concordtom said:

---

blungld said:

---

Life has a technical biological definition. Here is a grabbed one of many: life is an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. A fetus does not meet this description.

---

A fetus can metabolize.
A fetus can grow.
A fetus can react to stimuli. (It's been shown in ultrasounds - kicking upon poking.)
A fetus cannot yet reproduce.
Neither can a 12 year old boy.

Needs a new definition.

---

Great point Concordtom.

Question: Is there a scientific study on when life begins?

1. Is it when the egg is fertilized?
2. Is it when the egg attaches itself to the ovarian walls?
3. Is it when baby's heartbeat is detected?
4. Is it when the baby looks kind of like a human being (head, two arms, two legs, etc.)?
5. Is it when the baby does things like kicking?
6. Is it when the baby's features are fully developed (five fingers, five toes, etc.)?
7. It is when the baby can stay alive outside the womb?
8. Is it when the baby is ready to come out of womb (labor pain starts)?
9. Or, is it something else?

Sorry, if I have some of these in the wrong order.

Any ideas?

Go Bears!

Or it starts when they are first Trolled?

calbear80 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

blungld said:

---

Life has a technical biological definition. Here is a grabbed one of many: life is an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. A fetus does not meet this description.

---

A fetus can metabolize.
A fetus can grow.
A fetus can react to stimuli. (It's been shown in ultrasounds - kicking upon poking.)
A fetus cannot yet reproduce.
Neither can a 12 year old boy.

Needs a new definition.

---

Great point Concordtom.

Question: Is there a scientific study on when life begins?

1. Is it when the egg is fertilized?
2. Is it when the egg attaches itself to the ovarian walls?
3. Is it when baby's heartbeat is detected?
4. Is it when the baby looks kind of like a human being (head, two arms, two legs, etc.)?
5. Is it when the baby does things like kicking?
6. Is it when the baby's features are fully developed (five fingers, five toes, etc.)?
7. It is when the baby can stay alive outside the womb?
8. Is it when the baby is ready to come out of womb (labor pain starts)?
9. Or, is it something else?

Sorry, if I have some of these in the wrong order.

Any ideas?

Go Bears!

---

Sure, I will provide "something else". "Life" in the way forced birthers use the term isn't scientific.

Charlie Kirk SCHOOLED on Abortion in 15 Seconds. pic.twitter.com/o2StOq5g5a

— Ben Gleib (@bengleib) October 11, 2021

We shouldn't be asking judges or lay people to define when life begins because it's not particularly relevant.

If you want a bright line test, I'll give you one. "Life" begins when a child is born.

But, please, continue with this transparent charade that you don't like the Dobbs decision and that you are merely engaging in an innocent socratic inquiry without an end goal in mind. Trust me, everyone is falling for your poor man's Columbo impression.

Of if we must continue to play games, please direct me to the language in the constitution where life is defined. I've misplaced my pocket constitution so I am going to need to rely on you for this one. I'll wait patiently.

Unit2sucks said:

---

If you want a bright line test, I'll give you one. "Life" begins when a child is born.

But, please, continue with this transparent charade that you don't like the Dobbs decision and that you are merely engaging in an innocent socratic inquiry without an end goal in mind. Trust me, everyone is falling for your poor man's Columbo impression.

Of if we must continue to play games, please direct me to the language in the constitution where life is defined. I've misplaced my pocket constitution so I am going to need to rely on you for this one. I'll wait patiently.

---

Could he be related to helltopay?

My money is on him not answering you.
Just another poor man's Columbo impression from a Troll.

calbear80 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

blungld said:

---

Life has a technical biological definition. Here is a grabbed one of many: life is an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. A fetus does not meet this description.

---

A fetus can metabolize.
A fetus can grow.
A fetus can react to stimuli. (It's been shown in ultrasounds - kicking upon poking.)
A fetus cannot yet reproduce.
Neither can a 12 year old boy.

Needs a new definition.

---

Great point Concordtom.

Question: Is there a scientific study on when life begins?

1. Is it when the egg is fertilized?
2. Is it when the egg attaches itself to the ovarian walls?
3. Is it when baby's heartbeat is detected?
4. Is it when the baby looks kind of like a human being (head, two arms, two legs, etc.)?
5. Is it when the baby does things like kicking?
6. Is it when the baby's features are fully developed (five fingers, five toes, etc.)?
7. It is when the baby can stay alive outside the womb?
8. Is it when the baby is ready to come out of womb (labor pain starts)?
9. Or, is it something else?

Sorry, if I have some of these in the wrong order.

Any ideas?

Go Bears!

---

Dude!!
That's EXACTLY the sort of list/order I've been putting forth in my head for a number of years now.

It's also precisely where this debate/discussion needs to be, nationally. But we don't. Both side continue to generalize "abortion" and make statements supporting the extreme ends.


I gave 5 daughters, 13-22.
I've had to think about this issue more than most, more than I've wanted to. It began 8 years ago when I was like, "sh:t!, high schoolers sometimes have sex, I'm not ready for this!"

I called Planned Parenthood to educate myself about their services, current norms/laws, and technologies.

I mean, remember Fast Times at Ridgemont High? What would I say or do if one of my kids came home and said…. Drop my mouth , and cookies? I wanted to prepare. I mean, 5 daughters…. What's the likelihood that there will be boyfriends? Sex? Pregnancies? A father needs to be ready for it.

Having watched 5 grow inside my wife, through ultrasounds, delivery, diapers, etc… I've acquired a layman's education. Here are my thoughts:

There's no f-cking way I shed a tear about the use of the Morning After Pill, or what PP calls "Emergency Contraception". It can be used maybe 3 days after sex. I don't feel good about it, and I do take a deep breath, because of how I was raised, but come on… a collection of a few cells?
What is lost there? Nothing but potential.


Thus logic of mine continues for some time. I don't get into the magical realm of god and spirit, he's an hell. I think individuals grow into their humanity: experiences, self awareness… these are things that are lost if any Reader here were to die. A 12 week fetus certainly can feel a pin *****, but has no awareness of self or knows what's happening. It would be humane to not cause pain. But besides that, what is lost?

At some point, certainly late stage pregnancies, an argument can be made that that the "finishing off" pre-born baby has lost something, more so than at earlier stages. Roe considered that!

Roe also considered that the pregnant woman can be losing something each day that she is pregnant - and that's to be discussed and evaluated with a doctor. In some cases, the woman could lose her life. In other cases, she could be losing her mind, as in cases of rape or incest.

These competing interests need to be considered!

I can't tell you an exact week, or an exact situation under which it's allowable or not.
But the absolutists suck!
And society needs to have the discussion now to come up with somewhere in the middle.

Currently, in CA, post 20 or 24 weeks (?) is a cutoff marker. Not a lot of doctors will perform, except for medical or other special circumstances. But Oklahoma wants the live drawn immediately after ejaculation. Clearly that's not well thought out.

It should be understood that:
Morning after pill - up to a few days after sex.
Mifepristone - up to 10-12 weeks. Two pills, in your home. This is called "medical abortion".
In Clinic Abortion - this could be suction or other extraction methods. This is the unpleasant visuals that upset people, particularly the larger the fetus. Used from week 10-16? upon request, limited after that.
after "viability", which is after 22-24 weeks? there better be a special circumstance.

The VAST majority of terminations happen very early!! But the religious extremists want voters to imagine all "abortions" as "babies being cut apart the day before natural birth, bloody murder", and that is a lie!!!

blungld said:

---

I think that anything that reduces the number of precious babies being born is a sin and should be illegal. Women should be banned from eating dessert because if they get heavier they may be less sexually desirable and therefore produce less offspring. Conception begins at contemplation of dessert. Show me in the Constitution where it says we have a right to dessert. Let's throw it to the states to decide what it is we eat and why. I believe in bodily autonomy for the unborn...actually bodily autonomy for the yet to be conceived. No bodily autonomy for ugly women! It's just good law.

---

Hahaha.
No, let the ugly ones eat all the dessert they want. We don't want to have sex with them anyways.
But I like where you're going with making the hot ones into our procreative fkboxes! By law!!

Education
Thus will be new to old timers.

DiabloWags said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Again, more than 1/2 the states asked for Roe to be overturned.

---

Are you serious?
You mean states like South Dakota with a population of 879,000 people?

Oh please....

My COUNTY here in the SF East Bay has a bigger population!

---

DiabloWags, as an intelligent Cal graduate, I am sure you know that the US Constitution considers Wyoming (population of around 450k) equal to California (population of around 35 million) for the number of Senators(two each). The population disparity between the states is a part of the reason that we have the US Senate (two senators per a state) and US House of Representatives (number of representatives is based on population).

So, the numer of states matter approving or disapproving an item does matter. For example, I believe it takes 2/3 of the states to ratify an Amendment to the US Constitution. Therefore, California is considered equal to North Dakota (your example) in this regard.

Go Bears!

P.S. I know this well because when I was a student at Cal in late 70's, ny girlfriend was involved with and I helped a little with the National Organization for Woman (NOW) efforts to try to pass the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). Although most populous states and majority of US population were in favor of ERA, it did not pass because of opposition by the smaller states.

Medical and In Clinic abortion:

calbear80 said:

---

Therefore, California is considered equal to North Dakota (your example) in this regard.

Go Bears!

---

Makes sense, because we know that those with lots of money have more say in all sorts of political matters. It only follows that those with more land also have a bigger say so.

There is a little something called US Constitution which governs a lot of these things.

Go Bears!

Here's another consequence that forced birthers don't take into account.

I have prosecuted many of these cases. Overturning Roe will cause a surge in domestic violence and domestic homicides in states where abortion is illegal.

Women will be legally tethered to their abuser for 18 years. DV and sexual violence victims’ lives should matter too. https://t.co/TPa6kfUUmm

— Dana Nessel (@dananessel) June 26, 2022

calbear80 said:

---

There is a little something called US Constitution which governs a lot of these things.

Go Bears!

---

You mean the one that talks about a high school football coach at a public school being able to make a "statement" by praying at the 50 yard line?

I think I'll borrow a phrase from one of the conservative clowns at Faux News . . .

Just shut up and dribble

DiabloWags said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

There is a little something called US Constitution which governs a lot of these things.

Go Bears!

---

You mean the one that talks about a high school football coach at a public school being able to make a "statement" by praying at the 50 yard line?

---

I wonder if the statute of limitations is up for Terrell Owens v George Teague and Dallas Cowboys et al?

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

There is a little something called US Constitution which governs a lot of these things.

Go Bears!

---

You mean the one that talks about a high school football coach at a public school being able to make a "statement" by praying at the 50 yard line?

---

I wonder if the statute of limitations is up for Terrell Owens v George Teague and Dallas Cowboys et al?

---

What is that case about?

Go Bears!

For the "slow" kids (and BOTS) sitting waaaaaaaay in the baaaaaaack.

George Teague hits terrell owens - YouTube

concordtom said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

blungld said:

---

Life has a technical biological definition. Here is a grabbed one of many: life is an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. A fetus does not meet this description.

---

A fetus can metabolize.
A fetus can grow.
A fetus can react to stimuli. (It's been shown in ultrasounds - kicking upon poking.)
A fetus cannot yet reproduce.
Neither can a 12 year old boy.

Needs a new definition.

---

Great point Concordtom.

Question: Is there a scientific study on when life begins?

1. Is it when the egg is fertilized?
2. Is it when the egg attaches itself to the ovarian walls?
3. Is it when baby's heartbeat is detected?
4. Is it when the baby looks kind of like a human being (head, two arms, two legs, etc.)?
5. Is it when the baby does things like kicking?
6. Is it when the baby's features are fully developed (five fingers, five toes, etc.)?
7. It is when the baby can stay alive outside the womb?
8. Is it when the baby is ready to come out of womb (labor pain starts)?
9. Or, is it something else?

Sorry, if I have some of these in the wrong order.

Any ideas?

Go Bears!

---

Dude!!
That's EXACTLY the sort of list/order I've been putting forth in my head for a number of years now.

It's also precisely where this debate/discussion needs to be, nationally. But we don't. Both side continue to generalize "abortion" and make statements supporting the extreme ends.


I gave 5 daughters, 13-22.
I've had to think about this issue more than most, more than I've wanted to. It began 8 years ago when I was like, "sh:t!, high schoolers sometimes have sex, I'm not ready for this!"

I called Planned Parenthood to educate myself about their services, current norms/laws, and technologies.

I mean, remember Fast Times at Ridgemont High? What would I say or do if one of my kids came home and said…. Drop my mouth , and cookies? I wanted to prepare. I mean, 5 daughters…. What's the likelihood that there will be boyfriends? Sex? Pregnancies? A father needs to be ready for it.

Having watched 5 grow inside my wife, through ultrasounds, delivery, diapers, etc… I've acquired a layman's education. Here are my thoughts:

There's no f-cking way I shed a tear about the use of the Morning After Pill, or what PP calls "Emergency Contraception". It can be used maybe 3 days after sex. I don't feel good about it, and I do take a deep breath, because of how I was raised, but come on… a collection of a few cells?
What is lost there? Nothing but potential.


Thus logic of mine continues for some time. I don't get into the magical realm of god and spirit, he's an hell. I think individuals grow into their humanity: experiences, self awareness… these are things that are lost if any Reader here were to die. A 12 week fetus certainly can feel a pin *****, but has no awareness of self or knows what's happening. It would be humane to not cause pain. But besides that, what is lost?

At some point, certainly late stage pregnancies, an argument can be made that that the "finishing off" pre-born baby has lost something, more so than at earlier stages. Roe considered that!

Roe also considered that the pregnant woman can be losing something each day that she is pregnant - and that's to be discussed and evaluated with a doctor. In some cases, the woman could lose her life. In other cases, she could be losing her mind, as in cases of rape or incest.

These competing interests need to be considered!

I can't tell you an exact week, or an exact situation under which it's allowable or not.
But the absolutists suck!
And society needs to have the discussion now to come up with somewhere in the middle.

Currently, in CA, post 20 or 24 weeks (?) is a cutoff marker. Not a lot of doctors will perform, except for medical or other special circumstances. But Oklahoma wants the live drawn immediately after ejaculation. Clearly that's not well thought out.

It should be understood that:
Morning after pill - up to a few days after sex.
Mifepristone - up to 10-12 weeks. Two pills, in your home. This is called "medical abortion".
In Clinic Abortion - this could be suction or other extraction methods. This is the unpleasant visuals that upset people, particularly the larger the fetus. Used from week 10-16? upon request, limited after that.
after "viability", which is after 22-24 weeks? there better be a special circumstance.

The VAST majority of terminations happen very early!! But the religious extremists want voters to imagine all "abortions" as "babies being cut apart the day before natural birth, bloody murder", and that is a lie!!!

---

Thank you for the detailed response. I strongly agree with you that the society needs to have the discussion now to come up with a solution.

Go Bears!

Texas:

My god, the kicker to this New Yorker story. https://t.co/AW4jtSj6z5 pic.twitter.com/Kjj8dSzkCG

— Sheera Frenkel (@sheeraf) June 27, 2022

So empowered.

calbear80 said:

---

There is a little something called US Constitution which governs a lot of these things.

Go Bears!

---

The older I get, and the more the GOP takes advantage of this, I'm really thinking that the framers didn't have it right. They did not write a masterpiece, just the best version so far.

I was thinking yesterday that the 5 justices basically threw away "stare decisis", and that opens the door for the upcoming wave of their liberal replacements to rewrite all manner of laws.

Why shouldn't the constitution be rewritten?
I picture a large pipe being shoved up McConnell's up pie hole and the spigot opened 100%.

calbear80 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

There is a little something called US Constitution which governs a lot of these things.

Go Bears!

---

You mean the one that talks about a high school football coach at a public school being able to make a "statement" by praying at the 50 yard line?

---

I wonder if the statute of limitations is up for Terrell Owens v George Teague and Dallas Cowboys et al?

---

What is that case about?

Go Bears!

---

It's the case that proved in finality that SF > Dallas!

calbear80 said:

---

Thank you for the detailed response. I strongly agree with you that the society needs to have the discussion now to come up with a solution.

Go Bears!

---

You're welcome.
I think we need a new vocabulary.
Let's create terms for:

"Pre-implantation termination": this is what the morning after pill takes care of. This should be allowed. See video above.

"->11 week termination": this is what "medical abortion" is. See video above.

These two should always be allowed, in every state. The fetus has no awareness or understanding. No humanity is lost. But much is gained on behalf of the bearing woman.

11-22 weeks. Need some term for pre-viability type extraction termination.

22 weeks onward. Special circumstances terminations. Should be allowed for medical reasons that are clearly defined.

concordtom said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

Thank you for the detailed response. I strongly agree with you that the society needs to have the discussion now to come up with a solution.

Go Bears!

---

You're welcome.
I think we need a new vocabulary.
Let's create terms for:

"Pre-implantation termination": this is what the morning after pill takes care of. This should be allowed. See video above.

"->11 week termination": this is what "medical abortion" is. See video above.

These two should always be allowed, in every state. The fetus has no awareness or understanding. No humanity is lost. But much is gained on behalf of the bearing woman.

11-22 weeks. Need some term for pre-viability type extraction termination.

22 weeks onward. Special circumstances terminations. Should be allowed for medical reasons that are clearly defined.

---

Thank you for another useful reply.

Now, that the Supreme Court has empowered each state to decide their own regulations on abortion, this is the discussion that we need to have here is California:

A. When should abortion be allowed in California?

B. When should abortion be banned in California?

C. Should there be exceptions to B above for special situations? What are those special situations?

That would be a useful discussion on this subject.

Go Bears!

With a simple majority vote of the House and Senate and a President's signature we can remove the government from a person's right to choose.

concordtom said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

There is a little something called US Constitution which governs a lot of these things.

Go Bears!

---

I was thinking yesterday that the 5 justices basically threw away "stare decisis", and that opens the door for the upcoming wave of their liberal replacements to rewrite all manner of laws.

---

They did.
And I dont doubt for a moment that a Republican Congress wont try and vote to amend the Constitution to make a fetus become a constitutional "person" at the time of conception. That's clearly the end game here.

Since Alito's opinion rejected the legal principle of 'state decisis' it doesnt seem to be a very valuable credible document anymore.

And as Unit2 has pointed out, one is really is at a loss as to understand the "rational basis" for a state legislature to believe that an abortion ban would serve legitimate state interests. What could possibly be the interests of the State?

DiabloWags said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

There is a little something called US Constitution which governs a lot of these things.

Go Bears!

---

I was thinking yesterday that the 5 justices basically threw away "stare decisis", and that opens the door for the upcoming wave of their liberal replacements to rewrite all manner of laws.

---

And as Unit2 has pointed out, one is really is at a loss as to understand the "rational basis" for a state legislature to believe that an abortion ban would serve legitimate state interests. What could possibly be the interests of the State?

---

Imposing their religious views on everyone else is very much a feature and not a bug of the modern conservative movement. Since they can't successfully proselytize they will just legislate and adjudicate their way to a theocracy.

dajo9 said:

---

With a simple majority vote of the House and Senate and a President's signature we can remove the government from a person's right to choose.

---

I edited this from "woman's" to "person's" because it is not just women who need the right of choice. A pregnant 13 year old is not a woman.

dajo9 said:

---

With a simple majority vote of the House and Senate and a President's signature we can remove the government from a person's right to choose.

---

That sounds pretty simple specially with the House, the Senate and the White House controlled by Democrats.

And, some here have repeatedly stated that the majority are for it. Some even have said that the vast majority are for it.

So, why not do this and make it a law rather than all the belly aching about Supreme Court's decision?

Go Bears!

calbear80 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

With a simple majority vote of the House and Senate and a President's signature we can remove the government from a person's right to choose.

---

That sounds pretty simple specially with the House, the Senate and the White House controlled by Democrats.

And, some here have repeatedly stated that the majority are for it. Some even have said that the vast majority are for it.

So, why not do this and make it a law rather than all the belly aching about Supreme Court's decision?

Go Bears!

---

The Senate is mostly conservative and conservatives are not in favor of self governance for the American people.

This pretty much nails it.

Lol ouch pic.twitter.com/CNawI3nKgA

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 28, 2022

Wowwwwwwwww!

calbear80 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

With a simple majority vote of the House and Senate and a President's signature we can remove the government from a person's right to choose.

---

That sounds pretty simple specially with the House, the Senate and the White House controlled by Democrats.

And, some here have repeatedly stated that the majority are for it. Some even have said that the vast majority are for it.

So, why not do this and make it a law rather than all the belly aching about Supreme Court's decision?

Go Bears!

---

The U.S. Senate: The Most Unrepresentative Body

Relevant portion:

Quote:

---

The current 50-50 Senate provides us with very clear evidence of this bias. With this even partisan split, you might expect that the parties in the Senate would represent about equal numbers of Americans. But this is not so. Aside from the six states that have a senator from each party, 57 percent of the country live in states with two Democratic senators, while only 43 percent live in states with two GOP senators. In other words, with 43 percent of the population, the Senate GOP has 50 percent of the representation.

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

With a simple majority vote of the House and Senate and a President's signature we can remove the government from a person's right to choose.

---

That sounds pretty simple specially with the House, the Senate and the White House controlled by Democrats.

And, some here have repeatedly stated that the majority are for it. Some even have said that the vast majority are for it.

So, why not do this and make it a law rather than all the belly aching about Supreme Court's decision?

Go Bears!

---

The U.S. Senate: The Most Unrepresentative Body

Relevant portion:

Quote:

---

The current 50-50 Senate provides us with very clear evidence of this bias. With this even partisan split, you might expect that the parties in the Senate would represent about equal numbers of Americans. But this is not so. Aside from the six states that have a senator from each party, 57 percent of the country live in states with two Democratic senators, while only 43 percent live in states with two GOP senators. In other words, with 43 percent of the population, the Senate GOP has 50 percent of the representation.

---

---

I think it's much worse than that. See here.

Quote:

---

The 2020 census showed that more than half of the 330 million Americans live in just nine states. That means upwards of 50% of us have 18 US senators, while the smaller half has the other 82. (By 2040, according to a University of Virginia forecast, half of the nation could live in only eight states, with just 16 senators.)

Let's break that down even further. Two-thirds of all Americans some 219,073,534 of us, to be exact live in the largest 15 states, according to census data. They're represented by 30 senators 22 Democrats and eight Republicans.

The other third? They have 70 senators. These smaller states aren't only whiter than the nation at large, they tilt decisively to the Republican party, represented by 42 Republicans and 28 Democrats. That's more than enough to filibuster any legislation that cannot be passed through the reconciliation process including voting rights effectively granting veto power over even popular proposals to a tiny minority of voters from the smallest and whitest states. (As the Maine senator Angus King noted on the Senate floor last week, 41 senators representing just 24% of Americans can block legislation with the filibuster.)

---

My friend, I am sure you know that that one of the key parts of the US Constitution is:
. Two legislative entities: the Senate and the House of Representatives.
. Two Senators per a state in the Senate regardless of the state's population size.
. Number of Representatives from each state in the House of Representatives proportionate to the population of that state.
. Approval of both entities is required to pass laws.

I also hope that you know the history of how this great country was formed. The above was the deal that convinced lesser populated states (e.g. New Hampshire, Vermont, etc) to "voluntarily" join in the union with states with much more population (New York, Massachusetts, etc.) without being completely overwhelmed.

Of course overall popular votes (House of Representatives) matters, but, equally the number of states and their Senators (Senate) matters.

So, when we talk about majority, please don't underestimate the number of States and their Senators.

Go Bears!

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

With a simple majority vote of the House and Senate and a President's signature we can remove the government from a person's right to choose.

---

That sounds pretty simple specially with the House, the Senate and the White House controlled by Democrats.

And, some here have repeatedly stated that the majority are for it. Some even have said that the vast majority are for it.

So, why not do this and make it a law rather than all the belly aching about Supreme Court's decision?

Go Bears!

---

The U.S. Senate: The Most Unrepresentative Body

Relevant portion:

Quote:

---

The current 50-50 Senate provides us with very clear evidence of this bias. With this even partisan split, you might expect that the parties in the Senate would represent about equal numbers of Americans. But this is not so. Aside from the six states that have a senator from each party, 57 percent of the country live in states with two Democratic senators, while only 43 percent live in states with two GOP senators. In other words, with 43 percent of the population, the Senate GOP has 50 percent of the representation.

---

---

I think it's much worse than that. See here.

Quote:

---

The 2020 census showed that more than half of the 330 million Americans live in just nine states. That means upwards of 50% of us have 18 US senators, while the smaller half has the other 82. (By 2040, according to a University of Virginia forecast, half of the nation could live in only eight states, with just 16 senators.)

Let's break that down even further. Two-thirds of all Americans some 219,073,534 of us, to be exact live in the largest 15 states, according to census data. They're represented by 30 senators 22 Democrats and eight Republicans.

The other third? They have 70 senators. These smaller states aren't only whiter than the nation at large, they tilt decisively to the Republican party, represented by 42 Republicans and 28 Democrats. That's more than enough to filibuster any legislation that cannot be passed through the reconciliation process including voting rights effectively granting veto power over even popular proposals to a tiny minority of voters from the smallest and whitest states. (As the Maine senator Angus King noted on the Senate floor last week, 41 senators representing just 24% of Americans can block legislation with the filibuster.)

---

---

Come on guys, this is like 7th grade civics stuff. Small states were concerned the big states would have too much power. The big states thought the small states deserved less power. Senate = 2 each, House = per population. And let's not forget Dems rigging the system to get more seats in the House through illegal immigration and middle of the night resettlement flights.

Folks, no one needs to explain to me the shape of American government that I learned in elementary school.

The question was why we can't get abortion protections codified into law even if they are broadly popular. The answer is that the Senate is very much structured to NOT reward the majority with what it wants. You want to say you're good with that? Fine. But that's the #1 reason.

And also because with Roe/Casey on the books there wasn't much need to do any new federal abortion legislation. Now that's gone, so we'll see what happens. The Senate remains a big obstacle, either way.