Abortion discussions - latest court cases

S

sk9tingfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,761
Aussie Willy said:
This is what is getting absolutely ridiculous. Standard medical care for women is under threat because of a bunch of religious zealots. And they are a minority.

From what I have read, since the overturning of RvW voter registration amongst women have dramatically increased. That isn't the GQP. That is women who are feeling their healthcare is under threat. I hope the Republicans get smashed at the midterms.
Click to expand...
South Carolina failed to pass a near total abortion ban after filibuster. November should be very telling.
 
DORISPULASKI

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
13,322
sk9tingfan said:
Now this:


Waiting for the first wrongful death suit to come their way.
Click to expand...

If that letter indeed exists, someone should make a website with those 30,000 doctors' names. Those are a bunch of doctors no woman should ever go to, whether pregnant or not, because they clearly are idiots who don't acknowledge ectopic pregnancy exists, as well as other lethal conditions.
 
Last edited:
Aussie Willy

Aussie Willy

Hates both vegemite and peanut butter
Messages
26,322
Amy L

Amy L

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,379
Sparks said:
So, it wasn't about State's rights after all

Click to expand...

Shocked. I tell you. Shocked. :drama: Republicans acting in bad faith by hiding behind Constitutional originalism? Who saw this coming? /sarcasm

Calling a 15-week ban "late-term" is trying to swing voters back to the Republican side. They can campaign that liberals want to kill "almost-born" babies when they vote against it. Pregnancies last like, what, 40 weeks? A lot of genetic disorders can't even be diagnosed as early as 15 weeks. Late term my ass.

PDF of the bill for those who want it
 
Aussie Willy

Aussie Willy

Hates both vegemite and peanut butter
Messages
26,322
Amy L said:
Shocked. I tell you. Shocked. :drama: Republicans acting in bad faith by hiding behind Constitutional originalism? Who saw this coming? /sarcasm

Calling a 15-week ban "late-term" is trying to swing voters back to the Republican side. They can campaign that liberals want to kill "almost-born" babies when they vote against it. Pregnancies last like, what, 40 weeks? A lot of genetic disorders can't even be diagnosed as early as 15 weeks. Late term my ass.

PDF of the bill for those who want it
Click to expand...
What a crock of sh*t. Calling it "Pain-capable" is such a furphy and misleading. They claim it is based on science but it doesn't look at everything that goes into a pregnancy and the development of a fetus. And they are obviously appealing to people who cannot think for themselves.

Again they will be complaining if they lose the midterms and cry that the elections must have been rigged.
 
J

jeffisjeff

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,732
Tesla said:
Of course not! It's about controlling women and keeping the Christian white penis brigade on top.
Click to expand...
In this case, I think it is actually about voter turnout in the midterms. This was done to get their extremist base to show up at the polls because they can feel the election slipping away. That is not to say that they aren't a bunch of lying and mysogynistic hypocrites. They certainly are, but I think the motivation is more political in this case.
 
Aussie Willy

Aussie Willy

Hates both vegemite and peanut butter
Messages
26,322
jeffisjeff said:
In this case, I think it is actually about voter turnout in the midterms. This was done to get their extremist base to show up at the polls because they can feel the election slipping away. That is not to say that they aren't a bunch of lying and mysogynistic hypocrites. They certainly are, but I think the motivation is more political in this case.
Click to expand...
Totally. But I think it will backfire if they think it is a winning issue for them. Kansas proved that.
 
A

Allskate

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,937
Theatregirl1122 said:
I can't wait to hear how this is somehow still about state's rights/the constitution.
Click to expand...

Under his proposal states would be free to be more restrictive than the national law. For example, a state could ban all abortions even if the woman's life is in danger. That will be Graham's states rights spin.
 
once_upon

once_upon

Enough
Messages
24,907
Sorry about double post, but a totally different thought process. I read this statement tonight and I totally agree

We need to stop alliwing the anti abortionists describing late term as 16 weeks and beyond. Term is 38-40 weeks. Late term is 41 weeks or later.

And we need to tell them to stay the hell away from our uterus.
 
A

Allskate

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,937
once_upon said:
I dont think @Theatregirl1122 was referring to Graham or the GOP explanations
Click to expand...

I thought she was because the news reports keep contrasting Graham's prior statements that states should decide abortion rights.

If the reference to the Supreme Court, I think it's pretty clear that the Justices in the majority would be just fine with a national ban. I remember reading the majority opinion in Dodds and noticing that it did not say it was returning the issue to the states but instead said that it was returning the authority to "the people and their elected representatives," which is a phrase broad enough to include Congress. I don't think this was accidental.
 
Theatregirl1122

Theatregirl1122

Needs a nap
Messages
28,123
Allskate said:
I thought she was because the news reports keep contrasting Graham's prior statements that states should decide abortion rights.

If the reference to the Supreme Court, I think it's pretty clear that the Justices in the majority would be just fine with a national ban. I remember reading the majority opinion in Dodds and noticing that it did not say it was returning the issue to the states but instead said that it was returning the authority to "the people and their elected representatives," which is a phrase broad enough to include Congress. I don't think this was accidental.
Click to expand...

No. Lol. I was referring to some of our friends here.
 
A

Allskate

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,937
Theatregirl1122 said:
No. Lol. I was referring to some of our friends here.
Click to expand...
Oh, yeah. I'm used to ignoring that. :lol: I can't take someone very seriously when they clearly didn't know the prior state of the law or its reasoning and hadn't read, much less understood, Dobbs. The idea that states would just take care of the problem and women across America would have the same rights as before Dobbs was absurd. Just ask that ten year-old rape victim.

I can't take most people seriously when they cry "states rights" about a fundamental right like abortion or claim to be libertarian. And, like Graham, the majority of people who claim to care about "states rights" only claim that when it works in their favor. If there were a national ban on abortion or gay marriage, there are lots of people who previously had cried "states rights" who would be fine with it.
 
ballettmaus

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,852
Sparks said:
So, it wasn't about State's rights after all

Click to expand...
Who would have thought?! ...

McConnell seems not amused. Part of me is enjoying it. The other part is annoyed that the MSM does not seem to care. If Democrats were going against their Senate leaders wishes like Rick Scott and Graham go against McConnell's then the MSM would be tripping all over themselves, talking about the collapse of the Democrat Party or something.
 
Cachoo

Cachoo

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,788
Heh, heh, heh 😁
https://twitter.com/SykesCharlie/status/1570420340635082753

Also I want to thank Lindsey Graham for his honesty. After the Kansas abortion vote Republican candidates were scrubbing their campaign literature to tone down their anti-choice rhetoric. They want that outright ban but they don't want to say it now. But Lindsey has put his plan out there. And Democrats can bang that drum over and over and over again.
 
BlueRidge

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
61,771
The most interesting thing about Lindsey Graham's political faux pas is of course how he shot down the false argument that overturning Roe was about sending the decision on abortion back to the states.

But he seems to have thought he was coming up with a "moderate" proposal for a nationwide ban after 15 weeks. He references European countries having such bans. I'd like to ask him does he think that the anti-abortion movement in this country wants to have abortion laws comparable with many European countries?

Here's what Michelle Goldberg says about those countries:

This is, at best, a highly selective reading of European abortion laws. It ignores the fact that, on most of the continent, abortion is state-subsidized and easily accessible early in pregnancy, so women aren’t pushed into later terminations as they struggle to raise money. More significantly, the restrictions on later abortions have broad exceptions.

Take German abortion laws, which are, for Europe, quite stringent. Until this summer, a Nazi-era ban on advertising abortion was still in effect, and abortion is still technically illegal, though it’s been decriminalized during the first trimester. After that, abortion is allowed to protect a woman’s physical or mental health, taking into account her “present and future circumstances.” For low-income women, abortion is publicly funded.
Click to expand...

European laws might be a "moderate" compromise of sorts, but let's see Lindsey try to sell the above to his own fellow anti-abortion folks.

Lindsey Graham's Unbelievably Cruel Abortion Ban-Michelle Goldberg (NY Times)
 
Aussie Willy

Aussie Willy

Hates both vegemite and peanut butter
Messages
26,322
Miss Lindsay justifies the ban based on "the rest of the world". Well many other countries have moved ahead of the US on this issue.

BTW - For Miss Lindsay this is only the first step. Next will be a total ban from conception. And then going after contraceptives.
 
ballettmaus

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,852
once_upon said:
I have no idea why Graham should have ANY say on the abortion/women's reproductive rights. He hasn't and won't be procreating.

I'm tired of all this tiptoeing over his sexuality. He won't be fathering any children, so just feck off.
Click to expand...
Gay men can father children via sperm donation, though. But you're probably right, Graham is unlikely to be doing that.

I don't know why Graham is closeted, that's his choice. But if he can't be honest about who he is, maybe he shouldn't be telling women who they should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

Aussie Willy
Save Women's Sport - the pearl clutching begins
11 12 13
Replies
370
Views
17K
Asli
Asli
Sylvia
Vivien Papp's decision to split from the Hungarian federation
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
Seerek
S
A.H.Black
2002 Olympics - Men's Short Program
Replies
10
Views
1K
Bouffantrex
Bouffantrex
VGThuy
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Dies at Age 99
Replies
3
Views
947
skatesindreams
skatesindreams
TAHbKA
Vaytsekhovskaya's interview with Arutyunian
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
WOULDACOULDARETURNS
W
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information