Democracy is the best there is. It's just that the people are not particularly guided to support people's rights. You can see that in our long history of civil rights problems. Today we have significant populations who are not interested in rights of women to personal bodily autonomy - even though the majority of Americans are so interested. Today we have OB/GYNs who have to read women's healthcare law and decide whether the state prosecutor could go after their career if they treat their patient. As one example, a patient needed to have a dying fetus removed in order to assure HER live and maintain her ability to procreate. That was denied. Do you think Texas voters understood that was what they were voting for? Do you think Indiana voters knew they were voting to deny a 10yo rape victim judged to be in significant health risk of continuing the pregnancy?
None of this prevents STDs which are at historic highs. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2023/s0411-sti.html
Hardly. Democracy is 2 wolfs and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. There are lots of democratic processes that are great. But democracy itself does nothing towards maintaining a rule of law.
Nope, I denonsense that Democratic Party's version of Democracy in favor of tree representative republic we've had since the Revolution.
Define the "democracy" you're empbracing. We don't have a democracy in the USA, we have a representative republic at best. Problem is there are potential third parties involved - the fetus; which has a fair chance of becoming a human being. Then the state has to clarify the law. And that leads to states working on clarifying the law, not throwing up your hands and whining.
Actually no. Health of the woman, and/or health of the offspring accounts for more decisions about abortion than promiscuity does.
Whether a specific fetus has a chance of becoming a human being is an opinion of medicine. Whether the fetus is a risk to the life of the woman is also an opinion of medicine - either directly (such as a dying fetus) or indirectly (as treatment for various diseases is incompatible with pregnancy). OB/GYNs must limit their services in order to not lose their right to practice - their livelihood in which they have so seriously invested. So, they have to stay well away from decisions that could be assaulted by prosecutors and the legal world. So, OB/GYNs must compare the medical needs of a patient and how an aggressive prosecutor might interpret the law. This is a reason that OB/GYNs are in dwindling supply in TN, OK, TX, ID, etc. The result is that woman are finding it harder to get OB/GYN care, regardless of the abortion question, given the laws like these states are creating.
Single mother's are making up more than 50% of all abortions. Medical conditions are a minority of all abortions. https://www.statista.com/statistics...tions-by-marital-status-in-the-us-since-1973/
As per above, these laws on abortion have the affect of reducing the availability of OB/GYN care. Treating women in need with aggressive prosecutors and laws written by legislators looking over the doctor's work is problematic.
I thought that reducing access was good because that was what abortion rights groups are already doing. So confusing. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...n-effort-to-target-pregnancy-resource-centers
Nope. I states those trying to use those arguments are whiners. Or system allows states to respond to their states laws, AND if they find them dangerous or unsatisfactory, to alter them.
I addressed all this earlier. It's up to each state to pass the legislation IT'S VOTERS find acceptable.
Bottom line - all 50 states are now empowered to create an abortion body of law that suits the suites the state's population
True. We don't have an explicit right to personal bodily autonomy. Here, what we have is poorly informed legislatures and voters.
By claiming that standing firm for the rights of citizens is denouncing democracy, with an implication that you are supporting democracy, you then indicate that supporting democracy means not supporting the rights of citizens. Your words convey that you feel democracy take precedent over rights.
I only posted once. Why you felt the need to respond a second time and as if I had posted the same thing again, is beyond me.
One where rule of law and rights take precedence over the will of the majority. In a democracy, we could vote slavery back in. Under rule of law and individual rights, we could not vote it back in even if 95% of the country wanted to. Now show me where that constitution states that we are a democracy.
