Emphasis on "potentially criminalize." I've seen pro-abort groups and Democratic politicians trying to drive the fear and spread disinformation about the laws to encourage panicked reaction and hurt Republicans. Put that in the column of "win at all costs" Democrats. The most recent case was Senator Patty Murray. Her statement was released as "Last night, the Governor of Idaho signed into law a bill preventing young women in Idaho from exercising their constitutional right to travel to get the legal abortion care..."
I was a little flabbergasted, because I had looked at the law and not seen that sort of prohibition. And then it started to make sense. This was referring to helping a minor cross state lines without parental consent. Right. She left off the parental consent from her released statement, duly reported on by the press, because that doesn't inspire equal harsh reaction.
No state abortion law in America requires doctors to wait until "imminent peril" (Mark Joseph Stern of Slate's misinformation). Texas has it in its laws for medical emergency. Missouri excepts ectopic pregnancies. But the misinformation is coming out of a fire-hose, and new half-truths replace the old. As long as you can terrify doctors, or have journalists allege ambiguity, the abortion proponents can keep their line that this is worse than restrictions. The lengths that the pro-abort side are willing to go reminds the pro-life side that they're in it to win at all costs.
Sotomayor called Heller settled law before voting to have it overturned. Confirmation hearings don't bind justices to future decisions, and never did. The precedent is the precedent before being overturned.Because it was unnecessary. Because every Justice had gone up and many lied and said Roe was settled law. For a party that complains about unnecessary legislation, you sure seem to wish there was some unnecessary legislation.
You really think the Republicans could've taken the House if most of the pro-abortion candidates had won their races? You think the states that other posters have criticized would be able to pass 6-week bans if most of the pro-choice candidates had won their races? Are you serious here, and are you alleging some irregularities in counting the votes?I mean, gerrymandering does exist and is a problem. Also, most of the "pro aborts" as you call it win their races or win the ballot measure.
I'm uninterested in the semantics arguments over how justified you feel attacking pro-lifers for calling themselves pro-life, and whatever the low-to-zero-abortion-restrictions side wants to be called. I am perfectly willing to believe you feel yourself to be on the side of the angels, and the opponents in league with the devil himself, and wish the labels to reflect that.Not at all! Show your work to the class. We've shown our work, maybe you're hesitant to show yours because it's pure fiction?
Yeah, I'm thinking that's likely it given your fairly consistent reluctance to support your augments with evidence. I have no such hangup.
Much of the pro-life advocacy dollars go to the crisis pregnancy care centers (sued by places like California for hoping women choose life for their baby) which provide diapers, checkups, and all kinds of free post-delivery care. The pro-life side isn't campaigning to end the WIC program or Medicaid and CHIP.Weird that they hold these positions that they theoretically care about the girl/woman and the child after birth but like...never do anything to show that like pass legislation to that affect?
Work a little harder at legislative fights, and maybe there will be actual representatives in office to demand compromises in their direction. I've seen a mix of absurd belief that it should all be handed to you because you did jack-all behind a Supreme Court decision and you've already won the pro-abort representative votes that meant these things never were implemented. I suggest a little more grass-roots campaigning on the issue, and a little less declaring that your representatives have already won the fights for office as they were always fated to do! And maybe get a few nationally prominent Democrats to sign on to time-based restrictions well past 6 weeks so it isn't answering extremism with extremism in the other direction. These rural and red-state Democratic representatives shouldn't be left so abandoned by the national party if change is truly something you want, even if the cost is moderation.Well yes, because political parties exist and Republican controlled states, despite being very upset that voters don't endorse their extremism on the issue, aren't going to suddenly flip their position.
Honestly, you've managed to pearl clutch and bat at strawman with a lot of words that say nothing, but as usual there's not really much to really discuss in your post. To adopt a phrase, it's all hat and no cattle.
Are you looking for advocates for less restrictions on murder?
Really, it's just if this is just politics (you win a bigger political victory by waiting) then it's fine. If the rhetoric is actually believed about ongoing injustice, then perhaps you want that reversed even if it means conceding the doctor-and-woman-only anti-restriction position. I can accept that the criticism of "win political fights" is just political gamesmanship, and not truly believed about Republicans, if Democrats want this to last longer so they can get the best version of their contrary legislation after letting the alleged suffering continue.