Kansas voters block effort to ban abortion in state constitutional amendment vote

Perfect, the SCJ made the correct call, the will of the people rules!

 

I have always stated, if it's the will of the people, the states will reflect it! The SCJ made the right call and congratulations Kansas, a shining light and example of what the United states was founded on

 

See post 352

 

Don't fear the women's vote, it's gonna be silent but deadly in Nov. Toto approved

 

Doubt it But we all need something to get us thru this cluster **** of a President, so you hold tight to that

 

Fear is a visceral response and many in Trump's flock are chronic projectionists. The women's vote is going to be epic in Nov.

 

Yup, and I can recognize desperation when I read it too

 

I'm curious if you could quantify that: How many women do you believe are going to vote in November? What would qualify as "epic" versus "meh" in your opinion?

 

Inalienable rights does not include the infringement of another's inalienable rights though. The baby has no right to another's womb.

 

I would go further to say that none of us have any real rights if any of our number can be denied the right of bodily autonomy.

 

Especially projected by trump sycophantic supporters. The women will be heard soon.

 

Well, i think you are asking a question that is based on future events and I will say this, the only party curtailing 50%+ percent of the American female pop are the R appointed SCOTUS judge and controlled states. If I were female )), the Rs would be toast. We shall see soon enough if the Nov vote will become a one issue vote.

 

I'm just wondering how you'll judge if you were right or wrong about this prediction. Is it just as simple as if the D's hold the House or not (because they're not going to)? Something else you'll be looking at? Limiting their losses to 20-or-so seats or something? Would that represent an "epic" women's vote in your eyes?

 

Simple, the sky is the limit. Why limit the damage the Rs have do to themselves. Epic is relative to circumstances.

 

It isn't that simple, and you know it.

There is an easy case to be made that pregnancy results in ANOTHER body being impacted.

 

Perhaps 'trivializing' is a bit harsh, but you did try to nullify the concept.

While your stating 'effect of law is not law', is technically correct, unless you qualify it as I have done, you are not conveying the full context, that effect of law is as effective as law, until either 1. A new law overrides it, or 2. Scotus overrides it.

That doesn't change the more salient fact that it was upheld 7-2, sustained by more court rulings, spanning 50 years. While you can argue it wasn't perfect, it was a precedent for 50 years, and the court disrespected that precedent, whereas as even a moderate conservative court would have sustained it. Now, all that those millions of women affected know is that the court, having granted a right for 50 years, took it away.

That's all that matters. Arguments to those persons affected do not matter.

No, the current court erred. Destroying stare decisis has a far worse impact on the credibility of the court than what partisans believe about Roe.

The paper to digital transition doesn't change the privacy issue. Your argument is specious.

Apparently you erred.

Works for me. "rapist bill of rights', has a nice ring to it. It's not a literal phrase, it's a political phrase to wake up folks to the extreme radical measures being taken by Republicans in some states. I hope Dems use it more often.

 

the ladies in this article are lying
That is a cheap argument.

 

People that can't take care of themselves require executors. At that point, they are incapable of exercising any legal rights, not really much of an association here.

 

Short version: Just because something has existed for 50 years, does not mean it cannot change. When an error is made in the initial opinion, then it must be corrected.

It was not law, and was never a 'right' as such other things are 'rights'.

Change happens. Sometimes it's for the better, and sometimes it's not, depending on what your (generic) perception is. I agree that it was not a Federal matter, and should be returned to the States. I am also pro-choice, and feel a woman has the right to choose, up to the point of viability.. I intensely dislike that some women treat abortion as their means of contraception, but I don't have the right to make that choice for them.

There were 50 years to attempt to codify it. No one even tried.

 

All miscarriages should be treated as accidental no matter. We had a coworder who miscarried that was due to stress at her job. Should she quit the next time she get pregnant?

And what does that say about a society that treats women more as objects than humans. It is not just abortion here, but you had people and politicians who have made statements that a woman can prevent pregnancy if she is raped, or women must obey their husbands in everything, from Ephesians 5:22-23, and so forth. Remember, women were not allowed in this country to own land, vote, and strongly discouraged to have a job if they had kids. And yet, some conservatives want to go back to those good ole days by introducing legislation to that effect. And then we have "Christians" like Greg Lock and other evangelical pastors who promote this stuff as "Biblical."

 

A person on life support should have had a medical directive or something similar to their wishes. If they have that, and that medical directive states that in the event that there is no hope to recover from the devestating illness and he is on life support, then life support should be terminated. Furthermore, if there is no medical directive, then it is usually the decision of the immediate family, to name the spouse, adult kids, and/or siblings. Again, this is a difficult decision and not one in which a person is intentionally put into a medically induced coma.

What is not talked about is in vitro fertilization, or IVF, and other medical uses of fertilized eggs If an IVF egg is destroyed that is fertilized, aka conception, isn't that abortion too?

The GOP used to be the champion of doctor-patient privilege. Now, they want the government to determine what a doctor can and cannot do beyond the normal medical ethics that physicians take seriously.

 

Yes this is what a democratic republic and rule of law looks like. What it does not look like is a Supreme Court declaring that abortion rights are in the Constitution. This is a win for freedom and federalism. Power is diffused to the states and the people. I hope the maximum amount of power and money is stripped from the federal government and returned the taxpayers/citizens of the states.

According to you, the founding fathers were fascist... as were all politicians and citizens who opposed abortion until it was legalized by 9 unelected judges a few decades back. That is bold. It is NOT fascist to let 9 unelected judges decide for the entire nation but it IS fascist to let individual states and their citizens decide. I am not sure that you understand the definition of the word fascist. Diffusing power from the national government is the absolute opposite of fascist which centralizes power and NEVER diffuses it.... at least that is my understanding.

 

Sadism personified.

Indiana lawmakers vote to keep exceptions from abortion ban

Source: AP

By ARLEIGH RODGERS and TOM DAVIES

'INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — A deeply divided Indiana House voted Thursday to keep exceptions in cases of rape or incest in a bill that would ban nearly all abortions in the state.

The Republican-dominated House voted 61-39 to defeat an amendment that would have removed those exceptions, with a majority of GOP members wanting their removal.

The House vote displayed a similar division among Republicans seen in the state Senate over exceptions for rape and incest, which remained in the bill when an attempt in the Senate last week also failed to strip those exceptions.

Republican Rep. Karen Engleman sponsored the amendment, arguing that even a child conceived in a rape or incest attack deserved a chance at life.



Indiana Republican Rep. Karen Engleman, center, yields to Democratic Rep. Ryan Hatfield, left, during a house session, Thursday, Aug. 4, 2022, in Indianapolis, when lawmakers failed to strip exceptions for rape and incest in a Senate-approved abortion ban being considered by the Indiana House. (AP Photo/Arleigh Rodgers)


Read more: https://apnews.com/article/abortion...and-politics-c66efda80ea9fcc50598d2f202a433c4
6