SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Benggaul]

I'd like to see a separate layover of wealth (maybe as a state, maybe per capita) added to that image. I'm betting it would explain in part why Florida and/or Texas appear better than one might expect. Just a hypothesis.

EDIT: Can't quite find the type of map I'm looking for but in the meantime I discovered that Texas and Florida are just behind California and New York for most millionaires (above 30 mill), so that's sorta along the lines of what I was implying.

[Shkar]

Why do we need to compare outcomes in different nations? States themselves have fairly different policies around health care and insurance coverage, and there are different networks in place throughout them.

That data's readily available if you bother to look for it.

Trimming quotes to shorten post length.

First, my post was just on the graphs on the March of Dimes report card, and I managed to accidentally mess up and miss the link on the Maternal Vulnerability Index chart linking to the Surgo Ventures report. I read through the report card, got to the end and went back to click on the link I'd seen, and clicked the one at the bottom of each page which gives technical notes, but forgot about the Surgo link. The Surgo report has (at least in my opinion) better charts because it actually breaks down the counties based on factors. Having that breakdown means I don't have to wonder if its poverty, lack of health care, environmental factors, etc. As I suspected (but couldn't tell from the report card), it's all of them in the south. It also helped elucidate how the different factors interweave; for instance, Michigan has a higher infant mortality than Texas but actually has MORE access to reproductive healthcare. I honestly expected access to maternal healthcare to be a bigger contributor, but from the individual charts it looks like it's more like regular physical health and (of course) substance abuse/socioeconomic factors.

The connection to other nations is because I would expect that, when giving a grade to a nation, the grade should be compared to other nations. Knowing that the states that have low numbers are comparable to countries that actually kind of have their shit together like Canada or France is good. Knowing that those same states are 1.8-2x as high as the Nordic countries, and the worst states are closer in line with small island or South American countries is better (in the sense of frame of reference).

Finally, I'll admit that I probably just shouldn't have commented, since reports like that really aren't aimed at me. On this topic, I'm right in the dunning-kruger space; I know just enough that the ultra simplified stats you find on the internet don't have enough information, but the specific stuff for the experts I have no frame of reference for.

I'd like to see a separate layover of wealth (maybe as a state, maybe per capita) added to that image. I'm betting it would explain in part why Florida and/or Texas appear better than one might expect. Just a hypothesis.

EDIT: Can't quite find the type of map I'm looking for but in the meantime I discovered that Texas and Florida are just behind California and New York for most millionaires (above 30 mill), so that's sorta along the lines of what I was implying.

Page 15 of the Surgo Report kind of has what you're looking for.

[Rasulis]

Nikki Haley Says She Would Have Signed Six-Week Abortion Ban as Governor

Yep. Six weeks Federal abortion ban will be on the ballot in 2024.

It looks like 11 states for sure will have abortion amendment on the ballot in 2024. Twelve if Florida pro-choice groups can get theirs' on the ballot.

Will abortion outweigh the usual GOP spiel on the economy, immigration and crime?

[Poopymonster]

Nikki Haley Says She Would Have Signed Six-Week Abortion Ban as Governor

Yep. Six weeks Federal abortion ban will be on the ballot in 2024.

It looks like 11 states for sure will have abortion amendment on the ballot in 2024. Twelve if Florida pro-choice groups can get theirs' on the ballot.

Will abortion outweigh the usual GOP spiel on the economy, immigration and crime?

They can always say it'll be illegal brown people who will be required to get them before deporting them.

[tehdang]

Nikki Haley Says She Would Have Signed Six-Week Abortion Ban as Governor

Yep. Six weeks Federal abortion ban will be on the ballot in 2024.

It looks like 11 states for sure will have abortion amendment on the ballot in 2024. Twelve if Florida pro-choice groups can get theirs' on the ballot.

Will abortion outweigh the usual GOP spiel on the economy, immigration and crime?

Plain-old failure to comprehend the statement. State bans are on the ballot. Nikki Haley can speak to her experience as a governor.

Yet you say "Federal abortion ban" for Nikki Haley? She just spent considerable political capital in the debate saying she opposed that exact thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vJmc4iXZRY

You're lying about quite possibly the most articulate response on abortion in states and abortion at the federal level of any candidate in the race.

And it's quite possible to oppose the stance without deceiving everybody about what it is.

[unfilteredJW]

And it's quite possible to oppose the stance without deceiving everybody about what it is.

Then why the constant lies, half truths, and misinformation from the GOP?

[Rasulis]

Plain-old failure to comprehend the statement. State bans are on the ballot. Nikki Haley can speak to her experience as a governor.

Yet you say "Federal abortion ban" for Nikki Haley? She just spent considerable political capital in the debate saying she opposed that exact thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vJmc4iXZRY

You're lying about quite possibly the most articulate response on abortion in states and abortion at the federal level of any candidate in the race.

And it's quite possible to oppose the stance without deceiving everybody about what it is.

Key sentence from her speech "It will take 60 Senate votes." The unsaid implication was that, as a President, if she has that "60 votes" and House majority, she will impose a Federal ban. Even without those "60 votes", as President, she could do a lot of damage to the pro-choice movement. Something as simple as reversing FDA approvals on Mifepristone and Misoprostol could have a devastating impact to abortion access. Or limiting telemedicine consultation to in state patients only.

No. I wasn't lying.

[Endus]

Plain-old failure to comprehend the statement. State bans are on the ballot. Nikki Haley can speak to her experience as a governor.

Yet you say "Federal abortion ban" for Nikki Haley? She just spent considerable political capital in the debate saying she opposed that exact thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vJmc4iXZRY

You're lying about quite possibly the most articulate response on abortion in states and abortion at the federal level of any candidate in the race.

And it's quite possible to oppose the stance without deceiving everybody about what it is.

"Articulate"? She is, by her own admission, only pulling back from a federal ban because she think it's impractical to achieve.

She's also blatantly lying. If she believed her own "leave it up to the people" schtick, she'd be pro-choice. That leaves the decision on any individual case up to the individual persons involved in that case. She does not personally support that. She wants women to be denied their own self-ownership, because of her own archaic Bronze-age-era religious extremism.

[Shkar]

As the others have implied, if she actually opposed an abortion ban, it would take 67 votes. That's the magic number to override a presidential veto, after all. All she's doing by saying 60 votes is acknowledging that the democrats would filibuster such a bill.

[tehdang]

Key sentence from her speech "It will take 60 Senate votes." The unsaid implication was that, as a President, if she has that "60 votes" and House majority, she will impose a Federal ban. Even without those "60 votes", as President, she could do a lot of damage to the pro-choice movement. Something as simple as reversing FDA approvals on Mifepristone and Misoprostol could have a devastating impact to abortion access. Or limiting telemedicine consultation to in state patients only.

No. I wasn't lying.

Sadly, no. Her whole wind-up to that was how she respected other states. How the Supreme Court put it back into the states.

And then used the 60 votes to allege the other candidates were both wrong and unrealistic as an attack on them. Other candidates on that stage supported a federal ban.

It takes ignoring every word of her speech up to that sentence to arrive where you did. That's exactly why I stand by my previous characterization: you're lying, and if you don't think you are, re-watch the video.

I will, however, admit that she will do a lot of damage to the pro-choice movement. The reason is honest dialogue about personal choices and each state's actions being tolerated will handicap pro-choice rhetoric nationwide.

[Rasulis]

Sadly, no. Her whole wind-up to that was how she respected other states. How the Supreme Court put it back into the states.

And then used the 60 votes to allege the other candidates were both wrong and unrealistic as an attack on them. Other candidates on that stage supported a federal ban.

It takes ignoring every word of her speech up to that sentence to arrive where you did. That's exactly why I stand by my previous characterization: you're lying, and if you don't think you are, re-watch the video.

I will, however, admit that she will do a lot of damage to the pro-choice movement. The reason is honest dialogue about personal choices and each state's actions being tolerated will handicap pro-choice rhetoric nationwide.

From her interview with Fox News. Go to 6:00.

“Let’s start there and whatever 60 Senate votes come to, whether that’s 15 weeks, I absolutely would sign it.”

If she becomes president, the only thing that would stop her from passing an abortion Federal ban would be that "60 Senate votes."

[unfilteredJW]

@tehdang accusing someone else of lying is peak comedy.

[Jastall]

@tehdang accusing someone else of lying is peak comedy.

It's part amusing and part predictably sad that his two arguments for destroying Roe were 1. late-term abortions and 2. state's rights but in actual reality the Republicans are chomping at the bits to impose a federal ban and are mostly arguing about if it should be 6, 12, 15 or some other numbered week and the practicality of how to impose said ban.

[tehdang]

From her interview with Fox News. Go to 6:00.

“Let’s start there and whatever 60 Senate votes come to, whether that’s 15 weeks, I absolutely would sign it.”

If she becomes president, the only thing that would stop her from passing an abortion Federal ban would be that "60 Senate votes."

It's clear from her statements (and watch from 5:00 please on the July 2nd interview) that she supports state-level legislation that respects pro-choice and pro-life positions, but won't go so far as to veto a bill with historically unprecedented support never seen in 100 years. That's the sop she has to give to the pro-life movement that's active in the GOP primary system, sad to say.

That's also completely different from your previous statement concerning her previous job of Governor "Six weeks Federal abortion ban will be on the ballot in 2024." Which I guess you're now retracting, given the positions you're now defending and what you're not defending:

“This was put in the states — that’s where it should be. Everyone can give their voice to it.”

NYT article you linked, regarding 6 weeks.

We should find consensus. Consensus on the fact that we should not have late-term abortion. Consensus on the fact that if doctors and nurses don't believe in abortion, they shouldn't have to perform it. Consensus on the fact that we should encourage adoptions that are good-quality adoptions...

July 2nd interview

Let's agree on how we can ban late term abortions. Let's make sure we encourage adoptions and good quality adoptions. Let's make sure we make contraception accessible

. Nov 8th debate

15 week bans have never and will never come to her desk, because of the lack of support across the country for such legislation, both in the Senate and the House. She knows this. She states a lesser form of this: the country does not have such a consensus now. You're eliding over an important gap, and one a lot of pro-choicers make to scare people. Maybe you can come clean. Your first NYT article, Nikki Haley saying something in the context of being a governor, and you wrongly wrote that "Six weeks Federal abortion ban will be on the ballot in 2024." Now, your position is "Nikki Haley won't veto Congressional legislation at 15 weeks, and seeks national consensus for late-term abortion policy that doesn't exist." The final position I agree with as being a natural reading of her previous statements. I wouldn't even have felt the desire to respond if that had been what you actually said to start. Your initial position I see as being typical hair-on-fire rhetoric that's unsupported and intentionally deceitful.

[Endus]

We should find consensus. Consensus on the fact that we should not have late-term abortion. Consensus on the fact that if doctors and nurses don't believe in abortion, they shouldn't have to perform it. Consensus on the fact that we should encourage adoptions that are good-quality adoptions...

July 2nd interview

That's not "seeking consensus". That's "we're gonna make all other options impossible if not criminal so you have no option left but to agree with us". If you say you want "consensus" on your position, you're just lying about your goals or have no clue what "consensus" even means.

15 week bans have never and will never come to her desk, because of the lack of support across the country for such legislation, both in the Senate and the House. She knows this. She states a lesser form of this: the country does not have such a consensus now. You're eliding over an important gap, and one a lot of pro-choicers make to scare people. Maybe you can come clean. Your first NYT article, Nikki Haley saying something in the context of being a governor, and you wrongly wrote that "Six weeks Federal abortion ban will be on the ballot in 2024." Now, your position is "Nikki Haley won't veto Congressional legislation at 15 weeks, and seeks national consensus for late-term abortion policy that doesn't exist." The final position I agree with as being a natural reading of her previous statements. I wouldn't even have felt the desire to respond if that had been what you actually said to start. Your initial position I see as being typical hair-on-fire rhetoric that's unsupported and intentionally deceitful.

The country doesn't have a consensus on the questions "are blacks actually people" or "can people be allowed to be gay". In cases like that, while consensus is desirable, compromise is not. One side is good, the other is evil, and there's no middle ground to be had. No level of bigotry and harm-seeking that should be permitted for its own sake.

And the abortion argument is the same. The pro-life position is harm-seeking. It does not seek to achieve any good or reasonable goal. It only seeks to inflict unwarranted harm on innocents. It should not be tolerated in any modern society. It's just religious extremism running amok.

[Rasulis]

It's clear from her statements (and watch from 5:00 please on the July 2nd interview) that she supports state-level legislation that respects pro-choice and pro-life positions, but won't go so far as to veto a bill with historically unprecedented support never seen in 100 years. That's the sop she has to give to the pro-life movement that's active in the GOP primary system, sad to say.

That's also completely different from your previous statement concerning her previous job of Governor "Six weeks Federal abortion ban will be on the ballot in 2024." Which I guess you're now retracting, given the positions you're now defending and what you're not defending:
NYT article you linked, regarding 6 weeks.

July 2nd interview
. Nov 8th debate

15 week bans have never and will never come to her desk, because of the lack of support across the country for such legislation, both in the Senate and the House. She knows this. She states a lesser form of this: the country does not have such a consensus now. You're eliding over an important gap, and one a lot of pro-choicers make to scare people. Maybe you can come clean. Your first NYT article, Nikki Haley saying something in the context of being a governor, and you wrongly wrote that "Six weeks Federal abortion ban will be on the ballot in 2024." Now, your position is "Nikki Haley won't veto Congressional legislation at 15 weeks, and seeks national consensus for late-term abortion policy that doesn't exist." The final position I agree with as being a natural reading of her previous statements. I wouldn't even have felt the desire to respond if that had been what you actually said to start. Your initial position I see as being typical hair-on-fire rhetoric that's unsupported and intentionally deceitful.

Federal six weeks abortion ban will be on the 2024 ballots in the sense that it will be on the mind of every pro-choice voter when they go to the ballots. Only the naivest individuals would believe that all the current GOP candidates, given the chance, will not push for Federal abortion ban. We have seen over and over again that we can't trust what comes out of their mouths when it comes to abortion. Haley included.

[Jastall]

Federal six weeks abortion ban will be on the 2024 ballots in the sense that it will be on the mind of every pro-choice voter when they go to the ballots. Only the naivest individuals would believe that all the current GOP candidates, given the chance, will not push for Federal abortion ban. We have seen over and over again that we can't trust what comes out of their mouths when it comes to abortion. Haley included.

Republican abortion policies have been a real-time slippery slope. The early rhetoric was that killing Roe allowed every State to make democratic decisions for themselves because late-term abortions (and countless variations of that perpetually ill-defined argument) but in practice some States have variously pushed for extremist legislations, contested or ignored democratic results on the matter, or outright overstepped their bounds and tried to stop people getting abortions in other States. On the federal side far more Republicans than not are openly or subtly supporting a federal ban, and merely arguing how practical it is to implement while paying lip service to state's rights in the meantime. It's been an endless rollercoaster of sophistry and lies because abortion as a policy is driven by the party's most socially conservative and religious base, who flatly do not seek reasonable compromise on the matter and have not done so for 50 years and counting.

[Rasulis]

Republican abortion policies have been a real-time slippery slope. The early rhetoric was that killing Roe allowed every State to make democratic decisions for themselves because late-term abortions (and countless variations of that perpetually ill-defined argument) but in practice some States have variously pushed for extremist legislations, contested or ignored democratic results on the matter, or outright overstepped their bounds and tried to stop people getting abortions in other States. On the federal side far more Republicans than not are openly or subtly supporting a federal ban, and merely arguing how practical it is to implement while paying lip service to state's rights in the meantime. It's been an endless rollercoaster of sophistry and lies because abortion as a policy is driven by the party's most socially conservative and religious base, who flatly do not seek reasonable compromise on the matter and have not done so for 50 years and counting.

Anybody who think that politicians that would impose 6 weeks state-level abortion ban won't do a Federal one is either very naive or lying to advance an agenda.

[Endus]

Anybody who think that politicians that would impose 6 weeks state-level abortion ban won't do a Federal one is either very naive or lying to advance an agenda.

And that there's a whopping big difference between "not wanting to do that" and "realizing it's politically unfeasible until after you've taken full fascist control and wiped out your opposition, so we're putting it on the back burner till we're ready".

That last being all Haley really said.

[Muzjhath]

Anybody who think that politicians that would impose 6 weeks state-level abortion ban won't do a Federal one is either very naive or lying to advance an agenda.

Also missing that while the GOP shout a good game about State's Rights, local power, and all that. Whenever City or County level places in GOP controlled states do stuff the GOP dislikes they love using State power to block it.