SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[s_bushido]

Despite many national and state Republicans decrying the ruling, again we have a situation where Republicans have the opportunity to take action yet decide to let the draconian abortion law remain in place, despite saying they disagree with it.

I don't get it. Doing this would take the wind out of the sails of the Democrats for the upcoming election, though. You'd think they'd be perfectly happy with that...since they've already got that newer ban on the books anyway, iirc.

[Edge-]

I don't get it. Doing this would take the wind out of the sails of the Democrats for the upcoming election, though. You'd think they'd be perfectly happy with that...since they've already got that newer ban on the books anyway, iirc.

It sure does make ya think, doesn't it. I just hope people are still paying attention and vote accordingly.

Then again we know a great many Republican voters prefer the comforting lies they know are lies to the uncomfortable and unsatisfying truths and reality.

[Rasulis]

I don't get it. Doing this would take the wind out of the sails of the Democrats for the upcoming election, though. You'd think they'd be perfectly happy with that...since they've already got that newer ban on the books anyway, iirc.

They just couldn't help themselves. We have seen this over and over again.

[Paranoid Android]

Democrats' second effort to suspend the rules in an effort to roll back the 1864 law fails as well, again on a tied 30-30 vote.

Just a reminder this is politics. Get them on the record of vote. It failed but showed that Republicans had a chance to walk away from the AZ abortion law, but just can't do it. Almost amazing since Republicans could have sidestepped this easily and just blame a "radical" AZ Supreme Court, that they appointed of course.

[Rasulis]

Democrats' second effort to suspend the rules in an effort to roll back the 1864 law fails as well, again on a tied 30-30 vote.

Just a reminder this is politics. Get them on the record of vote. It failed but showed that Republicans had a chance to walk away from the AZ abortion law, but just can't do it. Almost amazing since Republicans could have sidestepped this easily and just blame a "radical" AZ Supreme Court, that they appointed of course.

The anti-abortion crowd dedicated the last 50 years trying to overturn Roe vs. Wade. During that time, they have managed to put a lot of like-minded elected officials in office. They showed us the power of a minority group with 100% voting record on a single-issue. They would vote a psycho killer into office as long as he was anti-abortion. That's why whenever somebody complained that his/her vote does not matter, I tend to get annoyed. The anti-abortion group showed us that it does matter.

[Edge-]

https://apnews.com/article/pregnancy...654de1ae5f7a1c

One woman miscarried in the lobby restroom of a Texas emergency room as front desk staff refused to check her in. Another woman learned that her fetus had no heartbeat at a Florida hospital, the day after a security guard turned her away from the facility. And in North Carolina, a woman gave birth in a car after an emergency room couldn’t offer an ultrasound. The baby later died.

Complaints that pregnant women were turned away from U.S. emergency rooms spiked in 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, federal documents obtained by The Associated Press reveal.

The cases raise alarms about the state of emergency pregnancy care in the U.S., especially in states that enacted strict abortion laws and sparked confusion around the treatment doctors can provide.

“It is shocking, it’s absolutely shocking,” said Amelia Huntsberger, an OB/GYN in Oregon. “It is appalling that someone would show up to an emergency room and not receive care -- this is inconceivable.”

It’s happened despite federal mandates that the women be treated.

Federal law requires emergency rooms to treat or stabilize patients who are in active labor and provide a medical transfer to another hospital if they don’t have the staff or resources to treat them. Medical facilities must comply with the law if they accept Medicare funding.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday that could weaken those protections. The Biden administration has sued Idaho over its abortion ban, even in medical emergencies, arguing it conflicts with the federal law.

“No woman should be denied the care she needs,” Jennifer Klein, director of the White House Gender Policy Council, said in a statement. “All patients, including women who are experiencing pregnancy-related emergencies, should have access to emergency medical care required under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).”

PREGNANCY CARE AFTER ROE
Pregnant patients have “become radioactive to emergency departments” in states with extreme abortion restrictions, said Sara Rosenbaum, a George Washington University health law and policy professor.

“They are so scared of a pregnant patient, that the emergency medicine staff won’t even look. They just want these people gone,” Rosenbaum said.

Consider what happened to a woman who was nine months pregnant and having contractions when she arrived at the Falls Community Hospital in Marlin, Texas, in July 2022, a week after the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion. The doctor on duty refused to see her.

“The physician came to the triage desk and told the patient that we did not have obstetric services or capabilities,” hospital staff told federal investigators during interviews, according to documents. “The nursing staff informed the physician that we could test her for the presence of amniotic fluid. However, the physician adamantly recommended the patient drive to a Waco hospital.”

Investigators with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services concluded Falls Community Hospital broke the law.

Reached by phone, an administrator at the hospital declined to comment on the incident.

The investigation was one of dozens the AP obtained from a Freedom of Information Act request filed in February 2023 that sought all pregnancy-related EMTALA complaints the previous year. One year after submitting the request, the federal government agreed to release only some complaints and investigative documents filed across just 19 states. The names of patients, doctors and medical staff were redacted from the documents.

Federal investigators looked into just over a dozen pregnancy-related complaints in those states during the months leading up to the U.S. Supreme Court’s pivotal ruling on abortion in 2022. But more than two dozen complaints about emergency pregnancy care were lodged in the months after the decision was unveiled. It is not known how many complaints were filed last year as the records request only asked for 2022 complaints and the information is not publicly available otherwise.

The documents did not detail what happened to the patient turned away from the Falls Community Hospital.

‘SHE IS BLEEDING A LOT’
Other pregnancies ended in catastrophe, the documents show.

At Sacred Heart Emergency Center in Houston, front desk staff refused to check in one woman after her husband asked for help delivering her baby that September. She miscarried in a restroom toilet in the emergency room lobby while her husband called 911 for help.

“She is bleeding a lot and had a miscarriage,” the husband told first responders in his call, which was transcribed from Spanish in federal documents. “I’m here at the hospital but they told us they can’t help us because we are not their client.”

Emergency crews, who arrived 20 minutes later and transferred the woman to a hospital, appeared confused over the staff’s refusal to help the woman, according to 911 call transcripts.

One first responder told federal investigators that when a Sacred Heart Emergency Center staffer was asked about the gestational age of the fetus, the staffer replied: “No, we can’t tell you, she is not our patient. That’s why you are here.”

A manager for Sacred Heart Emergency Center declined to comment. The facility is licensed in Texas as a freestanding emergency room, which means it is not physically connected to a hospital. State law requires those facilities to treat or stabilize patients, a spokeswoman for the Texas Health and Human Services agency said in an email to AP.

Sacred Heart Emergency’s website says that it no longer accepts Medicare, a change that was made sometime after the woman miscarried, according to publicly available archives of the center’s website.

Meanwhile, the staff at Person Memorial Hospital in Roxboro, North Carolina, told a pregnant woman, who was complaining of stomach pain, that they would not be able to provide her with an ultrasound. The staff failed to tell her how risky it could be for her to depart without being stabilized, according to federal investigators. While en route to another hospital 45 minutes away, the woman gave birth in a car to a baby who did not survive.

Person Memorial Hospital self-reported the incident. A spokeswoman said the hospital continues to “provide ongoing education for our staff and providers to ensure compliance.”

In Melbourne, Florida, a security guard at Holmes Regional Medical Center refused to let a pregnant woman into the triage area because she had brought a child with her. When the patient came back the next day, medical staff were unable to locate a fetal heartbeat. The center declined to comment on the case.

WHAT’S THE PENALTY?
Emergency rooms are subject to hefty fines when they turn away patients, fail to stabilize them or transfer them to another hospital for treatment. Violations can also put hospitals’ Medicare funding at risk.

But it’s unclear what fines might be imposed on more than a dozen hospitals that the Biden administration says failed to properly treat pregnant patients in 2022.

It can take years for fines to be levied in these cases. The Health and Human Services agency, which enforces the law, declined to share if the hospitals have been referred to the agency’s Office of Inspector General for penalties.

For Huntsberger, the OB-GYN, EMTALA was one of the few ways she felt protected to treat pregnant patients in Idaho, despite the state’s abortion ban. She left Idaho last year to practice in Oregon because of the ban.

The threat of fines or loss of Medicare funding for violating EMTALA is a big deterrent that keeps hospitals from dumping patients, she said. Many couldn’t keep their doors open if they lost Medicare funding.

She has been waiting to see how HHS penalizes two hospitals in Missouri and Kansas that HHS announced last year it was investigating after a pregnant woman, who was in preterm labor at 17 weeks, was denied an abortion.

“A lot of these situations are not reported, but even the ones that are — like the cases out of the Midwest — they’re investigated but nothing really comes of it,” Huntsberger said. “People are just going to keep providing substandard care or not providing care. The only way that changes is things like this.”

NEXT UP FOR EMTALA
President Joe Biden and top U.S. health official Xavier Becerra have both publicly vowed vigilance in enforcing the law.

Even as states have enacted strict abortion laws, the White House has argued that if hospitals receive Medicare funds they must provide stabilizing care, including abortions.

In a statement to the AP, Becerra called it the “nation’s bedrock law protecting Americans’ right to life- and health-saving emergency medical care.”

“And doctors, not politicians, should determine what constitutes emergency care,” he added.

Idaho’s law allows abortion only if the life, not the health, of the mother is at risk. But the state’s attorney general has argued that its abortion ban is “consistent” with federal law, which calls for emergency rooms to protect an unborn child in medical emergencies.

“The Biden administration has no business rewriting federal law to override Idaho’s law and force doctors to perform abortions,” Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said in a statement earlier this year.

Now, the Supreme Court will weigh in. The case could have implications in other states like Arizona, which is reinstating an 1864 law that bans all abortions, with an exception only if the mother’s life is at risk.

EMTALA was initially introduced decades ago because private hospitals would dump patients on county or state hospitals, often because they didn’t have insurance, said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Some hospitals also refused to see pregnant women when they did not have an established relationship with physicians on staff. If the court nullifies or weakens those protections, it could result in more hospitals turning away patients without fear of penalty from the federal government, she said.

“The government knows there’s a problem and is investigating and is doing something about that,” Kolbi-Molinas said. “Without EMTALA, they wouldn’t be able to do that.”

More on the abject suffering of many women in Republican states with draconian laws on reproductive rights.

We keep hearing about these stories and have been for years, yet Republicans in these states seem absolutely unmotivated to even hold hearings, much less act to protect these women.

Again, I struggle to find an explanation beyond, "The cruelty is the point."

[RampageBW1]

https://apnews.com/article/pregnancy...654de1ae5f7a1c

We keep hearing about these stories and have been for years, yet Republicans in these states seem absolutely unmotivated to even hold hearings, much less act to protect these women.

Of course they are unmotivated to hold hearings. If they were to hold hearing, that would imply they would actually give a shit about pregnant women, even the ones whom want children, going through trauma inducing miscarriages or other dangerous conditions that endanger both the mother and the fetus.

And, as we've seen recently in AZ blocking votes to repeal the anti-abortion law that was on the books before Arizona was even a state, they'll cheer when they "win" in their fight against reproductive rights.

So is it any wonder why, when I read about Arizona's bullshit recently, that I am reminded of this quote from Star Wars?

[s_bushido]

It's not just about pregnancies, though. Healthcare in general is treated as a luxury rather than a right in this country. It's disgusting, but this shit's going to keep happening until/unless something changes with that on a fundamental level.

[Edge-]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/0...rtion-00153525

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem declined to say whether she believes laws restricting abortion should include exceptions for victims of rape or incest, after she was repeatedly asked about her views during a CNN interview Sunday.

“I think that every state is going to look different,” Noem said, when asked for her personal views on exceptions on “State of the Union.”

“We rely in South Dakota on the fact that I’m pro-life and we have a law that says that there’s an exception for the life of the mother, and I just don’t believe a tragedy should perpetuate another tragedy,” Noem said.

A “trigger law” passed years ago that went into effect in South Dakota after Roe v. Wade was overturned completely outlaws abortions with the exception if the mother’s life is in danger — and with no exceptions for rape or incest.

Governor Kristi Noem decides to forget to bring her spine and brain to work. Because she wouldn't just admit her views directly but also gave a really lame non-answer that tells us her vies anyways.

Just a reminder of Republican extremism and cowardice on this topic. Again.

[Endus]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/0...rtion-00153525



Governor Kristi Noem decides to forget to bring her spine and brain to work. Because she wouldn't just admit her views directly but also gave a really lame non-answer that tells us her vies anyways.

Just a reminder of Republican extremism and cowardice on this topic. Again.

And to repeat;

No pro-life advocate who supports exceptions for rape or incest actually thinks the fetus is a human being. Literally none of them. Fetal personhood is not the basis of their position. They've admitted that by allowing those exceptions. They're either misogynists willing to lie to conceal their malice, or they think people born from rape or incest aren't actually people and you can just kill them at any age. And the latter is an obviously ridiculous position nobody advocates.

But it's that ridiculous position, or they're lying to your face about what they believe and why.

This doesn't make no-exceptions pro-lifers "better", but they're at least more honest about their intentional cruelty and malice.

[Rasulis]

https://apnews.com/article/pregnancy...654de1ae5f7a1c



More on the abject suffering of many women in Republican states with draconian laws on reproductive rights.

We keep hearing about these stories and have been for years, yet Republicans in these states seem absolutely unmotivated to even hold hearings, much less act to protect these women.

Again, I struggle to find an explanation beyond, "The cruelty is the point."

Once again, this is why voting and elections are important. The right to choose will always be in jeopardy until either the Court overturned Dobbs or Congress enacts protection for abortion right.

Neither will be easy. It took 50 years to repeal Roe. The fight against Dobbs will likely take another 50 years.

[Edge-]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...ban-rcna148948

Arizona GOP Senate candidate Kari Lake said in an interview with an Idaho media outlet that "unfortunately," her state's near-total abortion ban dating from 1864 is not being enforced, flipping back on comments she made against the law earlier this month, when she called state legislators asking them to repeal it.

In an interview with the Idaho Dispatch on Saturday, Lake described the recent court decision upholding the 1864 law: “The Arizona Supreme Court said this is the law of Arizona. But unfortunately, the people running our state have said we’re not going to enforce it,” Lake said, expressing disappointment in steps taken by Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes, both Democrats, to block prosecutions under the ban.

“We don’t have that law, as much as many of us wish we did,” Lake added.

Lake’s campaign did not immediately respond to questions about her comments in the Idaho Dispatch interview.

Lake was in Idaho as the keynote speaker for a local county Republican Party dinner. Her comments came in response to criticism from a group that opposes abortion rights, Idaho Chooses Life.

Lake’s latest comments are very different from how she’s been speaking about the abortion law, which bans abortion after conception with no exceptions for rape or incest, since the state Supreme Court’s ruling.

“This total ban on abortion that the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled on is out of line with where the people of this state are,” said Lake in a video posted to X on April 11th.

“We know that some women are economically in a horrible situation, they might be in an abusive relationship, they might be the victim of rape,” Lake went on in the video explaining her opposition to the 1864 ban. “I agree with President Trump, we must have exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of a mother,” Lake added, exceptions lacking in the 1864 ban.

Those comments also represented a change of tune from Lake on the ban. In 2022, while she was running for governor of Arizona, Lake called the law a “great law.” Her likely Democratic opponent for retiring Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s seat, Rep. Ruben Gallego, seized on those comments in an advertisement last week.

Does Kari Lake support the Civil War era law or not?

She does! It's great!

She doesn't! How could the state Supreme Court rule that way!

She does! It's great again and it's sad the state AG won't enforce it!

Gosh, keeping up with Republicans ever-changing positions on this topic is exhausting.

[Odinfrost]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...ban-rcna148948



Does Kari Lake support the Civil War era law or not?

She does! It's great!

She doesn't! How could the state Supreme Court rule that way!

She does! It's great again and it's sad the state AG won't enforce it!

Gosh, keeping up with Republicans ever-changing positions on this topic is exhausting.

I'm getting whip-lash. I will just say their position is Scroedinger's Position and call it a day.

[Edge-]

I'm getting whip-lash. I will just say their position is Scroedinger's Position and call it a day.

'Member in 2004 when people walked around dressed up as flip-flop sandals to criticize John Kerry? Now that's much of the Republican party rofl, they were just getting their practice in.

[Edge-]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump...b0849b2edd2cf3

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said states with abortion bans should be free to monitor pregnant women to make sure they don’t terminate their pregnancies, suggesting that would be in line with his newfound position of leaving abortion rights up to the states.

“I think they might do that,” Trump said in a TIME interview published Tuesday, when asked if he thinks states with abortion bans should track women who are pregnant.

“Again, you’ll have to speak to the individual states,” he continued. “Look, Roe v. Wade was all about bringing it back to the states.”

After months of giving mixed messages on abortion rights, Trump declared a few weeks ago that his position is that it’s up to states to decide their own laws.

Boy, tracking pregnant women sounds like a totally safe and in no way, shape, or form risky or abuseable thing for Republican led states to do.

[Sunseeker]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump...b0849b2edd2cf3



Boy, tracking pregnant women sounds like a totally safe and in no way, shape, or form risky or abuseable thing for Republican led states to do.

Nor an egregious violation of personal liberty, a reduction of women to less than cattle(even farmers know to value the cow over the calf), and a massive expansion of government powers.

Nope, doesnt sound like any of that!

[Edge-]

Nor an egregious violation of personal liberty, a reduction of women to less than cattle(even farmers know to value the cow over the calf), and a massive expansion of government powers.

Nope, doesnt sound like any of that!

Government lists of everyone that owns firearms? INFRINGEMENT! BIG GUBMINT TRACKING US! MUH PERSONAL FREEDOMS!

Government lists of pregnant women? Apparently great! Go for it! Maybe add some penalties for those hussies that fail to report their pregnancies early enough! Government-sponsored "pee locations" where women can stop and take a pregnancy test and have the government register their pregnancy on the spot!

This will, of course, likely be dismissed as "Donald is just talking" much as his comments in 2016 advocating for legal consequences for a woman seeking an abortion in addition to legal consequences for the doctor who did it. Which he walked back after even anti-abortion groups came out to condemn because they've already taken the black eyes learning that the general public does not respond well to those proposals.

Which should highlight how much more dangerous he is because he doesn't actually have a firm position on this topic, or any, and will adopt whatever he thinks will get him the most support at a given moment, but of course because Republicans know that's likely to mean he tends to fall further to the right of the issue than towards the center that's a gamble they're willing to make. I mean, once upon a time he was a big advocate of women having reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy. For quite a while, too.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.kvoa.com/news/arizona-st...e18e2d09a.html

So it seems after a few failed attempts in the AZ Senate brought national condemnation on AZ Republicans, both the AZ House and Senate have finally passed a bill overturning the 1800's abortion ban in the state. Barely in the Senate -

The Arizona State Senate has voted 16-14 to repeal the 1864 abortion ban.

[RampageBW1]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump...b0849b2edd2cf3



Boy, tracking pregnant women sounds like a totally safe and in no way, shape, or form risky or abuseable thing for Republican led states to do.

A Handmaid's Tale and 1984 were supposed to be cautionary tales, not instruction manuals, god damn it!

[Karreck]

https://apnews.com/article/arizona-a...01034bcaf4aa01

Arizona lawmakers vote to undo near-total abortion ban from 1864, with Gov. Hobbs expected to sign

PHOENIX (AP) — The Arizona Legislature approved a repeal of a long-dormant ban on nearly all abortions Wednesday, sending the bill to Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, who is expected to sign it.

Two Republicans joined with Democrats in the Senate on the 16-14 vote in favor of repealing a Civil War-era ban on abortions that the state’s highest court recently allowed to take effect. The ban on all abortions — which provides no exceptions for survivors of rape or incest, and only allows for procedures done to save a patient’s life — would still be active until the fall.

Hobbs said in a statement that she looks forward to quickly signing the repeal, with a ceremony scheduled for Thursday.

“Arizona women should not have to live in a state where politicians make decisions that should be between a woman and her doctor,” Hobbs said. “While this repeal is essential for protecting women’s lives, it is just the beginning of our fight to protect reproductive healthcare.”

The revival of the 19th century law has put Republicans on the defensive in Arizona, one of a handful of battleground states that will decide the next president.

“Across the country, women are living in a state of chaos and cruelty caused by Donald Trump,” Vice President Kamala Harris said in a statement on Wednesday. “While Arizona Democrats have worked to clean up the devastating mess created by Trump and his extremist allies, the state’s existing ban, with no exception for rape or incest, remains in effect.”

If the repeal bill is signed, a 2022 statute banning the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy would become Arizona’s prevailing abortion law. Still, there would likely be a period when nearly all abortions would be outlawed, because the repeal won’t take effect until 90 days after the end of the legislative session, likely in June or July.

Within hours after the vote, efforts were already under way to prevent the older abortion ban from taking effect before the repeal becomes a reality.

“Without an emergency clause that would allow the repeal to take effect immediately, the people of Arizona may still be subjected to the near-total abortion ban for a period of time this year,” Arizona state Attorney General Kris Mayes said. “Rest assured, my office is exploring every option available to prevent this outrageous 160-year-old law from ever taking effect.”

Planned Parenthood Arizona announced it filed a motion Wednesday afternoon asking the state Supreme Court to prevent a pause in abortion services until the Legislature’s repeal takes effect.

The near-total ban on abortions predates Arizona’s statehood. In a ruling last month, the Arizona Supreme Court suggested doctors could be prosecuted under the 1864 law, which says that anyone who assists in an abortion can be sentenced to two to five years in prison. Then, last week, the repeal bill narrowly cleared the Arizona House.

Voting on the bill stretched more than an hour on Wednesday, amid impassioned speeches.

“This is about the Civil War-era ban that criminalizes doctors and makes virtually all abortions illegal,” said Democratic state Sen. Eva Burch. “We’re here to repeal a bad law. I don’t want us honoring laws about women written during a time when women were forbidden from voting because their voices were considered inferior to men.”

Burch made public on the Senate floor in March that she had a non-viable pregnancy and was going to have an abortion. She warned supporters of reproductive rights on Wednesday that they could not yet rest easy, even after the repeal is signed.

“They are going to use every tool in the toolbox to try to do whatever it is they can to interfere with the repeal of this ban,” she said.

There were numerous disruptions from people in Senate gallery, as Republican state Sen. Shawnna Bolick explained her vote in favor of repeal, joining with Democrats.

Bolick appeared to argue that a repeal would guard against extreme ballot initiatives from abortion rights advocates. She is married to state Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick, who voted to allow a 1864 law on abortion to be enforced again.

“I want to protect our state constitution from unlimited abortions,” the senator said. “I am here to protect more babies. I vote aye.”

Advocates on both sides of the abortion issue flocked to the Arizona Senate to vocalize their views.

A school-age girl kneeled in prayer in front of a statue of the Virgin Mary, while a man with a megaphone shouted at passersby to repent.

Former President Donald Trump, who has warned that the issue could lead to Republican losses, has avoided endorsing a national abortion ban but said he’s proud to have appointed the Supreme Court justices who allowed states to outlaw it.

The Arizona law had been blocked since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision guaranteed the constitutional right to an abortion nationwide.

When Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022 though, then-Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, persuaded a state judge that the 1864 ban could again be enforced. Still, the law hasn’t actually been enforced while the case was making its way through the courts. Mayes, who succeeded Brnovich, urged the state’s high court against reviving the law.

Planned Parenthood officials have said they will reinforce networks that help patients travel out of state to access abortion in places like New Mexico and California.

Advocates are collecting signatures for a ballot measure allowing abortions until a fetus could survive outside the womb, typically around 24 weeks, with exceptions — to save the parent’s life, or to protect her physical or mental health.

Republican lawmakers, in turn, are considering putting one or more competing abortion proposals on the November ballot.

Republicans are scared shitless of abortion being the deciding issue in 2024.With Abortion looking very likely to be on the ballot in Arizona come November, I guarantee that Arizona Republicans are going to use this vote to try and paint themselves as wanting a "common sense solution to abortion" while decrying the ballot measure as "going to far". This is damage control, especially for Arizona Republicans.

[Masark]

A Handmaid's Tale and 1984 were supposed to be cautionary tales, not instruction manuals, god damn it!

I think we need to consider a moratorium on dystopian fiction.

Assholes keep trying to move it to the non-fiction section.