SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[tehdang]

On reproductive health care*

As we've seen that it's far more than "just abortions", and that these vaguely written laws potentially criminalize much more than "just abortion", resulting in girls and women either needing to flee their state to access potentially life-saving care or they're forced to suffer needlessly because hospitals do not want to deal with the liability.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

So if you think that being for less restrictions on abortions means "pro-abortion", then it surely is okay if I call people that want less restrictions on gun ownership "pro-murder"?
And yes, your argument really is that stupid.

Are you looking for advocates for less restrictions on murder?

That won't be for a long time. GOP legislators are doing a fine job digging themselves deeper and deeper by passing one extreme bill after another. Why take the shovel away.

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.

[Edge-]

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.

I feel attacked? No, this isn't about me, dude. I'm not sure why you think it is about me.

It's about your outright lies. Because you continue to lie here. You, are a liar. And I'll keep banging that drum until you stop lying.

You can complain about how mean that is and how you don't care and it's unfair or whatever, but facts don't care about your feelings.

My position is informed by the rhetoric, actions, and lack of actions by the "pro-life" movement on this front. Your position is apparently informed with...uh...you still haven't said so I assume it's informed by your imagination.

[tehdang]

I feel attacked? No, this isn't about me, dude. I'm not sure why you think it is about me.

It's about your outright lies. Because you continue to lie here. You, are a liar. And I'll keep banging that drum until you stop lying.

You can complain about how mean that is and how you don't care and it's unfair or whatever, but facts don't care about your feelings.

My position is informed by the rhetoric, actions, and lack of actions by the "pro-life" movement on this front. Your position is apparently informed with...uh...you still haven't said so I assume it's informed by your imagination.

I'm uninterested in indulging in semantics arguments over how justified you feel attacking pro-lifers for calling themselves pro-life. The entire topic of calling your political opponents not-truly-[POSITION] with other political arguments is foolhardy. The Democrats can't really be called pro-choice, because they're only interested in maximizing one choice, and they diminish and insult the other. The Republicans can't really be called pro-second-amendment since they ignore the militia text. The Democrats can't truly be pro-Democracy, since they openly support riotous disruption of lawmaking bodies and ignoring court decisions. The Republicans can't truly be for economic prosperity for the average Americans, since they support tax cuts for the rich and corporate loopholes.

It reduces to dumb arguments about semantics. It's a stand-in for ordinary policy disputes, basically identical to "I think my way of doing things is the best way, and his way of doing things is the worst way." I'm happy to adjust to group self-identity like pro-life and pro-choice, provided the courtesy is returned. I'm happy to call it an anything-goes exercise, with "pro-life" "pro-death" "pro-choice" "anti-choice" flying here and there and all around. But arguing over terms is just a proxy for the real disagreements. I don't see the use.

[Edge-]

I'm uninterested in indulging in semantics arguments over how justified you feel attacking pro-lifers for calling themselves pro-life.

No, I have issues with the term primarily. My issues with you aren't that you self-identify as "pro-life", it's that your posts are incredibly dishonest on this topic and others.

I'm describing your behavior as a liar, not attacking you.

The entire topic of calling your political opponents not-truly-[POSITION] with other political arguments is foolhardy.

If only I had provided extensive evidence in this thread of policy positions, rhetoric, actions, and inactions that informed my conclusion and would allow anyone reading along to understand why I treat the "pro-life" term as deeply dishonest. I'm sure some people honestly believe this, but I'm sure they also haven't spent any time critically evaluating their position or the position of the movement they have attached themselves to.

The Democrats can't really be called pro-choice, because they're only interested in maximizing one choice, and they diminish and insult the other.

What is "the other"? Diminishing options for girls and women carrying a pregnancy to term? Nobody is opposed to that choice, and Democrats are actually more supportive of that with broader pushes for improved access to pre and post-natal care, more funding for programs like medicaid expansions that many Republican states have rejected, and a continued push for things like free school lunches.

So honestly I haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about, and you still have yet to cite any examples or evidence to support your positions and claims. You just wave your hands about and say, "SEE! THAT PROVES IT!" as if your arms flailing like the Whacky Inflatable Arm Waving guy are an argument.

The Republicans can't really be called pro-second-amendment since they ignore the militia text.

Sure they can. The Republican party writ-large has absolutely gone down the path of Second Amendment extremism but that's a discussion for another thread.

The Democrats can't truly be pro-Democracy, since they openly support riotous disruption of lawmaking bodies and ignoring court decisions.

Riotous disruption? What riotous disruption specifically? Because January 6 was Republicans, my guy.

Also yes, protests are extremely democratic in nature.

Citation on the court decision you're referencing? I can't read your mind so will need you to be a bit more specific with your arguments. Is if the mifepristone ruling that even some Republican officials are calling on the FDA to ignore?

The Republicans can't truly be for economic prosperity for the average Americans, since they support tax cuts for the rich and corporate loopholes.

Objectively, yes? That's the literal conclusion of decades of economic policy positions and legislation pushed by the Republican party, this isn't remotely new nor is it a theory. It's literally looking at the actual evidence of their word and actions.

Phew, that was a lot of nonsense to easily bat down.

[PosPosPos]

I'm uninterested in indulging in semantics arguments over how justified you feel attacking pro-lifers for calling themselves pro-life.

Oh no, you conservatives feel aggrieved and victimized because you and your ilk are rightfully regarded as abhorrent people who wilfully and consciously maximize suffering of human beings at broad.

What a surprise.

It reduces to dumb arguments about semantics. It's a stand-in for ordinary policy disputes, basically identical to "I think my way of doing things is the best way, and his way of doing things is the worst way."

Oh fun, a spin on the usual moral relativity non-argument.

Your end-goal is chaos and suffering, of course you think the conservative way of doing things that maximizes suffering to people is the best way. That's why you have all these reductionist non-arguments to try and falsely equate your abject evil with the rest of general good.

The Democrats can't truly be pro-Democracy, since they openly support riotous disruption of lawmaking bodies and ignoring court decisions.

In the same fetid, rotting breath that claims tolerance must tolerate intolerance.

[Rasulis]

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.

No one is twisting their hands and forcing them to go batshit ape crazy with their legislations and lawsuit. They did it on their own.

Rather amusing actually. When Roe vs. Wade was overturned, the pundits did not think that it will be a wedge issue. They were probably right if the crazies hadn't taken over and push all these highly restrictive bans. Not to mention bills threatening women with homicide for having abortions and blocking information about abortion access and care on the internet.

[Edge-]

No one is twisting their hands and forcing them to go batshit ape crazy with their legislations and lawsuit. They did it on their own.

Rather amusing actually. When Roe vs. Wade was overturned, the pundits did not think that it will be a wedge issue. They were probably right if the crazies hadn't taken over and push all these highly restrictive bans. Not to mention bills threatening women with homicide for having abortions and blocking information about abortion access and care on the internet.

Or the attempt to criminalize out of state travel which sure seems like a gross overreach of state powers seeking to exert weirdly authoritarian control over people who happen to live within that states borders.

[Cthulhu 2020]

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.

You seem to forget that a lot of parents are pro-birth (since pro-life is a terrible label for the party that doesn't give two shits about life) and will force their children to carry a pregnancy to term regardless of rape or incest, despite the deep emotional scars and permanent lasting impacts upon their body. It was lacking in details, but it's not entirely dishonest given the countless examples this thread has seen of parents being heartless assholes that refuse abortion as an option for their *Checks notes* pre teen.

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?

Gerrymandering. Next.

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.

So you're proving your point that you can't actually give justification or reason why your labels are correct, while they've given numerous heaps of examples as to why their labels are more apt. Like usual you're going to demand evidence of others then cry and stamp your feet and make excuses when it's demanded of you. On character for you I guess.

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.

One only needs to google "Crisis pregnancy center" to find out why they're massive scams. When someone googles about how to get an abortion (well, before RvW overturn) they'd often get paid advertisement links for these "Crisis pregnancy centers" that would at the very first glance, promise to help the women get abortions. The women would make appointments, show up, and then be bombarded by a battery of pro-life nonsense, including constant guilt trips with pictures of dead fetuses, bible verses, and all kinds of other nonsense. They were rightfully sued because they are a scam. They present themselves as abortion help centers and will then try to prevent you from leaving until you pledge to keep the pregnancy. California largely sued them because, since it's technically not a medical procedure, they could take the information you signed up with and start bombarding "patients" with phone calls, mail, email, and all sorts of other pro-life communications.

The CPCs will often build themselves immediately next to actual abortion centers, and then try and PHYSICALLY pull women they see going into abortion centers towards their CPC. You know what, just watch the video. Or don't. I know you won't. You don't care about evidence. You just ask for it them refuse to read/watch it and avoid talking about it for 30 posts. Like when it was proven that Matt Taibbi was lying about communications with twitter.

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.

"It's all the fault of Democrats because abortion rights were on lockdown from the SCOTUS decision, but they should have pushed for more abortion rights bills that would have been filibustered and voted against by Republicans anyway!" Insightful!

[Taifuu]

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.

I am a little flabbergasted at how much you continue to struggle with creating a genuine post. Here is my post of that exact topic, where the article mentions the parental consent issue right off the bat:

This is the Republican party:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...9dbca4fd&ei=55



No exceptions for rape or incest; just that the parents themselves can't sue someone if their child is pregnant and gets an abortion.

Here is YOUR response:

As I said in my previous post, the big question is if she changes on abortion legislation. Idaho is not the same state as North Carolina.

And here is literally the first line from the article:

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Legal limits on abortion-related travel are the focus of a new law and a new lawsuit in Idaho, with Gov. Brad Little signing a bill Wednesday that makes it illegal for an adult to help a minor get an abortion without parental consent.

So to claim that you had to "investigate" this or were somehow not aware is just an outright lie. And as others have pointed out, if the parent doesn't give consent, then the pregnant person would not be able to travel across state lines, meaning the statement was correct.

[tehdang]

No, I have issues with the term primarily. My issues with you aren't that you self-identify as "pro-life", it's that your posts are incredibly dishonest on this topic and others.

I'm describing your behavior as a liar, not attacking you.

I said you were attacking pro-lifers for using the term pro-life, despite all the contradictions you see. You inserting me into this statement is very strange. I never thought you were trying to direct it at me, just pro-lifers.

If only I had provided extensive evidence in this thread of policy positions, rhetoric, actions, and inactions that informed my conclusion and would allow anyone reading along to understand why I treat the "pro-life" term as deeply dishonest. I'm sure some people honestly believe this, but I'm sure they also haven't spent any time critically evaluating their position or the position of the movement they have attached themselves to.

I'm not indulging in semantics arguments over which groups can truly claim to be pro- or anti- whatever they name themselves as. Use what you wish, or use their own self-id.

What is "the other"? Diminishing options for girls and women carrying a pregnancy to term? Nobody is opposed to that choice, and Democrats are actually more supportive of that with broader pushes for improved access to pre and post-natal care, more funding for programs like medicaid expansions that many Republican states have rejected, and a continued push for things like free school lunches.

So honestly I haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about, and you still have yet to cite any examples or evidence to support your positions and claims. You just wave your hands about and say, "SEE! THAT PROVES IT!" as if your arms flailing like the Whacky Inflatable Arm Waving guy are an argument.



Sure they can. The Republican party writ-large has absolutely gone down the path of Second Amendment extremism but that's a discussion for another thread.



Riotous disruption? What riotous disruption specifically? Because January 6 was Republicans, my guy.

Also yes, protests are extremely democratic in nature.

Citation on the court decision you're referencing? I can't read your mind so will need you to be a bit more specific with your arguments. Is if the mifepristone ruling that even some Republican officials are calling on the FDA to ignore?



Objectively, yes? That's the literal conclusion of decades of economic policy positions and legislation pushed by the Republican party, this isn't remotely new nor is it a theory. It's literally looking at the actual evidence of their word and actions.

Phew, that was a lot of nonsense to easily bat down.

I give you four examples of how foolish it is to try a NOT-TRULY-X argument. I received a battery of opinions and subjective evaluations, enough to make me believe you took it as a challenge that you couldn't form opinions on whether you agreed or not. I am well aware that you are an opinionated individual, and not reticent to share why you hold them. But the exercise was intended to remind you that the selection of which things matter to the assertion is a reflection of values and choice. The speaker may think the intense pressure to relax all restrictions on abortion matters more to whether the pro-choice is just pro-one-choice, or the Tennessee capitol mob w/ the three legislators ranks high in commitments to Democracy, or the relative value of militia to the second amendment, or how meaningful tax policy and tax regulations are to the pursuit of economic prosperity. You've selected otherwise (no great surprise), but you're not reconciling yourself to how others make choices, decide importance, and exhibit their values.

Oh no, you conservatives feel aggrieved and victimized because you and your ilk are rightfully regarded as abhorrent people who wilfully and consciously maximize suffering of human beings at broad.

What a surprise.

I see you've skipped right from noticing an attack on a term to asserting the victim card must've been played.

Oh fun, a spin on the usual moral relativity non-argument.

Your end-goal is chaos and suffering, of course you think the conservative way of doing things that maximizes suffering to people is the best way. That's why you have all these reductionist non-arguments to try and falsely equate your abject evil with the rest of general good.

This is politics, so of course this could be a typical political speech. Hell, Nixon himself might've made it with a few words changed around. Just don't go parading that "Objectively, your end-goal is" or "Objectively speaking, you're evil and conservatives think maximizing suffering is the best way."

In the same fetid, rotting breath that claims tolerance must tolerate intolerance.

You're quoting an example of the futility of making the stupid "You can't really claim to be [X] because of doing [Y]!" Well, futile except as opinion pieces for people that already think alike.

No one is twisting their hands and forcing them to go batshit ape crazy with their legislations and lawsuit. They did it on their own.

Rather amusing actually. When Roe vs. Wade was overturned, the pundits did not think that it will be a wedge issue. They were probably right if the crazies hadn't taken over and push all these highly restrictive bans. Not to mention bills threatening women with homicide for having abortions and blocking information about abortion access and care on the internet.

No one really predicted the amount and sustained throughput of disinformation over the laws, but that's becoming the locus of opposition as we speak. Write articles asserting ambiguity, scare hospitals and doctors enough to quote their panic, and then write articles on them. Nobody's forcing mothers to die in a pregnancy that threatens their life. Ectopic pregnancies won't land you in jail.

You seem to forget that a lot of parents are pro-birth (since pro-life is a terrible label for the party that doesn't give two shits about life) and will force their children to carry a pregnancy to term regardless of rape or incest, despite the deep emotional scars and permanent lasting impacts upon their body. It was lacking in details, but it's not entirely dishonest given the countless examples this thread has seen of parents being heartless assholes that refuse abortion as an option for their *Checks notes* pre teen.

Does not address the quoted portion of the post. A Democratic politician released a statement leaving out the "without parental consent" from a provision specifically tailored to that aspect.

Gerrymandering. Next.

Poster I was responding to said most of the pro-aborts win their races or win the ballot measure.

So you're proving your point that you can't actually give justification or reason why your labels are correct, while they've given numerous heaps of examples as to why their labels are more apt. Like usual you're going to demand evidence of others then cry and stamp your feet and make excuses when it's demanded of you. On character for you I guess.

Acting like it's useful to have a debate over "why your labels are correct" already sets yourself up for a creative writing exercise doing little more than creating a load of hot air. These are groups adopting labels, not labels on soup cans.

One only needs to google "Crisis pregnancy center" to find out why they're massive scams. When someone googles about how to get an abortion (well, before RvW overturn) they'd often get paid advertisement links for these "Crisis pregnancy centers" that would at the very first glance, promise to help the women get abortions. The women would make appointments, show up, and then be bombarded by a battery of pro-life nonsense, including constant guilt trips with pictures of dead fetuses, bible verses, and all kinds of other nonsense. They were rightfully sued because they are a scam. They present themselves as abortion help centers and will then try to prevent you from leaving until you pledge to keep the pregnancy. California largely sued them because, since it's technically not a medical procedure, they could take the information you signed up with and start bombarding "patients" with phone calls, mail, email, and all sorts of other pro-life communications.

It really sounds like you have deep problems with people using their speech to suggest the advantages of one choice over another. The good news is the Supreme Court takes a dim view of government burdening speech, and selecting out crisis pregnancy centers for special action compared to others that primarily offer nonprescription birth control and the like.

The CPCs will often build themselves immediately next to actual abortion centers, and then try and PHYSICALLY pull women they see going into abortion centers towards their CPC. You know what, just watch the video. Or don't. I know you won't. You don't care about evidence. You just ask for it them refuse to read/watch it and avoid talking about it for 30 posts. Like when it was proven that Matt Taibbi was lying about communications with twitter.





"It's all the fault of Democrats because abortion rights were on lockdown from the SCOTUS decision, but they should have pushed for more abortion rights bills that would have been filibustered and voted against by Republicans anyway!" Insightful!

File a lawsuit if people are physically accosting other people on the street? I have no problem with people suing and obtaining judicial orders against anyone actually physically moving their bodies.

I am a little flabbergasted at how much you continue to struggle with creating a genuine post. Here is my post of that exact topic, where the article mentions the parental consent issue right off the bat:



Here is YOUR response:



And here is literally the first line from the article:



So to claim that you had to "investigate" this or were somehow not aware is just an outright lie. And as others have pointed out, if the parent doesn't give consent, then the pregnant person would not be able to travel across state lines, meaning the statement was correct.

The statement released by the Senator I mentioned that left out the parental consent part is not a web page existing on MSN's website. You're quoting a post response of you to me on a longtime NC Democratic politician changing sides.

[Taifuu]

The statement released by the Senator I mentioned that left out the parental consent part is not a web page existing on MSN's website. You're quoting a post response of you to me on a longtime NC Democratic politician changing sides.

I'm actually quoting your response to my post. This is really not a difficult concept to grasp. Please explain why, after commenting on an article where the first line mentions parental consent, you then had to "investigate" the law to find out about the parental consent part. Unless, you just commented on an article that you didn't read at all. Does your software actually allow you to read articles or is this just a copy/paste thing you've got going on? I see that you also couldn't be bothered to address the issue where, you know, anti-abortion parents are unlikely to give consent. Fascinating that you make such lengthy posts without addressing any single issue brought to you. Are you going for a world record or is your life so empty that this is considered an accomplishment for you?

[Rasulis]

No one really predicted the amount and sustained throughput of disinformation over the laws, but that's becoming the locus of opposition as we speak. Write articles asserting ambiguity, scare hospitals and doctors enough to quote their panic, and then write articles on them. Nobody's forcing mothers to die in a pregnancy that threatens their life. Ectopic pregnancies won't land you in jail.

Hospitals and doctors are not expert in laws. They depend on the advice of their legal departments and liability insurance carriers. If legislators could not be bothered to write unambiguous laws which are clear to lawyers and insurance carriers, then the problem is with them. Not with the hospitals, doctors, or even the news.

Here is my contribution to more abortion disinformation courtesy of the Washington Post.

Two friends were denied care after Florida banned abortion. One almost died.

[Nymrohd]

Please define me in perfectly scientific terms what "threat to the mother's life is". And obviously on a state level since if it was to be defined on a federal level the states would dismiss it. And it cannot be "doctor's judgment" cause the doctor's judgment will be challenged in court which means that every abortion is a lawsuit waiting to happen no matter the level of medical emergency, costing money to the hospital not to mention depriving the public of a doctor's services for all the time they will have to be in court.

I'll just wait. How close to dying do you want the woman to be?

[Elegiac]

No one really predicted the amount and sustained throughput of disinformation over the laws, but that's becoming the locus of opposition as we speak.

The grapes must be hella sour, huh?

You know, you can cut the bullshit at any time and just admit you didn't anticipate how unpopular your positions on abortion are.

[Nymrohd]

What a law says matters far less than how it is enforceable. And that very much is true of all laws.
If the difference between what a first reading presents and how it can be enforced is significant, at the very kindest you can ascribe it to incompetence which is inexcusable in matters of public health in particular. And in a litigious culture a law will be enforced in the manner that the most risk averse actors will choose to enforce it.

Keep in mind many Western countries do not have blanket access to abortion. They often cap it and then allow extension by exceptions with on request abortion at about 12 weeks and no limit for risk to health or life.
But the main difference is on how those exceptions are enforced. No one is hounding doctors for making those decisions. In the US you have had domestic terrorist attacks against clinics that offer abortion services, significant campaigns hounding doctors who offer the service and women who receive it. The level of rigor in how these things are defined ought to be vastly higher given the reality. At the very least you would have to allow doctors to make that call when they offer abortion services and not allow their call to be challenged by a third party.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It really sounds like you have deep problems with people using their speech to suggest the advantages of one choice over another.

Mothers looking for an abortion and no other option are tricked into being guilt tripped. If you googled where to find McDonald's, found a location, arrived, and then they accosted you to try and preach at you about the evils of McDonald's and why you should buy Wendy's, that goes beyond a "free speech" level and starts breaking into law-breaking territory. It's why the California case was justified. The pregnancy crisis centers are a scam. They don't offer anything for mothers who do come and already want to keep the pregnancy. They send those people away, not offering any kind of pregnancy assistance. Their entire reason for existing is to try and guilt trip people into carrying pregnancies to term, as well as yes, accosting people from abortion clinics to do that very same guilt tripping.




I will say, your obsession over a Democrat leaving out a single detail (which turned out to be irrelevant even then) is pretty funny when faced with the fact that the law is overall draconian and will most likely tie the hands of anyone who wishes to help the child out of a rape or incest pregnancy that the parents are forcing them to have.


We call Republicans the "pro-birth" party for a reason. Because they don't care about life. When people die, it's their fault. When people suffer, it's their fault. When they go hungry, fuck em. When pregnant women need help, fuck em. But when they want to have an abortion? OH NO WE CARE SO MUCH ABOUT THAT FETUS HOW DARE YOU.

Their own actions make their priorities clear. They don't care about life. They want to control women, and if they can fuck them over in the process.

[Muzjhath]

I'm uninterested in indulging in semantics arguments over how justified you feel attacking pro-lifers for calling themselves pro-life. The entire topic of calling your political opponents not-truly-[POSITION] with other political arguments is foolhardy. The Democrats can't really be called pro-choice, because they're only interested in maximizing one choice, and they diminish and insult the other. The Republicans can't really be called pro-second-amendment since they ignore the militia text. The Democrats can't truly be pro-Democracy, since they openly support riotous disruption of lawmaking bodies and ignoring court decisions. The Republicans can't truly be for economic prosperity for the average Americans, since they support tax cuts for the rich and corporate loopholes.

It reduces to dumb arguments about semantics. It's a stand-in for ordinary policy disputes, basically identical to "I think my way of doing things is the best way, and his way of doing things is the worst way." I'm happy to adjust to group self-identity like pro-life and pro-choice, provided the courtesy is returned. I'm happy to call it an anything-goes exercise, with "pro-life" "pro-death" "pro-choice" "anti-choice" flying here and there and all around. But arguing over terms is just a proxy for the real disagreements. I don't see the use.

I won't give anyone who calls themselves "pro-life" the benefit of the doubt about them until they also support:
Universal health care
Free for the family and not district funded schools
Free school lunch
Guaranteed housing

At a minimum. Until that they are only pro birth, suffering, and control.

[Edge-]

>Girls and women suffer under intentionally vague laws limiting access to reproductive health care
>Hospitals shutter maternity wards and decline to offer many reproductive health care services citing the vague laws and the fact that they're doctors and not lawyers and don't always have time to consult with legal before making a health care decision
>This is all reported in the news
>Republicans who passed those laws take literally no action to more clearly define the legislation, allowing girls and women to receive crucial care and hospitals to provide it without the fear of legal consequences or losing licenses
>The suffering continues

Clearly, this is all the fault of Democrats for not protecting abortion when it remained legal. Not the fault of Republicans who have passed these bills and then failed to follow up and clarify them.

Apparently this is conservative reality?

[Rasulis]

In the past GOP used abortion to drive turnout. The anti-abortion supporters made up a small segment of the eligible voter population. However, they have near 100% turnout rate at the voting polls.

The shoe is on the other foot now. It is Democrats turn to use abortion to drive turnout, and it worked in Wisconsin. Protasiewicz won the major metro areas by 73% which was 3% higher than Biden victory. Her biggest gains were in medium-sized metropolitan areas (Madison, Green Bay, and Duluth, Minnesota, whose metro area has one county in Wisconsin). In those metros, she performed 7% better than Biden in 2020. She garnered 45% of the rural vote in the election which was 5% better than Biden in 2020 and the U.S. Senate race in 2022.

The issue still drives the anti-abortion supporters. Kelly actually received 200,000 more votes than when he ran against Karofsky in 2020. He would have won if this was still 2020. Unfortunately for him, Protasiewicz received around 400,000 more votes than Karofsky.

Younger voters and suburban voters showed up big time. The vote totals out of suburban-heavy Dane County was impressive. It's the state's second most populated county behind Milwaukee - but it produced more votes for Protasiewicz than Milwaukee, 240,000 vs. 233,000.

She did significantly better than Biden in 2020 and Barnes in 2022 in all parts of Wisconsin, from major metropolitan areas to rural counties. She almost won ruby red Ozaukee county.

That Texas judge did not do the GOP any favor with his decision. Hence the muted response.

[Inuyaki]

I won't give anyone who calls themselves "pro-life" the benefit of the doubt about them until they also support:
Universal health care
Free for the family and not district funded schools
Free school lunch
Guaranteed housing

At a minimum. Until that they are only pro birth, suffering, and control.

This!

It's hilarious to claim to be pro-life and then even be against stuff like healthcare, protecting children or even basic stuff like parental leave (for both, mother AND father)