Ohio passes Issue 1 ballot measure enshrining abortion protections

No sorry but what is happening in America has happened elsewhere. The “Anti-choice” people know full well that if a medical exception is included in any statute restricting abortion then the statute becomes less useful than over thin toilet paper. As for “using abortion as birth control” is rare rare rare and usually the woman is suffering Münchausen syndrome. For starters abortion is a bloody sight more expensive than even the most expensive contraception, is invasive ( even the medical abortions carry discomfort and way more inconvenience than a LARC)

 

No, there isn't a rule. But when candidates to be justices on the court, when asked, state their respect for stare decisis, and all their verbiage, weighting it up, giving us the distinct impression they will honor stare decisis with respect to Roe, it makes it particularly egregious that they did not, when the first opportunity arose. And no, when parsing their words, those arguments
which go: " if you do a strict analysis of their words ,they didn't actually say they wouldn't shoot down Roe", while that is technically true, HOWEVER they did, most certainly, leave us with that impression, clearly, and they did it in order to facilitate their confirmation. I don't see any rebuttal, to be honest.

Not at issue. Doesn't get them off the hook for misleading the Senate on stare decisis with respect to Roe.

And, yes, they did mislead the Senate, at least they did for the Democratic Senators who voted to confirm them, and same goes for Alito.

Not at issue. No Republican Senate is going to allow Democrats to encode something like Roe in law. Moreover, the conservative justices knew this. Therefore, the view that 'well, let congress come up with a law', is a disingenuous argument.

It will take decades to reverse a 6/3 conservative court. I don't buy the latter argument, a right, once granted, and taken away, should never
have been left up to the states, look at the chaos that is emerging from Dobbs, with 10 states banning abortion even in rape/incest cases, where a 10 year old girl had to travel to another state to get a rape caused pregnancy aborted,.

No, the problem you're having now, is that it is now for Republicans, who have to face an electorate of whom 60% were not happy with the Dobbs decision, and for that, Republicans are going to pay.

And now I direct you to my sig, below:

"I did something that no one thought was possible; I got rid of Roe v Wade" --Donald Trump

You know, the fellow who will be the likely Republican nominee?

I'll see y'all at the ballot box.

 

Ahhhh the so called “pro-life” argument



If you are going to insist every conceptus is brought to birth then you have to be prepared to have that baby cared for - will you fund it though?

 

Note the inability of the so called “pro-life” side to even suggest let alone put in place strategies to reduce abortion in the first place. The single biggest one is fund LARCs. Make Long Acting Reversible contraception free

 

Fair if it hadn't already been clarified many times before.

 

It's about as inane as your equating someone having an abortion is a baby killer.

You reap what you sew .

 

Nothing. They are not yet a being having done any sort of act.
It requires some kind of act to be innocent or guilty.

 

when you ask someone how they're going to rule on something before they hear any arguments you're not going to get the same answer you would after the arguments and necessarily.

I don't care what they said before they heard the case it doesn't matter.

what hook are they on?

or they heard compelling arguments. You have to show that their intention was to overrule before the case even came to them.

might have to compromise.

or they realized rvw violated the 10th amendment.

so use the legislative branch.

convince them to compromise. If you can't step aside and let someone else do it.

I would say take a different tact than the standard hooping and hollering and carrying about pregnant 10-year-olds because that's just emotional pleading try focusing on what most abortions really are.

And you might have to swallow a little bit of your pride but if it's really about right then the pride should be last.

I agree with you this extreme shift might cost the Republicans or it might help them. But I think they're wrong on this. It's really about the compromise and the constituents. You shouldn't assume that everyone's pro-choice. Think there should be limitations on abortion are for life.

I'm personally conflicted. I can see a good argument on both sides. I'm glad I'm not tasked with deciding.

Well if this will probably be a good thing for him considering the voters that vote for him I'm sure he appreciates your campaign.

I think people make the assumption that everybody agrees with them or would agree with him except for don't know anything you're not hearing the argument or something of that nature.

That's not the case there are some people that would love Trump that will light candles for him for this. There are some people that will see him as a hero. There are pro life people. Many of them women. And I've heard all about how they're just trying to control and that's a funny thing to say and it might get you some cheers from the people that already agree with you but it's not going to convince them they know why they are pro life. And it's not just because they're evil bastards or whatever.

 

Nope, the free choice when the person is of age to have the child. Pick an agreed on social age and go from there, finance, productivity, education and ability to care for their child without governmental assistance..

 

Are you saying we don't now? Therein is the problem, clearly American pay "in most cases" to have them aborted and in foster care..

So if society pays either way society must have a say in it.. I hardly think Americans were thinking their taxes would eventually be used to abort babies.. At least I never thought so and I'm relatively young as a taxpayer..

MPO, I hardly feel it's my resouncibilty to pay for something that can be avoided with some common sense.

 

But abortion isn’t. You can thank the conservative justices for giving the power to decide back to the people. It helps to stay on topic so no one is confused about we are talking about.

 

Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me. How does it relate to my comment? My point was that the 'temporary sterilisation' (if such a thing exists and is safe) should be not compulsory, but a matter of choice, as with any other reproductive control......

 

Disingenuous...you could pick many, many health issues and claim correctly that they could "be avoided with some common sense". Do you rail about those...?

 

Sure it does, read it again with an open mind.

In fact, it makes better sense than,

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/publications/sterilisation-girls-and-young-women-australia

Agreed?

 

Absolutely, and we could address them all, but we are discussing abortion, correct?

 

I may have missed it, but I don't recall anyone here complaining about funding for treatment for various cancers, for diabetes, for heart disease, etc, to the same extent they do about abortion...

 

You're having trouble focusing on the topic. In fact, you're all over the place.. Again, the topic is abortion, try and focus on that. If you'd like, create another thread of you choice and maybe I'll grace it with my presence, or maybe not

 

that is correct. They refuse to state that human life is snuffed.

 

you keep dodging. THe question is quite simple. Of those who get an abortion, how many do you think want the baby to remain alive? Yes, it puts you in an uncomfortable position to have to either A, continue to dodge or B- admit that the human life is killed

 

you can use the word "choice" when the baby is given the choice to be killed or to live

 

Actually it is protected, its spelled liberty.
Just as the word gun isnt in the constitution its protected under "arms", body autonomy is liberty.

 

Okay, the time now is for the truth. The charade must end. I've been pulling your leg all along, in the hopes you'd catch it, but, clearly, the
reason I asked you that question, it appears, you haven't caught on and it's clear you never will.

So, it looks like I'll just have to explain it to you.

You see.......

No, because what is lost on you is the fact that it was a rhetorical question.

A rhetorical question isn't really a question, it's a statement in question form that isn't seeking an answer.

You see, I was poking fun at your incessant sloppiness in your language. A fact which I've made clear to you many times in the past.

 

The whole point is honesty. Their answers were not honest. If they are asked a question they cannot answer, they should merely state it, and move on to the next question. Clearly, they answered a question regarding stare decisis and were not honest in their answer.

The dishonesty hook

Your rebuttal lacks clarity given that it is written in the second person when it should be written in the third. Please clarify precisely
what it is you are trying to communicate, because, as written, you haven't actually negated the comment to which you just replied.

There has never been 10 or so Republicans (enough to comprise a veto proof bill) who would compromise on an abortion bill. Every abortion bill passed in the house was filibustered by Republicans in the senate. A filibuster simply means they won't negotiate, which means they refuse to compromise.

No, because the 10th amendment merely says if there is nothing in the constitution about it, the states get to make laws on it. The Supreme Court had 50 years of upholding Roe. When a principle of 'right to privacy and a penumbra right thereon is upheld' thus it is ruled on, and upheld by the Supreme court for 50 years by a court majority consisting of both right leaning and left leaning justices, it is 'constitutional' by virtue of the ruling upheld for 50 years, You see, 'constitutional', given the weight of that kind of precedence, it therefore equals 'in the constitution', and thus your point becomes moot,.

The de facto truth here is that a right, once granted for some 50 years, was taken away, and for that, Republicans will pay at the ballot box.

Why?

"I did something that no one thought was possible; I got rid of Roe v Wade" --Donald Trump

That's why.

Please reread the comment. What reverses a 6/3 court? the Senate. What did I just say?

"it will take decades to reverse a 6/3 court'.

is not the Senate part of that 'legislative branch"?

See the problem?

Your cavalier attitude ignores the reality of the challenge of achieving a veto proof senate because history reveals that
Republicans in the Senate are not into compromising on abortion,. They filibuster all abortion bills.

Why do they do this? Because if one passes, the electorate will be happy, and if that happens, they will vote for more democrats and Repubs in the senate will not let that happen.

And when Democrats are confronted with 'why didn't you do something about it' someone says, well, just elect someone who will
persuade the republicans in the senate to compromise.

Yeah, like it's that easy as your cavalier attitude which is utterly oblivious to reality implies,.

Well, in that case, you just ruined a girl's life. But, in your book, dems are 'hootin' and hollerin' about saving her life from ruin.

Well, if that's what it takes, at least someone is hooting and hollering about the injustice of Republicans.

Well swallow this: You cavalierly ruin a girl's life and you're okay with it.

Yeah, 'let someone else do it'. Pass the buck, it's easy for you in the peanut gallery to criticize Democrats, but you are glad you are not tasked with the deciding. You see that there is blood no matter which way you vote. If you vote for dems, you believe the blood of a fetus is the blood of murder. If you don't vote with dems, then you have the blood of young women who lost their lives from DIY abortions, the result of your anti-abortion bills.

Well, the only way you can make that claim is that you are someone who chooses not to vote.

If that is true, then you have no right to complain or criticize, in my view.

But, if you are someone who votes, then you are tasked with deciding, your vote is that decision. Whichever way you vote, there will be blood. Because, on that very point, there is no escape.

I doubt it will be good for Trump, or republicans who voted for him. I'm sure won't appreciate our campaign. In fact, Trump is on record expressing remorse over his justices whom he appointed being responsible for shooting down Roe, so he knows it will be bad for Republicans.

Your sentence is incoherent, as written.

No one is saying they are evil. Some are saying they are easy to manipulate. Some are saying that Trump knows this ("I love the low educated") and that is why he is doing it because it was an easy path to power, perhaps his only path to power because Democrats would never have nominated a man like Trump. For that reason, others are saying that Trump is evil. Others are saying that Trump is a con man extraordinaire.

They are correct.

 

So you thought that intentionally miscommunicating your thoughts would make my post appear sloppy? Interesting. If you will excuse me, I have to cover myself in mud and call people dirty.

 

I am not dodging. I am not going to guess why any person does anything.
It's absolutely pointless making assumptions. It serves no purpose.

It's the woman's choice to continue a pregnancy or not. There's a 100M reasons why 1 may want to end or continue it.
You don't own any woman's body. You don't get a voice in her decision. Period.