tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

That's a pre-k level conspiracy theory. Nice try. Just like calbear80 your pretense of not being a hyperpartisan is fooling no one.

Everyone knows the bargain that was struck when we had 13 states but please remind me again where the constitution outlines the ridiculous current version of the filibuster. The fact that we continue to run a country with this much power in a non-democratic senate is crazy. At most, it should be a weakened body like the UK House of Lords. Right now the senate is more powerful than the house which makes exactly zero sense.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

That's a pre-k level conspiracy theory. Nice try. Just like calbear80 your pretense of not being a hyperpartisan is fooling no one.

Everyone knows the bargain that was struck when we had 13 states but please remind me again where the constitution outlines the ridiculous current version of the filibuster. The fact that we continue to run a country with this much power in a non-democratic senate is crazy. At most, it should be a weakened body like the UK House of Lords. Right now the senate is more powerful than the house which makes exactly zero sense.

---

calbear80 asks stupid questions. Gets obvious answers. Acts like we are confused.

Rinse. Repeat. He's a troll.

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

That's a pre-k level conspiracy theory. Nice try. Just like calbear80 your pretense of not being a hyperpartisan is fooling no one.

Everyone knows the bargain that was struck when we had 13 states but please remind me again where the constitution outlines the ridiculous current version of the filibuster. The fact that we continue to run a country with this much power in a non-democratic senate is crazy. At most, it should be a weakened body like the UK House of Lords. Right now the senate is more powerful than the house which makes exactly zero sense.

---

calbear80 asks stupid questions. Gets obvious answers. Acts like we are confused.

Rinse. Repeat. He's a troll.

---

cb80 and t4k are different people. They just appear to be posting on a similar arc.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

That's a pre-k level conspiracy theory. Nice try. Just like calbear80 your pretense of not being a hyperpartisan is fooling no one.

Everyone knows the bargain that was struck when we had 13 states but please remind me again where the constitution outlines the ridiculous current version of the filibuster. The fact that we continue to run a country with this much power in a non-democratic senate is crazy. At most, it should be a weakened body like the UK House of Lords. Right now the senate is more powerful than the house which makes exactly zero sense.

---

Yeah, I'd like to see evidence that illegal immigration and especially middle of the night resettlement flights had any effect on the distribution of seats in the House. Even if it did change anything, it's likely that GOP state legislatures gerrymandered the districts to make the additional House districts GOP safe.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

That's a pre-k level conspiracy theory. Nice try. Just like calbear80 your pretense of not being a hyperpartisan is fooling no one.

Everyone knows the bargain that was struck when we had 13 states but please remind me again where the constitution outlines the ridiculous current version of the filibuster. The fact that we continue to run a country with this much power in a non-democratic senate is crazy. At most, it should be a weakened body like the UK House of Lords. Right now the senate is more powerful than the house which makes exactly zero sense.

---

The other (very obvious) issue is that as the country's population has grown, the disparities between state populations have grown, by a lot. I guarantee you that the Founders would not have approved this system if they'd had some states with 60x the population of others.

Stated another way the Senate is (was) structured to promote compromise and respect the rights of the minority party. That's not in favor these days, as everyone wants to just win.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Stated another way the Senate is (was) structured to promote compromise and respect the rights of the minority party. That's not in favor these days, as everyone wants to just win.

---

At this point it doesn't promote compromise so much as it promotes gridlock.

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

That's a pre-k level conspiracy theory. Nice try. Just like calbear80 your pretense of not being a hyperpartisan is fooling no one.

Everyone knows the bargain that was struck when we had 13 states but please remind me again where the constitution outlines the ridiculous current version of the filibuster. The fact that we continue to run a country with this much power in a non-democratic senate is crazy. At most, it should be a weakened body like the UK House of Lords. Right now the senate is more powerful than the house which makes exactly zero sense.

---

The other (very obvious) issue is that as the country's population has grown, the disparities between state populations have grown, by a lot. I guarantee you that the Founders would not have approved this system if they'd had some states with 60x the population of others.

---

Per the 1790 census PA had >12 times the population of Delaware - 19% to 1.5% of our total population. That's not 60x but it's not like the issue didn't exist either.

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Stated another way the Senate is (was) structured to promote compromise and respect the rights of the minority party. That's not in favor these days, as everyone wants to just win.

---

At this point it doesn't promote compromise so much as it promotes gridlock.

---

I really believe that says everything about the people in power and our parties, not the Senate structure per se. People choose to reinstate the filibuster to win instead of compromise.

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

That's a pre-k level conspiracy theory. Nice try. Just like calbear80 your pretense of not being a hyperpartisan is fooling no one.

Everyone knows the bargain that was struck when we had 13 states but please remind me again where the constitution outlines the ridiculous current version of the filibuster. The fact that we continue to run a country with this much power in a non-democratic senate is crazy. At most, it should be a weakened body like the UK House of Lords. Right now the senate is more powerful than the house which makes exactly zero sense.

---

The other (very obvious) issue is that as the country's population has grown, the disparities between state populations have grown, by a lot. I guarantee you that the Founders would not have approved this system if they'd had some states with 60x the population of others.

---

Per the 1790 census PA had >12 times the population of Delaware - 19% to 1.5% of our total population. That's not 60x but it's not like the issue didn't exist either.

---

Yes, the issue existed then and has only gotten worse over time.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Stated another way the Senate is (was) structured to promote compromise and respect the rights of the minority party. That's not in favor these days, as everyone wants to just win.

---

Well said.

Go Bears!

dajo9 said:

---

calbear80 asks stupid questions. Gets obvious answers. Acts like we are confused.

Rinse. Repeat. He's a troll.

---

+1

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.

---

The above and other posts have gotten me thinking if a compromise between the House and Senate Democrats and Republicans can be reached.

I think most (all?) of the Democrat do not want any limits on abortion. I also think most (all) of the Republicans do not want any laws allowing abortion at all.

Do you think the House and Senate can reach some kind of compromise. Maybe, something like the following:

A. Comprise On Abortion:
. Abortions up to 13 weeks (first trimester) would be allowed, and,
. In the case of verifiable special circumstances (rape and incest), abortions up to 19 weeks (halfway through the pregnancy) would be allowed.

B. Funding For Abortion:
One of the biggest hurdles for several Representatives and Senators (specially Republicans) would be public funding for abortion. I expect that there will be many Representatives and Senators who strongly object to "paying" for something they consider a "sin" and may try to block the whole thing. A compromise would be:
. There will be absolutely no public funding of any kind (Federal, State or local) for anyone for abortions.

C. Abortion For Minors:
This is a tough one. But, maybe the comprise would be:
. An adult responsible (parent, close relative, teacher, etc.) for the person under the age of 18 will be informed 48 hours prior to performing abortion.

Do you think some kind of compromise may have a chance to pass the House and Senate? If not above, what kind of a comprise do you think will get the needed votes?

Go Bears!

calbear80 said:

---

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.

---

The above and other posts have gotten me thinking if a compromise between the House and Senate Democrats and Republicans can be reached.

I think most (all?) of the Democrat do not want any limits on abortion. I also think most (all) of the Republicans do not want any laws allowing abortion at all.

Do you think the House and Senate can reach some kind of compromise. Maybe, something like the following:

A. Comprise On Abortion:
. Abortions up to 13 weeks (first trimester) would be allowed, and,
. In the case of verifiable special circumstances (rape and incest), abortions up to 19 weeks (halfway through the pregnancy) would be allowed.

B. Funding For Abortion:
One of the biggest hurdles for several Representatives and Senators (specially Republicans) would be public funding for abortion. I expect that there will be many Representatives and Senators who strongly object to "paying" for something they consider a "sin" and may try to block the whole thing. A compromise would be:
. There will be absolutely no public funding of any kind (Federal, State or local) for anyone for abortions.

C. Abortion For Minors:
This is a tough one. But, maybe the comprise would be:
. An adult responsible (parent, close relative, teacher, etc.) for the person under the age of 18 will be informed 48 hours prior to performing abortion.

Do you think some kind of compromise may have a chance to pass the House and Senate? If not above, what kind of a comprise do you think will get the needed votes?

Go Bears!

---

What have you seen from the GOP that leads you to believe they have any interest in compromise, especially after getting the very thing they've waited 50 years for - a religious controlled SCOTUS that is willing to abandon all precedent.

There are reasonable people on both sides of the aisle (although not enough of them). The worst thing for the nation would be back and forth laws on an emotional issue of abortion as the majority in the Congress (or the Supreme Court) changes.

What would be your proposal for a compromise?

Go aBears!

calbear80 said:

---

There are reasonable people on both sides

---

You'd think people would get past using this phrase after the last few years, but I guess it's still a conveniently loaded short hand crutch.

calbear80 said:

---

There are reasonable people on both sides of the aisle (although not enough of them). The worst thing for the nation would be back and forth laws on an emotional issue of abortion as the majority in the Congress (or the Supreme Court) changes.

What would be your proposal for a compromise?

Go aBears!

---

Collins and Murkowski introduced their own bill months ago to codify RvW and its progeny. I haven't heard them call for the legislation in the days since Dobbs was handed down. There isn't a single other Republican in the senate who supports the legislation and there aren't enough Democrats to break the filibuster.

I don't even know what a compromise would mean because my understanding is that the federal legislation would merely adopt a baseline for protection, which means that states that care about women could still be more permissive, which is what most people in the largest states want.

If you are asking me what I think the bare minimum should be in every state? It should be that every woman has access to reproductive healthcare, that every woman has as much time as she reasonably needs to obtain an abortion once that decision has been made and that at any point in pregnancy, if it is reasonably determined by the doctor that the fetus is either not capable of becoming viable or the pregnancy presents a genuine risk to the mother's health, the pregnancy can be terminated. I am open to requiring the decision to be made by the 20th week but think 15 weeks is far too early, particularly as technology has improved to give people an opportunity to find out more about the genetic disorders their children may be born with. Forcing poor women to carry children to term who will require lifelong expensive care is unnecessary and punitive. And the ****hole states where this is most likely to occur support children and mothers the least.

Further, there should be an exception for any woman who chooses to have an abortion consistent with her genuine practice of religion. For example, Judaism has always supported abortion under certain conditions as I posted earlier today.

Finally - I would point you to a description of the actual state of affairs in MS, rather than the garbage argued by the state and accepted by SCOTUS. When you read these facts do you believe that all women in MS have genuine access to reproductive healthcare and a meaningful opportunity to terminate pregnancies before 15 weeks?

Quote:

---

With one clinic in the entire state, abortion access in Mississippi is already extremely limited.

• Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Center's client in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health case, is the last remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi.
• 99% (81 out of 82) of Mississippi counties do not have a single abortion clinic.
• There are nearly 600,000 women of reproductive age in Mississippi.
• 91% of these women live in counties without an abortion clinic.

Mississippi residents seeking abortions already face numerous burdens to access care such as missing work, arranging for childcare, travelling long distances, complying with mandatory delays, and foregoing routine expenses to pay for an abortion.

• A 2019 survey of over 200 Mississippi residents who obtained abortions at Jackson Women's Health Organization shows that:
  
  • Over half of the patients missed work to attend an abortion appointment.
  • One in three patients had to make childcare arrangements.
  • Almost half of the patients had to travel 50 miles or more one way.
  • Although the mandatory waiting period is 24 hours, about one-third of patients were unable to return for their second abortion appointment for a week or more.
  • Nearly half of the patients had to delay at least one routine expense (i.e., utilities, rent, food) or sell something of value to cover the cost of abortion.

Mississippi has focused on passing laws that make it harder for people to access needed reproductive health careeven though the state has among the worst health outcomes for women and children in the U.S.

• Mississippi ranks dead last (50th) among states for indicators measuring the health of women and children, such as access to publicly funded women's health services, clinical care during pregnancy, and infant and maternal mortality.
• Mississippi has the worst infant mortality rate among states, with a rate over 50% higher than the national average.
• Mississippi ranks 32nd among states for maternal mortality.
• Mississippi ranks the worst (51st) among states and the District of Columbia in State health system performance measured by access to care, quality of care, health outcomes, and health disparities.
• Mississippi lags behind the rest of the nation in public health spending per resident.
  
  • Ranking 44th among states, Mississippi spends nearly 60% less on public health per resident compared to the national average.

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Stated another way the Senate is (was) structured to promote compromise and respect the rights of the minority party. That's not in favor these days, as everyone wants to just win.

---

Nobody moreso than Mitch McConnell

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

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.

---

The above and other posts have gotten me thinking if a compromise between the House and Senate Democrats and Republicans can be reached.

I think most (all?) of the Democrat do not want any limits on abortion. I also think most (all) of the Republicans do not want any laws allowing abortion at all.

Do you think the House and Senate can reach some kind of compromise. Maybe, something like the following:

A. Comprise On Abortion:
. Abortions up to 13 weeks (first trimester) would be allowed, and,
. In the case of verifiable special circumstances (rape and incest), abortions up to 19 weeks (halfway through the pregnancy) would be allowed.

B. Funding For Abortion:
One of the biggest hurdles for several Representatives and Senators (specially Republicans) would be public funding for abortion. I expect that there will be many Representatives and Senators who strongly object to "paying" for something they consider a "sin" and may try to block the whole thing. A compromise would be:
. There will be absolutely no public funding of any kind (Federal, State or local) for anyone for abortions.

C. Abortion For Minors:
This is a tough one. But, maybe the comprise would be:
. An adult responsible (parent, close relative, teacher, etc.) for the person under the age of 18 will be informed 48 hours prior to performing abortion.

Do you think some kind of compromise may have a chance to pass the House and Senate? If not above, what kind of a comprise do you think will get the needed votes?

Go Bears!

---

What have you seen from the GOP that leads you to believe they have any interest in compromise, especially after getting the very thing they've waited 50 years for - a religious controlled SCOTUS that is willing to abandon all precedent.

---

Any pressure will have to come from their own voters once they realize the hellish landscape the abortion bans have left them with. No way they have appetite for it now.

Then we'll see what level of abortion access those states are willing to live with. I'd take that on a national level, IF it just serves as the baseline and free states can choose to go above it if they want.

dajo9 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 Senate is mostly conservative and conservatives are not in favor of self governance for the American people.

---

Do I understand you saying?

. The Constitution does not grant right to abortion.

. There are no Federal laws granting right to abortion.

. There are not enough votes (at least in the all critical Senate) to pass a law to grant a right to abortion.

It seems like exactly what the US Supreme Court said that there are no Federal laws that grant right to abortion.

So, are you saying the US Supreme Court got it right in overturning Roe?

Go Bears!

The Constitution grants a right to abortion if SCOTUS says it does. That's how it's always been. It was their choice to rule that right out of existence.

Here we go again.

Could you please direct me to the section of the US Constitution that specifically grants the right to abortion?

Go Bears!

calbear80 said:

---

Here we go again.

Could you please direct me to the section of the US Constitution that specifically grants the right to abortion?

Go Bears!

---

Sure, once you direct me to the portion that grants the right to marry who you want.

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

Therefore, all the criticism of the Supreme Court is unjustified.

Of course, many people (including me) do not like this ruling.

Fortunately, as the Supreme Court stated, now people and their elected representatives are empowered to regulate abortion (rather than an unelected panel dictating rules from thousands of miles away).

Isn't that what this country all about. Power to people.

Go Bears!

calbear80 said:

---

dajo9 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 Senate is mostly conservative and conservatives are not in favor of self governance for the American people.

---

Do I understand you saying?

. The Constitution does not grant right to abortion.

. There are no Federal laws granting right to abortion.

. There are not enough votes (at least in the all critical Senate) to pass a law to grant a right to abortion.

It seems like exactly what the US Supreme Court said that there are no Federal laws that grant right to abortion.

So, are you saying the US Supreme Court got it right in overturning Roe?

Go Bears!

---

No, you don't understand what I am saying. You are as dense as they come.

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

---

There is no Constitutional right to marry.

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

---

There is no Constitutional right to marry.

---

Here we go again. Changing the subject again. Let us stay on the subject of abortion.

If we all agree that there is nothing in the Constitution or the Federal laws that grant right to abortion, then logic would indicate that the US Supreme Court got it right to state that there is noting in the Constitution that grants right to abortion.

It should be emphasized that US Supreme Court HAS NOT BANNED ABORTION, but, empowered the people and their elected representatives to regulate abortion.

Go Bears!

calbear80 said:

---

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.

---

The above and other posts have gotten me thinking if a compromise between the House and Senate Democrats and Republicans can be reached.

I think most (all?) of the Democrat do not want any limits on abortion. I also think most (all) of the Republicans do not want any laws allowing abortion at all.

Do you think the House and Senate can reach some kind of compromise. Maybe, something like the following:

A. Comprise On Abortion:
. Abortions up to 13 weeks (first trimester) would be allowed, and,
. In the case of verifiable special circumstances (rape and incest), abortions up to 19 weeks (halfway through the pregnancy) would be allowed.

B. Funding For Abortion:
One of the biggest hurdles for several Representatives and Senators (specially Republicans) would be public funding for abortion. I expect that there will be many Representatives and Senators who strongly object to "paying" for something they consider a "sin" and may try to block the whole thing. A compromise would be:
. There will be absolutely no public funding of any kind (Federal, State or local) for anyone for abortions.

C. Abortion For Minors:
This is a tough one. But, maybe the comprise would be:
. An adult responsible (parent, close relative, teacher, etc.) for the person under the age of 18 will be informed 48 hours prior to performing abortion.

Do you think some kind of compromise may have a chance to pass the House and Senate? If not above, what kind of a comprise do you think will get the needed votes?

Go Bears!

---

What do you all think would be a reasonable comprise on abortion?

Reasonable comprise is not banning abortion after ejaculation and it is not allowing abortion all the until mother goes into labor.

But, what would be a reasonable comprise?

Go Bears!

calbear80 said:

---

Do you think some kind of compromise may have a chance to pass the House and Senate? If not above, what kind of a comprise do you think will get the needed votes?

Go Bears!

---

Are you serious?????
There's no F-ing way any compromise is possible!!!! Why do I say that?? Let me count the ways!!

This Republican party is F-ing INSANE!!!
They stated, as a practitioner's policy, not to allow any wins by their opponent. Newt Gingrich 1993.

This is a party which supported Trump's big lie. They all knew, are on tape on January 6, how awful it was. We ALL saw what happened. But they flipped very quickly. They lie in the face of video showing them in the cookie jar.

McConnell move to deny merrick garland hearing, after Feb death, but it's okay to rush Barrett through after Sept death of justice. Hypocrisy. Yet, his crowning achievement!! Took decades. They are not now going to compromise! What are you, f-ing crazy?? That would be like Trump having gotten to install his alternate electors and won a second term, and then later we end up learning how he cheated with violence his way there and you suggesting he resign. He's not going to resign. Possession is 3/4ths the law. Or whatever that saying is.

Look, it's amazing that after all the mass shooting events of the past 20 years, several GOP Senators finally compromisedto pass a limited set of restrictions on guns. But other than that, when was the last time this GOP party was interested in anything associated with compromise rather than division and power?? They want the entire enchilada, and nothing short of it. And guess what? They are playing the power politics game fairly well. Good for them, bad for America.

Sorry, but I am incredibly cynical. And I think justifiably so! You and I can agree to disagree in the event you think the GOP would be willing to compromise.

But tell me, which GOP leaders have made ANY statements supporting an acceptable early term or special circumstance abortion as you have gamely proposed ??? Is there any movement happening there? Or are they too busy labeling democrats as radical liberals to comment on an abortion compromise?

CB80, I grew up in 2 republican households. One side was friends with Nixon family in Whittier and I have a photo of The President at his niece's wedding, my family was invited. The other side was very much involved in DC with Christian fundamentalists like Doug Coe (watch Netflix's The Family, my stepfather is in there, uncredited, you'll never identify him) and was a big donor which put him in the WH with Reagan and Bush. I went to college in DC and worked at the senate snd Capitol. But I have switched HARD and abandoned my party of origin, because they are NOT noble or virtuous! They are INSANE.
Please, join me!!!

Maybe if the GOP is held accountable for their insane snd corrupt ways, a new crop of politicians can take their place. This current crop is disgusting. They defended THIS!

calbear80 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

---

There is no Constitutional right to marry.

---

Here we go again. Changing the subject again. Let us stay on the subject of abortion.

If we all agree that there is nothing in the Constitution or the Federal laws that grant right to abortion, then logic would indicate that the US Supreme Court got it right to state that there is noting in the Constitution that grants right to abortion.

It should be emphasized that US Supreme Court HAS NOT BANNED ABORTION, but, empowered the people and their elected representatives to regulate abortion.

Go Bears!

---

We don't all agree. You just ignore what you don't what to hear. You are a troll.

I will have to calm down and address your own compromise proposal. I'll respond later. But, no, they'll never compromise. And, I think on this subject, there doesn't appear to be much room for compromise on the side of the democrats either.

I know the Ds will compromise of LOTS of things: budget, border, guns, taxes, military, immigration… all sorts of things. I think D leadership can be very reasonable. But I can't think of any ground given on this issue. The prior arrangement was the compromise! Because we did not live in a society of unlimited abortions, despite how Trump advertised it, to the delight of anti-abortion zealots!

It makes sense, sad sense, that Ds stop negotiating with Rs. Rs have been like "2 for me, none for you. 2 for me, none for you."

calbear80 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

---

There is no Constitutional right to marry.

---

Here we go again. Changing the subject again. Let us stay on the subject of abortion.

---

I'm not changing the subject. I'm trying to apply your logic on abortion to other topics the Supreme Court has ruled on.

You seem to think that if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY mention a topic, the Court is correct to not recognize rights related to that topic. So does this apply to gay marriage? Interracial marriage? School segregation? Miranda rights? The Constitution does not specifically mention any of these topics, so do you think these decisions were wrongly reached?

If I'm wrong, please tell me when the GOP was willing to co-govern for the people?

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution or the Federal laws that grants right to abortion. And, therefore, the Supreme Court got it right.

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the US Constitution that grants right to marriage. And, therefore, the Supreme Court would be right to overturn those decisions.

Right?

---

There is no Constitutional right to marry.

---

Here we go again. Changing the subject again. Let us stay on the subject of abortion.

---

I'm not changing the subject. I'm trying to apply your logic on abortion to other topics the Supreme Court has ruled on.

You seem to think that if the Constitution does not SPECIFICALLY mention a topic, the Court is correct to not recognize rights related to that topic. So does this apply to gay marriage? Interracial marriage? School segregation? Miranda rights? The Constitution does not specifically mention any of these topics, so do you think these decisions were wrongly reached?

---

Miranda Rights are pretty consistent with the 5th and 6th amendments. Again, no right to marriage. The rest is equal protection, which is pretty settled. Do you suppose only white or black babies be aborted?

As for actual due process, I'd argue that anyone pregnant now should be able to get an abortion as if last week's decision never happened. Now, they show know the consequences when having sex. And I agree that laws without rational exceptions shouldn't pass rational basis although I am curious the states logic for banning abortion in cases protecting the mother's life or early abortion in cases of rape.