19th amendment annulled

If and when it happens? It's already happening. Many states that have laws lying in wait for this SCOTUS ruling to be official, have put provisions in them regarding leaving the state.


Texas already has a provision allowing for civil suits against those who leave the state to obtain an abortion.


I'm not fighting against the hypothetical here. These things are already happening or are in the works. This is where my concern lies-- you've got a lot of super conservative evangelicals completely willing to act in bad faith if it furthers their agenda-- and the agenda isn't saving babies.. its subjugating women back to the kitchen.



I'm not against those who feel abortion should not be an option. I'm against those who feel women are "less than" and want to make sure to codify that.

If and when it happens? It's already happening. Many states that have laws lying in wait for this SCOTUS ruling to be official, have put provisions in them regarding leaving the state.


Texas already has a provision allowing for civil suits against those who leave the state to obtain an abortion.


I'm not fighting against the hypothetical here. These things are already happening or are in the works. This is where my concern lies-- you've got a lot of super conservative evangelicals completely willing to act in bad faith if it furthers their agenda-- and the agenda isn't saving babies.. its subjugating women back to the kitchen.



I'm not against those who feel abortion should not be an option. I'm against those who feel women are "less than" and want to make sure to codify that. Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Your Grace,

If and when it happens? It's already happening. Many states that have laws lying in wait for this SCOTUS ruling to be official, have put provisions in them regarding leaving the state.


Texas already has a provision allowing for civil suits against those who leave the state to obtain an abortion.


I'm not fighting against the hypothetical here. These things are already happening or are in the works. This is where my concern lies-- you've got a lot of super conservative evangelicals completely willing to act in bad faith if it furthers their agenda-- and the agenda isn't saving babies.. its subjugating women back to the kitchen.



I'm not against those who feel abortion should not be an option. I'm against those who feel women are "less than" and want to make sure to codify that. Originally Posted by Grace Preston

And I have no doubt that law will be stayed by a federal judge for further evaluation until the SC rules it unconstitutional for any state to pass such a law but we will have to wait and see. Just because a state wants to pass a law, doesn't mean it will become law. Pass a law restricting an Americans reason for travel? Never happen.



But if you want a convert to your cause, you'll have me and a whole bunch of other non evangelicals ( the biggest reason I won't call myself a Republican or become a registered member of their Party ) you'll have plenty.


Have a little faith. That's a joke!!!!

I'd love to have faith.


But we still live in a country where if a woman decides she does not want children-- she can still be denied a tubal ligation unless she already has two children AND her spouse consents. And that's even if she is self pay-- this isn't an insurance issue.



Meanwhile-- men need no such qualifications for a vasectomy....

I'd love to have faith.


But we still live in a country where if a woman decides she does not want children-- she can still be denied a tubal ligation unless she already has two children AND her spouse consents. And that's even if she is self pay-- this isn't an insurance issue.



Meanwhile-- men need no such qualifications for a vasectomy.... Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Review post #33.

I'm aware-- hence my keen distrust and lack of faith.

I do have one question.


If it is truly about saving the life of an unborn... then why the sudden uptick in different government officials wanting to ban various forms of birth control-- up to and including one in Arizona who wants to ban condoms and another who wants to make birth control only available to married couples? IUD's are on the hit list in several states.. as is oral birth control in a few others.



This is the issue-- evangelicals want to legislate morality and see this as the front door-- they are ultimately going to conflate things and make it more difficult for those who are simply wanting to "save the unborn". Originally Posted by Grace Preston

I believe the various government officials you are talking about are Democrats in full “disinformation mode” attempting to scare voters, by lying about what will happen if Roe vs. Wade is struck down. All of a sudden Democrats can see into the future. (November 2022) and they are scared


It’s a shame the voters couldn’t see into the future when they voted for Joe Biden

IF women cant decide their own health choices, this is great reasoning to take away their right to vote!


Passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote. The 19th amendment legally guarantees American women the right to vote. Achieving this milestone required a lengthy and difficult struggle—victory took decades of agitation and protest.




IF R V Wade is overturned, then is the next step




FYI:

I dont agree with any removal of rights,
its a women's body, her choice Originally Posted by timmystool

A women's Right to vote won't be subject to any attack. It's a Constitutional right. Abortion has no Constitutional basis.

I believe the various government officials you are talking about are Democrats in full “disinformation mode” attempting to scare voters, by lying about what will happen if Roe vs. Wade is struck down. All of a sudden Democrats can see into the future. (November 2022) and they are scared


It’s a shame the voters couldn’t see into the future when they voted for Joe Biden Originally Posted by tman1847

No.



See-- unlike many, I've never been a single issue voter-- nor have I ever been a straight ticket voter.



What I'm speaking of are things that have been directly quoted. And yes, some walked back under the "That's not what I meant" mantra... but my trust for that statement is limited based on actions. I don't take articles with hyperbole seriously-- but I do take quotes pretty damned seriously. The media on both sides will gleefully twist things to support a narrative-- but words from the horses asses-- yeah, I pay particular attention to those. The first words out of a persons mouth are generally what they mean-- beyond that, they'll adjust to placate the audience-- but their real opinion is generally closest to what they say before they consider consequences. This is the very reason why I'm not a fan of Biden-- hard to take a man seriously when he's talking about cancelling student loans when he is the very reason a person cannot dismiss them in bankruptcy. Hard to take a man seriously when he's talking about police brutality when he is the one who crafted many of the crime bills that result in long sentences for non violent offenders. The Biden of 25 years ago would be considered a Republican today-- now he's just a puppet for the Dems.



I am an unfortunate moderate in a political climate where the loudest voices on both sides have strayed from the rational. Sure-- there are still some reasonable moderates on both sides-- but they don't sell papers....

A women's Right to vote won't be subject to any attack. It's a Constitutional right. Abortion has no Constitutional basis. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Life does. But women can't vote if you're an originalist. Er go Visa Versa Hippo Campus - Bada Boom, no rights.















Not Human.

For their next trick.

No.



See-- unlike many, I've never been a single issue voter-- nor have I ever been a straight ticket voter.



What I'm speaking of are things that have been directly quoted. And yes, some walked back under the "That's not what I meant" mantra... but my trust for that statement is limited based on actions. I don't take articles with hyperbole seriously-- but I do take quotes pretty damned seriously. The media on both sides will gleefully twist things to support a narrative-- but words from the horses asses-- yeah, I pay particular attention to those. The first words out of a persons mouth are generally what they mean-- beyond that, they'll adjust to placate the audience-- but their real opinion is generally closest to what they say before they consider consequences. This is the very reason why I'm not a fan of Biden-- hard to take a man seriously when he's talking about cancelling student loans when he is the very reason a person cannot dismiss them in bankruptcy. Hard to take a man seriously when he's talking about police brutality when he is the one who crafted many of the crime bills that result in long sentences for non violent offenders. The Biden of 25 years ago would be considered a Republican today-- now he's just a puppet for the Dems.



I am an unfortunate moderate in a political climate where the loudest voices on both sides have strayed from the rational. Sure-- there are still some reasonable moderates on both sides-- but they don't sell papers.... Originally Posted by Grace Preston

I am for systematic results driven change. Do you think that is possible? How? Is that radical or reactionary?

Just want your opinion.

I'd love to have faith.


But we still live in a country where if a woman decides she does not want children-- she can still be denied a tubal ligation unless she already has two children AND her spouse consents. And that's even if she is self pay-- this isn't an insurance issue.



Meanwhile-- men need no such qualifications for a vasectomy.... Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Please tell me more about who is denying this. Are you saying this is federal law of some kind? Or state law since you say it isn't insurance related.



I can't fathom a rational for denying a tubal ligation for any woman for any reason. This is not a third party involved situation and third party arguments wouldn't seem appropriate but a clear case of discrimination and unequal treatment under the law from what your saying here.


More info please.


And BTW, love the new pic. I'm a leg man!!!!!

No.



See-- unlike many, I've never been a single issue voter-- nor have I ever been a straight ticket voter.



What I'm speaking of are things that have been directly quoted. And yes, some walked back under the "That's not what I meant" mantra... but my trust for that statement is limited based on actions. I don't take articles with hyperbole seriously-- but I do take quotes pretty damned seriously. The media on both sides will gleefully twist things to support a narrative-- but words from the horses asses-- yeah, I pay particular attention to those. The first words out of a persons mouth are generally what they mean-- beyond that, they'll adjust to placate the audience-- but their real opinion is generally closest to what they say before they consider consequences. This is the very reason why I'm not a fan of Biden-- hard to take a man seriously when he's talking about cancelling student loans when he is the very reason a person cannot dismiss them in bankruptcy. Hard to take a man seriously when he's talking about police brutality when he is the one who crafted many of the crime bills that result in long sentences for non violent offenders. The Biden of 25 years ago would be considered a Republican today-- now he's just a puppet for the Dems.



I am an unfortunate moderate in a political climate where the loudest voices on both sides have strayed from the rational. Sure-- there are still some reasonable moderates on both sides-- but they don't sell papers.... Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Extremist, I find, right and left ( but more left than right at this point in time ), are always trying to work around/ eliminate the Constitution. It makes to much sense to them and follows rules of logic something a Progressive never, ever aspires to.


I truly believe the further we depart from Constitutional law and true Representative government by moderates, the further down that rabbit hole we go.

A woman was told she needed her husband's permission to get her tubes tied. Her story went viral, but it's not uncommon.



https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinic...m_campaign=int

study; 27. Protein bound iodine (PBI); 28. Radical hemorrhoidectomy, whitehead type, including removal of entire pile bearing area; 29. Reversal of tubal ligation or vasectomy; 30. Sex change

https://www.insider.com/a-woman-need...%20one%20child.

Women have been denied the procedure for a multitude of reasons, from being too young, unmarried, or having only one child.
In a 2012, a woman named Monica Trombley wrote for Slate about having to fight to get the procedure at age 26. "The paternalistic treatment of doctors telling me they were going to 'talk me out of it' still ticks me off," she wrote.

In 2014 the Chicago Tribune reported on Lori Witt's quest to get her tubes tied. She was told she was too young and might change her mind about having children.

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jer...uper-50-0.html

JUDITH PONTER, R.P. GOTCHEL, M.D.; R. KESSLER, M.D.; R.A. RODGERS, JR., M.D.; J.P. BURNS, JR., M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY AS ASSOCIATES OF THE WESTWOOD OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, P.A., A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, PLAINTIFFS, v. JOHN PONTER AND AETNA CASUALTY AND LIFE CO., DEFENDANTS.