1. #7801
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    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.

  2. #7802
    Quote Originally Posted by Odinfrost View Post
    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.

  3. #7803
    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.

  4. #7804
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    27,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    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!
    Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.

    Just, be kind.

  5. #7805
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunseeker View Post
    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.

  6. #7806
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    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!

  7. #7807
    Brewmaster Karreck's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Beneath you. Devouring.
    Posts
    1,349
    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.
    Princesses can kill knights to rescue dragons.

  8. #7808
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17,984
    Quote Originally Posted by RampageBW1 View Post
    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.

    Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
    What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Tayler
    Political conservatism is just atavism with extra syllables and a necktie.
    Me on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW characters

  9. #7809

  10. #7810
    Brewmaster Karreck's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Beneath you. Devouring.
    Posts
    1,349
    Remember that Alabama Republican who gave that cringey what-is-wrong-with-your-kitchen rebuttal to the State of the Union? She's back in the news again! This time, she wanted to create a database of pregnant women.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...regnant-people

    Katie Britt, the Republican US senator from Alabama best known for delivering a widely ridiculed State of the Union speech in March, marked the run-up to Mother’s Day on Sunday by introducing a bill to create a federal database to collect data on pregnant people.

    The More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed (Moms) act proposes to establish an online government database called “pregnancy.gov” listing resources related to pregnancy, including information about adoption agencies and pregnancy care providers, except for those that provide abortion-related services.
    Texas man seeks to have ex-partner investigated for out-of-state abortion
    Read more

    The bill specifically forbids any entity that “performs, induces, refers for, or counsels in favor of abortions” from being listed in the database, which would in effect eliminate swaths of OB-GYN services and sexual health clinics across the country.

    The website would direct users to enter their personal data and contact information, and although Britt’s communications director said the site would not collect data on pregnant people, page three of the bill states that users can “take an assessment through the website and provide consent to use the user’s contact information” which government officials may use “to conduct outreach via phone or email to follow up with users on additional resources that would be helpful for the users to review”.

    Britt introduced the legislation on Thursday alongside two co-sponsors: fellow Republican senators Marco Rubio of Florida and Kevin Cramer of North Dakota.

    In a statement, Britt said the bill was proof that “you can absolutely be pro-life, pro-woman, and pro-family at the same time”, adding that the legislation “advances a comprehensive culture of life” for mothers and children to “live their American Dreams”.

    Critics have noted that the database of “pregnancy support centers” would provide misleading information in an effort to dissuade women from seeking abortions. Axios noted that the bill would also provide grants to anti-abortion non-profit organizations.

    The state of Alabama, which Britt represents, already has one of the strictest abortion bans in the country. After the US supreme court eliminated federal abortion rights by overturning Roe v Wade in 2022, the state banned abortion except in cases where there is a serious health risk to the mother.

    Britt’s party is in the minority in the US Senate and has only a slim majority in the House. Her bill would need to be approved in both chambers and then be signed by Democratic president Joe Biden to become law, giving her proposal virtually no chance of making meaningful progress in the legislative process as-is.

    The speech Britt gave to rebut Biden’s State of the Union was panned by both parties after she invoked a story about child rape that she implied had resulted from the president’s handling of immigration at the US’s southern border. The abuse actually occurred years earlier in Mexico while a Republican was president, George W Bush.

    Britt’s delivery – which oscillated between smiling and sounding as if she were on the verge of tears – was also a target of ridicule, though she defended her performance.
    Sure, she claims this is about providing (limited) support to pregnant women, but Republicans really seem hellbent on tracking women like cattle.
    Princesses can kill knights to rescue dragons.

  11. #7811
    Quote Originally Posted by Karreck View Post
    Sure, she claims this is about providing (limited) support to pregnant women, but Republicans really seem hellbent on tracking women like cattle.
    Funny how "Create a database to ensure gun owners have been properly trained" is a gateway to a fascist coup that takes away everyone's guns, but "Create a database of pregnant women" is totally cool and has no possible negative implications whatsoever.

  12. #7812
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkTZeratul View Post
    Funny how "Create a database to ensure gun owners have been properly trained" is a gateway to a fascist coup that takes away everyone's guns, but "Create a database of pregnant women" is totally cool and has no possible negative implications whatsoever.
    Are you suggesting that the GoP cares more about the rights of guns than of women!?
    "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

  13. #7813
    https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...s-after-dobbs/

    Nearly two years after the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing a national right to abortion, a majority of Americans continue to express support for abortion access.

    About six-in-ten (63%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. This share has grown 4 percentage points since 2021 – the year prior to the 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe.
    Republicans keep losing public support on this topic as more of the public sees the extremism of the Republican position, and the consequences that girls and women in Republican controlled states are forced to endure as the Republican controlled Legislatures refuse to take any action in response to shocking and horrifying reports of unnecessary risk and suffering.

    - - - Updated - - -

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ubstances-list

    Louisiana may soon become the first state in the country to pass a bill adding two common abortion pills to the state’s list of controlled dangerous substances, leading individuals who are caught with the drugs and lack authorization to potentially face years in prison.

    Like the rest of the US deep south, Louisiana already bans almost all abortions. But recently, when a house committee in the Republican-controlled legislature debated a bill to ban people from performing abortions on people without their consent, lawmakers added an amendment to reclassify mifepristone and misoprostol, the two drugs typically used in medication abortions, as Schedule IV drugs.

    Under that amendment, a woman who obtains the drugs “for her own consumption” would not face penalties, but anyone who possesses them without a prescription or outside of normal medical practice could. In Louisiana, people who possess Schedule IV drugs can face up to five years in prison, while people who produce, distribute or intend to distribute such drugs can be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison. They can also face thousands of dollars in fines.

    The bill would address a growing frustration among anti-abortion activists: the persistent flow of abortion pills into states with abortion bans, thanks to suppliers who operate outside of the US healthcare system and who use the internet and mail to help people looking to evade abortion bans.
    Republicans will seemingly never end their crusade against women having bodily autonomy.

  14. #7814
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    24,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Republicans will seemingly never end their crusade against women having bodily autonomy.
    Of course not, these damn conscious male-ribs should do what they are being told and that's it!

    /s kind of
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  15. #7815
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/elect...ctions-policy/

    (Archive link) - https://archive.is/FNHFD

    What's this? The leader of the Republican party refusing to answer questions on whether he'd support states banning birth control and other contraceptives while promising a big, beautiful, comprehensive plan in some weeks?

    Remember: Republicans weren't ever going to go after contraceptives because there's no third party involved! Except that they keep talking about it and their party leader isn't ruling it out in the slightest.

    Reminder: Republicans continue their fairly overt attack on womens and the steady march of the power over the government over their reproductive system.

  16. #7816
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-c...142850973.html
    Supreme Court sides with NRA in free speech ruling that curbs government pressure campaigns
    The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously backed the National Rifle Association in a First Amendment ruling that could make it harder for state regulators to pressure advocacy groups.

    The decision means the NRA may continue to pursue its lawsuit against a New York official who urged banks and insurance companies to cut ties with the gun rights group following the 2018 mass shooting at a Parkland, Florida, high school that left 17 people dead.

    “Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the most senior liberal, wrote for the court.

    “Ultimately, the critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech,” Sotomayor added.

    The NRA claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, not only leaned on insurance companies to part ways with the gun lobby but threatened enforcement actions against those firms if they failed to comply.

    At the center of the dispute was a meeting Vullo had with insurance market Lloyd’s of London in 2018 in which the NRA claims she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with the campaign against gun groups. Vullo tried to wave off the significance of the meeting, arguing in part that the NRA’s allegations of what took place were not specific.

    Vullo, who served in Democratic former Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration, said her enforcement targeted an insurance product that is illegal in New York: third-party policies sold through the NRA that cover personal injury and criminal defense costs following the use of a firearm. Critics dubbed the policies “murder insurance.”

    The decision will provide some clarity to government regulators — both liberal and conservative — about how far they may go to pressure private companies that do business with controversial advocacy groups.

    “This is a landmark victory for the NRA and all who care about our First Amendment freedom,” William A. Brewer III, a lawyer for the association, said in a statement. “The opinion confirms what the NRA has known all along: New York government officials abused the power of their office to silence a political enemy.”

    An attorney for Vullo said they were “disappointed by the court’s decision” but noted that a lower court that previously sided with her on a different legal basis may ultimately reaffirm that decision.

    “Ms. Vullo did not violate anyone’s First Amendment rights,” the attorney, Neal Katyal, said in a statement. “Ms. Vullo enforced the insurance law against admitted violations by insurance entities, and industry letters such as those issued by Ms. Vullo are routine and important tools regulators use to inform and advise the entities they oversee about risks.”

    Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch and liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson penned two separate concurrences in which they said they agreed with the court’s decision.

    In her six-page concurrence, Jackson stressed that cases like the one at hand turn heavily on the facts that give rise to the controversy.

    “Whether and how government coercion of a third party might violate another party’s First Amendment rights will depend on the facts of the case,” she wrote. “Different circumstances — who is being coerced to do what, and why — may implicate different First Amendment inquiries.”

  17. #7817
    Elemental Lord unfilteredJW's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    8,940
    Guns have more rights than women, duh.

    I get why you posted that here.
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Their enemies are busy labeling people "shitheads," dodging all the tough arguments (to the extent they acknowledge contrary arguments existing), and going over all the prejudices that make them believe they're arguing with bad people.
    "Dodge tough questions" types the poster with people on ignore who he couldn't handle the tough questions of.

  18. #7818
    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/30/u...smid=url-share

    Gift link for anyone who wants to read at the source but -

    Republican candidates in all eight of the country’s most competitive Senate races have changed their approach on the issue of abortion, softening their rhetoric, shifting their positions and, in at least one case, embracing policies championed by Democrats.

    From Michigan to Maryland, Republicans are trying to repackage their views to defang an issue that has hurt their party at the ballot box since the Supreme Court overturned federal abortion rights. While the pivot is endemic across races in swing states, the most striking shifts have come from candidates who unsuccessfully ran for the Senate just two years ago in their home states, with abortion views that sounded very different.

    When Bernie Moreno, a Republican businessman, ran for a Senate seat in Ohio in 2022, he described his views as “absolute pro-life, no exceptions.”

    “Life begins at conception” and “abortion is the murder of an innocent baby,” he said on social media.

    He has since softened his position. In March, he said he supported a 15-week national abortion ban. But his spokeswoman also says it’s an issue that “should be primarily decided at the state level” and that he backs “reasonable exceptions.”

    In 2022, David McCormick, a Republican businessman running for Senate in Pennsylvania, touted his staunch commitment to opposing abortion. Asked at a Republican primary debate that April if he would support exceptions to abortion bans if Roe v. Wade was overturned, he said he believed in exceptions in the “very rare instances” when a woman’s life was at risk.

    Now, as he makes his second bid for the Senate, he has urged Americans to “find common ground.” Language saying “life begins at conception” has disappeared from his website, which now notes that abortion is legal in the state until 24 weeks — the federal standard under Roe. And a campaign spokesman told CNN in April that Mr. McCormick “inadvertently left out” exceptions for rape and incest from his debate answer two years earlier.

    Those kinds of shifts mark the latest effort by Republican candidates to reconcile their party’s decades-old opposition to abortion rights with the changed political reality of an issue that has helped power Democrats to electoral victory since the fall of Roe.

    Before the 2022 midterms, Senator Lindsey Graham tried to rally Republicans around a 15-week federal abortion ban, arguing that voters would embrace what some in his party framed as a “reasonable” limit. But the position became a cudgel for Democrats in key races and cost Republicans seats, with losses in swing states including Arizona, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Now, many Republicans are adopting former President Donald J. Trump’s position of leaving the issue to the states.

    “They’re iterating,” said Angela Kuefler, a Democratic pollster who is involved with Senate races in Florida and Arizona. “They’re aware of what a massive liability their position has been in the last couple elections since the fall of Roe.”

    Some of the candidates have staked out positions that seem at odds, describing themselves as “pro-life” but also supportive of their own state’s abortion laws, which legalize the procedure in almost all cases.

    National Republicans say that their position is clear and that it is Democrats who are trying to overcome their weak poll numbers on the economy, inflation and controlling the border by focusing the Senate races on abortion rights.

    “Republican Senate candidates have clearly stated their opposition to a national abortion ban, as well as their support for exceptions in the case of rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother,” said Tate Mitchell, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Senate Republican campaign arm. “We plan to aggressively combat Democrat attempts to demagogue this issue.”

    A handful of Democrats, too, have shifted their position on abortion in recent years.

    Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, the incumbent Democrat who is trying to fend off Mr. McCormick, voted in 2018 to advance a federal ban on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy and frequently referred to himself as a “pro-life Democrat.” But after the 2022 leak of the draft Supreme Court decision that would end Roe, he joined the efforts to codify its protections into law.

    “No senator has made a more radical change to his position on abortion than Bob Casey Jr.,” said Elizabeth Gregory, a spokeswoman for Mr. McCormick. “His extreme stance is out of step with Pennsylvania.”

    But Mr. Casey is an outlier in his party, which placed abortion rights at the center of its 2024 messaging. Nearly all Democrats support legalizing abortion at the federal level and generally do not back restrictions on the procedure, such as the number of weeks in pregnancy, saying the decision should be left to women and their doctors.

    It’s a position that’s been embraced by one Republican running in a deep blue state. Larry Hogan, the former governor of Maryland and a moderate Republican who is running for Senate, recently said he, too, would vote to codify Roe — an embrace of a new position that came just days after he won his primary. He also said he would vote to enshrine abortion rights in the state’s Constitution, a measure that will be on the ballot in November.

    Asked by The New York Times how he would describe his view on abortion, Mr. Hogan said, “Given the definition of what I’m supporting — women’s rights to make their own decision — I would say that’s pro-choice.”

    The other Republican Senate campaigns declined to make their candidates available for interviews on the topic. Some did not reply to general requests about the issue.

    None of the other candidates have gone quite as far on abortion as Mr. Hogan. But several have backed away from more strident anti-abortion positions they’ve previously supported in public office.

    Former Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, the front-runner in the Michigan Senate Republican primary, cosponsored multiple anti-abortion measures in the House, including bills granting constitutional rights to zygotes at conception. But now he says that, as a senator, he wouldn’t support federal proposals that would undo the protections Michigan voters have put into place to keep abortion legal until 24 weeks.

    “The people of Michigan spoke in a loud voice in 2022 and this is a settled issue in our state,” Mr. Rogers said in a statement. “I will take no position as their voice in Washington that is at odds with the rights guaranteed by voters in the Michigan Constitution.”

    And in Wisconsin, Eric Hovde, a Republican Senate candidate who in 2012 told reporters he was “totally opposed” to abortion, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, now says women have a “right to make a choice” early in a pregnancy.

    “Eric Hovde can’t hide from the fact that he supports an abortion ban and thinks politicians like him should be in charge of women’s health care,” his Democratic opponent, Senator Tammy Baldwin, said in a statement.

    Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, urged anti-abortion candidates to “go on offense” to expose their opponents’ “extremism.”

    “We know what doesn’t win elections: the ‘ostrich strategy’ of burying one’s head in the sand and hoping this issue goes away,” she said in a statement.

    Abortion remains one of only a few issues where Democrats, who are struggling to combat poor ratings on the economy, foreign policy and immigration, have a political advantage. Some Republican strategists doubt the issue will have the same resonance in 2024 as it did in the past two election cycles, when abortion rights energized a coalition of liberal, independent and even some moderate Republican women behind Democratic candidates.

    A series of polls in battleground states by The New York Times, Siena College and The Philadelphia Inquirer found that abortion ranked below the economy and immigration when voters were asked what issue was most important in determining their vote.

    However, 11 percent of battleground state voters — and 17 percent of women — ranked it as their most important issue, which suggests there is still a core of voters deeply activated around the issue.

    With a wave of abortion referendums expected to appear on ballots in states across the country, Democrats believe the issue will remain central for voters in the fall. They’ve spent significant time and money reminding voters of Republicans’ past support for abortion restrictions and bans, blanketing airwaves with the records of their opponents. More than a quarter of their ads in the first four months of the year focused on the issue.

    “On record and on video, Republican Senate candidates have made clear they back harsh restrictions on abortion and oppose women’s right to make their own health care decisions,” said David Bergstein, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “Republican candidates know their agenda is unpopular, and their pathetic attempt to hide their position just reinforces why voters don’t trust them.”

    In recent weeks, much of the Democratic effort has been focused on Arizona, where party officials and their allies have spent millions boosting a ballot measure that would enshrine abortion rights in the state Constitution. The issue emerged as a political flashpoint this month when lawmakers repealed a near-total ban on abortions but enforced a 15-week ban, with no exceptions for rape or incest.

    Over the past two years, Kari Lake, the Republican now running for Senate, has appeared to be on all sides of Arizona’s abortion legislation.

    She praised the state’s 1864 abortion law that banned nearly all abortions in the state when she was running for governor in 2022, calling it a “great law.” She also said she would sign a ban on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.

    But last month, when the state’s Supreme Court reinstated the 1864 law, she denounced it as “out of step” with Arizonans and personally called Republicans in the statehouse to say she supported repealing it. In a video, she said she opposed federal funds on abortion as well as federal bans.

    Not every Republican’s shift has been drastic. Some candidates, Ms. Kuefler said, have simply quietly shifted their tone, eschewing graphic discussions about abortion in favor of warmer language.

    Tim Sheehy, a Republican running for Senate in Montana, accused Democrats of “murdering our unborn children” on a local radio show in 2023, before he announced his bid. Earlier this year, he described himself as backing “common-sense protections” on the procedure, said he believed further restrictions should be left to the states and said he supported exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.

    In 2022, Sam Brown, the Republican front-runner in the Senate primary in Nevada, was named chairman of his state’s branch of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. The announcement of his appointment said one of the group’s aims was “protecting life.”

    But as a candidate for Senate, he sat for an emotional interview in which his wife, Amy Brown, told the story of her own abortion. In that interview, he said he respected a Nevada state law allowing abortions up to 24 weeks of pregnancy and opposes a federal ban on the procedure.

    “Amy and I have spoken extensively about this topic and believe, first and foremost, that mothers who are facing an unplanned pregnancy deserve the utmost compassion and understanding,” Mr. Brown said in a statement, in which he called himself “pro-life” but supportive of exceptions. “Like President Trump, I believe the issue is now correctly left at the state level and applaud his leadership.”
    Great reminder why people should not believe or trust Republican candidates and their newly more moderate positions on this topic because damnit their "deeply held belief" on the topic previously was so extreme it ended up being politically unpopular and a liability to their elections!

    Anyways, can we make the flip-flop the official shoe of the Republican party? It does fit oh so well!

  19. #7819
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ons-rcna154896

    The Texas Supreme Court on Friday rejected a challenge to the state's abortion ban — a response to a lawsuit filed last year by a group of women who had serious pregnancy complications.

    The ruling from the nine justices, who are all Republicans, was unanimous.

    Five women brought the lawsuit in March 2023, saying they were denied abortions even when issues arose during their pregnancies that endangered their lives. The case grew to include 20 women and two doctors.

    The plaintiffs had not sought to repeal the ban, but rather to force clarification and transparency as to the precise circumstances in which exceptions are allowed. They also wanted doctors to be allowed more discretion to intervene when medical complications arise in pregnancy.

    The lead plaintiff, Amanda Zurawski, said she was outraged by Friday's ruling on behalf of all the plaintiffs who, she said, “the Court deemed not sick enough.”

    “Every day, people in Texas are being told that they have no options,” Zurawski said in a statement. “It’s sickening and wrong. Our Courts should acknowledge all of our suffering and vindicate our fundamental rights to reproductive autonomy. We should not need to beg elected officials for our right to control our own bodies.”

    Another plaintiff, Samantha Casiano, whose fetus was diagnosed with anencephaly, also expressed anger and disappointment.

    “I was told my baby would not survive, but I was forced to continue my pregnancy and give birth anyway, then watch her pass away hours later,” she said in a statement. “I don’t know how the court could hear what I went through and choose to do nothing ... I am embarrassed to be a Texan because of these inhumane laws.”

    Texas law prohibits all abortions except to save the life of the mother. Doctors who violate it can lose their medical licenses, face up to 99 years in prison or incur fines of at least $100,000. Critics of the ban, which is among the most restrictive in the U.S., have said it does not provide enough guidance about which exceptions are allowed.

    Friday’s ruling did, however, offer a new sliver of clarity. The ruling affirms that a preterm premature rupture of membranes — when the amniotic sac breaks before 37 weeks of pregnancy — can warrant an abortion because it results in infection.

    But, the decision says Texas law "plainly does not permit abortion based solely on a diagnosis that an unborn child has an abnormal condition, even a life-limiting one."

    The ruling also says Texas' abortion ban does not mandate that a woman's death be imminent for a doctor to perform an abortion due to a life-threatening complication, and that a doctor’s judgment can be reasonable even if not all physicians agree with it.

    “For physicians who violate the abortion ban, the state would need to prove that no reasonable position would have concluded that the patient was eligible for the exception,” Molly Duane, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said on a call with reporters after the decision was issued. Duane is a senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, a legal advocacy organization representing the plaintiffs.
    Republicans continue to make it clear that girls and women suffering through pregnancy complications cannot and will not be able to receive the treatment they may need until they are literally on death's doorstep, potentially actually risking their lives while also increasing the chance that those girls and women will not be able to safely conceive again.

    Just a reminder that at almost every opportunity, Republicans have either chosen to not take action or chosen to specifically reinforce the status quo and ignore the stories of shocking abject suffering from many of these women.

    The Republican party's war on women continues, especially in Texas.

  20. #7820
    This thread has inspired me to vote Republican the next go around.

Posting Permissions

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