Hundreds rally at U.S. Supreme Court, calling state abortion bans as step backward

[webfact]

Hundreds rally at U.S. Supreme Court, calling state abortion bans as step backward

By Amanda Becker

 

Abortion rights activists rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., May 21, 2019. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Abortion-rights campaigners, including Democrats seeking their party's 2020 presidential nomination, rallied at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to protest new restrictions on abortion passed by Republican-dominated legislatures in eight states.

 

Many of the restrictions are intended to draw legal challenges, which religious conservatives hope will lead the nation's top court to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy.

 

"We are not going to allow them to move our country backward," U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar, one of the two dozen Democrats running for president, told the crowd through a megaphone.

 

Another candidate, Senator Cory Booker, urged the crowd to "wake up more men to join this fight."

 

The rally is one of scores scheduled for Tuesday around the country by the American Civil Liberties Union, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood Action Fund and other abortion rights group. The protests are a response to laws passed recently by Republican state legislatures that amount to the tightest restrictions on abortion in the United States in decades.

 

Alabama passed an outright ban last week, including for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, unless the woman's life is in danger. Other states, including Ohio and Georgia, have banned abortions absent a medical emergency after six weeks of pregnancy or after the foetus's heartbeat can be detected, which can occur before a woman even realizes she is pregnant.

 

Protesters outside the Supreme Court waved signs saying "We won't be punished" and "Protect Safe, Legal Abortion" and were joined by Pete Buttigieg, the South Bend, Indiana, mayor who also is vying for the 2020 nomination.

 

"My entire campaign is about freedom," he said in a brief interview.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump, a Republican who opposes abortion, has seized on the issue as one likely to fire up his core supporters, although he considers the Alabama ban too restrictive because it does not make exceptions for incest and rape.

 

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, another Democratic 2020 candidate, blamed what she called "outrageous bans" on Trump.

 

"This is the beginning of President Trump's war on women," she told the rally. "If he wants his war, he will have his war, and he will lose."

 

The restrictive new laws are contrary to the Roe v. Wade ruling, which affords a woman the right to an abortion up to the moment the foetus would be viable outside the womb, which is usually placed at about seven months, or 28 weeks, but may occur earlier.

 

The bans have been championed by conservatives, many of them Christian, who say foetuses should have rights comparable to those of infants and view abortion as tantamount to murder. The Supreme Court now has a 5-4 conservative majority following two judicial appointments by Trump.

 

"This is probably one of the first times I've ever felt like it's real that things could actually be overturned," Tracy Leaman, 43, an event planner from the Washington area, said at Tuesday's rally. "The Supreme Court is stacked against us for the first time in my lifetime. I feel like it's scarier than ever before."

 

A federal judge in Mississippi on Tuesday heard arguments in a lawsuit challenging the state's new fetal-heartbeart abortion law. District Judge Carlton Reeves asked questions suggesting he thought the new law to be even more unconstitutional than the state's 15-week abortion ban he struck down last year, USA Today reported.

 

(Reporting by Amanda Becker in Washington; Additional reporting by Jonathan Allen in New York; Writing by Jonathan Allen; Editing by Scott Malone and Bill Trott)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-05-22

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

 

[helpisgood]

23 minutes ago, webfact said:

The bans have been championed by conservatives, many of them Christian, who say foetuses should have rights comparable to those of infants and view abortion as tantamount to murder.

23 minutes ago, webfact said:

{Trump] considers the Alabama ban too restrictive because it does not make exceptions for incest and rape.

 

Just setting aside, for now, whether early-term abortions should be legal or not, I think these incest and rape exceptions are inconsistent with those that think that an early-term abortion is tantamount to murder.

 

I can easily understand how traumatic a pregnancy caused by rape or incest can be to the very unfortunate mother.  However, the aborted fetus had no responsibility for the crime.  Thus, is it still not "murder" according to those who are against early-term abortions because they are tantamount to murder?  How did a baby's life become irrelevant because of a crime that he or she has no responsibility for?

 

Just to be clear, I am quite happy right now with Roe v. Wade.  I am merely pointing out the inconsistency of the other side.   

Edited May 22, 2019 by helpisgood

[stevenl]

" However, the aborted fetus had no responsibility for the crime.  Thus, is it still not "murder" according to those who are against early-term abortions because they are tantamount to murder?  How did a baby's life become irrelevant because of a crime that he or she has no responsibility for? "

Why do you equate a fetus to a baby?

[helpisgood]

28 minutes ago, stevenl said:

" However, the aborted fetus had no responsibility for the crime.  Thus, is it still not "murder" according to those who are against early-term abortions because they are tantamount to murder?  How did a baby's life become irrelevant because of a crime that he or she has no responsibility for? "

Why do you equate a fetus to a baby?

It took a little while to understand your point.  Maybe I should have written it more clearly.  I guess I needed more coffee.

 

I probably should not have used the word "baby."  I am merely pointing out the inconsistency of one side's concept of abortion as murder while, at the same time, holding on to those two exceptions of rape and incest.  So, let's change the sentence with "baby" in it as follows:  "How is that an aborted fetus resulting from rape or incest - one of two crimes the fetus is not responsible for - is not murder while aborting any other fetus is deemed as murder?"  I think that more clearly states the point.

 

Thanks for your help! 

Edited May 22, 2019 by helpisgood

[Basil B]

A rerun of the Prohibition farce...

 

Making it illegal will not stop it, Just moving it from controlled and safe clinics to unsterial back rooms.

[Tug]

Just another nail in donalds coffin wake up lady’s and dump the chump 2020!

[Sealbash]

Just another nail in donalds coffin wake up lady’s and dump the chump 2020!

It appears your hatred of Trump causes you to overlook inconvenient facts such as these are state laws being passed, not federal.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Sealbash said:

It appears your hatred of Trump causes you to overlook inconvenient facts such as these are state laws being passed, not federal.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Being passed by Republicans.

[dick dasterdly]

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Being passed by Republicans.

And accepted by trump ala his 'hospital workers can allow their religious beliefs to over-ride any laws' (in simplistic terms).....

[mikebike]

2 hours ago, helpisgood said:

It took a little while to understand your point.  Maybe I should have written it more clearly.  I guess I needed more coffee.

 

I probably should not have used the word "baby."  I am merely pointing out the inconsistency of one side's concept of abortion as murder while, at the same time, holding on to those two exceptions of rape and incest.  So, let's change the sentence with "baby" in it as follows:  "How is that an aborted fetus resulting from rape or incest - one of two crimes the fetus is not responsible for - is not murder while aborting any other fetus is deemed as murder?"  I think that more clearly states the point.

 

Thanks for your help! 

I don't think you understand the situation. Its not as though those who wish to control women's bodies want to include those exceptions. They are dragged to that point by quasi-moderate religious extremists.

[xylophone]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

U.S. President Donald Trump, a Republican who opposes abortion, has seized on the issue as one likely to fire up his core supporters,

And it has often been stated that he has an evangelical core of supporters, and that puzzles me somewhat because I cannot reconcile the support of this imbecile with the commandments which the evangelists/christians supposedly hold dear.......

 

1.    You shall have no other Gods but me. (Trump worships Trump)
2.    You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it. (Trump worships money)
3.    You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
4.    You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.
5.    Respect your father and mother. (Trump lies about his father)
6.    You must not commit murder.
7.    You must not commit adultery. (Trump has committed adultery)
8.    You must not steal. (Trump has basically stolen money from the contractors that he never paid for work completed on some of his projects).
9.    You must not give false evidence against your neighbour. (Trump continually lies about others).
10.    You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, nor anything that belongs to your neighbour. (Knowing Trump's propensity for adultery, and for "grabbing pussy" it's highly likely that he has broken this commandment).

 

A sad state of affairs IMO, as there is no-one further from the christian beliefs than this adulterous liar and clown.

 

[stevenl]

26 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

And accepted by trump ala his 'hospital workers can allow their religious beliefs to over-ride any laws' (in simplistic terms).....

Not only that, but actively supported by him " U.S. President Donald Trump, a Republican who opposes abortion, has seized on the issue as one likely to fire up his core supporters, ".

[dick dasterdly]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Not only that, but actively supported by him " U.S. President Donald Trump, a Republican who opposes abortion, has seized on the issue as one likely to fire up his core supporters, ".

I don't doubt it, but that is a media quote - and I trust the media about as far as I trust trump!

[Boon Mee]

How can protecting the sanctity of life be interpreted as "a step backwards"? 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, stevenl said:

" However, the aborted fetus had no responsibility for the crime.  Thus, is it still not "murder" according to those who are against early-term abortions because they are tantamount to murder?  How did a baby's life become irrelevant because of a crime that he or she has no responsibility for? "

Why do you equate a fetus to a baby?

A foetus is a potential person, and if it can survive unaided outside the womb abortion should be regarded as killing a human being. 

However, the human race is too many for the planet, and if it takes killing loads of potential people to reduce the population, better that than war to kill people actually living.

Till people take responsibility to use birth control to stop people being born, abortion is probably the only answer.

[dick dasterdly]

4 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

How can protecting the sanctity of life be interpreted as "a step backwards"? 

Because many (most?) of us are more concerned about the woman's right to choose whether she is able to bring up a child.

And that's without getting into the life of a fetus that could be born as an unwanted child in an orphanage.....

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

And accepted by trump ala his 'hospital workers can allow their religious beliefs to over-ride any laws' (in simplistic terms).....

Far as I know, no western hospital worker can be forced to participate in abortions, as it should be. Religious objections irrelevant to assisting or not.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Because many (most?) of us are more concerned about the woman's right to choose whether she is able to bring up a child.

And that's without getting into the life of a fetus that could be born as an unwanted child in an orphanage.....

Perhaps most of us should be questioning why women don't use birth control. Even if they didn't, there is the morning after pill. Even better, "no" is the most effective birth control ever.

Seems to me that some women think abortion is a form of birth control, when it should be a last resort and before the foetus is viable.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Because many (most?) of us are more concerned about the woman's right to choose whether she is able to bring up a child.

And that's without getting into the life of a fetus that could be born as an unwanted child in an orphanage.....

If a woman doesn't want to bring up a child, she shouldn't be engaging in an activity that can produce one unless they use birth control that works, and if the condom breaks use the morning after pill.

Before the pill, good women didn't, and if they did and got pregnant they got married.

Seems to me that now they want to have sex, but if it goes wrong they think they should be able to have an abortion. How about a bit of responsibility for their life choices?

[Jonnapat]

If you take a few steps back you will see that until recent years Trump was pro-choice.

Now, of course with all the so-called Christian cults in the US it's very convenient to change your mind when millions of votes will be at stake.

Worth also noting that Trump has appointed more than 100 judges to various courts, all of whom are apparently ""pro life"".

So watch out for many fights on this subject in the years to come though why it plays such sn important role in U S politics baffles me.

[wwest5829]

Bottom line for this Amrican. I will not recognize your religiously motivated decision over my or my partners body. Your ”law” will effect only the poor. Those with financial means will seek medical care in more enlightened regions.

[wwest5829]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps most of us should be questioning why women don't use birth control. Even if they didn't, there is the morning after pill. Even better, "no" is the most effective birth control ever.

Seems to me that some women think abortion is a form of birth control, when it should be a last resort and before the foetus is viable.

Perhaps many should be questioning the person who thinks birth control is 100% effective and who ignores rape, incest, a couple who does want a child being faced with the medical science determined fact that their child has a fatal genetic defect???

[SpaceKadet]

The anti-abortion laws are just a religious drivel created by men who definitely don't have to go through an unwanted pregnancy. There are not many women in that camp. And those who are, are devout religious practitioners.

 

In my opinion, as long as the fetus is connected to its mother through the umbilical cord, it is part of the mother, and she must have the right to make a decision about aborting, just like she has the right to make decisions about other parts of her body.  

[Pique Dard]

i'm against abortion at any case and i'm against banning of abortion at any case. i'm absolutely for abortion in case of rape or incest

[GroveHillWanderer]

Do you ever feel that things might be a little bit different if men were the ones who got pregnant? Just think about it fully for a moment and let the implications sink in.

 

I think there's a fair amount of truth to the the old adage:

 

"If men could get pregnant, abortions would not only be legal, they would be free of charge and available on every street corner in the nation."

 

[mikebike]

On 5/22/2019 at 2:53 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps most of us should be questioning why women don't use birth control. Even if they didn't, there is the morning after pill. Even better, "no" is the most effective birth control ever.

Seems to me that some women think abortion is a form of birth control, when it should be a last resort and before the foetus is viable.

Or, since women can only conceive and reproduce once a year, and men can reproduce an infinite number of times per year, maybe it would more effective to shift the burden of birth control to the those with infinitely greater potential to reproduce...? Why don't all men use birth control is a more salient question if your genuine concern is overpopulation.

[mikebike]

On 5/22/2019 at 2:59 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

Before the pill, good women didn't, and if they did and got pregnant they got married.

Not a history buff, are you?

 

[Skeptic7]

Abortion should be legal, readily available and affordable in every city in the USA and the world while at it. Many/most people have sex because it feels good, not to be burdened with brats. Having children is great for those whom want 'em, but consensual sex is great for EVERYBODY! 

 

And to be clear...these so-called pro-lifers are really only pro-fetus. They want to force their subjective ideals on everyone and force people to bear children they don't want...are not ready for...can't afford, but then the pro-fetus liars totally want nothing to do with the poor kids once they're born.   

[seajae]

there are cases where abortion should be allowed as long as it is early term, this abortions up until birth is bull sh*t where they allow the baby to be removed then left to die on its own, that  is murder. I can understand when there are physical problems with the fetus or rape/incest etc is involved, once the fetus is fully formed it becomes a whole different thing especially these days with medical advancements

[stevenl]

20 minutes ago, seajae said:

there are cases where abortion should be allowed as long as it is early term, this abortions up until birth is bull sh*t where they allow the baby to be removed then left to die on its own, that  is murder. I can understand when there are physical problems with the fetus or rape/incest etc is involved, once the fetus is fully formed it becomes a whole different thing especially these days with medical advancements

What 'abortions up until birth'?