Impact of Dobbs and Abortion Laws

[Doc]

4 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Good! let's hope the GOP really doubles down hard on this

 

On compromise so that abortion isn't banned in some states?  Yes, I agree.

 

4 hours ago, nedboy7 said:

If it's a state's right then you become a giant hypocrite for getting on board with Graham.  See how that works? 

 

Sorry, less worried about being a hypocrite than coming to a compromise.  Unfortunately you/your side wants it your way or no way.  That's worse than being a hypocrite.

 

2 hours ago, Andy1 said:

This is an excellent idea for Linsey to push. Let’s have a national debate on this issue. I’m sure Mitch is thrilled with him and Trump.

 

Mitch has one foot out the door.

[BillStime]

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

10 hours ago, Andy1 said:

This is an excellent idea for Linsey to push. Let’s have a national debate on this issue. I’m sure Mitch is thrilled with him and Trump.

It’s been a while since seeing such overtly terrible political strategy ahead of midterms. Instead of focusing on the several economic and geopolitical disasters brewing, focus on overturning a single issue voter hot button topic most were ok with the outcome for 50 years ago.. 

[Tiberius]

Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) went to the Senate floor to argue that Graham’s effort to introduce “a radical bill to institute a nationwide restriction on abortions.” Schumer continued, “Proposals like the one today send a clear message from MAGA Republicans to women across the country: your body, our choice.” He was only too happy to point out that “Republicans are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to explain why they want nationwide abortion bans when they said they’d leave it up to the states.” Schumer is right that “this has never been about states’ rights.”

[ComradeKayAdams]

17 hours ago, Andy1 said:

This is an excellent idea for Linsey to push. Let’s have a national debate on this issue. I’m sure Mitch is thrilled with him and Trump.

 

Yep, pretty much. Mitch McConnell understands the political calculus of the national abortion debate way better than Lindsey Graham. Mitch knows that the GOP’s position is completely indefensible**, so the less they bother to talk about it the better. Their winning gambit is to obfuscate on the issue of inflation (see: all of my previous posts on inflation) and combine it with a cultural “crisis” du jour such as drag queen story hour. It may very well work this Roevember, but the least dullardly of the MAGA simpletons quietly understand deep down that their political movement is trending toward a trainwreck by the end of this decade…with Dobbs as the train conductor. Commie Kay’s proof: a multitude of public opinion polls surveying Millenials and Gen Z’ers. “Demographics is destiny,” said someone. CHOO MOTHER BLEEPING CHOO.

 

** - A summary of why I think the GOP stance on abortion is indefensible:

 

1. The post-Dobbs abortion trigger laws in the red states are already enormously unpopular (to the tune of 67+%, judging by opinion polls). Moreover, they continue growing in unpopularity as more citizens become better informed on all the disgusting case studies in which these laws are shown to be negatively impacting women’s lives.

 

2. Even though I outlined a reasonable 7-point Roe v. Wade codification bill compromise on page 4 of this thread to which the GOP would still never agree, the best public policy (a.k.a. the one most hermetically sealed from political realities) is completely unrestricted abortion for all three trimesters. The main justifications for this are the enormous difficulties (logistically, legally, and psychologically) that come with verifying abortion exceptions for rape and i n c e s t. Essentially, it’s a matter of prioritizing the approximately 2% of rape/i n c e s t abortion cases over the approximately 2-3% of abortions beyond 15 weeks due to the collection of contentiously “frivolous” reasons (financial, career, education, relationship dissolution, YOLO jezebel lifestyle, etc). Or to perhaps put it more bluntly and more generally, it’s still just a matter of prioritizing living women over unborn embryos/fetuses.

 

3. American conservatives can’t point to Western Europe as equivalently restrictive on abortion. Those countries allow for “abortion on request,” despite whatever comparable limits during the gestation period they may legally specify. What this means is that no outside parties (doctors, government officials, etc.) in Western European countries are necessary to verify the qualifying exceptions given for the abortion request. The decision to abort is still ultimately in the control of the pregnant woman.

 

4. The Bible itself is fairly vague on the subject of abortion. You can find just as many passages that are nebulously pro-choice as you can find that are nebulously pro-life. Not that this should ever matter in the United States, however. I only bring it up for the non-secular humanists and non-existential nihilists among us.

 

EDIT: Forgot about the silly "i n c e s t" filter.

Edited September 14, 2022 by ComradeKayAdams

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

On 9/13/2022 at 6:00 PM, Andy1 said:

This is an excellent idea for Linsey to push. Let’s have a national debate on this issue. I’m sure Mitch is thrilled with him and Trump.

I wish that would be the outcome… a debate with the objective of and arbitrated outcome, majority consensus. 

 

his opening position I think was illegal after 15 weeks… ok start there 

 

if there were any semblance of a functioning government it would simply be yeah..  ok but… or no… we think 20, and federally supported as healthcare until then, ok but not for church insurance plans… blah blah blah.  

 

instead it’s just a bunch of tone def elites yelling past each other… babykiller!!  Women enslaver!!!  While their moronic bases, religious fanatics and pseudo intellectual coffee shop ‘geniuses’ cheer them on. 

‘merica

[Doc]

If it's true that Graham's proposal would still allow stated to outlaw all abortion, it's a stupid idea to put forth at this time and he deserves to be marginalized.

[Andy1]

Graham’s proposal is a national ban after 15 weeks. States can have more restrictive laws if they want. Only exception is to save life of mother and for rape. No exceptions for malformed fetus often discovered after 15 weeks.

 

For a party that always said it was a state issue, it didn’t take long before they want to use the Federal government to take rights from women in Democratic states. 

Edited September 15, 2022 by Andy1

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Andy1 said:

Graham’s proposal is a national ban after 15 weeks. States can have more restrictive laws if they want. Only exception is to save life of mother and for rape. No exceptions for malformed fetus often discovered after 15 weeks.

 

For a party that always said it was a state issue, it didn’t take long before they want to use the Federal government to take rights from women in Democratic states. 

 

Then it's a no-go for me.  But Graham is in the minority, as you saw.  But as usual, the Dems will claim all Repubs think like this and that it's taking rights away from women when it's really about protecting unborn and innocent life. 

 

And the hypocrisy is just on the right.  You're all crying about the decision saying it shouldn't be a state's rights issue, and now that it's taking it away from states, you want states to have the rights.

[Andy1]

As Fanhood said above, if we had a functioning government this wouldn’t be the mess of an issue it is now. I think Grahams proposal is a great start for the discussion. I don’t agree with it but I give him credit for putting something concrete on paper. I don’t see any other senators doing that on either side. I’m all for let’s have a national debate on the issue. Women/fetus having different rights depending on what state they are in is stupid. That’s why the court ruled on it years ago but both sides like the battle.

[SectionC3]

23 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

Normally I think memes and political cartoons are pretty stupid.  But this one is something else.  Very powerful.  Well done. 

57 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Then it's a no-go for me.  But Graham is in the minority, as you saw.  But as usual, the Dems will claim all Repubs think like this and that it's taking rights away from women when it's really about protecting unborn and innocent life. 

 

And the hypocrisy is just on the right.  You're all crying about the decision saying it shouldn't be a state's rights issue, and now that it's taking it away from states, you want states to have the rights.

Hoax.  I believe that the mantra was that it was constitutionally-protected, not that it was delegated to states under the Constitution.  And those who are saying that it didn't take long for Republicans to convert the issue from a states rights question to a federal legislative issue are right.  

[SectionC3]

 

17 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

It’s been a while since seeing such overtly terrible political strategy ahead of midterms. Instead of focusing on the several economic and geopolitical disasters brewing, focus on overturning a single issue voter hot button topic most were ok with the outcome for 50 years ago.. 

 

The odd thing is that Graham usually has a pretty good political nose.  I'm surprised he'd wade into this now.  

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

 

 

The odd thing is that Graham usually has a pretty good political nose.  I'm surprised he'd wade into this now.  

I agree, or that the republican organization would have let it happen.  Can’t tell if it just means republicans are fractured or if he need this issue for his own seat… 

 

 

[SectionC3]

3 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

I agree, or that the republican organization would have let it happen.  Can’t tell if it just means republicans are fractured or if he need this issue for his own seat… 

 

 

They don't tell him what to do.  (They need him more than he needs them, so he can do as he pleases.  It wouldn't be that way for, say, Lee Zeldin in New York State, who relies heavily on party infrastructure.)  I actually think he's trying to kick-start compromise.  Many Republicans I've talked to recently to tend to think 15 weeks is a reasonable compromise.  So I think that's where he might be headed.  But to the extent (as I've read here; not anywhere else) the 15-week marker is a federal maximum that can be lowered in other states, this thing is both doomed and bad politics. 

Edited September 15, 2022 by SectionC3

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

9 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

They don't tell him what to do.  (They need him more than he needs them, so he can do as he pleases.  It wouldn't be that way for, say, Lee Zeldin in New York State, who relies heavily on party infrastructure.)  I actually think he's trying to kick-start compromise.  Many Republicans I've talked to recently to tend to think 15 weeks is a reasonable compromise.  So I think that's where he might be headed.  But to the extent (as I've read here; not anywhere else) the 15-week marker is a federal maximum that can be lowered in other states, this thing is both doomed and bad politics. 

yeah stupid hill to die on especially for the party whose schtick is less federal control is better.. oh well. Could’ve the nail in the coffin for restoration of balance of power…

[BillStime]

On 9/13/2022 at 8:29 PM, Doc said:

 

On compromise so that abortion isn't banned in some states?  Yes, I agree.

 

 

Sorry, less worried about being a hypocrite than coming to a compromise.  Unfortunately you/your side wants it your way or no way.  That's worse than being a hypocrite.

 

 

Mitch has one foot out the door.

Hey sunshine - you do realize the nationwide ban only impacts blue states - right precious?

[Doc Brown]

9 hours ago, Andy1 said:

Graham’s proposal is a national ban after 15 weeks. States can have more restrictive laws if they want. Only exception is to save life of mother and for rape. No exceptions for malformed fetus often discovered after 15 weeks.

 

For a party that always said it was a state issue, it didn’t take long before they want to use the Federal government to take rights from women in Democratic states. 

Republicans never expected Roe vs. Wade to be overturned and were caught blindsided.  That's why you see the mixed messaging.  At a federal level it would make the most sense to do nothing and just go with the let the states decide line.  That was your main argument for overturning Roe v Wade in the first place.  Stupid political proposal by Graham.

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Republicans never expected Roe vs. Wade to be overturned and were caught blindsided.  That's why you see the mixed messaging.  At a federal level it would make the most sense to do nothing and just go with the let the states decide line.  That was your main argument for overturning Roe v Wade in the first place.  Stupid political proposal by Graham.

You pretty much always count on Graham to ‘muck’ things up. I’m sure his intentions were good but good intentions don’t score many points in Washington these days. 

[Tiberius]

12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You pretty much always count on Graham to ‘muck’ things up. I’m sure his intentions were good but good intentions don’t score many points in Washington these days. 

He's scared. He wants to pander to his base as much as possible because he thinks he is in serious legal trouble for his interference in Georgia's election

[SoCal Deek]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

He's scared. He wants to pander to his base as much as possible because he thinks he is in serious legal trouble for his interference in Georgia's election

I’ve always thought of Graham as a good hearted guy. But like so many others, this may not be the time for good hearted politicians. We’ve unfortunately evolved into a Game of Thrones version of Washington. Keep your head in a swivel, lest it be chopped off!