While I "might" understand the viewpoints of those opposed to abortion. The natural evolution of that thought is now in the conversation under the banning or restricting of medicines that prevent pregancies. i.e. the morning after pill. But then I remember that the last thing rich white men want is more whores running around except in thier mansions.
The Abortion Ban Backlash Is Starting to Freak Out Republicans
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
No, the smarter thing would have been for Democrats to recognize and react to what the GOP strategy was and convinced Ginsburg to retire when Obama was in office or even earlier. I kind of think Democrats didn't actually believe Republicans would go through with all of this.
I don't feel like they lied to me because I don't necessarily trust the R's. Any group that says they are pro life but doesn't think it's the state's responsibility to provide medical care for it's citizens shouldn't be trusted.
While you can never legislate every medical scenario you can give good guidelines for medical professionals to follow if the medical profession is willing to play ball and work with you. I don't think we should second guess 2 doctors who find it medically necessary but wishes of the parents to not have the child shouldn't play into this . . .
All it takes is doctors who are willing to consider the fetus their patient too.
I am finding out that Rs don't really care about protecting kids.
"major and extraordinary" risks now.
That's what the abortion is intending to prevent. So, we haven't addressed the problem (again).
One more try: PREGNANCY carries higher risks to the mother than ABORTION does. So, if you are advocating for the patient, then you must allow the abortion thru at least the 1st trimester, and in most circumstances, during at least part of the 2nd.
It would have been better for them if she had retired under Obama but I don't think that no one tried to convince her. I just think she made the decision herself not to retire.
Or, you can just let the medical profession decide what "standard of care" is, and leave your legislators and alleged "morality plays" out of it.
This is what "less government" actually means. Quit pretending you're a conservative if you don't actually believe that.
You can't "clarify" that. Every incident is different. Do you think you can put a percentage on the possibility of damage to the woman's health and ban everything that doesn't meet that arbitrary number? How would that work?
How about this...allow abortions to fall under the purview of a woman and her health care provider. If you don't like abortions...DON'T GET ONE.
And don't put fake obstacles in the way of someone who may have a combination of medical issues and personal life-issues which make a pregnancy untenable for them.
SOME people are willing to take the risks of a difficult pregnancy. OTHERS are not. That is THEIR decision, not YOURS.
Major and extraordinary risks beyond normal pregnancy.
Maternal death in this country while unfortunately higher than comparable nations is not actually that common and probably would be far less common if we guaranteed everyone healthcare.
I assume your home is stuffed full of unwanted, damaged children...you know...that "innocent human life" you hypocritically claim to care so much about. If not, you can STFU.
Which are actually pretty common.
And you'll never create a legal document that encompasses all of the potential scenarios.
Yet, you're fine with screwing over women with complicated situations, just to limit some abortions. Because you need that control over their decisions on what's best for them.
#LessGovermentConservatives
#MansplainingPregnancyToThem
I'm not "conservative" other than a social conservative. I'm not a believer in less government at all. Never claimed to be.
If you don't like slavery don't buy one.
I don't like abortions because some people decided they didn't want a kid which is what the vast majority of them are for.
It's not hard for doctors to decide if an abortion is medically necessary to save life or not. Just like it's not hard for them to determine when surgery is medically necessary.
Maternal death in this country is 3x to 4x HIGHER in states that limit abortion access.
Dude you are talking about maybe 2% of abortions max. 98% of abortions are for reasons that boil down to someone didn't want to have a kid.
It's illegal for a doctor to tell you that your heart needs to be replaced when your heart is fine just so they can collect the fee from open heart surgery.
It should also be illegal for them to say abort children just because the parents didn't feel like having one.
It's not my fault that they keep their people in poverty and without access to medical care.
Don't confuse me for a Republican just because I don't believe in elective abortion. Universal healthcare for both mother and child would reduce that number more than anything.
Honestly I'm willing to say it that in most cases I think we need more government. We need government to do more to take care of it's most vulnerable citizens which includes the the poor, minorities, and children both born and unborn. It should do more to keep wages high to encourage a strong middle class.
The only places where I really am ok with less government is places where laws seem to protect no one. So I am ok with legalizing but heavily regulating prostitution with regulations focused on protecting both providers and patrons. I'm also ok with legalizing but heavily regulating weed with regulations similar to the regulations that we have surrounding alcohol usage.
LOL...in the very anecdote I posted they couldn't quantify the risk. And it was never about saving anyone's life. The damaged twin simply couldn't be saved. Carrying the damaged twin put the other child's health at much higher risk but BOTH could have been carried to term. The mother's life was likely NEVER in danger but her health could have been adversely affected. You keep trying to make this either/or and it rarely is.
As for that moronic analogy, are you telling me that you seriously look at women who have abortions and doctors who perform them and people who support that right in the same light as those who tore Africans away from their families and homes, enslaved them, beat them, raped them, killed them...are you actually claiming some kind of moral equivalency there??? If we want to carry your analogy out...black women were FORCED to have babies which is pretty much what you advocate now. Does that mean YOU support slavery?
Slavery and abortion rights have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in common and using that kind of rhetoric just exposes you to ridicule. You shouldn't do that.
Meh all of those where swing states where the Republicans had their season in power and may have solidified it in the legislature with gerrymandering. But a few percentage points either way is going to make all the difference.
Iowa used to be a swing state but not so much anymore. Reynolds won in 2022 by 19 points. Whereas in Wisconsin Evers only won by 4 points and 1 point the election prior. Walker his Republican predecessor won in 2010 and 2014 by 6 points.
Michigan may be flipping blue as Whitmer won by about 11 points.
A loose collection of cells is not human life. Talk to me at the 15-20 week stage.
Yes it's a group of people who have convinced themselves they are doing the right thing when they are clearly doing the wrong thing.
Even believers in abortion often think it should be rare or have other reservations about it. There is a reason for that. It's because they know some sort of wrong is being done here but they are too focused on other concerns to call it out.
Lets just focus on elective abortions (which is 98% of them) and ignore medically necessary ones. The over-riding concern most pro-choicers have in protecting elective abortions is increasing the number of kids in poverty as well as increasing the number of disabled children. This is mostly an economic argument because it would cost the state money. There may also be concerns about children limiting the opportunities of the parents which is again an economic concern.
The defenders of slavery their overriding concern was again economic. Taking away slaves could crash their economy and lower their production of cotton which was at the time a very vital crop.
In both cases economic concerns are being used to justify human rights abuses.
Then if we zoom out concerns over the complexity of ending the status quo of human rights abuse are used to justify continuing the status quo rather than focusing on working out the problems that arise from ending the status quo.
For slavery it was concerns about what to do with the slaves and what role they would have in the country if they stayed. For abortion it's these medical concerns. In both cases the status quo of human rights abuses is defended by the complexity of simply treating all with human rights.
Does anyone find it odd that so many men are determining what is best for women?
IMO, abortion should not be in the political arena.
Many good POV in this thread, and some dubious ones.
IMO, abortion should not be in the political arena.
Many good POV in this thread, and some dubious ones.
Is this what they tell you?
You really have no clue what complications and problems occur for women, and why they make the decisions they do. But you need to judge them and prevent them from deciding what is best for them.
Because: patriarchy.
Abortion care is medical care.
So is contraception.
Last I checked women get a vote on the draft which they are not a part of.
If men can't vote on abortion, women don't get to vote on the draft or going to war unless they have served or willingly sign up.
That would disqualify any woman who hasn't served from being president.
Or we could just say we determine these things collectively knowing that women are just as likely to be pro-life as men.
Is a woman who is bleeding out due to a miscarriage an innocent life?
@Hoosierhawkeye
Again, what about a fetus that is not going to make it to term, or is going to die shortly after birth? Mother’s physical health is not at risk, or low chance of harm to the mother during the pregnancy.
What is your position?
Again, what about a fetus that is not going to make it to term, or is going to die shortly after birth? Mother’s physical health is not at risk, or low chance of harm to the mother during the pregnancy.
What is your position?
Just one correction, there is no federal abortion ban, the Supreme Court just said states are allowed to determine how abortion is regulated or not by their own citizens. Democracy.By Michelle Goldberg
Opinion Columnist
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
After the Republican Party’s disappointing performance in the 2022 midterms, fueled in large part by a backlash to the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, the Republican National Committee recommitted itself to anti-abortion maximalism.
A resolution adopted at the R.N.C.’s winter meeting in January urges Republican lawmakers “to pass the strongest pro-life legislation possible.” Addressing their party’s poor showing in November, it said that Republicans hadn’t been aggressive enough in defending anti-abortion values, urging them to “go on offense in the 2024 election cycle.”
The 11-point loss of the Republican-aligned candidate in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election on Tuesday has influential conservatives rethinking this strategy. “Republicans had better get their abortion position straight, and more in line with where voters are, or they will face another disappointment in 2024,” said a Wall Street Journal editorial.
Ann Coulter tweeted, “The demand for anti-abortion legislation just cost Republicans another crucial race,” and added, “Please stop pushing strict limits on abortion, or there will be no Republicans left.” Jon Schweppe, policy director of the socially conservative American Principles Project, lamented, “We are getting killed by indie voters who think we support full bans with no exceptions.”
Story continues below advertisement
Continue reading the main story
But having made the criminalization of abortion a central axis of their political project for decades, Republicans have no obvious way out of their electoral predicament. A decisive majority of Americans — 64 percent, according to a recent Public Religion Research Institute survey — believe that abortion should be legal in most cases. A decisive majority of Republicans — 63 percent, according to the same survey — believe that it should not. When abortion bans were merely theoretical, anti-abortion passion was often a boon to Republicans, powering the grass-roots organizing of the religious right. Now that the end of Roe has awakened a previously complacent pro-choice majority, anti-abortion passion has become a liability, but the Republican Party can’t jettison it without tearing itself apart.
The reason voters think Republicans support full abortion bans, as Schweppe wrote, is that many of them do.
In the last Congress, 167 House Republicans co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act, conferring full personhood rights on fertilized eggs. In state after state, lawmakers are doing just what the R.N.C. suggested and using every means at their disposal to force people to continue unwanted or unviable pregnancies. Idaho, where almost all abortions are illegal, just passed an “abortion trafficking” law that would make helping a minor leave the state to get an abortion without parental consent punishable by five years in prison. The Texas Senate just passed a bill that, among other things, is intended to force prosecutors in left-leaning cities to pursue abortion law violations. South Carolina Republicans have proposed a law defining abortion as murder, making it punishable by the death penalty.
In Florida, which already has a 15-week abortion ban, Gov. Ron DeSantis is expected to soon sign a law banning almost all abortions at six weeks. This isn’t something Florida voters want — polls show a majority of them support abortion rights — but it’s a virtual prerequisite for his likely presidential campaign.
Republican attempts to moderate abortion prohibitions even slightly have, for the most part, gone nowhere. Last year, the Idaho’s Republican Party defeated an amendment to the party’s platform allowing for an exception to the state’s abortion ban to save a woman’s life. In the weeks before the Wisconsin election on Tuesday, Republican lawmakers introduced a bill providing some narrow exceptions to the state’s abortion prohibition for cases of rape, incest and grave threats to a pregnant person’s health, but they lacked the votes in their own party to pass it.
Story continues below advertisement
Continue reading the main story
It’s true that this week Tennessee’s Legislature passed a bill permitting abortion to save a patient’s life or prevent “serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.” But the legislation is meaningless to the point of perversity, since it places the burden of proof on doctors rather than on the state, so that they must still fear prosecution for treating pregnant people in severe medical distress. Language that would allow women to end “medically futile pregnancies” was stripped out.
“My fellow pro-lifers and I will also need to make the case to expectant mothers, and fathers too, that their unborn children are, like the rest of us, dependent and needy persons.”
Erika Bachiochi, a conservative legal scholar, in “What Makes a Fetus a Person?” Read the guest essay.
“The overturning of Roe v. Wade reveals the Supreme Court’s neglectful reading of the amendments that abolished slavery and guaranteed all people equal protection under the law. It means the erasure of Black women from the Constitution.”
Michele Goodwin, a professor of law at the University of California, in “No, Justice Alito, Reproductive
It’s not surprising that voters have reacted with revulsion to being stripped of rights they’d long taken for granted, and to seeing the health of pregnant women treated so cavalierly. But the backlash seems to have caught Republicans off guard. Last May, when the Supreme Court’s draft decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization leaked, Coulter assured her readers that the end of Roe wouldn’t help Democrats. “Outside of the media, no one seems especially bothered by the decision,” she wrote.
Part of what happened here is that conservatives fell for their own propaganda about representing “normal” Americans. (This, incidentally, is the same reason many on the right can’t admit to themselves that Donald Trump lost in 2020.) Coulter was sure Americans would be turned off by those outraged by the end of Roe, writing, “Everybody hates the feminists.” When a poll last year showed that 55 percent of Americans identified as pro-choice, a piece in National Review told readers not to worry: “Many of our policy goals enjoy strong public support.”
Untethered to actual Republican voters, Coulter was able to pivot, but the Republican Party cannot. Instead, its leaders are adopting a self-soothing tactic sometimes seen on the left, insisting they’re being defeated because they’ve failed to make their values clear, not because their values are unpopular. “When you’re losing by 10 points, there is a messaging issue,” the Republican Party chairwoman, Ronna McDaniel, said on Fox News, explaining the loss in Wisconsin.
But you can’t message away forced birth. Republicans’ political problem is twofold. Their supporters take the party’s position on abortion seriously, and now, post-Roe, so does everyone else.
Opinion | The Abortion Ban Backlash Is Starting to Freak Out Republicans
But their voters won’t let them pivot to moderation.www.nytimes.com
About 26% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Pretending a zygot or 9 week old fetus is a baby and denying medical care is no joke.
www.theguardian.com
What a pregnancy actually looks like before 10 weeks – in pictures
In 13 US states, abortion is banned even in the earliest stages of pregnancy. But we rarely see what such tissue really looks like
First of all, there is no draft, although selective service registration still exists.
Please point me to the law that says that a person must have served in the military to qualify as POTUS.
Yet, that's not what they are doing.
They are attempting a nationwide ban on common medicines, AND banning travel outside their own states for women to get abortion care when it is needed.
So, this is simply a bald-faced lie. They are trying for a nationwide ban here.
If you are going to make the argument that men shouldn't be involved in this discussion or have a vote in this than I will make the argument that women shouldn't have to vote on anything regarding the draft or if we go to war.
Because ultimately every man legally speaking is required to sign his name up so that if the country decides conscription is required he can be forced to join the military and go to war no matter if he wants to go or not.
Women are not required to do that.
So if men don't get a seat at the table in abortion discussions, women don't get a seat at the table when it comes to war and military issues unless they have volunteered to serve.
LOL...you're saying those...things?...in orphanages and long-term care facilities aren't children? That's a new one. What do you call them?
