1. #7261
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I mean sure, you can point out how the policies that Republicans pursue accomplish the exact opposite of their stated goals and we can look to the mountains of data that support that claim.

    That won't mean that any of these conservative folks will believe you or even look at the data, because that would make their continued positions and claims that they actually do care about these things really difficult to square.
    I found Kelly Ann-Conway telling GOP to promote contraception to be pretty hilarious. Personally, I don't think it will work. Per the lady from EMILY's list, "we have seen their records."

  2. #7262
    Brewmaster Karreck's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Beneath you. Devouring.
    Posts
    1,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    Look up states with most women living in contraceptive desert.

    Look up states with the most teenage pregnancy.

    Look up states with most repeat teenage pregnancy.

    No comment.
    Don't forget to look up states with Abstinence-Only as the primary topic in school sex ed classes.
    Princesses can kill knights to rescue dragons.

  3. #7263
    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/ted-...texas-abortion

    Ted Cruz has no actual response when asked about his state's AG's behavior and the current situation with Cate Cox.

    He simply refers to the press office because he probably knows he doesn't have any comments on the topic that won't piss off a large group of people he relies on.

  4. #7264
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/ted-...texas-abortion

    Ted Cruz has no actual response when asked about his state's AG's behavior and the current situation with Cate Cox.

    He simply refers to the press office because he probably knows he doesn't have any comments on the topic that won't piss off a large group of people he relies on.
    All Texas politicians are dodging this right now. Cornyn is doing the same thing.

  5. #7265
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    I found Kelly Ann-Conway telling GOP to promote contraception to be pretty hilarious. Personally, I don't think it will work. Per the lady from EMILY's list, "we have seen their records."
    It's highly doubtful that they will follow her. The foundation of the "pro-life" movement is that women should have to face the repercussions of having sex, and birth control flies in the face of that.
    "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

  6. #7266
    Immortal Poopymonster's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    7,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    I found Kelly Ann-Conway telling GOP to promote contraception to be pretty hilarious. Personally, I don't think it will work. Per the lady from EMILY's list, "we have seen their records."
    She didn't say the most important part.
    "Until after the election"
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok


    If you look, you can see the straw man walking a red herring up a slippery slope coming to join this conversation.

  7. #7267
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,884
    Another casual reminder that the "pro life" nomenclature is incorrect. Conservatives have never been pro life. They're pro forced birth. It's become very clear over the last two years that letting women and fetuses die because conservative legislation limiting women's reproductive care literally kills them. They don't give a shit about life, and no matter how much @tehdang or anyone else ties themselves in knots to justify all of this and how it would work in theory, the reality is that conservative prosecutors are punishing women who are having involuntary miscarriages because they're under suspicion for killing their fetus, even when doctors and professionals say that no such thing happened.

    Cruelty is the point, and the cruelty of the Republican party is going to cost them in future elections.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  8. #7268
    This guy Leonard Leo, needs to be in the crosshairs for stacking courts with the types of people that would purposely take away a woman's right to her own body. Behind the scenes, he's been stacking the decks and forcing picks to go his way.

    https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/ne...billion-payday

    https://www.propublica.org/article/w...-supermajority

    https://www.acslaw.org/analysis/reports/dark-money/

    https://accountable.us/leonard-leos-...ling-revealed/

  9. #7269
    Mrs. Cox’s case was interesting. The legal team expected that their request for TRO won’t be granted by the state. However, the case provided clarity for the other ongoing case where 20 women + 2 OB/Gyn are suing the state of Texas.

    The State’s defense was that only pregnant women with pregnancy related health emergencies have standing to sue. Since none of the women are currently under such condition, they have no standing. Pretty cynical defense in my opinion.

    The three questions the states asked all the women.

    Did you request an exemption? Obviously, no. The state never set a procedure to do so. Mrs. Cox had to go to court. Some of the women were in the middle of active miscarriage when the decision to do an abortion had to be made. Do we expect them to retain attorneys and file a lawsuit with blood between their legs?

    Did the state of Texas told you not to have an abortion? No.

    Did Ken Paxton told you not to have an abortion? No.

    Mrs. Cox basically took the state's dare and sued for an exemption. Now we know how the state of Texas reacted to such request. There is no more hiding behind the “medical exemption” pretext. It is now out in the open for all to see.
    Last edited by Rasulis; 2023-12-14 at 06:31 PM.

  10. #7270
    The Lightbringer
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    3,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    Mrs. Cox basically took the state's dare and sued for an exemption. Now we know how the state of Texas reacted to such request. There is no more hiding behind the “medical exemption” pretext. It is now out in the open for all to see.
    it was obvious the 'Medical Exemptions' rules were all bunk from the get go, between the GOP's history of being dishonest pricks and the vague/unclear wording of a lot of these exemptions. Honestly if there was a single, politically sound bone in any of these fuckers' bodies they would've let -this- case slide, but shitheads like Paxton absolutely cannot help themselves and showed the rest of the country how little of a shit they give about anything beyond their ideological purity and/or virtue signalling.

    So now the rest of the Texas GOP has to cover their eyes and ears and pretend this whole debacle doesn't exist, less they're forced to choose between inciting the lunatic base they've cultivated, or further alienating the moderates they need to win future elections.

  11. #7271
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/ted-...texas-abortion

    Ted Cruz has no actual response when asked about his state's AG's behavior and the current situation with Cate Cox.

    He simply refers to the press office because he probably knows he doesn't have any comments on the topic that won't piss off a large group of people he relies on.
    That VF article is pretty funny. Mike Sington, NBC Senior Executive called Ted Cruz chicken shit. VF also called John Cornyn, indirectly, a certified weasel and a coward.

    - - - Updated - - -

    A Shocking Number of Republicans Are Signing Florida’s Abortion Petition
    Republican voters are helping Florida put abortion on the ballot next year.


    The petition proposes ensuring abortion access until the point of viability—roughly 24 weeks into pregnancy. That’s four and a half months longer than the state’s impending six-week abortion ban. So far, the petition has garnered 753,305 valid signatures, according to the Florida Division of Elections website, up from 687,000 last week. And more than 150,000 of those signatures come from Republicans.


    The only thing that will stop the amendment from getting on the ballot is the State's Supreme Court.

  12. #7272
    Old God Captain N's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Resident of Emerald City
    Posts
    10,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    The only thing that will stop the amendment from getting on the ballot is the State's Supreme Court.
    Will this be the same Supreme Court that will side with Republican politicians when the ballot passes, and claims that the voters didn't know exactly what they were voting for and like Ohio ignores the will of the people?
    “You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”― Malcolm X

    I watch them fight and die in the name of freedom. They speak of liberty and justice, but for whom? -Ratonhnhaké:ton (Connor Kenway)

  13. #7273
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain N View Post
    Will this be the same Supreme Court that will side with Republican politicians when the ballot passes, and claims that the voters didn't know exactly what they were voting for and like Ohio ignores the will of the people?
    I am aware of that. We'll just have to see.

    Meanwhile, it is not only Texas. Eighteen women from 10 states tell their stories.

    Meet 18 women who shared heartbreaking pregnancy journeys in post-Roe world

    None of these women took their decision to have an abortion lightly. Some spent years and tens of thousands trying to conceive.

  14. #7274
    Herald of the Titans tehdang's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    2,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    A Shocking Number of Republicans Are Signing Florida’s Abortion Petition
    Republican voters are helping Florida put abortion on the ballot next year.




    The only thing that will stop the amendment from getting on the ballot is the State's Supreme Court.
    There's the compromise. A bipartisan group of voters comes together to push legal abortion into later weeks, while still blocking it from the very late-term. (And language might need to change to still accomplish the latter part, or the amendment might be defeated for the same. Just talking about the principle here)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    I am aware of that. We'll just have to see.

    Meanwhile, it is not only Texas. Eighteen women from 10 states tell their stories.

    Meet 18 women who shared heartbreaking pregnancy journeys in post-Roe world

    None of these women took their decision to have an abortion lightly. Some spent years and tens of thousands trying to conceive.
    This sort of activism should encourage legislators and popular ballot initiatives to strengthen and clarify existing laws with exceptions for the life of the mother/impairment of major bodily function. If the state doesn't have laws regarding non-viable unborn babies, these stories should also spur legislation and ballot initiatives to have those exceptions. And the pro-life movement as a whole needs to recognize these needs and push to strengthen and clarify the exemptions.
    "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."

  15. #7275
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    There's the compromise. A bipartisan group of voters comes together to push legal abortion into later weeks, while still blocking it from the very late-term. (And language might need to change to still accomplish the latter part, or the amendment might be defeated for the same. Just talking about the principle here)
    It might be, if state Republicans don't have a recent history, including in Florida specifically, of finding ways to undermine the will of the voters on popular ballot measures.

    I'll point to Ohio currently, and Florida previously on the topic of the re-enfranchisement of felons who have served their time. The Legislature in both instances things/thought they knew better than the voters themselves.

    Hence why nobody currently believes Republican politicians on the topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    This sort of activism should encourage legislators and popular ballot initiatives to strengthen and clarify existing laws with exceptions for the life of the mother/impairment of major bodily function. If the state doesn't have laws regarding non-viable unborn babies, these stories should also spur legislation and ballot initiatives to have those exceptions. And the pro-life movement as a whole needs to recognize these needs and push to strengthen and clarify the exemptions.
    It should, yet as we've been pointing out since Roe was overturned, no Republican states have made any apparent effort to do so.

    Instead, despite growing numbers of horror stories of the abject cruelty and suffering these women, many of whom are "pro-life" and very much wanted to have children and now may never again, stateside Republicans remain unmoved.

    Which is what we continue to point out, and you seemingly refuse to acknowledge that this cruelty is a voluntary choice on the part of those Republicans. Nothing is stopping a single one of those states from calling a special session to address this imminent problem in accordance with their ideological beliefs.

  16. #7276
    Herald of the Titans tehdang's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    2,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    It might be, if state Republicans don't have a recent history, including in Florida specifically, of finding ways to undermine the will of the voters on popular ballot measures.

    I'll point to Ohio currently, and Florida previously on the topic of the re-enfranchisement of felons who have served their time. The Legislature in both instances things/thought they knew better than the voters themselves.

    Hence why nobody currently believes Republican politicians on the topic.
    We'll see. The topic of political representatives serving a term in a republic compared to a more direct democracy and plebiscite is interesting but a little off-topic.

    It should, yet as we've been pointing out since Roe was overturned, no Republican states have made any apparent effort to do so.

    Instead, despite growing numbers of horror stories of the abject cruelty and suffering these women, many of whom are "pro-life" and very much wanted to have children and now may never again, stateside Republicans remain unmoved.

    Which is what we continue to point out, and you seemingly refuse to acknowledge that this cruelty is a voluntary choice on the part of those Republicans. Nothing is stopping a single one of those states from calling a special session to address this imminent problem in accordance with their ideological beliefs.
    The formulation of "cruelty is a voluntary choice" promises more than it can deliver, honestly. I think the real test is whether exceptions were deliberately made worse than they could otherwise have been because evil people wanted more suffering from pregnant women in general. In opposition, carefully crafting exceptions in the radical legal shakeup of Dobbs after fifty years of Roe & Casey against institutional opposition from hospitals and doctors would naturally yield uncertainty. The mainstream, non-profit-based pro-life movement deserves some blame for advocating for untenable early bans across every state, instead of seeking pro-life compromise positions that respects the diversity of views on what ought to be legal. The position I'm seeing that basically says "not just wrong, but intentionally cruel and wanting the suffering" does go too far in assigning malice, etc. I say that not enough money and legal support has been purposed on a national level to make pro-life laws better in their language and support, and the same on a state-by-state level in state laws to work with amenable providers to publish guidelines on legal liability and prosecution. This is made tougher by obvious bad incentives from pro-choice doctors, hospitals, and organizations, who would rather see the laws repealed than grudgingly seek compliance papers and policies, but pro-life advocates need to realize that such opposition is unavoidable and must be worked both through and around. As an example, Ken Paxton needs more fair-minded opposition articles from pro-life organizations for the deficiencies in his abortion lawsuit, and Texas abortion law needs amendment to better give life/health of mother exemptions and new exemptions for life-threatening fetal anomalies.

    The laws will just fall for their inadequacies, as we've already seen, and ought to fall if pro-life money and advocacy can't support state-by-state compromise positions. To the extent that this hasn't been happening, that's a serious and deserved indictment of the mainstream pro-life movement and majorly funded advocacy organizations. From what I can tell, they have a naive attachment to the fact that so much pro-life legislation was successfully adopted, which was a successfully policy achievement in a very general sense, but not enough serious contemplation of existing vague and sloppy language that will be used to undo the same legislation over the next year or two. That's part of an entire book that will need to be written on how the mainstream pro-life movement failed to achieve lasting policy successes after abortion law went back to the people. Asking for too much, and failing to craft and modify workable abortion laws that states attorneys general can work with health-care providers, hospitals, and insurance for compliance. Then failing to message around legal successes and legal failures (ie is it true that Cox risks a life-threatening medical condition or substantial impairment of a major bodily function if the baby is carried to term, and that's the real reason a doctor did not affirm that Cox qualified for the exemption in his/her reasonable medical judgment).

    But of course, the positions I advocate for in law are centered around 20-24 week bans with exceptions, and I stand apart from the mainstream pro-life movement. That movement critiques me for the fact that my position allows most abortions to still take place, and kills innocent babies with heartbeats, or that can feel pain. Not that 6-week or 15-week bans don't also protect unborn babies at 24 weeks, they do, but those are typically insufficient compromise positions for a variety of reasons I've stated around here. Inasmuch as this means the current institutions promoting this side of the argument, broadly speaking, need a major shakeup and reform, I agree. Not for a real and sustained objection based on malintent, but for failing to appreciate state-by-state needs and the voting population of each state, and when amendments to insufficient laws are more important than the law on the book itself.
    "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."

  17. #7277
    Not sure how we can compromise on abortion. There is a huge chasm between state laws.

    At one end of the spectrum, we have Alaska, where abortion is legal at all stages. No excuse required. "Medically necessary" abortions sought by low-income women are state funded.

    At the other end we have Tennessee. In Tennessee, abortion is illegal from fertilization, except to prevent death or serious health risk of the mother. No exception for rape or incest. The mother health exemption is not expressed. It is affirmative defense. Regardless of the circumstances, a doctor that performed abortion could be charged with a felony. In court, the doctor would have to show that the procedure was necessary. In a typical court case, the prosecutor has the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt. In affirmative defense case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Although the standard is lower than reasonable doubt. If convicted, the penalty is incarceration, loss of license, and hefty penalty.

    Where is the middle ground between the two?
    Last edited by Rasulis; 2023-12-18 at 12:11 AM.

  18. #7278
    Herald of the Titans tehdang's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    2,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    Not sure how we can compromise on abortion. There is a huge chasm between state laws.

    At one end of the spectrum, we have Alaska, where abortion is legal at all stages. No excuse required. "Medically necessary" abortions sought by low-income women are state funded.

    At the other end we have Tennessee. In Tennessee, abortion is illegal from fertilization, except to prevent death or serious health risk of the mother. No exception for rape or incest. The mother health exemption is not expressed. It is affirmative defense. Regardless of the circumstances, a doctor that performed abortion could be charged with a felony. In court, the doctor would have to show that the procedure was necessary. In a typical court case, the prosecutor has the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt. In affirmative defense case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Although the standard is lower than reasonable doubt. If convicted, the penalty is incarceration, loss of license, and hefty penalty.

    Where is the middle ground between the two?
    If you think it's at all workable for a national policy to be settled on abortion, then no compromise is possible, broadly speaking.

    Within states, that's literally happening. Now, there is no compromise between a person that is dead-set on abortion being illegal from the moment of conception, and somebody that says no law based on progress of the pregnancy will ever get their support. But, literally, 6-week bans 15-week bans 20-week bans are compromises within the time dimension. If you think the unborn baby has any moral worth, or deserving of state protection, then it's essentially compromising in favor of balancing the needs of the expecting mother against that and saying some form of "at least abort before the heartbeat/feels pain/baby is viable outside the womb." As much as an individual person can have strongly held beliefs that no compromise ought to happen in this dimension, existing legislation and actual polls all detail compromise positions on multiple spectra. Even people that start off wanting abortion to be illegal frequently compromise when somebody asks them "at least let abortion be legal when it's the result of incest or rape or necessary to save the mother's life."

    Your article last page was on a voter initiative campaign that can be honestly summarized as "we should compromise further towards permitting abortion prior to viability." The mode for compromise is state legislatures, via the vote for representatives, together with the governor, and direct initiative/referendum in states that have that process. Persuasion and debate, campaigns from advocacy orgs, and all the rest apply.
    "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."

  19. #7279
    That's a lot of words to say "I'm just going to ignore the fact that the representatives will themselves just ignore what their voters actually want when it suits them."

    You are right that no compromise is possible between those who want a medical procedure to be a decision made between doctors and patients, and those who think that their religious beliefs trump reality.
    Last edited by s_bushido; 2023-12-18 at 01:57 AM.

  20. #7280
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    If you think it's at all workable for a national policy to be settled on abortion, then no compromise is possible, broadly speaking.

    Within states, that's literally happening. Now, there is no compromise between a person that is dead-set on abortion being illegal from the moment of conception, and somebody that says no law based on progress of the pregnancy will ever get their support. But, literally, 6-week bans 15-week bans 20-week bans are compromises within the time dimension. If you think the unborn baby has any moral worth, or deserving of state protection, then it's essentially compromising in favor of balancing the needs of the expecting mother against that and saying some form of "at least abort before the heartbeat/feels pain/baby is viable outside the womb." As much as an individual person can have strongly held beliefs that no compromise ought to happen in this dimension, existing legislation and actual polls all detail compromise positions on multiple spectra. Even people that start off wanting abortion to be illegal frequently compromise when somebody asks them "at least let abortion be legal when it's the result of incest or rape or necessary to save the mother's life."

    Your article last page was on a voter initiative campaign that can be honestly summarized as "we should compromise further towards permitting abortion prior to viability." The mode for compromise is state legislatures, via the vote for representatives, together with the governor, and direct initiative/referendum in states that have that process. Persuasion and debate, campaigns from advocacy orgs, and all the rest apply.
    This just acknowledges that Roe *was* the compromise. Fundamental rights should never be up for a vote. "Letting" abortion be legal in cases you agree with just means it's not abortion you object to, it's women having sex voluntarily.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    That's a lot of words to say "I'm just going to ignore the fact that the representatives will themselves just ignore what their voters actually want when it suits them."

    You are right that no compromise is possible between those who want a medical procedure to be a decision made between doctors and patients, and those who think that their religious beliefs trump reality.
    And the expectation that we should be willing to compromise our own bodily autonomy away is fucking monstrous by itself.
    Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit

Posting Permissions

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