Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (2 Viewers)

[LovesMusic7360]

Not long ago Kari Lake proclaimed Arizona's abortion law was a great law and wanted it the law of the state.

Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.

As I have been saying since 2022, the overwhelming vast majority of women aren't going to vote for the man who proudly boasts that he got rid of Roe V. Wade. Nor are those women going to vote for a forced birther politician.

Turns out, republican belief in "pro life" was all just lies to get votes. Who is surprised? I sure am not.

How many forced birthers will do the same about face?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ka ... r-BB1ltx3I.

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake is actively lobbying state lawmakers to overturn a 160-year-old law she once supported that bans abortion in almost all cases, a source with knowledge of her efforts told CNN.

 

[Farb]

I think I find it more difficult now to understand or rationalize how people - especially ones around my own age - can believe in and center their lives around things that I'm all but certain are little more than mythology.

I would say it colors how I view people and the opinions they offer but I'm polite regardless and respect that an individual has the right to believe whatever they want to believe in.

I get it, I was the exact same, so not passing judgment at all.

would you consider the fact that it 'colors how you view people and the opinions they offer' to be bigoted? I won't use Islamophobia or Christianophia but maybe Theophobia?

 

[Farb]

It's like he doesn't understand that a soul food restaurant can't refuse to serve me because I'm white.

No, I do understand that. Just like cracker barrel can't refuse a black person. I never claimed otherwise. I did and do claim that I think that allowing politicians to determine who gets the label of victimhood is solely based on pollical voting blocks and in my opinion to goes against the intent of the founding.

 

[Farb]

You’re going to have to cite examples of atheists banding together to burn Christians. This is either complete hyperbole or another example of you claiming victim status.

When someone’s religious faith is used to justify denying people their rights, their freedom and proper medical care, yes, people will get pretty cranky and tend to see people of that particular religious faith as a direct threat. You have expressed your desire to see your religious beliefs codified into law, have you not? Your religious beliefs are, IMO, hostile to the rights of some people in this country. Do you deny this? If you had your way, would the LBGTQ community enjoy equal rights as you? Would women enjoy accessibility to life-saving medical care? Would trans people have rights?

Yet, here you seem to think you are the victim.

1st paragraph you insist there is no theophobia but then in the last paragraph go about wildly misrepresenting what I have said, and others have said all while laying out false talking points to justify your theophobia. And I am the one you call 'a bad faith poster'.

You have expressed your desire to see your religious beliefs codified into law, have you not?

No. Have I said that I think my beliefs are a solid bedrock for a society? Yes. Have I said that my relious beliefs are correct and your beliefs are wrong? I have. Have I also said repeatedly that I understand this country is built upon religious liberty and that liberty also includes not living by my religion but by yours as long it doesn't break the laws of our society? I have.

Your religious beliefs are, IMO, hostile to the rights of some people in this country. Do you deny this?

I do. How I view the world has no direct impact on anyone else, unless you are so weak minded and such a narcist that anyone not agreeing or anyone pushing back on your beliefs are 'hostile'. If so, that is a 'you' problem.

If you had your way, would the LBGTQ community enjoy equal rights as you? Would women enjoy accessibility to life-saving medical care? Would trans people have rights?

And here is the hyperbole. Name a right the queer community doesn't have or would not have if we stopped allowing drag queens to dance in front of children?
Are you saying women can't have life-saving medical care or are you making a push for abortion in that rare less than 1% occurrences?
What rights would trans people not have if they were not a protected class?

 

[Farb]

That's not what I said at all and you are being a dishonest interlocutor. All I said was that your use of the Declaration of Independence (not the Constitution)'s phrase "all men are created equal" as a way to question the 14th amendment is ludicrous, given that it was written at a time when all men were not being treated as equals.



There were people at the time who knew it was wrong. Why is it such a leap to think we wouldn't have known if were living during that time period?



My statement was not an argument. I was simply pointing out the utter stupidity of your question, given the historical context you had to ignore to even attempt such a ridiculous argument.

While not your exact words, it was your intent.

Going by your belief of what you are told, I have no doubt that you would not have been an abolitionist.

 

[MT15]

No. Have I said that I think my beliefs are a solid bedrock for a society? Yes. Have I said that my relious beliefs are correct and your beliefs are wrong? I have. Have I also said repeatedly that I understand this country is built upon religious liberty and that liberty also includes not living by my religion but by yours as long it doesn't break the laws of our society? I have.

I don’t have time to respond to all of this verbal vomit. But this is only the first time I found where you have said you would like to legislate your religious beliefs. You’ve said it more than once, but as I said time is short.

So who wins in the tug of war between the Jewish faith and the Catholic faith? Are you saying a religious group should be able to make the laws in a free and open society? (I might agree with you on this)

 

[Farb]

How would you have created protected classes? They were only necessary and continue to be necessary because people who look like you continue to do things that make them necessary.

Wow my guy. If you don't mind, tone down on the racist statements. Your obsession of the color of a person's skin is showing through. Imagine if I used that exact same sentence for anything? But hey, you are a protected class so racism is allowed.

 

[Farb]

I don’t have time to respond to all of this verbal vomit. But this is only the first time I found where you have said you would like to legislate your religious beliefs. You’ve said it more than once, but as I said time is short.

Um, yeah, sure. Remember, in your search to include context. Remember, that determines if something is bad or not.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So not until the political party that relies on the phantom fear of 'systemic racism' and bigotry gives the all clear, then it is business and voting as usual? There will be no end until a certain political ideology has all the power and personal accountability and personal freedom is stamped out for the 'greater good'. I don't doubt that is the plan at all. Thank you for being honest.

Which personal freedoms have been stamped out?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

While not your exact words, it was your intent.

No, my intent was what I stated with my words. Making shirt up in your head and then replying to that is a strawman argument.

Going by your belief of what you are told, I have no doubt that you would not have been an abolitionist.

My belief is that people deserve dignity and respect. Slavery offers the exact opposite.

 

[MT15]

Um, yeah, sure. Remember, in your search to include context. Remember, that determines if something is bad or not.

So tell me the context there. Your statement seems pretty clear to me and it’s not the only time you have said it.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

No. Have I said that I think my beliefs are a solid bedrock for a society? Yes. Have I said that my relious beliefs are correct and your beliefs are wrong? I have. Have I also said repeatedly that I understand this country is built upon religious liberty and that liberty also includes not living by my religion but by yours as long it doesn't break the laws of our society? I have.

You want to ban abortions, which is very much your stated religious stance, despite other religions permitting it. Stop lying.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Wow my guy. If you don't mind, tone down on the racist statements. Your obsession of the color of a person's skin is showing through. Imagine if I used that exact same sentence for anything? But hey, you are a protected class so racism is allowed.

The fact that you would classify my statements as "racist" clearly demonstrates that you don't understand what racist means. The fact that you won't answer my question tells me that you know my statement is true.
Again, how would you have created protected classes?
Do you believe protected classes are necessary?
You already stated that you understand why protected class creation was necessary. Do you deny that the need for protected classes was made necessary because the majority race of people in this country (people who have the same skin color as yourself) had no problem violating pretty much every tenet of the religion they practiced as well as violating the constitutional rights of people who did not look like them?
Naturally you will deny that fact as is your customary way, but everyone here KNOWS the truth. You know it's true but you simply can't and won't acknowledge it. However, I would expect nothing more from such a prolific liar as yourself.

 

[Saintamaniac]

You want to ban abortions, which is very much your stated religious stance, despite other religions permitting it. Stop lying.

You have a better chance asking water to stop being wet.

 

[MT15]

 

[Optimus Prime]

Good article
===========

If there were two votes that sent shockwaves through the US this year, they were in Kansas and Kentucky, and they were both about abortion. The former, the first direct vote on abortion to be brought to the public since the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, by anti-abortion Republicans in a deeply red state, was defeated by considerably more than half the electorate (59% of the vote).

The latter, in Kentucky, seemed an even harder bet: Kentucky is one of the 16 US states that, before the November vote, seemed to have more support for banning abortion than protecting it, according to analysis by the New York Times from May.

It also already had an outright ban in place. But the ballot initiative, also brought by anti-abortion campaigners, failed to pass, with 52% of voters rejecting an amendment to say there was no explicit protection for abortion rights in the state constitution.

One woman was at the center of these two campaigns: Rachel Sweet. The straight-talking 31-year-old from Kansas City, Missouri, previously managed Planned Parenthood’s public policy for the Great Plains area, before leading the campaign to defeat the Kansas initiative, and then the Kentucky one.

The way she sums up both wins is simple: if you want to protect abortion in red states, you have to target Republicans.

“Democrats are not most of the voters [in Kentucky],” she says. “So you always go with a message that is the most broadly persuasive, so that you can get to your 50% plus one vote.”

She explains that the key to winning is to understand that no two electorates are the same, and to research, poll test and work on the messages that resonate with voters in each state.

In Kansas, Republicans and independents were most swayed by messages focusing on how abortion bans are an attack on personal liberty and represent government overreach.

But in Kentucky, which already has a total ban on abortion that has been in place since Roe fell, there was more room to focus on the reality as well as on ideology – and that turned out to be effective.

“There were voters who were far more likely to understand the long-term ramifications of these extreme anti-choice policies, because they were already seeing how banning abortion impacts not only access to abortion care, but [also] treatment for miscarriages and other areas of health care in a way that is particularly concerning,” says Sweet…….

She led two historic victories for abortion rights – by persuading Republicans

Rachel Sweet on the ‘uphill battle’ to protect reproductive rights in red states Kansas and Kentucky

www.theguardian.com

 

[bdb13]

I get it, I was the exact same, so not passing judgment at all.

would you consider the fact that it 'colors how you view people and the opinions they offer' to be bigoted? I won't use Islamophobia or Christianophia but maybe Theophobia?

I don't feel like it's rooted in bigotry.

To take it out of the religious context, I think for me it's probably most similar to how I would view the opinions of a flat Earther (or the guy I work with who claims to have been implanted by aliens) and how that particular belief of theirs would likely "color" my view of them and their other opinions.

 

[coldseat]

I will agree that equal protection under the law is the end goal and that goal has been met, so much so that there needs to be a course correction. To ensure equal protection under the law does not, in my opinion, give the right for the law (the state) to celebrate any group over another. It does so you can deny it, but everyone knows that to be true.

Equal protection isn't about "celebrating any group over another". Just the fact that you say that shows how corrupted your view of this topic is.

Who is not a protected class in this country? Can you honestly not see why the idea of protected classes would bother those that are not in the protected class group? You can but that would be to undermine the entire narrative.

The vast majority of people that do not fall within a protected class do not go on insistently about it the way that you do. So I'm led to believe that most aren't bothered by it the way that you are. So no, I can't see it and it doesn't undermine by entire narrative.

There are no civil rights in jeopardy that is only allowed to the protected class status. Again, who is not a protected class?

You seem to be making two arguments at once. One is that "everybody falls within a protected class", the second is that "how can protected classes not bother people who aren't in one." It's like your talking out of both sides of you mouth.

Is it making it equal or is it installing equity?

Just making things equal. Protected classes doesn't have anything to do with equity.

 

[zztop]

I wonder how much good this will actually do, b/c according to the article 12 states have already enacted laws to ban mifepristone

U.S. FDA allows abortion pills to be sold at retail pharmacies

Pharmacies can apply for certification to distribute mifepristone with one of two companies that make it. If successful they will be able to dispense it directly to patients upon receiving a prescription.

www.reuters.com