Roe vs Wade Overturned

[The Frankish Reich]

10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Yes, hypothetically, I suppose you could find a compromise where early in the pregnancy, the rights of the mother are prioritized but as the fetus approaches viability, the state has an interest in its rights. 

Hmm, I wonder what we could call that approach.

Wait a minute! I've got it. Let's call it Roe v. Wade.

(And that's why I think the John Roberts approach of allowing adjustments to the Roe strict trimester approach is the right one)

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

30 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Hmm, I wonder what we could call that approach.

Wait a minute! I've got it. Let's call it Roe v. Wade.

(And that's why I think the John Roberts approach of allowing adjustments to the Roe strict trimester approach is the right one)

the problem with Roe v wade was a right to abortion was interpreted out of thin air… . Equating a right to ones privacy (which isn’t even explicitly stated) to ones right to an abortion wasn’t rock solid. (Obviously) 

 

a legislative compromise could have been codified into federal law or even amended into the constitution but our politicians are too cowardly and in reality don’t want these polarizing and mobilizing issues solved. 
 

So now it’s up to the states… so live where you agree with their laws I suppose. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

Yes, hypothetically, I suppose you could find a compromise where early in the pregnancy, the rights of the mother are prioritized but as the fetus approaches viability, the state has an interest in its rights. 

Reasonable place to start. 

[Boatdrinks]

2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Yes, hypothetically, I suppose you could find a compromise where early in the pregnancy, the rights of the mother are prioritized but as the fetus approaches viability, the state has an interest in its rights. 

I would argue that the life of the mother should always take priority in situations where it is in jeopardy. But hey, what do I know? 

[SoCal Deek]

6 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

I would argue that the life of the mother should always take priority in situations where it is in jeopardy. But hey, what do I know? 

Virtually everyone agrees with that approach. Even really staunch Pro Life advocates. Do not believe the crap you’re being sold. 

[Tiberius]

 

[Big Blitz]

Omg......They're really pushing it on these morons.

 

From North Korean Media.....oh and lol - "People" seeking abortions:

 

 

Since 2018!  From the article:

 

......It wouldn’t be hard to do, because states across the country are already using this kind of data for other investigations. And a POLITICO analysis found that many of the states that have criminalized abortion have relied increasingly on location data in recent years to probe crimes including robbery and sexual assault.

 

Figures from Google, one of the most prolific collectors of location data, show that the company received 5,764 “geofence” warrants between 2018 and 2020 from police in the 10 states that have banned abortion as of July 5.

 

These warrants demand GPS data showing which mobile devices were present in a specified area during a particular time period, and can help investigate individuals who were present at crime scenes or other locations of interest."

 

 

 

 

Sounding the alarm!!! 

 

"People"

Edited July 19, 2022 by Big Blitz

[Boatdrinks]

7 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Virtually everyone agrees with that approach. Even really staunch Pro Life advocates. Do not believe the crap you’re being sold. 

I concur SoCal, and I definitely don’t buy into histrionics from the left. Most people would agree on allowances for these situations so it’s largely fear mongering. 

[SoCal Deek]

51 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

I concur SoCal, and I definitely don’t buy into histrionics from the left. Most people would agree on allowances for these situations so it’s largely fear mongering. 

That’s all the Left has ‘left’. Keep selling fear to the American people and see if we all will freely submit to the transformation of America. It ain’t working. 

[Big Blitz]

In Covidstan America, if you're pro-life, you should be fired.

 

Let that sink in...

 

 

But fight for Ukraine yo!!!!!!

[All_Pro_Bills]

10 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Virtually everyone agrees with that approach. Even really staunch Pro Life advocates. Do not believe the crap you’re being sold. 

Compromise while acceptable to the majority in the middle 95% on the specific "rules" is unexceptionable to activists mainly because that would result in the issue being resolved.  Activists don't want issues resolved as that results in a loss of power or potential to acquire power.  That's why crusades like end poverty, end homelessness, end racism, end illiteracy, end hunger, end un-perforated toilet paper, or end whatever never end anything because that eliminates the need for the group to exist. 

[BillStime]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

That’s all the Left has ‘left’. Keep selling fear to the American people and see if we all will freely submit to the transformation of America. It ain’t working. 

CRT

Book bans

Anti LGTBQ legislation

Voting rights 

 

WHO IS SELLING FEAR?

 

smfh

 

>>>idiots<<<

 

 

[ChiGoose]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

That’s all the Left has ‘left’. Keep selling fear to the American people and see if we all will freely submit to the transformation of America. It ain’t working. 

 

Or we could look at the laws already being put in place and see that they do not include these common sense exceptions and are worded vaguely, causing confusion and resulting in woman not getting proper care and endangering their lives.

[SoCal Deek]

7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Or we could look at the laws already being put in place and see that they do not include these common sense exceptions and are worded vaguely, causing confusion and resulting in woman not getting proper care and endangering their lives.

So if I understand you correctly, the GOP is trying to exterminate the human race by killing pregnant women?  Even you cannot believe that to be the case.  If someone misinterprets a proposed law, and ends up killing themselves, or putting themselves in grave danger because of that misinterpretation....is it on the lawmaker or on those (such as yourself) who are desperate to invoke mass hysteria?  Again.....let the process take its course.  Trust the process! 

[ChiGoose]

47 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

So if I understand you correctly, the GOP is trying to exterminate the human race by killing pregnant women? 

 

Don't be dumb. I would expect this from some of the posters here, but this idiotic straw man is beneath you.

 

Quote

If someone misinterprets a proposed law, and ends up killing themselves, or putting themselves in grave danger because of that misinterpretation....is it on the lawmaker or on those (such as yourself) who are desperate to invoke mass hysteria?  Again.....let the process take its course.  Trust the process! 

 

If laws leave gray areas, doctors will consult their lawyers before giving what would normally be a standard of care. If the exception simply reads "when the woman's life is in danger" or as it does in some cases, "when the woman's life is in immediate danger" then what do you do with someone who is not in imminent danger, but their condition will almost assuredly deteriorate if the pregnancy is not ended?

 

We are already seeing women sent home while miscarrying instead of getting an abortion, only to return to the hospital with sepsis. What do you do if the woman has cancer that cannot be treated safely while they are pregnant? If the cancer is not about to cause her death, do they have to let it grow throughout the pregnancy because it is not currently endangering her life? Why does the government get to tell her that her only option is to carry the baby to term and risk allowing the cancer to spread so much it kills her shortly after? Why isn't that her decision?

 

And I am sure that the 10 year old rape victim who had to leave her state for treatment because Ohio doesn't have an exception for rape is very much reassured that she can trust the process.

[BillsFanNC]

6 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

Omg......They're really pushing it on these morons.

 

From North Korean Media.....oh and lol - "People" seeking abortions:

 

 

Since 2018!  From the article:

 

......It wouldn’t be hard to do, because states across the country are already using this kind of data for other investigations. And a POLITICO analysis found that many of the states that have criminalized abortion have relied increasingly on location data in recent years to probe crimes including robbery and sexual assault.

 

Figures from Google, one of the most prolific collectors of location data, show that the company received 5,764 “geofence” warrants between 2018 and 2020 from police in the 10 states that have banned abortion as of July 5.

 

These warrants demand GPS data showing which mobile devices were present in a specified area during a particular time period, and can help investigate individuals who were present at crime scenes or other locations of interest."

 

 

 

 

Sounding the alarm!!! 

 

"People"

 

Geofencing to track those who seek out abortion providers?  Works.

 

Geofencing to track people to drop boxes and dem non profits?  Doesn't work.

 

Got it.

[HappyDays]

12 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Virtually everyone agrees with that approach. Even really staunch Pro Life advocates. Do not believe the crap you’re being sold. 

 

This is the issue with trying to legislate abortion though. You can say you agree with that approach but the existing laws are not making it clear to healthcare providers what they are able to do. So there will always be cases like the 10 year old rape victim forced to cross state lines because of difficult to interpret laws. And you can say the whole thing will eventually work itself out but I don't think 50 states worth of legislators will ever completely figure it out. Politicians just want to score political points with their base. They don't care about nuance. Medical science is hard and requires nuance. Legislators shouldn't get between a person and his or her doctor, nor should they try to legislate away bodily autonomy. Every fetus is inherently a threat to the mother's body and health. You can scoff at that description if you want but it's true. A woman should always be able to weigh that threat and make her own decision about her body.

[Andy1]

On the issue, people who say you can’t trust the government to do anything right are suddenly 100% confident that women can trust their health care to politicians. The more I learn about the abortion issue, the more complex I realize the medical issues are that docs are forced to deal with in the context of these new laws. I would love to see a Republican legislature do the right thing and give doctors adequate leeway to protect the health of women. If anyone sees a model of good legislation, post it here.

[Boatdrinks]

2 hours ago, Andy1 said:

On the issue, people who say you can’t trust the government to do anything right are suddenly 100% confident that women can trust their health care to politicians. The more I learn about the abortion issue, the more complex I realize the medical issues are that docs are forced to deal with in the context of these new laws. I would love to see a Republican legislature do the right thing and give doctors adequate leeway to protect the health of women. If anyone sees a model of good legislation, post it here.

The Government often cannot be trusted to do things properly. However, they are the only way to make laws. In effect, it’s the best we can do unless you have a better idea. 

[Tiberius]

This is America?