The Supremes

[achooloco 1072]

36 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

But the posts tonight in this thread advocating assassinating a US Senator and "burn it all down" rioting are?

I'll add something to the discussion that seems to be overlooked in my brief scan of this thread:

Nearly 2/3rds of Americans think abortion should be illegal after the 1st trimester, 80% after the second trimester (though many of those want exceptions, as do I.)  

61% think abortion should be legal in the first trimester.  (As do I.)  So, basically 2/3rds of Americans want abortion laws similar to most of Europe.

https://health.wusf.usf.edu/health-news-florida/2021-06-25/ap-norc-poll-most-say-restrict-abortion-after-first-trimester

Seems like the highly unethical (unprecedented?) leak (but I realize that anything is ok if it benefits the hard left Dems) of the alleged USSC decision would put the court in agreement with most Americans.  Most (all?) of these state laws seem to start at 15 weeks.

Also, LOL at the predictable gaslighting that anyone other than a hardcore Dem leaked this.  It's meant to intimidate Roberts, and maybe another justice.  Hoping for the usual "I didn't get my way so lets violently riot" response from the emo left.

the texas law is at 15 weeks? 

[clapclapclap 9000]

34 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Roe is based on viability you stupid fuck. These laws ban abortion before viability. Many before a woman even suspects she’s pregnant

Calmer than you, bro.  Against my better judgment, I'll respond once to the hysterics.

Roe V. Wade has to be overturned before reasonable laws like bans after the first trimester can be passed.  Abortion until birth is too much, in my view, and in the view of 65% of Americans, and in the view of most of Europe, and in the view of most of the world.

If the overturn results in far more restrictive measures, well they probably won't last very long.  And there will always be plenty of states that allow abortion, and many like the west coast, IL, and much of the northeast will probably continue to allow abortion until birth.  When the Republicans take over the US Senate, and perhaps the house, and eventually get a GOP president, there is zero chance they pass a total abortion ban.  It would be political suicide.  After first trimester is as far as they'd go, and more likely they'll find reasons to leave the hot potato for the individual states to deal with.

Going back to if states enact restrictions that might effectively ban before the first trimester, well there aren't many states where the GOP would survive long afterwards.  I realize you guys always shout the world is going to end and barbaric Nazi's are going to take over if you don't get your way, but the reality is extremism won't last long in most states.  And in the interval between if such extreme bans take effect and voters kick them out, women always have the option of going to another state for a procedure.  For once, instead of scheming to make taxpayers again pay for things they may not support, how about the left privately raise funds for a charity that subsidizes/provides travel and if needed lodging for poor women wanting an abortion in another state?  If you care that much about it, donate.  Maybe lobby George Soros for some of the money he's been spending on campaigns for criminal friendly DA's (the results of which will play a big part in the November butt kicking y'all are going to get.)  Bezos and Bill Gates and Hollywood and the trust fund Waltons could easily set up such a charity.

Overturning RvW simply puts it back into the states' hands, where ultimately moderation will prevail in most instances after the process plays out (maybe not immediately.)  But since it was required to get to better laws, then a turbulent and experimentational political battles in state the price to pay for an overreach decision many years ago (the overreach being perhaps the price to pay for some overly restrictive laws back then.  The pendulum sometimes swings back and forth.)  

Edited May 3, 2022 by clapclapclap

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1258]

Calmer than you, bro.  Against my better judgment, I'll respond once to the hysterics.
Roe V. Wade has to be overturned before reasonable laws like bans after the first trimester can be passed.  Abortion until birth is too much, in my view, and in the view of 65% of Americans, and in the view of most of Europe, and in the view of most of the world.
If the overturn results in far more restrictive measures, well they probably won't last very long.  And there will always be plenty of states that allow abortion, and many like the west coast, IL, and much of the northeast will probably continue to allow abortion until birth.  When the Republicans take over the US Senate, and perhaps the house, and eventually get a GOP president, there is zero chance they pass a total abortion ban.  It would be political suicide.  After first trimester is as far as they'd go, and more likely they'll find reasons to leave the hot potato for the individual states to deal with.
Going back to if states enact restrictions that might effectively ban before the first trimester, well there aren't many states where the GOP would survive long afterwards.  I realize you guys always shout the world is going to end and barbaric Nazi's are going to take over if you don't get your way, but the reality is extremism won't last long in most states.  And in the interval between if such extreme bans take effect and voters kick them out, women always have the option of going to another state for a procedure.  For once how about the left privately raise funds for a charity that subsidizes/provides travel and if needed lodging for poor women wanting an abortion in another state?  If you care that much about it, donate.  Maybe lobby George Soros for some of the money he's been spending on campaigns for criminal friendly DA's (the results of which will play a big part in the November butt kicking y'all are going to get.)  Bezos and Bill Gates and the trust fund Waltons could easily set up such a charity.
Overturning RvW simply puts it back into the states' hands, where ultimately moderation will prevail in most instances after the process plays out (maybe not immediately.)  But since it was required to get to better laws, then a turbulent and experimentational political battles in state the price to pay for an overreach decision many years ago (the overreach being perhaps the price to pay for some overly restrictive laws back then.  The pendulum sometimes swings back and forth.)  

Bless your heart.

[TXSooner518 2438]

Yeah you dumb dumbs the poor 16 year old Mississippi girl impregnated by her uncle in their double wide can just go to Minnesota or Massachusetts for her abortion, a-duh!

[wildcat09 29359]

41 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

You're a retard if you think criminalizing abortion is going to accomplish anything other than make a bunch of overwhelmed teenage girls criminals and increase the danger of the procedure. 

Republicans consider that a positive result, is the thing.

Also the increase in dead women from complications of pregnancy.

[Captainant 27689]

2 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Overturning RvW simply puts it back into the states' hands

Hey I remember a similar line of thinking with respect to Roberts gutting the voting rights act - sure would be WILD if there were a bunch of states all working overtime to disenfranchise their minority voters at every turn, right? 

Fuck outta here. You're pretending to be a pollyanna while practicing some impressive doublethink

[Gil Bang 25984]

2 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Calmer than you, bro.  Against my better judgment, I'll respond once to the hysterics.

Roe V. Wade has to be overturned before reasonable laws like bans after the first trimester can be passed.  Abortion until birth is too much, in my view, and in the view of 65% of Americans, and in the view of most of Europe, and in the view of most of the world.

If the overturn results in far more restrictive measures, well they probably won't last very long.  And there will always be plenty of states that allow abortion, and many like the west coast, IL, and much of the northeast will probably continue to allow abortion until birth.  When the Republicans take over the US Senate, and perhaps the house, and eventually get a GOP president, there is zero chance they pass a total abortion ban.  It would be political suicide.  After first trimester is as far as they'd go, and more likely they'll find reasons to leave the hot potato for the individual states to deal with.

Going back to if states enact restrictions that might effectively ban before the first trimester, well there aren't many states where the GOP would survive long afterwards.  I realize you guys always shout the world is going to end and barbaric Nazi's are going to take over if you don't get your way, but the reality is extremism won't last long in most states.  And in the interval between if such extreme bans take effect and voters kick them out, women always have the option of going to another state for a procedure.  For once how about the left privately raise funds for a charity that subsidizes/provides travel and if needed lodging for poor women wanting an abortion in another state?  If you care that much about it, donate.  Maybe lobby George Soros for some of the money he's been spending on campaigns for criminal friendly DA's (the results of which will play a big part in the November butt kicking y'all are going to get.)  Bezos and Bill Gates and the trust fund Waltons could easily set up such a charity.

Overturning RvW simply puts it back into the states' hands, where ultimately moderation will prevail in most instances after the process plays out (maybe not immediately.)  But since it was required to get to better laws, then a turbulent and experimentational political battles in state the price to pay for an overreach decision many years ago (the overreach being perhaps the price to pay for some overly restrictive laws back then.  The pendulum sometimes swings back and forth.)  

yeah, I'm in California, and I used to make the majority of my income in the Surgery Center business. 

I've been kicking around an idea for a new business...where women come in to my facility and give birth, and then I kill the baby, and then I feed the baby parts to a pit bull that I adopted from a no-kill shelter.  I'm sure that I'll be rich, because abortions "until birth" are as common as a Ford Taurus on an airport Hertz lot in the '90s. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

SCOTUS

“The government can NOT force people to wear a mask or get a vaccine.”

Also SCOTUS

“Ya gonna birth this baby no matter what. Shut up.”

[wildcat09 29359]

The number of Republicans basically saying "well some states prefer to be slave states, and some states prefer to be non-slave states, and that's the way it should be" is going to be off the fucking charts.

[staboner 4984]

45 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

You're a retard if you think criminalizing abortion is going to accomplish anything other than make a bunch of overwhelmed teenage girls criminals and increase the danger of the procedure. 

something something, cancel culture, ban something don't ban me bro something something. don't take my guns something something cars kill people. i think we got it all man. 

[wildcat09 29359]

10 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Calmer than you, bro.  Against my better judgment, I'll respond once to the hysterics.

Roe V. Wade has to be overturned before reasonable laws like bans after the first trimester can be passed.  Abortion until birth is too much, in my view, and in the view of 65% of Americans, and in the view of most of Europe, and in the view of most of the world.

If the overturn results in far more restrictive measures, well they probably won't last very long.  And there will always be plenty of states that allow abortion, and many like the west coast, IL, and much of the northeast will probably continue to allow abortion until birth.  When the Republicans take over the US Senate, and perhaps the house, and eventually get a GOP president, there is zero chance they pass a total abortion ban.  It would be political suicide.  After first trimester is as far as they'd go, and more likely they'll find reasons to leave the hot potato for the individual states to deal with.

Going back to if states enact restrictions that might effectively ban before the first trimester, well there aren't many states where the GOP would survive long afterwards.  I realize you guys always shout the world is going to end and barbaric Nazi's are going to take over if you don't get your way, but the reality is extremism won't last long in most states.  And in the interval between if such extreme bans take effect and voters kick them out, women always have the option of going to another state for a procedure.  For once, instead of scheming to make taxpayers again pay for things they may not support, how about the left privately raise funds for a charity that subsidizes/provides travel and if needed lodging for poor women wanting an abortion in another state?  If you care that much about it, donate.  Maybe lobby George Soros for some of the money he's been spending on campaigns for criminal friendly DA's (the results of which will play a big part in the November butt kicking y'all are going to get.)  Bezos and Bill Gates and Hollywood and the trust fund Waltons could easily set up such a charity.

Overturning RvW simply puts it back into the states' hands, where ultimately moderation will prevail in most instances after the process plays out (maybe not immediately.)  But since it was required to get to better laws, then a turbulent and experimentational political battles in state the price to pay for an overreach decision many years ago (the overreach being perhaps the price to pay for some overly restrictive laws back then.  The pendulum sometimes swings back and forth.)  

This is dumb as shit and you're dumb as shit. Hope this helps.

[bluto 4934]

10 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Overturning RvW simply puts it back into the states' hands, where ultimately moderation will prevail in most instances after the process plays out (maybe not immediately.) 

What in the blue fuck have you seen from hard R states that makes you think moderation will prevail

[staboner 4984]

lets see what bill told us about this some time ago

[B00M 6430]

30 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

So, I'm the father of a grown-ass man, and also a grandfather. 

But, if I had daughters, I'd stock the fuck up on "Plan B" right now.  I mean a closet full, like Elaine Benes with The Sponge.  And I'd have some really difficult discussions with those young girls/women that I care about, and let them know that...when it doubt, take this medication that's always going to be in your medicine cabinet.    Make sure that they understand that it's available, and how it works, and then, act like it doesn't exist so they aren't shamed or embarrassed. 

Stock the fuck up now, because SCOTUS is coming for Plan B too.  Buy all you can.  I'm seriously considering heading to Costco tomorrow and buying all that they will sell me, just to give it go those that need it. 

(In case anyone else was wondering)

Plan B has an expiration date of about four years. Taking expired Plan B is not dangerous, but it may be less effective in preventing pregnancy. To prolong the life of Plan B, keep the pill away from humid, hot, or bright environments.

 

[Nicole44 22072]

1 hour ago, TexArcher said:

Next up, slavery, decentralized and back to the states to choose for themselves.  Yay, Republicans.  Yay.

Evil will always win. Because good is dumb. 

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

12 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Republicans consider that a positive result, is the thing.

Also the increase in dead women from complications of pregnancy.

I’m trying to think of a situation where you can’t humanely deliver a baby as fast as you can via dilation and evacuation of the uterus. I can’t. 
 

In emergency situations where a mother’s life is truly in danger then they would have a c section under general anesthesia. It’s really straight forward. 
 

On second thought maybe the only outlier where you could see maternal danger coming from a ways off would be a woman with some severe genetic cardiac abnormality, like pulmonic or aortic stenosis. But those patients would likely be counseled for either correction Of their cardiac issues or sterilization options when they reached child bearing age. These are like one in a million scenarios. 
 

Tl;DR the to save the mother exception is Bs. 

[wildcat09 29359]

I wouldn't put it past at least 3 of the Republicans on the Court to "AKSHUALLY!" slavery, despite the 13th Amendment. But the real danger is to gay marriage, the prohibition on other anti-gay laws, and the legal protection of contraception. 

[4th&Five 41571]

 

[wildcat09 29359]

Just now, Immaculate Vibes said:

I’m trying to think of a situation where you can’t humanely deliver a baby as fast as you can via dilation and evacuation of the uterus. I can’t. 
 

In emergency situations where a mother’s life is truly in danger then they would have a c section under general anesthesia. It’s really straight forward. 
 

On second thought maybe the only outlier where you could see maternal danger coming from a ways off would be a woman with some severe genetic cardiac abnormality, like pulmonic or aortic stenosis. But those patients would likely be counseled for either correction Of their cardiac issues or sterilization options when they reached child bearing age. These are like one in a million scenarios. 
 

Tl;DR the to save the mother exception is Bs. 

Ectopic pregnancies, you dickless piece of shit.

[immamac 42877]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I wouldn't put it past at least 3 of the Republicans on the Court to "AKSHUALLY!" slavery, despite the 13th Amendment. But the real danger is to gay marriage, the prohibition on other anti-gay laws, and the legal protection of contraception. 

The 13th amendment violates the constitution bro. 

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Ectopic pregnancies, you dickless piece of shit.

Those don’t qualify. They get salpingectomies. Totally different deal. 

[4th&Five 41571]

 

[immamac 42877]

3 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

I’m trying to think of a situation where you can’t humanely deliver a baby as fast as you can via dilation and evacuation of the uterus. I can’t. 
 

In emergency situations where a mother’s life is truly in danger then they would have a c section under general anesthesia. It’s really straight forward. 
 

On second thought maybe the only outlier where you could see maternal danger coming from a ways off would be a woman with some severe genetic cardiac abnormality, like pulmonic or aortic stenosis. But those patients would likely be counseled for either correction Of their cardiac issues or sterilization options when they reached child bearing age. These are like one in a million scenarios. 
 

Tl;DR the to save the mother exception is Bs. 

This is hilariously stupid. You should be ashamed of how proudly stupid you are, but we all know that you aren’t

[Captainant 27689]

1 minute ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Those don’t qualify. They get salpingectomies. Totally different deal. 

nevermind that under texas law, you're able to turn that doctor in to the jesus police and collect a cool $10,000 for saving that woman's life.

[Gourmand 7774]

31 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Calmer than you, bro.  Against my better judgment, I'll respond once to the hysterics.

Roe V. Wade has to be overturned before reasonable laws like bans after the first trimester can be passed.  Abortion until birth is too much, in my view, and in the view of 65% of Americans, and in the view of most of Europe, and in the view of most of the world.

If the overturn results in far more restrictive measures, well they probably won't last very long.  And there will always be plenty of states that allow abortion, and many like the west coast, IL, and much of the northeast will probably continue to allow abortion until birth.  When the Republicans take over the US Senate, and perhaps the house, and eventually get a GOP president, there is zero chance they pass a total abortion ban.  It would be political suicide.  After first trimester is as far as they'd go, and more likely they'll find reasons to leave the hot potato for the individual states to deal with.

Going back to if states enact restrictions that might effectively ban before the first trimester, well there aren't many states where the GOP would survive long afterwards.  I realize you guys always shout the world is going to end and barbaric Nazi's are going to take over if you don't get your way, but the reality is extremism won't last long in most states.  And in the interval between if such extreme bans take effect and voters kick them out, women always have the option of going to another state for a procedure.  For once, instead of scheming to make taxpayers again pay for things they may not support, how about the left privately raise funds for a charity that subsidizes/provides travel and if needed lodging for poor women wanting an abortion in another state?  If you care that much about it, donate.  Maybe lobby George Soros for some of the money he's been spending on campaigns for criminal friendly DA's (the results of which will play a big part in the November butt kicking y'all are going to get.)  Bezos and Bill Gates and Hollywood and the trust fund Waltons could easily set up such a charity.

Overturning RvW simply puts it back into the states' hands, where ultimately moderation will prevail in most instances after the process plays out (maybe not immediately.)  But since it was required to get to better laws, then a turbulent and experimentational political battles in state the price to pay for an overreach decision many years ago (the overreach being perhaps the price to pay for some overly restrictive laws back then.  The pendulum sometimes swings back and forth.)  

 This is embarrassingly stupid, and I say that as someone who has posted some pretty stupid shit here in the past.

Also, go fuck yourself for this neanderthal post. Have you ever had someone close to you have to make the decision to abort a pregnancy?

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

Just now, Captainant said:

nevermind that under texas law, you're able to turn that doctor in to the jesus police and collect a cool $10,000 for saving that woman's life.

Thanks for telling me! Those happen all day, every day. How come I haven’t heard of that happening in the months since it passed? Maybe you’re wrong?

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

7 minutes ago, immamac said:

This is hilariously stupid. You should be ashamed of how proudly stupid you are, but we all know that you aren’t

I can say with extreme certainty that I know vastly more of this topic than you.

[Captainant 27689]

Just now, Immaculate Vibes said:

Thanks for telling me! Those happen all day, every day. How come I haven’t heard of that happening in the months since it passed? Maybe you’re wrong?

Well they did just try it on a woman that miscarried a month ago or so, if you care to remember. The law even being on the books is the threat against women. It criminalizes a personal medical decision that the state doesn't even fucking pay for.

1 minute ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

I can say with extreme certainty that I know vastly more of this topic than you.

Yes, I'm sure Sunday school and chiropractor school taught you well.

[MrBig 5423]

45 minutes ago, achooloco said:

the texas law is at 15 weeks? 

There is a “trigger law” that goes into effect 30 days after Roe is overturned, banning abortion outright in Texas with exception only for life-threatening conditions.

[Jhawkmvp 1489]

20 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

An abortion rights bill was passed back in September, basically along party lines. but there is no way they have enough votes (60) in the senate to pass it over a filibuster. The Senate version was opposed by Manchin and Casey, as well. Republicans Murkowski and Collins have their own Senate version, but again unlikely the votes needed are there. The Democrats might suck at getting shit done, in general, but this is not on them.

Edit: The Dems can try to kill the filibuster to get it passed, but they have a couple loose cannons that have indicated they will oppose that.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Jhawkmvp

[Captainant 27689]

For context: @Immaculate Vibesand @workswithseedand @clapclapclapwant all those Ukrainian women who were raped by russian soldiers to be forced to carry any fetuses to term.

That's who's demanding to be taken seriously in this discussion.

[Satchel 6938]

So, stare decisis is no longer a thing? Row was 7-2 decision 49 years ago.

[Willfully Horn 8039]

2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

haha. It's cute that you think that. 

Nobody cares.  

 

Thanks. You flatter … hey!

Please show me the results of an election on the heels of the repeal of personal rights.

“We will see.” /Zen Master

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases/

[RabidM 2668]

Roberts has no one to blame but himself.  He's completely lost control of the court.  He had the chance to stop this multiple times when he was the swing vote, but he was too much of a pussy.  Now the other 5 don't need his vote and can do whatever they want.  He can't be the moderate conservative\deciding force anymore.  He's helpless.  SCOTUS will effectively be an arm of the GOP for the foreseeable future, unless a conservative justice dies before the midterm elections.  They might show some restraint on some issues, but the GOP is going to get all of their big ticket items done most likely.  

And that was the whole point of this decades long process of capturing control of the judiciary.  The GOP thinks and plans ahead dozens of years.  And the Democrats can't figure out how to shepherd their herd of cats on any given day. 

Edited May 3, 2022 by RabidM

[WhatTheBuck 28794]

7 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Hope none of your daughters have to carry their rapist baby to term. 

And give the fathers visitation rights...or outright custody.

[WhatTheBuck 28794]

4 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

SCOTUS

“The government can NOT force people to wear a mask or get a vaccine.”

Also SCOTUS

“Ya gonna birth this baby no matter what. Shut up.”

And once we force this unwanted child into the world then we’d better do nothing to provide for its health care and education.

[Bookman 4639]

4 hours ago, Satchel said:

So, stare decisis is no longer a thing? Row was 7-2 decision 49 years ago.

That only applies to lower courts.

[HenryJames 66134]

6 hours ago, clapclapclap said:

Abortion until birth is too much

 

[South Austin 52523]

Holy shit, looks like I went to bed too early last night.

Like others have alluded, this only encourages litigants to waive Alito’s opinion in the Court’s face in cases to overturn Obergefell, Lawrence, and Griswold.

And this opinion will just flat out dare Abbott and the Texas legislature to enact a law restricting if not outlawing gay marriage with the knowledge that said law will wind up in a Dobbs v. Jackson U.S. Supreme Court.

Many thought that something like this might cause a significant electoral shift in Texas. But if the Dems can’t make a dent in the next two election cycles after this shit, then Texas is further from turning purple than we ever hoped.

[HenryJames 66134]

Waiting for Clarence Thomas to author the opinion that overturns Loving v. Virginia.

[TXSG8R 3362]

14 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Holy shit, looks like I went to bed too early last night.

Like others have alluded, this only encourages litigants to waive Alito’s opinion in the Court’s face in cases to overturn Obergefell, Lawrence, and Griswold.

And this opinion will just flat out dare Abbott and the Texas legislature to enact a law restricting if not outlawing gay marriage with the knowledge that said law will wind up in a Dobbs v. Jackson U.S. Supreme Court.

Many thought that something like this might cause a significant electoral shift in Texas. But if the Dems can’t make a dent in the next two election cycles after this shit, then Texas is further from turning purple than we ever hoped.

I don’t see how this would shift things blue. The increasing brown population is predominantly catholic, so if anything this will increase that turn of Hispanics to vote R. Lots of priests are going to laud this decision and push their flocks to do the same. 

[DaysOff 7961]

Holy shit, looks like I went to bed too early last night.
Like others have alluded, this only encourages litigants to waive Alito’s opinion in the Court’s face in cases to overturn Obergefell, Lawrence, and Griswold.
And this opinion will just flat out dare Abbott and the Texas legislature to enact a law restricting if not outlawing gay marriage with the knowledge that said law will wind up in a Dobbs v. Jackson U.S. Supreme Court.
Many thought that something like this might cause a significant electoral shift in Texas. But if the Dems can’t make a dent in the next two election cycles after this shit, then Texas is further from turning purple than we ever hoped.

Outlawing gay marriage and sodomy is next. Because Jesus. How any woman can still pull a vote lever for the Rs is beyond me.

[Sawbonz 27580]

7 hours ago, clapclapclap said:

Calmer than you, bro.  Against my better judgment, I'll respond once to the hysterics.

Roe V. Wade has to be overturned before reasonable laws like bans after the first trimester can be passed.  Abortion until birth is too much, in my view, and in the view of 65% of Americans, and in the view of most of Europe, and in the view of most of the world.

If the overturn results in far more restrictive measures, well they probably won't last very long.  And there will always be plenty of states that allow abortion, and many like the west coast, IL, and much of the northeast will probably continue to allow abortion until birth.  When the Republicans take over the US Senate, and perhaps the house, and eventually get a GOP president, there is zero chance they pass a total abortion ban.  It would be political suicide.  After first trimester is as far as they'd go, and more likely they'll find reasons to leave the hot potato for the individual states to deal with.

Going back to if states enact restrictions that might effectively ban before the first trimester, well there aren't many states where the GOP would survive long afterwards.  I realize you guys always shout the world is going to end and barbaric Nazi's are going to take over if you don't get your way, but the reality is extremism won't last long in most states.  And in the interval between if such extreme bans take effect and voters kick them out, women always have the option of going to another state for a procedure.  For once, instead of scheming to make taxpayers again pay for things they may not support, how about the left privately raise funds for a charity that subsidizes/provides travel and if needed lodging for poor women wanting an abortion in another state?  If you care that much about it, donate.  Maybe lobby George Soros for some of the money he's been spending on campaigns for criminal friendly DA's (the results of which will play a big part in the November butt kicking y'all are going to get.)  Bezos and Bill Gates and Hollywood and the trust fund Waltons could easily set up such a charity.

Overturning RvW simply puts it back into the states' hands, where ultimately moderation will prevail in most instances after the process plays out (maybe not immediately.)  But since it was required to get to better laws, then a turbulent and experimentational political battles in state the price to pay for an overreach decision many years ago (the overreach being perhaps the price to pay for some overly restrictive laws back then.  The pendulum sometimes swings back and forth.)  

So you are fine with states that outright ban abortion?

 

Please name the states where abortion is currently legal after viability except when the mother and or fetus’s life is in danger?

Edited May 3, 2022 by Sawbonz

[B00M 6430]

6 hours ago, MrBig said:

There is a “trigger law” that goes into effect 30 days after Roe is overturned, banning abortion outright in Texas with exception only for life-threatening conditions.

Per Google this is correct. So in Texas it will go from ~6 weeks (heart beat) to fucking never, except to save the mother from death or "substantial impairment of major bodily function"

I just don't understand the motive here other than JEZUS. Rail against the single mother household, the break down of the family unit, and bad parents... then FORCE every unwanted pregnancy to occur?

 

 

[Celery Man 20981]

3 minutes ago, B00M said:

Per Google this is correct. So in Texas it will go from ~6 weeks (heart beat) to fucking never, except to save the mother from death or "substantial impairment of major bodily function"

I just don't understand the motive here other than JEZUS. Rail against the single mother household, the break down of the family unit, and bad parents... then FORCE every unwanted pregnancy to occur?

 

 

Get power from the stupid people.

[lemonlime 5503]

7 minutes ago, B00M said:

Per Google this is correct. So in Texas it will go from ~6 weeks (heart beat) to fucking never, except to save the mother from death or "substantial impairment of major bodily function"

I just don't understand the motive here other than JEZUS. Rail against the single mother household, the break down of the family unit, and bad parents... then FORCE every unwanted pregnancy to occur?

 

 

Keep poor women in their place.  Stop them from getting educated, because they're home taking care of their babies, with little to no help for education, health care, day care, food.  And if a few of these women die, their fault because they're evil sinner welfare queens.

[Celery Man 20981]

9 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Keep poor women in their place.  Stop them from getting educated, because they're home taking care of their babies, with little to no help for education, health care, day care, food.  And if a few of these women die, their fault because they're evil sinner welfare queens.

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Celery Man

[Goredho 17413]

1 hour ago, DaysOff said:

Outlawing gay marriage and sodomy is next. Because Jesus. How any woman can still pull a vote lever for the Rs is beyond me.

[Sawbonz 27580]

7 hours ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

I’m trying to think of a situation where you can’t humanely deliver a baby as fast as you can via dilation and evacuation of the uterus. I can’t. 
 

In emergency situations where a mother’s life is truly in danger then they would have a c section under general anesthesia. It’s really straight forward. 
 

On second thought maybe the only outlier where you could see maternal danger coming from a ways off would be a woman with some severe genetic cardiac abnormality, like pulmonic or aortic stenosis. But those patients would likely be counseled for either correction Of their cardiac issues or sterilization options when they reached child bearing age. These are like one in a million scenarios. 
 

Tl;DR the to save the mother exception is Bs. 

How many healthy term infants are aborted in this country every year because the life of the mother is at risk? I would guess close to zero. 

There are several instances where an abortion would be the only option to save the mother’s life after first trimester and prior to viability outside the womb other than in a level four NICU. Infants who require that level of ICU care cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to support and have greatly diminished quality of life due to cognitive issues, G.I. issues, and heart/lung issues. Even if you believe the rights of a fetus supersede the rights of a woman, it would be insane public health policy to try and deliver and care for them as extreme preterm infants  

 

When I was in medical school on the OB rotation, we had a 20 something-year-old woman who in the middle of her second trimester was diagnosed with a very aggressive form of breast cancer. The oncologist recommended immediate double mastectomy and beginning chemo and radiation right away. Delaying the radiation and chemo to the point of fetal viability outside the womb meant very high likelihood of stage IV metastatic disease. Chemo and radiation would’ve killed the baby. Guess what this mother chose to do? Actually, it doesn’t matter what she chose the point is she had a choice. You would take that choice away 

Abortions that occur past the point of viability that doesn’t require heroic measures are usually for anencephaly or another lethal defect that for whatever reason wasn’t picked up earlier. It is cruel to make a woman carry such a pregnancy to term against her will knowing it is going to die. Such a pregnancy has happened to two couples close to me. The choice to abort or carry to term was and should remain theirs.

 

 

[Goofyboy 3293]

I’m firmly on team Brisket. Pain and suffering and control is the end game for the GOP.