2020 US Presidential Election

[Shelbylynn]

But people didn't vote for Hillary. She lost, with some help from Russia. But she still lost. So, no, people didn't vote.

Also, nobody convinced Ginsburg to retire. That was also a huge mistake. They should have a plan and they obviously didn't. No more liberal justices over 75.

We were also lied to by Kavanaugh and others. Everyone knew they were lying anyways, but I think those people will burn in hell if they really believe in that, but they don't, in my opinion.

But as I say, we also cede this whole pro-life thing to those people. They aren't pro-life = they are pro body control. They don't like gun control. Well, I don't like body control. And I say wait until these young catholic do gooder girls have to have a still-born. Or wait till they are raped, god forbid, or worst, raped by a priest or a family member.

That doesn't change the fact, like someone mentioned before, they had an opportunity to codify it in the Obama era and instead sat on their hands about it.

I have been very much done with the Democratic Party for a while now, so you won't hear any defense or excuses on their part from me as well as the idea of the Supreme Court being in any way "democratic".

I hope that as few people as possible will endure those travesties, because it doesn't matter who these women are (faith, politics, etc), this decision is coming from the top down, it could be them or me or anyone I know. It was a decision made against the will of the majority. It'll be all of us who suffer and pay the price. They don't care how much we suffer or who suffers. Just as long as they have the power.

 

[Paul1980]

That doesn't change the fact, like someone mentioned before, they had an opportunity to codify it in the Obama era and instead sat on their hands about it.

I have been very much done with the Democratic Party for a while now, so you won't hear any defense or excuses on their part from me as well as the idea of the Supreme Court being in any way "democratic".

I hope that as few people as possible will endure those travesties, because it doesn't matter who these women are (faith, politics, etc), this decision is coming from the top down, it could be them or me or anyone I know. It was a decision made against the will of the majority. It'll be all of us who suffer and pay the price. They don't care how much we suffer or who suffers. Just as long as they have the power.

The laundry list of federal laws that we could have is long. Federal laws can be overturned too. As you see we have are least two senators that won't vote for this. One was there during Obama. Nobody seems to want to put pressure on him.

So you would have to end filibuster back during Obama.

I agree there will be a lot of damage to everyone. The media frames it as affecting minorities more because they don't have means to fly to a "free state." But I think of all the people who I know who lived on having access to this, especially men. Guess what, your life as a "bro" is gonna be short lived, good luck with your career.

I also go back to the politicians and judges who have had abortions, but now tell us we need to live under a different set of rules. In my state, the lt gov, a huge fat Trumper, rails on the left, railed against abortion. Well, if abortion is murder, guess what he did several years ago? He murdered an unborn baby, by his definition.

Hypocrites of the worst kind. And then there is Kavanaugh. Wouldn't be surprised if he knocked up a few chicks in his day, and they were murdered.

 

[Ed209]

I believe most Americans would agree with you and support banning late stage abortions or abortions where pain is inflicted on the fetus, etc. Legally speaking, abortions are not explicitly protected by the Constitution; when Roe v. Wade passed it was on shaky grounds. Personally, I believe states need to have a special election on this issue or by popular vote (like Prop 16 in California on affirmative action). Some states came out quickly with total abortion bans (except when concerning life of mother), based on votes from state representatives, but I doubt most of a state's population would be this strict. Like, if Prop 16 was decided by state representatives, very likely it would have had a different outcome.

The guns have more rights than women do in America.

 

[kingsfan]

The guns have more rights than women do in America.

In Ohio, teachers can legally check the genitals of any athlete they suspect to be trans. Can't see that one being used as a weapon to sexually assault or humiliate children...

 

[Christiaan]

They were too busy holding it over our heads so that we vote for them to actually DO anything about it. How many elections have they basically said "if you don't vote for us, the Republicans will take power and your rights are at stake" and yet here we are.

People voted, campaigned, and donated for them and we have zilch to show for it.

Now more than ever it is obvious who the Supreme Court and the constitution really protects.

But it's gonna be alright because Nancy read us a poem.

I'm not holding my breath.

Nancy Pelosi is clearly out of touch & she's not the only one who misreads the room in this matter (e.g. party establishment supporting Congressman Henry Cuellar in the recent primaries, who is anti-choice).

I agree with you that some Democrats are basically using this cynical approach to raise money and to garner support for the midterm elections while doing nothing at the moment in their current position to change course. That won't be enough to build trust between the party and the people who are disillusioned by their lacklustre performance.

Politicians have to show commitment (participating in & supporting protests for women's rights) & communicate clearly what needs to be done to protect civil rights. Go vote or give the party a donation of 20 dollars won't cut it, and neither is using typical tactics like setting up a committee to avoid tackling crises head-on.

The Dems need to talk about short term tactics to protect civil rights:

What Congress can do:

• End the filibuster
• Expand the Supreme Court
• Codify Roe
• Restrain judicial review

What the President can do:

• Open clinics on federal lands
• Expand Fed access/awareness of pill abortions

If these short term tactics fail, the Democrats should focus on clear messaging for the midterms:

• "Congress can override what the Supreme Court did and pass a law to legalize abortion. To do that, we need to elect 2 more Democratic Senators and to hold the House. Pres Biden will sign a law codifying Roe if that happens."- David Plouffe

 

[ZFire]

From a historical context, Obama missed his chance in codifying Roe V. Wade as the Freedom of Choice Act. He was elected on this platform and he promised in 2007 that he would implement it. He had a majority in Congress in his first term, but in 2009 he had decided that he saw no urgency in codifying this act. That was a missed opportunity.
And now, it's the same old story all over again. The Dems have a majority in Congress but lack the willpower (and I'm talking about moderates and some centrists) to protect women. Progressives have already proposed to end the filibuster as a means to codify Roe v. Wade. It's now really up to other Democrats to follow suit.

That doesn't change the fact, like someone mentioned before, they had an opportunity to codify it in the Obama era and instead sat on their hands about it.

Uh no, the votes to codify Roe v. Wade simply weren't there during Obama's first term. Having a majority is NOT the same as having enough pro-choice votes in the House and Senate. You guys do realize that the Dems had far more pro-life members in the 111th Congress (especially in the House) than they do now? It's not as simple as you guys are making it out to be.

They never had the votes to do large scale changes. Look at what Obama went through just to get the Affordable Care Act (ACA) through. A lot of the bickering was among Democrats and the ironic part, it pertained to abortion. Seriously read up on Executive Order 13535. Obama ended up making a deal with a pro-life Michigan House Democrat, agreeing that he would restrict federal funding of abortion through executive action, just so that he could get a bunch of anti-abortion House Democrats to vote Yes on the ACA.

Obama ran on "Yes we can" but it turned out he couldn't do a lot of those things. And that's also when the Republicans began their long crusade of continual obstruction of anything that didn't serve their own election interests. They eventually lucked out with Trump, where he was able to nominate 3 conservative judges lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court.

 

[Lane]

And yet, there's Thomas, already putting in writing his belief that Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell were "demonstrably erroneous decisions" in need of overturning.

My take is that if you believe Roe vs. Wade was a "demonstrably erroneous decisions", then logical thinking would dictate that Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell fit in the same category. If the Court doesn't agree, then I think it's being inconsistent.

I think Thomas is the one being consistent in his opinion on this. However, I think he and the other so called conservative justices were catastrophically wrong in overturning Roe vs. Wade to begin with. Let's hope for some inconsistency going forward!

 

[Lilah]

The guns have more rights than women do in America.

No, not really. People with guns don't have a right to go shooting or harming people. They will face consequences.

 

[Christiaan]

Uh no, the votes to codify Roe v. Wade simply weren't there during Obama's first term. Having a majority is NOT the same as having enough pro-choice votes in the House and Senate. You guys do realize that the Dems had far more pro-life members in the 111th Congress (especially in the House) than they do now? It's not as simple as you guys are making it out to be.

They never had the votes to do large scale changes. Look at what Obama went through just to get the Affordable Care Act (ACA) through. A lot of the bickering was among Democrats and the ironic part, it pertained to abortion. Seriously read up on Executive Order 13535. Obama ended up making a deal with a pro-life Michigan House Democrat, agreeing that he would restrict federal funding of abortion through executive action, just so that he could get a bunch of anti-abortion House Democrats to vote Yes on the ACA.

Obama ran on "Yes we can" but it turned out he couldn't do a lot of those things. And that's also when the Republicans began their long crusade of continual obstruction of anything that didn't serve their own election interests. They eventually lucked out with Trump, where he was able to nominate 3 conservative judges lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court.

I've done some research and have found that the party's pro-choice wing was far more sizeable than the anti-choice wing in the House of Representatives in 2009 (219 vs. 39). Around the same time, the Dems had only 7 anti-choice Senators, so even in that case the pro-choice wing was larger than its anti-choice counterpart. Few anti-choice Senators were willing to support elective abortions (concerning the ACA of 2009) if it contained an amendment with restrictions for federal funding (Nelson Amendment + Stupak-Pitts Amendment). So there was a possibility to reach a deal, albeit not a perfect one for both wings of the party.

House of Representatives

House Vote Exposes Democratic Fault Lines On Abortion
Thirty-nine Democrats voted against the House version of health-care overhaul that passed on Saturday. Had three more Dems joined that group, the measure would have gone down to defeat.

The House vote, as David Herszenhorn wrote in today's New York Times, "was supposed to be the easy part." Democrats, after all, have a commanding 258-177 majority.

Well, there was nothing easy in the final vote, which was 220 to 215. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, needing every vote she could get, threw a bone -- a big bone -- at pro-life Democrats to get them on board: a vote on the "Stupak Amendment." Rep. Bart Stupak, an anti-abortion Democrat from Michigan, offered an amendment that would ban any funding of abortions under the new health plan except in cases of rape, incest or where the mother's life is endangered.

But if allowing the vote pleased the pro-life Dems, it infuriated the party's pro-choice wing, which is far more sizable.

The Stupak amendment passed on Saturday by a vote of 240-194. Sixty-four Democrats voted for it, along with 176 of 177 Republicans (John Shadegg of Arizona voted present).

Senate:

Senate Kills Nelson Amendment–Over To You, Bishops
No surprise here. As expected, the Senate voted down the Nelson abortion amendment late Tuesday (technically, they voted to table the amendment, which is essentially the same thing as killing it) by a vote of 54 to 45. Pro-choice GOP Senators Snowe and Collins supported the move, while pro-life Democratic Senators Bayh, Casey, Conrad, Dorgan, Kaufman, Nelson (NE), and Pryor opposed tabling the measure.

Of that group of seven, only Nelson has said he will vote against final passage of health reform because of abortion (among other issues). Which leaves Harry Reid back where he was yesterday–either needing to jump through Nelson's hoops to see if anything could convince the Nebraska senator to vote in favor of health reform, or turn his attention to Olympia Snowe.

Tuesday's vote does put the Catholic bishops conference in the position of following through on its pledge to vigorously oppose health reform if Stupak/Nelson language is not included. That may seem like an automatic next step, and there's certainly no indication that the bishops will change their minds after drawing this particular line in the sand. But remember that they never reached that point during House consideration because of the last-minute deal struck concerning the Stupak amendment. There is something symbolically more weighty about actually working to defeat health reform–a goal that the bishops have supported for decades–than just threatening to do so. And it might be a tougher sell among Catholics in the pews.

 

[Juan]

With inflation going through the roof, I would expect the FED to raise interest rates this month by at least 100 basic points.

 

[Ed209]

No, not really. People with guns don't have a right to go shooting or harming people. They will face consequences.

Women don't even get paid maternity leave in the US. It is one of the only countries on Earth that is so regressive in this regard and is the only country that doesn't pay maternity leave out of all the OECD nations.

Organisations like NOW have nowhere near the same political impact and influence as the NRA does.

You have predominantly men in power telling women what they have do with their bodies. It's madness. Making victims of rape go full term and give birth is despicable. As @ZFire already stated: giving power to individual states opens up a big can of worms. It should be federal law.

It seems to me that guns are more important over there as they have better protections than women do. If one tries to ban assault rifles in an attempt to stop psychotic and murderous people from accessing them, then there's an uproar, and the NRA's lobbying power defeats and overturns everything in sight.

Who's fighting and lobbying for woman's rights? Most people haven't even heard of the organisations that back them let alone be in awe of their political influence and power.

 

[Ed209]

The US is currently walking a dangerous and regressive path. Half the states have now banned abortions, but you can still buy assault rifles because they aren't worth banning! How fucked up is that, and they have the gall to say that they are pro-life. It seems they are only pro life when it suits them because they certainly aren't when it comes to kids being shot and killed in schools. It's hypocrisy of the finest order.

Women will now have to resort to dangerous back alley procedures like the days of old. Even those who are pregnant via incestuous rape will be forced to go full term, and this is supposed to be a country that is a model of democracy and decency.

What on Earth is going on with the world just lately?

 

[Wrfortiscue]

The US is currently walking a dangerous and regressive path. Half the states have now banned abortions, but you can still buy assault rifles because they aren't worth banning! How fucked up is that, and they have the gall to say that they are pro-life. It seems they are only pro life when it suits them because they certainly aren't when it comes to kids being shot and killed in schools. It's hypocrisy of the finest order.

Women will now have to resort to dangerous back alley procedures like the days of old. Even those who are pregnant via incestuous rape will be forced to go full term, and this is supposed to be a country that is a model of democracy and decency.

What on Earth is going on with the world just lately?

Women can go to pro abortion states to get an abortion I think.

 

[Ed209]

Women can go to pro abortion states to get an abortion I think.

They can, but not everyone will be able to do this, and it will also open up all sorts of other problems. Huge swathes of the US will ban abortions which means if you live in the south or middle of America, you're pretty much screwed. Alabama will make it a felony with no exceptions for rape or incest (that's totally fucked up).

Imagine being 18 and living in a state like that where your only option is to somehow get to New York or Illinois. As a comparison, that'd be like having to travel to Turkey or Cyprus or something if one lived in the UK. For some, it's undoable, so I fear what you'll find is a black market trade will resurface to fulfil a need, and many women will be damaged or taken advantage of. It's such a backwards step that I cannot comprehend how a developed nation could do such a thing. It's incomprehensible.

At the same time, if you wanna purchase an assault rifle in these states - with next to no background check - then go right ahead; that's totally fine! They will happily pretend that your massacre didn't occur like they have for generations, and they will heal everything through thoughts and prayers.

What bullshit.

 

[Wrfortiscue]

They can, but not everyone will be able to do this, and it will also open up all sorts of other problems. Huge swathes of the US will ban abortions which means if you live in the south or middle of America, you're pretty much screwed. Alabama will make it a felony with no exceptions for rape or incest (that's totally fucked up).

Imagine being 18 and living in a state like that where your only option is to somehow get to New York or Illinois. As a comparison, that'd be like having to travel to Turkey or Cyprus or something if one lived in the UK. For some, it's undoable, so I fear what you'll find is a black market trade will resurface to fulfil a need, and many women will be damaged or taken advantage of. It's such a backwards step that I cannot comprehend how a developed nation could do such a thing. It's incomprehensible.

At the same time, if you wanna purchase an assault rifle in these states - with next to no background check - then go right ahead; that's totally fine! They will happily pretend that your massacre didn't occur like they have for generations, and they will heal everything through thoughts and prayers.

What bullshit.

Yeah not sure what the end goal is here either but it seems both parties want it.

 

[ZFire]

I've done some research and have found that the party's pro-choice wing was far more sizeable than the anti-choice wing in the House of Representatives in 2009 (219 vs. 39). Around the same time, the Dems had only 7 anti-choice Senators, so even in that case the pro-choice wing was larger than its anti-choice counterpart. Few anti-choice Senators were willing to support elective abortions (concerning the ACA of 2009) if it contained an amendment with restrictions for federal funding (Nelson Amendment + Stupak-Pitts Amendment). So there was a possibility to reach a deal, albeit not a perfect one for both wings of the party.

Hey, Christiaan, I'm not sure I follow. The links you've provided only affirm my point that the Democrats were not as united around abortion in 2009 (or in 2012 for that matter) compared to now, therefore the odds of passing RvW codification during Obama's first term were very slim.

I'm not sure if you made a typo mistake, but the pro choice wing having 219 House Democrats couldn't have been right as that would have guaranteed the Democrats a simple majority (need 218 votes to pass legislation). The Stupak amendment would've had no chance of being proposed and voted on in the first place if that were the case. 219 is more than enough to block out any amendments restricting abortion in a legislative bill.

But even in the first article you linked, it states "The Stupak amendment passed on Saturday by a vote of 240-194. Sixty-four Democrats voted for it, along with 176 of 177 Republicans (John Shadegg of Arizona voted present). The fact that 64 out of the 258 Democrats voted to include the Stupak amendment in the ACA is evident enough that the party was far less pro choice 12 years ago. It was much more challenging to get a simple majority when it came to abortion. I'm pretty sure the number of anti-choice house Democrats was somewhere in 60s at the time.

In the end though, the language of the Nelson amendment and Stupak-pits amendments were removed in the ACA, but to get the anti-choice Dems to vote yes on his health care bill, Obama ensured them that he would affirm to the Hyde Amendment (restrict federal funds to pay for abortion) through executive action which he did.

As for the Senate, don't you need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster? There are procedures that need to be followed. Obama had 58 Democratic Senators along 2 independents (Sanders and Lieberman) who caucus with them late in 2009, so 60 in total in that timeframe. Out of the 60 Democrats, a decent amount of them were blue dogs who wouldn't have voted for codifying RvW. As you mentioned, the Dems had 7 anti-choice Senators and so they wouldn't have been able to invoke cloture to end the filibuster because the votes (60) simply weren't enough. They would have the slimmest window of opportunity to codify RvW.

The current Democrats in Congress are much better in regards to pro-choice. I think there's like 1 anti-choice Democrat remaining in the house. I believe it's Cuellar and his vote isn't even crucial. Biden's current Senate roster would vote to codify Roe (House already passed it), but it doesn't matter because Manchin and Sinema are old time blue dogs who won't get rid of the filibuster, so codifying Roe would die in the Senate.

 

[ZFire]

Women can go to pro abortion states to get an abortion I think.

Supreme Court justice, Kavanaugh was implying this same exact thing in his concurrence:

He's basically saying "Everyone please relax, this decision isn't such a big deal and I think anyone who can afford it can still go get an abortion in a state where its legal (until Red states try to make that illegal too which he will fully support since he's full of shit).

@Ed209 perfectly pointed out the problem:

Imagine being 18 and living in a state like that where your only option is to somehow get to New York or Illinois. As a comparison, that'd be like having to travel to Turkey or Cyprus or something if one lived in the UK. For some, it's undoable, so I fear what you'll find is a black market trade will resurface to fulfil a need, and many women will be damaged or taken advantage of. It's such a backwards step that I cannot comprehend how a developed nation could do such a thing. It's incomprehensible.

It's extremely short sighted. It's not so practical for a lot of women especially in emergency situations to be able to do that, let alone deal with the financial burden of out of state travel and hospital bills.

The ones who could do out of state travel however are people who have better advantages (being rich for instance). They will have no problem securing access to abortion services. As someone who subscribes to John Rawls' principles of justice, this is beyond unfair. Every woman should have equal opportunity to abortion.

 

[Juan]

Women don't even get paid maternity leave in the US. It is one of the only countries on Earth that is so regressive in this regard and is the only country that doesn't pay maternity leave out of all the OECD nations.

In the "land of freedom"... or better put, the land of mass shooting, social policies, universal healthcare, and basic rights are in danger.

If it wasn't for Hollywood propaganda I would think the "land of freedom" is certainly... Switzerland, or generally... Scandinavia

 

[ZFire]

Nancy Pelosi is clearly out of touch & she's not the only one who misreads the room in this matter (e.g. party establishment supporting Congressman Henry Cuellar in the recent primaries, who is anti-choice).

I agree with you that some Democrats are basically using this cynical approach to raise money and to garner support for the midterm elections while doing nothing at the moment in their current position to change course. That won't be enough to build trust between the party and the people who are disillusioned by their lacklustre performance

It so happens that you need to be a bit more conservative and moderate for a ever growing conservative voter base (Hispanics) in an already moderate district (28th) in Texas. I would take a pro-life/pro-NRA Democrat who also supports things like legalizing immigrants over a MAGA Republican any day of the week, especially when he's not a crucial vote on abortion. Do I agree with all of his politics, definitely not. But you run the risk of losing the seat in a upcoming heated midterm. Dems are relying on the the power of incumbency (those seeking re-election have the advantage) with Cuellar and it's the right move.

 

[Ed209]

It's extremely short sighted. It's not so practical for a lot of women especially in emergency situations to be able to do that, let alone deal with the financial burden of out of state travel and hospital bills.

I agree completely. It will not solve the issue of abortions; it will just drive it all underground. Many young girls could also end up taking their lives or attempt to do abortions on themselves as it's such a big deal, and I cannot begin to imagine the horror of having to give birth to a child that was conceived via incestuous rape (especially when it's either that or you face jail time or a criminal conviction). That is beyond fucked up and needs to be reversed immediately. These are not the kind of policies you'd expect to be coming out of the USA. It's like going back to the Middle Ages.

 

[Wrfortiscue]

Supreme Court justice, Kavanaugh was implying this same exact thing in his concurrence:

View attachment 50755
View attachment 50756

He's basically saying "Everyone please relax, this decision isn't such a big deal and I think anyone who can afford it can still go get an abortion in a state where its legal (until Red states try to make that illegal too which he will fully support since he's full of shit).

@Ed209 perfectly pointed out the problem:

It's extremely short sighted. It's not so practical for a lot of women especially in emergency situations to be able to do that, let alone deal with the financial burden of out of state travel and hospital bills.

The ones who could do out of state travel however are people who have better advantages (being rich for instance). They will have no problem securing access to abortion services. As someone who subscribes to John Rawls' principles of justice, this is beyond unfair. Every woman should have equal opportunity to abortion.

I am against abortion. I am also against government forcing you to do thing with your body (vaccine) and same applies to birth. Was discussing this with the wife. We need to educate more, provide more contraceptives or whatever, and also do more for foster/adoption. There will be kids forced in bad households because of lack of abortion. That is no bueno.

 

[Luman]

The pro-Abortion "My Body My Choice" people who are so angry at the Supreme Court abortion decision are the same ones who called people who did not get vaccinated all kinds of filthy names and supported taking their rights and employment away from them.

Another interesting thing is that those who are the most vocal protestors against the abortion ruling, usually live in states that are not going to change the laws, such as New York or California. It is not their concern if states that they do not live in, wish to limit or stop abortions.

 

[Ed209]

The pro-Abortion "My Body My Choice" people who are so angry at the Supreme Court abortion decision are the same ones who called people who did not get vaccinated all kinds of filthy names and supported taking their rights and employment away from them.

Another interesting thing is that those who are the most vocal protestors against the abortion ruling, usually live in states that are not going to change the laws, such as New York or California. It is not their concern if states that they do not live in, wish to limit or stop abortions.

I don't even live in the US and I think it's appalling. If they can overturn this then what will they go after next?

This will ruin lives and it reminds me of what happened in Ireland. The catholics were strongly opposed to abortion to the point that many young girls mutilated themselves and attempted suicide, and there were other horror stories. It was a dark period.

Here's an example of one case and how fucked up these pro life laws can become if left unopposed:

Even with these adjustments, the Eighth Amendment sometimes restricted the ability of medical professionals to offer patients life-saving care during a pregnancy-related emergency.

In 2012, Savita Halappanavar, age 31 and 17 weeks pregnant, went to a hospital in Galway, Ireland. Doctors there determined that she was having a miscarriage. However, because the fetus still had a detectable heartbeat, it was protected by the Eighth Amendment. Doctors could not intervene – in legal terms, ending its life – even to save the mother. So she was admitted to the hospital for pain management while awaiting the miscarriage to progress naturally.

Over the course of three days, as her pain increased and signs of infection grew, she and her husband pleaded with hospital officials to terminate the pregnancy because of the health risk. The request was denied because the fetus still had a heartbeat.

By the time the fetal heartbeat could no longer be detected, Halappanavar had developed a massive infection in her uterus, which spread to her blood. After suffering organ failure and four days in intensive care, she died.

This was likely not the only time someone had suffered, or even died, as a result of being denied abortion in Ireland. But the publicity surrounding the case prompted a new wave of activism aimed at repealing the Eighth Amendment. In 2013, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act was signed into law, which did not fully repeal the Eighth Amendment but legalized abortions that would protect the mother's life.

It is estimated that about 170,000 people traveled from Ireland to seek a legal abortion between 1980 and 2018.

In 2018, a referendum repealing the Eighth Amendment passed overwhelmingly by a margin of 66% to 34%. As a result of the repeal, legal abortionsare now allowed during the first trimester, with costs covered by the public health service.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/he...rtion-might-teach-us-about-a-post-roe-america​

I remember a lot of the fucked up stories coming out of Ireland regarding the abortion laws as I was growing up, and now America is about to go down the same path. Nothing good will come from this.

On the link above, there is also the story of a 14-year-old girl who was raped and wanted an abortion, but was made to go to term even though she was suicidal because of it.

 

[Luman]

I don't even live in the US and I think it's appalling. If they can overturn this then what will they go after next?

This will ruin lives and it reminds me of what happened in Ireland. The catholics were strongly opposed to abortion to the point that many young girls mutilated themselves and attempted suicide, and there were other horror stories. It was a dark period.

Here's an example of one case and how fucked up these pro life laws can become if left unopposed:

Even with these adjustments, the Eighth Amendment sometimes restricted the ability of medical professionals to offer patients life-saving care during a pregnancy-related emergency.

In 2012, Savita Halappanavar, age 31 and 17 weeks pregnant, went to a hospital in Galway, Ireland. Doctors there determined that she was having a miscarriage. However, because the fetus still had a detectable heartbeat, it was protected by the Eighth Amendment. Doctors could not intervene – in legal terms, ending its life – even to save the mother. So she was admitted to the hospital for pain management while awaiting the miscarriage to progress naturally.

Over the course of three days, as her pain increased and signs of infection grew, she and her husband pleaded with hospital officials to terminate the pregnancy because of the health risk. The request was denied because the fetus still had a heartbeat.

By the time the fetal heartbeat could no longer be detected, Halappanavar had developed a massive infection in her uterus, which spread to her blood. After suffering organ failure and four days in intensive care, she died.

This was likely not the only time someone had suffered, or even died, as a result of being denied abortion in Ireland. But the publicity surrounding the case prompted a new wave of activism aimed at repealing the Eighth Amendment. In 2013, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act was signed into law, which did not fully repeal the Eighth Amendment but legalized abortions that would protect the mother's life.

It is estimated that about 170,000 people traveled from Ireland to seek a legal abortion between 1980 and 2018.

In 2018, a referendum repealing the Eighth Amendment passed overwhelmingly by a margin of 66% to 34%. As a result of the repeal, legal abortionsare now allowed during the first trimester, with costs covered by the public health service.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/he...rtion-might-teach-us-about-a-post-roe-america​

I remember a lot of the fucked up stories coming out of Ireland regarding the abortion laws as I was growing up, and now America is about to go down the same path. Nothing good will come from this.

On the link above, there is also the story of a 14-year-old girl who was raped and wanted an abortion, but was made to go to term even though she was suicidal because of it.

The concept of government in the United States is what the name implies - individual states have the right to a government that represents their views. If some of their citizens do not want to live in a state that has banned or limited abortion rights, they are one hundred percent free to move to another state that has laws that they would prefer, or have the procedure done in a state that has different laws.

Many states which will keep their abortion laws in place, will welcome patients who are unable to obtain one where they live. This has been happening for years, and many abortions of non-residents are regularly performed in states with more lenient abortion laws, such as New York.

Before Roe vs. Wade was enacted in the early 1970s, abortion was completely illegal all over the country. Birth control was not as sophisticated, the "morning-after pill" was not yet invented, and it really was not all that bad.

We cannot deny the states, that wish to limit or stop abortion, their right to treat abortion as they believe it should be, just because some of us have a different opinion.

 

[Ed209]

The concept of government in the United States is what the name implies - individual states have the right to a government that represents their views. If some of their citizens do not want to live in a state that has banned or limited abortion rights, they are one hundred percent free to move to another state that has laws that they would prefer, or have the procedure done in a state that has different laws.

Many states which will keep their abortion laws in place, will welcome patients who are unable to obtain one where they live. This has been happening for years, and many abortions of non-residents are regularly performed in states with more lenient abortion laws, such as New York.

Before Roe vs. Wade was enacted in the early 1970s, abortion was completely illegal all over the country. Birth control was not as sophisticated, the "morning-after pill" was not yet invented, and it really was not all that bad.

We cannot deny the states, that wish to limit or stop abortion, their right to treat abortion as they believe it should be, just because some of us have a different opinion.

It's a slippery slope of stripping rights from people. Where was the representation from women when this decision was made? You have men inflicting their ideologies on the entire nation.

Same-sex marriage and contraception could be next as previously stated:

Justice Clarence Thomas called on the court to revisit other decisions, including on contraception and same-sex marriage. In his opinion, he wrote that he would do away with the doctrine of "substantive due process" and explicitly called on the court to overrule the rulings in Griswold v. Connecticut, on the right to contraception; Lawrence v. Texas, on the right to same-sex intimacy; and Obergefell v. Hodges, on the right to same-sex marriage.​

It would be ironic if contraception is overturned since that is what stops people becoming pregnant in the first place. Do these people want to see a huge increase in the population along with lots of feral and unloved children? What is the point to all of this.

 

[Luman]

It's a slippery slope of stripping rights from people. Where was the representation from women when this decision was made? You have men inflicting their ideologies on the entire nation.

Same-sex marriage and contraception could be next as previously stated:

Justice Clarence Thomas called on the court to revisit other decisions, including on contraception and same-sex marriage. In his opinion, he wrote that he would do away with the doctrine of "substantive due process" and explicitly called on the court to overrule the rulings in Griswold v. Connecticut, on the right to contraception; Lawrence v. Texas, on the right to same-sex intimacy; and Obergefell v. Hodges, on the right to same-sex marriage.​

It would be ironic if contraception is overturned since that is what stops people becoming pregnant in the first place. Do these people want to see a huge increase in the population along with lots of feral and unloved children? What is the point to all of this.

The original judges who approved Roe vs. Wade, were all men. The decision to revoke it included Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Many people believe that abortion is an act of murder. Others, including the late, well-known libertarian Nat Hentoff, believe that it is a violation of human rights, to a helpless victim. I think that these arguments are worthy of respect and consideration, but the supporters of abortion seem to think that they are always correct and are the only ones entitled to hold an opinion on this issue.

 

[Ed209]

Many people believe that abortion is an act of murder. Others, including the late, well-known libertarian Nat Hentoff, believe that it is a violation of human rights, to a helpless victim. I think that these arguments are worthy of respect and consideration, but the supporters of abortion seem to think that they are always correct and are the only ones entitled to hold an opinion on this issue.

I understand there is a deep divide and philosophical discussion to be had around this issue, but the vast majority of women don't have an abortion with a blasé attitude about it. It is an enormously difficult and emotional decision that is made with the potential child's future in mind. I would much rather a cluster of cells be aborted than a child be born into a torturous and miserable life. What about those who are born into incestuous and/or abusive families and are left to rot? What kind of life is that?

Some decisions are based on terrible circumstances where the potential child is aborted out of pure love. People's situations obviously vary enormously, but I think it's far more prudent for there to be a humane choice than for there not to be.

These religious zealots who claim to be pro-life are very selective in their views. Where is the outrage at the loss of conscious/sentient life when all these school shootings occur? They say a few prayers and then bury their heads in the sand. They don't put up a fight to ban the weapons that are frequently used in those atrocities, though. Also, where was the outrage from the church at all the sexual abuse the catholic priests were inflicting on children? It was buried and hidden from public view and abortions were restricted. Did the children in those cases ask to be raped as they were forced to go to term with unwanted babies? There is some evil hypocrisy that underlies some of these stories. What about the case of the woman in the story I posted above who was made to die even though she was having a miscarriage? Because of the anti-abortion law, two lives were lost. It's tragic that this was allowed to go in in Ireland until very recently. As they modernised their laws and realised the mistakes that have been made, the US regressed on theirs. Work that one out. It's a disastrous decision.

All laws should be secular because we can't treat everyone the same based upon the ideals and beliefs of those who practise various religions. Why should an agnostic or atheist person be forced to obey someone else's religious doctrine? That is not a free society but a controlled one.

This could set a precedent for other cases to be overturned (as outlined in various posts above).

Would you support a ban on contraception?

What about same-sex marriage?

If the latter is overturned then it would be another case of religious doctrine being forced upon nonbelievers. This is a form of fascism.

 

[Luman]

I understand there is a deep divide and philosophical discussion to be had around this issue..........

All laws should be secular because we can't treat everyone the same based upon the ideals and beliefs of those who practise various religions. Why should an agnostic or atheist person be forced to obey someone else's religious doctrine? That is not a free society but a controlled one.

The decision to end Roe vs. Wde is secular, although some people have a religious objection to abortion this has nothing to do with it being a violation of human rights. The aforementioned Nat Hentoff, who opposed Roe vs. Wade, was an Atheist. Human rights are secular, and many people simply want to protect the life of the unborn, in different ways. Some support abortion up to 8 or 12 weeks for any reason, some for rape, incest, or medical reasons - but not late-term abortions. If the majority of people in some states want to make it more conservative or eliminate it entirely, they should have the right to do so.

This could set a precedent for other cases to be overturned (as outlined in various posts above).

Would you support a ban on contraception?

No.

What about same-sex marriage?

I support most of the basic ideas of equal rights for gays and lesbians.

If the latter is overturned then it would be another case of religious doctrine being forced upon nonbelievers. This is a form of fascism.

Most people who support Abortion are believers in religion and god.

The way the family court system currently works in most areas where Abortion will remain legal is that women can legally decide to have or abort a child, for any reason whether the biological father agrees with her, or not. If she decides to get rid of it, he has no say in the matter. If she decides to keep it, and they separate or divorce, he must pay child support for 18 years, except in rare cases when he is awarded obtain custody. This is very unfair, as fathers have few rights, yet have enormous financial responsibilities for their children.

In the case of a divorce in a marriage with children, a man can be kicked out of the home that he built, and have his right to see his children scheduled by the court. If his wife decides to marry again, he will still be forced to pay child support until his children are 18 years old, unless his ex's new husband adopts the children and becomes their legal guardian. The new husband, of course, will be able to live with the children and see them all of the time, with no legal or financial responsibilities for them.

 

[Ed209]

Human rights are secular, and many people simply want to protect the life of the unborn, in different ways.

They're supposed to be secular, but let's not kid ourselves, there's always been a religious undertone to this.

People do have varied views, that's very true, but introducing a blanket ban on abortions and to also criminalise them will not solve anything. It will drive people into doing dangerous and silly things. It is a draconian move and a massive step backwards, and no good will come from it.

I support most of the basic ideas of equal rights for gays and lesbians.

Do you believe they have the right to marry?

The way the family court system currently works in most areas where Abortion will remain legal is that women can legally decide to have or abort a child, for any reason whether the biological father agrees with her, or not. If she decides to get rid of it, he has no say in the matter. If she decides to keep it, and they separate or divorce, he must pay child support for 18 years, except in rare cases when he is awarded obtain custody. This is very unfair, as fathers have few rights, yet have enormous financial responsibilities for their children.

In the case of a divorce in a marriage with children, a man can be kicked out of the home that he built, and have his right to see his children scheduled by the court. If his wife decides to marry again, he will still be forced to pay child support until his children are 18 years old, unless his ex's new husband adopts the children and becomes their legal guardian. The new husband, of course, will be able to live with the children and see them all of the time, with no legal or financial responsibilities for them.

You make some very good points about the unequal rights that fathers have, and I agree with you on the points you made. However, this is largely a separate issue and banning abortions still won't help fathers achieve equal rights.

No matter how I look at what's happened, I don't agree with it.

 

[Luman]

Do you believe they (gays and lesbians) have the right to marry?

Of course, they should definitely be permitted to marry and be every bit as miserable as heterosexual married people are.