Seems the plan is to use the new Republican majority to press for anti-abortion bills at the federal level. So much for abortion being a "states' rights" issue. The first step is to set a 20 week limit to replace the current 24 week limit. Why is that four weeks of ultimate importance? Could it be that that is when ultrasounds are done revealing fetal anomalies, thereby making abortion for that reason illegal? What's next? http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/gop-victory-sets-stage-for-antiabortion-push/ar-BBgt8Nl At the top of the agenda: legislation that would ban abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy or later, pushing the legal boundaries set by the Supreme CourtÂ’s Roe v. Wade decision. Activists on both sides of the debate are gearing up for a fight that will demonstrate the consequences of Republican gains in the 2014 election....... A nationwide survey by Quinnipiac University last month found 60% of voters would back a 20-week ban with exceptions for rape and incest victims. Thirteen states have passed 20-week bans; courts have struck down the laws in three of them. Only 1.3% of abortions occur after 21 weeks, the benchmark used by the federal agency that tracks the procedure. But abortion-rights advocates argue that the women affected are particularly vulnerable, facing personal health risks or carrying severely disabled babies. Ultrasound exams, which can reveal previously undetected abnormalities, are typically done at 20 weeks.
Come on, Grannie...you know how it works. The GOP gets elected on things like "making big cuts in spending" or "repealing Obamacare"....but they can't do those things, so they pass some anti-abortion law....which also won't pass (the President will veto it).... then they go to the "pro-lifers" in 2016 and say "Elect a GOP President and HE'll sign that bill." And even if THAT happens....the GOP knows the bill will get overturned in the courts. and the gullible "pro-lifers" keep coming back to the voting booth every 2-4 years on FALSE promises that the Republicans make to them.....much like this little round-headed boy...with the GOP as a little girl holding a footbal.
I think it should be a State's rights issue. But the federal government could still regulate abortions across state lines. In other words, abortion would only be allowed if it is legal in the State you are residing in. As for trying to regulate commerce within a State, I do not believe that is Constitutional. But then again, the federal government has, in recent decades, passed numerous laws attempting to do this very thing, and has been prosecuting people, so it seem like the Constitution is just getting left in the dust.
That doesn't square with the other things you've said about enforcing anti-abortion laws. You've supported things like "ultrasounds in airports" to "register" women as pregnant or not pregnant, before they go overseas, to determine if they got an abortion while out of the country. Now you're saying you support it being "legal in the State you are residing in".....so does that mean you'd want road-blocks at ever road out of a "pro-life" Idaho into pro-choice Washington or Oregon???
Unfortunately, this new attack on women will probably just be one of many sad and tragic acts done by the party of individual freedoms and small government. Because nothing says you believe in and respect individual rights like taking them away from a woman does. "But this is different, it's a child" they'll say. Born children would be so lucky to have that type of devotion to them, but in their ignorance they did not realize they get taken down from the pedestal and kicked to the curb by many pro-lifers when they location change out of their mother's uterus. Oh, don't you Wish you were a fetus Then they might still need us Those Republican pro-lifers who love the unborn But now we're just born children Mommy's no longer a villain And so all those pro-lifers start to get bored Wish I knew that my location Was really a vacation Because now those pro-lifers don't like me no more
Seeing how Roe v Wade was pushed based on abortions only in the first trimester and abortion fans have pushed that limit is it any wonder that some would like to hold to the original idea?
any federal bill that passes congress will be vetoed and be the center piece of the next presidential campaign. The country is vastly more Pro-choice and hate the way certain members of the GOP talk about women. All the old rhetoric will be brought up. Imagine if you will an ad showing GOP members forcing exams on women. Ask Gov. Ultrasound. This would go badly for the GOP
Where did this idea about RvW allowing abortions only in the first trimester come from? The court ruling states clearly what states may do in each trimester. While most elective abortions are done in the first trimester, later abortions are medically necessary and cannot be predicted sooner.
I was 20. I remember how it was sold on TV, the debates at the time, and the discussion among all of us. The first trimester was all that was talked about. Later than that was considered to be too brutal.
You do realize that there was no need to "sell" anything, it is a constitutional issue not subject to majority vote or opinion (other than SC justices, that is). The decision was not as controversial at the time as it has become today, since evangelical leaders decided to USE the abortion issue to make political hay.
What nonsense. Of course it was controversial then and it passed SCOTUS on very shaky constitutional grounds. Of course it had to be sold to the public since only two States in the nation had passed laws allowing abortion.
That's assuming that Republicans would actually "save lives" with their legislation.....instead of using it as a pander to its "pro-lifers"....all the time knowing it will be overturned in the courts? - - - Updated - - - Amazing how something decided on "very shaky constitutional ground"....is still standing after FORTY YEARS. Even more so, given 5 of the 9 Justices on the US Supreme Court at present were nominated by "pro-life" Republican Presidents (Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito)....who could all join together TODAY...and overturn Roe v. Wade... if they wanted to, that is?
Factually incorrect. Prior to Roe; Illegal = 30 States Legal in the case of rape = 1 State Legal in case of danger to woman's health = 2 States Legal in case of danger to woman's health, rape or incest, or likely damaged fetus = 13 States Legal on request = 4 States So in reality legal in one way or another in 20 states prior to Roe. Best of all, and something that pro-lifers like to forget is that abortion being illegal never had ANYTHING to do with concern for the fetus, and that abortion has been legal far longer than illegal. The first laws restricting abortion were based on poison laws due to the concern for the women, as many abortion "medicines" were quite dangerous .. the next raft of abortion laws were about the doctors wanting to corner the market, pushing out the mid-wife's and home remedy makers, so they could reap the money ... right-wing conservative pro-lifers should understand all about that.
Here's a fun fact...that the political Right just hate.... what California Governor signed THE most liberal abortion law in the country before Roe v. Wade?
Bingo....also the first Republican President to heavily campaign on the idea of him being "pro-life" and promise to "appoint Justices who'll overturn Roe".
Supposedly The Gipper later "repented" his signing of that bill.....when in fact, it was simply a political calculation. Before they allied themselves with the "pro-life" Religious Right....most Republicans were pro-choice and supported contraception. George HW Bush was pro-choice before he ran as Veep in 1980. It is truly a study in gullibility that the "pro-lifers" after 30+ years of broken promises by the Republican Party.....cannot see that the GOP is merely USING them for votes, with no real intention of trying to ban abortion or over-turn Roe.
Not sure, but that would be self-serving too, wouldn't it......after all- "Presidents for $400"- "He was the first divorced President of the United States?" "Who is Ronald Reagan, Alex?"
As I suspected, it was Reagan "No-fault" divorce became more common in the United States after the California's Family Law Act of 1969, which was signed into law by divorced-and-remarried Governor Ronald Reagan on September 4, 1969, and became effective January 1, 1970.
