Alabama governor signs restrictive abortion bill into law as ACLU vows to sue

  
Via:  vic-eldred  •  one week ago  •  127 comments

Alabama governor signs restrictive abortion bill into law as ACLU vows to sue
Today, I signed into law the Alabama Human Life Protection Act. To the bill’s many supporters, this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious & that every life is a sacred gift from God.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Republican Gov. Kay Ivey signed the controversial Alabama abortion bill into law on Wednesday.

The law will make nearly all abortions in the state illegal and make performing one a felony, punishable by up to 99 years or life in prison unless the mother’s health is at risk, with no exceptions for women impregnated by rape or incest.


The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) vowed to sue after the state Senate approved the measure Tuesday night. On Wednesday evening the group followed up in a tweet: "You can’t say we didn’t warn you, @GovernorKayIvey. See you in court."

"This legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God," Ivey said in a statement.
Republican state Rep. Terri Collins, who sponsored the bill, aimed to reignite the debate surrounding Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion across the nation, and to push justices to overturn the landmark ruling. Currently, the law will not be enforceable because of the current Supreme Court ruling that makes abortions a constitutional right. Ivey acknowledged this upon signing the bill.

"In all meaningful respects, this bill closely resembles an abortion ban that has been a part of Alabama law for well over 100 years. As today’s bill itself recognizes, that longstanding abortion law has been rendered “unenforceable as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade," she said.

"No matter one’s personal view on abortion, we can all recognize that, at least for the short term, this bill may similarly be unenforceable. As citizens of this great country, we must always respect the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court even when we disagree with their decisions.  Many Americans, myself included, disagreed when Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973. The sponsors of this bill believe that it is time, once again, for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit this important matter, and they believe this act may bring about the best opportunity for this to occur."

A Fox News poll conducted in February tallied voters' familiarity with Roe v. Wade, and 48 percent said they are “extremely” or “very” familiar with the ruling while the exact same number are “somewhat” or “not at all” familiar with the case.

Moreover, 57 percent of voters say the Supreme Court should let the 46-year old ruling stand; that number jumps to 68 percent among those who are familiar with the case.




Fox News' Victoria Balara contributed to this report.


Article is Locked

Find text within the comments Find 
 
Vic Eldred
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    one week ago

I say this gets struck down by the lower courts and the SCOTUS leaves it right there.

For Conservatives this is NOT the way to try and change a bad ruling. It could never topple Roe, but changes can happen incrementally with the right cases. The Roe decision has up until now been a blessing for the GOP. The Pro Life movement finding a home and a voice within the party. Let's not do anything to foul it up. This is neither the right time nor the right case to fight this battle.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one week ago

Anytime unconstitutional laws are passed is always a good time to fight it. Alabama's law will probably be struck down in the federal courts, as it should be.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1    one week ago

Agreed, as I said in Post #1.

However, the day is coming when that bastard decision will be changed incrementally and if the rights of the unborn ever get any traction Roe itself will die!

All of this should wait until after the election.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    one week ago

Not likely to happen. Roe has only been reaffirmed and expanded on in subsequent abortion cases. Reversing Roe would only set a very dangerous precedent. And the unborn do not have rights, nor should they!

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    one week ago
'All of this should wait until after the election.'

Like healthcare?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.2    one week ago

Obviously Roe is not about to be overturned even if the SCOTUS actually took the Missouri case (they wont touch the Alabama one). But you must realize that restictions are going to creep in?


the unborn do not have rights

Take it from a successful gambler:  DON"T BET ON THAT!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.3    one week ago
Like healthcare?

Healthcare will be a democratic issue in this election, just as immigration policy will be a Republican issue, but you won't be getting a redo of the culture war. Too bad.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.5    one week ago

I thought the turd was going to have the bestest, bigliest health care plan for all - after the election.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.6    one week ago

John McCain defeated it!

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.7    one week ago

He defeated the turd who wanted to do away with the Affordable Care Act!!!!!!!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.8    one week ago

McCain had one weakness. Vanity!  He could never get over when Trump said I like the war hero's that don't get caught!   Do you remember that?  Well, what people forget is that McCain started all that by calling Trump supporters "crazies". Trump responded the way he did in defense of his supporters. 

It's too bad that McCain repeatedly defeated key Republican legislation simply to spite Trump.

McCain was a war hero, but he was seriously flawed.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.9    one week ago

Donald Rump is an impotent turd chickenshit coward.

CHICKENHAWK

Draft-Dodger Trump Said Sleeping Around Was My ‘Personal Vietnam’

In a 1997 Howard Stern interview, the future presidential candidate likened sleeping with multiple women to service in the war he repeatedly avoided.

tim-mak-author.jpg

Tim Mak

02.16.16 4:10 PM ET

Draft-dodger Donald Trump once said that the danger he faced from getting sexually transmitted diseases was his own “personal Vietnam.”

In a 1997 interview with shock jock Howard Stern, Trump talked about how he had been “lucky” not to have contracted diseases when he was sleeping around.

“I’ve been so lucky in terms of that whole world. It is a dangerous world out there. It’s scary, like Vietnam. Sort of like the Vietnam-era,” Trump said in a video that resurfaced Tuesday on Buzzfeed, “It is my personal Vietnam. I feel like a great and very brave soldier.”

It wasn’t the only time the Republican frontrunner for president would liken his personal life to wartime service: Trump has claimed that his military-themed boarding school education was essentially equivalent to having being trained in the military.

When Trump had his chance to join the military and fight in Vietnam, he did not take it. Instead, the rich kid got multiple student deferments from the draft and a medical deferment. Meanwhile, men like John McCain were being tortured as prisoners of war, but Trump has said that is dishonorable. ’

“He’s not a war hero,” Trump said of McCain last year. “He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured, OK?”

Trump has wrapped his campaign in veterans issues, routinely lamenting that they’ve been treated “terribly.” The candidate even held a fundraiser for veterans groups in lieu of attending a debate just before the Iowa caucuses.

Since running for office, Trump has made a show of fundraising for veterans—offering veterans groups six-figures to be props at campaign rallies. But when vets groups have stood up to him, refusing to be dragged into the campaign, scores of Trump fans have sent them vile and harassing messages.

It’s in line with how Trump treated veterans before he started running for president.

In the 1980s, Trump tried to have disabled veteran street vendors thrown off Fifth Avenue, accusing the Vietnam-era soldiers of ruining how the street in front of Trump Tower looked. Before his presidential campaign, Trump’s charitable foundation gave more to the Clintons than to veterans organizations.

Trump has suggested he would be tremendous for veterans if elected president, but his efforts so far have been questionable.

In July 2015, Trump announced that he would be setting up a hotline for veterans to share their stories about the need to reform the VA. Today, a call to the hotline leads merely to a voicemail box, which instructs the caller to send them an email.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.11  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.4    one week ago

There are already individual state restrictions on abortion. But states cannot restrict abortion before viability, despite certain states attempts to do so. And there is no way to grant rights to the unborn without infringing on the woman's established rights. Some states even attempted to do so through so called "fetal personhood" laws. Not surprisingly and fortunately, they never passed.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.12  Greg Jones  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1    one week ago

Explain why you believe it is "unconstitutional"

Any laws about abortion should be left to the states and the vote of the people.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.13  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.10    one week ago

You've made Trump the topic.  I guess I allowed it, huh?


 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.14  Greg Jones  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.13    one week ago

That's why that poster is instantly put on ignore.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.15  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.11    one week ago

Gordy, It's right there in the first sentence of the Constitution:

"We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Some can interpret our posterity to mean our unborn children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.1.16  KDMichigan  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.13    one week ago
You've made Trump the topic.  I guess I allowed it, huh?

Some people can't help it if that's all they got.

Isn't it amazing how the TDS sufferers turn a topic about abortion to one about President Trump being a draft dodger?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.13    one week ago
You've made Trump the topic. I guess I allowed it, huh?

TDS means that you can turn any topic under the sun into yet another "Hate Trump"-fest!

It is an unique ability of those suffering the worst from TDS.

Research continues on a cure.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.13    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.19  Gordy327  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.12    one week ago

It's unconstitutional because the SCOTUS has ruled that abortion is legal and cannot be prohibited nor cause an undue burden on the woman. And laws are not put to public vote. They ate passed by legislators and subject to judicial review.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.20  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.19    one week ago

So because the SCOTUS says so, it's right, the Court never gets it wrong.

Have you ever heard of "Dred Scott v. Sanford?"

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.10    one week ago

[DELETED]   WTF does any of your long rant have to do with abortion laws?

Is this off-topic ranting simply something that TDS sufferers can not control?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.22  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.10    one week ago

Sorry, I'm not getting it. You say he's impotent, yet "sleeping around".

You do believe in the concept of contradiction?   You can't be and at the same time not be!  Right?

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.23  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.15    one week ago

That may be your own interpretation. But the SCOTUS does not interpret it that way. The idea that it also applies to those not yet born or even existing is conjecture athe best. The Constitution applies to those already born.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.24  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.23    one week ago
The idea that it also applies to those not yet born or even existing is conjecture athe best.

An idea that is coming. A legal space for the state interest in, and responsibility for, the unborn. It will happen gradually, but I can see it coming. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.25  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.20    one week ago

I never said the SCOTUS gets every ruling right. But abortion cases have been brought before the court before and not once has Roe ever been significantly challenged. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.26  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.25    one week ago
But abortion cases have been brought before the court before and not once has Roe ever been significantly challenged. 

You are right. As a matter of fact it has been strengthened by precedent. That being said, I wonder if you would agree with me that the abortion debate was never settled by the Roe decision and is now hotter than ever?

We are going to see some of these cases from State legislatures taken by the SCOTUS, not the extreme ones like Alabama, but the more moderate cases. There is a national debate going on.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.27  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.24    one week ago

Not likely. The state will have to argue why it has interest and why the woman's rights and interest should be subverted. Such an issue has gone to the Court before.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.28  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.27    one week ago

Blackmun did leave one thing open (in a rare moment of humility), didn't he?   He admitted that he didn't know when life began. Something to think about?

As far as cases coming, what if the Missouri case comes before the Court. Suppose the only issue argued is limiting abortion to the first 8 weeks?

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.29  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.26    one week ago

I'd say Roe more or less settled the issue. The problem is that some people could not accept it and continue to argue it or attempt to circumvent it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.30  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.28    one week ago

When life begins is irrelevant.  That's more of a subjective, religious, or philosophical discussion and has not been the focus of legal debates surrounding abortion. Limiting abortion 8 weeks (or sooner) is absurd and places an undue burden on the woman, which established precedent has already deemed as a reason for permissible abortions later during gestation.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.31  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.30    one week ago
When life begins is irrelevant.

I couldn't disagree more. Then you are saying a woman's right to make a decision takes precedent over a human life. I'm sorry - that's murder, pure and simple.


Limiting abortion 8 weeks (or sooner) is absurd and places an undue burden on the woman, which established precedent has already deemed as a reason for permissible abortions later during gestation.

Why not? The original first trimester guideline was completely arbitrary, was it not?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.32  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.5    one week ago
Healthcare will be a democratic issue in this election, just as immigration policy will be a Republican issue, but you won't be getting a redo of the culture war. Too bad.

Wait WHAT? Trump said "The Republican Party will become “The Party of Healthcare!”

BTW, aren't healthcare and immigration policy part of our culture? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.33  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.31    one week ago

You are free to disagree, but  you would be wrong. The woman's rights takes precedent over an embryo/fetus, which is not even born nor considered a person with rights. And abortion is not considered murder. 

As I said, limiting abortions places an undue burden on woman. I'd guess the first trimester limit was a way of finding "middle ground" between pro choicers and pro lifers. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.34  Tessylo  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.16    one week ago

No Vic brought the subject up of Mr. McCain down voting Rump trying to abolish the ACA and the following:

'McCain had one weakness. Vanity!  He could never get over when Trump said I like the war hero's that don't get caught!   Do you remember that?  Well, what people forget is that McCain started all that by calling Trump supporters "crazies". Trump responded the way he did in defense of his supporters. 

It's too bad that McCain repeatedly defeated key Republican legislation simply to spite Trump.

McCain was a war hero, but he was seriously flawed."

You're saying Mr. McCain couldn't get over what Rump said?  I don't think Mr. McCain thought much about it.  It wasn't spite - it was the right thing to do. 

Also you're saying Mr. McCain was vain?  

That is why I brought up the subject of Rump and his 'own personal vietnam' and this

It wasn’t the only time the Republican frontrunner for president would liken his personal life to wartime service: Trump has claimed that his military-themed boarding school education was essentially equivalent to having being trained in the military.

When Trump had his chance to join the military and fight in Vietnam, he did not take it. Instead, the rich kid got multiple student deferments from the draft and a medical deferment. Meanwhile, men like John McCain were being tortured as prisoners of war, but Trump has said that is dishonorable. ’

“He’s not a war hero,” Trump said of McCain last year. “He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured, OK?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.35  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.7    one week ago
John McCain defeated it!

Now there's a giant whopper of a lie.

"I thought the turd was going to have the bestest, bigliest health care plan for all - after the election."

What John McCain blocked was a repeal of the ACA. He did not in any way block a Republican health care plan, because there is no Republican health care plan. They are so stupid they don't have a plan, they simply feed their base the ignorant red meat of "Down with Obamacare!" without even bothering to consider what will actually replace it. I guess no one should expect much from a bunch of indoctrinated morons.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.36  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    one week ago
Agreed, as I said in Post #1.However, the day is coming when that bastard decision will be changed incrementally and if the rights of the unborn ever get any traction Roe itself will die!All of this should wait until after the election.

1.)Why is it that you are obsessed with Roe v. Wade when you will never get pregnant?

2.)Why do you believe that your religious or social beliefs get to make decisions about the lives of others? Women are not asking for your approval when they choose to have an abortion

3.) Why is it that you believe that your beliefs overrule what is best for her? Why is a fetus that cannot survive outside of her body more important than an adult human female?

4.)Is your opinion an admission that in your beliefs that woman is still second-class citizen that you have the innate right to govern via your own emotions?

I have to wonder if your partner had an abortion against your wishes and this is your chance to make sure that never happens again by repealing Roe v. Wade. 

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.37  epistte  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.35    one week ago
What John McCain blocked was a repeal of the ACA. He did not in any way block a Republican health care plan, because there is no Republican health care plan. They are so stupid they don't have a plan, they simply feed their base the ignorant red meat of "Down with Obamacare!" without even bothering to consider what will actually replace it. I guess no one should expect much from a bunch of indoctrinated morons.

There was nothing to replace it and there never will be.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.38  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @1.1.36    one week ago
1.)Why is it that you are obsessed with Roe v. Wade when you will never get pregnant?

Because I believe in the Constitution. Only the Congress can make law.

2.)Why do you believe that your religious or social beliefs get to make decisions about the lives of others? Women are not asking for your approval when they choose to have an abortion

I am not making a moral argument. You are. I'm more interested in the Constitution. 

3.) Why is it that you believe that your beliefs overrule what is best for her? Why is a fetus that cannot survive outside of her body more important than an adult human female?

Do you know when life begins? Justice Blackmun admitted that he did not (in his notes). The moral argument lies there. The legal argument lies with the wrongly made decision. If the US congress had decided to make a law providing for what that Court did, I would feel a lot better about it.

4.)Is your opinion an admission that in your beliefs that woman is still second-class citizen that you have the innate right to govern via your own emotions?

Whether I was pro-choice or pro-abortion, I would still be against the Court taking on what they have no place taking on. How did you feel about the Court deciding Bush v Gore?
Please give me an honest opinion

I have to wonder if your partner had an abortion against your wishes and this is your chance to make sure that never happens again by repealing Roe v. Wade. 

If my partner had an abortion against my wishes, it would truly be an unexpected jolt. First I would never be with such a woman and to answer your hypothetical, if it did actually happen, I'd probably be in jail today.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1.39  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.38    one week ago
Because I believe in the Constitution. Only the Congress can make law.

You still have a problem with understanding the US Constitution because all three branches have the power to make law in their own manner. They would not be able to function as an effective check and balance to the other two if they did not. This is a basic concept of US history and civics. How does the judicial branch function if it cannot strike down unconstitutional laws?  

Judicial Branch
  • Checks on the Legislature
    • Judicial review
    • Seats are held on good behavior
    • Compensation cannot be diminished
  • Checks on the Executive
    • Judicial review
    • Chief Justice sits as President of the Senate during presidential impeachment

You need to read and understand the legal precedent established in Marbury v. Madison. How can you possibly claim to understand the US Constitution if you do not understand very basic concepts of it? 

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and some government actions that contravene the U.S. Constitution.
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.40  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @1.1.39    one week ago
You still have a problem with understanding the US Constitution because all three branches have the power to make law in their own manner.

No they don't.

Here is today's lesson:

Article 1

SECTION 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.


https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-i

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2  seeder  Vic Eldred    one week ago

There is another law just passed by Missouri banning abortions after 8 weeks, more worthy. I'm still not ready to give the dems a valid culture war argument during an important election cycle.  So far all the democrats have had is a radical fantasy agenda and their hate for Trump. Why give them a real argument?

 
 
 
lib50
2.1  lib50  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    one week ago

Too late, Vic.  They couldn't help themselves.  Armor up.  The GOP War On Women continues.  And we intend to fight it.

 
 
 
Sunshine
2.1.1  Sunshine  replied to  lib50 @2.1    one week ago

Doesn't matter Democrats still can't beat Trump...even the Pussy Pink Hat brigade will not defeat him.  

Democrats don't have a winning candidate.  If the Clinton machine can't beat him....who can?

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.2  Ender  replied to  lib50 @2.1    one week ago

They have been waiting for this moment. It has been their plan all along. To get a conservative majority in the courts. My state admitted it and said they had a bill waiting and ready to go when the time is right.

Now some are back peddling and saying this AL bill will not be the one to go before the SC.

Pat Robertson said this one is too restrictive and he is afraid it would fail in the courts. He laid out their plans and said the main plan was to just chip away at R v W until it was mute.

The thing about all of this is the faux outrage, I bet with most of these people it has not had a single impact on their lives. These same people have no problem executing people or sending people off to war.

I don't understand the backward thinking of some. They claim to be pro life yet yesterday was Peace officers Memorial Day and when I checked in for a quick look, not one peep about this.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  lib50 @2.1    one week ago

Another March coming up?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.2    one week ago
To get a conservative majority in the courts.

I guess now I can sit back and say "It's the law of the land!"

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.5  epistte  replied to  lib50 @2.1    one week ago
Too late, Vic.  They couldn't help themselves.  Armor up.  The GOP War On Women continues.  And we intend to fight it.

I recently renewed my membership to the ACLU. I urge others to join me. 

Please join the ACLU because freedom cannot defend itself.

Join NARAL.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.6  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.4    one week ago

If law can be overturned, buckle up. The new law can be overturned, then that can be overturned and just continue back and forth.

If we are going to overturn law, get rid of citizens united. First on my list.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3  Sean Treacy    one week ago

This is how the issue should be decided, democratically.

Instead, unelected  justices discovered as if by magic a right to abortion in the 14th Amendment that suddenly appeared 100 years after it was passed and decided to impose their morals on the country at large. If people want to live in a state that protects the right of the unborn, it's their right to. 

The Constitution is silent on the issue. Anyone who claims otherwise is pushing their moral agenda upon you under the guise of law. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    one week ago

Laws are passed throught representative legislature, not through popular vote. And individual rights are not and should never be put to popular vote either. While the Constitution does not mention abortion, it's the job of the courts to interpret the constitution when dealing with the constitutionality of laws. And laws prohibiting abortions were deemed unconstitutional. Therefore, that made abortion legal by default.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1    one week ago

In the case of Roe the Court provided abortion advocates what the legislature had denied!

 
 
 
evilgenius
3.1.2  evilgenius  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.1    one week ago
In the case of Roe the Court provided abortion advocates what the legislature had denied!

No, the defense successfully argued the existing law banning abortion to be too restrictive under the Constitution's implied right to privacy. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilgenius @3.1.2    one week ago

Blackmun never explained how that right emerged from the 14th Amendment. He simply mentioned a "concept of personal liberty" and that was that!

 
 
 
evilgenius
3.1.4  evilgenius  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.3    one week ago

The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As has already been been explained to you it expanded on the Griswold v. Connecticut ruling and the Stanley v. Georgia ruling. It was again used in the 2003 ruling for Lawrence v. Texas.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilgenius @3.1.4    one week ago
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That's "due process" protections. Can you show us the right to privacy that Justice Blackmun couldn't?

As has already been been explained to you it expanded on the Griswold v. Connecticut ruling and the Stanley v. Georgia ruling. It was again used in the 2003 ruling for Lawrence v. Texas.

Ya, those are some of the cases the Roe justices used to back their 7-2 ruling. I really don't need to regurgitate their explanation. I want to see the right of privacy. It's really very simple.

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.1.6  Sunshine  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.5    one week ago
Can you show us the right to privacy that Justice Blackmun couldn't?

They can't, it isn't there.  

The ruling on RvW makes no sense.  They basically did a word salad to fabricate a right.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.6    one week ago
They basically did a word salad

And waived a magic wand!

 
 
 
Veronica
3.1.8  Veronica  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.5    one week ago
Can you show us the right to privacy that Justice Blackmun couldn't?

When you can show me where the 2nd amendment says handguns, rifles & semi-automatic weapons.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Veronica @3.1.8    one week ago
When you can show me where the 2nd amendment says handguns, rifles & semi-automatic weapons.

The 2nd Amendment explicitly provides for a right to bear arms!

A right of privacy isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution!

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.1.10  1stwarrior  replied to  evilgenius @3.1.4    one week ago

Here is what the "Right to Privacy" is per the Constitution.

The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.

You'll notice that the 14th and its Due Process is not covered here.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.11  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @3.1.10    one week ago

Well, that's a different explanation, yet still predicated with "The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy"

Do you think the SCOTUS should have taken on either of the two abortion cases in 1973?

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.12  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.1    one week ago

Only by proxy. The Court struck down laws prohibiting abortion. Therefore, abortion automatically became legal as a result.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.1.13  1stwarrior  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.12    one week ago

Agree

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.1.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.11    one week ago
erent explanation, yet still predicated with "The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy"

It also makes clear the Court can't even claim a consistent textual basis for it. It jumps around. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.1    one week ago
In the case of Roe the Court provided abortion advocates what the legislature had denied!

Legislators denied interracial marriage too Vic. Do you advocate for incremental rulings to undermine the Loving opinion? 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.16  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.9    one week ago
The 2nd Amendment explicitly provides for a right to bear arms!

Though is says NOTHING about the right to BUY or OWN arms. 

 
 
 
charger 383
3.1.17  charger 383  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.11    one week ago

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches.....

The word privacy is not used, but that sure does mean privacy.  That also works for gun rights as well

 
 
 
evilgenius
3.1.18  evilgenius  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.5    one week ago
That's "due process" protections. Can you show us the right to privacy that Justice Blackmun couldn't?

Justice Blackmun does spell it out. You just don't agree - 

...however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.19  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @3.1.15    one week ago

Are you going to try and link the two things as some try?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.20  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @3.1.16    one week ago

Or types of arms

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.21  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilgenius @3.1.18    one week ago
You just don't agree

That's right, I don't agree that he did lay it out well, nor did Ginsburg and many others on both the right and left!

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.19    one week ago
Are you going to try and link the two things as some try?

I already did Vic. Both opinions overruled unconstitutional state legislative restrictions. 

Now that you've posted your deflection, how about answering my question. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.23  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @3.1.22    one week ago
I already did Vic. Both opinions overruled unconstitutional state legislative restrictions. 

Actually, you haven't. You don't see the difference in the Court's authority, the principles or even the after effect. Unlike the Loving case, which involved Civil Rights issues, the nation, even the deep south accepted the Loving case ruling. After Roe which had to link to the Constitution, the nation was bitterly divided and remains so to this very day!

So how about admitting they were not alike?

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.24  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.23    one week ago
Actually, you haven't.

Yet you haven't refuted this FACT: 

Both opinions overruled unconstitutional state legislative restrictions.

Which was in direct reply to your comment. 

You don't see the difference in the Court's authority,

There is NO difference in the Court's authority to overturn unconstitutional state legislative restrictions. 

the principles

What principles are those Vic? Please be specific. 

Oh BTW, Loving was cited in Roe. 

or even the after effect.

Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. 

Unlike the Loving case, which involved Civil Rights issues, the nation, even the deep south accepted the Loving case ruling.

So is it your posit that personal autonomy is NOT a Civil Rights issue? 

BTFW, many states on the south, especially Alabama, didn't accept the Loving ruling. Isn't it ironic? Don't you think? 

After Roe which had to link to the Constitution, the nation was bitterly divided and remains so to this very day!

There is still a percentage that oppose interracial marriage Vic. In fact, the percentage is not that different than the percentage that think that abortion should be illegal. 

So how about admitting they were not alike?

How about making a cogent argument that they aren't. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
3.2  KDMichigan  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    one week ago
If people want to live in a state that protects the right of the unborn, it's their right to. 

I agree 100%. I am Pro choice, if you want to kill your unborn child that should be up to the mother.

Now I also believe it is a states right to ban abortion if that is what the people want. but I'm one of them less fed kinda guys, probably why I would never vote for the socialist Democrat.

 
 
 
Veronica
3.2.1  Veronica  replied to  KDMichigan @3.2    one week ago
if you want to kill your unborn child

Makes me doubt you are pro-choice.  Just my take on it.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
3.2.2  KDMichigan  replied to  Veronica @3.2.1    one week ago
Makes me doubt you are pro-choice.  Just my take on it.

Let me guess you must be one of them that like to sugar coat it and call it a zygot or whatever the fuck makes you feel good.

Do you ask your pregnant friend if they know the sex of their fetus?

 
 
 
Veronica
3.2.3  Veronica  replied to  KDMichigan @3.2.2    one week ago

There is no such thing as an "unborn child".  No sugar coating about it.

Do couples say their first child is big brother or sister or do they say they are GOING to be a big brother or sister?  Do they say that they have a baby while the woman is pregnant or do they say they are EXPECTING a baby?  Goes both ways - & by the way I do not ask pregnant women the sex of their fetuses.  

 
 
 
KDMichigan
3.2.4  KDMichigan  replied to  Veronica @3.2.3    one week ago
by the way I do not ask pregnant women the sex of their fetuses.  

Yeah right. [Removed, discuss the seeded topic!]

 
 
 
Veronica
3.2.5  Veronica  replied to  KDMichigan @3.2.4    one week ago

You think all women are baby gaga & go nuts over pregnant women - sorry to inform you there are those of us out here that went through our pregnancies without trying to be center of attention - didn't continually rub our bellies as if we were special - and some of us do not care to fawn all over other pregnant women.  

Don't care if you believe it or if you like it.  There are plenty of us out there.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Veronica @3.2.3    one week ago
Do couples say their first child is big brother or sister or do they say they are GOING to be a big brother or sister? 

May I enter in on this?

I happen to like the idea of those expectant mothers who paste an ultrasound picture on the refrigerator for the prospective older child to see. We need to instill that image in the minds of young children. Thus some day we win the war! 

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.6    one week ago
'Thus some day we win the war!' 

What war?

The war against women and their body autonomy?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.7    one week ago

The war against a decision the SCOTUS had no right to make

 
 
 
KDMichigan
3.2.9  KDMichigan  replied to  Veronica @3.2.5    one week ago
Don't care if you..
if you like it..
Makes me doubt you..

Sorry I try not to converse with people who always use "you's". In my expierence they are just trolls and not worth the time.

Have a good day.

 
 
 
Veronica
3.2.10  Veronica  replied to  KDMichigan @3.2.9    one week ago

Busted.  Don't like that you were found out - kind of hard to have a discussion with someone without using YOU.  But it's ok - I understand - now you can hide behind your "pro-choice" stance - which any true pro-choice person will not believe.

 
 
 
Veronica
3.2.11  Veronica  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.6    one week ago

That is your prerogative.  Put it on your fridge - BUT stop trying to make EVERY woman do that.  NOT A BABY.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
3.2.12  KDMichigan  replied to  Veronica @3.2.10    one week ago
kind of hard to have a discussion with someone without using YOU.

Bahahahaha What a freaking joke. Seeing YOU know nothing about me YOU shouldn't be telling me what I think or what I believe. I understand that for some that concept would be lost to them.

Have a good day. 

 
 
 
Veronica
3.2.13  Veronica  replied to  KDMichigan @3.2.12    one week ago

Right back at you.  Bahahahaha What a freaking joke. Seeing YOU know nothing about me YOU shouldn't be telling me what I think or what I believe. I understand that for some that concept would be lost to them.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.14  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Veronica @3.2.11    one week ago
BUT stop trying to make EVERY woman do that.

Lol, how did I do that?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.15  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Veronica @3.2.13    one week ago
Seeing YOU know nothing about me YOU shouldn't be telling me what I think or what I believe.

With the new avatar I forgot it was you. Thanks for reminding me.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.16  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Veronica @3.2.10    one week ago
true pro-choice person

Now there is something to contemplate!

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.17  Gordy327  replied to  KDMichigan @3.2.2    one week ago

No sugar coating. It's a zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus. Those are the correct scientific terms.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.18  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.8    one week ago

The SCOTUS ruled on the constitutionality of a law. That is their function. So yes, their decision was well within their purview. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.19  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.18    one week ago
their decision was well within their purview. 

Only if you cast aside deference to other branches of government and respect for legislatures, which is what the Court did in 1973 when it recognized a new right

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2.20  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.6    one week ago
I happen to like the idea of those expectant mothers who paste an ultrasound picture on the refrigerator for the prospective older child to see. We need to instill that image in the minds of young children. Thus some day we win the war! 

And it will be a very interesting discussion with their four or five year old if the mother miscarries.

I find it very telling that some view their desire to force their faith and personal opinions on others as a 'war' they must win. No one is forcing any of them to get an abortion, and contraceptive use and sex education has been reducing abortion rates for decades. The only places they don't seem to be dropping are the bible belt States where they attempt to teach abstinence only, make sex a taboo subject and believe if they ever break their celibacy vows before marriage it was "the devil" that made them do it. And they are told they just need to pray harder instead of getting educated and using contraceptives to avoid STD's an unwanted pregnancies.

The image we need to instill in our children's minds is that sex is healthy and normal, there is no evidence they will go to hell for having sex before marriage, and using contraceptives properly can protect them from 98.9% of the actual risks. If you want to have the other "sex is a sin" conversation, that's your choice, but not educating them on contraceptives is like handing them a loaded weapon, telling them not to pull the trigger but never showing them where the trigger or safety are.

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.2.21  Sunshine  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.20    one week ago
The only places they don't seem to be dropping are the bible belt

They are not the highest states to begin with either.

The top five per capita are in the northeast....imagine that.  And Tennessee, Texas are at the bottom.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/25-states-with-most-abortions/26/

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2.22  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sunshine @3.2.21    one week ago
They are not the highest states to begin with either.

I apologize for not being more clear. While rates of abortion are higher in other States, they have been steadily dropping, but the rate of teen pregnancy in the bible belt and their rate of abortion has remained fairly constant and in some cases have increased.

"teen births are at their lowest level in more than 60 years (10 percent lower than 2009, 43 percent below their peak in 1970). But the geographic variation is substantial."

"Teenage births remain high in more religious states. The correlation between teenage birthrates and the percentage of adults who say they are “very religious” is considerable (.69). The 2009 study posited that attitudes toward contraception play a significant role, noting that "religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging the use of contraception among their teenagers than they are in discouraging sexual intercourse itself."

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2012/04/teen-birthrates-are-way-down-still-high-these-states/1735/

"A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that the national abortion rate declined 26 percent between 2006 and 2015, hitting the lowest level that the government has on record."

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/3/18119528/abortion-rate-decline-2018-birth-control-iud-pill

"With data aggregated at the state level, conservative religious beliefs strongly predict U.S. teen birth rates, in a relationship that does not appear to be the result of confounding by income or abortion rates. One possible explanation for this relationship is that teens in more religious communities may be less likely to use contraception."

https://datadrivenviewpoints.com/2013/06/18/teen-pregnancy-and-the-bible-belt/

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.23  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sunshine @3.2.21    one week ago

1/3 of pregnancies, almost double the national rate, are aborted in New York. Who knew that was the bible belt? 

 I guess the State of New York must teach abstinence only and blame the devil. New Jersey too.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.2.24  Sunshine  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.23    one week ago

New York is the abortion capital of the US, to be so proud.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.25  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.19    one week ago

The court recognized the right to autonomy already existed. The ruling only affirmed that. Recognizing and/or expanding individual rights is a good thing.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.26  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.19    one week ago

Other government branches were irrelevant to the case. State legislature already passed the antiabortion bill, the governor (executive) signed it, and it became law. Now the judicial reviewed the law when it was challenged, up to and including the SCOTUS through die process. The other branches already played their parts.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.27  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.26    one week ago
Other government branches were irrelevant to the case.

That attitude is why the Court has become the focus of cynical debate ever since

 
 
 
epistte
3.3  epistte  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    one week ago
This is how the issue should be decided, democratically.

Our rights are not up for a vote by the majority in an act of tyranny of the majority. This idea is why we have the Bill of Rights to guarantee that all have equal rights and not just the majority who would have rights if they were decided democratically.

 Those federal judges are unelected for life for a critical reason. That is so that they do not have to base their decision on their ability to be popularly elected and can instead make the legally correct decision instead of what is popular with the electorate. Didn't anyone pay attention in your high history or school civics requirement because this concept is why the 3rd leg of the constitutional check and balances exists?

Article III of the Constitution states that these judicial officers are appointed for a life term.

 

The right to privacy from government intervention is inherent in personal freedom.  We could not have freedom if we didn't have the right to privacy.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4  Greg Jones    one week ago

If people want abortions, they should go to states that allow them.

Make no mistake, these laws collectively over time will place common sense restrictions upon abortion, which is as it should be.

Abortion up to and even after delivery is evil and wrong.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @4    one week ago

[delete]

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @4    one week ago

That's the lie the turd in chief is spreading.  

 
 
 
charger 383
4.3  charger 383  replied to  Greg Jones @4    one week ago

People should be able to take their guns if they move to another state and a women should not have to leave her right of choice behind 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5  Sean Treacy    one week ago

s are passed throught representative legislature, not through popular vote. 

Yes, that is how our process typically works. 

And individual rights are not and should never be put to popular vote either

Indivual rights, whatever that means,  are constantly restricted by the law.  

it's the job of the courts to interpret the constitution when dealing with the constitutionality of law

It's not the job of the Court to rewrite the Constitution to impose their moral beliefs, which is what the Roe court did.  If the right to abortion can be discovered after 100 years "hiding" in the Constitution, than the Constitution itself is a meaningless document.  

 And laws prohibiting abortions were deemed unconstitutional.

Until they aren't. When the Court corrects its error, the issue will be decided on a state by state basis, in conformity with the actual text of the Consititon. 

 
 
 
lib50
6  lib50    one week ago

So women's rights are subject to states laws, they don't hold the full federal rights of men?   Women get controlled by a bunch of old MEN if they control the shithole states that pass these laws against women.  Usually the dumbest and poorest states that have the worst maternal death rates and no health coverage before, during or after pregnancy.  Somehow female bodies have this separate part (uterus) that doesn't involve the rest of them, that men feel they have the right to control.   Every policy put out by same men makes contraception harder and more expensive (close your legs is so much cheaper, and then they bitch about Alyssa Milano advocating for a sex strike - seems at odds with their slut shaming).  And aren't these the same men who are petrified of sharia law?   Christian sharia is no problem though. 

Remember a year or so ago when some of the same folk here on NT laughed at women for calling out the gop 'war on women'?   Yeah, well I do.  If republicans want to go into the election with the GOP WAR ON WOMEN front and center, Bring. It. On. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @6    one week ago
no health coverage before, during or after pregnancy.

Just a tad hyperbolic, eh?

NO health coverage? Really?

LMFAO!

 
 
 
lib50
6.1.1  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1    one week ago
NO health coverage? Really?

Yes, really.   Think pregnancy and childbirth are just 9 months of bliss? 

https://www.enewscourier.com/news/local_news/study-ranks-alabama-th-worst-in-health-care/article_c6641668-99cd-11e8-beaf-53af47d1bff2.html

Alabama's low access ranking may be one reason why it ranked equally low in outcomes. Again in 44th place, Alabama performed better than state neighbors Tennessee (48th place) and Mississippi (51st or worst), but Alabama proved to have the highest infant mortality rate and was the fifth-highest of all states in its rate of heart disease.

WalletHub included these factors in its assessment of outcomes, as well as life expectancy, cancer rate, diabetes rate, how often patients visited doctors and more.

"Mortality rates, indicators of effective prenatal care, monitoring and reporting the percentage of the population with health insurance, readmission rates for hospitals, infection rates in intensive care units, the percentage of patients with chronic conditions receiving appropriate followup care and recommended screenings and so many others are all extremely important" in evaluating state healthcare systems, Mora said.

https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/health-of-women-and-children/measure/maternal_mortality/state/AL

Who is affected?

There are substantial and persistent disparities in maternal deaths by race and ethnicity. For African-American women, the rate of maternal mortality has been three to four times that of white women for over a century.[5] American Indian/Alaska Native women are also disproportionately affected with a maternal mortality rate nearly twice that of white women in 2007-2009.

According to our analysis of 2011-2015 maternal mortality data accessed through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s WONDER online database:

  • There were 47.2 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births up to 42 days postpartum among non-Hispanic black women, 2.6 times the maternal death rate of white women (18.1 deaths per 100,000 live births), and 4 times higher than the rate among Asian/Pacific Islander women (11.6 deaths per 100,000 live births) and Hispanic women (12.2 deaths per 100,000 live births).

Women at greater risk of maternal mortality include:

  • Women aged 40 or older:  31.9 percent of maternal deaths from 2013-2014 occurred in women aged 40 years or older [6]
  • Women who have obesity [7]
  • Uninsured women: women who lack health insurance are three to four times more likely to die of pregnancy-related complications than their insured counterparts [8]
  • Women who have given birth to five or more children

https://www.al.com/news/huntsville/2017/01/alabamians_pay_more_for_health.html

"One of those friends told me tearfully two weeks ago that as of January 2017, their insurance would be $2,200 a month with a $7,000 deductible," said Anderson. "They have been paying $1,600 each month this year and cannot pay another $600 monthly."

She said another friend also could no longer afford health insurance because the monthly cost surpassed her mortgage payment. "Self-employed middle-class people like this voted for Trump."

Alabama women pointed out that while those costs may not seem high to the Californians, they represent a big chunk of Alabamians' incomes.

"When you consider in Alabama most mortgages are less than $1,500/month for middle-class families, you see how outrageous paying over $2,000/month for insurance is," said Leah Dicus, a nurse anesthetist from Huntsville, Alabama.

Employer-based health insurance plans are more expensive in Alabama. The average cost for an employee in 2015 - in premiums and deductibles - represented 11.2 percent of the median household income in Alabama, versus 9.9 percent in California, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Costs since then have continued to rise.

California women shared how their friends' healthcare situations had improved after the ACA took effect.

https://www.al.com/living/2019/01/the_alabama_mothers_we_lost_in.html

https://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/news/2018/08/14/alabama-ranked-as-one-of-the-worst-states-for.html

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  lib50 @6.1.1    one week ago

Silly to blame the state for people who refuse to take advantage of programs available to them.

There are plenty of health clinics, hospitals, and doctors there.

 
 
 
Sunshine
6.1.3  Sunshine  replied to  lib50 @6.1.1    one week ago

Who the hell is Wallet Hub?

Alabama denied Obamacare?  I thought Obamacare was going to solve all these problems...or did it just exacerbate it with higher premiums and deductibles?

One of those friends told me tearfully two weeks ago that as of January 2017, their insurance would be $2,200 a month with a $7,000 deductible," said Anderson.
 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.2    one week ago
There are plenty of health clinics, hospitals, and doctors there.

Only 29 of Alabama's 67 counties have hospitals that that offer obstetrical care. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.1.4    one week ago

Sounds like you should open a hospital or 38.

 
 
 
lib50
6.1.6  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.5    one week ago

Or better still, old men and the women who enable them should just stay the hell out of women's business.  

aa1.jpg

abortion_hypocrisy.jpg

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.7  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.2    one week ago
Silly to blame the state for people who refuse to take advantage of programs available to them. There are plenty of health clinics, hospitals, and doctors there.

Those are irrelevant if you cannot pay for them.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.8  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.5    one week ago

Looks like you could be more informed before commenting. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  lib50 @6    one week ago
So women's rights are subject to states laws, they don't hold the full federal rights of men? 

State laws cannot conflict with federal law. Do you know why states are passing these laws?

Women get controlled by a bunch of old MEN if they control the shithole states that pass these laws against women. 

"shithole states" - that sounds sooooo familiar?

Usually the dumbest and poorest states that have the worst maternal death rates and no health coverage before, during or after pregnancy.  

dumbest and poorest states?  I think I'll pass on living there.

Somehow female bodies have this separate part (uterus) that doesn't involve the rest of them

Oh but it does. And what if that separate part holds human life? We let a woman decide it's fate?

 Every policy put out by same men makes contraception harder and more expensive (close your legs is so much cheaper, and then they bitch about Alyssa Milano advocating for a sex strike - seems at odds with their slut shaming). 

I think we can all survive Milano's strike

Remember a year or so ago when some of the same folk here on NT laughed at women for calling out the gop 'war on women'?  

That was a great slogan. Orwell would have said "there it is!"

If republicans want to go into the election with the GOP WAR ON WOMEN front and center, Bring. It. On. 

We'll see you in 2020!

jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
lib50
6.2.1  lib50  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2    one week ago

Strap 'em on then, Vic. 
I used shithole for a reason, wasn't an accident.  And I'm sure you know all about slogans.  Perfected by the gop,  and if that's what it takes to get through to Americans, so be it.  See how it feels being on the other side of it.  The last election brought out a lot of pissed off women that pushed the pendulum left.  Enjoy more of the same.   Not enough mansplaining in the world to dupe women on this issue.  War on Women it is.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.2.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  lib50 @6.2.1    one week ago
Strap 'em on then, Vic.

I'm packin' right now, LOL

I used shithole for a reason, wasn't an accident.

I see.

And I'm sure you know all about slogans. 

Yup, Iv'e watched the left since the late 60's

See how it feels being on the other side of it.

It's where I want to be. I've always been against the same people!

The last election brought out a lot of pissed off women that pushed the pendulum left. 

The same assholes that voted for Obama

Enjoy more of the same.  

Another Win?   I'm not tired of winning, bring it on!

 
 
 
charger 383
7  charger 383    one week ago

eventually continued overpopulation will force the issue, opposing abortion moves that date closer 

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1  Texan1211  replied to  charger 383 @7    one week ago

I believe anyone who can't afford to pay to raise their own "choices" should abort.

Not fair to saddle society with your "choices" because one refuses to accept responsibility and pony up!

 
 
 
charger 383
7.1.1  charger 383  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1    one week ago

A lot of our tax money already pays for things for other peoples kids,  is it fair to keep adding to that total?

birthcontrol and abortion are cost effective tax reducers, pay a little or pay a lot 

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  charger 383 @7.1.1    one week ago
A lot of our tax money already pays for things for other peoples kids,

That is certainly true, which is why people who choose to have kids should also choose to pay for them.

birthcontrol and abortion are cost effective tax reducers, pay a little or pay a lot

They are cost effective. I think what we may disagree on is who should pay.

I say the people having sex and getting pregnant or impregnating others should pay for their own BC and abortions. Seems logical--If I wanted to drink, I wouldn't expect others to pay for it.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Tessylo
It Is ME
Dismayed Patriot
cjcold
The Magic Eight Ball
Sean Treacy
Gordy327
Paula Bartholomew
Dulay



36 visitors