1. #3101
    ‘The dog that caught the car’: Republicans brace for the impact of reversing Roe

    Everything was going right for Republicans in the midterm campaign. Then the Supreme Court decision came down.

    Republicans finally got the Roe v. Wade decision they wanted, and in public, they are delighted.

    More quietly, however, according to interviews with more than a dozen Republican strategists and party officials, they just didn’t want it to come right now — not during a midterm election campaign in which nearly everything had been going right for the GOP.

    “This is not a conversation we want to have,” said John Thomas, a Republican strategist who works on House campaigns across the country. “We want to have a conversation about the economy. We want to have a conversation about Joe Biden, about pretty much anything else besides Roe … This is a losing issue for Republicans.”

    Republicans, said Sarah Longwell, a moderate Republican strategist who became a vocal supporter of Joe Biden in 2020, are now “the dog that caught the car.”

    But even if Roe alone is not sufficient to remake the midterms in Democrats’ favor, it could fit into what Longwell called an “overall case the Democratic Party should be prosecuting against Republicans” — wedding Roe with the court’s decision the previous day on gun control, among other issues, to depict the post-Donald Trump GOP as one still animated by extremes.

    On Friday, the court provided fodder for that line of attack, when Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, argued the court “should reconsider” protections for contraception access and same-sex marriage. And the post-Roe fallout itself will reverberate in states for months, focusing attention on state-level campaigns as red-leaning states prepare to enact restrictions.

    Already, Republicans are wincing at the consequences. In the swing state of Pennsylvania, Democrats have been pummeling the Republican gubernatorial nominee, Doug Mastriano, for a position opposing abortion rights that includes no exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother. In Georgia, another swing state, the Republican U.S. Senate nominee, Herschel Walker, is facing similar criticism. In a message that Democrats will likely repeat for months, incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock issued a fundraising appeal on Friday afternoon with the subject line: “Our opponent says he wants a total ban on abortion.”

  2. #3102
    Bloodsail Admiral tehdang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    1,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I mourn my cup of spilled coffee in the morning. That doesn't mean it's a baby.
    People never accused you of hypocrisy regarding your coffee. But let me know if they do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    1) We're talking about less than 1% of abortions here, and that far in, usually the pregnant woman doesn't want an abortion
    Hmm, and why is that? I just read through a dozen posts showing that it's foolhardy to consider it an issue beside bodily autonomy. Are pregnant women unaware that their baby's continued existence is akin to a forced organ donation?

    , but it's an emergency situation.
    Emergency delivery, without making sure the baby is dead beforehand, is a thing. Adoptions, safe surrender, reform of the medical expenses surrounding childbirth, reform of state services are all on the table.

    2) Viability is the de facto standard for pro-choice. I have never heard anyone advocate for 'kill anyway' if the child can be safely delivered.
    I have yet to hear a major pro-choice presidential, senatorial, or gubernatorial candidate speak up for restrictions in line with post-viability abortions. Stacey Abrams was just asked if she favors any, and had a pretty typical response:

    Question: Do you support any limitation on abortion, or does it do you think that women should have a right to have an abortion all the way up to nine months?
    Abrams: I believe that abortion is a medical decision and I believe it should be a choice made between a doctor and a woman, in consultation with her family
    I'm going to say it hasn't been a de-facto standard in any meaningful way. The de-facto standard is to NEVER talk about any restriction and ONLY talk about the woman and/or her doctor, effectively saying they should have indisputable authority the whole way through.

    See additionally:
    https://archive.ph/Ufg9u

    Hint: Pro-choice advocates would be wise to re-establish common-sense limits if they want to change state laws, instead of whine about newfound powerlessness. Pages 149-150-151-152-153 of this thread are pretty instructive for any new person that thinks reasonable limits are a core to pro-choice dialogue. Frame it on the wall and gesture at it each time people get confused in this next decade's legislative fights.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  3. #3103
    The Unstoppable Force Kaleredar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    24,228
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    People never accused you of hypocrisy regarding your coffee. But let me know if they do.

    Hmm, and why is that? I just read through a dozen posts showing that it's foolhardy to consider it an issue beside bodily autonomy.
    ...because if women, who previously had the freedom to get an abortion, had wanted to get one they likely would have gotten one before nine months, and would only get one at nine months if some dire situation required it.

    Are pregnant women unaware that their baby's continued existence is akin to a forced organ donation?
    This attempt at a gotcha is meaningless.

    Emergency delivery, without making sure the baby is dead beforehand, is a thing. Adoptions, safe surrender, reform of the medical expenses surrounding childbirth, reform of state services are all on the table.
    When have conservative politicians ever espoused any interest in supporting or funding those things in any comprehensive and meaningful way?

    And I don't mean someone saying the same "well it's something that could be done" kicking-the-can-down-the-curb blowoff you did, I mean actual legislation put to paper, ready to be voted into effect.

    I have yet to hear a major pro-choice presidential, senatorial, or gubernatorial candidate speak up for restrictions in line with post-viability abortions. Stacey Abrams was just asked if she favors any, and had a pretty typical response:


    I'm going to say it hasn't been a de-facto standard in any meaningful way. The de-facto standard is to NEVER talk about any restriction and ONLY talk about the woman and/or her doctor, effectively saying they should have indisputable authority the whole way through.

    See additionally:
    https://archive.ph/Ufg9u

    Hint: Pro-choice advocates would be wise to re-establish common-sense limits if they want to change state laws, instead of whine about newfound powerlessness. Pages 149-150-151-152-153 of this thread are pretty instructive for any new person that thinks reasonable limits are a core to pro-choice dialogue. Frame it on the wall and gesture at it each time people get confused in this next decade's legislative fights.
    "Abortions at 9 months" are so statistically irrelevant that they shouldn't even enter into the discussion.

    You're pearl-clutching and hand-wringing about an issue that doesn't exist, and using this nonexistent issue as the major driving force of your argument that, because some women could potentially get an abortion at 9 months, that you think the entire nation should air on the side that no women should be able to get abortions, ever. That you would prefer the second, so long as the first was even the remotest possibility.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  4. #3104
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    People never accused you of hypocrisy regarding your coffee. But let me know if they do.
    I'm sure it's intentional that you're not addressing it, but my point is that "mourning" isn't relevant to a discussion on peoples fundamental right to bodily autonomy.

  5. #3105
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    The classic "People are free to detest slavery, so just don't buy slaves ... please don't force your views of slavery on others." That's probably the only example of moral wrong that will break through here.

    Back to the actual post context: A user was trying to point out a point of hypocrisy--asserting that a previous post showed a different user didn't truly believe abortion is killing children. The response was to remind him that people can and do mourn miscarriages. Logically, if nobody made an assertion that opposite arguers didn't actually believe what they said, then no argument would be necessary to retort to it. However, some people are not satisfied in saying they're right, but must go further to demand people who disagree even partially (pro-abortion, but admits that his side doesn't grapple enough with the reality of "Its a shitty situation for everyone") are actually arguing in bad faith. I have no problem with you saying "People are absolutely free to mourn miscarriages," because you're not personally accusing anyone of secretly admitting abortion doesn't end the life of an unborn baby.
    You always bristle whenever anyone brings up slavery in the context of American history and legality but it seems you're allowed to bring it out of left field in some attempt to make an asinine gotcha. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

    I understood the context perfectly, and for the record and I don't entirely disagree with RobertoCarlos. It's not as simple as the fetus being a disposable clump of cells. That being said, this truth does not mean I believe the mother's right do not supercede the fetus's. The idea of a golden mean is fallacious in this context, much like in the context of slavery that you decided to bring to the table.
    It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built -Kreia

    The internet: where to every action is opposed an unequal overreaction.

  6. #3106
    Stood in the Fire VMSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    The whole abortion is murder is just empty emotion based rhetoric. Very few actually believe that because if you did you would think miscarriages should be manslaughter.

    And almost no one thinks that. Because almost no one truly believes fetuses should be treated as children.
    A simple question can illuminate the fact that they do not really believe fetuses are actual children or babies:

    If a fertility clinic were on fire and you only had the time to save either A)10,000 fertilized eggs, or B)One 2-year old child in the clinic, which would you choose?

    Almost no one would ever choose the eggs, even though by the anti-choicers logic it should be the correct choice.

  7. #3107
    Legendary! Poopymonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    6,082
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    Not to mention whether or not you mourn something is irrelevant. The conversation went like this:

    "Abortion is murder"
    "Really?"
    "Yup - murder is murder. Abortion kills children"
    "So you advocate criminalizing miscarriage?"
    "HOw DarE YOu. I hAVe fRIenDs wHO moUrN tHEir MisCArriaGE"

    Note at no point was there an actual response to the assertion that fetal death is killing a child. That would include miscarriage. Unless of course you are a raging hypocrite.
    I hope they had life insurance for the fetus.
    What? You can't get LIFE insurance until its been born and now a baby in the US?
    You typically can't even get it until the baby is 2 weeks old?
    It's almost like legally the yardstick for fetus to baby is being fucking born.
    You gotta wait for the thing to be squirted out alive to claim it on your taxes. The IRS has such a sense of humor, they'd love it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    The Huckabeast has spoken.

    Sarah Huckabee Sanders said she wants kids in the womb to be as safe as kids in a classroom.
    ......
    Yeah. Just. Yeah. Wow.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok

  8. #3108
    I am Murloc! Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    5,773
    Quote Originally Posted by VMSmith View Post
    A simple question can illuminate the fact that they do not really believe fetuses are actual children or babies:

    If a fertility clinic were on fire and you only had the time to save either A)10,000 fertilized eggs, or B)One 2-year old child in the clinic, which would you choose?

    Almost no one would ever choose the eggs, even though by the anti-choicers logic it should be the correct choice.
    You ever see when a forced birther is asked that question? You get them either stammering because they know they will seem crazy if they say the eggs or they'll just turn around an insult you calling you a sick minded person.
    Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
    Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
    –The Sith Code

  9. #3109
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopymonster View Post
    Sarah Huckabee Sanders said she wants kids in the womb to be as safe as kids in a classroom.
    ......
    Yeah. Just. Yeah. >p>Wow.
    Ulvade parents would like to have a word with her.

  10. #3110
    The same politicians that claimed to be pro-life are the same ones that refused to extend free school meal program.

    Congress made school meals free for 2 years. Now, Republicans don't want to extend the program.

    Truly caring individuals.

  11. #3111
    I am Murloc! Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    5,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    The same politicians that claimed to be pro-life are the same ones that refused to extend free school meal program.

    Congress made school meals free for 2 years. Now, Republicans don't want to extend the program.

    Truly caring individuals.
    You are talking about the party who thinks the phrase "Pull yourself up by your own bootstrap" means something positive when it is meant to mean something that cannot be done. They think adversity is a good thing.

    They literally have people who think it is a good thing to make voting difficult. Ignoring difficulty does not mean security.
    Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
    Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
    –The Sith Code

  12. #3112
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    I thought for the most part they weren't going after women. Just the providers. No?
    I double checked, and I seem to be partially wrong.

    Of the 13 states with trigger laws only Wyoming would go after the abortion recipient. Tho it's abortion law is also one of the most severe as it counts any type of termination after "conception" to be illegal.

    Their law seems intentionally written to include Plan B. So I expect that will be the next legal battle there.

    Tho all the other abortion bans are worded as such that they would punish whoever performs the abortion. If Plan B gets classified not as a contraceptive but as an "abortion drug" they could go after any woman who self administers.

    And they can already likely do the same to any woman who orders abortion drugs online and self administers. Most abortions are literally medicated terminations. You take some pills and that's it, there's no "medical intervention".

    And that is likely to influence many of the upcoming abortion bans.
    Last edited by Mihalik; 2022-06-27 at 01:04 AM.

  13. #3113
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Hmm, and why is that? I just read through a dozen posts showing that it's foolhardy to consider it an issue beside bodily autonomy. Are pregnant women unaware that their baby's continued existence is akin to a forced organ donation?
    Is this supposed to be a gotcha?

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Emergency delivery, without making sure the baby is dead beforehand, is a thing. Adoptions, safe surrender, reform of the medical expenses surrounding childbirth, reform of state services are all on the table.
    It's like you didn't even read the next thing you quoted...

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I have yet to hear a major pro-choice presidential, senatorial, or gubernatorial candidate speak up for restrictions in line with post-viability abortions. Stacey Abrams was just asked if she favors any, and had a pretty typical response:
    Congratulations: you've discovered that Democrats tend to use highly inclusive language (not always to their benefit, it would seem).

    As to why they don't speak about restrictions? They aren't needed. Abortions past viability are already incredibly rare. And when they do happen it is usually because of an emergency to the mother or fetus. This idea/fear that some pregnant woman is going to get 34 weeks in, go "NOPE," and their doctor won't bother trying to save the life of the fetus is a conservative-concocted nonsense. This idea out there that there are all these malicious OBGYNs that aren't going to try and save an otherwise viable child is nothing more than fear mongering. Democrats would prefer to have medical professionals rather than some GoP State AG decide what does or doesn't constitute a medical emergency. Hence no need for restrictions.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I'm going to say it hasn't been a de-facto standard in any meaningful way.
    Because Conservatives have been frothing at the mouth and calling Democrats "baby killers" for too long to understand that "let's intentionally end the life of a viable fetus that could otherwise lead a normal life" isn't really a position that people hold. I've also never heard any politician explicitly endorse the existence of stop signs. Kinda figure they don't really need to though. They usually don't say things that are that obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    The de-facto standard is to NEVER talk about any restriction and ONLY talk about the woman and/or her doctor, effectively saying they should have indisputable authority the whole way through.
    As I said: doctors don't need to be constantly worried about government officials (who are not qualified in medicine) investigating them over their medical decisions. Makes caring for patients harder, ya know?

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    See additionally:
    https://archive.ph/Ufg9u
    Or maybe "rare" being gone has more to do with the proliferation of TRAP laws across red states. The GOP made abortions increasingly rare: not by improving economic conditions such that fewer women want to get abortions, but by making it harder for providers to perform them legally. Hence the Democrats' focus on accessibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Hint: Pro-choice advocates would be wise to re-establish common-sense limits if they want to change state laws, instead of whine about newfound powerlessness. Pages 149-150-151-152-153 of this thread are pretty instructive for any new person that thinks reasonable limits are a core to pro-choice dialogue. Frame it on the wall and gesture at it each time people get confused in this next decade's legislative fights.
    Or maybe pro-life advocates could stop telling bold faces lies and spreading ignorance about what the pro-choice position actually entails in reality?
    Last edited by Gestopft; 2022-06-27 at 01:21 AM.
    "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
    -Louis Brandeis

  14. #3114
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    72,750
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Hint: Pro-choice advocates would be wise to re-establish common-sense limits if they want to change state laws, instead of whine about newfound powerlessness.
    There are no "common-sense limits". Abortion rights are an issue like slavery. If you compromise and allow some slavery (or some restrictions on women's bodily autonomy), then what you're actually saying is that you're still a slave state (still restrict women's bodily autonomy).

    There is no "compromise", because rights like bodily autonomy are absolutes; you either have it, or you don't. Saying there's "common-sense limits" is like arguing there's "common-sense limits" to how "human" a black person can be legally considered to be.

    Even asking the question is an affront and demonstrates a significant level of malice on the asker's part.


  15. #3115
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    I double checked, and I seem to be partially wrong.

    Of the 13 states with trigger laws only Wyoming would go after the abortion recipient. Tho it's abortion law is also one of the most severe as it counts any type of termination after "conception" to be illegal.

    Their law seems intentionally written to include Plan B. So I expect that will be the next legal battle there.

    Tho all the other abortion bans are worded as such that they would punish whoever performs the abortion. If Plan B gets classified not as a contraceptive but as an "abortion drug" they could go after any woman who self administers.

    And they can already likely do the same to any woman who orders abortion drugs online and self administers. Most abortions are literally medicated terminations. You take some pills and that's it, there's no "medical intervention".

    And that is likely to influence many of the upcoming abortion bans.
    Not sure about the other states. Texas laws exclude women who perform self-induced abortion from both civil and criminal penalties. Michigan also.

    Here is one way not to worry about abortion.

    SCOTUS abortion decision prompts increase in requests for vasectomies, getting tubes tied in Central Texas

  16. #3116
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    The same politicians that claimed to be pro-life are the same ones that refused to extend free school meal program.

    Congress made school meals free for 2 years. Now, Republicans don't want to extend the program.

    Truly caring individuals.
    Hypocrisy the name of the game, like every "pro lifer" in this thread murdering our brain cells every time they post.

  17. #3117
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    Not sure about the other states. Texas laws exclude women who perform self-induced abortion from both civil and criminal penalties. Michigan also.

    Here is one way not to worry about abortion.

    SCOTUS abortion decision prompts increase in requests for vasectomies, getting tubes tied in Central Texas
    Yeah, good luck to all the women trying to get their tubes tied in the US. To have mine done I had to be 25, have at least 2 kids already, and needed my husbands’ approval. Women don’t even have medical freedom when it comes to that.
    Fairy tales are more than true–not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us dragons can be beaten. -G. K. Chesterton & Neil Gaiman

  18. #3118
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    There are no "common-sense limits". Abortion rights are an issue like slavery. If you compromise and allow some slavery (or some restrictions on women's bodily autonomy), then what you're actually saying is that you're still a slave state (still restrict women's bodily autonomy).

    There is no "compromise", because rights like bodily autonomy are absolutes; you either have it, or you don't. Saying there's "common-sense limits" is like arguing there's "common-sense limits" to how "human" a black person can be legally considered to be.

    Even asking the question is an affront and demonstrates a significant level of malice on the asker's part.
    and of course that is just another talking point he got from Steven Crowder or who ever going on about "re-establish common-sense limits". cool, so you too are running with a fake story about "post abortions" being a thing that exist which, spoilers: they don't.

  19. #3119
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    72,750
    Quote Originally Posted by uuuhname View Post
    and of course that is just another talking point he got from Steven Crowder or who ever going on about "re-establish common-sense limits". cool, so you too are running with a fake story about "post abortions" being a thing that exist which, spoilers: they don't.
    It's such a gross way to frame it. "So there has to be SOME common-sense limitations to women's freedom, right? They can't just actually have bodily autonomy, we can't have that. So let's come to some compromise about how we can subjugate and dehumanize women, together! That's just common sense."

    A> No, that's misogyny.

    B> I'd rather have medical doctors make medical decisions based on standards of ethical practice and care for the patient, not whatever nonsense some uninformed rando wants to make up and pretend is "common sense".

    C> If you can justify your position rationally, you wouldn't have to use such a term. It's an admission they can't justify their stance rationally, but want you to compromise anyway.

    It's like asking what the "common sense" limit on wife-beating is. Can we compromise on allowing it on Tuesdays and Thursdays? We've gotta be able to beat our wives sometime, that's just common sense.

    Just absolutely gross and demonstrates so much just by virtue of asking.


  20. #3120
    Herald of the Titans Hansworst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Schiedam, the Netherlands
    Posts
    2,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Winter Blossom View Post
    Yeah, good luck to all the women trying to get their tubes tied in the US. To have mine done I had to be 25, have at least 2 kids already, and needed my husbands’ approval. Women don’t even have medical freedom when it comes to that.
    To be 25 I can understand. To have at least two kids; breed for 'Murica. And that last one sounds like a rule made up in the fucking dark ages.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •