Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

Lying to physicians would also be a problem, but I was specifically referring to the people who were told what lies to write down to get the desired outcome. They are more lying with their physician to any future auditor or investigator.

 

I would also phrase it in a way that maybe Republicans can understand.

Republicans had the right concept - leave the government out of the decisions made between patients and their doctors, but they aren't practicing the concept.

Instead, Republicans are putting the state government between women, families, and their doctors. This is literally the case unlike what Republicans like to say about Obamacare.

 

Doesn't even begin to address the vagueness of the law, which while it does required approval, could be granted for almost any reason.

And that could simply include the reality of it finally setting in on them. In which case, I would look at it the other way...you've had months to make that decision.

 

Absolutely get rid of the filibuster. Unlike the Supreme Court, voters can much easier change Congress if they go overboard.

 

Question already answered, when they changed the rules under Reid. Yes, they are that short sighted. Always have been. Short term emotional reaction to things that last long beyond that particular issue.

Further, this bypasses the real issue, and wouldn't even lead to any permanent abortion law...as it is solely an idea on how to get a unilateral bill passed. Which would almost certainly get changed/abolished after the mid terms, perhaps using that same fillibuster protection. Making it doubly short sighted.

 

Like most good comedy, based on truth. Although most large companies already do have family leave. It's harder for small companies to work around. If you have 5 employees, can't really have one of them just leave for months. Much easier when you have 500, or 500,000.

 

Agree. Hypocritical thinking and positions aren't unique to Democrats. Although abortion is a fairly unique situation, in that compromise isn't really possible. If you truly believe that abortion is murder...how do you compromise on that? Which leaves it up to the politicians, to be a voice of reality. Something they aren't often very good at, and get punished for. Look at the reactions in Texas to Cornyn's proposed gun laws. They seemed pretty reasonable to me, and most agree SOMETHING needed to be done, yet he was getting pilloried by the far right.

 

That's probably true, BUT it doesn't mean safeguards against it shouldn't be thought of. As written, the opposite is true...it would encourage the patient to lie to the physician, or worse, for the physician to allow it simply because they have very liberal views on abortion.

 

Again, physicians aren't sitting there chomping at bit to perform late term abortions because they are liberal. Just like conservative physicians aren't chomping at the bit to make women suffer permanent injury or death because they are conservative and refuse to perform a potentially life-saving abortion.

Very few people of any take the idea of aborting viable fetuses lightly.

 

Responding to both..

Sorry, are we talking about late-term abortions? First, I hope you realize that late-term abortions are essentially the same with or without Roe (State can always regulate that). The only difference is Roe protects women in case of health.

Someone asked the question when is abortion wrong? Your question about reconciling is something that I thought about. These are very good questions. It's freaking hard to answer. But I do have an answer (which has evolved over time and I'm sure will continue to evolve).

So (and because this debate almost never goes anywhere anyway) - for me, abortion is almost always wrong (even when medically necessary - why, simple: no one knows and I certainly don't know when life starts thus I cannot rule out any possibilities and it certainly is morally wrong to take a life). Forcing women is almost always wrong (even when medically unnecessary - why, simple again: imposing authoritative rules on a person based on one moral is itself a moral wrong and creates a new set of harms to real people and families). How do I reconcile the two - I really can't. All I know is what's right for me personally. What's right for me is to not personally do what I think is wrong (of course there are always exception - life is a b**** sometimes and if the almighty throw a curveball at my family, we will have to handle it on a case by case basis) and to not personally support doing what I think is wrong to others. With that said, I'm more practical than ideological. Reasonable restrictions with exceptions are fine to me. I think Roe was quite reasonable. I'm much more interested in what can be done to reduce abortion than to restrict it simply because I think it's the best approach - doesn't force women and does reduce abortion.

 

Don't doctors perform tests frequently through a woman's pregnancy as she is preparing to have a baby entering the third trimester? Do you really think a doctor would willingly risk their license and their vocation based on a request of a mother to be in the 3rd trimester without sound reason backed up by evidence through testing?

Can you even provide a single case where that has happened and the doctor and medical staff got away with it unscathed? But first can you even provide a case where that's happened first of all? It seems 3rd trimester abortions are performed because of unforeseen complications that arise either with the fetus that would make it stillborn and cause complications for the mother, or the baby will die hours after being delivered in a more painful way than through abortive measures, or the mother will die or be debilitated permanently for the rest of her life while not even being able to cherish the life she birthed because of complications. It's not done on a casual whim. You're making a boogey man argument and saying liberal OB/GYN doctors just willy nilly risk their license to practice their lifetime vocation just because they're liberal.

Further, I can tell you've never worked in a healthcare setting. Easily, this type of scenario would be taken to Ethics committees with their team of lawyers within a hospital, the social worker and case manager on call that operates the maternity ward, the Attending on call within the Maternity ward, the Nursing House Supervisor, the Administrator on call and a wealth of other people that would be in the need to know if a 3rd trimester abortion would need to be conducted. Your imagined renegade liberal doctor performing 3rd trimester abortions willy nilly already has many checks and balances in place within a hospital setting. Now, the state is interjecting itself, again to the detriment of women's healthcare and reproductive rights. I really thought conservatives were for small government and respect to privacy. Not on this issue though. Just hypocrites.

 

Kermit Gosnell did it for years. When they eventually raided him because he killed one of his abortion patients, they found a jar full of dead bloody fetuses in his vaccine freezer. One of the babies he aborted was so far along that he joked that it looked like it was old enough to get up and walk to the bus stop.

 

Yea, that's pretty ****ed up. But again he got caught as did his staff who weren't even medically trained. I mean even Pre-overturning Roe, that would not fall under the guidelines. Plus he wasn't even a licensed OB/GYN doctor. That's just a straight up serial murderer. I don't think anyone would find issue with convicting that man. Does that therefore mean actual OB/GYN doctors that take their vocation seriously are in the same mold as this man who didn't even complete a residency? I don't think so.

 

This is largely what I feel. I will say it again if we really want to reduce abortion we need to reduce the causes of it rather than just rely on legal bans. That means increasing family planning, access to contraception, and making it easier to raise children. Instead we see many of the same politicians trumpeting this ruling doing the exact opposite.

 

Except you're ignoring the context of the discussion which you entered on regarding my ex and other women. Or are you claiming that your statemen was devoid of context and just a non-sequitor in the discussion?

Also you changed the terms of the scenario so you weren't even responding to the actualy hypothetical but just adding your own qualifers. I never said "staking". So now who is extrapolating?

As another poster noted, logically a 12 year old at some point was an infant so if there is so much a demand for babies was it somehow different 12 years ago?

But again your argument that more people want Teslas rather than Nissan Leafs is an argument for not having more Nissan Leafs. In the context of abortion you're giving more of a reason for abortion.

 

First off that wasn't the scenario you're responding too so you're changing the terms of it. To answer it directly If it was someone that you knew and loved and otherwise trusted I would say you are blameless. YOu were decieved and swindled that's not your fault but fault of a someone that preyed on your emotions.

 

And again were they babies at some point?

I'm not saying they should be aborted but if the argument is that people don't want to adopt children who are troubled so those babies end up being stuck in foster care as they age that would be an argument for abortion.

 

Why were abortions always to be rare? I am not aware of any legislation making that claim.

Abortions have gone down with increased access to free or low cost birth control (which oddly is opposed by some).

Virtually every woman over 25 knows a woman that has had an abortion and it is done for a variety of reasons.

Men have lots of opinions about abortion but I assure you our perspective is vastly different than the majority of women.

 

To state again I have my own moral questions regarding abortion but arguing that women who have been decieved and abandoned by partners are respnsible strikes me as being unsympathetic, frankly misogynistic but showing a disconnect from the actual experiences that many women out there face.

The image that many would like to portray is that women are just having abortions out of convenience because they can't keep their legs closed. From what I've seen personally that is far from the case. The decision to was an agonizing one and not taken lightly.

I will say it again if we really want to end abortion just banning them and calling women irresponsible isn't going to do it.

 

Way to take it out of context.

Then again I don’t care what Joe Biden thinks of abortion and I certainly don’t care what idiots that are tied to a fairy tale 2,000 years ago think… especially when their own fairy tale doesn’t address the issue much.

It’s a woman’s body and a woman should be able to make that decision. It’s bodily autonomy and really should concern men anyway.