SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Edge-]

I formed that view looking at how many pro-life laws (however flawed) were passed in the months after Dobbs, and how weak and unorganized the contrary viewpoint was. I diagnose it as some unsteadiness from being out of practice arguing the benefits of contrary legislation, rather than just bashing the pro-life side and making absurd indictments of their motivations. It wasn't just four states. There were dozens.

Remarkable that you've written so many words that say absolutely nothing. Just extremely vague generalities that could mean anything you so choose.

Getting actual examples of you instead of just empty rhetoric is like trying to pull teeth in the old blacksmith's shop, my dude. Give us some actual examples.

Now, the money and activists and NGOs are in full swing helping laws pass state-by-state citing abortion law irregularities and the (alleged) danger that the entire enterprise will be banned.

How are states working to codify those protections quickly "reeling"? I thought most of the legislation was just simply passed and that was mostly it? What states do you think are a good example of this?

There's no more Roe to shelter behind, it has to be debated in the open and persuade voters to show up and vote on that side.

You love leaning on this, "We need to have a debate." line and like, my dude the debate has happened.

Again, look at every Republican leaning state where the issue has appeared as a ballot measure: The people keep repeating the same answer and Republicans continue to pretend that we just need more time to talk about this.

What. "Liberal". States. Are. Reeling. And. How?

[Endus]

You love leaning on this, "We need to have a debate." line and like, my dude the debate has happened.

Again, look at every Republican leaning state where the issue has appeared as a ballot measure: The people keep repeating the same answer and Republicans continue to pretend that we just need more time to talk about this.

Frankly, I think the "we need more debate on <insert subject here>" from conservatives largely just boils down to actually meaning "we want our unfounded and poorly justified opinions and dogma to be treated as equally valid with well-reasoned and -supported positions on the other side, without any actual criticism being directed our way at all".

Which, y'know, isn't what debate looks like. They "want a debate", to shut down criticism, because all they get right now is that condemnation and criticism. Because of how poorly their arguments hold up to any kind of scrutiny.

I can't take it as a honestly-intended request.

[SoulForge]

Frankly, I think the "we need more debate on <insert subject here>" from conservatives largely just boils down to actually meaning "we want our unfounded and poorly justified opinions and dogma to be treated as equally valid with well-reasoned and -supported positions on the other side, without any actual criticism being directed our way at all".

Which, y'know, isn't what debate looks like. They "want a debate", to shut down criticism, because all they get right now is that condemnation and criticism. Because of how poorly their arguments hold up to any kind of scrutiny.

I can't take it as a honestly-intended request.

Do conservatives ever really debate? A vast majority of Conservative arguments are more attacking the opposite side rather than the facts or message they present.

[Edge-]

Do conservatives ever really debate? A vast majority of Conservative arguments are more attacking the opposite side rather than the facts or message they present.

Argue, yes. Debate, less so. See: The House, where arguments are plenty but actual constructive, productively debate is seemingly nonexistent. Hence why you hear them complaining about how nobody wants to work together or compromise or get anything done in their conference. Often from members who are unaware they are describing their own behavior in their speech about others in their party.

[Captain N]

Do conservatives ever really debate? A vast majority of Conservative arguments are more attacking the opposite side rather than the facts or message they present.

Unless you consider debate the gish gallop that Ben Shapiro uses or the Steven Crowder approach of trying to get them to change his mind from his already deeply entrenched bigotries or the unending whataboutism from our resident Conservatives here....the answer is a resounding No.

[Rasulis]

Now, the money and activists and NGOs are in full swing helping laws pass state-by-state citing abortion law irregularities and the (alleged) danger that the entire enterprise will be banned. There's no more Roe to shelter behind, it has to be debated in the open and persuade voters to show up and vote on that side. I think it's also obvious that the pro-life side was strategically unprepared to temper its message for workable compromise positions in each state. I wrote more on that in this post: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post54344775

There is no compromise. Anti-choice groups have lost every single ballot amendment since Dobbs. As many as 12 states will have abortion amendments on the ballots in 2024. All the polls showed that all of them have a good chance of passing. Even in Florida which requires 60% referendum. The last poll showed 62% supported the amendment.

GOP state legislatures did the only thing they could. Try to keep them off the ballots.

First rule of the anti-abortion playbook: Don’t let the public vote on abortion.

Now more and more voters have come to the realization, if they want women to keep their bodily autonomy, state constitutional amendments are not enough. They need to vote the anti-choice politicians out. In 2022 election, abortion was an important factor in voting, but it was secondary to the economy and cost of living. Multiple polls showed this year that abortion is now foremost in the mind of woman voters. Well ahead of the economy and cost of living.

Why? The article below needs no explanation.

Men impacted by abortion restrictions share their stories

Stephen Anaya remembers watching his wife, with a high fever and shaking uncontrollably, as she lay in the hospital.

"She's begging me to like cover her. And I'm like, 'I can't -- you can only have a sheet, nurses and doctors said your temperature is too high,'" Anaya said.

"We put an ice pack on her and not even like 5 - 10 minutes later, it's melted. All over her body, I had her wrapped in the ice packs," Anaya said.

Anaya said he felt angry that the laws were keeping his wife from being able to get the help that she needed.

"I have to step up and be here for her because I could lose her. And what does this mean? And then [I was] pissed in a way because we were there for help, and we can't get it even though I know the doctor wanted to, I could feel it -- [the doctor] was stuck and her hands were tied," Anaya said.

[Edge-]

Why? The article below needs no explanation.

Men impacted by abortion restrictions share their stories

I'll note that these kinds of stories have been increasingly common in conservatives states in the post-Roe world. And while a part of that is surely that these kinds of stories are getting more attention by media, we're also see the contours of these stories follow very similar arcs: A functionally terminal diagnosis for the fetus accompanied by significant personal suffering for the individual, the individual seeks care and there is a treatment path available given the diagnosis for the fetus, the current condition of the individual, and the prognosis if care is not provided, the hospital is unable to provide that care out of concern for the legal liability due to laws they've complained are too vague for over a year, individual pointlessly suffers waiting until their life is in actual imminent danger for the hospital to be able to provide the treatment they've known was necessary all along, often with consequences for waiting that include significantly increasing the risks associated with subsequent pregnancies. The specifics are each a bit different, but this is the general thrust of these stories time and time again, and they're often told by women who consider themselves "pro-life" and very much would like to have more children.

Conversely: I'm unsure of any real uptick in horror stories of individuals suffering in states that have codified protections for abortion care or really any analogous stories at all showing adverse outcomes for anyone. I'm not saying these don't exist, but if they do I surely haven't seen them.

I can only imagine how frustrating it is for the spouse in those situations, to feel totally helpless watching their loved one suffer when there's a treatment path available but that the hospital can't pursue that treatment path until their loved one is literally dying.

[Rasulis]

I'll note that these kinds of stories have been increasingly common in conservatives states in the post-Roe world. And while a part of that is surely that these kinds of stories are getting more attention by media, we're also see the contours of these stories follow very similar arcs: A functionally terminal diagnosis for the fetus accompanied by significant personal suffering for the individual, the individual seeks care and there is a treatment path available given the diagnosis for the fetus, the current condition of the individual, and the prognosis if care is not provided, the hospital is unable to provide that care out of concern for the legal liability due to laws they've complained are too vague for over a year, individual pointlessly suffers waiting until their life is in actual imminent danger for the hospital to be able to provide the treatment they've known was necessary all along, often with consequences for waiting that include significantly increasing the risks associated with subsequent pregnancies. The specifics are each a bit different, but this is the general thrust of these stories time and time again, and they're often told by women who consider themselves "pro-life" and very much would like to have more children.

Conversely: I'm unsure of any real uptick in horror stories of individuals suffering in states that have codified protections for abortion care or really any analogous stories at all showing adverse outcomes for anyone. I'm not saying these don't exist, but if they do I surely haven't seen them.

I can only imagine how frustrating it is for the spouse in those situations, to feel totally helpless watching their loved one suffer when there's a treatment path available but that the hospital can't pursue that treatment path until their loved one is literally dying.

What happened to them was horrible. However, the lack of compassion shown by the states' GOP legislature is even more horrifying.

[Surfd]

I can only imagine how frustrating it is for the spouse in those situations, to feel totally helpless watching their loved one suffer when there's a treatment path available but that the hospital can't pursue that treatment path until their loved one is literally dying.

Given that this is the USA, I am honestly surprised that we haven't seen an effort by anyone to sue the State for being directly responsible for causing the needless suffering, pain and emotional trauma most of the people in cases like these are experiencing. I mean, I'm no lawyer, but it would seem pretty open and shut to me that shit like this can be directly sourced to the actions of the State in signing these shitty, intentionally vaguely worded laws onto the books without regard to the wreckage they make of people's lives.

[The Stormbringer]

What happened to them was horrible. However, the lack of compassion shown by the states' GOP legislature is even more horrifying.

When have the GOP ever showed compassion to anyone. And I mean genuine compassion.

[SoulForge]

When have the GOP ever showed compassion to anyone. And I mean genuine compassion.

Not in a very long time. I remember seeing a quote that is still as accurate today as whenever it was originally created. No idea who to credit.

Republicans; Its not happening to me so I don't care.
Democrats; It shouldn't happen to anyone and that is why we care.

[tehdang]

There is no compromise. Anti-choice groups have lost every single ballot amendment since Dobbs. As many as 12 states will have abortion amendments on the ballots in 2024. All the polls showed that all of them have a good chance of passing. Even in Florida which requires 60% referendum. The last poll showed 62% supported the amendment.

GOP state legislatures did the only thing they could. Try to keep them off the ballots.

First rule of the anti-abortion playbook: Don’t let the public vote on abortion.

Now more and more voters have come to the realization, if they want women to keep their bodily autonomy, state constitutional amendments are not enough. They need to vote the anti-choice politicians out. In 2022 election, abortion was an important factor in voting, but it was secondary to the economy and cost of living. Multiple polls showed this year that abortion is now foremost in the mind of woman voters. Well ahead of the economy and cost of living.

Why? The article below needs no explanation.

Men impacted by abortion restrictions share their stories

You cite victories and future likely victories to say "there is no compromise?" Re-read my post and linked post. If you meant to say that the pro-choice side won't accept compromise, then sure. But from my standpoint, which is that the pro-life side should've developed consensus around restrictions later on in the pregnancy state-by-state, you're celebrating victories on the back of the failure of the other side to pursue compromise.

[unfilteredJW]

You cite victories and future likely victories to say "there is no compromise?" Re-read my post and linked post. If you meant to say that the pro-choice side won't accept compromise, then sure. But from my standpoint, which is that the pro-life side should've developed consensus around restrictions later on in the pregnancy state-by-state, you're celebrating victories on the back of the failure of the other side to pursue compromise.

We had a fucking compromise.

Complete clown shoes as always.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The issue I run into a lot is people who do have deeply religious beliefs, or beliefs that are founded in religion, and so they'll just take one look at abortion and say, "That's killing a baby!" and ignore every argument or explanation that might say otherwise. I have no idea how to approach people like that, and don't know if I even should try to talk to them about it.

Tell them that there is a separation between Church and State.

[s_bushido]

If you meant to say that the pro-choice side won't accept compromise, then sure.

Allowing the state any say in a person's medical decisions was the compromise. Pro-"""life""" theocrats weren't happy with it. They wanted to remove a person's ability to make that medical decision in the first place.

[PosPosPos]

Allowing the state any say in a person's medical decisions was the compromise. Pro-"""life""" theocrats weren't happy with it. They wanted to remove a person's ability to make that medical decision in the first place.

Can people just call them forced-birthers or the most accurate pro-deathers already?

Because this is exactly what they want, more deaths, more suffering.

[Ivanstone]

Can people just call them forced-birthers or the most accurate pro-deathers already?

Pro-death.

I'd take the anti-abortion side's arguments more seriously if they didn't simultaneously pursue policies that make people not want to have children or make life as difficult as possible for those that do.

I'd at least expect them to provide incentives to people not to have an abortion but they can't even be bothered with that.

[Gestopft]

I'd take the anti-abortion side's arguments more seriously if they didn't simultaneously pursue policies that make people not want to have children or make life as difficult as possible for those that do.

I'd at least expect them to provide incentives to people not to have an abortion but they can't even be bothered with that.

That's because genuine care for the fetuses isn't actually the core value of the movement. After 50 years, I'm sure a lot of pro-life proponents think it is, but the heart of the movement is controlling sexual behavior, particularly women's.

Apropos of nothing:

Iowa won't participate in U.S. food assistance program for kids this summer

"Well you see now, if women just waited until marriage like they're supposed to, they'd have a proper breadwinner in the house and wouldn't need food assistance for their children."

[s_bushido]

Because this is exactly what they want, more deaths, more suffering.

Apropos of nothing:

Iowa won't participate in U.S. food assistance program for kids this summer

[Captain N]

Apropos of nothing:

Iowa won't participate in U.S. food assistance program for kids this summer

I particularly like this part of that article by the Iowa Governor....

"Federal COVID-era cash benefit programs are not sustainable and don't provide long-term solutions for the issues impacting children and families. An EBT card does nothing to promote nutrition at a time when childhood obesity has become an epidemic," Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds said in the news release.

She added, "If the Biden Administration and Congress want to make a real commitment to family well-being, they should invest in already existing programs and infrastructure at the state level and give us the flexibility to tailor them to our state's needs."

Let's blame an obesity issue as the reason we can't feed poor children, and then expect Big Government to fix the problem so we can blame them when we alter their recommendations at the state level.