Alabama R's tried to make all abortion a felony to force a SCOTUS decision

[Endus]

Care to link where? I was under the impression that while the declaration cited divine origins the constitution does not.

"Because we believe that unborn children have an inherent right to life endowed by their Creator, as the Constitution states all humans have"

They're lying, because it doesn't say that at all, that's my point.

[Azadina]

Fortunately, this is not the 1950s anymore.

Women can now order abortion pill through the internet.

Online supplier of abortion pills defies FDA order to stop providing them in US

Also, access to abortion varies by states. States like Washington and Oregon do not require parental consent for minor. California has parental consent requirement which is not enforced.

Due to its proximity to the bible belt states, Illinois has become the abortion tourism central of the midwest – 5,000 to 6,000 out-of-state abortions per year. The state is so unfriendly to so called pro-life/anti abortion that it took them 15 years of lawsuit to force the state to include parental consent for minor on the book. Which the state does not bother to enforce.

Vermont House just approved H.57, a bill that states abortion is a “fundamental right” together with right to contraception, sterilization and family planning.

Health insurance policies in all of these states also cover abortion procedure, regardless of cause.

Yeah, until the sharia states outlaw just the act of ordering them, let alone using them. With extreme charges no less. Not to mention that pills aren't a one size fit all solution either.

[Mormolyce]

I do enjoy watching all these posters who concern troll over Islam's treatment of women as an excuse for their blatant bigotry are now whistling and looking elsewhere as Alabama tries to enforce the Christian equivalent of Sharia law.

[Yetanothernewbie]

They are going full Saudi-Arabia now when Trump still holds presidency, and supreme court is stacked with trusted lapdogs.

Actually in the irony of all ironies, Saudi Arabia is more forgiving in abortion than some of these states.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/...-alabamas/amp/

[Noradin]

The state is so unfriendly to so called pro-life/anti abortion that it took them 15 years of lawsuit to force the state to include parental consent for minor on the book. Which the state does not bother to enforce.

As it should not.
Forcing a minor to have a child should not be in the scope of their guardians' powers over them.

- - - Updated - - -

Care to link where? I was under the impression that while the declaration cited divine origins the constitution does not.

You misunderstood Endus, this is what he meant:

"They [(the republicans from Alabama)] specifically cited ["]divine origin in Constitution for human rights["]."

[Rasulis]

Ultimately though poor people and scared teenagers still cannot afford to cross state lines to get an abortion. So it doesn't help them

For all practical purposes, it is already the case in many states. Between the targeted regulations specific to abortions clinics and onerous licensing requirements, six states are down to 1 abortion clinics. Missouri will likely have none by this weekend.

Missouri Could Soon Become First State Without A Clinic That Performs Abortions

Planned Parenthood officials say they've been unable to reach an agreement with officials at the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, who want to require several doctors who perform abortions at the health center to submit to questioning as a condition of renewing the license.

Planned Parenthood says state officials have indicated the questioning could lead to criminal proceedings or board review for those physicians, who provide the procedure at Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region.

What doctor would submit to something like that. Especially since 5 of the 7 doctors providing service at the clinic are volunteers and not employees of Planned Parenthood. Even if Planned Parenthood want to comply, they can't force those five doctors to do so.

The sad part, just like you said, this will not stop abortion. Just make it harder. Women can still go to neighboring states where abortion is legal. There are even organizations, such as Yellowhammer, that arrange and provide free travel for low income women.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually in the irony of all ironies, Saudi Arabia is more forgiving in abortion than some of these states.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/...-alabamas/amp/

Totally not creepy.

[AsGryffynn]

I don’t think you know what implying means, since I was very overt. Nor are you disagreeing with my assertion, since favoring one thing, doesn’t negate support for another. As you proceed to show support in the following paragraph.



lol!!! A vagina being a loop hole, is a new one. Fuck hole I’ve heard, but loop hole is fresh. It’s like something being more tolerable, but also worse. Also, be clear here, men are only bound financially within a jurisdiction. Women are bound by the actual trauma of an abortion. It’s like your paper abortion, what are you expecting? Getting a paper that tells government to kidnap women and perform surgery against their will? For you it’s just paper...

Then you have a weird way of describing it.

As for thenloophole part, yes it is! Why? Because child support is not a natural right but a created one! Same for abortion: IT ISN'T A NATURALLY OCCURRING PROCESS. So if the state will step in to allow an intervention with the express purpose of ending a pregnancy. It is a medical procedure, and medical procedures indicate a need for termination... in other words, abortion need not be on request.

For a man to be able to abdicate his responsibilities to a child is not equality. In the case of an abortion there is no longer a financial burden on either parent but if a father just abdicates his responsibilities there is still a child at the end of 9 months and the financial burden falls solely on one parent. That is not equality. Until foetuses can be taken from a women and transplanted into a man so that if a woman doesn't want the child but a man does there can be no equality.

At least we have an admission that our biological differences prevent equality. That's fine. I just want people to admit that not having an uterus creates unequal circumstances.

If the woman aborts then the man in question also has no financial responsibilities towards a child because one isn't born. - Equality

If a child is born and only the mother has to pay and care. - Inequality

But the man cannot decide whether he will or will not. The woman can decide either. It all boils down to one thing:

ONE PERSON'S DECISION AFFECTS TWO PARTIES.

Which is why regulation would see to it this abdication happens solely while abortion on request is possible and not after the fact.

I honestly don't get what is so special about a uterus. It's just an organ. You get to decide what you do with your own organs. Mandating that a woman lets a fetus occupy her uterus without her consent makes no sense to me. Women do not have an extraordinary right to bodily autonomy; they have the exact same right to it that men do. They just have a common breach of their autonomy that men never have to deal with and abortion allows them to express that dissent.

Since abortion can only be induced, thenact itself si a medical process. Medicine has the healing of the body or preservation of physical and psychological integrity as a purpose. Aborting out of a whim does not fulfill "medical" requirements for a procedure because no cause can establish if it's necessary. Because of this, there should be "no right" to abortion on request. On the other hand, it must be decriminalized if done by the woman's own devices or those of someone endorsing her.

The law doesn't mention it, because your entire argument is complete horseshit.

Women have no "right" to end parental obligations in utero. None. That "right" does not exist, and every time you claim it does, you're lying.

Because it isn't a right. IT'S A FREAKING LEGAL LOOPHOLE!

No child = no parental obligations, but only the woman can choose to terminate a pregnancy. By extension, only a woman can abdicate those responsibilities due to her right to an abortion eliminating the source of those responsibilities.

Abortion does not end parental obligations. At all. There aren't any. For either parent. And if the abortion doesn't take, and the child's born anyway, parental obligations still exist at birth. Because abortion does not do anything with regards to parental obligations.

It does: IT IS THE END-RESULT OF THE CHOICE NOT TO ABORT! A unilateral choice.

And men have the exact same right as women; if you get pregnant, you can get an abortion, too. And let's be clear, a man can get pregnant, so this is not some wild hypothetical; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Beatie

Not being able to act on a right because the circumstances rarely come up is not the same as not having that right. You might never have a cop try and unlawfully search you or your property, but you've still got that right.

A right requiring anatomical specifications will already need to make a distinctionbetween one or the other biological genders. This is inequality. Biological differences means we do not have equal rights unless men as a rule are born with a serviceable uterus!

You mean "fatherhood"?

The point is that "motherhood" can't be "shaken off", as you claim. That's a lie. The only way to "shake off" parental obligations is adoption, where both parents get a say (if they both share custody, at least).

Some of the reasons given for abortion literally include "I don't want to/ am not ready to be a mother." Just who do you think you're talking to?

Does the word "putative" mean anything to you? Question, what happens when the reason given above is one of the rationales given for an abortion, but a man with no means of sustaining himself or a child is unable to convince a woman to have an abortion?



Countries in green literally mention economic factors as a justification for an abortion. Don't say money isn't involved because EVERYTHING TODAY involves money and transactions, sadly...

I used to support something similar to Crissi (and you can probably dig up posts from a few years back, here, where I said such), but I've turned around on it. I don't think it's consistent.

The current state of parental duties is focused on ensuring the child is supported, financially at least. If we take that obligation away from parents completely, and give it to the State, where all parents get a check for child support from the government every month before their kid turns 18, in that circumstance I could see ending parenthood in-utero, because what's being ended is parental rights, not obligations. Dad can walk away, and if he does, he never, ever gets to change his mind. But dad is also never going to pay child support, no matter how he chooses, in that hypothetical world.

In Nordic countries, the state shoulders all but 10% of child support. The child is supported because the obligation to support is given to parents who acknowledge themselves as such. A child has rights whether the parents want it or not, but the obligation exists to ensure the child's well being, not that obligations are being fulfilled, which is only done out of a token gesture and only according to capabilities. Compare and contrast with the Draconian American laws where a woman might obtain support from the state and not even think about whether the man or not is even present... then the state hounds him for money that they have, sometimes for a child you never knew you had. If a woman keeps a child a secret from you, why should you pay for someone you knew nothing about and most importantly: PARENTAL RIGHTS THAT HAVE BEEN OPENLY BREACHED?

In the countries I mentioned, the rights are tied to the obligations. If you cannot have those rights or they have been breached by the woman OR state, they cannot ask you to chip in. The child support balance remains, but is frozen permanently and has no bearing on the rest of your life.

Essentially, failure to pay CS does not constitute a criminal offense there.

I've got no problem letting people unilaterally give up their own rights. I do have a problem with letting anyone give up their legal obligations and duties, just for not wanting to have them. There's no reason men should have that unique "right".

You cannot do one without the other. At least in Roman law (I'm an Spaniard, so your Common Law mumbo-jumbo might be different), rights are born from obligations and vice-versa. You cannot enjoy rights without fulfilling obligations: conversely, not having or surrendering a right will exonerate the man from any obligations revolving around that right. In Europe, abortion is seen as a concession and not a right. It is why "objection of conscience" is something doctors can say to reject performing or facilitating abortions. It is not "legal" but decriminalized.

Not to mention, this right could be extended to women and technically is. If a woman wishes to give a child up for adoption and no man is present, no charges are levied at all! The only issue might be the man keeping the child which the woman refused to have (abortion?) and she might have chosen to have it in this scenario, but not rear it. If this is the case, the woman claiming (or disclaiming) her rights to the child after birth should also allow collapse of motherhood after birth, so long as she states her intention to surrender motherhood before the 6 week deadline.

See? It's not an special right I'm mentioning! Women who are pro-life for any reason should also bear this right.

But you're also the country that prevents granting loans or being hired for having unpaid CS debt and then jailed a guy weekly for this until he took his life to stop this circus because you can't freeze CS payments and keep this issue confidential so that men can secure income any way they can and then fund whatever they might have the ability too.

If a parent can fund the child alone and the other one can't, it would be horrific to keep tabs on them because your legal system refuses to acknowledge obligations are fulfilled and is so tone-deaf and class blind they can't see sometimes the putative parent is in worse straits than the child he-she's supposed to care off and more so when his/her rights are limited (such as when there's no joint custody).

[Elegiac]

You cannot do one without the other. At least in Roman law (I'm an Spaniard, so your Common Law mumbo-jumbo might be different), rights are born from obligations and vice-versa. You cannot enjoy rights without fulfilling obligations: conversely, not having or surrendering a right will exonerate the man from any obligations revolving around that right. In Europe, abortion is seen as a concession and not a right. It is why "objection of conscience" is something doctors can say to reject performing or facilitating abortions. It is not "legal" but decriminalized.

The "Common Law mumbo jumbo" is quite different, yes.

Being unable to opt out of child support is a function of societal interest in the child's wellbeing, abortion is a function of bodily autonomy. There is no contradiction.

[Endus]

Because it isn't a right. IT'S A FREAKING LEGAL LOOPHOLE!

No child = no parental obligations, but only the woman can choose to terminate a pregnancy. By extension, only a woman can abdicate those responsibilities due to her right to an abortion eliminating the source of those responsibilities.

Your "extension" is incorrect. That does not extend from her basic human rights. There is no such abdication of any legal responsibilities whatsoever, in connection to abortion rights. None.

If an abortion fails, and she gives birth regardless, guess what? She's a parent, and has obligations. The abortion changed nothing, because it does not work the way you're claiming it does.

A right requiring anatomical specifications will already need to make a distinctionbetween one or the other biological genders. This is inequality. Biological differences means we do not have equal rights unless men as a rule are born with a serviceable uterus

The fact is, men have gotten pregnant and given birth. That's not fantasy, that's the reality of today.

This has nothing to do with their respective biology. It has only to do with making decisions about one's own body. That's it.

Some of the reasons given for abortion literally include "I don't want to/ am not ready to be a mother." Just who do you think you're talking to?

And? Not wanting to take on said obligations at a future date does not mean you currently have said obligations, or that you not taking them up is you "shaking them off".

Does the word "putative" mean anything to you? Question, what happens when the reason given above is one of the rationales given for an abortion, but a man with no means of sustaining himself or a child is unable to convince a woman to have an abortion?

I'm confused as to why you think this is a problem. Child support is established here based on ability to pay and the standard of living of the parent; they're expected to be paying enough to keep the child at the same standard of living they'd have if they were the sole parent.

When you're rich, that means you pay a ton. When you're not, it means you don't.

The woman gets the abortion she wants.

Since it isn't him that's pregnant, the man doesn't get a say. But if he's seriously not able to sustain himself, I'm really not sure how much child support you think the State would oblige him to pay; child support is based on your standard of living and ability to pay. Someone on disability isn't going to be paying child support.

If a woman keeps a child a secret from you, why should you pay for someone you knew nothing about and most importantly: PARENTAL RIGHTS THAT HAVE BEEN OPENLY BREACHED?

As to the first; because it's still your child.
As to the second; I'm totally in favour of you suing for your custody rights and such. Go nuts. I'm not arguing that men should be denied their parental rights, here.

In the countries I mentioned, the rights are tied to the obligations. If you cannot have those rights or they have been breached by the woman OR state, they cannot ask you to chip in. The child support balance remains, but is frozen permanently and has no bearing on the rest of your life.

Pretty sure you've got that wrong. Pretty sure that, to make up an example, if a guy is beating his wife and daughter regularly, his parental rights can be revoked, and she can get full custody (and a restraining order). And that's not going to eliminate his responsibility to continue paying child support.

Essentially, failure to pay CS does not constitute a criminal offense there.

It doesn't in most places. It's a civil issue, not criminal. But, you can be sued, and the courts can issue an order, and refusing to abide by a court order is criminal.

But that's about the court order, not the child support itself.

Not to mention, this right could be extended to women and technically is. If a woman wishes to give a child up for adoption and no man is present, no charges are levied at all!

Not when the child's father has shared custody, it's not. You're moving goalposts. This has nothing to do with gender, it has to do with custody.

But you're also the country that prevents granting loans or being hired for having unpaid CS debt and then jailed a guy weekly for this until he took his life to stop this circus because you can't freeze CS payments and keep this issue confidential so that men can secure income any way they can and then fund whatever they might have the ability too.

Are you expecting me to argue that evading your legal obligations and being a deadbeat should be totes okay? Cause I'm not going to agree with that.

Yes, not paying debts you owe can get you in legal trouble. Shocking. Again, nothing to do with abortion, here.

If a parent can fund the child alone and the other one can't, it would be horrific to keep tabs on them because your legal system refuses to acknowledge obligations are fulfilled and is so tone-deaf and class blind they can't see sometimes the putative parent is in worse straits than the child he-she's supposed to care off and more so when his/her rights are limited (such as when there's no joint custody).

Yeah, you're making this up. And all to get away from the topic of abortion and your demand for a special, unique "right" just for men.

[Felya]

@AsGryffynn am not reading that. Sorry... your outrage exemplifies my point. It’s a catch 22... you either accept the current chance your pleading will work... or... government making the choice for you. I couldn’t care less how you justify either. It’s really irrelevant to my point... if I choose to stick a needle through my left eye or my right eye, the justification for the choice is irrelevant in context.

[Mayhem]

But the man cannot decide whether he will or will not. The woman can decide either. It all boils down to one thing:

ONE PERSON'S DECISION AFFECTS TWO PARTIES.

Which is why regulation would see to it this abdication happens solely while abortion on request is possible and not after the fact.

Yep, better stay away from women, they have all the power over men!

Stupid women bodies and their right to bear children!

[Felya]

Yep, better stay away from women, they have all the power over men!

Stupid women bodies and their right to bear children!

In context of the thread, saying it impacts two parties, implies the whole thing is just spite. This thread is about a third party...

[Mayhem]

In context of the thread, saying it impacts two parties, implies the whole thing is just spite. This thread is about a third party...

Who cares for the child! (Literally)

[Hilhen7]

Since abortion can only be induced, thenact itself si a medical process. Medicine has the healing of the body or preservation of physical and psychological integrity as a purpose. Aborting out of a whim does not fulfill "medical" requirements for a procedure because no cause can establish if it's necessary. Because of this, there should be "no right" to abortion on request. On the other hand, it must be decriminalized if done by the woman's own devices or those of someone endorsing her.

So are you saying that a pregnancy has no physical effect on a woman's body? I suppose it also has no health risks to the women as well? Tell me more about how you think pregnancy works?

[Jeezy911]

So I guess Alabama didn't want to be outdone by Georgia as the shittiest state to live in.

That would actually go to California, where you literally have to watch out for piles of shit on the sidewalks.

[Yetanothernewbie]

That would actually go to California, where you literally have to watch out for piles of shit on the sidewalks.

Nope Alabama is still worst

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings

Try again.

[Rasulis]

Disney CEO says it will be 'difficult' to film in Georgia if abortion law takes effect

Asked if Disney would keep filming in Georgia, Iger said it would be "very difficult to do so" if the abortion law is implemented.

"I rather doubt we will," Iger said in an interview ahead of the dedication for a new "Star Wars" section at Disneyland. "I think many people who work for us will not want to work there, and we will have to heed their wishes in that regard. Right now we are watching it very carefully."

On Tuesday, Netflix Inc said the streaming service would "rethink" its film and television production investment in Georgia if the law goes into effect.

[Felya]

Who cares for the child! (Literally)

lol!!! I meant the government... that’s hilarious!

[Eveningforest]

Apparently, Georgia has a booming film industry due to their generous tax breaks. Their film production generated $9.5 billion and created more than 90,000 jobs last year.

Well, that's about to end as Disney is ready to pull out of filming in GA if their new anti-abortion law passes. Disney would be the third giant, after WarnerMedia and Netflix to do so.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.f4bc90ba65c0

"On Thursday, WarnerMedia — the parent company of HBO and Warner Bros. — became the latest big studio to correlate its business interests in Georgia with the law. The move comes one day after Walt Disney’s chairman and chief executive, Bob Iger, took a similar stance and two days after Netflix announced it would actively work to challenge the law. Several independent production companies also have threatened to cut ties with the state.

The backlash stems from legislation signed by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp earlier this month. The measure prohibits abortion once the fetal heartbeat can be detected, which typically happens near the six-week mark, before many women know they are pregnant. Georgia is among more than a dozen states that have adopted or are moving toward similar restrictions on abortion."


Good. I have zero sympathy for these states, let them rot.

[Rasulis]

Univ. of Alabama will return $26.5M gift after donor called for boycott over state abortion ban

The University of Alabama board of trustees voted Friday to give back a $26.5 million donation to a top donor who recently called on students to boycott the school over the state's new abortion ban.

Hugh F. Culverhouse Jr., a 70-year-old real estate investor and lawyer, has already given $21.5 million to the university after his pledge last September with the rest still to come. But in a news release last week, he urged students to participate in a boycott of the school.

Hours later, Alabama announced it was considering giving back his money, the biggest donation ever made to the university, and is expected to remove his name from the law school that was named in his honor.

While Culverhouse said he has no doubt Alabama is retaliating over his call for a boycott, the university said the dispute has nothing to do with that. Instead, officials say it was in an "ongoing dispute" with Culverhouse over the way his gift was to be handled.

The university said that on May 28 — the day before Culverhouse's boycott call — its chancellor recommended the trustees return the donation. The university said donors "may not dictate University administration" and that Culverhouse had made "numerous demands" regarding the operation of the school.

Culverhouse said he was stunned by the university's stand. But he also confessed: "You probably shouldn't put a living person's name on a building, because at some point they might get fed up and start talking."