How the abortion vote in Kansas may determine the future right in the state

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  perrie-halpern  •  2 months ago  •  231 comments

By:   Adam Edelman

How the abortion vote in Kansas may determine the future right in the state
Kansas vote on abortion is the first time the issue has been put to voters since Roe v. Wade

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The proposed amendment was the first time anywhere in the U.S. that voters cast ballots on abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June.

A ballot question, known as the "Value Them Both Amendment," askedvoters to decide whether the state's Constitution should continue to protect abortion rights. The proposed amendment to the state Constitution would have removed language that guarantees reproductive rights and asked voters if they prefer to put the issue of abortion in the hands of the state's Republican-controlled legislature — an outcome that abortion advocates saidwasall but certain to result in the elimination or curtailment of those rights.

A "yes" vote on the measure would remove from the state Constitution the right to an abortion and hand the issue back to the state legislature. A "no" vote on the measure would make no changes, keeping abortion rights enshrined in the state Constitution.

Anti-abortion activists had arguedthe Kansas ballot question created an opportunity to put the issue in the hands of the voters via elected state lawmakers. Supporters of abortion rights warned that approval of the ballot measure would almost certainly result in the elimination or curtailment of existing rights in a state that has more lenient laws on its books compared to many of its neighbors.

Supporters of Value Them Both, a constitutional amendment that would remove language guaranteeing the right to an abortion from the Kansas state constitution, rally before campaigning in Shawnee on July 30, 2022.Caitlin Wilson / AFP - Getty Images

The ballot question had been planned for more than a year, but it took on greater significance in the weeks since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, ending the federal constitutional right to an abortion.

Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab said Tuesday night that the state's polls saw "incredibly high turnout."

Early voting in the state kicked off in mid-July, and Schwab'soffice reported that, as of last Tuesday — more than twice as many people had already cast early ballots than at the same point during the last midterm primary election in 2018. Groups on both sides of the issue blanketed Kansas airwaves with millions of dollars in ads.

President Joe Biden said that the vote "makes clear what we know: the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion and should have the right to make their own health care decisions."

In a statement celebrating the outcome, NARAL Pro-Choice America said that the "vote signals to Kansas and the rest of the country that Americans value reproductive freedom and will fight to protect it."

"Reproductive freedom is a winning issue, now and in November," said the group's president, Mini Timmaraju. "Anti-choice lawmakers take note: The voters have spoken, and they will turn out at the ballot box to oppose efforts to restrict reproductive freedom."

Abortion rights advocates also claimed there were several factors working against them, including the phrasing of the ballot question and the timing of its placement.

For one, they have expressed concern the ballot measure featured language they argued was intentionally designed to confuse voters. For example, the language used on the ballot said that a "yes" vote on the question would affirm that "the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion" — even though no such requirement exists — "and does not create or secure a right to abortion." A "yes" vote would have affirmed that "the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion," something lawmakers are limited in doing now based on the 2019 court ruling.

Abortion rights advocates supported a "no" vote on the measures, which makes no changes to the status quo.

On the eve of the vote, voters reportedly received misleading text messages telling them a "yes" vote would protect the right to an abortion, however. It's unclear who is responsible for sending out the message.

Abortion rights advocates denounced the move. "This is yet another example of the desperate and deceitful tactics of the Value Them Both campaign, lying to the voters of Kansas," said Ashley All, spokesperson for Kansans for Constitutional Freedom.

The Value Them Both Coalition denied it was responsible for the communication.

Abortion rights proponents have argued that with Roe gone, the stakes are far too high to put the issue in the hands of state GOP lawmakers. They point to several recently proposed bills that would restrict or ban abortion — including one introduced in March — that they say would certainly be re-introduced in upcoming state legislature sessions if the Kansas ballot initiative is successful.

Conversely, abortion opponents maintain it is more democratic to have the issue decided by voters, via their representatives.

"This is not a ban on abortion," Republican state Rep. Tory Marie Arnberger, a supporter of the initiative who helped get it on the August ballot, told NBC News in a recent interview. "I am a fan of each state having their own regulations on abortion. With Roe v. Wade being overturned, that is now each state's right, and I think it's up to each state legislature to decide what is best for their state," she added.

Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan, called Tuesday's results "an enormous blow to efforts to protect the sanctity of life in Kansas."

Abortion in Kansas is legal up until about the 22nd week of pregnancy, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Under state law, women seeking abortion care are subject to several regulations such as a 24-hour waiting period between seeking consultation and receiving the procedure and parental consent for minors.

Still, the rules are much less restrictive than those in neighboring states. In Missouri and Oklahoma, laws went into effect almost immediately after the Supreme Court ruling in late June that effectively banned nearly all abortion care in those states.

At least 22 states have already banned or will soon prohibit abortion. The new landscape makes Kansas a regional outlier and a safe haven for women in and out of state seeking abortion care — but that could diminish or disappear if the measure passes.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  JBB    2 months ago

The gop is too radical for Kansas. That's how bad it is!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  JBB @1    2 months ago

this SCOTUS injustice needs to be a ballot issue in every anti-choice state.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2  cjcold  replied to  JBB @1    2 months ago

So glad it turned out the way that it did. Born and raised in Kansas.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

"President Joe Biden said that the vote "makes clear what we know: the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion and should have the right to make their own health care decisions."

In a statement celebrating the outcome, NARAL Pro-Choice America said that the "vote signals to Kansas and the rest of the country that Americans value reproductive freedom and will fight to protect it."

"Reproductive freedom is a winning issue, now and in November," said the group's president, Mini Timmaraju. "Anti-choice lawmakers take note: The voters have spoken, and they will turn out at the ballot box to oppose efforts to restrict reproductive freedom."


So it sounds like the pro-abortion people think this should be settled at the ballot box.

I couldn't agree more.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    2 months ago
So it sounds like the pro-abortion people think this should be settled at the ballot box.

Correction Vic, Pro-choice. If you don't want to have one, don't get one. 

And frankly, I don't understand why this doesn't fall under HIPPA. But then again, this is the mess that gov has become.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1    2 months ago
this is the mess that gov has become.

I thought it was a democracy?

Let the people vote on it. Or do the "pro-choice" people really want that?

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
2.1.2  evilgenius  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1    2 months ago
I don't understand why this doesn't fall under HIPPA.

HIPPA will fall if SCotUS challenged too. Congress based the law on the same principles as Roe when they passed it. I'm just waiting on the legal challenge. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilgenius @2.1.2    2 months ago

I thought most people are in favor?   Then why not use the democratic process?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1.4  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.3    2 months ago

Because this should fall under the Constitution as a personal right. But given that governors are making the decision in many cases, then this is better, but not perfect.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
2.1.5  evilgenius  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.3    2 months ago

In favor of what? Are you asking if people should vote on HIPPA? 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
2.1.6  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.3    2 months ago
Then why not use the democratic process?

That doesn't always fall the way the "Agenda Driven" want their agendas to fall.

No "Politically driven person" actually likes "The Voter" Choosing what "The Voter" actually wants !

They NEED the "Courts" to make the decisions for the voter !

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
2.1.7  evilgenius  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.1.6    2 months ago
That doesn't always fall the way the "Agenda Driven" want their agendas to fall.

Everything in politics is by definition "Agenda Driven".  

No "Politically driven person" actually likes "The Voter" Choosing what "The Voter" actually wants !

This is what the alt+right minority populists are running on. They get to finally choose after always being spectators on the fringe. 

They NEED the "Courts" to make the decisions for the voter !

It worked for the Anti-Choicers didn't it?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1    2 months ago
Correction Vic, Pro-choice. If you don't want to have one, don't get one. 

That's is incorrect.  The entire effort has been about protecting doctors who perform abortions.   Without legal protections for doctors, all abortions become illegal.  As it is now, abortions performed someone other than a doctor are illegal.

Women can choose abortion whether or not abortion is legal.  The argument has been that ending protections for doctors would force women to end a pregnancy by illegal means.  So, the effort hasn't been about women's choice; it's been about doctor provided abortion.

The pro-abortion stance has always been about protecting doctors who perform abortions.  

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
2.1.9  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  evilgenius @2.1.7    2 months ago
It worked for the Anti-Choicers didn't it?

oooo....sorry. it's the "Choicers" that have their panties in a bunch because the "Courts" put the "Law making " back in the "politician and Voters" laps !

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.4    2 months ago
Because this should fall under the Constitution as a personal right.

It's not listed there.

So you either trust the that enough people feel as you do and vote it into law or you want 5 unelected judges to force it on the nation.

Each state gets to vote on it. The people shall decide.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.1.6    2 months ago
They NEED the "Courts" to make the decisions for the voter !

Yup, because they know this should be a right...they can just feel it.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
2.1.12  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.11    2 months ago
they can just feel it.

"Feelings" don't always make things "Right/Correct/True" !

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
2.1.13  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.10    2 months ago
The people shall decide

Those words "Scare the Shit" outa Liberals !

"Liberal Politicians" would lose their "Ruling Rights" if that were the case !

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.10    2 months ago
ach state gets to vote on it. The people shall decide.

Exactly.  The people democratically chose their own laws, and it gives the result  a legitimacy that unelected justices imposing them based on their moral preferences  could never obtain. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
2.1.15  evilgenius  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.1.9    2 months ago
oooo....sorry...

Pro-choicers need the courts, but the conservative court rescued the anti-choicers? Circular logic seems to be the operating MO with the ultra conservatives posting today. I'm sorry nothing you posted here makes any logical sense.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
2.1.16  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  evilgenius @2.1.15    2 months ago
Pro-choicers need the courts

They aren't the folks with their panties in a Bunch over the "Supreme Court Ruling" !

The "Supreme Court Ruling" furthered the Leftist's call for TRUE "Democracy" !

You don't Like "Democracy" ?

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
2.1.17  evilgenius  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.1.16    2 months ago
They aren't the folks with their panties in a Bunch over the "Supreme Court Ruling" !

You still aren't making any sense. Why did conservatives work so hard to pack the court with justices they knew would overturn Roe and hammer it with case after case until they got what they wanted? 

You don't Like "Democracy" ?

I'm not the one around here championing removing established rights.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
2.1.18  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  evilgenius @2.1.17    2 months ago
Why did conservatives work so hard to pack the court

"liberal" Fantasy speak !

There was NO PACKING of the court. It was called in "Real Life", Replacing existing Justices.

I'm not the one around here championing removing established rights.

Actual "Democracy" will do that in your mind ?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
2.1.19  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.10    2 months ago
Each state gets to vote on it.  The people shall decide.

Reactionaries who want to take away people's rights always seem to fall back on the same old trope.  "States' rights" - The argument the segregationists used.

Of course, if the Republican anti-choice forces take over Congress, we can expect them to immediately enact a law outlawing all abortions everywhere.  If they don't have 60 votes in the Senate, they will, without a doubt, pass a rule setting aside the filibuster for that purpose.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1.20  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    2 months ago
I thought it was a democracy?

We are not a true democracy. Constitutional republic. 

Let the people vote on it. Or do the "pro-choice" people really want that?

Because of the definition of what we are, I feel that it should be covered under the Constitution. But voting is better than the state gov deciding that for the people. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1.21  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.8    2 months ago

Nerm, 

I almost didn't reply to you because I was flabbergasted that you think that this is about doctors. It's about a woman's right to her own healthcare. 

 
 
 
TedK
Freshman Silent
2.1.22  TedK  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.20    2 months ago

I've been saying this all along. Overpopulation and Industrialization is going to destroy us. We can take care of the first with abortions and ok maybe a few late term mail bombs but are we willing to give up the 2nd?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1.23  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.1.9    2 months ago

No the "Choicers" have their panties in a bunch because what was decided law was suddenly undecided.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.1.24  afrayedknot  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.21    2 months ago

“It's about a woman's right to her own healthcare.”

The bottom line.

No one has a care about anyone else’s visit, prognosis, or treatment. This is no different, and the ballot box will eventually prove it. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1.25  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.10    2 months ago
Because this should fall under the Constitution as a personal right.
It's not listed there.

Not each right is enumerated. 

So you either trust the that enough people feel as you do and vote it into laworyou want 5 unelected judges to force it on the nation.

Oh, come on. This has been the way our nation has always run.

Each state gets to vote on it. The people shall decide.

So far, that is not how it's been going. The governors and state legislatures have been deciding. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1.26  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.14    2 months ago
Each state gets to vote on it. The people shall decide.

I will refer you to my comment here:

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
2.1.27  evilgenius  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.1.18    2 months ago
"liberal" Fantasy speak !

I'm only a liberal compared to people like you who are so far to the right a Reganite looks liberal.

There was NO PACKING of the court. It was called in "Real Life", Replacing existing Justices.

McConnel fucked with the rules to get what he needed. He stacked the deck and the court. He's good at what he does.

Actual "Democracy" will do that in your mind ?

At this point I'm not sure you know what "democracy" is let alone how government is supposed to work.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.1.28  afrayedknot  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.25    2 months ago

“The governors and state legislatures have been deciding.”

A clarion call to hold each and every candidate accountable in answering this most fundamental of questions. And depending upon the answer, vote accordingly. There is no reason…no reason, to move backward.

Think of your wife, your sisters, your daughters, your nieces, your granddaughters, or any woman in your life and try to imagine explaining to any and all of them how taking away a right is in any way right. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
2.1.29  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.21    2 months ago
I almost didn't reply to you because I was flabbergasted that you think that this is about doctors. It's about a woman's right to her own healthcare. 

Terminating a pregnancy near term is not about health.  Debating the economic and social hardships associated with an unwanted pregnancy is not about health.  Psycho-babble to justify a choice to kill a near term infant is not about health.

Legal abortion requires a doctor.  All other forms of abortion are illegal.  Access to abortion requires protecting doctors willing to perform abortions.  And the entire pro-abortion stance has been about protecting doctors and not about protecting women's health.  The 'women's choice' mantra has only served the purpose of protecting doctors who are willing to kill without any consideration of the ethical implications.

Entrusting one's health to a doctor willing to perform a near term abortion seems rather oxymoronic.  If the woman's health is in danger then deliver the infant.  If a doctor cares so little about life then why trust them with your life?

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
2.1.30  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.23    2 months ago
No the "Choicers" have their panties in a bunch because what was decided law was suddenly undecided.

What "Law" was decided on ?

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it? It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice,” Ginsburg said in 2013. “It wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.” 

Justice Samuel Alito - “The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion.” Roe, he wrote, wasn’t simply wrong — it was so wrong as to amount to an “abuse of judicial authority.” Alito acknowledged that a major precedent was being overturned, but he argued that it had to be done because the justices who decided Casey actually made a mistake by relying too heavily on precedent. The court is not required to uphold a previous ruling simply because it’s already on the books, he wrote. In fact, “the Constitution and the rule of law demand” that the question of abortion be returned to the states.

SEEMS JOE KNOWS REALITY !

Joe Biden: Let me be very clear and unambiguous: The only way we can secure a woman’s right to choose and the balance that existed is for Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade as federal law. No executive action from the President can do that.  And if Congress, as it appears, lacks the vote — votes to do that now, voters need to make their voices heard.

Time for "Congress" to actually do their jobs and make an "Actual Federal Law" if they truly want it back bad enough  !

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
2.1.31  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  evilgenius @2.1.27    2 months ago
At this point I'm not sure you know what "democracy" is let alone how government is supposed to work.

I'm sure you did before, when things were going in your favor ?

"I'm only a liberal compared to people like you who are so far to the right a Reganite looks liberal."

"Reality" doesn't take or require sides !

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.32  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    2 months ago

It is a democracy. But can we vote on this:

1. Boys' and mens' privacy to get a vasectomy? Or,

2. Boys and men shall marry the girl or woman he "accidentally" impregnates? And,

3. Can we vote on how a boy or man should treat his new wife with care, concern, and above all safety for the duration of a marriage or face criminal charges? Finally,

4. Can we vote that a boy or man can never file for a divorce from the mother of his child/ren?

What say you, Vic?

Democracy much?

Will you drop the democracy 'taunt' now?

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.1.33  afrayedknot  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.1.30    2 months ago

“…if they truly want it back bad enough  !” 

Of course they want it back bad enough.  Unfortunately, they face a side of the Senate that has shown no willingness to negotiate and/or debate any issue, much less this one…where a majority of your fellow citizens disagree with pushing it off to the states. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1.34  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.1.30    2 months ago

That was her opinion. That was a mostly conservative court decided:

The decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy", which protects a pregnant woman's right to an abortion.

As for Alito, he was wrong when he said: the substantive right to abortion was not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history or tradition", nor considered a right when the Due Process Clause was ratified in 1868, since there was no law prior and abortion was allowed since the start of this nation, and even before.

I don't know who you are talking to about "feelings", but it better not be me. 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
2.1.35  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.33    2 months ago
Of course they want it back bad enough.  Unfortunately, they face a side of the Senate that has shown no willingness to negotiate and/or debate any issue

Yet, they have a majority member on their side plus a Vice President and a President, and still can't get things done.

Better to blame the "Other side" for ones Failures ?

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
2.1.36  evilgenius  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.1.31    2 months ago
I'm sure you did before, when things were going in your favor ?

Things almost never go in my favor. I want people to be logical, thoughtful and respectful. It's as rare as hen's teeth. 

"Reality" doesn't take or require sides !

Up until we got saddled with the "alternate facts" populists I'd have agreed with you. 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
2.1.37  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.34    2 months ago
That was her opinion.

Whom Liberals have hung their hats on since she was on the Supreme Court, but now "After", they mean nothing ?

As for Alito, he was wrong when he said: the substantive right to abortion was not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history or tradition", nor considered a right when the Due Process Clause was ratified in 1868, since there was no law prior and abortion was allowed since the start of this nation, and even before.

Alito said, "Law Must be Made by Congress and State Legislators, Voted in to make law by the Voting Public" , Not the "Courts", is what the ruling said !

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.38  Ozzwald  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.1.35    2 months ago
Yet, they have a majority member on their side plus a Vice President and a President, and still can't get things done.

No majority, it is tied.  The only time the VP steps in is on a tied vote.  Problem is that the republican party keeps all their members in fearful lock step, not allowing any independent thought or actions.  The democratic party is more like trying to herd cats.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.39  CB   replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.1.6    2 months ago

Because people, er voters that is can be tiresome, meddlesome, misinformed, manipulated 'freaks of nature' as often as they are not. Moreover, you know that. As you just watched Kansas "dial it up or dial it down" accordingly to MAGA grief.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.1.40  afrayedknot  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.1.35    2 months ago

“Better to blame the "Other side" for ones Failures ?”

…the magic number, dropout, is sixty. These daze, failure is built in. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.41  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.10    2 months ago
you want 5 unelected judges to force it on the nation

The irony of that statement is 'rich.' Do you see it? Let me help you unpack that 'ridiculousness':

Five [UNELECTED] conservative justices voted to overturn the landmark abortion case.

And those unelected conservatives did so the first chance they got. And while signifying they are prepared to do so much more than that to minorities-while UNELECTED justices.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.42  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.34    2 months ago
, nor considered a right when the Due Process Clause was ratified in 1868, since there was no law prior and abortion was allowed since the start of this nation, and even before.

Since that's 100% false, you must agree Alito was correct. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1.43  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.1.37    2 months ago
Whom Liberals have hung their hats on since she was on the Supreme Court, but now "After", they mean nothing ?

I am not a liberal. And please do not getting me going about RBG. I am not a fan.

Alito said, "LawMust be Made by Congress and State Legislators, Voted in to make law by the Voting Public" , Not the "Courts", is what the ruling said !

That was one of many things he said to justify what has stood for over 50 years. You have to say a lot to justify what many other courts seem to see fit.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.44  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.10    2 months ago

The word, commonsense, is not in the U.S. constitution either. So what will you plan to do about it. Hold a vote to add commonsense to the Constitution? Or can you just take for damn granted that commonsense is an ingredient presumed to be "in" the document? (Damn the bull patty we have to put down around here sometimes is best managed by kindergarteners. . . . )

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1.45  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.42    2 months ago

In the 18th century and until about 1880, abortions were allowed under common law and widely practiced. They were illegal only after “quickening,” the highly subjective term used to describe when pregnant women could feel the fetus moving, Reagan said.

“At conception and the earliest stage of pregnancy, before quickening, no one believed that a human life existed; not even the Catholic Church took this view,” Reagan wrote. “Rather, the popular ethic regarding abortion and common law were grounded in the female experience of their own bodies.”

Though it is considered taboo in Christian traditions, until the mid-19th century, “the Catholic Church implicitly accepted early abortions prior to ensoulment,” she explained. “Not until 1869, at about the same time that abortion became politicized in this country, did the church condemn abortion; in 1895, it condemned therapeutic abortion,” meaning procedures to save a woman’s life.

So, not false and that makes Alito wrong.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.46  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.45    2 months ago
So, not false and that makes Alito wrong.

Abortions were illegal by statute in 30 of 37 states when the 14th Amendment was passed. What you claimed is undeniably, 100% false.

In a way, its a perfect summary of the argument. You claim Alito was wrong and base it on reasoning that is absolutely false. And now you will pivot and say Alito is still wrong, even though the very facts that you relied on  support the opposite conclusion.

Your argument is "Alito is wrong because I don't like the result." It encapsulates how silly these arguments are. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1.47  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.46    2 months ago

Sean,

You keep referring back to 1868. Alito's comment didn't specify 1868. Read this part of the comment again:

the substantive right to abortion was not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history or tradition"

But it was. It had been going on till 1868. That is not wrong. That is fact. He was wrong.

Btw, this is why I don't like talking to you anymore. You twist what I am saying, and I find that beyond annoying. 

Your argument is "Alito is wrong because I don't like the result." It encapsulates how silly these arguments are. 

Well, if a justice is going to make his case on decided law" he shouldn't be wrong about his reasoning.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.48  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.47    2 months ago
You keep referring back to 1868. A

YOU  said "considered a right when the Due Process Clause was ratified in 1868, since there was no law prior. "

That is 100% wrong and why you won't concede that is beyond me. It's not debatable. 30 states outlawed abortion before 1868 by statute when the 14th Amendment was passed, supposedly containing  a right to abortion within it. 

It's like disputing 2+2=4.  

But it was. It had been going on till 1868. That is not wrong. That is fact. He w

What is fact that was outlawed in the overwhelming majority of states before 1868. To claim otherwise is demonstrably false. 

You twist what I am saying, and I find that beyond annoying. 

That's fine. I'm just going to point out you are twisting reality and making things up  to support your arguments.   I don't want people to be misled by false claims. 

e shouldn't be wrong about his reasoning.

Lol  I guess a justice could always just adopt non falsifiable reasoning.  This is the merry go round we are on:

"Aliito's wrong.  Abortion is a right because it was legal when the 14th Amendment protecting it was passed!"

Wait,   it was illegal?

Alito was wrong because abortion is a right even though it was widely illegal when the 14th Amendment protecting it was passed"

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.49  CB   replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.1.12    2 months ago

And on that point, you feel girls and women have no right to private property even when it is contained within their bodies? And to you this is rational enough to be willing to debate?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.50  CB   replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.1.13    2 months ago

Okay, I call for a point of clarification: Are their more liberal voters in this country than conservative voters? Or, more conservative voters than liberals?

What is the final answer?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.51  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @2.1.49    2 months ago
nd women have no right to private property even when it is contained within their bodies?

The humans have a right to own other humans argument.  Thought that was decided in 1865.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.52  CB   replied to  evilgenius @2.1.17    2 months ago

And then MAGA SELF-DECEIVES itself into believing liberals put UNELECTED conservative justices on the high court in order to remove girls' and women' rights because they needed A SINGULAR REASON to get liberals to the polls in November. . . GENIUS!!  /s   

Wait a minute . . .

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.53  CB   replied to  Gsquared @2.1.19    2 months ago

RIGHTO!  MAGA is not calling it a "Takeover' for nothing. Everything up to and including the vaulted RULE OF LAW will be shelved! A return to the white male dominion model of governance where rules can be tailored to make sense for the "beautiful" people of MAGA and who cares about the 'rest' will be in order!

(It's demonstrable true right now. Donald Trump! Wrong as two left feet on one body, but still able to persuade others to cut off their right feet in hopes of an additional left foot forming for a new set of double 'lefties.')

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.54  CB   replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.24    2 months ago

There is an inherent problem with accepting the final answer on abortion from 'your neighbors.' That is, they will require you, us, to defend abortion rights and privileges in this country on a regular voting schedule/basis.

As a black American I find it insulting and offensive that I need a repeat and modifiable civil rights and voting rights set of bills in order to properly exist in this country. While those with white privilege need point once to their human rights.

It is the "clownish" nature and immaturity of our country that we have to keep "repairing" the same sections of our past because some MAGA backwards citizens won't grow the "h" up or okay, simply die and go to "h" or the other "h" once and for all.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.55  CB   replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.1.30    2 months ago

And dare I say even when you make a true statement about the "feds" - you manage to do so through clenched teeth? I am left wondering: Do you write MAGA as "MAGA"?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.56  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.51    2 months ago

As another poster recently stated: 'You put words in my mouth.'  I am not going for it. Read my comment again. Afterwards, tell me where you can imply anything is a slave while inside a girl or female. Go on, do it! I daresay you will fail!

That established as an error on your part, let me be clear in stating that generally speaking until a girl or woman gets done forming, shaping, and fashioning another in her womb-she does have 'diffs' on its essence and substances as part of her own being!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.57  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.25    2 months ago
Oh, come on. This has been the way our nation has always run.

Lol. That made my day!  Thanks Perrie.


So far, that is not how it's been going. The governors and state legislatures have been deciding.

Don't vote for them.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1.58  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.48    2 months ago

You keep saying I'm wrong, but not one thing you have provided has anything to back it up. Which states outlawed abortion and when? Not in 1776. Not in the early 1800's even. Back up something instead of being condescending.

Here let me help you:

In the early 1800s, methods were published for accomplishing abortion early in pregnancy. [24]  By  common law , abortion was legal, and only after  quickening  it was not allowed

  Blakemore, Erin (May 22, 2022).   "The complex early history of abortion in the United States" .   National Geographic .

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1.59  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.57    2 months ago
So far, that is not how it's been going. The governors and state legislatures have been deciding.

Don't vote for them.

Be careful what you wish for.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.60  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.59    2 months ago

It may be too late for us!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.1.61  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.29    2 months ago
Terminating a pregnancy near term is not about health.

First, when you have to set such narrow conditions for your argument to be correct, your argument is weak.

Second, your argument isn't correct, anyway.  Do you know what induced labor or a c-section do, Nerm?  They both terminate pregnancy, near term.  They are done because either the mother or the fetus is in danger. 

A near-term fetus can, on occasion, become nonviable.  The treatment, which is all about health, is to end the pregnancy, generally via induced labor.  The mother can develop sepsis if the pregnancy is not terminated.

A woman whose pregnancy is near term can develop pre-eclampsia or eclampsia, which can threaten her life.  The treatment, if her blood pressure cannot be controlled, is to end the pregnancy, either by inducing labor or by c-section.  If this condition is not treated, the woman can die.  So, yes, it's about health.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.62  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.60    2 months ago

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.63  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.61    2 months ago

What arguments?  It's all nonsense.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.64  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.29    2 months ago

I don't even know why I bother reading your ignorance.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.65  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.61    2 months ago

My one sister was about ready to deliver - when she died (the baby) - and they had to do a C-section of course.  What a horrible situation for anyone to have to go through.  

How anyone can think that a woman isn't in agony deciding to terminate 'near term' and not to take the life of the mother and the no hopes for the life of the baby into consideration - lunacy.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
2.1.66  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.61    2 months ago
Second, your argument isn't correct, anyway.  Do you know what induced labor or a c-section do, Nerm?  They both terminate pregnancy, near term.  They are done because either the mother or the fetus is in danger. 

How can I be incorrect when you have confirmed the point I made?  A near term pregnancy can be terminated without an abortion.  There aren't moral or ethical justifications for near term abortion.  You've explained why.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
2.1.67  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.66    2 months ago

You basically just contradicted yourself, or completely redefined the meaning of "terminate" with regards to pregnancy.  Either or both reveal the weakness of your position.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.68  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.61    2 months ago

And if the fetus is viable and survives the inducement or C-Section..well then we have a baby! Hopefully a healthy baby but that was what Mom wanted all along.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.69  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.58    2 months ago

  Which states outlawed abortion and when?

You started with 1868 since  it's  the most relevant date, since that is when the 14th Amendment (where the Court claims the Right to an Abortion was found)  was passed.  The list is attached to appendix A of the Court's decision in the Dobbs case. you've still yet to admit you were wrong and Alito was right. 

By   common law  , abortion was legal, and only after   quickening   it was not allowed

It's actually much more complicated than that.  But let's pretend it was that simple. 

You've already conceded that there never was a  "right to an abortion." Even at common law,  under the most favorable interpretation of quickening for the pro abortion side, the state could obviously prohibit abortion after 15 weeks. So even before states regulated abortion by statute, they regulated it at common law using the  arbitrary quickening standard.  As Blackman admitted to his colleagues when drafting Roe, all cutoff dates (quickening, first trimester, viability) are arbitrary.  

SO taking the most favorable case for abortion, you have to admit abortion was criminalized at common law, when states started to pass formal statutes regulating it, no one claimed a right to an abortion existed, and by the time the amendment was passed that supposedly secretly  protected abortion was passed it was formally criminalized in the vast majority of states. Yet somehow it was a deeply rooted right that no one knew existed as it was restricted at common law and by statute. . "Deeply rooted rights" don't disappear without someone noticing their existence. It's oxymoronic. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.70  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.69    2 months ago

This is getting interesting. That's why I like open forums.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.71  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    2 months ago
I thought it was a democracy?
Let the people vote on it. Or do the "pro-choice" people really want that?

Individual rights should never be put to popular vote. 

I thought most people are in favor?   Then why not use the democratic process?

See first statement.

It's not listed there.

Wrong! Privacy is in the Constitution and there are multiple precedents to that effect. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.72  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.71    2 months ago
Individual rights should never be put to popular vote. 

If they are not in the Constitution, then what else do we do?


See first statement.

I have it right here.


Wrong! Privacy is in the Constitution and there are multiple precedents to that effect. 

Show us Gordy. BTW, welcome back to an open forum.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.73  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.72    2 months ago
If they are not in the Constitution, then what else do we do?

This is why such issues go through the courts. 

I have it right here.

Good. 

Show us Gordy.

Constitutional Privacy Rights​

Even though the right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, for cases such as Roe V. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that several Amendments imply these rights:

First Amendment: Provides the freedom to choose any kind of religious belief and to keep that choice private.

Third Amendment: Protects the zone of privacy of the home.

Fourth Amendment: Protects the right of privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

Fifth Amendment: Provides for the right against self-incrimination, which justifies the protection of private information.

Ninth Amendment: This amendment is interpreted to justify a broad reading the Bill of Rights to protect your fundamental right to privacy in ways not provided for in the first eight amendments.

Fourteenth Amendment: Prohibits states from making laws that infringe upon the personal autonomy protections provided for in the first thirteen amendments. Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, a state could make laws that violated freedom of speech, religion, etc.

BTW, welcome back to an open forum.

Thank you. But I never really left.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.74  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.73    2 months ago
This is why such issues go through the courts. 

Then you have no concept of the separation of powers. The Courts DO NOT MAKE LAW!


Even though the right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution,

End of conversation and btw the Court you claim to support has just ruled on it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.75  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.74    2 months ago
Then you have no concept of the separation of powers.

Surely you jest!

The Courts DO NOT MAKE LAW!

A Strawman. I never said they did. 

End of conversation

I accept your surrender then.

and btw the Court you claim to support has just ruled on it.

They ruled on abortion. What's your point? And Btw, I pointed out Constitutional privacy rights, as you requested. The Court certainly did not invalidate those rights. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
2.2  Nerm_L  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    2 months ago
So it sounds like the pro-abortion people think this should be settled at the ballot box.

Wasn't that the point of the SCOTUS ruling on Dobbs?  SCOTUS didn't outlaw abortion.  SCOTUS determined that the issue of abortion was beyond the jurisdiction of the courts since there wasn't Constitutional or legislated guidance.

The only way to address the issue of abortion is through the ballot box.  The courts are out of it now.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2    2 months ago

That's right, just as it should have been in the early 70's.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.2.2  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2    2 months ago
SCOTUS determined that the issue of abortion was beyond the jurisdiction of the courts since there wasn't Constitutional or legislated guidance.

No, SCOTUS decided that it was incorrectly argued, and thus not covered by the Constitution. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.2.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2    2 months ago
SCOTUS determined that the issue of abortion was beyond the jurisdiction of the courts since there wasn't Constitutional or legislated guidance.

SCOTUS decided the the right to privacy does not extend to a woman's own body.  That a state government can force a woman to use her body against her will.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
2.2.4  Nerm_L  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.3    2 months ago
SCOTUS decided the the right to privacy does not extend to a woman's own body.  That a state government can force a woman to use her body against her will.

That's an argument based entirely upon liberals' autocratic mindset and fear of too much democracy.

Abortion has not been outlawed.  The fate of abortion rests in the hands of voters and their representatives.  That's what democracy in a republic is supposed to really be about.  Liberals' argument is actually based upon fear of voters.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.2.5  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.4    2 months ago
Abortion has not been outlawed. 

In states where their legislature or their governor has outlawed it, it has been outlawed. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.2.5    2 months ago

I have noted before that it seems to be mostly men who say abortion hasn't been outlawed, regardless of what state

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.7  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.1    2 months ago

Okay, since you know so much about it. Why did Roe turn to the courts and not the legislatures in the first place? Go on, "teach"! And when you get done with that question, try on this one:

Why did conservatives wait patiently for fifty years to install conservative justices by any means necessary (and compromise the high court's reputation in the process) on the SCOTUS instead of going to the state and congressional legislatures and getting abortion banned in the late 70's-80's-90's-and onward?

You do realize that had conservatives not masterminded takeover of the court through a hook or crook method that compromised the constitutional wording, "advice and consent" we would yet indefinitely have court-ordered abortion! Was the advice and consent ploy used by McConnell "orginal intent" of the phrase or a more modern application?

I have observed that conservatives don't bother to question what motivated McConnell to subvert so-called, "orginalism" if it was the case!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.8  CB   replied to  Tessylo @2.2.6    2 months ago

Such remarks are "opportunistic" and spoken with clenched butt cheeks, and hidden crossed fingers. That is, is a 'forked tongued' utterance that will be revealed as such in time!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @2.2.7    2 months ago
So far, that is not how it's been going. The governors and state legislatures have been deciding.

CB, listen to me carefully: There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. A majority of people believe in the right to an abortion in some form. We let the people vote on it and if/when the people vote for a right to an abortion, you will have a law that will be respected and the debate will finally come to an end.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.10  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.9    2 months ago
There is no right to privacy in the Constitution.

at least according to 6 thumper wack jobs that happen to be sitting on the SCOTUS bench...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.11  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.9    2 months ago

Sure privacy is in the constitution. It is right there beside commonsense in the constitution that says you don't have to go to court or congress to determine if you have a right to put a door on the front of your dwelling place and walls around the house to protect what is inside. It's right in there where a man or woman has the right to self-preservation. Right there in the constitution where women have as many relative human rights in their vaginas to have unabridged sex as men have in their unabridged penises!

Okay, now do you see it?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.2.12  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.9    2 months ago
There is no right to privacy in the Constitution.

Odd. That is not what I found here:

In Griswold, the Supreme Court found a right to privacy, derived from penumbras of other explicitly stated constitutional protections. The Court used the personal protections expressly stated in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to find that  there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution .

href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privacy#:~:text=%E2%80%8BIn%20Griswold%2C%20the%20Supreme,to%20privacy%20in%20the%20Constitution." >

privacy | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

  › Wex
 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.13  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.2.12    2 months ago

Vic knows there is privacy implied in the constitution, but MAGA conservatives use very select filtering techniques designed to solicit and maintain the results (outcomes) they dictate. And it is all they wish to sell when they interact with liberals, or in this case, independents.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.2.12    2 months ago

And the Griswold decision is just as wrong as Roe was.

Here is what I found and have always known:

"Conservative legal heroes such as Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and  Clarence Thomas   hate this. Each has explicitly argued that the right to privacy is not a constitutional right because the Founders did not did not explicitly say there’s one. In 2007, Justice Thomas wrote that there is “no general right to privacy” or relevant liberty in the U.S. Constitution. Justice Scalia, in the same  Lawrence v. Texas  case, spoke disparagingly of the “so-called ‘right to privacy.’”

.

The "implied right" is the claim of activists who want to make what they think should be into law.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.15  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @2.2.11    2 months ago

Nope.

On Jan 22, 1973 American Constitutional Law changed forever.  That was the day that Justice Blackmun announced, without further explanation, that a right of privacy that was broad enough to encompass a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy had burst forth out of the "due process clause in the 14th Amendment. Few believed it then and fewer believe it now.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.14    2 months ago

Token Thomas.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.17  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.15    2 months ago

295930336_437770151719252_7090285141778645213_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=cjiu8PW1nmIAX_32y04&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT-9_CNAdcm1xlNSqIwaMP5_65XXPIFZertKjD6kZTyOvg&oe=62F0166B

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.19  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.14    2 months ago
"Legal hero" my big fat ass. Wants to ban contraception.  Ban abortion.  Also banish LGBTQ rights and protections.  Why has Loving v. Virginia never come up TT?  Scumbag

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.2.20  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.16    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.2.21  Ozzwald  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.4    2 months ago
That's an argument based entirely upon liberals' autocratic mindset and fear of too much democracy.

You can call it anything you want, but my statement is entirely ACCURATE.

Abortion has not been outlawed.

You are claiming that a woman can get an abortion in Texas or Tennessee?

The fate of abortion rests in the hands of voters and their representatives.

Voters overwhelmingly showed that they are not anti-choice.  Their republican representatives don't care what the voters want.

That's what democracy in a republic is supposed to really be about.

No, it is not.  Certain rights need to be protected and maintained by the federal government.  Among those are the rights to your own body.  Next you'll have states regulating what tattoos you are allowed to have, or where you are allowed to have a piercing, all based on you sex.

Nerm_L, do you feel that a state should have the right to reimpose slavery, if they so chose?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
2.2.22  Nerm_L  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.21    2 months ago
You can call it anything you want, but my statement is entirely ACCURATE.

Only from an autocratic point of view.  The issue of privacy only attempts to move the goalposts to avoid debating the moral and ethical implications of abortion.  You weren't debating abortion; you were arguing something else entirely.

You are claiming that a woman can get an abortion in Texas or Tennessee?

You think women in outstate Texas or Tennessee had ready access to abortion (or healthcare in general, for that matter)?  The whining over loss of urban convenience rings hollow.

Put the issue on the ballot.  Give people a voice and a vote.  Don't allow SCOTUS to disenfranchise everyone in the country.  People can change laws.  It may not be easy or quick but it can be (and has been) done.  People cannot overrule SCOTUS without an insurrection.

Voters overwhelmingly showed that they are not anti-choice.  Their republican representatives don't care what the voters want.

Let's hope so.  If voters feel they've been duped there will be a backlash.  The Kansas vote was another situation where a 'yes' vote means no and a 'no' vote means yes.  Politicians seem to believe that nothing is worth doing if there aren't dirty tricks involved.

As long as people understood what they were voting on and what their vote meant then the pro-abortion outcome does show they are not anti-choice.  But if voters feel they've been tricked then there'll be hell to pay.  On the issue of abortion, a win by any means won't cut it.

No, it is not.  Certain rights need to be protected and maintained by the federal government.  Among those are the rights to your own body.  Next you'll have states regulating what tattoos you are allowed to have, or where you are allowed to have a piercing, all based on you sex. Nerm_L, do you feel that a state should have the right to reimpose slavery, if they so chose?

WTF has slavery got to do with the price of cabbage in Kiev?  Show me where anyone in the United States is rounding up women and forcing them to be sex workers.  That's a crime.  Rape is a crime.  When are we going to make these crimes capital offenses punishable by death.

And the nonsense about tattoos and piercings shows how delusional liberals really are.  Liberals have already outlawed personal displays.  You think we don't know what liberals would do if someone got a tattoo of a confederate flag? 

Bullshit is one thing.  But lying bullshit is way over the top.  That's why there is a growing deep, profound, uncompromising hatred of liberals.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.2.23  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.2.20    2 months ago

[deleted]  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.24  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.15    2 months ago

Justice Blackmun and six other justices that year opined that a right to privacy does exist in the constitution, because it must if the document is to make any sense-in my own words.

This strict textualist meaning approach to the constitution is nonsense in a dynamic world! And so it was with the court on matters where stubborn, ruthless, citizens attempted to control the manner of living for their fellow citizens, indefinitely.

Try all your pro-life days if you wish to hold a harsh line against the people you exist with in the present; try all your pro-life days to give a 'fuller' life to that which is unborn through girls and women through conservative political mandates, try all you want to deny decency and dignity and instead spread shame, stigmatization, and demonization. The results will be the same.

The Constitution, in the strict textualist form, is 'aging out.' It is becoming a relic, one desperately in need of change! The document is supposed to work for the people of this nation, and not the people of the nation work for the document.

If we can not talk about privacy in this country rationally, if we say that privacy is not a thing we can agree upon constitutionally, then, that document, the constitution, is slipping into obscurity and obsolescence and becoming of less importance!

The only option left for textualists is to modernize the wording in the constitutional through proper proceedings.

You can not and will not hold succeeding modernity in perpetual suspension or repeating removal or addition based on arcane, whimsical, and archaic documents. Documents suffering from systematic neglect!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.25  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.14    2 months ago

Pampered fools, Scalia and Thomas. In Thomas' case, he is stupid enough to unmake his own successes and personal history just to live up to some restrictive document that had to be modified to give him liberty and the woman he has loved for decades! That nation and its people should not have to endure setbacks and regression simply because a foolish justice like Thomas wants us to go back into subjugation based on words that at the time of their writing gave a bigoted and segregationist majority control over the rights and liberties of minorities.

Shame on MAGA conservatives for putting such intent forward for consideration and action. Yes, I am fully aware MAGA does not care about its shame.

All the same, shame on MAGA. We will have to stop MAGA from further embarrassing this country on the world stage!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.26  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @2.2.24    2 months ago
because it must if the document is to make any sense-in my own words.

The Due Process clause needed a "right of privacy" to make sense?


This strict textualist meaning approach to the constitution is nonsense in a dynamic world!

Do you really want a Chief Justice Taney interpreting it?  We could have such justices you know.


Try all your pro-life days if you wish to hold a harsh line against the people you exist with in the present; try all your pro-life days to give a 'fuller' life to that which is unborn through girls and women through conservative political mandates, try all you want to deny decency and dignity and instead spread shame, stigmatization, and demonization. The results will be the same.

Right now I'm pro-Constitution and there is nothing in it as related to the Roe decision.


The Constitution, in the strict textualist form, is 'aging out.' It is becoming a relic, one desperately in need of change! The document is supposed to work for the people of this nation, and not the people of the nation work for the document.

What will you do when Justices with a different ideology feel the same way?


If we can not talk about privacy in this country rationally, if we say that privacy is not a thing we can agree upon constitutionally, then, that document, the constitution, is slipping into obscurity and obsolescence and becoming of less importance!

Then we will have a different set of laws following each & every election.


The only option left for textualists is to modernize the wording in the constitutional through proper proceedings.

That can only be done with Amendments.


You can not and will not hold succeeding modernity in perpetual suspension or repeating removal or addition based on arcane, whimsical, and archaic documents. Documents suffering from systematic neglect!

Modernity being what??

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.2.27  Ozzwald  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.22    2 months ago
Only from an autocratic point of view.

From ANY point of view.  You can change the wording, but the result is the same.  A state can "use" a woman's body in a manner that goes against her wishes.

You think women in outstate Texas or Tennessee had ready access to abortion (or healthcare in general, for that matter)?  The whining over loss of urban convenience rings hollow.

And your refusal to answer my simple question rings even louder.

The Kansas vote was another situation where a 'yes' vote means no and a 'no' vote means yes.  Politicians seem to believe that nothing is worth doing if there aren't dirty tricks involved.

And republicans used that confusion to try to convince people to mis-vote.

Misleading Kansas abortion texts linked to Republican-aligned firm

WTF has slavery got to do with the price of cabbage in Kiev?

Try to keep up.  You are promoting that a woman's rights to her own body be up to state governments.  So do you feel that slavery should also be kept up to individual states, or do you feel THOSE RIGHTS should be federally maintained and protected?

Liberals have already outlawed personal displays.

I'll just wait for you to provide evidence about this, and until then call BULLSHIT on the claim.

Bullshit is one thing.  But lying bullshit is way over the top.

Specify 1 lie that I have made in my comments.  Otherwise I will assume that you are once again projecting.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.28  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.26    2 months ago
because it must if the document is to make any sense-in my own words.
The Due Process clause needed a "right of privacy" to make sense?

The Constitution needs a right to privacy to make sense. What part of privacy (Fourth and Fifth amendments: life/liberty/property/prosperity) to gather, hold, and own is unreasonable to you? 

The Due Process clause states that these liberties above can not be taken away or deprived from individuals without a day in court.  Thus, you gather, hold, and own privately barring some law prohibiting doing so.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.29  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @2.2.28    2 months ago
The Constitution needs a right to privacy to make sense.

I don't think so.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.30  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.29    2 months ago

That is not a suitable conclusion or reply.

I will be "off and on" for the rest of the day. Private project consideration.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.31  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.26    2 months ago
Do you really want a Chief Justice Taney interpreting it?  We could have such justices you know.

Why go to the absurd extreme? Why not take the high moral ground and look for x justices who are morally outstanding in jurisprudence determining to execute right for conservatives and liberals, you and me?

It's all depends on where one's mind is in the beginning as to where one ends up!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.32  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.29    2 months ago

No you don't.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.33  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @2.2.31    2 months ago
Why go to the absurd extreme?

To demonstrate why the Constitution must be read as written. If you think that something is out of date, for example : The Second Amendment - there is a way to change it. Judicial fiat is not such a way.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.34  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.33    2 months ago

Abortion is a human right. As that future human being is not a card-carrying member of anything until it is fully formed and detached from its human maker.

Why should politicians whose fidelity to the truth is certainly questionable more so than the validity of judge or justice sworn to be critical and as logical as he or she can be.

And let's cut the bull feces out of this discussion. MAGA conservatives have no proper interest in progress or advancing changes to the Constitution, especially if it helps liberals get equality and equity in this country. So that MAGA lie can end right here and now without further consideration.

Moreover, the only interest MAGA conservatives have in the old treatise that is our constitution is due to it being a more conservative period favorable to the likes of MAGA.

And you can bad-mouth the justices as "unelected" and "fiat-makers" or "abitrarians" and so forth. However, MAGA conservatives go to court to get what it needs from these 'officials' as often as they need and is expedient, too.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.35  Vic Eldred  replied to  CB @2.2.34    2 months ago
Abortion is a human right.

Not according to the Constitution. I'm sure you believe that it is a basic human right.


 As that future human being is not a card-carrying member of anything until it is fully formed and detached from its human maker.

That's a moral argument. We are talking about the Law.


 MAGA conservatives have no proper interest in progress or advancing changes to the Constitution, especially if it helps liberals get equality and equity in this country. So that MAGA lie can end right here and now without further consideration.

Again, changes require an Amendment and that means public support.


Moreover, the only interest MAGA conservatives have in the old treatise that is our constitution is due to it being a more conservative period favorable to the likes of MAGA.

Nope the support that I have to the Constitution is that we need laws that all of us must respect. If not we have chaos.


And you can bad-mouth the justices as "unelected" and "fiat-makers" or "abitrarians" and so forth. However, MAGA conservatives go to court to get what it needs from these 'officials' as often as they need and is expedient, too.

Thus far only the liberals have been "activists."

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.36  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.35    2 months ago
Not according to the Constitution. I'm sure you believe that it is a basic human right.

Okay, well let's take it out of "academic" obscurity and you tell me what you think. Is abortion a human right inherent to girls and women?

To help your thinking about human rights: 

Sperm is inherent to males; should there be a law that prohibits single men and married men from

impregnating girls and women not their wives, punishable with jail time?

Answer the question directly, please.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.37  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.35    2 months ago
 As that future human being is not a card-carrying member of anything until it is fully formed and detached from its human maker.
That's a moral argument. We are talking about the Law.

There are no laws in the realm of the unborn that I am aware of. Except, the state is trying to extend human law into the womb, with some Evangelicals attending.

BTW, project postponed. I am 'at your service.' :)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.38  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.35    2 months ago
Nope the support that I have to the Constitution is that we need laws that all of us must respect. If not we have chaos.

Vic, please. "all of us" respect. Hell, let's get real, you don't even respect or trust some republicans who are being excised from the GOP for (foul) cause. How can you respect the rest of us? Do try to explain. . . I am all ears. 

Thus far only the liberals have been "activists."

Case in point. MAGA justices remove precedents of 'liberal' justices of the past. . . and you call it respect for the constitution? Why didn't MAGA just move on to new materials? I will answer that. MAGA holds liberals in contempt.

Honesty: It's the best policy. Otherwise, MAGA will get checked for a lie.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.39  CB   replied to  CB @2.2.36    2 months ago

Vic, sperm is the only valuable substance a man has in abundant supply, maybe in superfluous supply.

Is sperm private? Or, is sperm public?

I won't ask you specifically about yourself (but one would think that since there is no privacy in the constitution you wouldn't mind. But, I digress.) NT does have privacy guidelines all its own.

And don't give me that its too "sensitive" to discuss in public, crap. Because MAGA is all up in girls and womens' insides in this discussion 'marketplace.'

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.40  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.26    2 months ago

Then, if the constitution is too high context (broadly written) for MAGA conservatives to relate it to reality in these modern times, then MAGA conservatives should assist liberals in amending its low context (small, significant details) writing and reading.

Though I would caution MAGA that making the constitution a low context (detailed) document would render it impracticable and unrecognizable as the foundational and historic relic it is.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.41  CB   replied to  CB @2.2.39    2 months ago

I find it interesting the silence that 'overtakes' us when we start discussing male privacy! Girls and women should be insulted and deeply offended. That MAGA wants to talk under your skirts and up into your nether-regions "unabridged," but when it comes to their funky shorts and nether-regions-nothing. :(

BTW, they do the same to homosexuals when they TRY to classify us as mentally ill. When you point out that heterosexuals use nearly all the orifices on their bodies for sexual stimulation and activity (society has pictures to prove it) the silence is deafening!

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
2.2.42  Nerm_L  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2.27    2 months ago
Specify 1 lie that I have made in my comments.  Otherwise I will assume that you are once again projecting.

You made this claim in @2.2.3 - "SCOTUS decided the the right to privacy does not extend to a woman's own body.  That a state government can force a woman to use her body against her will."

That claim is an unsupportable falsehood; a deliberate lie.  A pregnant woman does not perform her own abortion.  Abortion (within the context of the SCOTUS Dobbs ruling) is a contracted service provided by a doctor.  Abortion is a commercial activity; a service provided by a service provider.  And a woman cannot seek an abortion without revealing private information.  The Dobbs ruling did not address doctor/patient confidentiality in any meaningful way.  And states regulating a commercial activity doesn't have anything to do with forcing women to use their body for anything.

How can the arguments about right to privacy, right to choose, and right to control one's body be rectified with mandatory vaccination?  The mandates for vaccination violated all three of those so-called rights.  Your argument has been based upon the right to pick-and-choose which is a fictitious right.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.2.43  Ozzwald  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.42    2 months ago
That claim is an unsupportable falsehood; a deliberate lie.

The claim is absolutely true.  A state can now force a woman to become a human incubator against her will. 

She has only 2 options, leave the state that has the ability to force her to do something she does not want to do, or break the law.  And I should point out that a number of the states are looking into ways to prevent her from leaving

And states regulating a commercial activity doesn't have anything to do with forcing women to use their body for anything.

.You do like blabbering away about all sorts of other crap to distract from your failing argument.  Don't you?

A woman decides that she does not want to remain pregnant, the state steps in and says she must, no matter what (in many cases).  You can upchuck all the nonsense you want, but that woman has no choice as long as that state enforces it's decision over her's.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.2.44  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @2.2.41    2 months ago
I find it interesting the silence that 'overtakes' us when we start discussing male privacy!

If by silence, you mean the lack of comments to your posts 2.2.36 - 2.3.39, I think that it is a result of confusion on what you are trying to say than it is being "overtaken" on the subject of male privacy.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
2.2.45  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.42    2 months ago
A pregnant woman does not perform her own abortion.

Medication abortions are used up to 77 days (11 weeks) after conception.

Wouldn't a woman taking a pill be "performing her own abortion"?

How can the arguments about right to privacy, right to choose, and right to control one's body be rectified with mandatory vaccination?

Where were people forced to get vaccinated? There were mandates for federal and State government employees and some businesses adopting the policy that if you don't get vaccinated you couldn't work, but that's not "forced vaccination". No groups of government officials or soldiers were going around neighborhoods dragging people out of their homes to vaccinate them against their will. That would be unconstitutional and an egregious violation of an individuals right to privacy, just as it would be for the 'abortion police' to go around demanding clinics turn over information on anyone seeking an abortion or investigating women suspected of being pregnant so they can enforce their archaic religious morals on them.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
2.2.46  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.2.44    2 months ago
I think that it is a result of confusion on what you are trying to say than it is being "overtaken" on the subject of male privacy.

I believe he's asking a fairly simple question. Would the anti-choice folk be okay with State laws that punished men for "misusing" their sperm? Does a man have the right to privacy even if he may be sending hundreds of thousands of potential lives literally down the drain or perhaps murdering them in the toe of a sock? Can a State ban vasectomies based on the same premise they use to ban abortion claiming a man has no right over his own reproductive organs because they contain "potential human life"?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.2.47  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.46    2 months ago
I believe he's asking a fairly simple question. Would the anti-choice folk be okay with State laws that punished men for "misusing" their sperm?

Do you think CB sees that as somehow equivalate to abortion?  Misusing, what does that mean, does masturbation fit that category?  If sex with an unmarried partner is a crime, isn't logical to be a crime for both partners?  Should male homosexual sex then be illegal?  It's a farcical, albeit 'simple" question.

Does a man have the right to privacy even if he may be sending hundreds of thousands of potential lives literally down the drain or perhaps murdering them in the toe of a sock?

I'm not in favor of a full ban on abortion, but pro-life advocates aren't making a case about woman not having a right to privacy, they are arguing a case that embryos have a right to life.  CB can completely disagree with that but don't distort the argument.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
2.2.48  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.2.47    2 months ago
Misusing, what does that mean, does masturbation fit that category?

Yes, some religious persons see masturbation as an affront to their God and against their religious morals. There is very little difference between a sperm, an egg and an egg that's had a sperm wiggle itself inside. They are all potential human life.

If sex with an unmarried partner is a crime, isn't logical to be a crime for both partners?  Should male homosexual sex then be illegal?  It's a farcical, albeit 'simple" question.

Considering sodomy laws that banned not only homosexual sex but also heterosexual types of sex such as anal and oral have been on the books in many States for decades it doesn't seem that farcical to me.

pro-life advocates aren't making a case about woman not having a right to privacy, they are arguing a case that embryos have a right to life.

Wasn't that fertilized egg just a sperm and an egg seconds ago? Where should the line be drawn? Many religious conservatives want it at conception but its a purely arbitrary line. The government used to set it at viability. Now in some States they want to ban abortion at conception because that's what many religious conservatives have decided is when a tiny magical soul is formed. Of course they've never been able to prove this and as an atheist I can only tell them to get their unproven religious beliefs and religious morals the fuck out of other peoples business and bodies. Don't want an abortion? Don't get an abortion. It's pretty fucking simple.

A fertilized egg has no human rights, it is not a human. A kidney bean sized zygote has no human rights, it is not a human. A fetus that can't survive outside the womb without feeding off its host has no human rights, it is not a human. A bowl of pancake batter is not a pancake. A pile of lumber is not a house. A watermelon seed is not a watermelon. Just because a bunch of whiny nosy religious conservatives imagine themselves the "saviors" of the unborn does not make it so, they are forcing their religious belief that a fertilized egg is a human because they believe it has a soul which is not a belief i or millions of other Americans share.

I'm not in favor of a full ban on abortion

That's fine, but you clearly are in favor of banning it at some point between conception and viability. Why should you or any other person be allowed to draw that line without any fucking evidence of some "magic moment" the fertilized egg becomes 'a human' deserving of its own rights?

The woman may view it as just a parasite feeding off her body, which it is in both the literal and scientific sense. If she wants to terminate that parasite and have it removed from her body that should be her choice and of course was her right for the last half century till until a bunch of religious conservative nut jobs, many of which believe the earth is only 9,000 years old and that dead baby souls must wander in some baby soul hell because they didn't get baptized, decided to take that right away from her.

Eventually we're going to have a confusing patchwork of State laws where some ban abortion at conception and others at 6 weeks and others at 12 weeks along with the non-fucked up States that will enshrine a woman's right to privacy and bodily autonomy in their own laws. It's going to be a mess and the religious nut jobs will never give up spending all their time and energy trying to force their religious beliefs on others in States where they feel the laws don't go far enough.

If the supposedly pro-life crowd spent half as much time and resources adopting children, supporting programs for unwed mothers, offering options to pay for the hospital and birth choices and supporting programs to feed hungry kids and families living below the poverty line, there would likely be a lot fewer abortions. But let's face it, they don't really give a shit about the child once its born, conservative republicans regularly fight against expanding Medicaid and food stamps and welfare programs for poor families and children. They talk a big game but when it comes to money that might come out of their own pockets all of a sudden those human lives aren't so important anymore.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.2.49  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.48    2 months ago
Yes, some religious persons see masturbation as an affront to their God

So what?  There is a diversity of thought.

There is very little difference between a sperm, an egg and an egg that's had a sperm wiggle itself inside. They are all potential human life.

Abortion isn't about either, it's about an embryo.  

Considering sodomy laws that banned not only homosexual sex but also heterosexual types of sex such as anal and oral have been on the books in many States for decades it doesn't seem that farcical to me.

Different issue, don't divert.

but you clearly are in favor of banning it at some point between conception and viability

Yes, like the majority of Americans and Europeans.

The woman may view it as just a parasite feeding off her body, which it is in both the literal and scientific sense. If she wants to terminate that parasite and have it removed from her body that should be her choice

She might which logically leads to partial birth abortions.

and of course was her right for the last half century till until a bunch of religious conservative nut jobs,

Not in most parts of the US or Europe.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
2.2.50  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.2.49    2 months ago
Abortion isn't about either, it's about an embryo.  

A fertilized egg is not an embryo. It becomes an embryo sometime between the second and eighth week after fertilization. But that still doesn't mean its a human.

Yes, like the majority of Americans and Europeans.

61% of Americans were in favor of upholding Roe.

She might which logically leads to partial birth abortions.

If being performed after viability, which is what a partial birth abortion is, then that means the fetus can live outside the host and thus would no longer be considered a parasite. Partial birth abortions were rare and only allowed to save the life of the mother. Unlike what a bunch of religious nut jobs want you to believe, there are not many women carrying a baby to term who just decide at the last minute they don't want to have the baby and ask the doctor to kill it during delivery.

Not in most parts of the US or Europe.

It was in all of the US up until a few weeks ago. Europe is irrelevant to any discussion of abortion rights in the US. Abortions are illegal in Muslim countries to, should that be relevant? Some also ban women from going to school or driving cars and blasphemy against their religion can be punishable by death, but none of that fucking matters here in the US now does it?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.2.51  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.50    2 months ago
A fertilized egg is not an embryo. It becomes an embryo sometime between the second and eighth week after fertilization. But that still doesn't mean its a human.

ok, I haven’t argued against between the second and eighth week.

61% of Americans were in favor of upholding Roe.

Nearly one-in-five U.S. adults (19%) say that abortion should be legal in all cases, with no exceptions. Fewer (8%) say abortion should be illegal in every case, without exception. By contrast, 71% either say it should be mostly legal or mostly illegal, or say there are exceptions to their blanket support for, or opposition to, legal abortion.”

Partial birth abortions were rare allowed to save the life of the mother. Unlike what a bunch of religious nut jobs to save the life of the mother. Unlike what a bunch of religious nut jobs

Why should they be rare, legally?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.52  CB   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.2.44    2 months ago

Piss off!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.53  CB   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.46    2 months ago

[deleted!] I, for my part, no longer give a damn if the message and its meaning goes over the heads of permanently disingenuous participants and actors. :)

Additionally, even if masturbation is a nice touch to this discussion, it is beyond the scope of what I am bringing up and out. As masturbation does not intersect with abortion as far as I know. :)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.54  CB   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.45    2 months ago
No groups of government officials or soldiers were going around neighborhoods dragging people out of their homes to vaccinate them against their will. That would be unconstitutional and an egregious violation of an individuals right to privacy.

There is that curious turn of phrasing (again): and yet the MAGA 'hordes' cheering up and down let it go over their heads that the high court ruled on that very "privacy" clause in its denial of abortion to girls and women. The shallow thinking  in MAGA conservatives is astonishing and yet God only knows how they manage to hold sway  over large swathes of our society.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.55  CB   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.48    2 months ago
Don't want an abortion? Don't get an abortion.

And MAGA conservatives  know this. It was already the case. After all, conservative girls and women don't have a need for abortions (at least that 'anybody' is allowed to know about): Wink. Wink.  But, here they are registering 'monumental displeasure' that their idea of what a proper sex life for liberal girls and women should be.

Let me write it again. MAGA conservative girls and women were/are not having abortions. . . so who is all these 'erasures of privacy' and fight for life intended to affect?

Liberals and Independents.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.56  CB   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.48    2 months ago
Eventually we're going to have a confusing patchwork of State laws where some ban abortion at conception and others at 6 weeks and others at 12 weeks along with the non-fucked up States that will enshrine a woman's right to privacy and bodily autonomy in their own laws. It's going to be a mess and the religious nut jobs will never give up spending all their time and energy trying to force their religious beliefs on others in States where they feel the laws don't go far enough.

Emphatically. Women and other minorities understand all to well historically what it means to live in the 'shifting' dunes of conservative 'America.'  where "whiteness" on the order of MAGA conservatism is the only way of life.

MAGA conservatives are desperately attempting to act 'day one' of the high court's so-called conservative majority advent to shut down and out liberals in their spaces! Or, simply jail liberals and lesser conservatives who can not meet 'muster.'

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.57  CB   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.48    2 months ago
They talk a big game but when it comes to money that might come out of their own pockets all of a sudden those human lives aren't so important anymore.

It is a game of control. To be fair, self-deception has as a side-effect that they think they are doing God's work. (As if God could even be opposed to good, productive, uses of science and medicine.)

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.2.58  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @2.2.52    2 months ago

How does that differ from piss on?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.2.59  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @2.2.53    2 months ago
Thank you for "CB-plaining" to MAGA!

I never voted for Trump, [deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.2.60  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @2.2.52    2 months ago

Why would you ever think that I will take direction from you, or are you just venting?  If so, vent away.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.2.61  cjcold  replied to  CB @2.2.54    2 months ago

It seems that many humans just haven't evolved as much as others.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.62  CB   replied to  cjcold @2.2.61    2 months ago

I say, "No!" To MAGA-saurs!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.63  CB   replied to  CB @2.2.37    2 months ago

Vic, I see you abandoned this threat! Marriage is not in the constitution and yet conservatives claim privacy rights and privileges between themselves and their spouses, respectively. Why?

*This facade of their being no privacy for girls and women is being blasted away. I don't know why girls and women even bother to let conservatives waste their time on poorly thought out actions and policies.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.3  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    2 months ago

No such thing as a 'pro abortion person' your mother just raised you wrong.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.4  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    2 months ago

Nobody is pro abortion.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.4.1  Gordy327  replied to  cjcold @2.4    2 months ago
End of conversation and btw the Court you claim to support has just ruled on it.

Since Vic seems to laughably think some people are "pro-abortion," I'll play the proverbial devil's advocate and take a "pro-abortion" stance. I can even provide an argument for pro-abortion. After all, I wouldn't want to make Vic a liar. jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.4.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @2.4.1    2 months ago
Since Vic seems to laughably think some people are "pro-abortion,

So you think the people who call themselves pro abortion are lying?

I'd provide the evidence, but I wouldn't want to make you a liar. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.4.3  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.4.2    2 months ago
So you think the people who call themselves pro abortion are lying?

I don't know anyone proclaiming to be "pro-abortion." Pro-choice, sure. But not pro-abortion. 

I'd provide the evidence, but I wouldn't want to make you a liar. 

Go ahead. What am I lying about exactly? I never said there were no "pro-abortionists." But I suspect Vic equates pro-choice with pro-abortion.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.4.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gordy327 @2.4.3    2 months ago
I don't know anyone proclaiming to be "pro-abortion." Pro-choice, sure. But not pro-abortion

Please explain the difference.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.4.5  Gordy327  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.4.4    2 months ago

Pro-abortion advocates for and encourages women to get elective abortions. Pro-choice simply leave the decision to continue a pregnancy or not entirely up to the woman to decide. Pro-choice does not tell a woman they must or must not have an abortion.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.4.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @2.4.3    2 months ago
What am I lying about exactly?

You said it was "laughable" to think anyone is pro abortion and intimated Vic was a liar for saying there were pro-abortion people.

Did you forget writing that already?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.4.7  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.4.6    2 months ago

Did I say there were no "pro-abortionists? No! Then it wasn't a lie. Got anything better than a weak attempt at a "gotcha?"

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.4.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @2.4.7    2 months ago
ince Vic seems to laughably think some people are "pro-abortion,"

Do you not understand your own words? You said it was laughable think some people are "pro-abortion." 

Words have meaning and it would behoove you to understand the meaning of the words you use. 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
2.4.9  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Gordy327 @2.4.7    2 months ago
Did I say there were no "pro-abortionists?

2.4.3  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.4.2

You said you "Didn't know anyone proclaiming they were Pro-Abortion".... only ones proclaiming "they were Pro- Choice" !

pro-a·bor·tion
[pro-abortion]
ADJECTIVE
  1. in favor of the availability of medically induced abortion as a means of ending a pregnancy.

Is that actually true, or just a little "White Lie" ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.4.10  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.4.8    2 months ago

I am amused by the amount of spinning!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.4.11  Gordy327  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.4.9    2 months ago

I said I do not know anyone who is pro-abortion. There's no one in my immediate social circle who identifies as pro-abortion. I don't know anyone here on NT who is pro-abortion, unless they come out and declare it. So what is your point?

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
2.4.12  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Gordy327 @2.4.11    2 months ago
I said I do not know anyone who is pro-abortion.

I don't specifically "Know" a lot of people, but I do listen to what some around me say, or post here on NT.

La,La,La,La, isn't my prefered "Go To" ......... like ........ hmmmmm ........ Gordy ? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.4.13  Gordy327  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @2.4.12    2 months ago

That doesn't address what I said and neither have you demonstrated otherwise. It seems you're just trying to play games at this point.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
2.4.14  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @2.4.13    2 months ago
That doesn't address what I said and neither have you demonstrated otherwise.

You have explained quite clearly the difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. I've never met, heard from or listened to anyone who was "pro-abortion". I've never heard any pro-choice groups out there shouting "Go get abortions! Abortions are great! Every woman should get one!". As far as I know, pro-abortionists do not exist.

It's not a hard concept to understand, but some here are clearly being intentionally obtuse.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.4.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.4.14    2 months ago
rstand, but some here are clearly being intentionally obtuse.

[Deleted]  He claimed pro-abortion people don't exist, which is false (they sell t-shirts!) and then he bizarrely tried to deny  what he wrote.  And now, to deflect from that falsehood, you claim the issue is about the difference between pro abortion and pro choice. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.4.16  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.4.15    2 months ago

If someone is pro-abortion vs. pro-choice would that not mean they want women have an abortion?    That they are advocating for the sake of getting an abortion rather then simply allowing women to make a choice to end a pregnancy with an abortion?

Is there someone here who you think is literally advocating for women to get abortions merely for the sake of going through the procedure rather than advocating that abortion be an option for women?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.4.17  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.4.14    2 months ago
I've never met, heard from or listened to anyone who was "pro-abortion"

Don't be silly, next you might claim that no one is pro–knee replacement, pro-chemotherapy or pro–cataract surgery. Being able to delay and limit childbearing is fundamental to female empowerment and equality. A woman who lacks the means to manage her fertility lacks the means to manage her life.  And think of all the miserable people living in the world who would have been much better off being aborted.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.4.18  afrayedknot  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.4.17    2 months ago

“A woman who lacks the means to manage her fertility lacks the means to manage her life.”

Misogyny defined. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.4.19  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.4.17    2 months ago

In the spirit in which 'pro-abortion' was used, I would expect that nobody wants someone to undergo knee replacement surgery, chemotherapy, etc. but many would like people to have the option to choose those procedures.

Abortion is simply the current remedy to end a pregnancy.    People are pro-choice, not pro-procedure.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.4.20  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  afrayedknot @2.4.18    2 months ago
Misogyny defined. 

Huh, are you joking?  You're not funny.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.4.21  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  TᵢG @2.4.19    2 months ago
I would expect that nobody wants someone to undergo knee replacement surgery, chemotherapy, etc

I was happy to get the chemo that I needed regardless of the negative second and third order effects that I'm dealing with 18 months later.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
2.4.22  afrayedknot  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.4.20    2 months ago

It was your own quote. Nothing funny about it. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.4.23  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  afrayedknot @2.4.22    2 months ago

What was my quote, explain yourself.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.4.24  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.4.21    2 months ago

Yes, and I am happy that you had the option to choose chemotherapy.

But I am not eager to see people undergo that procedure.   I am confident that you, especially, do not want people to deal with that either.   You would, however, support the option so that they have the choice.

You are pro-choice when it comes to cancer treatment procedures.   But you would prefer that people not have to use those procedures.   Right?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.4.25  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.4.14    2 months ago
You have explained quite clearly the difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion.

Thank you. I thought so too.

I've never met, heard from or listened to anyone who was "pro-abortion".  I've never heard any pro-choice groups out there shouting "Go get abortions! Abortions are great! Every woman should get one!".

Neither have I. Which is why I find the idea of someone seriously being "pro-abortion" laughable.

It's not a hard concept to understand, but some here are clearly being intentionally obtuse

Indeed.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.4.26  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.4.15    2 months ago
He claimed pro-abortion people don't exist,

If you are referring to me, specify precisely where I said that! Otherwise, we can assume you're lying! 

which is false (they sell t-shirts!)

Really? I've never seen that offered in any clothing store. 

and then he bizarrely tried to deny  what he wrote. 

Maybe you should read what I wrote again! Slowly this time.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
2.4.27  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.4.17    2 months ago
next you might claim that no one is pro–knee replacement, pro-chemotherapy or pro–cataract surgery.

Is anyone advocating for replacing a knee if they didn't medically need it? Are there doctors who are telling patients without cancer to get chemotherapy? Of course not. And even those with cancer may choose not to go through chemotherapy. I am very glad that those who have medical problems can choose to get treatment.

A woman who lacks the means to manage her fertility lacks the means to manage her life.

Really? So you believe you and other anti-choice advocates should get to step in and make those decisions for her? Who crowned anti-choice advocates and religious conservatives the rulers that can arbitrarily force their belief and morals on others and decide a woman can't be trusted to make decisions for herself?

think of all the miserable people living in the world who would have been much better off being aborted.

I don't see much need for people who have elected themselves the conscience of everyone around them and decide who can and can't manage their own lives. That must be a truly miserable existence.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
3  evilgenius    2 months ago

I'm happy to see sanity prevail in a red state. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
3.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  evilgenius @3    2 months ago
I'm happy to see sanity prevail in a red state. 

It has become a rather rare occurrence.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
3.1.1  evilgenius  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1    2 months ago
It has become a rather rare occurrence.

I hope this is the beginning of the end for the alt+right populist movement. It took a long time for them to gain power so it will take a bit of time to get rid of them too.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
3.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  evilgenius @3.1.1    2 months ago

If they get far enough out on that right wing extremist limb like they did January 6th the limb snaps. I think January 6th scared the ones who hadn't gone out that far yet. Some of course are still in denial about it's severity, they wrestle with their shared objective with those insurrectionists and so downplay, defend and deflect for them.

If the insurrection had been successful and the Republican leadership declared the vote invalid and Mike Pence had certified Trump as President all the slightly left of right wing extremist conservatives, the ones who didn't show up on January 6th, would have all surged further right to support their insurrectionist brothers in arms and freedom and democracy in America would exist in name only. They will never admit how close we came because they are determined to try again eventually.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1    2 months ago

Kansas  has historically been a pretty red state.  The Kansas–Nebraska Act in 1854 allowed the settlers to determine by vote, whether Kansas would be entered as a free or a slave state.  During their first election for a territorial government , thousands of Missourians entered the territory, took over the polling places, and elected pro-slavery candidates. Dems then blocked the admission of Kansas as a free state. The Dems have never done great in Kansas since.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
3.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.3    2 months ago
Dems then blocked the admission of Kansas as a free state. The Dems have never done great in Kansas since.

Those "Dems" share nothing but the word "Democratic" with the modern liberal progressive Democratic party. Those "Dems" of old were religious conservative Christians who fought to own slaves, fought to maintain bans on blacks voting, fought to preserve segregation and Jim Crow laws and fought to maintain bans on interracial marriage.

No one is fooled by the fact the majority of those like minded religious conservative Christians in the South changed parties over the last forty years. Its beyond obvious who still celebrate the confederacy, fly confederate flags at their rallies and attempted insurrections, protect monuments to white slavers and fantasize about the "Good old days" of the Antebellum. It is not the Democratic party of today but conservative Republicans who have taken up the white conservative Christian mantle of the old racist "Dems" and Dixiecrats as anyone with more than half a brain can clearly see. As you point out, Kansas has historically been a red State and it still mostly is, just the name of the party in power changed but not the right wing "red" religious conservative ideology. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
3.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.1.3    2 months ago
The Kansas–Nebraska Act in 1854

You're in the wrong millennium. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.1.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.5    2 months ago

Don’t care much for history, eh?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.2  cjcold  replied to  evilgenius @3    2 months ago

Actually, we here in the land of Oz aren't that red. Many of us are liberals.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.1  CB   replied to  cjcold @3.2    2 months ago

Good! We could use any insights into the thinking in Kansas generally on issues. As even the media recently refers to the state as "ruby red." Is that imagery true or should we be given a different picture?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.2.2  cjcold  replied to  CB @3.2.1    2 months ago

We are on our second democratic female governor.

Obama stole our first one whose initials are (interestingly enough) KS.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.3  CB   replied to  cjcold @3.2.2    2 months ago

Thank you for sharing. That's great! Are your congresspersons republicans? :)

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4  Tessylo    2 months ago

A losing anti-abortion referendum in Kansas cranked up voter turnout by a staggering amount, flagging a massive new problem for Republicans

Grace Panetta
Wed, August 3, 2022 at 12:16 AM
1254d501ec19b4a4cd297ede98730ee1
An abortion-rights advocate discusses her opposition to the measure on July 14 before she goes door-to-door to talk to prospective voters in Merriam, Kansas. John Hanna/AP
  • Kansas voters turned out in huge numbers to defeat an anti-abortion amendment.

  • The state was poised early Wednesday to reject the amendment by a margin of over 20 points.

  • The high turnout is a major loss for anti-abortion groups and a warning sign for the GOP.

Kansas voters turned out in droves to reject the first anti-abortion ballot measure in the post-Roe v. Wade era — and dealt a major warning sign to Republicans hoping the drastic curtailing of abortion rights nationwide won't dent their prospects in the 2022 midterm elections.

Amendment 2   was pushed by anti-abortion activists and would have established no right to abortion and no right for government funding for abortion under the Kansas Constitution.

With over 830,000 votes counted and 99% of the vote reporting as of 12:30 a.m. ET Wednesday, "no" was trouncing "yes" by 60 to 40%, a gaping 20-point margin.

The number of votes cast on the measure adds up to nearly three-quarters of the votes cast in the general election in 2018, when a Democratic "blue wave" washed over the midterm elections,   according to the US Elections Project . That number also comes close to matching the roughly 887,00 votes cast in the general election in 2014 and the 858,000 cast in 2010 — both midterm years when the political climate largely favored Republicans.

With over 800,000 voters turning out to vote on the measure — compared with 470,000 who voted in the   2018 Kansas gubernatorial primaries   — the referendum demonstrated a potent motivator for abortion-rights supporters. With the 2022 election ahead, abortion access being directly on the ballot could pose a serious problem for the GOP that it hadn't had to face in a world without Roe v. Wade's protections.

A "yes" vote on the measure would have eliminated the right to abortion under the state constitution, while the "no" vote left the constitutional protections to abortion in Kansas unchanged, preserving the status quo.

Lower turnout levels   typically associated with primaries , especially in midterm elections, and a political environment favoring the Republican Party were initially anticipated to favor proponents of the amendment.

But before polls even closed, Kansas' chief election official, Secretary of State Scott Schwab, predicted that turnout in the primary was on track to surpass the 36% of the electorate the office had projected and could go as high as 50%, a notably high rate for a midterm-year primary.

With over 99% of the votes reported, the "no" vote on the measure significantly outperformed President Joe Biden's vote share   in several blue counties he won in the 2020 election .

Meanwhile, the "yes" vote underperformed and failed to crack 60% of the vote in several counties President Donald Trump won handily in 2020.

dc430db67b16230ba429be658cd6a990
A sign supporting the measure in a yard in Olathe, Kansas, on July 8. John Hanna/AP

Americans' views on abortion   can, in many cases, be murky and hard to parse , but polls indicated most opposed overturning Roe v. Wade, and the result of the Kansas referendum suggests strict abortion bans or "trigger laws" are often overwhelmingly unpopular among voters of both major political parties.

And when given the chance to shape abortion policy directly, Kansas voters displayed no appetite for enabling strict abortion bans after nearly six weeks of being faced with the real-world consequences playing out across the country.

The voters' decision upholds a 2019 ruling by the Kansas Supreme Court establishing a right to abortion under the Kansas Bill of Rights, preserving a legal guardrail against the kind of abortion restrictions that may be passed into law if a Republican wins the governor's race in November.

It also — for now — maintains Kansas' status as a crucial access point for abortion care in the Midwest and Southwest.

Still, Amendment 2 supercharging turnout and getting swiftly trounced at the polls doesn't spell doom for Republicans,   who are still favored by election analysts and forecasters   to win back the House of Representatives.

But it offers a warning sign ahead for the fate of anti-abortion ballot measures,   two of which are up for a vote in November in Kentucky and Montana ,   Republicans' hopes for muted Democratic enthusiasm and turnout for November, and — perhaps — the state-level elected officials who champion harsh abortion bans and restrictions.

Read the original article on   Business Insider

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Tessylo @4    2 months ago
And when given the chance to shape abortion policy directly, Kansas voters displayed no appetite for enabling strict abortion bans after nearly six weeks of being faced with the real-world consequences playing out across the country.

Actually, this analysis underplays the threat to the Republicans. It is true that many states will not have abortion directly on the ballot in November, but voters will know that national protection for abortion rights hinges on Congress, and the more Democrat lawmakers there are in Washington the better the chances for legislation institutionalizing right to choice.  Many new voters will come out for just that reason. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.1    2 months ago

297489968_608111764010272_8343443521884235807_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s640x640&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=S-Hmr93MfJ0AX__eC2-&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT_D-ux8GeRb8aXM8o3In3Hmy1eZwYBMAWV8dYDYDUOhEQ&oe=62F04DF5

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.3  CB   replied to  Tessylo @4.1.1    2 months ago

Women and girls of KANSAS! Turn and run in the direction of the 'Blue.'  You have no choice. You know your 'own' Red and what is it is capable of doing once it sets its mind to it! The GOP will not/can not change or diversify!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5  Drinker of the Wry    2 months ago
A Massive  New Problem for Republicans

I guess it depends on your perspective.  Large voter turnout and a clear voice on what the majority of the citizens of the state want, is just what their Representatives need to know.  Timely and clear information should be good news for both Parties.  

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
6  evilgenius    2 months ago

New data after last night puts the Senate back into play for Dems. Unless there are drastic changes between now and Nov, the Senate will end up split without a filibuster breaking majority no matter who wins. Neither side will be able to pass any legislation without bi-partisan support.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
6.1  Jack_TX  replied to  evilgenius @6    2 months ago
Unless there are drastic changes between now and Nov, the Senate will end up split without a filibuster breaking majority no matter who wins. Neither side will be able to pass any legislation without bi-partisan support.

Let's hope.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
6.1.1  evilgenius  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1    2 months ago
Let's hope.

The House Republicans keep threating tit-for-tat "investigations" when they take over. That will probably come back to bite them in the ass too.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
6.1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  evilgenius @6.1.1    2 months ago
The House Republicans keep threating tit-for-tat "investigations" when they take over.

I'd put money on it.

That will probably come back to bite them in the ass too.

I doubt it.  It's not hurting Democrats. 

As James Carville told us decades ago... "it's the economy, stupid".

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  evilgenius @6.1.1    2 months ago

Yeah, investigating the investigators

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
6.1.4  evilgenius  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.2    2 months ago
I doubt it.  It's not hurting Democrats. 

Neither party can win without moderates. It is hurting Democrats. Maybe not as much as Republicans had hoped it would, but it is. How much remains to be seen.

As James Carville told us decades ago... "it's the economy, stupid".

Again we will see. Populist partisans in both parties have largely pissed on normal rules and shoved them out the nearest air lock to be sucked into a black hole. I'm sure this will play a part for many people, but not all voters as the Roe repeal is energizing liberal voters who traditionally don't show up for a mid-term election.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
6.1.5  Jack_TX  replied to  evilgenius @6.1.4    2 months ago
Neither party can win without moderates.

Agreed.

It is hurting Democrats.

You may be right.  It just looks to me like the economy is the overwhelming driver.  But I admit it's a primary driver for me, so maybe that's just my personal projection.

Maybe not as much as Republicans had hoped it would, but it is. How much remains to be seen.

I think if we start to see more layoffs, hearings are not going to matter one way or another.  But as you say, how much remains to be seen.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
6.1.6  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.5    2 months ago

While I do agree for many, the economy will weigh heavy on minds. But if we start to stabilize, this issue will loom large for many. 

I know it is probably the biggest issue for me personally. And while I do care about the economy, I also realize that there is not a lot we can do, since we are also part of the global economy. Still, most people have knee-jerk reactions and so you may be right.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
6.1.7  evilgenius  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.5    2 months ago
It just looks to me like the economy is the overwhelming driver. 

It normally is. I won't argue and tell you a lot of people don't feel as you do either.

I think if we start to see more layoffs...

That's the thing with the economy at this time. Unemployment numbers are still low and people are still spending money. Also prices are starting to drop slowly (very slowly) on some things, but (and this is a BIG BUT) all the news people get are about how shitty the economy is and how bad inflation is. A new poll shows 54% of Americans think were are already in a recession. That's not good and it may become a self fulfilling prophecy. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.6    2 months ago

The economy is transitory , relatively speaking short lived. The abortion issue is a thing that will effect an entire generation over many years unless it is taken care of. No one who really cares about abortion as an issue will vote based solely on the economy. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.6    2 months ago

As you well know, the economy is always the 800lb gorilla unless we are in exceptional times (e.g. at war).   Those PotUS' who are lucky enough to be sitting on a rising, healthy economy get all the credit and those unlucky enough to be sitting on a declining economy get all the blame.   And this applies also to the party in power.

The Ds have both PotUS and 'in-power' thus they are in a major hurt.   Couple that with the almost predictable surge by the party out-of-power during midterms and the Ds are predictably going to have a very bad November.

The Roe v. Wade SCotUS decision should have some impact in favor of the Ds.   I do not see this saving them from an R takeover, but I have been surprised before.    Trump of course continues to be a liability / drain / divisive force in the GoP.    I do not see him making a major difference in the midterms but I am confident the GoP would do substantially better if they were free of that miserable human being and were working on unifying their forces (and that is still not happening).

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
6.1.10  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.9    2 months ago

While I agree it is always the economy that dictates who gets into office, these are midterms and I feel that people are incentivized enough to vote over this issue. If it was a presidential election, I would agree with you 100%.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.10    2 months ago

Possibly.  As I noted, this would not be the first time voters surprised me.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.12  CB   replied to  Tessylo @6.1.3    2 months ago

How are those millions flowing out helping the economy? Hmmm.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.13  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.6    2 months ago

It is the "economy stupid" for many. But, a lot of good money is going to do a girl or woman if the state forces her to 'birth' babies she don't want simply because the sex is good" and "accidents happen" more readily than most dudes know about!

Also, there is the matter of the soul! As a good man was once heard to utter: What does it matter to gain the 'world' if you lose the soul? That is, what really matters to you? Even a billionaire can agree: money makes like better, but it comes with a high price (and 'handlers' to boot!).

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.14  CB   replied to  TᵢG @6.1.9    2 months ago

Hi TiG! It is as my grandmother used to say before she passed on: "People can show you their 'natchie' born asses and you best get a good look at it while it is out there." That's a quote.

Well, the GOP has placed its hand over Donald Trump's heart and swore by him! They have stipulated that apart from Trump and his ideas they are nothing. Even accepting of Trumpism, even if Donald goes not a step farther as the leader!

They are wholly throwing all the conventional GOPers out as they reveal themselves.

The GOP as you remember it-has collapsed in on itself and everybody ran for safety outside of it!

As experience has shown, any wealth creation that comes out of Trump is not long for this world. For he will surely "F" it up by the end of the 'day'!

Tell me, in your opinion has Donald taken more out of the system through his antics and schemes (remember the dead on his watch) than he ever put into it!

Lastly, remember there does exist conventional ("Never Trumpers"/ Never Trumpism) republicans who are working this midterm alongside democrats and independents to see that their old 'buddies' in MAGA GOP do not get control of the House and Senate.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.1.15  cjcold  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.6    2 months ago

pretty much only care about bbq contests these days. Used to care about anthro pogenic global warming                                             

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.16  CB   replied to  evilgenius @6.1.1    2 months ago

Tit for tat is child's play. And it is tiresome, costly, and evilg' you and I simply can't squander the time anymore! :)

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.1.17  cjcold  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.6    2 months ago

Exactly! The global economy is a mess but to the right it is all Bidens fault.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  cjcold @6.1.17    2 months ago

Exactly! Covid was a global pandemic but it was all Trump's fault. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.1.19  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.18    2 months ago

Please, you can look at Trump 'faults' in stark relief everyday. That man gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night looking for some new 'conquest' to add to his 'fight club' with government/s. Covid-19 could have been handled better, but of course, MAGA won't have any of that consideration with its no-masking 'drama.' And so, yes, Trump made COVID-19 worse. Keep in mind that had it not been for him being president and getting privileged access to preeminent care-he may have fallen to the virus and been counted among the lost several years ago when he (and his family) got sickened.

This nation. . . is combat fatigued 'out' by Donald J. Trump! And yet, he is still giving us more of the same!

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.1.20  cjcold  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.10    2 months ago

I have always been a registered independent but haven't voted for a republican or a conservative issue for many years now. Might as well call myself a hard core liberal.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
7  bugsy    2 months ago

This is not really a big deal. There are probably far more moderate Republicans than far right, who do not attend church in Kansas than do, and many of them are pro choice, or just don't care if you want to destroy your offspring.

The real test is in November when abortion will not be on the ballot, but actual democrats will be.

Kansas will remain a red state

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
7.1  bugsy  replied to  bugsy @7    2 months ago

BTW, leftists, what happened to that GOP voter suppression that is supposedly going on all around red states.

Kinda kicked that one in the nuts, huh?

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
7.2  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  bugsy @7    2 months ago
The real test is in November when abortion will not be on the ballot, but actual democrats will be.

They will do anything they can to "Blur" that fact come November !

They'll make it all about "Labels", since their personal track record from 2020 until now has been Awful !

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
7.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  bugsy @7    2 months ago
The real test is in November when abortion will not be on the ballot, but actual democrats will be.

Here were the two Republican candidates for Senate in the primary:

“When the sperm and the egg unite, it is God’s will that a child should be born. I believe that what God has joined together, let no one put asunder.” - Joan Farr

"the radical Left are attacking our Kansas values. They want taxpayer-funded abortions, restrictions on our God-given rights, like the Second Amendment, and they want to defund the police. That’s wrong. Kansans support the right to life, religious freedom, and the United States Constitution.” - Jerry Moran

The "right to life'er" Jerry Moran happened to win the GOP primary

But you still don't believe abortion isn't on the ballot?

Those in Kansas who are pro-choice, which apparently a large majority are, will be voting for the pro-choice candidates regardless of party loyalty, their rights and freedoms are more important than some right wing religious conservative agenda.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.3    2 months ago

Fucking whackjobs.  Today's gop/gqp/republicans.  Playing to their rabid alt-right base.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
7.3.2  charger 383  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.3    2 months ago

             ", let no one put asunder.”

sounds like Joan Farr wants to ban divorce also

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
7.4  cjcold  replied to  bugsy @7    2 months ago
Kansas will remain a red state

Kansas was actually a free state back in the day. Pretty sure that means liberal.

My favorite beer is made at the Free State Brewery in Lawrence.

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
7.4.1  GregTx  replied to  cjcold @7.4    2 months ago
The Kansas-Nebraska Act divided Douglas’ Democratic Party and inspired the formation of the Republican Party, which opposed extending slavery into new territory.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
7.4.2  Split Personality  replied to  GregTx @7.4.1    2 months ago

One of the most blatant acts of mass voter fraud ever foisted on the USA,

thanks Pres. Franklin Pierce.

Bleeding Kansas was the site of pro slavery violence and interference with the

Free State governance for 3 years, so much so that it boiled over into Congress

dragging Pres James Bucannon into it.

In 1859 verified Kansas voters approved a new Constitution banning slavery.

Kansas was admitted to the United States in January of 1861, an anti slavery state

Kansas  supplied 20,000 soldiers to the Union including the 1st and 2nd Kansas

Colored Infantry.

Estimates are that at least 1,000 Kansans served in different CSA units.

Overall Kansas was admitted to the USA as a free, anti slavery state.

Good link, should have read the whole thing.

Even Wiki has good info on Kansas's struggles.

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
7.4.3  GregTx  replied to  Split Personality @7.4.2    2 months ago

I read the links that I supply, why would you think I didn't? Never mind, idgaf..

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
7.4.4  Split Personality  replied to  GregTx @7.4.3    2 months ago

My bad,

I didn't realize you were just deflecting into the off topic 

"birth of the GoP"

By the way, the Kansas Nebraska act was about the territories and their

possible futures.

As Cjcold implied, Kansas as a state has always been a Free State.

Carry on

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
7.4.5  GregTx  replied to  Split Personality @7.4.4    2 months ago

No shit?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
8  charger 383    2 months ago

Privacy is in the Constitution, here;

Amendment IV (4th Amendment – Search and Seizure)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.....

How can a person be secure in their person if there is something inside of it that they don't want there? 

"Shall not be violated" is as sacred as "shall not be infringed" 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  charger 383 @8    2 months ago

Not only isn't it there, Blackmun & company were forced to look elsewhere.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
8.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  charger 383 @8    2 months ago
person be secure in their person if there is something inside of it that they don't want there? 

There's a reason no justice has ever claimed the 4th amendment prohibits abortion laws. If you read the entire amendment, you'd see it only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Neither of those are involved in statutes prohibiting abortion. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.2    2 months ago

th?id=OIP.UjkxhcRYhfiAbNGO2opQcgHaD4&pid=Api&rs=1&c=1&qlt=95&w=208&h=109

Objection Sustained

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
8.3  charger 383  replied to  charger 383 @8    2 months ago

Some things are self-evident and some rights are unalienable Rights;  control of your own body is one of them  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9  CB     2 months ago

Here is something that is self-evident: Many Kansas conservatives touting the pro-life message are disingenuous. Why? Because when they vote for a near total ban on abortion and their kindred spirit states move on banning contraception products. . . we can look at the conservative family and know this:

Psst. Wedded conservative women are not having all the children their bodies can produce eggs to conceive during their married years!  A conservative family without children in a fertile couple, a conservative family with a mere one or two children . . . IMPOSSIBLE!

A fertile woman can produce more that a 'few' eggs during her marriage. There is contraception taking place in the conservative home!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
9.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @9    2 months ago
Because when they vote for a near total ban on abortion and their kindred spirit states move on banning contraception products

polling reveals a significant number, 20%, of Kansas Repubs voted against the ban.  

A fertile woman can produce more that a 'few' eggs during her marriage

An infant girl is born with all of her eggs.  She will release 300-400 through ovulation.

 
 

Who is online

Mark in Wyoming
devangelical
Drinker of the Wry
bugsy
Revillug
CB
Kavika
Snuffy


20 visitors