Supreme Court's abortion pill case creates GOP heartburn
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
House Republicans in swing districts are bristling at the Supreme Court's decision on Wednesday to hear a case on restricting access to the abortion pill mifepristone.
Why it matters: The Supreme Court's decision last year to overturn Roe v. Wade helped propelled Democrats to a better-than-expected midterm showing, and Republicans fear a repeat could play out in 2024.
- "I suspect they'll rule in favor of prohibitions which is a mistake," said one vulnerable House Republican. "The Court is tone deaf."
What they're saying: Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), one of 15 House Republicans who represent congressional districts President Biden won in 2020, said in a statement, "I do not support any efforts to establish a national ban on abortion ... The Supreme Court needs to stand down."
- Lawler told Axios the Court "should leave it to the states and the FDA to make these decisions. If it's legal in a certain state, they shouldn't be saying you can't utilize that type of medicine."
- "I have consistently said that this is certainly ... [something] that shouldn't be limited," said Rep. Marc Molinaro (R-N.Y.). "Quite frankly I would be concerned that the courts overly impose their will."
- Rep. John Duarte (R-Calif.) acknowledged "it could" cause political blowback on the GOP, though he said he's "here to make sure we're not using federal law to limit abortion access in terms of legislation" and not as focused on the Supreme Court.
Between the lines: A GOP strategist told Axios that they "don't really view it as a larger issue than abortion and Dobbs," but GOP candidates "must clearly articulate their position on the issue."
- "They cannot allow Democrats to do that for them," the strategist said. "It's the same issue set. With the same messaging solution. Don't run away from talking about it."
The other side: Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), a member of Democratic leadership, told Axios the issue could be "potentially huge" in 2024.
- "I mean, I understand [Republicans] have their honestly held beliefs, but it's political dynamite. It really is."
- Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesperson Courtney Rice told Axios: "You better believe the fight to protect reproductive freedoms will be front and center, motivating voters in battleground districts across the country next year."
The details: The Supreme Court will consider a Court of Appeals decision in August rolling back FDA rules on how mifepristone can be dispensed and how far into a pregnancy it can be taken.
- There have already been skirmishes over curtailing access to mifepristone in the House this year, with moderate GOP members rebelling over language restricting mifepristone access in a bill funding the FDA.
- The Supreme Court's term usually ends in late June, which will be right in the middle of the campaign season.
- Medication abortions account for more than half of all abortions in the U.S.
What we're watching: Democrats are rushing to get abortion-related constitutional amendments on the ballot in states across the country to boost grassroots energy and turnout in 2024.
- At least eight states with nearly two dozen competitive House districts between them could have congressional races coinciding with abortion-related ballot initiatives, as Axios previously reported .
Axios' Victoria Knight contributed reporting to this story.
As always, stay on topic or risk deletion.
Tags
Who is online
411 visitors
This won't help Republicans no matter which way the court rules. Why? Let's unpack this little gem...
Couple this with the recent Tx abortion case and it seems the right wing populists haven't learned their lessons from the mid-terms and Dems are set to make this a central talking point going into next year's election.
I'm hoping that this issue continues to snowball into an avalanche that takes out the xtian nationalist movement.
Historically they rise and fall like everything else. I just wish humans would learn from their mistakes instead of repeating them over and over and over again.
From a search on Microsoft Bing:
The Court is not the only one that's tone deaf
Yeah, he sounds like he thinks the court is there to help Republicans get elected.
I believe that there is also a case on going in KY on the abortion issue.
One thing you can see with the anti-abortion group is that stupidity leads the way.
I'll have to see if I can find news on that later.
EDIT: Here it is -
It wouldn't surprise me if the Republicans, fearing that they're going to lose the whole shebang next November due to the abortion issue, will try to turn back the clock of civilization and try to remove the right of women to vote. After all, they've already succeeded in turning them into "handmaidens" in parts of the nation, such as Texas. IMO disenfranchising women is not so far off from what they've already succeeded in accomplishing.
Interesting that I posted that comment well before the article about Whitlock was published. Premonition? Prescience? Maybe I should start thinking about lottery numbers.
mifepristone is a good solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy
I agree, but the anti-sexers will tout half of all abortions are done by abortion drugs. Then some will also try to push for state bans on contraceptives. This ends up putting a strain on services and programs they also don't support.
Yep. Like SNAP
SNAP, child care, family leave, pre and post natal health care, work training programs... there are a laundry list of liberal programs that are meant to strengthen families and communities that also work to reduce abortion numbers, but many conservatives are absolutely against.
those tax cuts for the wealthy have to come from somewhere... /s
Hmmm.....al that money spent and abortions are on the rise.
Looks like it did NOT reduce abortion numbers.
Abortions are actually up after the 'Roe v. Wade' overturn, just in different states | Fortune Well
Hmmm... seems you just proved that all the money, time and effort spent on opposing abortion was a waste? Thanks for that anyway.
I proved that all that money we spent on those programs mentions in post 2.1.2 which were claimed to reduce abortion numbers was wrong as abortion numbers have increased rather than decreased.
And that all the money, time and effort to ban abortions was wasted and it's unpopularity. Great job! I love it.
I am all for abortions. I think any woman wanting one should have as many as they wish and can afford.
I am just not ignorant enough to believe that the things described above actually reduce the numbers of abortions, mainly because the numbers don't LIE.
all you proved is that abortion numbers increased in states that bordered draconian anti-choice thumper states that restricted abortion access.
Well, one DOES have to actually read and understand the numbers.
The overall number of abortions have increased.
That is what I claimed, that is what I proved.
Fantastic!
Numbers don't lie, but one can lie with numbers. Multiple surveys of women who've had abortions often site lack of access to one or some of these these programs. The program themselves don't exist solely to reduce abortions. There are many variables at play that I'm sure you can agree with.
Overall abortion numbers have increased despite the number of programs we have.
That is what I claimed, that is what I proved.
Yes, overall numbers have increased AND there are still social programs. If that's all you're claiming then kudos.
IF??
Feel free to QUOTE me claiming something else.
Don't be pedantic, that's my job... HA!
And I commend your devotion to doing that as well as you can!
should a woman have more children than she can afford?
Never, but then again, if she does have a kid, taxpayers will pay for it.
We can't force women to have abortions whether they can afford the kid or not.
I'm just trying to point out that abortions save the taxpayer money in the long run
I am all for that, just like I am all for abortion if a woman wants and can afford one. Maybe a compromise would be to pay for her abortion if she can not afford it and then keep her income tax returns until the cost of abortion is recovered. If fatherhood can be proven, let the guy pay half! Win, win!
I'm just not ready to assign zero responsibility to the impregnator and the impregnated.
Why not treat it the same as the vaccines that the government already covers?
Government gives free treatment and services for many other things
Because we already pay for too many things for too many people.
What is wrong with adults taking responsibility for their very own choices and actions?
Do you feel as if the government should pay for HIV-treatment drugs? Or drugs to treat venereal diseases? Or drug substitutes used to wean people off illegal drugs? How about for sex change surgeries, or drugs used to help people change their sex?
We should spend what money we are going to spend where it i the most effective.
One Sex change would pay for many many abortions,
Insurance that people pay for or receive as a benefit should cover abortions,
Then no need for the government to pay for it.
I just don't see the point of absolving people of all responsibility and forcing taxpayers to pay for their desires.
I never expected the government to buy condoms for me and bristle at the audacity that some think we should pay for everything for everybody. There simply isn't enough money.
Damn adults can pony up. If they are old enough to have sex, they are old enough to accept the consequences no matter what they are.
I met you halfway with the idea of paying for the abortion and taking tax refunds to cover the cost, I think that is pretty generous.
Abortion is cost effective
Even more so in Canada where it's covered by Canada's Health Plan and doesn't cost anything.
It's also generally safer and easier than pregnancy and birth.
It's not likely abortion will be important an issue in the 2024 election as it was in 2020 or 2022..
Based on what keen observation?
a popular republican opinion that the demographic representing 51% of registered voters will forget all about it by then...
Nope, a majority of that 51% is like the rest of the world and against the ghoulish practice of late term abortion.
certain demographics using the third trimester excuse, somewhat mysteriously never want to discuss the actual numbers of these procedures, let alone any reason why they were considered necessary by a doctor. I'd post the data, but it wouldn't reach the target audience...
but go ahead anti-choicers, try to spin 50 years of RvW gone into a positive for 2024.
is that worse than forcing an unwanted child on somebody who won't or can't take good care of it ?
Or that trying to take care of it causes all involved to live in poverty or just be unhappy about the situation that an unwanted child causes? Forcing that is a more ghoulish practice.
There are options. For example, there are plenty of people out there waiting to adopt. Over two million families by some estimates. No one is forcing anything.
Our value systems are much different.
options, why should options be limited? why should a woman have to endure an unwanted pregnancy and then be stuck with a child she does not want?
" nobody is forcing anything" Wrong, by denying right to abortion continued pregnancy is forced
My value system favors the real and the living and recognizes overpopulation is the biggest problem on the planet and that that doubling down on a losing hand will lead to other losses
We aren’t going to agree but we are closer than you probably think. Like most Americans I am simply against late term abortion in all but the most extreme circumstances.
The numbers of those types of procedures would have to be infinitesimal, yet the maga'ts claim women want an abortion right up until birth. Stupid nonsense yet that's what the morons focus on.
the number of those procedures performed in the 3rd trimester is around 1% with 99% performed at or before 20 weeks. I didn't look for any data breakdown of the reasons why.
if the bible thumpers and rosary clutchers want abortion outlawed, put them on the total financial hook for the care and education of those they've saved until adulthood, and care for those born with physical limitations, forever.
... but first remove the tax exempt status of religious organizations and the tax credits for their contributors. put a price tag on their morality wars and watch the thumpers hastily retreat.
Churches are tax exempt for good reasons, take it up with your reps. see how far it takes ya
I doubt that was his point.
is the point ever different?
Thumpers, thumpers, thumpers.
Kill.kill.kill.
Accurate summary?
It is known as purposeful commentary.
religion is a business, tax it like one...
Yeah, good luck with THAT!
No way it will happen. Ask your rep!
tax cuts for the wealthy puts everything on the negotiating table.
Ok, what tax cuts are you imagining happening NOW????
Churches are nonprofit entities, and are not taxed on their net income because they don’t have net income. A church has no owners or shareholders to benefit from increases in the value of the entity, to receive dividends, or otherwise to profit from the church’s income stream.
Church employees pay individual income taxes state, FICA and local taxes.
Do you want to tax all non-profits or just churches?
Just churches, thumpers and all, don't ya know!
Just a pipe dream for some, it has been tried and failed every time, thankfully.
[Deleted]
Just churches.
Why, why not universities with their crushing tuition?
WHY? Because progressives largely are in charge of universities and colleges.
Because they turn out the next clueless generation of liberals.
[Deleted] I apologize for previously taunting you, it was unintentional.
[Deleted]
No offense taken.
It also increases child abuse and child abandoment
There was a time about 20 years ago I would have advocated for retroactive abortions.....but they're all grown up now and living on their own dimes
I have a hard time believing that when polling shows that nearly 70% of voting adults approve of and want abortion to be available. I think this will be a losing impact for Republicans as long as they continue to push the extreme restrictions on it.
In this political climate I don't see Congress coming together to make a compromise bill to allow abortion countrywide with some restrictions but I do wish they would pull their heads out of their asses. But we continue to see politicians from both sides continue to reject the good in favor of their version of perfect, all while singing "Party Uber Alles".
I agree. If the Republicans would go for a more moderate position that the majority of the country could live with (15 or 20 week) the issue would go away except for the extreme one issue voter's that want unlimited abortion. I think that is an insignificant number of Americans.
You forgot to finish the sentence.
I believe what you meant to say was:
It's not likely abortion will be important an issue in the 2024 election as it was in 2020 or 2022..because ____________.
(You forgot the word "because" at the end, then followed by mentioning the reason why.)
A dude... telling 51% of the population how they should behave...
Not an issue for SCOTUS. Let the States/People decide. Don’t like what the States decide? Move to a state that you do.
Not an issue for the SCOTUS, not an issue for State Houses. No one is forcing people to take abortion pills.
Wrong, this IS a States issue.
Let the states/people decide how and when their constituents get access to abortion pills. Not a job for SCOTUS and I believe they will say so and not rule on this.
Let the people decide what they want not any level of government
Yep. A state referendum is as close to “the people” that one can get. Nine judges appointed by partisan politicians, is about as far away from that, that one can get.
As I see it, the State governments are shoving their opinions down the people's throats rather than allowing them to swallow what they need.
I'm not understanding your logic. A state government making decisions for me is closer to me than me making decisions for me? Or do you just like the Nanny State you agree with?
The State doesn’t operate in a vacuum. A proposition is drafted up and put on the ballot for the people to vote on. You vote on it. The “people” can’t get more control than that.
Close to the people is letting things be individual decisions, not politicians, preachers or judges or busybodies. .
We have laws for a reason. I’m sure pedophiles think abusing children should be legal but society, at least most developed western society, has decided that isn’t acceptable.
Abortion without limits is an abhorrent practice. There is a reason most countries only allow abortion, without extenuating circumstances, up to the 12 week pregnancy range.
The State governments are elected by those same people you suggest are getting opinions shoved down peoples throats. If people in those states feel that way and the issue is that important to them there is something they can do about it.
Busybodies is really what it all boils down to. No one else's fucking business except the woman and her doctor.
So access to medical car should be up to a public vote?
For public access to the barbaric practice of late term abortion, without extenuating circumstances, yes. Not that much different than a lot of laws that protect those that can’t protect themselves.
Barbaric is to deny access to a common medical procedure to someone who wants it.
What's barbaric about it? Why should there be restrictions on it? Who's actually getting and providing elective late term abortions?
link some overall statistics and the reasons for those late term abortions.
Because the woman changed her mind/S
The answer to that is self evident. As agreed upon by most Americans.
... most americans that want the US to be an unconstitutional theocracy.
So you can't explain it. Duly noted.
Are rights lost by soldiers if restationed or workers if transferred?
Don't be silly. Of course workers transferred have all the rights of any other person in the state they reside in.
Soldiers the same, all the rights of any US citizen.
Generally speaking military personnel are governed by the same state and federal laws as any other US citizen. Just because I can legally drive 75 MPH in Michigan doesn’t mean I can drive 75 in Hawaii.
You don't get it, rights are immutable regardless of where.
Then what was the point of your question?
No, you don’t get it. You never signed a military contract.
Soldiers restationed in another state or employees who transfer within their company to another state are then bound by the laws in that state. It was much more evident when I was younger and in the military as some states set their drinking age at 18 or 19, others at 21.
In keeping with the topic of this seed however, you are under a mistaken idea that abortion is an enumerated right.
Do you realize how abhorrent that is to American families?
Rights to personal privacy, bodily autonomy, are immutable.
How is it abhorrent to people who when they move to another state are then required to live under the laws of that state? It's no different than going to live or visit another country where you must obey the laws of that country. Mostly reasonable people will accept that they have to obey the local laws. Why do you reject that?
Even the federal government doesn't believe that line. Personal privacy? Try telling that to the FBI. Bodily autonomy, even funnier. When people are arrested, they tend to lose almost all body autonomy to the system. You are ignoring reality for a fantasy dream.
Again, abortion is not an enumerated right.
We went to Greece recently and were told to be very careful about what we brought: "Diazepam, Tramadol, codeine and a number of other commonly prescribed medicines are ‘controlled drugs’ so you should always check what the requirements are for taking them into the country you wish to visit, as failing to comply may result in arrest, a fine or imprisonment in many countries, including Greece."
The idea that a person could ignore laws of a country or state is ridiculous at best.
Your beliefs as stated above are abhorrent to voters who have family members who move among states. Who have friends and family in same sex marriages, with adoptions and health conditions that are threatened by your party's outdated inhumane politics!
Could American soldier's families be legally voided when they are transferred from say California to Oklahoma? GTFOOH!
Didn't you already ask that and it was explained that they have all the rights anyone else does?
GTFOOH, indeed.
No, see 4.4.35
My beliefs? You are so wrong in your interpretation on my comment. I stated quite clearly that it's the fucking law, I'm not stating any beliefs in that comment. Maybe you should go back and re-read 4.2.6. When someone is just visiting another state are they bound by the laws of their home state or by the state they are living in?
Show me any marriage that was ever rejected and nullified just because somebody moved or visited another state. Show me where an adopted child was removed from a home when the family went to another state.
They can't show where people lost any rights.
What are you trying to do, ruin the narrative?
Not an issue for government at all
Disagree, as noted.
Do you understand that opposition to abortion will lead to election of politicians who support gun control?
That’s a stretch at best. That said, people that I don’t agree with, get elected all the time. The White House and congress are full of them right now. Did I elect them?
Many voters will now support Politicians who are for freedom of choice, those same politicians would reduce our Second Amendment Rights.
Abortion restrictions will lead to gun restrictions. Just follow the trail of how politicians vote
Two completely different things but I’m confused. Which is it? Are you saying politicians who are for abortion will be against or for gun control?
Look at their positions, politicians who will give freedom of choice on abortion most always support gun control.
As soon as Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade it gave politicians who also support gun restrictions a issue that will give them votes. I saw it coming right then.
Abortion restriction is a losing issue. how much more are you willing to lose? Look at the big picture!
So you are basically screwed. You are pro unlimited abortion. Which by your logic means your gun rights are screwed. Guess you’ve made your decision and so have I.
I need a gun more than an abortion given that I am an old man
I think in trying to keep abortion restrictions it's supporters are going to end up losing other things they support and probably are of greater value
I agree but it does bring up some interesting questions (that I have no answer to). In a national election which group is more likely to get out to vote, the pro abortion group or the pro gun group? Which group is more likely to be a one issue voting block? If a pro abortion pro gun person has a choice which is more important for them to vote for? Same goes for a pro life pro gun control person. Of course where the Repubs are going for a militant anti abortion stand it is obvious they are not thinking about any of this but it is just an interesting thought.
I probably fall semi down the center. I would like a limit on abortion, maybe 15 or 20 week and have no issue with some more gun control like universal background checks, red flag laws if done correctly. Where I live you have to have 8 hours training from a NRA certified gun instructor for a pistol permit. Making that a law may not be feasible but it is a great thing.
You are not alone.
Same here. Nothing radical about that. Most of the world has limits in that range.
I have zero confidence that our government has the intellect or ability to do it correctly so we differ here but if properly done I agree.
A pretty selfish stance considering but noted ….
When I was young my father had me put away enough money just in case I might have to pay for an abortion, but I didn't need spend it on that. later that paid for part of the bar for my wedding.
I never saved money, I paid attention in biology class.
Common sense gun restrictions
Absolutely no one is, "pro-abortion".
" You are pro unlimited abortion."
So? I am pro problem solving.
Up to birth is unlimited abortion.
No other way to put it.
Lucky for you, you weren’t a problem that needed to be solved ….
If that was so I would never known,
" you weren’t a problem that needed to be solved …".
And that's why I am here
Profound and yet not germane to the fact that you exist simply because it was decided you weren’t a “problem.”
The woman gets to make that call, ain't nobody else's business
We disagree. No more need be said on my part.
who do you let make your health decisions?
yeah, that's what I thought...
" Move to a state that you do."
Do you want that to apply to gun rights too?
Have you heard of the second amendment?
That happens to be federal …. Next …..
Pretty sure Charger’s point is that moving the 2nd amendment gun right to state law would be as problematic as state-specific abortion right laws. He was, I think, trying to illustrate the problems of having abortion right law vary per state.
Imagine people's marriages and adoptions being rendered void just because they were transferred or moved. The idea that gun rights could be voided by a move across state lines is unimaginable to the far right and yet they had no problem at all with voiding women's reproductive rights. Do you really think they would hesitate to void same sex marriages and adoptions in red states if they only could?
Why would the 2nd amendment get moved to states rights.? It’s already in our Federal constitution. Abortion has no such specific mention in our constitution and easily falls under a states rights issue.
Huge difference constitutionally no matter how hard people here will try to rationalize that it is not.
you explained it better than I could.
To me, Abortion rights are right there with 2nd Amendment rights. And my strong support for the right to bear arms not being infringed upon is well documented here.
Being secure in your person is listed in the Constitution
What of unenumerated rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness?
Exactly.
What about them?
they are important, too
Also rights to privacy
That is not the point.
Okay, I didn't know anyone was disputing that.
Can’t define it better than 4.4.4. If folks want a “defined” abortion right, there is a path to do it via constitutional amendment. Until then it is a states right issue.
As far a being secure in your person. When can the unborn be secure in their person? Ever?
Exactly. When are the enumerated rights of the unborn valid?
You said it. Not me. So why would it get moved to a states right from a constitutionally defined right?
Only after they are born
Understood ….. that’s ghoulish in my book.
I fully believe this is a 4th Amendment issue.
Different chapter in my book. Abortion is in the chapter of how to solve unwanted problems.
I fully support your right NOT to get an abortion.
Yes, YOU believe that. However, it is not specifically defined as a right like the 2nd. No need for debate. I doubt we will agree on your rationalization.
I’ve noted your reasoning for that many times here. I hear ya, we just disagree on this justification for making that happen.
Cute but not a logical response.
My rationalization is that what I do with my person is my own fucking business and not some busybody politician with delusions of doing the work of an imaginary omnipotent being.
lol. Good luck with that as you are forced to follow laws every day. The vacuum you want to live in doesn’t exist. Sorry.
That said, I’m all for the freedom thunder-dome you are looking for. Let’s go!
It makes perfect logical sense. Everyone's personal decisions on their health care are their own. Whether they want an abortion or to take horse dewormer, it's not my business. And it certainly shouldn't be up to the state.
So you oppose the fda, and a Return to the anything goes patent medicine era of the the nineteenth century.
I'm aware. I, and millions of others, don't agree this one should be up for debate. HIPPA was built on the foundation of Roe. We are one good court argument away from companies selling our health data to the highest bidder and employers excluding people with health issues from employment.
And that brings me back to personal weapons and that 2nd Amendment you think is sacrosanct... The next SCOTUS court could be uber-liberal and rewrite the decisions to mean only those in The State National Guard can hold weapons and only those provided by the state. OR maybe they can outlaw ammunition as the 2nd doesn't address it. It sounds absurd and it is, but there isn't anything anywhere saying it can't be done. Especially now since this court has ruled precedent no longer matters.
Nope. That's not even a good try.
Of course you don't. You are perfectly happy with government involvement in personal health care. It's funny that the same people who tend to play this card support almost always support "single payer," medicare for all and just about every other governmental takeover of health care that's been proposed for the last 50 years. I don't see any abortion supporter actually argue to get the get government out of healthcare. It's just a pose.
Since you believe legal abortion is a moral good, you borrow any line that sounds good to justify it as logical without worrying about applying the supposed underlying principle anywhere but where you support it's application (abortion). That's all these endless abortion debates are, people arguing over their moral beliefs.
“That's all these endless abortion debates are, people arguing over their moral beliefs.”
And at what point and with what justification should we accept a candidate or a legislature or a court defining what is ‘moral’?
Morality is a subjective construct…when a government intentionally intervenes, the debate devolves immediately from the issue at question into one of control, sans objectivity.
No winners there.
How we as a society pay for our healthcare (The most overpriced and ineffective system accountants could ever imagine) should have nothing to do with our bodily autonomy or patient's rights...
Half the cost of our healthcare system is in collections.
How many people are cured in Business Departments?
Cost of abortion pill? $1.00?
Cost to support one kid through college? Priceless?
More like, "A Million Dollars!"
Umm, we're actually already there. UnitedHealthcare has a huge data mining division they use and sell to other companies. While the information is "deidentified" meaning there should be nothing to directly identify individuals that doesn't mean it's not in the database.
What Will UnitedHealth’s New Trove of Claims Data Mean for Consumers? — ProPublica
It's a called a law. That's what laws are. Murder is "wrong" so we forbid it. Some societies have allowed it, but our collective morals have evolved to make it a crime. The fairest and most just society is that allows people to vote on the laws (moral strictures) that govern them.
ity is a subjective construction.
Of course it is. You are making my point for me. The amusing thing is watching people making objectively moral arguments while pretending to be horrified by the concept of a moral arguments.
States are required to recognize marriages (divorces and adoptions) in other states because of the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution: Article IV, Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
“It's a called a law. That's what laws are. Murder is "wrong" so we forbid it. The fairest way is to allow people to vote on the laws that govern them.”
Of course murder is wrong, as it has denied the victim/victims of their right to life, liberty, et.al…that is self explanatory. If only that idea would be applied to all the innocents who have or could have those rights denied.
And, of course, there is no citizen vote on the laws that are passed, just a vote on those that pass them after the fact. A huge distinction, and of course, you know that.
it has denied the victim/victims of their right to life, liberty, et.al
That people have a "right" to those things is a moral choice. It doesn't take much knowledge of history to understand how rare that subjective belief is.
re is no citizen vote on the laws that are passed
This really has nothing to do with my point, but there are in fact, some jurisdictions that do allow that. But, in our country at least, citizens do have the chance to vote for those who would change laws. Laws are modified or repealed all the time. They aren't sacrosanct.
In the real world, there are at times referendums on new laws that citizens vote on.
The government is already intimately involved with every aspect of health care, and every proposal from the left would make it more so.
Good luck.
Unintended consequences . . .
They still won't 'get it'.
peace and love, or they'll kill you...
as the war against religious cults grinds on...
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
LOL
oh...my...
lol ….. Shock your delicate sensibilities did it? The truth does hurt. Keyboard warriors the most ……
nope
just gives me the giggles
Why should abortion be an exception? I think that should be the case for every legal issue.
If people don't like the opinion of their state on any issue-- they should just move!
(that was easy
)
moving is inconvenient and costs money
Living in my city is more convenient but more expensive. Living outside my city is less convenient but less expensive. Smooth or crunchy peanut butter? Ram or GMC? Paper or plastic ……. Decisions, decisions….
You see, many of the same people who believe in individual rights in unlimited abortion are adamantly against the constitutionally defined individual right to bear arms.
When being liberal becomes a form of psychosis …..
Nowhere are abortions unregulated, especially late term...
Abortions should be legal, save and rare. The way to really reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies is to prevent unwanted pregnancies with sex ed and birth control! Making abortions illegal does zero to reduce demand for abortions!
I strongly support my Second Amendment rights and a woman's right to have abortion whenever she wants
Me, too!
We mountain people like our freedom, don't we?
We do!
In some cases I think it should be mandatory, Norplant or abortion if you were ever adjudicated as unfit as a parent or if you are on public assistance.
At least you are consistent, unlike many here.
Excellent suggestion.
But how do we explain to a new parent that they won't get help but illegal aliens can?
That sounds Nazi-esque - enforced sterilization/abortion/against her will because she dares to be poor.
Senseless to bring a kid into the world you can't afford--unless you are counting on everyone else to pay for that choice.
The productive members of society should not have to support the worthless takers, If you are to stupid to support yourself you shouldn't be able to reproduce, and if you want to reproduce fine, you just don't get to collect welfare monies, Nonody is forcing you to do anything, your choice, free money or little takers.
The entitlement croud thinks you don't deserve the money you earn, or they get to decide what is "enough". the rest needs to go to buy votes.
They shouldn't get help with tax dollars either, and it should be illegal to hire and rent to them, other than as short term vacation.
see comment 4.5.11
Which explains why the gop passes irresponsible tax cuts and spends like drunk sailors whenever they are in power...
Tell me how responsible Biden has been running a $2 TRILLION deficit in what he (and YOU) have described as fantastic times for our economy.
Let me get some popcorn first for this!
That's quite telling and those who voted you up - tells me a lot about your character.
Under capitalism there will ALWAYS be people who need help. It is a feature of the system, not a bug.
[deleted]
Sigh, how hard did you have to try to miss the entire point.
Where the Dems drunk 2008-2016 when they passed:
Making Work Pay Credit and extended the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit
Extended in 2010, the the Bush tax cuts for two years, 2011 and 2012. Created a payroll tax “holiday,” which reduced Social Security payroll taxes paid in 2011, and 2012 and again extended expansions in the EITC and Child Tax Credit for two years.
During those years the national debt leapt from $11.5 trillion to $20 trillion.
Bet big it wasn't even considered or known.
Do you agree if they're on public assistance charger? Punish them because they are poor?
If by punish you mean not forcing taxpayers to pay for their own poor choices in life, then yes, hell yes!
In 4.5.7 I was agreeing with support for both abortion and Second Amendment rights.
With regard to public assistance: Because abortion is cost effective and prevents continuing generational poverty it should be covered and available, especially for those on public assistance. As well as abortion being a part of health care and a basc right.
I don't think rewarding someone for being poor is a good thing
How is anyone rewarding someone for being poor??????????
You nor anyone else knows why anyone is in poverty - one of those things that are nobody's business, right charger?
Not rewarding someone for being poor. . .for pete's sake
Anyone adult enough to bring a child into the world needs to be adult enough to support one.
This isn't rocket science.
Sometimes the reason for being poor can be seen; for example. being born into poverty and into a family with too many kids and not enough resources to properly prepare any of them for success. This can continue for generations
Drug and alcohol abuse, trouble with the law, not working, disability often can be seen, but not all reasons are easy to see,
But if the why they are in poverty is nobody's business, then why should their condition be anybody's business? Can't solve the problem if you don't know the cause
Very good points.
I don't think I said anything about punishing them for being poor, That is bad enough. In response to being asked about punishing them for being poor, I said I did not want to reward them for being poor.
It is impossible to end poverty in our economic system. Everyone in the country could have a college degree and there would still be poverty, because there would be poverty wages. That is what capitalism does.
What system do you want to replace ours with?
Seems obvious we should just adopt one of those systems that ends poverty. Wonder why no one has done that since the creation of civilization.
I dont. I want people to stop complaining about "welfare" and the social safety net, because those things are completely unavoidable.
Why not just stop bellyaching about people on the short end of the stick?
So entitlement growth is forever and more important that other aspects of our budget or debt?
Bullshit. You just don't like the ramifications.
Makes no sense - whether or not the reasons or if you can or cannot see them - people don't CHOOSE to be in poverty so why punish them for making what OTHERS consider bad decisions?
Again, nobody's business, right charger?
Reward them how???????????????????
Much of anyone's situation is a result of the path of their own decisions. They do not directly they want to be poor but go down a path in that direction. I am not discounting luck, health and some other factors
If it is nobody's business does that mean to leave them on their own?
How about free phones?
So that's the only thing you can come up with is free phones?
I think everyone, especially a woman with children, should have a phone. What's your problem with that? Just who exactly is giving out the free phones?
Me, too!
Fortunately, they are sold everywhere all across America and may be purchased online as well!
Things I have buy that my taxes give them
When I was young, I was told nobody owes you a living. and if you want nice things, be ready to work for them.
I fairly certain that you don't have to be a citizen or a permanent resident to purchase them.
Now some want to have nice things as long as someone else pays for them.
Sad.
Who does prohibiting abortion benefit?
Absolutely no one.
The answer to that question is self evident.
Banning abortion benefits no one except. But abortion itself does not have any negative effects on society either.
That’s just your opinion.
An extremely obtuse and narrow minded opinion at that.
What positive befits does banning abortion provide?
What negative effects does abortion have on society exactly?
I can argue abortion is a good thing.
Do you really not understand how the economy works? Out entire economy, particularly governmental programs, is premised on ever increasing economic growth and an expanding workforce. Abortion has already cost our economy trillions of dollars and that's before we hit the type of population implosion that has hurt counties like Japan and Italy and is just starting in South Korea.
People immersed in propaganda about over population are incredibly ignorant about what a stagnant or shrinking population means for our economy. They literally have no clue how much trouble its going to cause everyone in the next couple decades. Granted how selfish most people are, they probably expect to die before the problem becomes acute so they just don't care.
The math is indisputable. Less tax income and less economic activity hurts everyone.
“The math is indisputable. Less tax income and less economic activity hurts everyone.”
A rather irrational argument.
The abortion debate, at its core, is about protecting individual freedom of choice…not about increasing future ‘economic activity’ ?
If you were supporting the ‘economic activity’ provided by potential citizens attempting to flee oppression and legally gain entry into our country, you may have a point.
Overpopulation is the driving factor for climate change.
Things being done to the economy and freedom in the name of climate change are far worse than any effect from abortion and lower population.
Math says total assets divided by less people means more for each individual, quality is better than quantity
Super charged wording doesn’t apply to the issue at hand. Show me where I said abortion should be banned or stop playing word games.
I am the one arguing it should not be banned and you are arguing against me. It sure seems like you want to keep women from having abortions.
I'm not playing games, so to avoid confusion; do you want abortion to be banned?
(also I have to do stuff tomorrow so I need to go to bed now)
A degradation of societal morality.
And I can argue that late term abortion is not acceptable. Most Americans agree with that concept.
I’ve noted my position in several places in this seed. I’ve never said abortion should be banned.
Like most Americans I’m against late term abortion in all but the most extreme cases such as danger to the mother If delivered.
So I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to put words in my mouth.
How is abortion a degradation of "societal morality" exactly? Don't just make empty claims. Explain how. And what is "societal morality?"
Late term abortions are not performed except in certain circumstances, so what's the issue? Neither did I specify late term abortions, but rather abortion in general, which you have not explained how it has a negative impact on society.
Show some credible citation which shows abortion has damaged the economy!
Debating “morality” with most atheists is a fools errand. Especially when it comes to topics like abortion. So no thanks. Long story short, I could really care less about your opinion here so save your sanctimony for someone else who might.
I am sorry if you think I was trying to put words in your mouth, I did not intend to do anything like that.
I see the issue of timing and development getting so far along but:
I think as long as the fetus is inside and still hooked up to the mother's supply, it is a part of her therefor she has control until after it is out and the cord cut. Only then is it an independent person, that now must be given proper care and deserves love.
That’s your opinion, fair enough. However as noted, most Americans disagree with you and are against late term abortion as noted. As am I.
Morality is subjective, irrelevant, and a Strawman argument. Let's see some objective sources or citations wholich demonstrate the harm or negative effects inflicted on society by abortion.
Argumentum ad populum. Provide a rational and legal reason why there should be any restrictions on abortion!
I beg to differ but I’m not the only one:
I suppose now you’re going to say intelligence is subjective and irrelevant.
That's nice. Now, are you planning to provide some objective sources or citations which demonstrate the harm or negative effects inflicted on society by abortion? Or are you going to continue to deflect?
Resorting to Strawman arguments now I see.
... with more bumper sticker cliches.
Not possible. He has none!
You cannot legislate morality.
No doubt. It's a learned thing...
... like the inability of thumpers learning to mind their own fucking business?
... especially amongst themselves.
worship their loving and forgiving god or they'll fucking kill you...
lol
the perfect bumper sticker
I'm not sure what your post has to do with mine or the post I replied to, but if it made you feel better.....
thumper scum that can't mind their own business and think women shouldn't have bodily autonomy.
Obstetrician's and related health care providers, manufacturers of baby food, toys, clothes, etc... Public school employees, universities, etc.
adds to the workload of Police, lawyers, psychiatrists, bill collectors, Judges and courthouse workers, counselors and social workers all who already are overworked.
Might help bartenders
I doubt that and you definitely do not speak for those groups...
Why do you doubt a logical answer?
It wasn't logical.
Of course it was. The question was:
”Who does prohibiting abortion benefit?”
My answer was:
“Obstetrician's and related health care providers, manufacturers of baby food, toys, clothes, etc... Public school employees, universities, etc.”
These occupations benefit from higher birth rates.
No, it wasn't.
I so agree with you.
Your comment reminds me of my third grade playground.
As do the majority of yours
Did not! - Did too!...... LoL
For the people who are anti-abortion and want to increase US population for economic reasons, then support opening the borders and inviting the world's population to immigrate here. Problem solved.
For the people who want to control women's health care and any other aspect of a female's life, I suggest converting to Islam and moving to the Middle East. Y'all's mindset is completely the same as that of the Ayatollah. It doesn't matter if your religious sect has a different flavor - it is still the same mindset that women are not fully functioning human beings that should have full rights to bodily autonomy. The United States does not need to become Iran Lite or the Vatican when it comes to religious zealotry owning the government does it?
For the people who believe that their Christian God has given them a mandate to be the moral police in other people's lives, the term delusional seems to be appropriate because there is nothing in their religious book that bans abortion.
For the people who are so concerned about human life that has never drawn a breath, and can support bombing women and children to death, the term cognitive dissonance might apply, but I see their support of human life being sacred as highly conditional. It seems that only the people like them have lives that are sacred and everyone else is fair game to be dominated or eliminated.
There is no valid reason why the US government should be involved in regulating women's health care any more than it regulates men's health care.
No one in the US should be forced to use their body's organs to support the life of another person for any reason - certainly not for economic and/or religious reasons.
I once said on another forum that the republicans who hold office don't consider life sacred when they keep sending our sons and daughters to war
being sent to your death by self righteous geezus jumpers doesn't count...
republicans are already responsible for the #1 cause of death of children after they're born, guns...
Lies, damn lies and false statistics.
Prove it.
80%+ of americans want sensible gun laws. who in congress keeps blocking them?
The people that realize many, who say they want “sensible” gun laws, aren’t capable of sensible. Still waiting for proof of your claim made in 8.0 above.
"Sensible" means banning guns.
Kind of like "border security" means what Traitor Joe has given us.
Anti gunners don’t have the slightest grasp of the concept of legal gun ownership. Not the slightest …
I'll answer the questions I choose to answer. you're familiar with that type of discussion here, right?
He didn't ask you a question.
what did you think you read?
Yep, just as I thought. No proof. Just more bullshit.
Love your consistency in such matters though.
IMO if the SCOTUS bans the pill, or leaves it to the States where some will ban and some will not, it will be a boon for smugglers, just increasing more crime in the USA. Actually, if American women had any self respect, if those things were to happen, their vote would probably minimize the GoP to the extent that it will take years to rebuild. Even if Joe was in an old folks home in November the Democrats would most likely hold all 3 branches of government.
[Deleted]
" a boon for smugglers, just increasing more crime in the USA"
They can't see that far ahead.
you mean another tax exempt business opportunity...
... like religion.
... and political campaigns.