RIOT, ahem, Protest Season 2022 in 3, 2, xx

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

can any of the lefties here, please tell us where the constitution says that we the people, through our elected officials in the states, cannot regulate abortion as we wish? some will wish to restrict it, some will wish to provide it at will.

democracy will dictate this, if the draft holds. The left is appalled at the thought of democracy. It horrifies them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim like I’ve said if red states cared about democracy they would hold a referendum vote on abortion but they won’t their states are super gerrymander , they only care about the base voter Aka primary voter .

And are afraid it would pass .. but be sure they would disregarded it ,


McConnell Explains How He’ll Steal Another Supreme Court Pick From Another Democratic President
The Republican signals that if his party retakes the Senate, he’ll block Biden’s high court nominees in 2024—and very probably in 2023.

Yep rule of law , court precedent
All forsaken for power vis the minority
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jim like I’ve said if red states cared about democracy they would hold a referendum vote on abortion but they won’t their states are super gerrymander , they only care about the base voter Aka primary voter .

And are afraid it would pass .. but be sure they would disregarded it ,


McConnell Explains How He’ll Steal Another Supreme Court Pick From Another Democratic President
The Republican signals that if his party retakes the Senate, he’ll block Biden’s high court nominees in 2024—and very probably in 2023.

Yep rule of law , court precedent
All forsaken for power vis the minority
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Jim like I’ve said if red states cared about democracy they would hold a referendum vote on abortion but they won’t their states are super gerrymander "

Please tell us, in a statewide election/referendum, what effect gerrymandering has?

Answer - none. It makes zero difference in a statewide contest, because every vote counts the same, regardless of which district it's in.

Where do you get the idea that democrats don't gerrymander? When CT lost a congressional seat a few years ago, they re-drew the one conservative district (rural) in the state, and re-defined it to include enough of Waterbury (urban) to make it reliably blue.

Gerrymandering helps you win statewide contests. Honest to god...

"McConnell Explains How He’ll Steal Another Supreme Court Pick From Another Democratic President"

Did the democrats in the senate steal Bork's seat when they rejected him?

Why is it OK for senate democrats to block a republican nominee, but "stealing" when senate republicans block a democrat nominee?

The Biden Rule. If it was OK for Biden, it's OK for McConnell. What's good for the goose...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Yep rule of law , court precedent
All forsaken for power vis the minority
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you aware that this is hardly the first time the SCOTUS had overturned precedent?

Look up Plessy V Ferguson. There, the SCOTUS said segregation was legal. Then, 50 years later, SCOTUS reversed that in Brown V Board of Ed.

Decisions sometimes get reversed. It's not a crisis when a decision gets reversed.

[Pete F.]

It's right there next to "filibuster," after the section where it says the Supreme Court can only have nine Justices.

Before the section that limits the House to 435 members?
Or the section that prohibits DC statehood?
Or the one that says a sitting President is immune from criminal prosecution?

It would also be hard to find abortion in the constitution because it doesn’t mention woman at all nor anyone who wasn’t a white male as having rights so not the best document to look at for words like that.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Question doses anyone honestly think that if Roe is struck down and becomes a State rights issue as suggested by those on the Right ..

That those states or the anti Abortion activists are going to stop ? And go home . They will be after a National ban next

Rubio targets 'woke executives' covering travel for employees to get abortions

Sen. Marco Rubio's new bill wouldn't let employers deduct travel expenses that pay for abortion or trans care for minors

I guess this is how Republicans
respect the privacy and freedoms of companies and their employees Freedom for me not for thee because I disagree

Little Marco is appealing to you guessed the rabid MAGA base not the avg American… just like the SC
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Question doses anyone honestly think that if Roe is struck down and becomes a State rights issue as suggested by those on the Right ..

That those states or the anti Abortion activists are going to stop ? And go home . They will be after a National ban next

Rubio targets 'woke executives' covering travel for employees to get abortions

Sen. Marco Rubio's new bill wouldn't let employers deduct travel expenses that pay for abortion or trans care for minors

I guess this is how Republicans
respect the privacy and freedoms of companies and their employees Freedom for me not for thee because I disagree

Little Marco is appealing to you guessed the rabid MAGA base not the avg American… just like the SC
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"They will be after a National ban next "

My good god. The basis of the draft opinion, is that it's not a federal issue, but a state issue.

"Sen. Marco Rubio's new bill wouldn't let employers deduct travel expenses that pay for abortion or trans care for minors"

And if his constituents don't like that, they will vote him out.

"I guess..."

5 minutes ago, you guessed that gerrymandering can rig a statewide election, and you won't concede you were wrong. Maybe think a bit more, before you offer your guesses.

I'll ask you what I asked Spence, and of course he didn't answer...

do you think I'm prolife because I hate women, because I'm racist, or because I have empathy for the baby?

Your side spends 100% of its time talking about the impact to the mothers (and that's a valid point, but it's not the only point), and 0% of your time talking about the baby. Because every single one of you know, that any discussion of that side of this, makes your position look barbaric.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Little Marco is appealing to you guessed the rabid MAGA base not the avg American… just like the SC
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again, if you could translate that to human english, I'd appreciate it.

Trump got 74,000,000 votes in 2020, which is the second-most any candidate has ever gotten (not enough, obviously). None of those 74M were average Americans?

Maybe your view of what's average, is a tad askew.

[Jim in CT]

wdmso, another question…

you’re upset the court overturned precedent. Well the court has done that before, my favorite example is Plessy V Ferguson which legalized segregation, that was overturned 50 years later.

If you’re ok with that being overturned, that means you’re ok with bad rulings being overturned.

You can’t say “i support the idea of overturning precedent, but only when i like the outcome.”

Either the idea of overturning precedent is ok, or it’s not. it’s not “ok, but only when it moves us to the left. “. which is obviously your position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Since Detbuch is convinced that a fetus is a human being at conception

If the "fetus" is considered a human being, then it would be a constitutional basis.

If a fetus is a person at 6 weeks pregnant, is that when the child support starts?
Is that also when you can't deport the mother because she's carrying a U.S. citizen?
Can I insure a 6 week fetus, and collect for a miscarriage?

Maybe the radical clerics that issued the Fatwa against abortion will clarify it.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Since Detbuch is convinced that a fetus is a human being at conception

If the "fetus" is considered a human being, then it would be a constitutional basis.

If a fetus is a person at 6 weeks pregnant, is that when the child support starts?

As you can see, since you quoted it, I said "human being," not "person." Not sure how you missed that. Probably your usual twisting, lying business.

Is that also when you can't deport the mother because she's carrying a U.S. citizen?

I believe the criteria is that the baby must be "born" in the U.S.

Can I insure a 6 week fetus, and collect for a miscarriage?

Well, first you can identify as a woman, then claim you are pregnant, then work it out with and insurance agency.

Maybe the radical clerics that issued the Fatwa against abortion will clarify it.

So you need clarification?

[Pete F.]

Since Detbuch is convinced that a fetus is a human being at conception

If the "fetus" is considered a human being, then it would be a constitutional basis.

If a fetus is a person at 6 weeks pregnant, is that when the child support starts?

As you can see, since you quoted it, I said "human being," not "person." Not sure how you missed that. Probably your usual twisting, lying business.

Is that also when you can't deport the mother because she's carrying a U.S. citizen?

I believe the criteria is that the baby must be "born" in the U.S.

Can I insure a 6 week fetus, and collect for a miscarriage?

Well, first you can identify as a woman, then claim you are pregnant, then work it out with and insurance agency.

Maybe the radical clerics that issued the Fatwa against abortion will clarify it.

Originally Posted by detbuch

So you need clarification?

Now you’re claiming that a fetus is a human being but not a person?

And I’m twisting things.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

wdmso, another question…

you’re upset the court overturned precedent. Well the court has done that before, my favorite example is Plessy V Ferguson which legalized segregation, that was overturned 50 years later.

If you’re ok with that being overturned, that means you’re ok with bad rulings being overturned.

You can’t say “i support the idea of overturning precedent, but only when i like the outcome.”

Either the idea of overturning precedent is ok, or it’s not. it’s not “ok, but only when it moves us to the left. “. which is obviously your position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's your reminder that John Cornyn compared Plessy vs. Ferguson to same-sex marriage during Jackson's confirmation vote during the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's pretty clear that's going to be the next thing in the crosshairs.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here's your reminder that John Cornyn compared Plessy vs. Ferguson to same-sex marriage during Jackson's confirmation vote during the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's pretty clear that's going to be the next thing in the crosshairs.

Various things that have seemed exceedingly clear to you, have not been so.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

wdmso, another question…

you’re upset the court overturned precedent. Well the court has done that before, my favorite example is Plessy V Ferguson which legalized segregation, that was overturned 50 years later.

If you’re ok with that being overturned, that means you’re ok with bad rulings being overturned.

You can’t say “i support the idea of overturning precedent, but only when i like the outcome.”

Either the idea of overturning precedent is ok, or it’s not. it’s not “ok, but only when it moves us to the left. “. which is obviously your position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you know when it was overturned white Christians pulled their kids from public school to white only Christian ones ..

Jim like every thing , it’s not the reversal it’s the logic for the reversal

Segregation was discrimination using the current courts logic it should not have been turned over because segregation was a Traditional value in America

yet the logic suddenly changed with 3 holy rollers on the bench.. from what it was 2 years prior to their appointments coincidence? Nope

most rational people see this for what it clearly is . An emotional religious ruling not a legal one..

And if you think a National ban isn’t next .. your not paying attention


Just out Senate Republicans are working with antiabortion activists already to put together a bill banning abortion if they win control of the chamber in November’s midterm elections.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Did you know when it was overturned white Christians pulled their kids from public school to white only Christian ones ..

Jim like every thing , it’s not the reversal it’s the logic for the reversal

Segregation was discrimination using the current courts logic it should not have been turned over because segregation was a Traditional value in America

yet the logic suddenly changed with 3 holy rollers on the bench.. from what it was 2 years prior to their appointments coincidence? Nope

most rational people see this for what it clearly is . An emotional religious ruling not a legal one..

And if you think a National ban isn’t next .. your not paying attention


Just out Senate Republicans are working with antiabortion activists already to put together a bill banning abortion if they win control of the chamber in November’s midterm elections.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“it’s not the reversal”.

then why are you complaining about the reversal in so many of your posts?

“it’s the logic for the reversal”

have you stated a legal
opinion as to why the reversal is wrong? or is it legally wrong simply because you don’t like it? can you tell me, legally, why Alito draft is wrong on the law?

the leak has resulted in barricades around the scotus building, and calls
for protesting the homes of the judges. but a conservative did that, right?

Alito had to cancel public appearances because of concerns for his safety.

you going to tell us that conservatives threatened him?

last year, Schumer said justices would reap the whirlwind, pay a price, and never know what hit them, if they did things he didn’t like.

but that was ok.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

“it’s not the reversal”.

then why are you complaining about the reversal in so many of your posts?

“it’s the logic for the reversal”

have you stated a legal
opinion as to why the reversal is wrong? or is it legally wrong simply because you don’t like it? can you tell me, legally, why Alito draft is wrong on the law?

the leak has resulted in barricades around the scotus building, and calls
for protesting the homes of the judges. but a conservative did that, right?

Alito had to cancel public appearances because of concerns for his safety.

you going to tell us that conservatives threatened him?

last year, Schumer said justices would reap the whirlwind, pay a price, and never know what hit them, if they did things he didn’t like.

but that was ok.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why would you worry

Since Roe was handed down 49 years ago, "pro-lifers" in the US have committed:
-11 murders
-26 attempted murders
-4 kidnappings
-42 bombings
-667 bomb threats
-100 butyric acid attacks
-189 arsons
-663 Anthrax /bioterrorism threats
-25,000+ acts of phone harassment or hate mail
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

“it’s not the reversal”.

then why are you complaining about the reversal in so many of your posts?

“it’s the logic for the reversal”

have you stated a legal
opinion as to why the reversal is wrong? or is it legally wrong simply because you don’t like it? can you tell me, legally, why Alito draft is wrong on the law?

the leak has resulted in barricades around the scotus building, and calls
for protesting the homes of the judges. but a conservative did that, right?

Alito had to cancel public appearances because of concerns for his safety.

you going to tell us that conservatives threatened him?

last year, Schumer said justices would reap the whirlwind, pay a price, and never know what hit them, if they did things he didn’t like.

but that was ok.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But but this leak upsets you and conservatives more than Jan 6th

Alito had to cancel public appearances because of concerns for his safety. OMG now common sense is outrageous

Hang mike pence evacuate the entire capital

But but OMG they put fences up around the court.

Do you hear yourselves ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

But but this leak upsets you and conservatives more than Jan 6th

Alito had to cancel public appearances because of concerns for his safety. OMG now common sense is outrageous

Hang mike pence evacuate the entire capital

But but OMG they put fences up around the court.

Do you hear yourselves ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"But but this leak upsets you and conservatives more than Jan 6th"

When did I say that? January 6th upsets me more. Maybe not for the same reasons it upsets you, but it upsets me more.

The judges had their home addresses published on the Internet. That doesn't concern you? Alito had to cancel public appearances. Can you comment on that?

[Pete F.]

Louisiana Republicans have voted to advance a bill out of committee making abortion from the moment of fertilization a crime, in which the mother can be charged with homicide.

That makes every miscarriage a criminal investigation and it makes terminating an ectopic pregnancy murder.

Republican U.S. Senator from North Dakota Kevin Cramer says the fetus is worth losing the mother's life, says there's no exceptions.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Since Detbuch is convinced that a fetus is a human being at conception

If the "fetus" is considered a human being, then it would be a constitutional basis.

If a fetus is a person at 6 weeks pregnant, is that when the child support starts?

As you can see, since you quoted it, I said "human being," not "person." Not sure how you missed that. Probably your usual twisting, lying business.

Is that also when you can't deport the mother because she's carrying a U.S. citizen?

I believe the criteria is that the baby must be "born" in the U.S.

Can I insure a 6 week fetus, and collect for a miscarriage?

Well, first you can identify as a woman, then claim you are pregnant, then work it out with and insurance agency.

Maybe the radical clerics that issued the Fatwa against abortion will clarify it.


Now you’re claiming that a fetus is a human being but not a person?

And I’m twisting things.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm claiming that I didn't use the word "person." I specifically said "human being" because words have connotations as well as denotations. Generally, we use "human being" or "person" to connote something different. A "human being" connotes the intrinsic quality of a living being--a human. A "person" connotes the developed societal quality of that being. Generally, a person has a name, a personal societal identity, personal qualities that are developed over time as a distinctly autonomous human being who functions through society in uniquely recognizable ways.

That is why we generally don't call fetus's "persons." Doesn't mean we can't. But your use of it, in a legal context (child support) gives the "fetus" a connotative status that it has not yet achieved or developed.

But, to answer your question, "at 6 weeks pregnant, is that when the child support starts?"--yes, it can.

From Parker Bryan Family law:
"in some cases, parents may have divorced before their child was born, or they may not have been married in the first place. Both scenarios leave parents facing situations where one of them (usually the mother) is shouldering the financial responsibilities during pregnancy. In such cases, should the mother be receiving child support during her pregnancy and before the child is born? In some states, the laws have provided for such scenarios, making it a requirement that both parents must support their unborn child."

[Pete F.]

So what’s coming is not the states controlling abortion but that the Fourteenth Amendment, properly interpreted in your belief, would thereafter prohibit abortion in every state.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So what’s coming is not the states controlling abortion but that the Fourteenth Amendment, properly interpreted in your belief, would thereafter prohibit abortion in every state.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How do you think that the way I would properly interpret the 14th Amendment would prohibit aborton in every state?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How do you think that the way I would properly interpret the 14th Amendment would prohibit aborton in every state?

The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to protect people from discrimination and harm from other people. Racism is not the only thing people need protection from. As a constitutional principle, the Fourteenth Amendment is not confined to its historical origin and purpose, but is available now to protect all human beings, including all unborn human beings. The Supreme Court can define "person" to include all human beings, born and unborn. It simply chooses not to do so. Science, history and tradition establish that unborn humans are, from the time of conception, both persons and human beings, thus strongly supporting an interpretation that the unborn meet the definition of "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment. The legal test used to extend constitutional personhood to corporations, which are artificial "persons" under the law, is more than met by the unborn, demonstrating that the unborn deserve the status of constitutional personhood. There can be no "rule of law" if the Constitution continues to be interpreted to perpetuate a discriminatory legal system of separate and unequal for unborn human beings. Relying on the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court may overrule Roe v. Wade solely on the grounds of equal protection. Such a result would not return the matter of abortion to the states. The Fourteenth Amendment, properly interpreted, would thereafter prohibit abortion in every state.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Why R v W is needed from someone who lived thru an example
Pre-Roe, I was 8 yrs old. I came home from school to find my Mom lying in a puddle of blood. She was weak & asked me to call a neighbor. She was miscarrying, but the embryo would not abort. For 48 hours, she bled while doctors transfused blood, waiting. Abortions were illegal.
My Father was required to bring my little sister & I to the hospital boardroom to prove to the board there were children to consider. I will never forget standing there, watching my Father get on his knees & BEG the board to save my Mother. The embryo was not viable, & yet, it was killing my Mom. I stood in that boardroom for hours, listening to a group of old men argue about saving a woman by removing an embryo. I didn't understand what they were saying except that my Mom was going to die if they voted against an abortion.
My Father was crying. this strong man, who I had always felt so safe with, was crying because he was helpless in saving my Mom. If you don't think that affects a child, you are SO WRONG I never forgot that scene. I had so many questions, & no one to explain.
72 hours after it began, the board voted to abort the embryo & save my Mom. 72 hours of no sleep for my Dad. 72 hours of not knowing if my Mom would live.
When Roe v Wade was decided I felt such a relief that no family member would ever have to go through the grief we went through.
2 years ago, my daughter had an ectopic pregnancy. It was attached to an artery & if it burst, she would bleed to death before she could make it to an ambulance. Because of Roe, her life was saved. She did not have 72 hours for doctors to "decide" if her life was worth
I have 5 granddaughters. I shudder to think if one of them has a pregnancy that endangers their lives, that they may not be saved. We CANNOT GO BACKWARDS!!
Do you know what actually saved my Mom's life? Our family doctor was Jewish. He threatened to leave the hospital if they were going to force their "Christian" values on this Jewish doctor. The Right-wing SCOTUS are #ChristianTaliban
The @GOP have whined about "Sharia Law" as a boogey man, when they are ACTUALLY trying to FORCE their own religious beliefs on Americans. What happened to separation of church & State?? Trust me, most of them will never make it to the Pearly Gates.

It was 60 years ago, but Monday night, when this story broke, I was 8 again, and had nightmares all night. That kind of trauma never leaves a child.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Why R v W is needed from someone who lived thru an example
Pre-Roe, I was 8 yrs old. I came home from school to find my Mom lying in a puddle of blood. She was weak & asked me to call a neighbor. She was miscarrying, but the embryo would not abort. For 48 hours, she bled while doctors transfused blood, waiting. Abortions were illegal.
My Father was required to bring my little sister & I to the hospital boardroom to prove to the board there were children to consider. I will never forget standing there, watching my Father get on his knees & BEG the board to save my Mother. The embryo was not viable, & yet, it was killing my Mom. I stood in that boardroom for hours, listening to a group of old men argue about saving a woman by removing an embryo. I didn't understand what they were saying except that my Mom was going to die if they voted against an abortion.
My Father was crying. this strong man, who I had always felt so safe with, was crying because he was helpless in saving my Mom. If you don't think that affects a child, you are SO WRONG I never forgot that scene. I had so many questions, & no one to explain.
72 hours after it began, the board voted to abort the embryo & save my Mom. 72 hours of no sleep for my Dad. 72 hours of not knowing if my Mom would live.
When Roe v Wade was decided I felt such a relief that no family member would ever have to go through the grief we went through.
2 years ago, my daughter had an ectopic pregnancy. It was attached to an artery & if it burst, she would bleed to death before she could make it to an ambulance. Because of Roe, her life was saved. She did not have 72 hours for doctors to "decide" if her life was worth
I have 5 granddaughters. I shudder to think if one of them has a pregnancy that endangers their lives, that they may not be saved. We CANNOT GO BACKWARDS!!
Do you know what actually saved my Mom's life? Our family doctor was Jewish. He threatened to leave the hospital if they were going to force their "Christian" values on this Jewish doctor. The Right-wing SCOTUS are #ChristianTaliban
The @GOP have whined about "Sharia Law" as a boogey man, when they are ACTUALLY trying to FORCE their own religious beliefs on Americans. What happened to separation of church & State?? Trust me, most of them will never make it to the Pearly Gates.

It was 60 years ago, but Monday night, when this story broke, I was 8 again, and had nightmares all night. That kind of trauma never leaves a child.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you think I have not lived through an example, how about this example--my father wanted to abort me, but my mother refused to get an abortion. Given my views, you might well wish my father had had his way.

Your example is a valid reason, as has been done, to exempt a law against abortion in the case of danger to the life of the mother. But abortions on demand for varieties of convenience rather than a threat to the life of the mother presents many problems against such abortions that go beyond Christianity. You've probably heard all the arguments. Maybe not. Maybe your horrific example was too traumatic to give them any credibility.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you think I have not lived through an example, how about this example--my father wanted to abort me, but my mother refused to get an abortion. Given my views, you might well wish my father had had his way.

Your example is a valid reason, as has been done, to exempt a law against abortion in the case of danger to the life of the mother. But abortions on demand for varieties of convenience rather than a threat to the life of the mother presents many problems against such abortions that go beyond Christianity. You've probably heard all the arguments. Maybe not. Maybe your horrific example was too traumatic to give them any credibility.

they never, ever, ever talk about it from the baby’s perspective. They know that any discussion of that perspective, makes their position look monstrous. So they avoid it. And pretend that every single
abortion is a result of rape or imminent death to the mother.

I love your mom.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

As fences go up around the Supreme Court, a reminder they overruled a law that created 35ft buffer zones for abortion clinics because it “infringed on free speech”

But when it’s their own building they dont seem too worried. Huh.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Claim: There is big support for ending Roe in America.

6 in 10 U.S. adults (59%) say that abortion should be legal in most or all cases, and public opinion hasn’t shifted much in recent years.

Claim: After Roe, abortions skyrocketed.

While the rate of abortions increased significantly in the decade after Roe v. Wade, it has since decreased to below the 1973 level.

Claim: Abortion is dangerous.

Pregnancy and childbirth are far more dangerous than getting an abortion, according to data from the CDC.

Claim: People are getting abortions late in pregnancy.

Over 90% of abortions happen in the first trimester (by 13 weeks).

Claim: Fetuses feel pain early in a pregnancy.

Medical researchers agree a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until the third trimester, somewhere between 29 or 30 weeks. Despite this, 16 states have passed abortion bans based on the notion that fetuses experience pain at or around 22 weeks.

Claim: People who are religious don’t get abortions.

More than 60% of abortion patients have a religious affiliation.

crime fell roughly 20% between 1997 and 2014 due to legalized abortion. The cumulative impact of legalized abortion on crime is roughly 45%, accounting for a very substantial portion of the roughly 50-55% overall decline from the peak of crime in the early 1990s."

https://law.stanford.edu/publication...t-two-decades/

Poverty is the leading cause of crime ..


Ps I love this new conservatives argument people can still get an abortion…. So the persons who can just pay for an abortion is now expect to fly or drive and get a hotels and return trips .. these are the same people who are upset they can’t walk into a store buy a gun and walk out .. a background check is infringing on their rights

But but abortion we care so much until they are Born . Then they suit another political need welfare reforms because all these welfare queens are getting a free ride
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Claim: There is big support for ending Roe in America.

6 in 10 U.S. adults (59%) say that abortion should be legal in most or all cases, and public opinion hasn’t shifted much in recent years.

Claim: After Roe, abortions skyrocketed.

While the rate of abortions increased significantly in the decade after Roe v. Wade, it has since decreased to below the 1973 level.

Claim: Abortion is dangerous.

Pregnancy and childbirth are far more dangerous than getting an abortion, according to data from the CDC.

Claim: People are getting abortions late in pregnancy.

Over 90% of abortions happen in the first trimester (by 13 weeks).

Claim: Fetuses feel pain early in a pregnancy.

Medical researchers agree a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until the third trimester, somewhere between 29 or 30 weeks. Despite this, 16 states have passed abortion bans based on the notion that fetuses experience pain at or around 22 weeks.

Claim: People who are religious don’t get abortions.

More than 60% of abortion patients have a religious affiliation.

crime fell roughly 20% between 1997 and 2014 due to legalized abortion. The cumulative impact of legalized abortion on crime is roughly 45%, accounting for a very substantial portion of the roughly 50-55% overall decline from the peak of crime in the early 1990s."

https://law.stanford.edu/publication...t-two-decades/

Poverty is the leading cause of crime ..


Ps I love this new conservatives argument people can still get an abortion…. So the persons who can just pay for an abortion is now expect to fly or drive and get a hotels and return trips .. these are the same people who are upset they can’t walk into a store buy a gun and walk out .. a background check is infringing on their rights

But but abortion we care so much until they are Born . Then they suit another political need welfare reforms because all these welfare queens are getting a free ride
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Claim: There is big support for ending Roe in America...6 in 10 U.S. adults (59%) say that abortion should be legal "

Overturning Roe, and ending abortion, are two VERY different things. Do you not get that?

Ending Roe doesn't ban abortion. It sends the issue to the states. If 59% of the voters in a state feel strongly that they want abortion, they'll elect legislators who will allow it.

Many people think Roe was decided poorly. One's feelings about abortion, have nothing to do with whether or not Roe was decided correctly.

"But but abortion we care so much until they are Born"

There's no evidence democrats care more about people after they're born.

"Claim: People who are religious don’t get abortions."

I have never heard anyone make that claim. Have you?

"Pregnancy and childbirth are far more dangerous than getting an abortion"

To the mom, sure. To the baby, not so much.

If it gets overturned, it's going to be harder to get one for many women, no doubt. Hopefully that will incentivize people to make better choices.

[Pete F.]

The people who oppose womens right to control their own bodies fail to acknowledge that at a minimum their are other faiths that do not oppose abortion but in fact require it in some cases.
Imposing beliefs that are held by some Faiths on all Americans is unconstitutional.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device