reasonable at all (noone who trusts their birth control or double birth control or sterilization is going to), but it will be obvious enough in time regardless.
littlebittybobby
7-22-22, 1:39pm
Seems to me though that to wade is more kid-friendly, than to row.
. See? Hope these photos say 1,000 words. Thankk Mee. 46244625
This ad sums it up pretty well.
https://youtu.be/faTNMTVsgAA
rosarugosa
7-29-22, 6:54am
This ad sums it up pretty well.
https://youtu.be/faTNMTVsgAA
Hilariously horrifying.
Hilariously horrifying.
Mother Against Greg Abbot looks like a force to be reckoned with.
Abbott may be too busy ending rape to focus on medical issues. "Let's make something very clear: Rape is a crime," Abbott said. "And Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets."
He's a combination of Republican cruelty and gross incompetence.
iris lilies
7-29-22, 10:49am
Mother Against Greg Abbot looks like a force to be reckoned with.
Abbott may be too busy ending rape to focus on medical issues. "Let's make something very clear: Rape is a crime," Abbott said. "And Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets."
He's a combination of Republican cruelty and gross incompetence.
Threats to prosecute rapists is cruel and incompetent?
Gosh, if only we could see a titch of that cruelty and incompetence in our own city prosecutor in St. Louis.
Threats to prosecute rapists is cruel and incompetent?
Gosh, if only we could see a titch of that cruelty and incompetence in our own city prosecutor in St. Louis.
It's just stupid; he's not going to eliminate rape, and he knows it. If he thinks that's remotely possible, he's a fool. The cruelty comes in when a victim of rape can't abort the product of said rape, and Abbott and his ilk just shrug their shoulders.
It's just stupid; he's not going to eliminate rape, and he knows it. If he thinks that's remotely possible, he's a fool. The cruelty comes in when a victim of rape can't abort the product of said rape, and Abbott and his ilk just shrug their shoulders.
And then to add cruelty on top of cruelty republicans we have a republican governmental figure attacking the doctor for the ten year old rape victim, defaming her and opening up a baseless investigation of her, making it less likely that any doctor will be willing to take on a future patient who is a ten year old rape victim needing an abortion.
"Statistics from the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) show that as of August 2021, there were 5,298 untested sexual assault kits, including 1,716 kits within the DPS crime lab system and 3,582 unsubmitted kits that remain with law enforcement agencies across the state." (CNN) Abbott better get busy.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.