Women's Rights on Trial Today

Could this have been a team ? Both from Dallas....both robo posters. Originally Posted by VitaMan

Theyre taking their marbles and going home

So, with all respect, you mention a specific religious charity. How are those charities funded? Does Teddy Cruz forgoe a trip to Cancun while his state is in an emergency to donate to these charities? My point simply being, by saying a charity will take care of unwanted children implies a greater monetary need by these charities. And often it's the section of the population complaining about not giving "handouts" that are the same ones that want to enforce this.

Now, back to politics, we all know history says the opposing party usually takes power in the houses. If we do (spitball) math and assume women make up 40% of voters. Out of that 40% the Republicans may piss off, let's say 50% of the 40%. Anyone who's had a real relationship KNOWS you don't want a woman really pissed off. So the Republicans lose 20%, do they still have the numbers to take back power in the legislature or are they handing the Democrats a golden goose? What if women completely take over and pass laws that allow them to decide what men get to keep their balls to reduce the need for abortion by cutting down on the population than can impregnate? Originally Posted by 69in2it69

So you're wondering how many Republican women will abandon the party if Roe is reversed? Which by the way these decision will not do. I'm not looking beyond the 2022 mid terms.



My guess, none to negligible, but Independents, now that is a different story perhaps.

So you're wondering how many Republican women will abandon the party if Roe is reversed? Which by the way these decision will not do. I'm not looking beyond the 2022 mid terms.



My guess, none to negligible, but Independents, now that is a different story perhaps. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I dunno-- I know a LOT of Republican women who intend to sit 2022 out over this.

I dunno-- I know a LOT of Republican women who intend to sit 2022 out over this. Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Maybe I'm not seeing something you are but don't these Republican women you know, know what the Republican party has always stood for? Didn't they know that Republican Presidents will appoint Conservative Justices who just might overturn Roe? And they are not going to vote Republican in 2022 over reducing the viability standard to 15 weeks? And they are going to continue to let Democrats fuck up everything they touch?

I just can't understand that thinking.

Right now it is predicted that Biden has lost 30% of the people that voted for him and I'll bet that number will only increase because I see really big problems coming for Biden and the Democrats. Now if in June, Roe was overturned ( it won't be ) I might be able to understand that sentiment but this issue does make some people crazy and unable to think sensibly. This is not the only issue women care about, I would hope.

I would love to know what these Republican women think about our border crisis that will continue to get worse over the next year. What they think about what their children are being taught, to hate America and judge every person by the color of their skin or the absolute lunatics Biden is nominating to very important posts, the list is to long to even get in to. Are they thinking about what will happen if they don't vote Republican next Nov?

Is abortion really the only thing these women care about? Hard to imagine.


And please ask these women if they understand that not voting for Republicans in 2022 will have no affect on what the 6 Conservatives Justices will do regarding abortion. That ship has sailed.


The quintessential "cutting off ones nose to spite their face".

No. We cannot go back to the days when women had to risk their lives to end an unwanted pregnancy.

This week, the Supreme Court heard the most direct challenge to a woman’s right to choose since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

And let's be clear. From the day of that decision almost 50 years ago until today, right-wing politicians have worked tirelessly to reverse it and to make it more difficult for women to control their own bodies.

They've done it through increasingly restrictive abortion legislation in state after state.

They’ve done it through the Hyde Amendment.

They’ve done it by attacking Planned Parenthood and shutting down clinics.

They've done it by intimidating women who access clinics and doctors who work in those clinics.

They’ve done it by making women travel hundreds of miles for an abortion and wait weeks for appointments.

And what really gets me about this issue is the extraordinary hypocrisy of my Republican colleagues. Every day on the floor of the Senate I hear Republicans, again and again, spout their right-wing mantra. "Get the government out of people’s lives." "Get the government off the backs of the American people." "End the nanny state." "Let people, not the government, decide what's good for them." And on and on the rhetoric goes.

When it comes to ending the disgrace of the United States being the only major country on Earth that does not guarantee health care as a right, their response: "Gotta keep the government out of people’s lives."

When it comes to stopping the drug companies from being able to charge outrageous prices for the lifesaving medicine people need in this country: "Gotta keep the government out of people’s lives."

When it comes to asking people who want to buy a handgun or an assault weapon to pass a simple background check: "Gotta keep the government out of people’s lives."

But when it comes to telling every woman in America what she can or cannot do with her own body, about whether or not she can access reproductive health care, now all of a sudden my Republican colleagues are exponents of very big and oppressive government. Whether it is at the local, state or federal level they believe that politicians should make the decisions regarding what is a deeply personal decision for women.

What hypocrisy!

As you know, this current Supreme Court challenge, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, would mean governments in many states would have the ability to make it virtually impossible for women to access an abortion.

And we are not just talking about so-called “red states,” as if that wasn’t bad enough. We're also talking about "purple states” where Republicans have gerrymandered themselves into control of state legislatures.

And the truth is, despite overwhelming opposition from the American people, there is a very strong chance that this conservative Supreme Court will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

That is not acceptable. We cannot sit back and allow this Supreme Court to put in jeopardy the privacy rights of all Americans and a woman’s right to control her own body.

The consequences would be disastrous and threaten the very lives of American women — and that's not an exaggeration. The reality is that banning legal medically-assisted abortion and forcing women back into the arms of quacks to get the care they need will quite literally kill women.

No. We cannot go back to the days when women had to risk their lives to end an unwanted pregnancy.

The decision about abortion must remain a decision for a woman and her doctor to make. Or, as my Republican friends would say, we have got to keep government out of their lives.

So Congress must act.

We must pass legislation that codifies Roe v. Wade as the law of the land in this country. And if there aren’t 60 votes to do it, and there are not, we must reform the filibuster to pass it with 50 votes.

In no state in America does support for an abortion ban reach even 25%. We must put an end to extremist attacks on abortion rights once and for all.



In solidarity,

How the Supreme Court throwing out abortion rights could undo much of women's economic progress since the 1970s: 'This is going to create just a perfect storm of concentrated human misery.'


https://www.businessinsider.com/how-...-texas-2021-12

Abortion restrictions also place an economic burden on states, research from ​​the Center for the Economics of Reproductive Health at the Institute for Women's Policy Research found.

The nonprofit wrote that, "state-level abortion restrictions cost state economies $105 billion dollars per year—by reducing labor force participation and earnings levels and increasing turnover and time off from work among women ages 15 to 44 years."

Furthermore, an extra 505,000 women aged 15 to 44 who would earn about $3 billion each year would be able to participate in the workforce, IWPR found.

So, with all respect, you mention a specific religious charity. How are those charities funded? Does Teddy Cruz forgoe a trip to Cancun while his state is in an emergency to donate to these charities? My point simply being, by saying a charity will take care of unwanted children implies a greater monetary need by these charities. And often it's the section of the population complaining about not giving "handouts" that are the same ones that want to enforce this.

Now, back to politics, we all know history says the opposing party usually takes power in the houses. If we do (spitball) math and assume women make up 40% of voters. Out of that 40% the Republicans may piss off, let's say 50% of the 40%. Anyone who's had a real relationship KNOWS you don't want a woman really pissed off. So the Republicans lose 20%, do they still have the numbers to take back power in the legislature or are they handing the Democrats a golden goose? What if women completely take over and pass laws that allow them to decide what men get to keep their balls to reduce the need for abortion by cutting down on the population than can impregnate? Originally Posted by 69in2it69

I mention Catholic Charities because they are well known. I am not, nor have a I ever been a Catholic. Stop being such a noob. Plus, your numbers have no basis in reality. Besides science and law are not about popularity contests.

Correct-- personal RELIGIOUS convictions-- and this is the hill that many of them die on politically-- they'll vote for the anti-abortion candidate, no matter how horrid he may be on every other issue.



The right votes for death all the time-- its called the death penalty. Funny how we use religion to argue against abortion-- but we ignore the New Testament stance on "an eye for an eye". Originally Posted by Grace Preston

The lawful execution of a criminal who was given due process versus an innocent. That's quite a stretch to connect those two.

My point is that part of the argument Barley raised was that abortion kills the child who has a right to live. But he accepts that an exception can be made for rape and incest. Hence a child conceived by rape or incest must have a lesser right to live/be born due to the sins of the father. I was asking him to square his circle of logic. Which I suspect he can’t.

The reality is that it’s an all of nothing argument. If the interest of the child to live outweighs the mothers choice to abort then it’s irrelevant how conception comes about. Unless the child’s right to be born is somehow predicated on how they are conceived. Originally Posted by NoirMan

Gee, I'd hate to disappoint you...
I have already said that I am willing to give exceptions for the health of the mother beyond a point. Pregnancy is not 100% safe and going to term has some risks. So, a woman who is facing substancial risks to have baby is allowed an exemption. Many women (or their lawyers) argue about mental danger. Most of arguments are bullshit but some have merit. So, in the case of rape or incest the mental argument comes into play. Nothing is absolute in our system of law. That is why we require judges to facilitate justice. Otherwise, all we need is a rule book. You broke this law and here is your penalty. No mitigating circumstances are allowed.

Nice.

This is in response to Grace Preston's earlier post about Timmy and Sam.

Let me add on to another of your posts;
Your analogy of Timmy and Sam is flawed. Sam is an innocent bystander with no reason to help Timmy with a kidney transplant. Timmy might raise money to buy one of Sam's kidneys but that is Sam's choice.
A pregnant woman is not an innocent bystander. She contributed to the condition that Timmy finds himself in whether she meant to or not.
Also, the kidney argument is flawed because Timmy only needs to borrow that organ for nine months and Sam can have it back a little worse for wear. So, Sam can trade nine months of discomfort for the life of Timmy which was put in jeopardy by the actions of Sam.

(These are generalities. There is always risk and there is rape.)

Roe is about the "mother" not the child, or the father.

Here is a link to an article that addresses some issues that have been raised in this thread and others outside of Eccie ....

.. it's about time the so-called "Liberals" start FOLLOWING REAL SCIENCE ALL THE TIME and not just the bullshit they try to pass off as "science"!

https://www.newsweek.com/science-les...pinion-1655850

I brought up fetus heart surgery ... the above is more pre-birth surgery.

Example: Fauci is not "science," he's about money ... taxpayers' money! If Lucas M on the board is telling the truty about his "pharma" investments, like Fauci, he's getting rich from the injection of taxpayers' funds into his Pharma stock growth accounts.

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Another Communist getting wealthy off a capitalistic society.

[B][SIZE="5"]How the Supreme Court throwing out abortion rights could undo much of women's economic progress since the 1970s: 'This is going to create just a perfect storm of concentrated human misery.'[/SIZE Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Just like communism has EVERYWHERE...I couldn't help but point that out to you.
Now come back with your yawn...because you don't have any answer to your blanton hypocrisy on parade!!

Just like communism has EVERYWHERE...I couldn't help but point that out to you.
Now come back with your yawn...because you don't have any answer to your blanton hypocrisy on parade!! Originally Posted by bb1961

Bo-ring? (Banton?)