On abortion

[Uncle Ted]

Well, at least there is this

So y'all in Utah are good if you need an abortion fix (and need to restock on weed)... You can go either east or west:



Us in Texas will have to travel a bit more.

[Uncle Ted]

Most European countries allow abortions in demand up to 14 weeks or around there. A 15 week ban on abortion would be right in line with Europe. It’s not crazy conservative to want a ban on abortion after 15 weeks, in fact it puts us squarely in the same group as those European atheist socialists.

But of course the liberals will make a ban on abortion after 15 weeks to sound like we are rounding up women and putting them into communes.

Yeah, it is 14 weeks in France yet Macaroni said this:

Embedded Tweet

C'mon man!

And the big dummy to the north said this:

Embedded Tweet

When his citizens travel to the US (or did travel to the US) for abortions:

Those who are this far into their pregnancy and looking for an abortion often travel to the United States for the procedure instead, which would be in jeopardy should Roe v. Wade be overturned.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/what-is-the-legal-status-of-abortion-in-canada-1.5890266

Embedded Tweet

[Uncle Ted]

Now the GOP'ers and liberals both hate Liz Cheney:

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

She is a woman without a country.

[The_Tick]

Ted....your online persona is pretty insufferable.

[Moliere]

Embedded Tweet

Andrew Yang gets it.

[Northwestcoug]

Embedded Tweet

Andrew Yang gets it.

The talking point that the democrats should have concentrated on abortion instead of the ACA has almost become truth on social media. It is not, true. It's as if no one remembers how tenuous the 60 votes democrats had when debating it. Doesn't anyone remember the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts that threatened to upend their filibuster proof majority, and the 'perfidy' of Harry Reid when he played cute with senate laws and passed ACA piece by piece? No? Well I do. I was so enraged with the democrats that I mailed 40 dollars to the RNC that day. And I paid dearly for that; I got RNC mail for the next decade asking for money

And everyone seems to forget that it wasn't just the senate; Pelosi had to work with the conservative wing of her party to make sure she had the votes. Guess what had to be sacrificed in the house to ensure passage? Increasing funding for abortion. So yeah, the idea that the dumb dems should have codified Roe v Wade into law rather than pass the ACA is pretty much fiction.

Here's a helpful guide for future reference:

https://khn.org/news/obamacares-history-littered-with-near-death-experiences-text/

And even if is was true that the democrats missed a golden opportunity to pass a national abortion law, it's still a stupid argument. There was little realistic reason to think Roe v Wade would be overturned, at that time ~30 years after the decision. It's just a dumb argument. Here's a similar analogy: congress should have foreseen the threat Trump would play in the future with the vagaries of the electoral college, and should have pushed for changes to shore up the law to prevent what happened in 2020.

[Moliere]

The talking point that the democrats should have concentrated on abortion instead of the ACA has almost become truth on social media. It is not, true. It's as if no one remembers how tenuous the 60 votes democrats had when debating it. Doesn't anyone remember the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts that threatened to upend their filibuster proof majority, and the 'perfidy' of Harry Reid when he played cute with senate laws and passed ACA piece by piece? No? Well I do. I was so enraged with the democrats that I mailed 40 dollars to the RNC that day. And I paid dearly for that; I got RNC mail for the next decade asking for money

And everyone seems to forget that it wasn't just the senate; Pelosi had to work with the conservative wing of her party to make sure she had the votes. Guess what had to be sacrificed in the house to ensure passage? Increasing funding for abortion. So yeah, the idea that the dumb dems should have codified Roe v Wade into law rather than pass the ACA is pretty much fiction.

Here's a helpful guide for future reference:

https://khn.org/news/obamacares-history-littered-with-near-death-experiences-text/

And even if is was true that the democrats missed a golden opportunity to pass a national abortion law, it's still a stupid argument. There was little realistic reason to think Roe v Wade would be overturned, at that time ~30 years after the decision. It's just a dumb argument. Here's a similar analogy: congress should have foreseen the threat Trump would play in the future with the vagaries of the electoral college, and should have pushed for changes to shore up the law to prevent what happened in 2020.

I agree it’s dumb. I don’t point it out as I think it’s a viable scenario. I bring it up because it’s great evidence to show that support isn’t there with a supermajority not is it there for a simple majority. The support isn’t there regardless of how many people say that most Americans support abortion. Sure, a major Rory of Americans support limited abortion rights, but democrats don’t want to pass limited abortion rights.

[All-American]

Sometimes I think the gestational period for legal abortion should be raised to approximately 18 years after birth.

[Northwestcoug]

Sometimes I think the gestational period for legal abortion should be raised to approximately 18 years after birth.

You might find broad-based support for that. It’s well within the first trimester of life.

[BigFatMeanie]

I agree it’s dumb. I don’t point it out as I think it’s a viable scenario. I bring it up because it’s great evidence to show that support isn’t there with a supermajority not is it there for a simple majority. The support isn’t there regardless of how many people say that most Americans support abortion. Sure, a major Rory of Americans support limited abortion rights, but democrats don’t want to pass limited abortion rights.

Dude, what about all the Americans that aren't named Rory? What about them?

[Uncle Ted]

"I won't make a baby unless I can kill it..."

She decides: Women go on nationwide SEX STRIKE in protest at SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade as pro-choice marches continue across America and rioters in Portland go on rampage

• Pro-choice supporters are calling for a 'sex strike' in response to SCOTUS decision to overturn Roe v. Wade on Friday
• Many women who marched with thousands of protesters in New York City on Friday and Saturday held signs that read 'No sex until we have abortion rights'
• The hashtag #SexStrike began trending on Twitter following the protests
• Protests are expected to carry on through the weekend in major cities

[...]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10954353/Women-threaten-SEX-STRIKE-protest-SCOTUS-overturning-Roe-v-Wade.html

Well, that seems reasonable.

[Northwestcoug]

I am more stridently pro-choice than most Americans (I think?), but I think Nichols strikes a tone that a solid majority can agree with:

Like most Americans, I think abortion must remain legal—but with restrictions. I am conflicted about abortion because of things that happened in my own family, but when it comes to the law, let’s stipulate that over the half century that Roe kept abortion legal, even some of its defenders thought it might be a shaky decision—the product of judicial activism. They were right: Roe was the product of an activist Court. But then, so was Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

How, conservatives fume, can anyone argue that dumping Roe and “throwing it back to the states” is “activism”?

Here’s the answer: Years of political change matter. Decades ago, abortion became accepted as a right by a broad majority of the country. Justice Samuel Alito and the other five conservatives on the Supreme Court were not handing back abortion to the states as if it were some open question for a debate; they knew exactly what was going to happen in states with “trigger” laws the minute they ruled. Despite their legal rationale, these justices were taking sides in a culture war on behalf of a minority of Americans with whom at least some of them happen to agree.

Alito, in particular, had been strategizing for years about this single issue: As The New York Times reported, in 1985, before he was on the Court, Alito took “umbrage” at a judge’s comments that “forcing women to listen to details about fetal development before their abortions” would cause them emotional distress. “Good, [Alito] wrote: Such results ‘are part of the responsibility of moral choice.’” (As my Atlantic colleague Adam Serwer has written, “The cruelty is the point.”)

But somehow, in 2022, we’re supposed to believe that now-Justice Alito approached Dobbs with a dispassionate constitutional eye.

https://www.theatlantic.com/newslett...tm_source=feed

[Moliere]

I am more stridently pro-choice than most Americans (I think?), but I think Nichols strikes a tone that a solid majority can agree with:




https://www.theatlantic.com/newslett...tm_source=feed

I don’t necessarily disagree with Nichols (not that my opinion matters) and agree abortion should be legal but with restrictions after 15 weeks. It’s not just a moral issue but there are societal reasons to have safe abortions available, such as the fact that it reduces crime (see the freakonomics podcast in this).

If I’ve learned one thing during this debate and all I’ve read, I think I’ve better understood the liberal philosophy to the Supreme Court and the progressive view in how they view rights. I’m more sympathetic to it but mostly because our legislature is impotent. That pushes legislative issues to the president (executive orders) and SCOTUS (activist judges creating law through rulings). If we had an effective legislature then we’d be in a different scenario.

But liberals love activist judges when they do what they want and hate them when they overturn that same stuff.

In not being facetious here but I really think we are going to see some weird travel stuff start to pop up in the red states. I can see “abortion buses” being filled up and heading for blue states for their week “sojourn” all paid for by donations from liberal billionaires. Which is partly why I think while the decision is the correct one legally, it’s just dumb in the real world. The GOP won’t get a total abortion ban at the federal level so we’ll be trapped in this limbo where abortions are just inconvenient. Maybe a few more babies will be born that would’ve been aborted but the impact won’t be as big as either side thinks.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am more stridently pro-choice than most Americans (I think?), but I think Nichols strikes a tone that a solid majority can agree with:


https://www.theatlantic.com/newslett...tm_source=feed

You can call it a lot of things, but "judicial activism"? Come on.

[Uncle Ted]

Let see... Amazon could pull out of a lot of states or fire some employees on a list:

Embedded Tweet

They should pull out of all these states and let the competition move in. That won't hurt their business much. I bet all the people in these states shop at Walmart anyway.