Roe v. Wade abandoned by Supreme Court

subee, MSN, CRNA · Jul 30, 2022

11 hours ago, Della4 said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/06/biden-ryan-late-abortion/

Keep up. We've already discussed the "late abortion just cause I wanna" myth before.

Della4 · Jul 30, 2022

4 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

It's unfortunate that you didn't want to risk discussing the quotes that you cited. I imagine that you believe that you supported the propaganda which says that liberals want no limits on abortion but I think that's you're extrapolation. Conservatives were the ones who wanted to and did change abortion laws for the country.

Now what?

My apologies. The article by the Washington Post was in reference to the idea that democrats do not wish to have restrictions on abortions and how the President's words were mistepresented as well as the VP.

It then went on to quote other democrats in attempt to state what has been said on the topic.

I believe the intent of the article was to address the possible misinformation, but objectively provide reference in to what may lead some to believe that the Democrat party wishes to have complete access to abortion without any restrictions. So they quoted a few.

I'm not sure if WAPO could be considered "propaganda"? I believe this article if we must , is more left than right. However it was well rounded and demonstrated information pertaining to both sides in reference to the idea democrats want abortion without any restrictions.

My impression is that the only right leaning aspect would be there were no direct quotes from any democrats specifying that they were not in favor of abortions without restrictions. Only quotes that had answers that were vague. The democrats quoted in the article did not say they were in favor for abortions without limits nor did they say they were in favor of any restrictions on abortions either. Mostly saying it's up to the woman and her physician.

I thought it was a great article that was well rounded and factual. Although it would have been helpful for them to quote more democrats that did produce clear positions regarding abortion without limits. I imagine if there was, they would have. So this could be considered leaning right? I do not think this was the intent.

I wasn't trying to own the libs or ascertain my position on the matter. I have read back a little and there seems to be a ongoing discussion regarding the democrats position on restricting abortion or not having any restrictions. This article by WAPO was relevant to prior discussions.

I agree. A explanation by myself when I posted the article would have been helpful. And with all due respect, perhaps you should have asked for an explanation before you concluded that I was extrapolating or believing propaganda. However I posted it without explanation so I will take accountability for that.

chare · Aug 3, 2022

Quote

Kansas voters on Tuesday protected the right to get an abortion in their state, rejecting a measure that would have allowed their Republican-controlled Legislature to tighten abortion restrictions or ban it outright.

[...]

Kansas voters protect abortion rights, block path to ban

heron, ASN, RN · Aug 3, 2022

14 minutes ago, chare said:

Kansas voters protect abortion rights, block path to ban

I know this could well be a one-off, but it eases my heart a little. My thanks to the folks of Kansas.

nursej22, MSN, RN · Aug 3, 2022

Well done, voters of Kansas. I heard that there were double the number of votes cast compared to the last primary. Non-affiliated voters are unable to vote for candidates in primary elections, only for issues. This issue seemed important enough to cast a ballot.

toomuchbaloney · Aug 3, 2022

On 7/30/2022 at 11:57 AM, Della4 said:

My apologies. The article by the Washington Post was in reference to the idea that democrats do not wish to have restrictions on abortions and how the President's words were mistepresented as well as the VP.

It then went on to quote other democrats in attempt to state what has been said on the topic.

I believe the intent of the article was to address the possible misinformation, but objectively provide reference in to what may lead some to believe that the Democrat party wishes to have complete access to abortion without any restrictions. So they quoted a few.

I'm not sure if WAPO could be considered "propaganda"? I believe this article if we must , is more left than right. However it was well rounded and demonstrated information pertaining to both sides in reference to the idea democrats want abortion without any restrictions.

My impression is that the only right leaning aspect would be there were no direct quotes from any democrats specifying that they were not in favor of abortions without restrictions. Only quotes that had answers that were vague. The democrats quoted in the article did not say they were in favor for abortions without limits nor did they say they were in favor of any restrictions on abortions either. Mostly saying it's up to the woman and her physician.

I thought it was a great article that was well rounded and factual. Although it would have been helpful for them to quote more democrats that did produce clear positions regarding abortion without limits. I imagine if there was, they would have. So this could be considered leaning right? I do not think this was the intent.

I wasn't trying to own the libs or ascertain my position on the matter. I have read back a little and there seems to be a ongoing discussion regarding the democrats position on restricting abortion or not having any restrictions. This article by WAPO was relevant to prior discussions.

I agree. A explanation by myself when I posted the article would have been helpful. And with all due respect, perhaps you should have asked for an explanation before you concluded that I was extrapolating or believing propaganda. However I posted it without explanation so I will take accountability for that.

Here's the rub...there were no liberal legislators in states or in Congress preparing legislation to liberalize abortion access to include the widely discussed and feared 3rd trimester abortion of convenience. The entire argument is a farce... an attempt to stop discussing the clear attempts by social conservatives to force women to give birth, with all of the negative economic and health consequences which can accompany pregnancy and childbirth. That's probably why no one can find liberals or democrats who want to talk about that concern. Liberals want reproductive health care decisions to be private personal matters for women like they are for men.

The right wing "concern" about 3rd trimester abortion is based in propaganda because it's not an actual problem in this country.

Beerman, BSN · Aug 3, 2022

11 hours ago, heron said:

I know this could well be a one-off, but it eases my heart a little. My thanks to the folks of Kansas.

The voters were able to listen and participate in debate, and then vote. That's how it's supposed to work. Not what the Biden administration is threatening to do.

For those of us who believe in the constitution and our system of govt, what happened in Kansas is a win.

Many polls show that Americans by and large believe abortion should be legal. Not sure why some many are surprised by this vote, or worry that this is a "one-off"?

toomuchbaloney · Aug 3, 2022

16 minutes ago, Beerman said:

The voters were able to listen and participate in debate, and then vote. That's how it's supposed to work. Not what the Biden administration is threatening to do.

For those of us who believe in the constitution and our system of govt, what happened in Kansas is a win.

Many polls show that Americans by and large believe abortion should be legal. Not sure why some many are surprised by this vote, or worry that this is a "one-off"?

You don't worry maybe because you aren't paying attention to what is happening or what GOP legislators are saying about abortion. You had the same problem during Trump's presidency, you didn't pay attention when he advertised his corrupt intentions but you paid attention to the marketing that suggested that he was a victim.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/georgia-anti-abortion-law-allows-tax-deductions-fetuses-2022-08-02/

Quote

Pregnant women in the U.S. state of Georgia will be able to deduct their fetuses as dependents on their taxes under a 2019 anti-abortion law that a judge allowed to go into effect last month, the state said.

The state's tax agency said on Monday that any woman whose fetus has a detectable heartbeat as of July 20, the date of the court ruling, can take a personal tax exemption in the amount of $3,000 for each fetus, if she is carrying more than one.

The Georgia Department of Revenue did not provide details, such as what happens if the pregnancy ends in miscarriage during the tax year. The agency said it would issue further guidance later in 2022.

That's interesting, isn't it? What happens when 25% of those pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion? Will the woman have to return the money? Will she be accused of murder or tax fraud?

emtb2rn, BSN, RN, EMT-B · Aug 3, 2022

57 minutes ago, Beerman said:

The voters were able to listen and participate in debate, and then vote. That's how it's supposed to work. Not what the Biden administration is threatening to do.

For those of us who believe in the constitution and our system of govt, what happened in Kansas is a win.

Many polls show that Americans by and large believe abortion should be legal. Not sure why some many are surprised by this vote, or worry that this is a "one-off"?

So you think EMTALA should be suspended unless ratified state by state?

heron, ASN, RN · Aug 3, 2022

3 hours ago, Beerman said:

The voters were able to listen and participate in debate, and then vote. That's how it's supposed to work. Not what the Biden administration is threatening to do.

For those of us who believe in the constitution and our system of govt, what happened in Kansas is a win.

Many polls show that Americans by and large believe abortion should be legal. Not sure why some many are surprised by this vote, or worry that this is a "one-off"?

The majority of voters voted for Hillary Clinton for president, and yet …

I have read between 22 and 26 states plan to ban or plan to ban/severely restrict access to abortions. Voters elected those legislators.

How many states have constitutional protections for women’s rights - which is why the Kansas measure was forced to go to a referendum as a proposed amendment. Just ask in’.

Absent state constitutional protections, just how would voters express and enforce their support for abortion access?

Let’s also mention all the various shenanigans pulled to block access to voting in various communities. Based on assertions of preventing voter fraud that isn’t happening.

I agree that the Kansas vote is a win for the way things are supposed to work. It gives me hope that the extremists currently infesting our politics can be countered effectively.

But I think that it’s incredibly naive to think that this one battle ends the war. I predict:

- lawsuits claiming voter fraud, seeking to invalidate the results of the Kansas referendum.

- more proposals to amend or repeal and completely rewrite the Kansas state constitution.

- escalation of misinformation campaigns and general harassment in any and all states where voters might actually have a shot at taking control of the decisions.

So, yes … it could very well be a one-off. Once again, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.

heron, ASN, RN · Aug 7, 2022

On 8/3/2022 at 10:01 AM, heron said:

The majority of voters voted for Hillary Clinton for president, and yet …

I have read between 22 and 26 states plan to ban or plan to ban/severely restrict access to abortions. Voters elected those legislators.

How many states have constitutional protections for women’s rights - which is why the Kansas measure was forced to go to a referendum as a proposed amendment. Just ask in’.

Absent state constitutional protections, just how would voters express and enforce their support for abortion access?

Let’s also mention all the various shenanigans pulled to block access to voting in various communities. Based on assertions of preventing voter fraud that isn’t happening.

I agree that the Kansas vote is a win for the way things are supposed to work. It gives me hope that the extremists currently infesting our politics can be countered effectively.

But I think that it’s incredibly naive to think that this one battle ends the war. I predict:

- lawsuits claiming voter fraud, seeking to invalidate the results of the Kansas referendum.

- more proposals to amend or repeal and completely rewrite the Kansas state constitution.

- escalation of misinformation campaigns and general harassment in any and all states where voters might actually have a shot at taking control of the decisions.

So, yes … it could very well be a one-off. Once again, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.

Interesting thing I just found out today: Google “Convention of States Project”.

The right wing extremists are way ahead of me. They’re advocating for changes or a complete re-write of the founding document of the country. This will get interesting.

chare · Aug 7, 2022

1 hour ago, heron said:

[...]

The right wing extremists are way ahead of me. They’re advocating for changes or a complete re-write of the founding document of the country. This will get interesting.

How exactly do you see this "get[ting] interesting"?