Top Election Issue for Younger Women Is Abortion, Survey Finds
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Abortion has surpassed inflation as the top issue for women under 30 in the upcoming presidential election, according to a new survey.
The survey, produced by KFF, polled 678 female voters from September 12 to October 1. About 40 percent of young women now prioritize abortion, a significant increase from around 20 percent in the same survey conducted last spring.
While inflation remains the leading issue for women over 30 and overall, younger women have shifted their focus to reproductive rights.
Across all age groups, women ranked abortion overall as their third-greatest concern, after inflation and threats to democracy but ahead of immigration.
Currently, 13 states enforce complete abortion bans, while four others restrict abortions to the first six weeks of pregnancy.
The changes have made access to abortion a central theme in Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential campaign against former President Donald Trump.
Harris has positioned herself as a defender of reproductive rights, contrasting her stance with Trump, whose U.S. Supreme Court appointments facilitated the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
A recent Harris campaign ad featured Hadley Duvall, a survivor of child sex abuse by her stepfather from a young age. Titled "Monster," it highlighted Duvall's struggle to access abortion care in Kentucky during a dangerous pregnancy at age 12.
The survey also indicated that two-thirds of women overall believe the election outcome will significantly impact abortion rights, up from just over half earlier this year. A majority of women preferred Harris' approach, with 90 percent of Democrats supporting her. Fewer than 20 percent of Republican women favored her stance.
Most respondents expressed confidence that Harris would sign a federal law to protect abortion access if Congress passed such legislation.
Many said they believed Trump would likely sign a federal law banning abortion after 15 weeks, despite his recent statement indicating he would veto such a measure.
Ohio Senator JD Vance, the Republican vice presidential candidate, indicated last week that a Trump administration would defund Planned Parenthood.
Tags
Who is online
425 visitors
Abortion has surpassed inflation as the top issue for women under 30 in the upcoming presidential election, according to a new survey.
The survey, produced by KFF, polled 678 female voters from September 12 to October 1. About 40 percent of young women now prioritize abortion, a significant increase from around 20 percent in the same survey conducted last spring.
While inflation remains the leading issue for women over 30 and overall, younger women have shifted their focus to reproductive rights.
I would have thought that American women would also consider the election of a woman as PotUS to be a tremendous boost to their self-confidence that women are as capable as men to be the most powerful person in the world and leader of the free world as has already been proven by women who have led their nations like Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Jacinda Ardern, and others, as well as examples for their daughters that they are capable of such success and not always relegated as not as capable as men. .
Many do-- and that is increasing over time.
And of course there are many who don't . . .
I pity them.
This line of reasoning. . . is also one, again, one of the reasons I supported a relative newcomer to politics like Barack Obama (he did swell too as people adore him after serving and his 'retirement.'). Sometimes people need the DIFFERENCES that can come unexpectedly from other 'talents' sitting all around us. . .but politics is too stupid to let 'try.' Remember this, Barack Obama gave the country great healthcare that is a 'win!' And, Barack's administration policies sheltered the nation through a recession and a rebound (2008-2012). When we don't use the full VARIETY of talent that we have as a nation. . . just because it is safer just to trust and expend the status quo. . . potentially we suffer longer than we should (in ignorance).
If we are as free a nation, bend on MAX liberties (and not just liberties for the 'Select' relative few), then we ought to be open to clearing a path for all good and worthwhile valued persons to serve this nation.
That is what we have been trying to get through the thick-heads of those who fight against PROGRESS!
160 years ago nearly a million people died in an effort to keep equal rights from 20% of the population because of their skin color. now certain groups are attempting to restrict the most basic individual freedom from 51% of americans because of their gender. it's time for the federal gov't to officially identify those groups that have overstepped their boundaries and inflict the full power and weight of all freedom loving americans upon them and re-establish those boundaries with significantly harsher penalties and much stricter regulation on the offenders.
Across all age groups, women ranked abortion overall as their third-greatest concern, after inflation and threats to democracy but ahead of immigration.
Currently, 13 states enforce complete abortion bans, while four others restrict abortions to the first six weeks of pregnancy.
The changes have made access to abortion a central theme in Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential campaign against former President Donald Trump.
Harris has positioned herself as a defender of reproductive rights, contrasting her stance with Trump, whose U.S. Supreme Court appointments facilitated the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
A recent Harris campaign ad featured Hadley Duvall, a survivor of child sex abuse by her stepfather from a young age. Titled "Monster," it highlighted Duvall's struggle to access abortion care in Kentucky during a dangerous pregnancy at age 12.
Being from Canada, where abortion has been sensible and acceptable for decades makes me wonder just how backward so many Americans really are.
I used to wonder as well-- but over time, (unfortunately) I've gotten used to it. After all my two female cousins on my Mother's side are childless cat ladies.
Whoops-- my mistake-- one is not actually a "Childless Cat Lady" but rather a "Childless Dog Lady". (But her "Childless Cat Lady" sister makes up for it by having not one but two actual Pussycats! )
P.S: Neither is a Taylor Swift fan (they like her a lot but neither is a giant fan of her music)
LOL She better keep those "pussies" away from Trump.
Heh!
There's an olde saying:
There's no cure for "Stuck on Stupid"!
President Donald Skroob after loading the supreme court with conservative Christian fanatics who killed Roe...
"Why didn't somebody tell me my ass was so big?!"
It's quite normal for a big ass to have a big ass.
Well you've been on NT a while-- I'm assuming that you're beginning to realize . . .
The nice thing about being on NT is that we are able to be exposed to different kinds of people-- to learn about other facts-- and opinions-- that we otherwise wouldn't be exposed to.
So I say lets raise a glass of Vegemite-- turn on the electric Yule log-- and make a toast to the Denizens of The Underworld (before they melt away 'til next year!)
I have known people with an irrational fear of cats. In extreme cases there's even a fear of cute little kittens.
But there's a wise olde saying, advice that perhaps they should heed:
A little pussy never hurt anyone!
The survey also indicated that two-thirds of women overall believe the election outcome will significantly impact abortion rights, up from just over half earlier this year. A majority of women preferred Harris' approach, with 90 percent of Democrats supporting her. Fewer than 20 percent of Republican women favored her stance.
Most respondents expressed confidence that Harris would sign a federal law to protect abortion access if Congress passed such legislation.
In my opinion, if Harris loses, it will be because too many women would rather be and want all women to be Handmaidens (as described in Canadian author Margaret Atwood's novel A Handmaid's Tale) rather than have and support rights that are equal to those of men.
It's best left to the states.
in fact, here in Colorado it's on the ballot as Constitutional Amendment 79
It's also on the ballot here in Arizona to amend the State Constitution to allow for abortion.
Personally however I dislike this return to the 1960's with a patchwork of laws around it. I would rather that Congress (which is the correct body, not the courts) would pass a law on abortion. Find a compromise that everybody can live with and go with that. Yeah, I know that the extremists have taken over Congress and the odds of any sort of compromise on this is very slight.
That's a more common-sense attitude, Snuffy, but unlikely to happen.
Roe/Casey was the compromise, both figurative and near literal middle ground. But anti abortionists were never satisfied with that. So it's unlikely a federal law to the same effect will be passed.
O...M...G ! ! !
An excellent post from Snuffy.
Flabbergasted!
Unfortunately there is no decision that everyone can live with, ever. That’s the curse of politics. How do you compromise with a contingent that says life begins at conception?
What the compromise ought to be is for some conservatives to mind their individual business. Nobody has affected some conservatives one way or the other with their body, healthcare, or abortion. These are people looking over somebody else lives and passing judgement on their healthcare choices or direction for their future.
And in congress, we have red-state officials sitting on their damn hands, dragging their political feet, or 'dug in' on obfuscating passage of good policy healthcare for girls and women. That should be INTOLERABLE.
But, apparently, some conservatives can get away with it.
Come on, a compromise in politics means that everybody gets a little of what they want but don't walk away fully happy as if they get the whole pie. You continue to only blame one side. Why don't you also blame Harris who has stated she's not willing to compromise at all on abortion? She refuses to accept any compromise on religious exemptions.
If you're not willing to make any compromise in politics, then it seems rather obvious to me that you're planning to get much done. That also should be intolerable. I made a post quite a while back where I laid out what I thought was a compromise that would give something to both sides and allow for a federal law to pass but nobody wanted to discuss it. Everybody who responded to it (from both sides) could only bitch about how much "they" were giving away and that it wasn't any good. With this sort of attitude about all that can be said is just fuck it cuz this patchwork of laws is the best we're gonna get.
From your post it's obvious that some liberals can get away with it also.
Bit of hyperbolic and 'expansion' going on in your comment. Ms. Harris stated in the interview you posted, that she would not engage in hypotheticals. We, whom are old enough to know, understand (and accept) that each hypothetical in actuality can be 'studied' and considered under its own way. . . in a negotiation. That has not been the position of some conservatives (who pushed until they 'found' Crooked Donald and Chief Justice John Roberts to KILL the federal law on abortion.)
If Crooked Donald and CJ Roberts court had not removed Roe vs. Wade. . . we would not be having this conservation about compromising. At the end of the day, . . . Roe vs. Wade was about privacy. . .that privacy being for individuals. . . and it placed no DEMAND on any conservative to have an abortion. It simply asked for some conservatives to allow women to protect themselves, their bodies, and their health individually up to and including an individual choosing of aborting.
What is the full context of the statement. No compromise. What is the potential compromise in question. V.P. Harris explicitly stated she would not accept a reporter's/reporters' questions about hypotheticals. That is, an interview is not a negotiation strategy.
Incidentally, that Fox News 'joined' a 26 seconds or so segment of V. P. Harris speaking to approximately 5 minutes and a half of Catholic spokesman giving commentary on her 26 seconds says it all about the bias involved. (I refused to listen to the spokesman beyond the opening 'sound' because he told a lie right off the bat. . . that V.P. Harris wants to set the stage to jail Catholics).
we had that already, but the self righteous weren't satisfied with it, and now wish to impose their religious dogma upon others in violation of the constitution.
No, we had a ruling out of SCOTUS that even RBG said was bad law and a bad decision. The religious didn't like it and wanted it overturned for many years but they are not imposing their dogma on others. All the SCOTUS ruling did was send the issue back to the states where the individual voters can determine what the states do. Unfortunately, it can take a lot of time for the citizens to make the changes to the state legislatures in order to get the outcome they want.
The compromise I talk of is for Congress to work out so that the law is made. But as I also said, the extremists have control so I doubt that a compromise can be found. Hell, even Harris has said that she would not compromise on abortion.
Compromise is how business gets done in Washington so if nobody is willing to compromise nothing gets done.
Good grief man.
I'm not sure whether it implies here or not-- but there's an olde sayin:
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
and:
Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut!
That is exactly what they are doing - making medical decisions for women based on what they want to believe their scriptures say.
I honestly don't know how you even bring yourself to type this out and believe it. Taking medical treatment off the table for women absolutely is imposing their dogma upon them, no matter how they go about doing it.
No, not at all. Roe v Wade was an acceptable standard.
The overturning of Roe v Wade did not outlaw abortion, it did not take medical treatment for women off the table. It sent the determination of it back to the states.
But the pounding on the topic from the democrats has reached new heights I'm afraid. I was listening to the Harris campaign event up in Michigan today, well at least parts of it while I was in my car. She was saying that the overturning of Roe v Wade had endangered ALL gynecological medicine for women, warning that women are at risk of dying from uterine cancer due to this. That's utter bullshit.
This will eventually all even itself out, I have no idea how long that will take however. The State of Arizona has a ballot proposition this election cycle to add abortion rights to the state constitution. And from what I see it stands a very good chance of passing. But I'm very confident that if the religious right had as much power as you imply they do, then abortion would be outlawed completely in all 50 states. The simple fact is that it's not.
As I said above, I would much rather that the issue be settled by Congress but due to the extremists that doesn't seem likely. So it will take time for the people in the states to elect representatives who will push to settle the matter at the state level.
Where the religious right did exactly what you're saying they don't do.
But hey, when you want to defend them, it's ok to say black is white, up is down, and imposing one's religious beliefs on others is NOT imposing one's religious beliefs on others.
And if some women die or are disabled because they can't get needed medical care, gynecological or otherwise, well, that's just the price they pay for being women who are definitely not having others' religious beliefs imposed upon them.
Yes, these women are obviously choosing to have their lives endangered voluntarily by embracing the dogma of others, and are definitely NOT having that dogma imposed upon them.
Exactly.
Please indicate what area of the V.P's Kalamazoo, MI speech mentioned this. I know that Michelle Obama spoke before Harris in a long speech and since you stated you were in your car. . . it is impossible to confuse voices. . .unless you have video somehow. Please clarify and 'identify' the context surrounding the quote (above).
Roe was an imposed compromise. It "satisfied" most people because they wanted a solution, even a bad one.
Roe had no justification. It set an arbitrary time limit, with no scientific or medical justification. A compromise between "want longer" and "want shorter", that could never really satisfying either camp.
Of course, neither camp does a decent job of justifying their position, either.
IMNAAHO, we need a far better expression of a human being's development from conception to adult. At what point does society make a promise to care for a new human until adulthood?
As I said, I was in the car listening to it. It was definitely Harris speaking at the time but I could not tell you where in her speech it was in as I didn't hear her entire speech. She was talking when I started the car and was still giving her speech when I got back home. All I can tell you is it was when she was talking about abortion and reproductive rights.
Well said.
Which is kicking the can down the road and bullshit. It should be Federal and a mandate, if that is the correct word. It's ridiculous that each state has to go through this.
Are state legislators not elected officials? Is there a state out there that is actually being run by a church? You choose to blame dogma as this matter does have religious backing. But are the people pushing these laws really any different than any other group that pushes laws that they want regardless of what the majority of people want?
Yes, people can have strange ideas and there are those when elected to office will attempt to impose their beliefs rather than follow the law of the land and try to represent all the people. That's why I said it will take a long time for this to balance out. Polling shows that the vast majority of the voting public supports some type of abortion and eventually there will be better people elected into state legislatures to make the changes the people want.
For the three links you posted, yes the stories are heartbreaking. But they also show the ignorance of people. In the case of the 14yo all that really needed to happen was for the pharmacy to review that the patient had been receiving this medication for some time before and a call to the doctor but they didn't bother to do that. Failure on the pharmacy. They didn't understand the law and they used it to cover up poor customer service.
The other two highlight the problem where doctors and hospitals don't understand the laws. There is nothing in the laws that prevent emergency care and the medical providers definitely failed to do their duties under their oaths. They instead chose fear. IMO not understanding what is in the law is not having dogma imposed but a failure to understand the law. At least you didn't attempt to use Amber Thurman in your argument as that's been fully shown to be a failure of the medical providers and not an issue with the law.
I don't agree with the laws, especially the very restrictive ones where it bans all abortions after six weeks. It will take time however for the states to correct their excesses in this matter.
Roe set it at "viability" and the majority of Americans agreed with that position.
It was a bitter religious minority that chose to kill that rational position. While I agree that "viability" has a range of time and with increased medical technology viability (being able to survive outside the womb without the assistance of the mother) had been pushed back from 24 weeks to around 21 weeks in some minds, just because you have a single baby, Curtis, who survived at 21 weeks 1 day, his twin sister died the following day so I think claiming 21 weeks as the "viability" date would be premature.
The fact is this is NOT something that should be left up to the States. That's as stupid and uninformed as claiming slavery should be left up to the States. This has to do with every single womans right over her own body and if a State rules that a woman has no right over her own body then it's not much different than slavery. A fetus is part of a woman's body until it can survive outside the womb without the assistance of the mother, THAT is when society can get involved and "promise to care for a new human until adulthood".
Of course, even that claim is bullshit since most conservatives fight tooth and nail to not have to pay shit for babies once they're born. They fought SNAP, they fought funding for pre-school and other child education programs, they fought funding for childcare, they fought funding for children's health care, it's clear they don't give a shit about kids after they're out of the womb.
Yet Harris wants it until birth.
I'm not sure that Harris supports abortion up until birth as she so far doesn't seem to want to talk about any limits. but as a senator she did oppose a bill that would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. But it's not clear exactly what in the bill she was opposed to as she hasn't to the best of my knowledge really talked about that.
Bullshit. She wants Roe back or its equivalent passed through congress. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yeah, because that's well before "viability" which was the standard in Roe.
Lol. She can't name a restriction on abortion she would support. She will not name a cut off point beyond which it's not acceptable to kill the baby unless the mother faces severe health risks. The codification she supports allows abortion until birth upon the word of a nurse, for any reason, such as the mother is stressed.
roe allows abortions until birth. If you read the companion Doe case, you'll see the exceptions in Doe swallow the so-called fetal viability cut off in set in Roe. The exceptions swallow the supposed rule.
One of the more enlightening moments on this site was about this.
I was attacked by someone for pointing out that the incredibly broadly defined health exception in Roe (which even includes things like stress) allow abortion until birth.
got called the usual liar things.
Then I pointed out that an abortionist testified to Congress that ALL pregnancies create a health risk to mothers.
She said "that's absolutely true"
She was still unable to put two and two together.
You're trying to tell us all that the religious right is not doing what they're actually doing by hiding behind the manner in which they are doing it. That's dishonest. However they're managing it, they're imposing their dogma upon others, which is what you falsely say they're not doing.
That boils down to defending the endangerment of women, by defending the manner in which that endangerment is accomplished.
Or, you know, they could, if there were no law preventing it, have just dispensed the prescription as written. The problem is a bad law, not ignorance of that law. Pin the blame where it belongs.
Sure, because doctors should also be lawyers, and hospitals are renowned for hiring stupid lawyers. Again, it's a bad law that's the problem, not ignorance of the law.
How many women will have to have their lives or health endangered before they "correct their excesses"?
Complete bullshit. This is just another fantasy created by bitter religious bigots. It's right up there with Democrats eating babies. Qanon much?
'until birth' and after - is what the lying scum former 'president' keeps saying and it's unreal that anyone believes it. It's fucking nuts.
[deleted][✘]
Well it does bear out in the speeches below that it was NOT Vice-President Harris doing the speaking about Roe vs Wade and uterine cancer but Michelle Obama did speak on it.
I am posting both videos for EDIFICATION, communication, and understanding:
V.P. Harris speaks about reproduction at 18:00 minutes in the video: (I listened to it for you, but feel free to listen to all of it too! Even speed it up using "Settings"):
FULL SPEECH: Harris campaigns in battlegroun Michigan I LiveNOW from FOX
Michelle Obama speaks about reproduction at 26:00, 28:00, 30:00 in the video below (she says what you attribute to V.P. Harris.)
FULL SPEECH: Michelle Obama rallies for Harris in Michigan
We can all stand to listen to the speeches again, even sped-up. Especially Michelle's because she hit on some hard commonsense causes for why girls and women need the men in their lives to stand up for the girls and women in their lives RIGHT NOW.
I have done the work of finding and supplying the videos of the speeches and even pointing to the 'answers' to the question asked. It's the best anyone of us here can do.
Finally, let me say this. Michelle Obama's speech strikes the subject of female healthcare at it's core. It's worth a second listen. . . which I just did to provide the 'highlights' that I listed above. I don't usually listen a second-time to speeches and such. This time it was so worth it!
No one is pro-abortion. We are pro-choice. The republicans don't want women to have any choices or even the morning after pill. They aren't pro-life, they're anti-choice. They're anti-minding their own business.
They'd also rather have bibles in classrooms and the 10 commandments rather than feed children.
Okay?
Bob, I am not sure what point you are making. Please be clear.
Extreme premature babies are "viable" with intensive care and sophisticated machines. Newborns are not "viable" without close surveillance and care. So "viable" is whatever you want it to be.
IMNAAHO, "viable" is just a buzzword that camouflages the fact that most people don't really understand what they're talking about.
Practically no one ever explains why "viable" is significant. It's kinda like a "consume before" date: what happens on that date that renders the food dangerous? What's the difference between the day before "viable" and the day after?
Roe was a compromise that let most people simply stop thinking about a complex topic. That's not a good basis for law.
What is the argument against allowing abortion until birth?
Also, I think you stated you are conservative but not a Trumpist or Trump voter. I would suggest to you that the only path to getting back control of the GOP by mainstream conservatives is to not support the man at its top or his policies which seek to knock and lock out other conservatives from their own party participation (unless 'they' conform).
So what you are then saying is that the majority of voters in the states that have abortion restrictions are part of the religious right? Because the state legislators are still elected officials. May not like it but according to our history, it's still the decision of the electors of the states to elect those legislators they want to see in office. And if the legislator does not work in the manner the majority of the electorate wants then they will elect a new legislator in the next election cycle.
That's just insulting as you ignore everything else I've typed about not liking the situation, my past support of abortion rights and my belief that the electorate will modify who they elect in future cycles. I know this is an emotional issue but there's no reason to insult me. I've tried to keep this discussion civil.
Sorry but I disagree. I don't like the law but the issue in this case was not the law itself but ignorance and terrible customer service from the pharmacy. Or possibly the pharmacist themselves had a major issue with abortion and decided to use their limited power to try to make a point. I don't know as I'm not in the mind of the pharmacist.
Doctors are not lawyers and don't need to be, but hospitals do have lawyers. And I would love to see your evidence that they hire stupid lawyers because I've worked in health care systems for the past 40 years and from my experience hospitals hire very good lawyers. They have to thanks to the malpractice issues they have to defend and our legal system that allows people to file suit for any reason. In the case of the abortion laws, it's obvious that the hospital lawyers did a horrible job in laying out all the issues pertaining to the law and didn't properly educate the hospital staff. Add in that the majority of ER doctors are not employed by the hospital but are part of outside groups that contract their services to run the ER for the hospitals. Those outside groups, as these stories show, have not done a good job in reviewing the laws and educating their doctors.
That's two-fold as first the time needed needs to include election cycles. The other piece of it is for groups to take the law to court to gain an injunction. Ohio did to halt the six week limit law that Ohio passed.
Thanks. For what it's worth, Michelle Obama over the radio did sound a lot like Harris. My mistake and thanks for providing this.
What is the argument against allowing abortion until birth?
The same as the one against the taking of a life a minute after birth. The intentional taking of innocent human life is wrong.
Nothing magical happens when you move a baby a few inches down the birth canal. The baby is the same human.
I'm actually a registered Independent so I have even less voice in the GOP. I left the GOP years ago because they as a party moved too far to the right. I vote the person rather than the party and this year I didn't vote for the President or the Senator seat because nobody in those two questions were worth my vote. My voting this year was all down-ticket items.
And for those who bitch about not voting for president, my vote is my choice.
I don't think Roe was a good decision... but neither do I think there's a better one on the market. I believe that most people have opinions on abortion that are largely emotion-based.
We don't have an accepted vocabulary on the topic. There‘s s-o-o-o much intellectual dishonesty. Lots of people don't understand their own positions.
We need to have conversations from multiple starting points, without drawing conclusions until there is agreement on underlying questions such as "what is a 'person'?".
There are enough to put into place politicians who they know will restrict abortion rights. Politicians who run on restricting abortion rights.
Let's test this on another right, and see if you still think it's not imposing dogma on others. Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that we're talking about voting rights for Black citizens. Lets's say a sizable portion of Caucasian citizens don't want Blacks to have the right to vote. So they vote into place politicians who run on restricting Black votes. And Black voters end up being restricted from voting, either banned outright, or by the placement of so many obstacles that they realistically can't vote. You know, things that have actually happened, in regards to Black voters and abortion.
Have those Black voters had a dogma imposed upon them?
Of course they have. Same as women who need or want an abortion, but are prevented from having one.
The fact that it was done by way of the vote is irrelevant.
They believe they should have the right to vote (or to have an abortion), but are prevented from doing so by the political ideologies of others (white supremacist voters and politicians, or anti-choice voters and politicians).
The tyranny of the majority is still the imposition of dogma.
Then stop defending the situation as not being what it clearly is.
You clearly missed my sarcasm. It is not me that thinks that hospitals are hiring stupid lawyers. You are the one saying that the hospitals (who have lawyers on staff advising them) don't know the laws regarding abortion.
You have no preference on who becomes PotUS between Harris and Trump? All things considered, you do not see how Trump is unfit for office while Harris is a normal D candidate?
We have had D presidents before. This current manifestation of Trump, empowered by the legal immunities granted him by the SCotUS, is dangerous. How can anyone not recognize that a vindictive, loose-cannon, narcissist traitor who has demonstrated that he will use the powers of the presidency for himself rather than the nation should never be allowed such power?
Harris, in contrast, will be limited in power and will treat the presidency as a duty rather than as a powerful tool to do personal bidding.
Abortion should not be a public policy consideration. That is, if a girl or woman does not wish to have an abortion . . . then don't. End of argument.
This reminds me of the 'argument' that for a long time effectively allowed for mistreatment, cancellation of rank and service for LGBTQ people in the military:
Blackmail was a convenient 'argument' for some conservatives to use to take away military CAREERS and all the support and security such service could provide for a lifetime to heterosexuals.
But it turns out the whole concern over LGBTQ being at risk for espionage (spying) was erroneous and based on ethereal nonsense. Because all the military had to do was remove the classification of homosexuality as a disorder. . . and, the problem vanished into thin air.
It was some conservatives using a 'slick' talking point to put in place policy that affected and many times DESTROYED, RUINED, AND EXCLUDED good men and women from serving and BENEFITTING in and from the country they lived in and love.
The same thing is occurring with abortion. Some conservatives are involving themselves in the lives of girls and women who do want and may need the healthcare that comes from and with abortion, but we have some conservative men, women, and in some cases children INTERFERING by blocking their path to receive it.
The problem could be 'easily' resolved if some conservatives would mind their own business. In the case of abortion, that means some conservatives just don't have one.
I am NOT pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. There is a BIG difference that dishonest fucking liars refuse to admit but that's on them, not me.
That is the very definition of those claiming Democrats want abortions "until birth and after" as has been repeated by the father of lies newest herald dirty Donald.
That would be funny if it wasn't do damn hypocritical and false.
Yes. Yes, it is. And what's even more sad is that the ones carrying water for one of the most prolific liars in history doesn't even realize they're talking about themselves.
Then the majority of voters in that state are in favor of abortion rights. Would you deny states rights because you don't like this particular law?
Big difference here. The 15th Amendment. Blacks voting is codified in the Constitution by the 15th Amendment. You want to give abortion the same rights, reach out to your Congressman to start the process for a Constitutional Amendment. Laws passed by Congress can be changed, a judgement by SCOTUS can be overturned. Only way to make it permanent is a Constitutional Amendment.
I'm just gonna end right here as you appear to want to continue to insult. You can have the last word, I won't bother to reply. You have a nice day.
Almost exactly the same except in one argument there is a fetus and some see it as developing moral standing as it develops.
In any case, the GOP conservatives should have a problem with trumpists who have supplanted them in leadership of that party. As (some) conservatives, you should want your option in the GOP back! As it stands right now the conservative WORLDVIEW is taking a back seat to trumpism/trumpist populism-that limits the collective you.
This election is a 'golden'. . .may be even a final chance (seeing that trumpists have a strategy to lock other conservatives out who won't 'tow the line) to strike at the heart and soul of trumpism. . . and once again some conservatives are 'missing in action' from the field! Go figure!
Slavery was a states' rights issue, or so we're told.
Afterall, it continues to be a some conservative talking point that economic debt is a form of slavery (see Senator Rand Paul; Representative Majorie Taylor Greene), well an additional, or several, new child/ren in a household is more reason to be deeper indebted. And, by the conservative 'argument' - a slave.
Some conservatives simply want what they 'want' from this country. . . whether it progresses or sets-back the country as a whole.
Exactly. It is clear that some conservatives place IDEOLOGY over reality in practice. Even so, there such conservatives are being inconsistent because many of them speak about the 'coming apocalypse, ("end times") and yet they still want the country to cater to an ideology which seeks a version of its own unachievable by some conservative standard: Perfection.
Get a grip on what you 'want' - nail it down - some conservatives. policy prescriptions and proposals are scatterbrained. That is, all over the place!
Do you really think they are "pro-abortion"?
Don't you realize that they are not actually for abortions-- but they are actually supporting is being "pro-choice"?
Well, I don't see a link to this fact you asserted. I won't simply accept any trumpist word for it anymore than apparently trumpists will accept any nurse's word about babies and abortion.
BTW, direct us to the trumpist abortion compromise statement. Clear that up for us, one second. . . okay, proceed. . . .
ealize that they are not actually for abortions
why do you think those that call themselves pro abortion are lying?
"Scattterbrained"?
Are you by any chance misquoting Genesis 11:8?
So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
(KJV)
This comment is superfluous and lacks a point, in my opinion.
why do you think those that call themselves pro abortion are lying?
But why are you making so many assumptions about the meaning of what other people say?
direct us to the trumpist abortion compromise statement
Lol. What does that even mean? you make up a word and then demand this made up group issue a statement?
Returning it to the states is a compromise that allows people to choose the laws they live under is a compromise and actually pro-democracy. . A 15 weeks ban is a compromise. A viability ban (an actual one, not a "wink, wink" ban) would be a compromise. There are any number of these type of proposals out there.
Where is the Democratic compromise? Abortion until birth and no care for babies that survive an abortion is not a compromise.
What assumption about people who call themselves pro-abortion am I making when I call them pro-abortion?
Well, obviously that's one of the risks one takes when posting on social media . . . .
[deleted][✘]
This is why it's so pointless to argue with the anti-abortion crowd. Their quasi religious responses are so often devoid of any logic and just hysterical attacks on straw men of their own fevered imaginations. They can't handle divergence from their rigid belief systems so they revert to name calling and falling back on their hackneyed stereotypes. Very Sad.
You believe a comment explaining how Roe, when implemented under the rules set forth in its sister case of Doe, permits abortion until birth is superfluous to this discussion?
Okay...
Roe vs Wade was a court decision that sought to solve an unfortunate and in many cases indefensible position girls and women were being put in simply because of some boy's or man's "accidental" placement of his forgive me, 'cum.' Because in many cases, he was not intending to 'seed' anything that would grow into a life of its own. Call it what it is.
People 'fought' over this 'displacement' of life in the 'belly' of girls and women. As girls and women found themselves invariably trapped, 'suffocating,' or suppressed by bringing an 'accidental' child/ren into a world where its now 'mother' had no true desire to want it, at-known love it.
Do not impugn the 1970s court's honest attempt to provide a difficult 'breakpoint' as a compromise to the violence that was occurring in the lives of 'newly-minted fertile' girls accosted by boys and men who otherwise were not seriously interested in their female sex 'partners.'
If we are going to talk about this then let's get 'down and dirty' about it and get on with it.
To paraphrase Churchill, Roe was the worst possible decision... except for all the others that have been tried.
The Court did its best, but a decision without scientific or medical justification was bound to be overturned. We don't have enough common understanding to allow a good decision.
Why do the religious and conservatives among us have to get down to the most rare moments in someone else's life and feel compelled to pass laws forbidding it?
I have witnessed hundreds if not a thousand live births and not one of those women asked to kill their child(ren) after delivery. Nada, zero. Every woman knew what their options were and were presented with information on Safe Haven and Baby Moses Laws or actual adoption agencies or government agencies were on board to further guide them.
The whole idea that a political or religious group is somehow in favor of aborting fetuses at 9 months is insulting to the entire health care industry which rigidly applies state and local laws each and every day in our patients relatively short trip between life and death which we deal with every day. People of all walks, ages, religions or political persuasions sometimes choose abortion; it's personal and none of our business.
Maybe in a perfect world where every live birth results in a perfect child. In reality people are sometimes faced with seemingly impossible heart wrenching options which include just not making any hysterical efforts to keep alive something that will not survive or even know it's alive.
That is an arguable position as research has indicated that natural births have better outcomes than C section babies. The trend in OBGYN is to let the patient experience more labor and natural childbirth over the quick and easy methods. There are apparently several physiological benefits to being forced down the birth canal under great pressure before popping out into zero pressure.
You're welcome.
Why do progressives think they have the right to take human life?
Progressives regulate all aspects of life. Why is protecting innocent human life so anathema to them?
nd live births and not one of those women asked to kill their child(ren) after delivery. Nada, zero.
So what?
I've spent thousands of days in school. I've never seen a school shooting. Does that mean they don't exist?
There are laws against all sorts of rare events.
hat a political or religious group is somehow in favor of aborting fetuses at 9 months is insulting to the enti
But they are. If it's no big deal, why the refusal to admit it?
Maybe in a perfect world where every live birth results in a perfect child
The child's condition rarely has anything to with abortions.
any hysterical efforts to keep alive something that will not survive or even know it's alive
What does that have to do with killing perfectly health fetuses capable of surviving outside the womb? Morver, we perform life saving actions all the times even though they only have a chance of working.
sition as research has indicated that natural births have better outcomes than C section babies.
but the baby, itself, is the same right before and after birth. It's biologically the same.
You are using a snuck premise in your comment. Fetuses are not babies. Fetuses are human, which effectuates the complexity for the issue of aborting. The issue is inflammatory enough without any 'flamboyant' misuse of words as a form of 'exploitation' and 'expansion' of a talking point.
Do supply us with a definition to begin.
Roe was not a good decision it was a compromise-sacrifice - justified by birth deficiencies in the womb or 'inadequacies' in the girls or women finding themselves in a predicament of needing or 'wanting' such a thing to happen to them. That is, some girls and women present with a problem. . . one for which science has supplied a medical-grade solution, but some take a position that a moral 'solution' should be held over a medical one.
Whoosh.
I would say there goes your last bit of credibility, but that ship sailed years ago.
Comic books are the stuff of fantasy.
After Roe's limits it was almost always the case.
And therein lies the real fantasy. Every healthy, even semi viable fetus delivered after 21 to 24 weeks triggers that state's laws to ensure that child's survival and herculean efforts to get that child to a point where they can go home. Once delivered, the parents have no say in it. They can abandon or surrender the child. It happens about 4,000 times a year.
No it isn't. There's probably too much space and not enough time to relate to you about how many things change when a mammal gives birth. The child goes from being entirely dependent upon the mother to having a multitude of serial changes necessary for that child to survive outside the womb, entirely dependent on others for temperature control, feeding and cleaning. Biologically the child has just made the same leap that hundreds of millions of other mammals have made for millions of years. One difference is that at some point in time the human child will be accosted by tribal, religious and political nonsense trying to convince it that their beliefs are better than other human beings' beliefs.
Indeed, the whole point of leaving the British empire was because a king's policies were making for large grievances for people under his power, control, and influence without any proper means of 'relief.' It is expressly why our system (though it leans conservative inherently, that is, slow to implement change) thought it best not to have a king or a "king-lite" - thus we ignored the "unitary president theory" as impractical in a representative government where everyone -including all leadership is subject to rule of law.
That is, we ignored the unitary president theory and placed emphasis on the representative democracy aspect of our government authority. But that points out why it is important for all the branches of government to do their jobs, because when they do not perform. . . people, and in this case, the courts look around in other 'groupings' for a solution to abdicators of their duties and responsibilities - now leading to the "all-powerful" president.
In furtherance of definitions, we need to agree (or have an understanding) on what is a "nuclear family." (Some 'settle' it as being: two adults, two children, and a dog.)
Also, (as I have to run out for a 'minute' on a Sunday) I will drop this here into the 'spirit' of discussion. City-urban families do not have use for family 'growth' excesses. City-life is a much different experience than country/rural living. At a glance one can see that city-life is cramped, hurried, and financially-tight. Whereas, rural life is relatively expansive, slow (by design), and relatively 'eating the abundance of the land, forest, and 'sky.' That is, farms and farmers can use the 'surplus arrows' -which is what the bible metaphorically calls a child/ren. City-life is not conductive, practical, or meant for 'extreme' family sizes (up to 15 or more children potentially).
More on this later. (Just needed to broach the subject right here.)
There are less the two million farms in the USA. How many families of 17 do you know. Rural population growth is much lower that suburban or city growth.
I don't pretend to have a good definition of "person". Two aspects, IMHO, are intelligence and sensitivity. Somewhere in the mix is "capable of solving puzzles and problems".
I would not include "human".
Interesting. Why do you think this is important? Some societies don't have such a thing.
Everyone in the OBGYN division is probably an expert on their states laws regarding abortion compared to the average person. Their licenses and livelihoods depend upon compliance. In my personal experience, lawyers tend to insert confusion as opposed to clarity.
CB: Sandy brings up an important point, albeit 'folded' into the comment. Snuffy, you are right that Blacks do have a constitutional right to vote. That right to vote for blacks and other minorities are justified, but what is not proper or acceptable is the short-term tactics and long-term strategies some GOP conservatives use to make black voting power ineffectual.
And we (all) should know (by now) that in the 'instance' Chief Justice Roberts high court overturned the Voting Rights Act Section 5, southern states began to reinstitute 'games' for who can vote (or not vote) in state elections 'unbothered' by those minorities who would bitterly complain. . .because John Roberts gave them the "A-OK!"
I did not 'know' there were morals to be held in the fetus-state. Please explain 'it" in greater detail—if possible.
No. Scatterbrained. As in their politics of 'want' is inconsistently applied 'all over the place' and is in real need of tidying up!
So MAGAs don't identify with the label "MAGAs" and (now) trumpists don't identify with Trumpism. Begs the question what they want their populism ("movement") to be called by the public. Because as the saying goes: You will be called: "______________________________________" it is the nature of humans to identify/label everything in order to have a more developed conversation and free-flowing discussions!
Are you talking about the SCOTUS decision Shelby County v Holder in June, 2013? I'll admit I'm not as studious on this topic to really contribute well to a discussion around this. And as everybody else I do have my opinions.
For example, I do support voter ID laws. In this day I find it hard to understand how someone would be unable to obtain some sort of state ID.
On the issue of mail-in voting, I would be very upset if they got rid of it. I have health issues that make standing in line for an extended period difficult so it would be a hardship to go to a polling station to vote. I don't agree with what Texas did where they required a mail-in ballot to include the last 4 digits of a drivers license or last 4 digits of a social security number, Arizona does just fine with mail-in ballots without the need for that information. But I don't understand why so many ballots in Texas in 2022 were discarded, I cannot find the answer to why that occured.
I'll do more research into this as I do hope to continue the discussion. But like all things on a public board I'm confident we'll not find any solutions and will have more drive-by sniping than constructive comments by others.
'The Court did its best, but a decision without scientific or medical justification was bound to be overturned. We don't have enough common understanding to allow a good decision.'
That's absolutely ridiculous as far as 'bound to be overturned' and ill-informed as far I'm concerned as far as enough 'common understanding to allow a good decision' - makes absolutely no sense
Some believe:
The moral status of the human fetus makes four interlocking claims, which together comprise the Fetal Life Moral Status Thesis:
(1) life as a human organism begins at the fetal stage of development
(2) the non-organismal life of the human embryo begins at fertilization
(3) the human fetus has intrinsic moral status as a human being
(4) the human embryo has extrinsic moral status as a non-organismal human individual.
The somatic integration definition of human life functions as a premise in two supporting arguments: the Fetal Life
Well, I can easily remind you that like nearly everything in real life—there are always a worthy exception to a RULE. 15 week ban may be 'ok' but not all states would individually agree to it—even if the collective "you" put your SUPPORT for it behind it.
The states were not 'offered' to keep up the pretense of fairness over abortion, for the very reason you see the form/shape/conduct of these same states now. They are 'ransacking' the right of privacy for girls and women. Women, adults already! Moreover, these conservatives are literally suppressing progress in medicine and science along with girls and women. That is stupid, ridiculous, and not to be accepted!
Trumpists-Prolifers don't have a consistent compromise for abortion but are loaded down with meddlesome, tiresome, hodge-podge work of 'concepts' of abortion. The science be damned. BTW, technically-speaking if some fetuses are going to be aborted. . . it does not matter what stage of active developing it is as the science can accommodate the completion of the act.
I do note you failed to direct us to the trumpist abortion compromise statement. Since you didn't I am 'free' to come to my own conclusion- their is no true compromise with some conservatives over abortion as a technique, because said prolifers want to force liberals to do something their freedom in this country should guarantee they don't have to do.
That abortion is a nice, quick, and tidy way to clean up and end a 'drag, down and dirty' problem in the lives of unmarried and married people. There is nothing nice about abortion. . . and therefore, no one is out there looking to get 'dirty' just so they can. . . 'cleanse themselves.' Girls and women are IMPACTED by each and every abortion they have. . .and that impact could potentially begin the very next time (every time) they look into the face of a baby or adolescent child of another. Of course, as mentioned with nearly everything - there are people who are the exception to the rule.
roe [sic] allows abortions until birth. Please point to where in the 'Roe vs Wade' opinion 'threshhold' or 'viability' allows for an abortion up to live birth (and beyond). I believe that you are referring to partial-birth abortion (without labeling it so) - if so, be plain and say so. I am given points for being a mind-reader. So, I don't do it.
Roe vs Wade (i.e. aborting fetuses and the 'like') is complex decision-making, and that 'difficulty' speaks to why Chief Justice Blackmun thought it important to allow for PRIVACY protection under law. . . that is, for the 'individual' to decide when a child/ren ought to issue forth from her womb.
Birthing a 'deliverable baby is not a consensus 'move.' It's a (female) me, myself, and I state of being. Other mothers in nature do it all by themselves! Humans are blessed to have community around them. . . that is, until the community becomes overbearing and turns against them 'wholesale' in which case community is a curse!
Chief Justice opined that the larger question should be this: 'Does the state have a compelling interest in the birth of a child/ren' and 'When should that state 'interest' materialize? Then, he 'split the baby' (reference to what King David proposed a mother and her 'offender' do over a 'disputed' claim of child ownership in the Bible) by allowing for viability (when science of the time pointed out a child could survive on its own if separated from its developmental 'vessel.'
Interesting. . . .
But that is the point! A fetus does not exist in this world because it has is an abstract thing in need of continuous 'kneading together' to at some later point express 'viability.'
Oh and by the way, if Roe versus Wade established that viability occurs at some 'timestamp' inside the womb-taking the life after that determination would invoke the state's demand of what grounds it is done so. And if the state decides its rules have not been violated. . . it should be the end of the matter legally. . . and never a matter for politicians proper.
And I do observe that you are moving the scope of discussion on more favorable grounds for pro-lifers. The "perfect baby outside the womb" (is not a fetus).
[deleted]
[deleted] [✘] Perfectly healthy fetuses capable of surviving outside the womb are aborted all the time. Are you not aware of that?
No it isn't.
Lol. It is exact same organism that it was before it traversed the final few inches and continues to adapt to the environment it find itself in. THe baby itself doesn't change. The idea that birth is some magical departure point is silly. It's one stage of ongoing development that takes about 25 years to complete.
[deleted][✘]
Again, in a rush to 'deliver'. . . something data-ish, the point is glossed over. Don't do that.
I stated, potentially 15 or more children. "Potentially" is the operative word there. Rural life is certainly conducive to having more children as possible (as there is much hard work to go around on the plains and in the 'countryside' and on farms). Deal with that.
Letting fertile girls, boys, women, and men 'stack" children up in apartments and homes in urban areas serves no one but the participants in the exercise (for their private purposes/enjoyment). It will not be an easy thing for impoverished, indigent, families barely making it day by day, and even less so when the expenses roll in at the end of each month!
Oops, there goes 'planning' out the wiindow . . she's PREGNANT again!
It's a familiar term that used to be 'big' and 'heavily in rotation' around the country. As it helps quantify what a family "is" or could practically stand being.
So. . . we need to define it along with "person." My definition of personhood in context of this discussion means: Person: One who can and is existing and free-standing apart from its birth mother.
Complete bullshit. [deleted][✘]
If you carefully read the instructions and followed the letter to the point of sealing the envelope, you found that if you prematurely signed the last signature required spot, the upper part of the envelope now covers half of the signature. The ballot would be discarded for not following the instructions.
They intended voters to sign right over the overlap. I originally signed on the smaller space above flap and when we turned them in person the clerk had me re-sign so the signature extended over both sides of the sealed envelope which made little sense as the ballot had to be signed on the inside as well.
That was the number one complaint, that and there's no way to track the mail in ballot unlike other states.
To my knowledge they did not change anything yet.
Since we can no longer turn them in early and they eliminated automatic mail in renewal, we just went back to standing in line and voting in person.
There they check the signatures on the voter registration card and drivers license against what they have stored on the computer, then flip the screen and have you use a stylus to sign again.
Yes. Shelby County vs Holder 2013. Chief Justice Roberts did that, he did it using that incremental patience he exudes on controversial decisions before the court. Must not rush through taking down liberal precedents all at once!
Excuse me, but what 'some' believe is not essential to this discussion (we all are 'some' believing a great many things about a great many topics and it occasionally gets us somewhere or nowhere at all in discussion).
Important: It's a link which goes to a page with an "Abstract" and a $15 charge to read it. Not happening for me. That said, the collective you can pay for it and post it as a service for the group.
Otherwise, I will have to sadly 'conclude' there is no 'there' there.
So old fashioned. Time-consuming bs in the 'space-age.' Damn it's exasperating to be good in life and always, have some group of 'unrealistics' being accusatory over 'everything' one does just because they want progress to come to America.
Come Progress. . . don't be afraid. . . come to America. Do it! Before America dies of the weight of its own 'Old-age' ideas.
You asked me a question and I answered it. You’re not excused.
It’s a .gov link, I wasn’t charged anything.
I get my ballot signed right (it's already been accepted by the Secretary of State - I get text message on its arrival and its 'count'). But that signing situation is kind of weird as it is the envelop and not the ballot itself that is signed and dated in what appears to me to be 'awkward' way to do it. We seal the flap over the signature and date—it brings to mind some one having to carefully open the enveloping itself to make sure not to tear the signature away.
But so far it has worked out for me for years now. I keep getting confirmation via text message of its coming/receiving/verification/counting each election cycle.
The printout for the page is above the line. There is no other data (read) provided. Exception: Some additional links on the page (". . . .") leading to other articles - but not this one.
Clicking on the link to "it' in the sidebar area produces this:
The moral status of the fetus: Implications of the somatic integration definition of human life
If you have previously obtained access with your personal account, please log in.
48-Hour online access
$15.00
Online-only access
$25.00
PDF download and online access
$59.00
Abstract
This account of the moral status of the human fetus makes four interlocking claims, which together comprise the Fetal Life Moral Status Thesis: (1) life as a human organism begins at the fetal stage of development; (2) the non-organismal life of the human embryo begins at fertilization; (3) the human fetus has intrinsic moral status as a human being; and (4) the human embryo has extrinsic moral status as a non-organismal human individual. The somatic integration definition of human life functions as a premise in two supporting arguments: the Fetal Life Argument and the Fetal Moral Status Argument. These arguments are articulated, objections are considered, and the resulting account of the moral status of the human fetus is applied to the problem of abortion.
All the links are behind a professional 'grade' paywall/s.
I got 'nothing' but a "Some believe" comment with four points that of themselves have no acceptable argument to engage/interact/read. The 'thing' speaks for itself that it is not helpful to this discussion we're doing.
Look at the current situation. 'Nuff said.
I don't understand why this definition is important. Much of human history has not had a "1 man & 1 woman & some kids" basis. Polygamy has been common. Clans have been important.
IMNAAHO, marriage has been important primarily to organize property / inheritance.
I'm not disagreeing. I'm missing your point.
Putting arbitrary declarations in a paper that looks scientific doesn't make them scientific. These propositions have no foundation.
Sorry that it was below your standards. Another attempt:
Interesting article. I assume you noticed that it argues against those four specious points.
I didn't intend to take a side in an argument, but rather answer's CB's question.
Oh.
"Some believe..."
That's a means of presenting.... without taking responsibility. Clever.
Yes a subset of "all".
Somewhere between 1% and 99%.
You nailed it.
That's because we still honor the secret ballot, ie who you vote for is your business and nobody else's. With all the nastiness we see here around who people say they support, I shudder to think just how bad it could be if some small-minded clerk was able to tie people to who they voted for. The signature on the envelope allows for the voter verification before the ballot itself is counted. But it does seem strange to me that the flap seals over the signature as the system would have to carefully remove the seal for verification of the signature and any damage caused by the glue or the paper tearing could make that verification almost impossible. The Arizona ballots have the signature and date block well below the flap so that issue doesn't happen here.
Ok, thanks. So we are on the same page here.
So what are your thoughts on voter ID?
It is not that important or big a deal. Let's move on. . . . (Maybe someone else can interject on the 'nuclear family' aspect at some point). It won't break the discussion to ignore it.
We can't see the paper anyway. So it is moot.
That one opens. However, it will be helpful to have "highlighted" the area to review. (I have no intention of reading a 'treatise' at this time.)
(You can even 'pull out' and quote the area of interest in a comment (the seeder may not mind) if it is reasonably short.)
Interesting observation.
[deleted][✘]
That may be the case with out envelopes (under the flap). It is just that the angle of closing seems close to where the signature line would be. To be clear, closing the envelope covers up the signature line and date. I assume they know what is going on with it (they are the paid experts voter agents).
I am fine with voter ID (as I have 'all' my cards). That said. . . around the country this kind of "id" question blows up! One thing to realize is that if people are telling 'us' they have problems getting their documents. . .we have to hear them out and understand what they are saying. . .because it is not simply sheer neglect but genuine problems in 99.9 percent of the cases. That is, we should not assume laziness or shiftlessness (the 'easy' default and talking point).
For some voters who are (really) old, they have seen their documents deteriorate and while they are still able to function day to day to process who they would like to see in public office . . . they have no clue how to request documents they register as being 50-70 years old from their childhood. Seeing they have moved 'on' and 'away' and are 'disassociated.' And then there are the timeframes for making request. And, similarly for some other Americans who have fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, other Acts of God and so on and so forth.
One thing to keep in mind if if state governments want to make voting ACCESSIBLE for all, then they should not conduct 'business' around voting as if it is a villain's playground. Because, as we can see from the court cases taking place presently, people are PROSECUTED when they are caught committing vote crimes—severely. So it is actually premature to judge good people as bad actors over using a franchise we all are freely allowed to participate in using ONE 'Man' one vote.
Actually there is a way it could happen-- without compromise. (But not in the current election because its gonna be so close).
If there was a tremendous landslide victory for Progressives (the sort of thing that happened under FDR). An election of a Democratic president as well as YUGE Dem victories for control of both Houses of Congress.
That sort of thing is very uncommon-- but the point is that it would be possible in the (unlikely) event that the election was such a tremendous victory for one side.
1936 Election - Electoral College votes, FDR vs Landon
In the election against Landon and a third-party candidate, Roosevelt won 60.8% of the vote and carried every state except Maine and Vermont.
The Democratic ticket won the highest proportion of the popular vote. [f] Democrats expanded their majorities in Congress, controlling over three-quarters of the seats in each house.
The election also saw the consolidation of the New Deal coalition; while the Democrats lost some of their traditional allies in big business, they were replaced by groups such as organized labor and African Americans, the latter of whom voted Democratic for the first time since the Civil War. [184] Roosevelt lost high-income voters, especially businessmen and professionals, but made major gains among the poor and minorities.
He won 86 percent of the Jewish vote, 81 percent of Catholics, 80 percent of union members, 76 percent of Southerners, 76 percent of blacks in northern cities, and 75 percent of people on relief. Roosevelt carried 102 of the country's 106 cities with a population of 100,000 or more.
(The reason I posted this is to illustrate an Election outcome where one party could pass whatever they wanted without the need for compromise .) FDR was elected President four times.
That's because, as you implied....because the religious are so tolerant and accepting of people with different beliefs.
Well as I'm sure you are aware-- some of those folks aren't exactly playing eith a full deck!
(If ya catch my drift...)
Oooops-- my bad!
I "inadvertently" forgot to put in the /sarcasm label!
LOL. Yeah, there could be a landslide win by either side. However with the states gerrymandered as they are, the somewhat equal numbers of Democrats vs Republicans spread around the country and the current political divide of the electorate, somehow I think the odds of aliens landing in Washington is higher.
You know, Greg, I was born and grew up in a relatively unified nation. Sure it has provinces and they have individual rights, but anything that's really important is still federal. So much is made of your individual states' rights and your electoral college system that sometimes I can't understand why your states just don't become individual international countries.
The Electoral College is undemocratic. It should be abolished ASAP.
It won't be if the GOP can help it. It already won them a couple of elections even though the nation's majority of votes was contrary.
Except the USA is not a democracy and it never was, it is a representative democracy. This means that our government is elected by citizens. Here, citizens vote for their government officials. These officials represent the citizens' ideas and concerns in government.
While I get what is written in the comment. . . it is partially written in error. Look at the quote above. "Representative democracy." Thus, "representative" here is a type of democracy. That is, our country is INDEED a democracy—after-all.
The fact that persons and officials do not always take the time to use the long version, "representative democracy' does not alter the fact that we are a democracy.
Just want to clear that up!
Yes and no. While it's a type of democracy, it's a clear attempt to ensure that it's not confused with a "pure democracy" because it's not. A pure democracy (or direct democracy) is a form of democracy in which the electorate decides on policy initiatives without elected representatives as proxies. ie, majority rules.
The US is a representative democracy because we the people elect the representatives (House & Senate) to represent our wishes and needs in government, and those representatives are the ones who craft and vote on laws. The people themselves do not.
As the initial comment I replied to stated that the Electoral College was undemocratic and needed to be abolished, my reply was to show that the US is not a pure democracy, and the majority rules is not something that we have (or IMO want) in this country.
Hope that makes it clear.
Well, for the sake of arguing. . . the nation does have a small "d" democratic society with a "representative" topper. Just to be precise. It follows from the fact that two things (or more) can be right at the same time.
The Electoral college is an add-on. Albeit, I get its purpose and usage. However, it does beg the question that such a 'hanger on' methodology to our representative democracy form of government (we can have a representative democracy without "the college") can be a source of ABUSE and manipulation for nefarious, dogmatic usage to SUPPRESS the majority when it seeks to make progress. The aforementioned conduct can't be right for the country in any shape, form, or fashion either.
So who is the "we" who allegedly don't want it?
I just had a thought about America having what is called a "representative democracy" which does NOT mean that EVERY VOTE from EVERY AMERICAN COUNTS. My son is a Canadian living in Wisconsin and has obtained dual citizenship with America. He might vote for a Democrat but the electoral college vote might go Republican, which means that his vote does NOT contribute to "The Will of the People". If you ignore the fact that NOBODY can vote in China, officials who are appointed to represent the people of their particular area are the ones who represent their areas to cast their votes at the general assemblies of the CPC in order to pass laws that are produced by the governing officials. So it is the votes of the representatives that pass the laws, and what the individuals want is meaningless. I know that the CPC says that Chinese government calls itself a democracy, socialism with Chinese characteristics. Seems to me that other than individuals voting there isn't much difference in the systems. Accomplishments, such as eradicating abject poverty, are obviously a lot easier to accomplish without opposition, though.
I am NOT saying that China has the BETTER system, but from what I've seen and experienced the people here aren't as unhappy with their government as about half of Americans are all any time about theirs. And I do feel a lot safer here and can live much more comfortably on my meagre Canada pensions here than I ever could in America.
Individuals (the people; the demos) not voting for their representatives is a monster difference, Buzz.
We are a representative democracy in terms of legislation. In a representative democracy, the people directly vote for who will represent them in Congress (and the PotUS and VP). What you described was not a democracy since the people have no say in who will represent them. Democracy = rule by the people (demos), not rule by appointed representatives.
This is an interesting 'state' that you have described for us. Our systems are similar. . .up to a point. U.S. politicians are representatives of the 'will' of the people that they serve. Emphasis on service. Even when those same groupings of politicians 'band' together and vote their own whims and such.
As to removing "abject poverty" off the table, such accomplishments are noble and practical indeed. And potentially is do-able in any society that cares for all, all, all, of its citizenry. Unfortunately, the fact belies such CARE in the United States. Here it is 'buyer' beware (of those whom you elect sometimes).
China, if I understand it correctly, is overwhelmingly Chinese ethnically. The effect that has is to bring about less strife between large groups as most people generally accept that they want similarly for each other.
Here in the United States unfortunately we have different groups that are 'tribal-minded' and that are jockeying (or are thought by some to be doing so anyway) to outmaneuver and even deceive the others.
Outstanding comment.
That's inevitable in a democracy!
The only way to avoid people having different opinions is to have a dictatorship . . .
Thanks TiG, I stand correctly. IMO what the big difference is that in America it is better to have half of the people happy most of the time than to have most of the people happy all of the time.
Our theoretically great system has devolved into a very divisive mess replete with disinformation. What we are experiencing now is an abomination of what our framers created.
“…replete with disinformation.”
It is now, more than ever, incumbent upon all of us to have the patience and the desire to distinguish fact from fiction and to understand that most of what we see and hear has been distorted to fit an ideology.
It is easy and comfortable to live in an echo chamber. But to lean on an idiom too often abused…’freedom isn’t free’…and frightening when the potential results of our collective decisions are free from individual thought.
As I said, IMO or for those who don't know the acronym, 'In My Opinion' which means me myself. Should be simple to understand.
So that there's no misunderstanding, WE DO NOT HAVE A MAJORITY RULES TYPE OF GOVERNMENT AND IN MY OPINION IT SHOULD NOT EXIST IN THIS COUNTRY. Hope it's clear now.
I knew this day was coming. Not only am I having trouble reading the normal font on NT and have to use a magnifying glass (which is why I, and some sympathetic members realize that and increase it one level to 14 pt). BUT, I'm missing words that I write wrongly. I didn't mean "I stand correctly" although I do, I meant to write "I stand corrected". You will all have to forgive me, cause approaching the age of 88 is obviously taking its toll, and I'm not an Oldsmobile. But then, even the Oldsmobiles reached their end, even the Super ones.
Buzz, a lot of us use or spell the wrong word. It is quite common. Just carry on as normal.
We understand. I am not in my eighties and I make 'mountains' of errors in my comments which I notice on reading them back! My biggest annoyance? It's when I leave off the closing parenthesis (I do that alot too)! When you all see that happen - missing " ) " - just know that I am 'kicking' myself (well, not really but y'all get the point) for it once I catch on that I did it!
Yes, so I have noticed, and I attract a lot of derision on NT for saying so. How sad it is for me, because of all the years during which I spent such happy times all over the USA, all the places I've travelled to and loved, the golf condo in Florida I shared with my brother that we inherited from our parents, so many festivals I attended, so many wonders I enjoyed, so many iconic places I toured, so many good people I met. And now..... Well, at least there still are the good people on NT with whom I can communicate.
Even in a "dictatorship" people are free to openly discuss different opinions other than political ones. What seems to be a problem in some countries is that so much time and effort are spent over differing political opinions, it is more of a detriment than a benefit for the good of society.
Thanks for your understanding JR.
Join the club. I've done the missing "closing parenthesis" too, as well as the closing " " " quotations.
There is more to it than that. China has an ancient culture with many traditions, and it is traditional that the Chinese are more concerned about their family and community than they are about "personal rights and freedoms" (i.e. themselves) and that is a BIG difference.
Of course!
AND WE SHOULD BE PAINTING THE PASSPORTS BROWN, EH SNUF?
A little bit of this, a little bit of that. I'm sure you are aware that:
They're selling postcards of the hanging, they're painting the passports brown
The beauty parlor is filled with sailors, the circus is in town
Here comes the blind commissioner, they've got him in a trance
One hand is tied to the tight-rope walker, the other is in his pants
And the riot squad they're restless, they need somewhere to go
As Lady and I look out tonight, from Desolation Row
And the United States was growing past its tribalism. But, Crooked Donald has 'merged' in and become "chief" of the tribalists in our country. We were beginning to "become One" in spirit and even in some ways physically. The voices of dissent reared their ugliest of heads and. . . here we are today. . . divided. . . and at each others throats.
The critics of national unity choose to have their "personal rights and freedoms" —including the 'right' to make other citizens not like themselves living in the United States miserably suppressed (for lifetimes and generations).
Everything you say here is true... but it's incomplete. Most of the Constitution was written 250 years ago, when the USA was a very different place.
The Constitution has not kept pace. The Fathers' guiding principles were good, but circumstances have changed massively. Thirteen rural colonies along the Atlantic coast, with 2 million people, have become fifty mostly urban states, spanning the continent, with 320 million people. Apportionment rules are unchanged.
An educated person in 1776 could "know everything". Today, decades of school and training are necessary for most professions, and without that preparation, a person is a fool to express a detailed opinion.
So... Yes. Your post is accurate. But two-and-a-half centuries out of date.
Ah, a little Dylan is always welcome.
Are you in favor of Nazi's? After all, that's what that line in the song referenced and your posting seems to imply that you favor that.
The Constitution is still the law of the land. You want that changed than reach out to your Congressman to get started with an amendment to the Constitution. There's a process to "update" that document. Feel free to follow your heart.
It's a sad part of life that even with decades of schooling and training, a person can still be a fool when they express an opinion.
True. But I'm sure you'll agree that you're more likely - much, much more likely - to get the right answer when you ask someone with training and experience than if you ask some random dude.
Ofcourse the United States was also never intended to be a place where women could vote.
And it was a also never a place where descendents were supposed to be able to vote.
And on and on-- there are many examples of things that at one time were "never intended to be" ... never intended to be-- until they were!
And all those changes were done with amendments to the Constitution. You want to try to make this change, feel free to contact your Congresscritters to get the process started.
Hope you noticed that your copy/paste there is actually a copy/paste of mine from a source that I showed in my posting. Isn't there a rule that if you copy/paste from an outside source that you are supposed to provide a link to give the source? If not there should be. The way your post reads, it looks like I put that line in when in actuality it comes from The Pacific Legal Foundation.
The 'right' - the defenders of the indefensible.
Three-fifths!
Agree.
I'm dumb when it comes to some things politic(s) but were the fake electors scheme, part of the former 'president's' traitorous actions, before and during and after 1/6 which continues to this day, and will continue up until 11/5 and beyond, until after when he loses hopefully, I digress, were the fake electors, the actual 'electoral college votes' that he was trying to switch? Does my question make sense?
FWIW, many people in Texas at times appear to believe that they actually are a separate country!
Hi RavenWing-- nice to see you back again!
Our civil war said no.
I can't answer your question because I don't know as much about American politics as an American would.
Actually, I meant to say "...as an American SHOULD."
Who's the winner of an Election? Obviously the one who got the most votes-- that's real Democracy.
So Hillary"won" the election vs Trump-- because she got more votes.
But because of our undemocratic Electoral College system,even though Trump lost the election (got less votes than his opponent) ...he became president!
We can argue about, even make up definitions, about different theoretical types of democracies--in some cases even maske up new names for "different" types of alledged democracies.
But as far as I;m concerned, in any true democracy, the one with the most votes should win.
(Everything else is a disengenuous attempt to push the notion that you can actually have a "democracy" where the losers can get elected). Its fucking dishonest-- a transparent attempt to deceive.
If ya ask me-- all that sophistry is total horse shit!
Neither do I-- and I'm an actual American!
Born and bred!
(Full disclosure-- neither do I eat peoples cats and/or dogs!)
Well, some people just don't like democracy. So they go thiough all sorts of contortions to do what they can to sabotage it (all the while pretending they really do want democracy).
Heck, they even "jump through hoops" to concoct various bizarre theories that there are subtle difference in "types" of democracies-- and sometimes they even get really creative by coming upwith new names and labels in a transparent attempt to bamboozle the unwary!
Yup-- they engage in the actual bamboozeling of the unwary! You won't catch me engaging in any tacky game of bamboozlement-- no way Jose! I'm just nor into that sort of them.
Its result in much to much of a kerfuffle for all concerned!
I say "let's skip all this silly bamboozle-making--and let the chips fall where they may!"
The Electoral College is a grand scheme (from the founding of this country) meant to supply. . .wait for it. . .EQUITY for small to mediumly populated states to be able to compete. . .and even WIN presidential control over the country with a candidate who otherwise does not have the voting power to match LARGER states.
And, therein lies the 'BIG LIE' in the world of Crooked Donald and trumpists who 'SAY' that Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, is not good for the country. Some trumpists SELECTIVELY LIE and blame EQUITY as cheating and taking from them - but they fall deafeningly silent in discussion when Equity helps Crooked Donald in 2016 and he is depending on Equity to win in "the College" in 2024 - should the popular vote does not go his way.
People stop letting your minds be playgrounds to game in by liars, cheaters, and negative propagandists.
You have a vote - use it WISELY.
Consider the possibility that it was not,and did not, imply that. Rather, you inferred that.
Also consider the possibility that you said exactly what you meant. Words have meaning.
What an interesting comment!
Why?
If something deserves to be legal, it should be legal throughout the country.
And if it should be illegal, it should be legal everywhere.
Do you think murder should be legal in some states-- but illegal in others?
Should citizens be required to pay income tax in some states-- but not in others?
How about robbery?
Do you believe that lynching should be illegal in some states-- but perfectly OK in others?
Do you think that drinking (even mere possession) of Alcoholic beverages should be OK in some jurisdictions-- but illegal in others?
Do you actually think that sexual exploitation of young kids should be illegal in most states-- but legal in others?
The whole point of our government is federalism.
If you want to get rid of state and local government, you might as well call a new Constitutional convention.
And what you didn't say, is that if abortion is illegal, it should be illegal everywhere, and the SCotUS has done its best to accomplish that. Well, let's face it Krishna, America means freedom, so if people are unhappy with the State they live in, let them move to a State where they like the laws. Let them eat cake.
Let me point this out. If people have to leave their hometown, home, job, and state in order to find the same or similar in another state-that can create a problem. Because as we see, for instance, people are already moving and 'sheltering' in the larger states (which can 'bust at the seams') for health reasons. It causes supply/demand issues when populations are too dense to function properly. It is better if states understand this and permit more freedoms inside their respective borders.
After all, this is the United States. . . we SAY freedoms abound here. Thus, it makes less sense for restrictions, restraints, outlawing, and suppression of freedoms to occur! If a policy (abortion) is causing no true harm to another LIVING person (outside of the womb), then it should not be a crime.
Our big cities are 'overfull' with mass amounts of the nation's citizens. Relatively speaking, our towns and small cities are 'emptying' out as people migrate to find freedoms denied them where they were born (and wished to stay-but are ran out)!
The most crowded states (population density) are NJ, RI, MA and CT. I don't think that they are seeing excessive migration there.
Cities with population decline include San Francisco, Santa Ana, Glendale, San Jose Pasadena, East LA, Detroit, ST. Louis, Baltimore, Cleveland, New Orleans, Jackson, Birmingham, Aurora, Union City, NYC, Boston, Ann Arbor, North Miami, Chicago, Philly, etc.
Yep. "Different strokes for different folks" but if those different strokes are not available where a person needs them they might prefer to move to where those strokes are available. For example, it would be my preference to live in the country, at my age and level of ability and physical condition it is important that I live not far from a major hospital and easy access to whatever I need. I have said here that I would have loved to have lived in the rural mountains of Sichuan province of Sichuan where the massive earthquake killed thousands, to teach the young kids there who had never even SEEN a white man before and when we visited a school there the kids lined up to get my autograph - my heart went out to them, but it was so remote and so far from the facilities I need to be close to, it was not to be.
The point being. . . .
That your assumptions about moving and cities seems wrong.
That comment missed the immediate point!
That counterpoint brings up the normal ebb and flow of population increases and decreases and is besides the larger point!
But, I am getting quite comfortable with some conservatives supplying information that is off-point rather than EVER choosing to be on-point. These 'soulless' discussions are a bane on these boards. In my opinion, it is disgusting.
We might as well pretend we are 'robots' and hopeless resolve that nothing really matters. . . to robots! That would include conservative policies too—they don't matter either. . . to robots.
How is it besides the larger point? You claimed that today's environment was causing people to move to already over crowded states and big cities when the reality is very different.
What would be an example of an "on-point' comment? What was 'soulless' about my comment and why do you find it disgusting?
Robots...huh?
I am not 'bout to waste time on this. . . .believe whatever. . . . You may have the last word if you wish to say more. I am 99.99 done with it.
So be it. Huh? is the last word.
And yet someone posted that America means "Federalism". Seems to be more than a bit of disagreement here. How shall we resolve this?
I know-- that's have a poll! Yes, a gen-u-ine authentic NewsTalkers poll. People could post various opinions about what America really means, then people could vote to determine which one is best!
And just to make it fair, certain people who face discrimination should each get two votes. (And as everyone knows, White Christian Men are the group most discriminated against-- they should each get two votes!).
You know-- all the atrocities they face. For example, the atrocities of the very real "War on Christmas"!
You can do a poll on this site, go ahead and do it.
LOL
Population trends in the US are fascinating... and largely contradictory. Some cities are losing people, some are gaining, and often it's hard to understand why. Sure, the weather is nice in Phoenix, but everyone knows water will soon be a huge problem, for example.
The clearest general rule is that university towns are doing well. Which kinda explains West Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, ... as well as Massachusetts and Colorado.
But "education rules" is not popular in MAGA.
Population trends are dynamic. That is, people move back and forth searching for different interests-defined and undefined.
The larger point that I was mentioning is California is the sum of its many, many, 'parts.' And, its a major population state/center. Same with other world-class cities everywhere. Such towns, cities, and states operate themselves based on the amount of people within. . . and that is many, many times the people in small: towns, cities, and sparely populated states.
It makes sense that any large city dealing with world-class businesses and issues would not operate on a small-scale such as you may find in open plains or rural areas of the country.
People just have to think about this.
I agree. Population trends are complex... but lots of people don't like complex subjects. So they just take a bit of this and a bit of that... and smoosh it together. The resulting "theory" may ignore most of the data, but since these people are happy whenever a theory agrees with them... all is well!
There are people here on NT who (for example) draw conclusions about the nation from their personal experience in... Wyoming. This isn't even dishonesty. It's looking through the wrong end of the telescope, and "honestly" describing the world seen there.
Emphatically!
I haven’t noticed that, more like drawing conclusions about Wyoming. I’m interested in experience from the diversity of our states.
I think you have a "don't notice this" filter.
I recently read an article tha pointed out that the places many people choose to move to--often have the worst weather.
Many from cold northern cities move to (or buy a second home) in warmer climates. Southern Florida, Texas Gulf coast, Arizona, New Nexico. California. But this past summer they'd had unusally brutal heat waves.
Some dream of a place right on the ocean. But in many cases those are hit by hurricans and otherbad weather events.
There's been a long term trends where people from cold northern states are moving South to warmer climates...places such as Florida. (In part due to its lovely warm winter weather).
But because of weather (destructive hurricanes, even tornados) some things have changed. For example, home owners insurance rates have skyrocketed. In fact-- some insurance companies have even left the state-- the risk is so great they will no longer insure homes in Florida!
'so if people are unhappy with the State they live in, let them move to a State where they like the laws. Let them eat cake.'
That's not an option for most except those who are well off or wealthy.
Depends on how much junk you want to move.
Which is why birth-related deaths have increased considerably, especially in Texas which has the most stringent anti-abortion laws.
There are some pretty good YouTube sites addressing urban issues. "City Nerd" is my favorite. The author, Ray Delahanty, dissects cities with data... and physical presence. His conclusions are often surprising and always entertaining.
So why did you make that comment?
Indeed!
As a famous American once said:
Freedom is just another word for nothin' left to lose
Nothin', don't mean nothin' hon' if it ain't free, no-no.
The key concept here: "freedom don't mean nuthin' if it ain't really free!"
(Which I doubt will clear up the arguments people are making here to what America actually means!)
My view, for what its worth...I'm against an overly powerful Big Government imposing its dictates about how we Americans should live our lives-- especially about whether or not our citizens should have a right to choose what type of healthcare they want!!!
Exactly!
In fact that sort of "fuzzy thinking" is so common that someone even invented a name for that:
Confirmation bias , people’s tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with their existing beliefs. This biased approach to decision making is largely unintentional, and it results in a person ignoring information that is inconsistent with their beliefs.
( LINK )
were you being sarcastic?
My following sentence "Let them eat cake" was to indicate that my first sentence was obviously a sarcastic criticism of the law in Texas made by those in control in order to punish those who are not and treat them like trash - Marie Antoinette in spades.
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion!
Didn't someone just say that "America means Federalism"?
So lets get our stories straight here-- does America mean Federalism-- or does it mean Freedom?
An amendment to the state Constitution?
(Or to the U.S. Constitution?)
State Constitution.
Abortion restrictions lose elections
For the good of the women of America, let's hope that happens.
One can only hope...
It's strange: people often vote against their own interests. Women vote for Trump.
Incomprehensible.
Yes, it's oxymoronic, in fact just plain moronic.
And here all along I had thought it was a Dodecagon!
A quote (from Albert Einstein):
I know of two things that are infinite-- The Universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the former.