Kari Lake: "you can go three hours that way, three hours that way, and you're going to be able to have an abortion."

[TheCainer]

Is this just a sad commentary on the hypocrisy of today's GOP, or something even worse?

Kari Lake downplays 1864 abortion law, says Arizonans can travel '3 hours' for procedure

 

[joelbc1]

The brilliance of another U of Iowa grad! 🤮

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Is this just a sad commentary on the hypocrisy of today's GOP, or something even worse?

Kari Lake downplays 1864 abortion law, says Arizonans can travel '3 hours' for procedure

What's the issue here?

 

[TheCainer]

What's the issue here?

 

[speak34]

The only response should be.....

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

She's not wrong.

 

[EasyHawk]

Lake is a fraud and the people of AZ despise her.

 

[Joes Place]

Is this just a sad commentary on the hypocrisy of today's GOP, or something even worse?

Kari Lake downplays 1864 abortion law, says Arizonans can travel '3 hours' for procedure

...with NONE of the facilities being in your insurance network...meaning anyone needing immediate care for a miscarriage has to pay travel costs, hotel costs and out-of-network costs...

 

[Joes Place]

What's the issue here?

It's pretty obvious to anyone w/ a functioning brain.

 

[Obviously Oblivious]

The AZ legislature has already gifted their electoral votes to Biden through this completely ridiculous and out of touch support for an obscure territorial law that was championed by a hebephile. Their disconnect from the public sentiment is profound.

Keep it coming you political idiots, it may poison your chances all the way down the ballot.

 

[thewop]

1. I support some sort of federal minimum, just to make things easier (I.e states can't ban x weeks, and some well defined exceptions after that), and make people feel more secure about their options whether they're permanent residents of a state or not. For example, the morning after pill should always be available in spring break locations...make it law.

2. She isn't wrong. In today's world, people choose where to live for many reasons. You see people leaving California or NY for various reasons, they leave Iowa for others. If you prioritize the right to unalive your unborn child, and you happen to live in a place that restricts it further than you'd like, then you have to decide whether you're going to stay, leave, or go somewhere else to have your unborn child exterminated. It's like any other decision regarding your body (do I want to be in a state that allows me to use marijuana, or certain types of CBD, or give my children alcohol within my own home?)

In the end, it's about personal choices, and from that perspective I'm on board with states having some flexibility in how they govern themselves according to how the residents of that particular state want.

 

[TheCainer]

1. I support some sort of federal minimum, just to make things easier (I.e states can't ban x weeks, and some well defined exceptions after that), and make people feel more secure about their options whether they're permanent residents of a state or not. For example, the morning after pill should always be available in spring break locations...make it law.

2. She isn't wrong. In today's world, people choose where to live for many reasons. You see people leaving California or NY for various reasons, they leave Iowa for others. If you prioritize the right to unalive your unborn child, and you happen to live in a place that restricts it further than you'd like, then you have to decide whether you're going to stay, leave, or go somewhere else to have your unborn child exterminated. It's like any other decision regarding your body (do I want to be in a state that allows me to use marijuana, or certain types of CBD, or give my children alcohol within my own home?)

In the end, it's about personal choices, and from that perspective I'm on board with states having some flexibility in how they govern themselves according to how the residents of that particular state want.

Why restrict it to "states"?

We're all "Americans", aren't we? United States of America??????

 

[jneffer]

these kinds of comments just show how ignorant and uninformed the people are who make them

this isn't only about elective abortions...its about the many medical procedures/complications that violate these draconian laws and result in the kind of awful stories that we heard since roe was overturned...like women being forced to carry a known non-viable child to full term because the procedure necessary is prohibited by a state law (and in this case, a state law written when surgery involved biting down on a piece of shoe leather)

 

[Joes Place]

If you prioritize the right to unalive your unborn child, and you happen to live in a place that restricts it further than you'd like, then you have to decide whether you're going to stay, leave, or go somewhere else to have your unborn child exterminated.

Major companies are already "deciding" here.

Because female employees (and SOs of employees) have miscarriages, like anyone else does. And those companies do not want their employees medically out of the office, bleeding in a bathtub waiting days or weeks until they can get life-saving medical care. Several have already publicly stated they are no longer expanding operations in states that are banning pre-natal care options, including abortions.

You want to claim "no one intended for the laws to do this", but that is EXACTLY what they intended.

 

[lucas80]

Lake is a fraud and the people of AZ despise her.

IDK about that. I have seen some polling putting her ahead of Gallego. That tells you a lot about a state. Lake is a festering boil of anger and resentment, and that is where a lot of America and Arizona is right now.

 

[thewop]

Why restrict it to "states"?

We're all "Americans", aren't we? United States of America??????

That's pretty much what I said in point 1. I'm saying you give states some flexibility for their citizens to do their own thing, but set some federal minimums in place...

Late term abortion clinics can be next to fireworks stands and strip clubs right on state borders. 'merica!

 

[lucas80]

That's pretty much what I said in point 1. I'm saying you give states some flexibility for their citizens to do their own thing, but set some federal minimums in place...

Late term abortion clinics can be next to fireworks stands and strip clubs right on state borders. 'merica!

What percentage of late term abortions are not done in order to save the life of the mother? Overall what percentage of abortions in America are late term? Do you believe a woman goes 7-8 months and then decides it's too inconvenient to have a child and opts for a late term abortion?

 

[tumorboy]

In some health complications. The mother isn’t allowed to travel or get much of anything but bed rest. Sticky wicket.

 

[franklinman]

...with NONE of the facilities being in your insurance network...meaning anyone needing immediate care for a miscarriage has to pay travel costs, hotel costs and out-of-network costs...

Is Arizona paying for this procedure if they have to travel ?

 

[Joes Place]

Late term abortion clinics can be next to fireworks stands and strip clubs right on state borders.

Only, lots of these women aren't looking for "late term abortions". They need immediate, critical care for early and mid-term abortions due to fetal anomalies and miscarriages. And now they have to travel out of state for days or weeks worth of care and pay out-of-network costs for that care.

But you don't give a shit about them because U gotta "Save The Babies!!!" (which you won't adopt or provide food, education or clothing for, because that'd mean more taxes for you)

 

[IAFB2021Champs]

The brilliance of another U of Iowa grad! 🤮

Of course. Another Iowa grad leaving the state. Apparently it’s always the best ones moving away.

 

[TheCainer]

IDK about that. I have seen some polling putting her ahead of Gallego. That tells you a lot about a state. Lake is a festering boil of anger and resentment, and that is where a lot of America and Arizona is right now.

You know, I guess that I am kind of naive here, and I admit that I am not a big student of history, but, I thought that there maybe had been an "event" where "states rights" had kind have been overruled by some hard fought "struggle" that proved that individual "states rights" were not the law of the land? For an example, "slavery"????

I don't know.

Just a thought.

And maybe, just maybe, that kind of example had set a precedent for other "states rights" to be overridden by, I don't know, the rights of every citizen of a "nation"?

Maybe I am wrong...

If so, mea culpa.

Maybe it boils down to whether or not we are an actual nation, or, still, just a collective, of individual states, kind of like the original 13 colonies from 250 years ago?

I wonder what the Brits of today would think?

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Why restrict it to "states"?

We're all "Americans", aren't we? United States of America??????

Then by your logic why even have states?

 

[RNHawk]

What percentage of late term abortions are not done in order to save the life of the mother? Overall what percentage of abortions in America are late term? Do you believe a woman goes 7-8 months and then decides it's too inconvenient to have a child and opts for a late term abortion?

Can you name me a health condition where they MUST do a late term abortion?

 

[joelbc1]

Of course. Another Iowa grad leaving the state. Apparently it’s always the best ones moving away.

Perhaps this time, Iowa got lucky. Like golf, not all “luck” can be bad luck.

 

[Joes Place]

Can you name me a health condition where they MUST do a late term abortion?

You're supposedly a nurse. You cannot Google one up?

 

[joelbc1]

Can you name me a health condition where they MUST do a late term abortion?

Yep… when you find out the father is a registered Republican.,

 

[desihawk]

on the face of it looks like arizona reps succeeded in passing an assholish law while dems (governor is dem) proved themselves completely incompetent at getting anything done. the poor citizen bastards of az have only shit leadership options in state. same as for general elections.

 

[TC Nole OX]

 

[TheCainer]

Then by your logic why even have states?

That's a very good question. It seems that we have outgrown the need for individual states, besides of course, for more serious local questions of whether or not, we can have legal fireworks. dws

States are responsible for local tax rates in order to pay for local civic improvements, such as schools, roads, and other necessities which may be needed on a "local" basis.

IMO, in today's world environment, states have become, in the grand scheme of things, the same kind of local status as cities/counties/townships. They are still needed for local governance and administration, and establishing tax rates for local needs, but not for national governance. But, they should guarantee an individual's rights on a national level. They should not undermine an established national right.

And while we are at it, let's do away with the electoral college and make all national level elections a true "national election" aka, the popular vote . That would make national elections a true representation of who The People would want to represent them instead of the results of half a dozen or so of "Swing States". It would make presidential candidates campaign in all 50 states. We can still "locally" elect representatives and senators to look out for our states' interests in the "national" government. I think that is the way our founding fathers would have really wanted it, especially since the abolition of slavery and the abnormal effects that slavery (3/5 of a person, e.g.) held over our electoral processes and national representation in Congress.

 

[bunsen82]

Then by your logic why even have states?

Sure, fine by me, Reynolds out, democrats will win the elections with the majority of the vote.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

View embedded media

That scary music...

Oh no!

 

[IAFB2021Champs]

Yep… when you find out the father is a registered Republican.,

Why aren’t we hearing about a lot more late term abortions then?

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

That's a very good question. It seems that we have outgrown the need for individual states, besides of course, for more serious local questions of whether or not, we can have legal fireworks. dws

States are responsible for local tax rates in order to pay for local civic improvements, such as schools, roads, and other necessities which may be needed on a "local" basis.

IMO, in today's world environment, states have become, in the grand scheme of things, the same kind of local status as cities/counties/townships. They are still needed for local governance and administration, and establishing tax rates for local needs, but not for national governance. But, they should guarantee an individual's rights on a national level. They should not undermine an established national right.

And while we are at it, let's do away with the electoral college and make all national level elections a true "national election" aka, the popular vote . That would make national elections a true representation of who The People would want to represent them instead of the results of half a dozen or so of "Swing States". It would make presidential candidates campaign in all 50 states. We can still "locally" elect representatives and senators to look out for our states' interests in the "national" government. I think that is the way our founding fathers would have really wanted it, especially since the abolition of slavery and the abnormal effects that slavery (3/5 of a person, e.g.) held over our electoral processes and national representation in Congress.

Nah...I'm pleased with our current framework of states.

We are a divided people and that's increasing everyday. The states can accommodate those differences.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Sure, fine by me, Reynolds out, democrats will win the elections with the majority of the vote.

What elections are you referring to?

 

[franklinman]

WE, the people are NOT united, so why not eliminate the word UNITED from USA, and call our selves the, DSA.

 

[hawkbirch]

Can you name me a health condition where they MUST do a late term abortion?

not a must because a mother can always choose to give birth to a child knowing he or she will die shortly after birth or choose to die herself attempting to carry the pregnancy. But conditions that can end in late term abortion include anencephaly, trisomy 13, trisomy 18, molar pregnancies, and placenta accreta.

 

[Tom Paris]

What percentage of late term abortions are not done in order to save the life of the mother? Overall what percentage of abortions in America are late term? Do you believe a woman goes 7-8 months and then decides it's too inconvenient to have a child and opts for a late term abortion?

There's something like 1% of abortions take place in the last trimester and basically 99.9% of those are for something other than the woman changing her mind. It's always been a BS scare wording from forced birth people. Similar to "partial birth" abortions that were not a real thing. More lies.

 

[bunsen82]

What elections are you referring to?

You said there would be no states . . . shows your intelligence level. Is this was purely based on federal elections and then truly who gets the most votes, democrats will win hands down as they have for the last 20 years. Then they can gerrymander all they want for house and senate seats. Sounds fun doesn't it.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

You said there would be no states . . . shows your intelligence level. Is this was purely based on federal elections and then truly who gets the most votes, democrats will win hands down as they have for the last 20 years. Then they can gerrymander all they want for house and senate seats. Sounds fun doesn't it.

The presidency, house and senate have flipped routinely the last 20 years.