ADVERTISEMENT

Kari Lake: "you can go three hours that way, three hours that way, and you're going to be able to have an 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.
99.9 percent of the time those conditions are identified in early pregnancy, again there is not a health condition that Requires a later term abortion, the baby can always be delivered
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BelemNole
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.

The electoral college is DEI for republicans.
 
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.
Well I guess we agree on this, at least as long as the states don't try to infringe on people's national rights.

Do you agree on that point?
 
I already did there is not one medical reason where a late term abortion must be made in order to save the life or health of the mom
Of course there is. I gave you a list. Some women will choose to sacrifice their own life to attempt to save their child's life. Other women will choose to terminate their pregnancy to attempt to save their own life. It's a horrible choice either way but one made necessary by medical conditions that threaten one or both of them. The facts aren't on your side with this one.
 
Well, what other rights are there?

Well, you used the term "national rights".

Now that we've agreed the correct term is "constitutional rights", which states do you believe are infringing on those rights? And specifically, which rights?
 
Of course there is. I gave you a list. Some women will choose to sacrifice their own life to attempt to save their child's life. Other women will choose to terminate their pregnancy to attempt to save their own life. It's a horrible choice either way but one made necessary by medical conditions that threaten one or both of them. The facts aren't on your side with this one.
Those conditions you described do not inherently cause risk to the mother; the molar pregnancy is not by most accounts is not even an embryo and is considered a tumor, which does not fall under abortion, the placenta accrena treatment is typically surgery, during which such surgery it is not necessary to kill the baby but can rather save it if performed under the time frame of late term abortion
 
Of course there is. I gave you a list. Some women will choose to sacrifice their own life to attempt to save their child's life. Other women will choose to terminate their pregnancy to attempt to save their own life. It's a horrible choice either way but one made necessary by medical conditions that threaten one or both of them. The facts aren't on your side with this one.
You are also implying that having an abortion is 100% safe, which of course it is not, a female can risk their life and other health complications simply by having an abortion
 
Well, you used the term "national rights".

Now that we've agreed the correct term is "constitutional rights", which states do you believe are infringing on those rights? And specifically, which rights?
Good point.

But, let's dig a little deeper.

Can any state rescind a right from an out of state person that is guaranteed by the Constitution? And if so, why? Can a "state" law supercede a constitutional right/law?

If so, we just may be arriving at the crux of the matter.
 
Good point.

But, let's dig a little deeper.

Can any state rescind a right from an out of state person that is guaranteed by the Constitution? And if so, why? Can a "state" law supercede a constitutional right/law?

If so, we just may be arriving at the crux of the matter.

What do you contend to be the "constitional right" that you're referring to in this scenario?
 
Those conditions you described do not inherently cause risk to the mother; the molar pregnancy is not by most accounts is not even an embryo and is considered a tumor, which does not fall under abortion, the placenta accrena treatment is typically surgery, during which such surgery it is not necessary to kill the baby but can rather save it if performed under the time frame of late term abortion
Late term abortion is a political term, not a medical one. Sure, there are times where those conditions do not risk the mother's health or life to an extent where abortion needs to be considered. Which does nothing to help the mothers who find themselves facing a decision about who lives and who doesn't
 
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.

Jeezis H. Tit

Lawyer knows more medicine than the Murse!!!!
 
so there is no medical reason for a late term abortion

You just claimed 0.1%

Of 300k pregnancies, that's at least in the dozens - if not several hundred, Cletus. And probably more common than you realize.
 
I already did there is not one medical reason where a late term abortion must be made in order to save the life or health of the mom

Considering you are a "patient advocate" nurse, who does no actual nurse-work and has zero experience in pre-natal care, your opinion here holds about as much merit as Kari Lake's...

You got schooled by a female lawyer on this one, Cletus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed
Late term abortion is a political term, not a medical one. Sure, there are times where those conditions do not risk the mother's health or life to an extent where abortion needs to be considered. Which does nothing to help the mothers who find themselves facing a decision about who lives and who doesn't
And those mothers have had plenty of time to make a decision prior to the fetus being viable outside the womb
 
Really? All of them? How could you possibly know that?

The "unintended consequences" of banning abortions: women miscarrying who cannot access ER care because they cannot get regular care before their situations go 'critical'...

 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT