Abortion ban amendment shot down in Kansas doesn't bode well for Repubss

Exactly. Under Dobbs SCOTUS refused to strike down the statute that provided for 15 weeks of unrestricted abortion, and the radical hair on fire Left immediately showed up with perfectly made signs claiming their "rights" had been taken away and their signs were adorned with coat hangers

So - is 15 weeks of unrestricted abortion a Pro-Life position or a Pro-abortion position? Leftists run from this question like Hunter dashing to the adult novelty store.

 

After a certain point in development many states protect the life of gestating child.

 

I'm not the least bit concerned with being popular among the self-centered, I'm concerned with being moral.

 

I do actually. They are already talking about the nationwide ban they would like to enact.

It was NEVER about states rights. I KNOW that.

 

This is only a temporary victory.

As soon as they gerrymander and cheat their way to control the Senate, and House, and of course Trump cheats his way to the white house using illegal elector schemes in the upcoming election, a nationwide ban will be enacted.

This was never about sending Roe back to the states. That was just a means to try and break Roe. Now that its done, they will want a federal law put in place banning abortion. Taking the right away from the states that allow it.


And that was ALWAYS the plan.

 

And if that's the reality, then that's the reality. I think nobody wants a complete ban. There are situations where we can all agree an abortion is necessary. What I think most republicans want is much more protection for the child and accountability from the mothers. So we are going to be moving far and away from the trend of late term abortions and using this process as a form of birthcontrol.

And thats a win.

We do not need the fed dictating from on high, the subject of morality on such divisive topics.

 

Women have a fundamental right to travel. They MUST travel to have an abortion, unless they live in the clinic. The only thing that has changed is how far they have to travel. As long as they have the right to travel, they cannot be prevented from having an abortion if they want to. The overturning of RvW has temporarily made it less convenient for some, but as was seen in Kansas recently, that is largely a temporary condition. It is, to borrow a term, 'transitory', a term we have all heard recently about another topic.

Just because legislation exists, does not mean it is Constitutional, nor that they actually had the authority to even enact it. Do not mistake 'power' for 'authority'. They have the power to do any-damn-thing they want, but they may not have the authority to have done it.

It is quite possible I have not. I am here to seek truth, so I welcome any clarity you may offer on the subject. My interpretation, in a nutshell, is that the SCOTUS has returned the issue to the states. The practical result is, women may no longer have a nearby, convenient, in-state place to have abortions.

RvW has been used as one of the left's most prominent and effective wedge issues ever since it was enacted. It will be, arguably, an even more effective wedge now that it's been overturned. Especially if the democrats can keep their propaganda machine perpetuating the outrage. The propaganda driven hair-on-fire outrage has proven to be much worse than the reality.

My observation has been that the overturning of RvW hasn't practically changed much about a woman's right to have an abortion, other than the distance she must travel to get one. As time goes on, those distances will get much shorter, because The People overwhelmingly support choice in this matter. Prohibition states will either take Kansas' lead under fear of the wrath of pissed-off voters sending scoundrels packing, or their neighboring states will enjoy an increase of clinics along state lines to service the demand. Either way, the ability for women to get abortions will start to get easier from here.

 

Is it “moral” though to prevent women from getting needed health care?

 

This is the cycle - these are NOT teens - they are often women who already have a child or children. Unable to afford or access LARCs they rely on “rhythm method” or condoms and face the inevitable failures. Because cost is a factor and travel costs now also a factor these women will be having abortions later rather than earlier. These are the women who would benefit from assistance to get implants or IUDs and if not already on this - access to a “medical” abortion overnighted by telemedicine

 

But the idiotic and ill thought out legislation being introduced is not allowing for those neccessary abortions. How “life threatening” must the situation be before the medical practitioner can act without the fear of losing their licence?

 

Has the overturning of RvW affected the ability for low-income women to receive contraceptives and other related healthcare? Perhaps the removal of abortion from the other related services a local clinic can legally provide may cause the clinics to close? I would think that the reduction in supply for abortions will cause a corresponding increase for demand in contraceptives and related professional guidance, which in turn will cause an pretty immediate increase in services, supply and availability to meet those demands.

While I think that the traditional birth control pills should be over the counter, and inexpensive, perhaps keeping them as a prescription medication, cost covered for the poor by medicaid, will help offset the loss of abortion revenue and keep the clinics open?

I do honestly believe that these immediate prohibitions some states have enacted will eventually go the way of other prohibitions. No prohibition can survive in a free market demand environment. The People will either vote in people who represent their views and change the laws, or the free market will provide solutions to get around them.

 

I think, and I could be wrong here...but the spirit of life threatening doesn't include your mental distress of rolling the dice and losing.

 

No, it's not moral to prevent women from getting needed health care. But, let's be careful what we consider health care. Killing an unborn human life merely for the convenience of a mother's lifestyle is not health care.

 

I"m of the opinion that if something isn't broke, why fix it. Even if R wasn't as perfect as RBG wanted, it defined when abortion can and cannot be performed, to the pro-choice majority's approval.

 

You're wrong; Texas is already cooking up one.

 

Well then that's ok. That's how texas wants to govern it. And if the people support that stance, they will show it when they vote. If they don't then they will vote in someone who will run on a more lax abortion platform.

That's called... democracy!

 

I don't understand why so many people think it's up to the states. There already is a federal abortion law and every reason to believe anti-abortion types will press for a federal law update to ban most abortions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

 

No, it's called no damn rights for women. How about if we put your rights to a vote?

 

No. It's called respecting the rights of the PERSON she willfully created by participating in the one activity that creates life.

The power to create life should be wielded with as much responsability as the power to take life.

 

You folks seem incapable of minding your own business.

 

Like I said, Roe v. Wade should have nixed all laws banning abortion.

You guys sure care about a lot your rights to carry a firearm, speak your mind, and pray to your Imaginary Friend, but you don't give a damn about a woman's right to control her own body.

 

Yeah, I know—if the woman is dying, you'll cut her some slack.

It's her body. She's not accountable to you.

There never was a trend to late-term abortions.

Yeah, get rid of abortion laws.

 

Fake news. Roe never did that.

Do you support a woman's right to engage in prostitution if she so chooses?

 

Fine. We'll get rid of all churches in most states and you can exercise your rights by catching a flight to Mississippi.

Oh, and you can exercise your gun rights in Mississippi, too, and nowhere else. Gun-grabbers can go to work in the other 49 states.

We can go pack the Court with an additional nine non-Catholic, pro-choice Justices and overturn Dobbs v. Jackson.

Oh, please—the Five Nincompoops aren't going to overturn the ban on partial birth abortion.

The Court didn't rule out a federal law banning most abortions.

Okay, you can have your churches and guns in Alabama, too.

The best thing to do is vote out anti-abortion busybodies.

 

I take it you don't want your rights put to a vote.