And, you advocate government controlling the bodies of citizens, ignoring very real and serious issues of health.
What control is being exerted here? It's the same argument that government shouldn't be advocating transgenderism, is it not? Which way do you want it on these issues? Does government have a compelling reason for inserting itself into indoctrinating children to discover their gender dysphoria as you and others have advocated for, but not when attempting to keep a woman from harming her unborn child? That seems antithetical, but I'm sure you're going to reconcile it for me, right? The inconsistencies of the modern progressive mind. So many contradictory positions, how do you ever manage to keep them all straight? Or perhaps that's the real observation. Ya'll don't feel the need to ever be consistent, just judgy and demanding...
Fake News. States have a right to regulate abortion as long as the regulation has a rational basis. Are you arguing that there is no rational basis for Dobbs?
Assuming I have a 'party' is probably a part of the problem, hmm? And if you read through some of the posts of people on here, there are several who do 'promote' it in lieu of.
In fact, most American are pro-choice. An outright ban on all abortions is not going to happen. Voters will not support such legislation. “But as the country approaches what could be a watershed moment in the history of abortion laws and policies, relatively few Americans on either side of the debate take an absolutist view on the legality of abortion – either supporting or opposing it at all times, regardless of circumstances.” “Nearly one-in-five U.S. adults (19%) say that abortion should be legal in all cases, with no exceptions. Fewer (8%) say abortion should be illegal in every case, without exception. By contrast, 71% either say it should be mostly legal or mostly illegal, or say there are exceptions to their blanket support for, or opposition to, legal abortion.” PEW RESEARCH, America’s Abortion Quandary, A majority of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, but many are open to restrictions; many opponents of legal abortion say it should be legal in some circumstances, MAY 6, 2022. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/
Government absolutely is NOT "advocating transgenderism". That doesn't even make sense. Government DOES look for tolerance - rather than white supremacism.
Rational basis is only one criterion. And yes, there is no rational basis for the government to attempt to control a woman's body.
I've said nothing to imply or depend on your party. I've argued the issue, noting that Republicans ARE the ones who back your position that government SHOULD control women's bodies - a stupid idea even if you ignore the Republican disastrous track record on EVERY aspect of healthcare in America, including pregnancy.
These polls ignore that actual laws that result from the Republican interpretation of these numbers. They ignore aspects such as rape and incest entirely - as if those raped and victims of incest don't matter AT ALL. In the past, they have ignored circumstances that can be fatal to women - to the point that it took the courts to counter such law. They offer healthcare as if it is product that you don't get if you can't afford it - leaving women in desperate circumstances when pregnant. Etc. Even when you leave out the actual fact of what Republicans really want, the numbers still favor Choice.
If the Draft opinion is the final majority opinion then the rational basis standard is the one that will be used. Do you find laws against prostitution also irrational?
I'm simply exploring your claim that there is no rational basis for government to regulate what a woman does with body. Your views are simply your views, you have nothing to apologise for whether you support a woman's right to engage in prostitution, or if you view a prohibition as a rational state regulation.
Nah, you don't get to just ignore what government does. This progressive administration is all about the stamping out of tolerance and replacing it with only their BS. The ministry of truth, HHS policy on transgenderism, Federal prison directives, etc. Too many examples now of this behavior for you to demand we ignore it. Here's a test then. If government just wanted to have us be tolerant, why are they pushing funding for transitioning minors again? Making it public health policy and all. Do you deny this is happening?
The polls show that very few Americans, Republicans or Democrats want an absolute ban on abortions. Just 8% will support that kind of legislation. What happens to politicians who defy 92% of the electorate? “Nearly one-in-five U.S. adults (19%) say that abortion should be legal in all cases, with no exceptions. Fewer (8%) say abortion should be illegal in every case, without exception. By contrast, 71% either say it should be mostly legal or mostly illegal, or say there are exceptions to their blanket support for, or opposition to, legal abortion.” One thing you can count on -- any laws passed regulating abortions will be very popular in the states where they are passed and signed into law.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Ok, some say RvW was a bad law....but it stayed for 50 years and protected women from those who want them punished.... Can't be all bad, maybe badly written so it should be rewritten to further strengthen women's right to their own bodies and protect them from those who see women only as broodstock..
""many opponents of legal abortion say it should be legal in some circumstances, MAY 6, 2022."" ....which is completely illogical. WHY do opponents of abortion want it banned?
Roe did not protect women. “Casual observers of the Supreme Court who came to the Law School to hear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak about Roe v. Wade likely expected a simple message from the longtime defender of reproductive and women’s rights: Roe was a good decision. Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her thoughtful, nuanced approach to difficult legal questions were not surprised, however, to hear her say just the opposite, that Roe was a faulty decision. For Ginsburg, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since. Ginsburg and Professor Geoffrey Stone, a longtime scholar of reproductive rights and constitutional law, spoke for 90 minutes before a capacity crowd in the Law School auditorium on May 11 on “Roe v. Wade at 40.” “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights. “Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”” The University of Chicago The Law School, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit, Meredith Heagney, May 15, 2013. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/j...s-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit
FoxHastings said: ↑ ""many opponents of legal abortion say it should be legal in some circumstances, MAY 6, 2022."" ....which is completely illogical. WHY do opponents of abortion want it banned? THIS is from YOUR post, why can't you address it? ""many opponents of legal abortion say it should be legal in some circumstances, MAY 6, 2022."" ....which is completely illogical. WHY do opponents of abortion want it banned?""""""""" IF you do not want to answer those 'awkward " questions then don't post things pertaining to them
Doesn't change a word of my: FoxHastings said: ↑ Ok, some say RvW was a bad law....but it stayed for 50 years and protected women from those who want them punished.... Can't be all bad, maybe badly written so it should be rewritten to further strengthen women's right to their own bodies and protect them from those who see women only as broodstock..""""
It isn't. If Roe V Wade and Casey are overturned the issue of abortion is returned to state elected representatives where it belongs.
YOU are one who is working to stamp out tolerance. The LAST thing you want is for government to get the heck out of the pants of citizens. You should whip out your dictionary and look up "tolerance".
I'm still trying to figure out when 'control' over the subject of abortion going from Federal to State means it will be banned. Is California going to ban abortion? I recall in the not too distant past, an attempt by the current Federal administration to mandate injections into the bodies of all people via employers. If that is not a 'control' issue, then moving something from the Federal government to the State government wouldn't be a 'control issue either. And a few years before that, we were 'given' the PPACA, which mandated people MUST carry insurance policies approved by the federal government, and no other, regardless of their need. Of the coverages that MUST be contained in those policies. And enforced through the employer, or face stiff fines and penalties. Were those 'Republican' policies? While neither side of the duopoly has the best interests of the actual American citizens at heart, removing the decision regarding pregnancy from Federal to State, IMO, provides voters with MORE leverage to have the State abide by it's voters demands.
