Roe versus Wade off the books

[D Bone]

Hearing that California wants to make abortion legal 7 days after birth is news to this SoCal resident.

Are there people or groups quoted somewhere as wanting such a thing? Probably, but trust me when I tell you that 'making abortion legal 7 days after birth' is simply not a thing that any sane person is talking about here.

Now letting the homeless do whatever the fuck they want, now that's something that is celebrated here by our honorable and trusted servants of the public. 

[DieHardBrownsFan1]

7 days after birth?  That can't be true.  Not even for CA.

[Westside Steve]

3 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

2. The right just exists to be reactionary, and it's working. From an execution and organization standpoint Republicans are killed Democrats. Everyone was mad about CRT, then it was "groomers", now it's the leaker. Whatever keeps their base going, even if it's at best irrelevant and at worst regressing the country.

3. I'm saying the proposed law doesn't exists. No legislature is trying to make one week after birth abortions legal. The frenzy being created is from misinterpretations (willful or not) of the law and then a rage based algorithm backed by misinformation. 

4. Then we should have an actual vote on this particular issue, which we haven't. Trump winning 6 years ago doesn't mean most people support repealing of roe now. 

And yes Steve, I get how our representation based democratic system is supposed to work. But it's a fact that it doesn't always match up with the actual will of the people.

Probably wasted enough time bickering about some shit we are at least close to the same opinion of. Anyway I just had to laugh out loud at the accusations of the Republicans in your first paragraph. Absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that whatever Sam Alito had in his opinion meant that the new Supreme Court especially with Whoopi was going to overturn Roe v Wade. And it's not the Republicans that are burning down the cities now it's your people. The Biden voters, the crack pots lunatics BLM loyalists anarchists Etc IOW Democrats, the ones who this illegal act was meant to stir up.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

2 hours ago, D Bone said:

Hearing that California wants to make abortion legal 7 days after birth is news to this SoCal resident.

Are there people or groups quoted somewhere as wanting such a thing? Probably, but trust me when I tell you that 'making abortion legal 7 days after birth' is simply not a thing that any sane person is talking about here.

Now letting the homeless do whatever the fuck they want, now that's something that is celebrated here by our honorable and trusted servants of the public. 

 

2 hours ago, DieHardBrownsFan1 said:

7 days after birth?  That can't be true.  Not even for CA.

 

 

 

It isn't true. 

 

But that isn't stopping morons from believing it

[jbluhm86]

 

[MLD Woody]

Some data for perspective

% of abortions by trimester:

• 1st - 92.7%
• 2nd - 6.2%
• 3rd - <1%

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm

[Vambo]

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

 

 

 

 

It isn't true. 

 

But that isn't stopping morons from believing it

"Under California AB 2223, a mother will be shielded from civil and criminal charges for any ‘actions or omissions’ related to her pregnancy," the post read. "These actions include not only abortion in any stage of pregnancy, but also ‘perinatal death.’ Perinatal death is defined as the death of a newborn up to seven days or more."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/apr/06/facebook-posts/no-california-bill-wouldnt-allow-mothers-kill-thei/

[MLD Woody]

 

 

 

If only those women were high school students the Gaetz could take across state lines and pay to have sex with him

[DieHardBrownsFan1]

10 minutes ago, Vambo said:

"Under California AB 2223, a mother will be shielded from civil and criminal charges for any ‘actions or omissions’ related to her pregnancy," the post read. "These actions include not only abortion in any stage of pregnancy, but also ‘perinatal death.’ Perinatal death is defined as the death of a newborn up to seven days or more."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/apr/06/facebook-posts/no-california-bill-wouldnt-allow-mothers-kill-thei/

Our ruling

A post claimed a proposed California bill "would allow mothers to kill their babies up to 7 days after birth."

It does not. The bill is meant to ensure that people are not investigated, prosecuted or incarcerated for ending a pregnancy, experiencing pregnancy loss or for losing a baby after it is born due to pregnancy-related causes, according to the lawmaker who introduced it.

A judge would use that legislative intent to help interpret any ambiguity in the law if it were passed.

We rate this claim False.

[Vambo]

10 minutes ago, DieHardBrownsFan1 said:

Our ruling

A post claimed a proposed California bill "would allow mothers to kill their babies up to 7 days after birth."

It does not. The bill is meant to ensure that people are not investigated, prosecuted or incarcerated for ending a pregnancy, experiencing pregnancy loss or for losing a baby after it is born due to pregnancy-related causes, according to the lawmaker who introduced it.

A judge would use that legislative intent to help interpret any ambiguity in the law if it were passed.

We rate this claim False.

"Under California AB 2223, a mother will be shielded from civil and criminal charges for any ‘actions or omissions’ related to her pregnancy," the post read. "These actions include not only abortion in any stage of pregnancy, but also ‘perinatal death.’ Perinatal death is defined as the death of a newborn up to seven days or more."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/apr/06/facebook-posts/no-california-bill-wouldnt-allow-mothers-kill-thei/

[DieHardBrownsFan1]

6 minutes ago, Vambo said:

"Under California AB 2223, a mother will be shielded from civil and criminal charges for any ‘actions or omissions’ related to her pregnancy," the post read. "These actions include not only abortion in any stage of pregnancy, but also ‘perinatal death.’ Perinatal death is defined as the death of a newborn up to seven days or more."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/apr/06/facebook-posts/no-california-bill-wouldnt-allow-mothers-kill-thei/

Wrong.

[Vambo]

15 minutes ago, DieHardBrownsFan1 said:

Wrong.

Democratic Analysis: California Bill Could Have Legalized ‘Death Of A Newborn For Any Reason,’ Including Murder 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/democratic-analysis-california-bill-could-have-legalized-death-of-a-newborn-for-any-reason-including-murder?utm_term=&utm_campaign=dw_conversions_subscriptions_performancemax_political&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=6411461344&hsa_cam=16599826472&hsa_grp=&hsa_ad=&hsa_src=x&hsa_tgt=&hsa_kw=&hsa_mt=&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gclid=CjwKCAjw682TBhATEiwA9crl30-NfMXTCFT64BuIzWISh8Qbgj9Rtb-4iewJEgjzB_gFr3Em35rt_xoCLDcQAvD_BwE

Pro-life advocates who warned a California bill could have legalized infanticide have been proven right, according to an analysis produced by the Democrat-dominated state Assembly.

California Assembly Bill 2223, introduced by Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), would have forbidden law enforcement from charging any woman for any action or inaction that affects her “pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death.” According to some analysis, the perinatal period could extend weeks after birth.

 

 

The bill has since been amended to note that for a “perinatal death” to be covered under the law, the death needed to be “due to a pregnancy-related cause.”

Critics initially warned that the bill’s overly vague language would have decriminalized infanticide — a concern they still hold, despite the revision...

[Vambo]

• 

[Axe]

"The bill has since been amended to note that for a “perinatal death” to be covered under the law, the death needed to be “due to a pregnancy-related cause.” "

 

Is "Buyers Remorse" an approved "duly related cause"? 🥴

[VaporTrail]

On 5/3/2022 at 10:46 PM, MLD Woody said:

This won't reduce abortions, it will just reduce the number of safe abortions. 

Banning ___________ won't do anything to stop _____________

I swear I have heard this logic before, but I can't quite put my trigger finger on it. 🤪

23 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

I wonder if the regression will stop here and voters will mobilize or if we will continue to move in the direction we seem to be going.

Will we get more and more divided, especially across certain states?

Would hate to be a female in any of the states about to jump backwards 50 years. What will be pulled next? What can they "states' rights" next? 

I've always been pro-choice. Still am. However, I'm more and more starting to understand the states' rights side of the argument. The overall poll numbers skew toward the cities, which heavily lean liberal. I don't want policies that the average New Yorker wants to dictate what the average Clevelander gets. Giving rights to the states is a beautiful compromise baked into the Constitution. 

If Roe v Wade got overturned tomorrow, blue states would loosen abortion laws, while red states would restrict them. Across the country, I feel like this would average out. While it's economically retarded to ban abortions, the states should retain the right to do so. Personally, I am okay with that tradeoff if it means less coastal voters moving here to escape the policies that they voted in. I don't want to move to a state with draconian gun laws, and coastal snoots don't want to live in states with draconian abortion laws. 

[Ibleedbrown]

I generally try to look at the big picture and gauge how policy will influence life as we know it over time. I’m not really a “life is precious” kinda guy. There aren’t too many of us that are irreplaceable. The important thing is that we make a positive impact with the time that we do have. 

I get the immoral argument over abortion, and even though l’m not a “life is previous” dude, l can see how disheartening it is to snuff out potential. Who knows, that fetus coulda been the person who found a cure for cancer.

But that fetus could also be the person who steals your car 20 years from now. And really, if l was a betting man, if a woman is so desperate to not bring a child into the world that she is considering abortion, how good of an upbringing do you think that kid will have if she is forced to bear it? I’m guessing her familial support system sucks, and her mental and emotional foundation is lacking.

I think it’s fair to say that any woman willing to get an abortion is going to have an uphill battle in being a parent. I love a good “against all odds” success story as much as the next guy, but l’m pretty sure statistics will show that kids brought up by parents that are unable or unwilling to provide a certain baseline level of physical and emotional support for the child are going to have a higher likelihood of being a burden on society. It’s awful to say, but in some instances getting an abortion may be for the greater good. 

If you consider that both time and money are resources, and that it takes a considerable amount of both to healthily raise a child, if the parent(s) and/or family are lacking in either then the burden to make up the difference falls on the collective we. So by lobbying to eliminate abortion, you are basically volunteering all of us to carry a greater load in raising all the future unwanted babies, which will most likely take the form of more taxes and government involvement. 

[Vambo]

9 minutes ago, Ibleedbrown said:

I generally try to look at the big picture and gauge how policy will influence life as we know it over time. I’m not really a “life is precious” kinda guy. There aren’t too many of us that are irreplaceable. The important thing is that we make a positive impact with the time that we do have. 

I get the immoral argument over abortion, and even though l’m not a “life is previous” dude, l can see how disheartening it is to snuff out potential. Who knows, that fetus coulda been the person who found a cure for cancer.

But that fetus could also be the person who steals your car 20 years from now. And really, if l was a betting man, if a woman is so desperate to not bring a child into the world that she is considering abortion, how good of an upbringing do you think that kid will have if she is forced to bear it? I’m guessing her familial support system sucks, and her mental and emotional foundation is lacking.

I think it’s fair to say that any woman willing to get an abortion is going to have an uphill battle in being a parent. I love a good “against all odds” success story as much as the next guy, but l’m pretty sure statistics will show that kids brought up by parents that are unable or unwilling to provide a certain baseline level of physical and emotional support for the child are going to have a higher likelihood of being a burden on society. It’s awful to say, but in some instances getting an abortion may be for the greater good. 

If you consider that both time and money are resources, and that it takes a considerable amount of both to healthily raise a child, if the parent(s) and/or family are lacking in either then the burden to make up the difference falls on the collective we. So by lobbying to eliminate abortion, you are basically volunteering all of us to carry a greater load in raising all the future unwanted babies, which will most likely take the form of more taxes and government involvement. 

Well we are supporting every other countries mis-fits and their offspring now...if we close the border we could use those funds to raise and support the babies instead of aborting them.

Then maybe we should keep the baby and abort the parent odds are better the baby will make better decisions.

[Vambo]

     <--Dec. 2021

[Westside Steve]

11 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Some data for perspective

% of abortions by trimester:

• 1st - 92.7%
• 2nd - 6.2%
• 3rd - <1%

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm

Yeah and? You're usually the guy wanting to rewrite the entire legal system for the .001% of crazy people?

WSS

[MLD Woody]

On 5/5/2022 at 11:52 PM, VaporTrail said:

Banning ___________ won't do anything to stop _____________

I swear I have heard this logic before, but I can't quite put my trigger finger on it. 🤪

I've always been pro-choice. Still am. However, I'm more and more starting to understand the states' rights side of the argument. The overall poll numbers skew toward the cities, which heavily lean liberal. I don't want policies that the average New Yorker wants to dictate what the average Clevelander gets. Giving rights to the states is a beautiful compromise baked into the Constitution. 

If Roe v Wade got overturned tomorrow, blue states would loosen abortion laws, while red states would restrict them. Across the country, I feel like this would average out. While it's economically retarded to ban abortions, the states should retain the right to do so. Personally, I am okay with that tradeoff if it means less coastal voters moving here to escape the policies that they voted in. I don't want to move to a state with draconian gun laws, and coastal snoots don't want to live in states with draconian abortion laws. 

Ah, love it. 

I would say this:

If we could ban and magically remove every gun (or a certain type of gun) it would eliminate gun violence (or violence related to that certain type of gun), which would be the point of something like that. The means for specifically gun violence (or specifically that type of gun violence) would no longer be there. 

If we could ban all abortion doctors, clinics, etc (which is essentially what is potentially about to happen in some areas of the country) it wouldn't actually stop all abortions. The means for an abortion are still there, just dangerous and unsafe means. 

They're not exactly apples to apples. 

 

 

About 61 percent of Ohio voters agree with the Roe v. Wade decision while 32 percent oppose it.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/07/26/poll-ohio-voters-support-roe-v-wade-oppose-heartbeat-bill-abortion-ban/1835333001/

 

Ohio – with 51.3% of likely voters who believed abortion should be legal all or most of the time, compared to 38.4% who thought it should be illegal all or most of the time – is not the only Great Lakes State with such views. Majorities in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin also said abortion should be legal.

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/10/despite-ohio-laws-limiting-abortion-majority-of-voters-think-abortion-should-remain-legal-poll-shows.html

 

My biggest concern with that state's rights angle on some of this is how "representatives" can be anything but. 

Shit, just look at all of the gerrymandering going on in Ohio. 

I think objectively Republicans are a more efficient and effective political party than Democrats. Throw in corruption and corporate interests (either way) and you have a system that isn't always following the will of the people. Moreso on a country wide level and not just state level, but it can still exist there too. 

Or political system as a whole needs some work. But that work challenges the status quo and people on both sides that benefit from how things are. So it'll be very hard to get over the hump and ever make that change. I think you can recognize the issues with the government, media, etc without going full blown Q...

 

If we do go full "state's rights" it will be interesting (if that's the best word) to see how certain states just drift further and further apart. 

And it's looking like it will be more than just red states banning abortions. Talk of them banning medications to enduce abortions or even making it illegal to travel to another state for one (though, again, I'm sure it's still perfectly fine for the daughter of a wealthy republican to "go on a vacation" when needed). 

 

Draconian gun laws to just us apparently but not the rest of the developed world. Fun little American quirk I guess. 

 

[Westside Steve]

15 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Ah, love it. 

I would say this:

If we could ban and magically remove every gun (or a certain type of gun) it would eliminate gun violence (or violence related to that certain type of gun), which would be the point of something like that. The means for specifically gun violence (or specifically that type of gun violence) would no longer be there. 

If we could ban all abortion doctors, clinics, etc (which is essentially what is potentially about to happen in some areas of the country) it wouldn't actually stop all abortions. The means for an abortion are still there, just dangerous and unsafe means. 

They're not exactly apples to apples. 

 

 

About 61 percent of Ohio voters agree with the Roe v. Wade decision while 32 percent oppose it.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/07/26/poll-ohio-voters-support-roe-v-wade-oppose-heartbeat-bill-abortion-ban/1835333001/

 

Ohio – with 51.3% of likely voters who believed abortion should be legal all or most of the time, compared to 38.4% who thought it should be illegal all or most of the time – is not the only Great Lakes State with such views. Majorities in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin also said abortion should be legal.

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/10/despite-ohio-laws-limiting-abortion-majority-of-voters-think-abortion-should-remain-legal-poll-shows.html

 

My biggest concern with that state's rights angle on some of this is how "representatives" can be anything but. 

Shit, just look at all of the gerrymandering going on in Ohio. 

I think objectively Republicans are a more efficient and effective political party than Democrats. Throw in corruption and corporate interests (either way) and you have a system that isn't always following the will of the people. Moreso on a country wide level and not just state level, but it can still exist there too. 

Or political system as a whole needs some work. But that work challenges the status quo and people on both sides that benefit from how things are. So it'll be very hard to get over the hump and ever make that change. I think you can recognize the issues with the government, media, etc without going full blown Q...

 

If we do go full "state's rights" it will be interesting (if that's the best word) to see how certain states just drift further and further apart. 

And it's looking like it will be more than just red states banning abortions. Talk of them banning medications to enduce abortions or even making it illegal to travel to another state for one (though, again, I'm sure it's still perfectly fine for the daughter of a wealthy republican to "go on a vacation" when needed). 

 

Draconian gun laws to just us apparently but not the rest of the developed world. Fun little American quirk I guess. 

 

Regardless of how many people say in a poll that they support grow v Wade I would imagine that only a tiny fraction of them have any idea under which circumstances and within which parameters the ruling was written. And even if they did have a small understanding I bet that most would spin their answer toward one political side or the other. By the way I'm not claiming to but at the very least I understand that one of the concept was related to average time viability outside the womb which with modern medical techniques has changed. There could be more. Maybe the doc knows.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Roe vs Wade?

 

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.

 

 for instance, I am guessing that the word excessive, as vague is it may be, would relate to things like late-term or partial birth abortion when it's obvious the fetus has an excellent chance of survival. As opposed to the first trimester? What would be the chances of survival at what point today as opposed to when the law was written?

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan1]

One thing I've learned is polls are bullshit.

[MLD Woody]

2 hours ago, DieHardBrownsFan1 said:

One thing I've learned is polls are bullshit.

Only if you disagree with them through, right?

[DieHardBrownsFan1]

3 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Only if you disagree with them through, right?

No, as evidenced by past elections (Trump/Clinton) etc.

[Axe]

[Canton Dawg]

[Tour2ma]

On 5/3/2022 at 5:10 AM, Westside Steve said:

I'm absolutely positive that whatever happens here will be misunderstood and misreported as people on both sides freak the fuck out.

Well predicted...

We can start with your thread title as exhibit A.

Self-fulling much?

[Vambo]

 

[Westside Steve]

55 minutes ago, Tour2ma said:

Well predicted...

We can start with your thread title as exhibit A.

Self-fulling much?

Like I said in the OP.

And it was from Politico which, while left-leaning, isn't as bad as if I'd found one from the Atlantic Time or Salon.

Frankly I don't care all that much whether it's repealed or not.

WSS