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

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
    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    Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.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.
     
    MT15 said:
    It was never about life, at least not for politicians. It was always about controlling women.

    Click to expand...

    of course, it was always about control. Anyone who claims it was about being pro-life is lying.
     
    RICHMOND Va. (WRIC) — Senate Democrats have passed a bill to protect women who come to Virginia for an abortion, as well as their doctors.

    A bill sponsored by State Senator Barbara Favola (D-Arlington), which passed along party lines Monday, would prevent Virginia from extraditing women who come to the Commonwealth for an abortion from states in which the procedure is illegal.

    “It protects an individual who comes to Virginia from a state that has a ban on abortion, and she receives an abortion in Virginia, it would protect her from extradition, and it also protects the doctors and providers that have performed that abortion,” Favola said.

    Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell (D-Fairfax) said the bill is needed to ensure that people in Virginia aren’t being punished in other states for helping someone access abortion services.

    “Last year, the Attorney General of Alabama twice specifically said that he was open to bringing women from other states back to Alabama to be prosecuted,” Surovell said on the Senate floor.

    Republican Senator Mark Peake, who voted against the bill, says he has concerns over language in the bill that allows someone to sign an affidavit saying they were in Virginia when they received an abortion. He says people could use that to avoid prosecution after receiving an abortion in a state where the procedure is banned...........

     
    The fall of Roe v Wade in 2022 sparked fears that access to contraception could soon follow. A look into their legislative votes suggests that those fears are not unfounded.

    We previously reported that Republicans standing for re-election this year keep changing what they say about abortion on their public websites. Many would rather the public didn’t bring up their voting records on contraception, either.

    Despite prominent Republicans’ claims to the contrary, “Republicans have a long history of attacking contraception,” says Dana Singiser, cofounder of the nonprofit Contraceptive Access Initiative. And since the Dobbs decision, “it is getting harder and harder for Republicans to actually hide their long-standing opposition to contraception.”

    Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion on Dobbs that the court “should reconsider” its long-standing rulings, including the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision, which granted married couples the right to use contraceptives without government oversight. (The Eisenstadt v. Baird decision seven years later granted unmarried couples the same right.)

    “If that’s not a direct threat, I don’t know what is,” Ms Singiser says.

    In the wake of Justice Thomas’ opinion, Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn called the Griswold decision on contraception “constitutionally unsound” and Republican Sen. Mike Braun voiced his opinion that the issue of contraceptive access should be left to the states.

    Since then, Democrats have campaigned on protecting abortion and contraception — and they have repeatedly won elections.

    President Biden recently announced new steps that the administration is taking to reduce barriers to contraceptive access. On X/Twitter, Mr Biden accused “MAGA Republicans” of “trying to stop women in America from getting safe and effective medication that has been approved by the FDA for over 20 years, even in states where women’s health care choices are still protected.”

    Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene took issue with the president’s tweet, firing back: “‘MAGA Republicans’ are trying to stop women from getting contraceptives? Nope.” She continued, “Old man Joe needs to stop lying to women that the only way to avoid unplanned pregnancy is to take an abortion pill or have an abortion.”

    Despite her assertion, members of her party have repeatedly rejected measures aiming to expand or protect contraceptive access.

    “When the rubber hits the road, support for contraception in the Republican Party simply isn’t there,” Ms Singiser says.

    In 2022, Rep. Greene voted against the Right to Contraception Act — along with 194 of her GOP colleagues. Only eight Republicans supported the measure. Of those eight, five are no longer in office.

    That bill is “as simple as it gets,” says Rachel Fey, Vice President of Policy and Strategic Partnerships at the nonpartisan nonprofit Power to Decide. If someone didn’t support this measure, then “it’s really hard to say that you support contraception.”

    Yet the Republicans who opposed the measure offered a variety of explanations.

    Washington Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers called the bill “a Trojan horse for more abortions,” adding that it is “spreading fear and misinformation to score political points.” Arizona Rep. Debbie Lesko claimed that the measure “permits the widespread use of chemical abortion pills.”

    Others, Dr Larry Bucshon, a physician-turned-Indiana Representative, and Oklahoma Rep. Stephanie Bice, said they opposed the bill because the language was too ambiguous. Mr Bucshon said the measure “could be applied to chemical abortion drugs to end a pregnancy in addition to traditional contraceptives.”

    Florida Rep. Kat Cammack called the bill “completely unnecessary,” adding that: “In no way, shape or form is access to contraception limited or at risk of being limited.”

    Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz explained his opposition to the Right to Contraception Act, writing on X/Twitter: “Contraception likely needs protection FROM Congress more than it needs protection BY Congress. If there is any entity you don’t want involved in your contraception choices - it’s the federal gov.”...........



    www.independent.co.uk

    Republicans are taking aim on contraception — and they’d rather you didn’t know

    Despite recent claims from many Republicans that they are trying to protect contraceptive access, their legislative votes say otherwise
    www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
     
    Missouri State Sen. (R) Bill Eigel opposed an amendment to the state’s abortion ban last Wednesday that would have permitted abortions for children ages 12 and under if they are victims of rape or incest.

    “Your amendment doesn't do anything to actually reduce the number of childhood rapes, or any rapes, or incest occurring in the state. Your amendment does nothing for that. All your amendment does is actually ensure that kids are getting more abortions than they are today,” Eigel, a candidate for governor, said to Missouri State Sen. Doug Beck (D). “A one-year-old could get an abortion under this.”

    Beck, the bill’s sponsor, pushed back on his fellow lawmaker’s claims:

    “I don’t know that a one-year-old could get pregnant, senator,” Beck said, “But it sounds like you're okay with the forced birth of a one-year-old that was raped, right?”

    “I don't support the institutions of rape or of incest, but your amendment doesn't address those,” Eigel replied.

    Missouri has permitted abortions only in the case of medical emergencies since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, leaving abortion to the states...........

     
    Optimus Prime said:
    Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz explained his opposition to the Right to Contraception Act, writing on X/Twitter: “Contraception likely needs protection FROM Congress more than it needs protection BY Congress. If there is any entity you don’t want involved in your contraception choices - it’s the federal gov.”...........



    www.independent.co.uk

    Republicans are taking aim on contraception — and they’d rather you didn’t know

    Despite recent claims from many Republicans that they are trying to protect contraceptive access, their legislative votes say otherwise
    www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
    Click to expand...

    Mr Gaetz then clapped a hand over his mouth and bit his tongue until it bled...
     
    Donald Trump likes the idea of a national ban on abortion past 16 weeks of pregnancy with exceptions for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother, the New York Times reported on Friday morning.

    Trump has veered away from taking a firm stance on abortion during his presidential campaign. He has taken credit for the US supreme court’s 2022 overturning of Roe v Wade, since he appointed three of the justices who took part in that decision, but he has also suggested that Republicans who take extreme stances on abortion lose elections.

    “Know what I like about 16?” Trump told one individual, according to the Times, which based its report on two people with knowledge of Trump’s thoughts. “It’s even. It’s four months.”


    Trump is waiting until after the conclusion of the Republican primary to publicly discuss his position, the Times reported.

    Since Roe’s demise, voters have repeatedly rejected attempts to curtail abortion rights and supported state-level ballot measures to protect the right to the procedure. Outrage over Roe is also widely credited with defeating the promised “red wave” in the 2022 midterms and leaving Republicans with fewer victories than anticipated.

    Last year, Virginia Republicans campaigned in a state election on a pledge to ban abortion past 15 weeks, as a kind of “compromise” position. Their efforts to retake control of the state legislature failed.

    However, the anti-abortion movement, with its coterie of high-powered activists, has made it clear that they would like to see the procedure totally outlawed. Although most Americans consider themselves “pro-choice”, polling shows they are far less supportive of abortions past the first trimester.…….

    www.theguardian.com

    Trump privately backs 16-week abortion ban with exceptions, report says

    Ex-president favors ban with exceptions for rape, incest and to save mother’s life, NYT says, but won’t discuss until after primary
    www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
     
    MT15 said:
    You cannot freeze and then thaw a “child” and have it be still alive. This is just crazy.

    Click to expand...


    They deliberately gather as many fertilized eggs as they can, then implant the most robust. The rest are left frozen or tossed. You simply can't implant them all. This reduces the time of "personhood" to fertilization. Be careful ladies! If you have sex just before your period, you run the risk of being arrested for murder. Just wait until every single period of every single female is scanned for a potential "person".

    What a delightful dystopia.
     
    MT15 said:
    cannot freeze and then thaw a “child” and have it be still alive. This is just crazy.

    Click to expand...

    I don't think you can freeze and thaw a fetus either. An embryo is very different from a fetus.
    Taurus said:
    They deliberately gather as many fertilized eggs as they can, then implant the most robust. The rest are left frozen or tossed. You simply can't implant them all. This reduces the time of "personhood" to fertilization. Be careful ladies! If you have sex just before your period, you run the risk of being arrested for murder. Just wait until every single period of every single female is scanned for a potential "person".

    What a delightful dystopia.
    Click to expand...
    Exactly, they've been illogically using the transitive property through, not directly connected, legal precedent to set up a chain of precedent to cite when they claim that a child is a person and a fetus is an unborn child, therefore a fetus has full legal and constitutional rights and protections.

    Now they're setting up another link in the legal precedent chain to use for their illogical application of the transitive property to make the claim that an embryo is an undeveloped fetus, therefore an embryo is a person with full legal and constitutional rights and protections...

    ...and the rights of the embryo and fetus person trumps the rights of the pregnant woman person, who is without a doubt an actual person in every sense of the word.

    In one of these states, a pregnant woman should sue and serve her fetus with a "pay or vacate" notice just to point out how absurd it is to consider a fetus as full and equal a legal person as the pregnant woman is. Maybe she can't legally abort the person inside of her, but she should have the legal right to evict the person inside of her if it doesn't pay rent and pay for it's own medical costs.

    As I said, I know this is a preposterous idea to treat a fetus or embryo like a fully equal person. That's the point.
     
    Last edited:
    Tax deductions, child support, earned income credit. Think of the possibilities.
     
    Taurus said:
    I fear that "give" isn't in the cards. Y'all are going to have to take your rights back.
    Click to expand...
    I sincerely believe you mean we are all going to have help take back their rights.

    With the way the electoral college is set up, I don't think women who want their rights back can out vote the men and women who don't want them to get them back. We men who want women to have their rights back need to do our part in helping them get their rights back.

    Just like voters who are white need to vote to help people who are not white, voters who are Christian need to vote to help people who are not Christian, voters who are heterosexual and cis need to vote to help people who are not heterosexual or cis, and all voters need to vote to help immigrants.

    We're all in this together, even if we don't think we are or don't want to be.
     
    Last edited:
    LA - L.A. said:
    I sincerely believe you mean we are all going to have help take their rights.

    With the way the electoral college is set up, I don't think women who want their rights back can out vote the men and women who don't want them to get them back. We men who want women to have their rights back need to do our part in helping them get their rights back.

    Just like voters who are white need to vote to help people who are not white, voters who are Christian need to vote to help people who are not Christian, voters who are heterosexual and cis need to vote to help people who are not heterosexual or cis, and all voters need to vote to help immigrants.

    We're all in this together, even if we don't think we are or don't want to be.
    Click to expand...
    Indeed. "We" will have to take them back.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom