I stand behind what I said. The case you brought up is super late term abortions. There are almost none of those. There is essentially NO disagreement in the USA on how those cases should be handled - which is how they ARE handled. The laws banning abortion after short periods, like 6 weeks, ignore healthcare needs of women as I've shown by citing examples. Trying to equate the two is just political BS.
First, thanks for recognizing that abortion is an issue, not a solution to all of our country's social issues. Deniers are those who tend to benefit financially from abortion. There are actual worrisome trends around sex selective abortion in the US. It is sad that US media turns a blind eye. https://ifstudies.org/blog/has-the-global-war-against-baby-girls-come-to-america
No one has said differently. No one has said it is. However, a HUGE issue is taking away women's basic right to bodily autonomy....that is definitely a "social" issue.. Who is denying what? Another topic..... However , if people see that females don't have the same rights as men (bodily autonomy) maybe that's a reason they don't want to have them..
And thus, you know Democrats are guilty of, in your words, a travesty, and an assault on the healthcare of women.
That is your very strong opinion. You sound quite incensed. Okay, but most women, who are the recipients of this law don't feel that way. They are not fighting to overturn it. They are probably more reasonable about the issue of viability. You must be even more incensed about the Republicans attitude toward abortion. They are against it....well, maybe not in every case. Is everyone a hypocrite?
This is such total BS. It is the right wing that is continuing to write laws that are increasingly harsh against the healthcare of women - harsh enough that OB/GYNs are finding it difficult to treat pregnant women for diseases and conditions that humans contract - without putting their medical licenses at risk. If the right wing promoted the law as per CA, the whole anti-abortion issue would evaporate and OB/GYNs could treat women again.
The Democrats in CA banned abortion on demand after viability - 20-24 weeks. Under the standard set by edna, they are guilty of a travesty and an assault on the healthcare of women.
Again, this is an absolutely childish argument. If the CA standard were accepted throughout the USA, the abortion issue would be GONE. — Article 1, Section 1.1 of the California Constitution.
? So you totally disagree that the Democrats are guilty of a travesty, and an assault on the healthcare of women? They are innocent.
Can you link to legislation showing that the foetus has personhood at the moment of conception And I agree that that last sentence is JPW
Something I predicted many years ago. The children of the “one child” policy will not want large families themselves
Your question illustrates your failure to understand the basic facts surrounding the subject. That aside.... As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200 (1927) ( sterilization). We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/
What? By my standards? You are not quoting me. But I know what you are trying to do. You are attempting to compare gun rights with abortion rights and demonstrate the hypocrisy of the Democrats. As I’ve said before, all rights can be “infringed” in the name of public safety/health or if they violate the rights of others. As a 2A fundamentalist you still don’t get it. With your little abortion rights, shall not be infringed scenario, should restrictions be applied because of a danger to public health or safety? No. Should restrictions be applied for violating the rights of others? Well that’s what is debated and you, as a right-winger, don’t do well with ambiguity. You like things black or white as demonstrated with 2A. My opinion, which is a common opinion, is that the fetus starts with no rights and those rights grow as it does. At the point of viability some restrictions apply because its rights have grown, but its rights will never exceed the women’s rights until birth. Continue to work overtime to own the libs.
Denying women reasonable healthcare as determined by themselves and their doctor? That's an important STATE interest? There has been a lot said in various venues, and YES much of it defies all possibility of understanding.
That's the most ludicrously false equivalency imaginable. Face it. A woman has a right to her personal healthcare decisions.
Let women have their abortions within an early reasonable timeframe, (the abortion amendment), and politicians pandering for the women vote need to get real about those timeframes. Politicians also have to back the hell off if they think the federal taxpayers should have to pay for abortions. Just say NO! Hyde Amendment YES!