Supreme Court Votes 6 - 3 to Overturn Casey and Roe

69,404 Views | 623 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by chazzed
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:08p, 7/10/22
Welcome to life in a theocracy.

Reply Quote
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:23p, 7/13/22


Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
1 edit
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:19a, 7/14/22
What's even more disgusting is what these people really want.

How can anyone defend this? We had all of the reasonable conservatives tell us that the rational basis will establish some sort of baseline and that in time pregnant people will have options.




Reply Quote
1 edit
dimitrig
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 11:27a, 7/14/22
Unit2Sucks said:
What's even more disgusting is what these people really want.

How can anyone defend this? We had all of the reasonable conservatives tell us that the rational basis will establish some sort of baseline and that in time pregnant people will have options.





There are some sick fscks out there.

Reply Quote
BearForce2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dimitrig • 1:25p, 7/14/22
dimitrig said:


There are some sick fscks out there.


Sick and illegal.
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
Reply Quote
AunBear89
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearForce2 • 1:43p, 7/14/22
His immigration status has NOTHING to do with the central issue here. It is just more RWNJ deflection.

So what exactly is your point? The 10 year old should have been forced to have the baby because her rapist was an undocumented immigrant?
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Reply Quote
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 1:53p, 7/14/22
bearister said:


That was reported reasonably widely - couldn't confirm the case actually happened. It was subsequently reported the alleged rapist was ID'd. The first part isn't a lie, it was made irrelevant by the identification of the accused. The accused supposedly has certain factors which would make him newsworthy in evil right wing circles...not sure if the Congressman tweeted about that part, as I generally stay off social media.
Reply Quote
BearForce2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AunBear89 • 1:56p, 7/14/22
AunBear89 said:
His immigration status has NOTHING to do with the central issue here. It is just more RWNJ deflection.

So what exactly is your point? The 10 year old should have been forced to have the baby because her rapist was an undocumented immigrant?

It's just the facts. He's also 5'3". No whining allowed on the BI OT forums.
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
Reply Quote
1 edit
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AunBear89 • 1:57p, 7/14/22
AunBear89 said:
His immigration status has NOTHING to do with the central issue here. It is just more RWNJ deflection.

So what exactly is your point? The 10 year old should have been forced to have the baby because her rapist was an undocumented immigrant?
No. The point is she wouldn't have been raped if we enforced our immigration laws.

And no, that does not mean that all immigrants are rapists.

To the central issue: IIRC I read where the state attorney general said the 10yo would have been allowed to get an abortion in Ohio because (paraphrasing) a 10yo can't safely/healthily carry a baby to term.

More to the central issue: she apparently got the abortion. Not in an ideal or easy way. Given the current state of the law the people of Ohio need to lobby their representatives and vote.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tequila4kapp • 2:04p, 7/14/22
tequila4kapp said:
bearister said:


That was reported reasonably widely - couldn't confirm the case actually happened. It was subsequently reported the alleged rapist was ID'd. The first part isn't a lie, it was made irrelevant by the identification of the accused. The accused supposedly has certain factors which would make him newsworthy in evil right wing circles...not sure if the Congressman tweeted about that part, as I generally stay off social media.
I'm not sure what you are trying to address, but there was a lot of false information in extremist right wing media claiming that this poor child didn't actually exist, that the story was fabricated or that this should have been a non-issue for some other reason.









Ohio conservatives are disingenuously claiming this child could have obtained an abortion in Ohio despite the fact that their law creates quite a lot of risk around any termination in Ohio. The purpose of their law, like the don't say gay bill in Florida, is to create enough litigation risk to prevent the things they don't want to happen from happening, while allowing them to pretend that they aren't actually banning quite reasonable things. Variation on the Motte and Bailey, as I've explained previously.

And, to be clear, Ohio is just one example and not even the most extreme. Texas doesn't want to be required to allow women to have control over their own medical decisions, even when their lives are at stake. This is the theocracy conservatives have worked so hard to create.


Reply Quote
AunBear89
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 2:29p, 7/14/22
TLDR: Republicans are liars and hypocrites.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Reply Quote
juarezbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 2:56p, 7/14/22
Unit2Sucks said:
tequila4kapp said:
bearister said:


That was reported reasonably widely - couldn't confirm the case actually happened. It was subsequently reported the alleged rapist was ID'd. The first part isn't a lie, it was made irrelevant by the identification of the accused. The accused supposedly has certain factors which would make him newsworthy in evil right wing circles...not sure if the Congressman tweeted about that part, as I generally stay off social media.
I'm not sure what you are trying to address, but there was a lot of false information in extremist right wing media claiming that this poor child didn't actually exist, that the story was fabricated or that this should have been a non-issue for some other reason.









Ohio conservatives are disingenuously claiming this child could have obtained an abortion in Ohio despite the fact that their law creates quite a lot of risk around any termination in Ohio. The purpose of their law, like the don't say gay bill in Florida, is to create enough litigation risk to prevent the things they don't want to happen from happening, while allowing them to pretend that they aren't actually banning quite reasonable things. Variation on the Motte and Bailey, as I've explained previously.

And, to be clear, Ohio is just one example and not even the most extreme. Texas doesn't want to be required to allow women to have control over their own medical decisions, even when their lives are at stake. This is the theocracy conservatives have worked so hard to create.


As a 4th Generation Texan, I find this to be beyond disgusting.
Reply Quote
okaydo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:42p, 7/14/22
One of the annoying things, to me as somebody who follows the media, is that The Washington Post's fact-checker -- who is known to be biased -- decided to investigate the case himself and determined the story to be dubious.




Sure, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the New York Post and Fox News are going to cast doubt.

Technically, Glenn Kessler is an opinion columnist, which is opinion-based reporting. But when you have "The Washington Post" and "Fact Checker" casting doubt. then it basically cements the story as being not true since The Post is known for being a top-notch journalistic institution.




























The Washington Post fact-checker cast doubt on a story published by the Indianapolis Star, which won a Pulitzer Prize for national reporting a year ago.

The Indianapolis Star also broke the Larry Nassar story.





Reply Quote
1 edit
okaydo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:04p, 7/14/22


Reply Quote
1 edit
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:55p, 7/14/22
And I thought I was being comprehensive lol. That's a lot of stuff Okaydo.
Reply Quote
AunBear89
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:57p, 7/14/22
Further extensive evidence that Republicans are lying d-bag hypocrites.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Reply Quote
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:17p, 7/14/22
They want 10 year old rape victims to be force birthed
Reply Quote
1 edit
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AunBear89 • 7:54p, 7/14/22
AunBear89 said:
Further extensive evidence that Republicans are lying d-bag hypocrites.
That's unfair. At least they all agree it's for the states to decide.



Ooops.
Reply Quote
okaydo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:47a, 7/15/22
An excerpt:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/15/opinion/abortion-rights-travel.html







Reply Quote
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:50p, 7/15/22
inb4 CB80 asks where the constitution expressly says we have a right to travel.
Reply Quote
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:53p, 7/15/22
The good news is this bat **** crazy stuff is easily remedied at the ballot box, if not the courts.
Reply Quote
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tequila4kapp • 4:48p, 7/15/22
tequila4kapp said:
The good news is this bat **** crazy stuff is easily remedied at the ballot box, if not the courts.
"easily" is a curious way to describe our version of democracy. With all of the gerrymandering and barriers to voting, our elections hardly represent the views of our citizens. Old people are way over-represented and young people over way under-represented. Could it be remedied in theory? Sure. But in practice we know what's going to happen.

We also know that in some states, the electorate prefers these regressive policies. Look at what's happening in Indiana. They're calling a special session to pass a strict anti-abortion law. Kansas' constitution protects the right to abortion so they've decided to put it to a vote during the primary - which they know will be advantageous to the forced birth crowd. This stuff isn't an accident and isn't intended to reflect the will of the people. The idea that we can just ignore the injustice because people may someday have an opportunity to vote on it, is a bit naive.

You continue to ignore all of the harm that will be done over the next few years to decades due to the Dobbs decision. I don't exactly know why that is, because I don't know you or your life, but the fact that human rights violations may eventually be rectified in the future does not warm my heart.
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tequila4kapp • 5:37p, 7/15/22
tequila4kapp said:
The good news is this bat **** crazy stuff is easily remedied at the ballot box, if not the courts.
I wouldn't say it's easily done. A lot of these states are gerrymandered to hell.
Reply Quote
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 6:25p, 7/15/22
Unit2Sucks said:
tequila4kapp said:
The good news is this bat **** crazy stuff is easily remedied at the ballot box, if not the courts.
"easily" is a curious way to describe our version of democracy. With all of the gerrymandering and barriers to voting, our elections hardly represent the views of our citizens. Old people are way over-represented and young people over way under-represented. Could it be remedied in theory? Sure. But in practice we know what's going to happen.

We also know that in some states, the electorate prefers these regressive policies. Look at what's happening in Indiana. They're calling a special session to pass a strict anti-abortion law. Kansas' constitution protects the right to abortion so they've decided to put it to a vote during the primary - which they know will be advantageous to the forced birth crowd. This stuff isn't an accident and isn't intended to reflect the will of the people. The idea that we can just ignore the injustice because people may someday have an opportunity to vote on it, is a bit naive.

You continue to ignore all of the harm that will be done over the next few years to decades due to the Dobbs decision. I don't exactly know why that is, because I don't know you or your life, but the fact that human rights violations may eventually be rectified in the future does not warm my heart.


"We also know that in some states, the electorate prefers these regressive policies. Look at what's happening in Indiana. They're calling a special session to pass a strict anti-abortion law. Kansas' constitution protects the right to abortion so they've decided to put it to a vote during the primary - which they know will be advantageous to the forced birth crowd. This stuff isn't an accident and isn't intended to reflect the will of the people. The idea that we can just ignore the injustice because people may someday have an opportunity to vote on it, is a bit naive."

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Is this a referendum on whether or not to allow abortion? Do you disagree with letting the people vote on it? What are you insinuating regarding unfairness because there is also a primary? Did you want this to be a separate vote from any other issue or election?
Reply Quote
BearGoggles
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 7:16p, 7/15/22
sycasey said:
tequila4kapp said:
The good news is this bat **** crazy stuff is easily remedied at the ballot box, if not the courts.
I wouldn't say it's easily done. A lot of these states are gerrymandered to hell.
So are the states that allow abortion on demand into the third trimester, which is unpopular when polled. On demand abortion of a viable fetus is no less reprehensible (and extreme) than an outright ban on abortion.

Abortion is an issue, like many others, where the extremes (on both sides) set the policy and discourse. This is an outgrowth of 50 years of Roe.

Polling shows that a solid majority support unfettered abortion early term (often described as 15-16 weeks). A solid majority oppose abortion on demand in the final semester. I think there is probably majority support for abortion in cases of incest, rape, and of course the health of the mother. Less consensus outside these parameters.

It is going to take a while, but eventually a consensus will evolve. People who are pro-choice (I'm generally in that camp along the parameters described above) will need to vote and persuade and in some cases pursue state court remedies. No more strong arming the entire country with the federal courts. Pro choice people can also establish networks for helping women get abortions (out of state if necessary), encouraging companies/insurance to pay for travel expenses, etc.

And yes I understand that some states are enacting laws threatening to punish people who travel for abortions. Those laws - which are awful - will be found unconstitutional in short order.
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 7:59p, 7/15/22
BearGoggles said:
sycasey said:
tequila4kapp said:
The good news is this bat **** crazy stuff is easily remedied at the ballot box, if not the courts.
I wouldn't say it's easily done. A lot of these states are gerrymandered to hell.
So are the states that allow abortion on demand into the third trimester, which is unpopular when polled. On demand abortion of a viable fetus is no less reprehensible (and extreme) than an outright ban on abortion.

Abortion is an issue, like many others, where the extremes (on both sides) set the policy and discourse. This is an outgrowth of 50 years of Roe.

Polling shows that a solid majority support unfettered abortion early term (often described as 15-16 weeks). A solid majority oppose abortion on demand in the final semester. I think there is probably majority support for abortion in cases of incest, rape, and of course the health of the mother. Less consensus outside these parameters.

It is going to take a while, but eventually a consensus will evolve. People who are pro-choice (I'm generally in that camp along the parameters described above) will need to vote and persuade and in some cases pursue state court remedies. No more strong arming the entire country with the federal courts. Pro choice people can also establish networks for helping women get abortions (out of state if necessary), encouraging companies/insurance to pay for travel expenses, etc.

And yes I understand that some states are enacting laws threatening to punish people who travel for abortions. Those laws - which are awful - will be found unconstitutional in short order.
The furthest extreme of the pro-choice position is not popular, true, but the difference is that if that policy is in place it doesn't stop anyone from doing anything they want to do. Don't want a late-term abortion? Don't get one. The furthest extreme of the pro-life position is the government telling you what you can't do.

And of course I'm sure you know that in practice, it's extremely rare for a mother who gets a late-term abortion to actually WANT it. Those abortions pretty much always happen because there are major medical risks to her health or because the fetus is non-viable. In practice, we pretty much already had your preferred balance in place.
Reply Quote
wraptor347
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 8:18p, 7/15/22
Less than 1% of abortions happen after 21 weeks. And the majority of such abortions are going to be at or shortly after 21 weeks. I can't find much data for abortions in the third trimester - maybe because most facilities don't offer such abortions.

"The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at 13 weeks' gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 1420 weeks' gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at 21 weeks' gestation."

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm
Reply Quote
BearGoggles
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 9:02p, 7/15/22
sycasey said:
BearGoggles said:
sycasey said:
tequila4kapp said:
The good news is this bat **** crazy stuff is easily remedied at the ballot box, if not the courts.
I wouldn't say it's easily done. A lot of these states are gerrymandered to hell.
So are the states that allow abortion on demand into the third trimester, which is unpopular when polled. On demand abortion of a viable fetus is no less reprehensible (and extreme) than an outright ban on abortion.

Abortion is an issue, like many others, where the extremes (on both sides) set the policy and discourse. This is an outgrowth of 50 years of Roe.

Polling shows that a solid majority support unfettered abortion early term (often described as 15-16 weeks). A solid majority oppose abortion on demand in the final semester. I think there is probably majority support for abortion in cases of incest, rape, and of course the health of the mother. Less consensus outside these parameters.

It is going to take a while, but eventually a consensus will evolve. People who are pro-choice (I'm generally in that camp along the parameters described above) will need to vote and persuade and in some cases pursue state court remedies. No more strong arming the entire country with the federal courts. Pro choice people can also establish networks for helping women get abortions (out of state if necessary), encouraging companies/insurance to pay for travel expenses, etc.

And yes I understand that some states are enacting laws threatening to punish people who travel for abortions. Those laws - which are awful - will be found unconstitutional in short order.
The furthest extreme of the pro-choice position is not popular, true, but the difference is that if that policy is in place it doesn't stop anyone from doing anything they want to do. Don't want a late-term abortion? Don't get one. The furthest extreme of the pro-life position is the government telling you what you can't do.

And of course I'm sure you know that in practice, it's extremely rare for a mother who gets a late-term abortion to actually WANT it. Those abortions pretty much always happen because there are major medical risks to her health or because the fetus is non-viable. In practice, we pretty much already had your preferred balance in place.
You seem to be overlooking that in the context of late term abortions, a viable baby is also killed. It is pretty common for the government to "tell" people not to kill other living things.

Your second point is correct. Late term abortions are rare. And I think that 90%+ of abortions are performed before 15 weeks. It seems to me that is the place to focus efforts, since there is majority consensus around allowing that. And it is generally consistent with what other countries allow (e.g., Europe).
Reply Quote
1 edit
BearForce2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:07p, 7/15/22


The victim's mother appeared to defend the alleged rapist to a reporter. The illegal immigrant charged with raping and impregnating a 10-year-old who traveled to Indiana for an abortion was listed as a minor in the report the Indiana-based abortionist sent to authorities. Why?
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 9:11p, 7/15/22
oski003 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
tequila4kapp said:
The good news is this bat **** crazy stuff is easily remedied at the ballot box, if not the courts.
"easily" is a curious way to describe our version of democracy. With all of the gerrymandering and barriers to voting, our elections hardly represent the views of our citizens. Old people are way over-represented and young people over way under-represented. Could it be remedied in theory? Sure. But in practice we know what's going to happen.

We also know that in some states, the electorate prefers these regressive policies. Look at what's happening in Indiana. They're calling a special session to pass a strict anti-abortion law. Kansas' constitution protects the right to abortion so they've decided to put it to a vote during the primary - which they know will be advantageous to the forced birth crowd. This stuff isn't an accident and isn't intended to reflect the will of the people. The idea that we can just ignore the injustice because people may someday have an opportunity to vote on it, is a bit naive.

You continue to ignore all of the harm that will be done over the next few years to decades due to the Dobbs decision. I don't exactly know why that is, because I don't know you or your life, but the fact that human rights violations may eventually be rectified in the future does not warm my heart.


"We also know that in some states, the electorate prefers these regressive policies. Look at what's happening in Indiana. They're calling a special session to pass a strict anti-abortion law. Kansas' constitution protects the right to abortion so they've decided to put it to a vote during the primary - which they know will be advantageous to the forced birth crowd. This stuff isn't an accident and isn't intended to reflect the will of the people. The idea that we can just ignore the injustice because people may someday have an opportunity to vote on it, is a bit naive."

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Is this a referendum on whether or not to allow abortion? Do you disagree with letting the people vote on it? What are you insinuating regarding unfairness because there is also a primary? Did you want this to be a separate vote from any other issue or election?
As to the first bolded question, there have been numerous articles written about this. Here's a pretty balanced one on the history but it doesn't address the primary. Basically Kansas passed some laws a few years ago to limit abortions. The Kansas Supreme Court held that their constitution included a right to abortion. The solution conservatives came up with was to amend the constitution and they decided to hold the vote in conjunction with the primary. Here's an article discussing the primary.

It sounds like despite the concerns about the attempt to sneak this amendment through during a primary where you would typically expect extremely low voter turnout, they are hoping for fairly high turnout to oppose or approve of the amendment.

As to your second bolded question, no, I don't think that people should vote on it any more than I think people should vote on the right to own slaves, travel, marry someone of the same sex, or any other number of basic human rights. I have said this before but I don't really care if people in some ****hole state think abortion should be illegal. I don't really care if a bunch of old people think abortion should be illegal. I suppose if some supermajority of women of child-bearing age thought abortion should be illegal that would be interesting, but I still don't think it's a decision to be left to the people. No one is forced to get an abortion. I'm against a lot of things - I choose not to do them. The great news for forced birthers is that they can choose to have as many children as they want. None of the pro choice crowd would ever presume to tell the forced birthers to get abortions.
Reply Quote
1 edit
wraptor347
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 9:18p, 7/15/22
Except late term abortions are almost always due to medical complications. Either the mother's life is at risk or a lethal fetal abnormality is discovered.
Reply Quote
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 9:27p, 7/15/22
BearGoggles said:
sycasey said:
BearGoggles said:
sycasey said:
tequila4kapp said:
The good news is this bat **** crazy stuff is easily remedied at the ballot box, if not the courts.
I wouldn't say it's easily done. A lot of these states are gerrymandered to hell.
So are the states that allow abortion on demand into the third trimester, which is unpopular when polled. On demand abortion of a viable fetus is no less reprehensible (and extreme) than an outright ban on abortion.

Abortion is an issue, like many others, where the extremes (on both sides) set the policy and discourse. This is an outgrowth of 50 years of Roe.

Polling shows that a solid majority support unfettered abortion early term (often described as 15-16 weeks). A solid majority oppose abortion on demand in the final semester. I think there is probably majority support for abortion in cases of incest, rape, and of course the health of the mother. Less consensus outside these parameters.

It is going to take a while, but eventually a consensus will evolve. People who are pro-choice (I'm generally in that camp along the parameters described above) will need to vote and persuade and in some cases pursue state court remedies. No more strong arming the entire country with the federal courts. Pro choice people can also establish networks for helping women get abortions (out of state if necessary), encouraging companies/insurance to pay for travel expenses, etc.

And yes I understand that some states are enacting laws threatening to punish people who travel for abortions. Those laws - which are awful - will be found unconstitutional in short order.
The furthest extreme of the pro-choice position is not popular, true, but the difference is that if that policy is in place it doesn't stop anyone from doing anything they want to do. Don't want a late-term abortion? Don't get one. The furthest extreme of the pro-life position is the government telling you what you can't do.

And of course I'm sure you know that in practice, it's extremely rare for a mother who gets a late-term abortion to actually WANT it. Those abortions pretty much always happen because there are major medical risks to her health or because the fetus is non-viable. In practice, we pretty much already had your preferred balance in place.
You seem to be overlooking that in the context of late term abortions, a viable baby is also killed. It is pretty common for the government to "tell" people not to kill other living things.

Except I already explained that in practice this doesn't really happen. Late term abortions are almost always because there's a medical issue, like there's a danger to the baby or the mother. So no, I'm not overlooking it. I'm considering all context.
Reply Quote
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 9:59p, 7/15/22
Unit2Sucks said:
oski003 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
tequila4kapp said:
The good news is this bat **** crazy stuff is easily remedied at the ballot box, if not the courts.
"easily" is a curious way to describe our version of democracy. With all of the gerrymandering and barriers to voting, our elections hardly represent the views of our citizens. Old people are way over-represented and young people over way under-represented. Could it be remedied in theory? Sure. But in practice we know what's going to happen.

We also know that in some states, the electorate prefers these regressive policies. Look at what's happening in Indiana. They're calling a special session to pass a strict anti-abortion law. Kansas' constitution protects the right to abortion so they've decided to put it to a vote during the primary - which they know will be advantageous to the forced birth crowd. This stuff isn't an accident and isn't intended to reflect the will of the people. The idea that we can just ignore the injustice because people may someday have an opportunity to vote on it, is a bit naive.

You continue to ignore all of the harm that will be done over the next few years to decades due to the Dobbs decision. I don't exactly know why that is, because I don't know you or your life, but the fact that human rights violations may eventually be rectified in the future does not warm my heart.


"We also know that in some states, the electorate prefers these regressive policies. Look at what's happening in Indiana. They're calling a special session to pass a strict anti-abortion law. Kansas' constitution protects the right to abortion so they've decided to put it to a vote during the primary - which they know will be advantageous to the forced birth crowd. This stuff isn't an accident and isn't intended to reflect the will of the people. The idea that we can just ignore the injustice because people may someday have an opportunity to vote on it, is a bit naive."

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Is this a referendum on whether or not to allow abortion? Do you disagree with letting the people vote on it? What are you insinuating regarding unfairness because there is also a primary? Did you want this to be a separate vote from any other issue or election?
As to the first bolded question, there have been numerous articles written about this. Here's a pretty balanced one on the history but it doesn't address the primary. Basically Kansas passed some laws a few years ago to limit abortions. The Kansas Supreme Court held that their constitution included a right to abortion. The solution conservatives came up with was to amend the constitution and they decided to hold the vote in conjunction with the primary. Here's an article discussing the primary.

It sounds like despite the concerns about the attempt to sneak this amendment through during a primary where you would typically expect extremely low voter turnout, they are hoping for fairly high turnout to oppose or approve of the amendment.

As to your second bolded question, no, I don't think that people should vote on it any more than I think people should vote on the right to own slaves, travel, marry someone of the same sex, or any other number of basic human rights. I have said this before but I don't really care if people in some ****hole state think abortion should be illegal. I don't really care if a bunch of old people think abortion should be illegal. I suppose if some supermajority of women of child-bearing age thought abortion should be illegal that would be interesting, but I still don't think it's a decision to be left to the people. No one is forced to get an abortion. I'm against a lot of things - I choose not to do them. The great news for forced birthers is that they can choose to have as many children as they want. None of the pro choice crowd would ever presume to tell the forced birthers to get abortions.


Got it. I disagree with this. I believe that when people choose something, like having sex resulting in a baby growing inside them, they don't necessary have the basic human right to kill that baby. I am in favor of abortions within the first trimester, especially with cases of rape. Also agree that situations should apply to allow abortion after the first trimester. I hope that laws are passed to codify such.
Reply Quote
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 10:31p, 7/15/22
oski003 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
oski003 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
tequila4kapp said:
The good news is this bat **** crazy stuff is easily remedied at the ballot box, if not the courts.
"easily" is a curious way to describe our version of democracy. With all of the gerrymandering and barriers to voting, our elections hardly represent the views of our citizens. Old people are way over-represented and young people over way under-represented. Could it be remedied in theory? Sure. But in practice we know what's going to happen.

We also know that in some states, the electorate prefers these regressive policies. Look at what's happening in Indiana. They're calling a special session to pass a strict anti-abortion law. Kansas' constitution protects the right to abortion so they've decided to put it to a vote during the primary - which they know will be advantageous to the forced birth crowd. This stuff isn't an accident and isn't intended to reflect the will of the people. The idea that we can just ignore the injustice because people may someday have an opportunity to vote on it, is a bit naive.

You continue to ignore all of the harm that will be done over the next few years to decades due to the Dobbs decision. I don't exactly know why that is, because I don't know you or your life, but the fact that human rights violations may eventually be rectified in the future does not warm my heart.


"We also know that in some states, the electorate prefers these regressive policies. Look at what's happening in Indiana. They're calling a special session to pass a strict anti-abortion law. Kansas' constitution protects the right to abortion so they've decided to put it to a vote during the primary - which they know will be advantageous to the forced birth crowd. This stuff isn't an accident and isn't intended to reflect the will of the people. The idea that we can just ignore the injustice because people may someday have an opportunity to vote on it, is a bit naive."

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Is this a referendum on whether or not to allow abortion? Do you disagree with letting the people vote on it? What are you insinuating regarding unfairness because there is also a primary? Did you want this to be a separate vote from any other issue or election?
As to the first bolded question, there have been numerous articles written about this. Here's a pretty balanced one on the history but it doesn't address the primary. Basically Kansas passed some laws a few years ago to limit abortions. The Kansas Supreme Court held that their constitution included a right to abortion. The solution conservatives came up with was to amend the constitution and they decided to hold the vote in conjunction with the primary. Here's an article discussing the primary.

It sounds like despite the concerns about the attempt to sneak this amendment through during a primary where you would typically expect extremely low voter turnout, they are hoping for fairly high turnout to oppose or approve of the amendment.

As to your second bolded question, no, I don't think that people should vote on it any more than I think people should vote on the right to own slaves, travel, marry someone of the same sex, or any other number of basic human rights. I have said this before but I don't really care if people in some ****hole state think abortion should be illegal. I don't really care if a bunch of old people think abortion should be illegal. I suppose if some supermajority of women of child-bearing age thought abortion should be illegal that would be interesting, but I still don't think it's a decision to be left to the people. No one is forced to get an abortion. I'm against a lot of things - I choose not to do them. The great news for forced birthers is that they can choose to have as many children as they want. None of the pro choice crowd would ever presume to tell the forced birthers to get abortions.


Got it. I disagree with this. I believe that when people choose something, like having sex resulting in a baby growing inside them, they don't necessary have the basic human right to kill that baby. I am in favor of abortions within the first trimester, especially with cases of rape. Also agree that situations should apply to allow abortion after the first trimester. I hope that laws are passed to codify such.


Other people shouldn't be bound by your moral preferences. Your rights end where mine begin. That is true for any man. It should be true for any woman.
Reply Quote
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dajo9 • 11:00p, 7/15/22
dajo9 said:
oski003 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
oski003 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
tequila4kapp said:
The good news is this bat **** crazy stuff is easily remedied at the ballot box, if not the courts.
"easily" is a curious way to describe our version of democracy. With all of the gerrymandering and barriers to voting, our elections hardly represent the views of our citizens. Old people are way over-represented and young people over way under-represented. Could it be remedied in theory? Sure. But in practice we know what's going to happen.

We also know that in some states, the electorate prefers these regressive policies. Look at what's happening in Indiana. They're calling a special session to pass a strict anti-abortion law. Kansas' constitution protects the right to abortion so they've decided to put it to a vote during the primary - which they know will be advantageous to the forced birth crowd. This stuff isn't an accident and isn't intended to reflect the will of the people. The idea that we can just ignore the injustice because people may someday have an opportunity to vote on it, is a bit naive.

You continue to ignore all of the harm that will be done over the next few years to decades due to the Dobbs decision. I don't exactly know why that is, because I don't know you or your life, but the fact that human rights violations may eventually be rectified in the future does not warm my heart.


"We also know that in some states, the electorate prefers these regressive policies. Look at what's happening in Indiana. They're calling a special session to pass a strict anti-abortion law. Kansas' constitution protects the right to abortion so they've decided to put it to a vote during the primary - which they know will be advantageous to the forced birth crowd. This stuff isn't an accident and isn't intended to reflect the will of the people. The idea that we can just ignore the injustice because people may someday have an opportunity to vote on it, is a bit naive."

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Is this a referendum on whether or not to allow abortion? Do you disagree with letting the people vote on it? What are you insinuating regarding unfairness because there is also a primary? Did you want this to be a separate vote from any other issue or election?
As to the first bolded question, there have been numerous articles written about this. Here's a pretty balanced one on the history but it doesn't address the primary. Basically Kansas passed some laws a few years ago to limit abortions. The Kansas Supreme Court held that their constitution included a right to abortion. The solution conservatives came up with was to amend the constitution and they decided to hold the vote in conjunction with the primary. Here's an article discussing the primary.

It sounds like despite the concerns about the attempt to sneak this amendment through during a primary where you would typically expect extremely low voter turnout, they are hoping for fairly high turnout to oppose or approve of the amendment.

As to your second bolded question, no, I don't think that people should vote on it any more than I think people should vote on the right to own slaves, travel, marry someone of the same sex, or any other number of basic human rights. I have said this before but I don't really care if people in some ****hole state think abortion should be illegal. I don't really care if a bunch of old people think abortion should be illegal. I suppose if some supermajority of women of child-bearing age thought abortion should be illegal that would be interesting, but I still don't think it's a decision to be left to the people. No one is forced to get an abortion. I'm against a lot of things - I choose not to do them. The great news for forced birthers is that they can choose to have as many children as they want. None of the pro choice crowd would ever presume to tell the forced birthers to get abortions.


Got it. I disagree with this. I believe that when people choose something, like having sex resulting in a baby growing inside them, they don't necessary have the basic human right to kill that baby. I am in favor of abortions within the first trimester, especially with cases of rape. Also agree that situations should apply to allow abortion after the first trimester. I hope that laws are passed to codify such.


Other people shouldn't be bound by your moral preferences. Your rights end where mine begin. That is true for any man. It should be true for any woman.
It's hard to separate the moral from the religious encoding. Abortion isn't viewed the same way in the Jewish faith but I understand that some people feel differently and might choose never to terminate a pregnancy under any circumstances, even if it means the pregnant person will die or suffer permanent disability. No one in the pro choice world has ever suggested taking that right away from people who feel like 003 does.

Many women are thankful they have choices. They don't care what people like 003 think and don't need to worry about judgment from people who don't understand their circumstances. I know a number of families who have had to terminate pregnancies for medical or health reasons who would have their rights taken away if they lived in a ****hole state. We are going to see an increase in maternal and child mortality rates and an increase in terrible birth defects. And of course, unsafe terminations. All of this will hit poor people even harder.

Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.