Trump says abortion law should be determined by states

[KhunLA]

4 minutes ago, Tug said:

First off??dude trump says whatever benefits him at the moment all stop what he says is not rooted in principle or personal beliefs it’s all about what’s to gain,he is what he is.take a look at what Arizona did to women today on this issue there Supreme Court ruled they must follow the law from the 1860s……..me thinks Arizona is going to be as blue as the Pacific Ocean come November……wow!!

Again, another person doesn't seem to understand a Democracy in a Constitutional Republic.   He simple reinforced what written in the Constitution, and the SCOTUS, has reaffirmed.  Correctly so, as President he works for the people with the Constitution as framework to work in.  

 

Politicians are supposed to understand and follow the Constitution, not change laws based on their person opinions and desires.  That's why they don't write & submit laws to Congress.  Elected representatives of the state do.  

 

Presidential candidates can let people know how strongly they feel about an issue, and if they would pass or veto a bill if it reached their desk, but that's it.  Every law is determined by the state, by the state, for the people IN THAT STATE.

[pomchop]

9 hours ago, wombat said:

Why are men telling women what they can do with their body?

Because many of them are bible beating morons who think they should get to play god and stick their noses into womens vaginas....unless of course it is their daughter or sister who wants and abortion then it is time to secretly send her to a state and tell all their fellow bible beaters oh she is gone to visit aunt tilda...

 

does it surprise anyone that the bible beaters who believe in people coming back from the dead, parting seas, building arks and donald trump etc may not be the sharpest tools in the shed?  They want to 'protect" all life unless it somehow compromises their beliefs....like their daughter gets pregnant by a black guy and then bring on the abortion....makes no difference as to what the woman and her doctor may believe or want....just do as you are told.

 

 

[Skipalongcassidy]

24 minutes ago, Tug said:

Come swim a few klicks in my flippers bucko trump is what he is every thing is transactional with him he’s not guided by principles or morals he’s defective and should never ever be allowed near power again.the one and only reason he is were he is is because he was born into money that’s it…….

How It Started ... How It's Going: Inflation-adjusted hourly wages lower today than when Biden took office

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, pomchop said:

Because many of them are bible beating morons who think they should get to play god and stick their noses into womens vaginas....unless of course it is their daughter or sister who wants and abortion then it is time to secretly send her to a state and tell all their fellow bible beaters oh she is gone to visit aunt tilda...

 

does it surprise anyone that the bible beaters who believe in people coming back from the dead, parting seas, building arks and donald trump etc may not be the sharpest tools in the shed?  They want to 'protect" all life unless it somehow compromises their beliefs....like their daughter gets pregnant by a black guy and then bring on the abortion....makes no difference as to what the woman and her doctor may believe or want....just do as you are told.

 

 

So, tolerance is only for people you agree with? 

 

I think it safe to say you would never be sticking your nose in a woman's vagina. 

[bamnutsak]

Arizona steps up, and reverts to an 1864 law.

 

Arizona's top court revives 19th century abortion ban

 

April 9 (Reuters) - Arizona's top court on Tuesday revived a ban on nearly all abortions under a law from 1864, a half century before statehood and women's suffrage, further restricting reproductive rights in a state where terminating a pregnancy was already barred at 15 weeks of gestation.

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled, opens new tab 4-2 in favor of an anti-abortion obstetrician and a county prosecutor who pressed to implement the Civil War-era statute after the Democratic attorney general of the key presidential battleground state declined to do so.

States were given the go-ahead to adopt such bans after the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court in June 2022 overturned its landmark 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade that had made access to abortion a constitutional right nationwide.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/arizonas-top-court-revives-19th-century-abortion-ban-2024-04-09/

 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

6 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

Arizona steps up, and reverts to an 1864 law.

 

Arizona's top court revives 19th century abortion ban

 

April 9 (Reuters) - Arizona's top court on Tuesday revived a ban on nearly all abortions under a law from 1864, a half century before statehood and women's suffrage, further restricting reproductive rights in a state where terminating a pregnancy was already barred at 15 weeks of gestation.

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled, opens new tab 4-2 in favor of an anti-abortion obstetrician and a county prosecutor who pressed to implement the Civil War-era statute after the Democratic attorney general of the key presidential battleground state declined to do so.

States were given the go-ahead to adopt such bans after the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court in June 2022 overturned its landmark 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade that had made access to abortion a constitutional right nationwide.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/arizonas-top-court-revives-19th-century-abortion-ban-2024-04-09/

 

 

 

Would the citizens of those states have not recourse or will they cease all voting? 

[bamnutsak]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Would the citizens of those states have not recourse or will they cease all voting? 

 

Arizona abortion rights amendment backers says they've gathered signatures needed for 2024 ballot

 

PHOENIX — Groups working to put reproductive rights in Arizona’s state constitution say they have exceeded the signature threshold to put a constitutional amendment on abortion on the state’s ballot in November. 

 

Arizona for Abortion Access, a coalition of reproductive rights organizations including the ACLU of Arizona and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, says it had gathered 506,892 petition signatures as of this past weekend, with more than three months to go until the July 3 deadline to submit the signatures to Arizona’s secretary of state. The threshold to put a measure on the ballot is 383,923 signatures, and while some typically get invalidated in the verification process, the amendment appears on track to go before voters this fall.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/arizona-abortion-rights-amendment-backers-says-gathered-signatures-nee-rcna145922

 

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

 

Arizona abortion rights amendment backers says they've gathered signatures needed for 2024 ballot

 

PHOENIX — Groups working to put reproductive rights in Arizona’s state constitution say they have exceeded the signature threshold to put a constitutional amendment on abortion on the state’s ballot in November. 

 

Arizona for Abortion Access, a coalition of reproductive rights organizations including the ACLU of Arizona and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, says it had gathered 506,892 petition signatures as of this past weekend, with more than three months to go until the July 3 deadline to submit the signatures to Arizona’s secretary of state. The threshold to put a measure on the ballot is 383,923 signatures, and while some typically get invalidated in the verification process, the amendment appears on track to go before voters this fall.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/arizona-abortion-rights-amendment-backers-says-gathered-signatures-nee-rcna145922

 

So, they do have recourse and all's good, yes? 

[bamnutsak]

23 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

and all's good, yes? 

 

Not sure, the 1864 law makes no exceptions for rape or incest. 

 

But in the long run it's probably not good politically for republicans.

 

 

 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, bamnutsak said:

 

Not sure, the 1864 law makes no exceptions for rape or incest. 

 

But in the long run it's probably not good politically for republicans.

 

 

Almost like it could be the left pushing it in an election cycle. 

 

 

[bamnutsak]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Almost like it could be the left pushing it in an election cycle. 

 

 

 

Hmm. No. It was the Arizona State Supreme Court.

 

 

Kari Lake disavows Arizona abortion ban ruling

 

Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake on Tuesday came out against an Arizona state Supreme Court ruling that bans nearly all abortions, with exceptions only to save the mother's life.

 

"I oppose today's ruling, and I am calling on [Democratic Gov.] Katie Hobbs and the state Legislature to come up with an immediate commonsense solution that Arizonans can support," Lake said in a statement.

But Lake said in 2022 that the near-total ban the ruling upholds is a "great law" and said it sets an example for other states.

 

https://www.axios.com/2024/04/09/kari-lake-arizona-abortion-ban

[Tug]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Would the citizens of those states have not recourse or will they cease all voting? 

Oh I suspect the lady’s along with most guys will be a voting lol 😂 it’s a gift to the democrats no doubt about it!to bad the women folk have to suffer tho.allready they are organizing!

[Yellowtail]

20 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

 

Hmm. No. It was the Arizona State Supreme Court.

 

 

Kari Lake disavows Arizona abortion ban ruling

 

Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake on Tuesday came out against an Arizona state Supreme Court ruling that bans nearly all abortions, with exceptions only to save the mother's life.

 

"I oppose today's ruling, and I am calling on [Democratic Gov.] Katie Hobbs and the state Legislature to come up with an immediate commonsense solution that Arizonans can support," Lake said in a statement.

But Lake said in 2022 that the near-total ban the ruling upholds is a "great law" and said it sets an example for other states.

 

https://www.axios.com/2024/04/09/kari-lake-arizona-abortion-ban

Hmm. I said almost, and I could be wrong, but the court does not bring suits, it rules. 

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, Tug said:

Oh I suspect the lady’s along with most guys will be a voting lol 😂 it’s a gift to the democrats no doubt about it!to bad the women folk have to suffer tho.allready they are organizing!

That's hilarious. Republicans were largely responsible for the 19th amendment. Democrats were still enforcing Jim Crow laws and burning crosses back then, and really up until the sixties when they realized they could buy votes with welfare. 

 

 

 

[JCauto]

14 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

If you really think this issue is about 'subjugating women' then you haven't been listening. It is about a very basic thing- when does life begin and when does life deserve protection? And what steps should be taken to deliver that protection.  

 

On a purely constitutional level it seems obvious that this is a power that should belong to the separate states.  What is so bad about letting them decide for themselves? 

 

Oh, I've been listening. And to pretend that this is about when life begins and when life deserves protection is just disingenuous. Almost as disingenuous as pretending that you think this is a "State's rights" issue, similar to the pretend way the Right likes to push any issue they don't like as being somehow having to be decided at lower levels due to "the Constitution". Of course, once they stack the courts and succeed in getting their way with "State's Rights" arguments, it's immediately onto the ultimate objective, federal statutes that enshrine it as the law throughout the USA. At that point, you won't hear a peep about "State's Rights".

 

So you'd be totally cool with the male in the relationship having to support their partner from the moment of conception? And if they engage in domestic assault, that puts the life of the foetus in danger, so that's attempted murder, correct? And they have to support that baby once born throughout their childhood, no? Of course, that means supporting the mother too if she doesn't have sufficient income, so you're down with that, right? And if they don't, then because they've already demonstrated that they won't take responsibility for what's theirs, then you're cool with State-sponsored mandatory vasectomies or SSRIs to suppress the man's uncontrollable desires?

 

I don't know why I bother, it's obvious to me that none of our Far Right interlocutors have any religious conviction or moral ground for their arguments, they simply enjoy trolling and want to get their people in power so they can enjoy the cruelty they inflict on women and minorities.

 

[JCauto]

On 4/9/2024 at 9:27 AM, Hanaguma said:

A 16 week ban is reasonable though, is it not? It brings the US in line with most other first world countries AFAIK.  

 

And once again, as usual, you'd be completely wrong.

https://www.cfr.org/article/abortion-law-global-comparisons

 

"The past fifty years have been characterized by an unmistakable trend toward the liberalization of abortion laws, particularly in the industrialized world. Each year, around seventy-three million abortions take place worldwide, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). This translates to about thirty-nine abortions per one thousand women globally, a rate that has stayed roughly the same since 1990. Notably, rates have diverged between countries with fewer restrictions and those with more: Between 1990–94 and 2015–19, the average abortion rate in countries with generally legal abortion (excluding China and India) declined by 43 percent. By contrast, in countries with severe restrictions on abortion, the average abortion rate increased by around 12 percent."

 

So if you are actually interested in reducing the rates of abortion, the answer is clear and always has been - provide open access because by having choice and easy access to birth control and reproductive health services, the number of abortions goes DOWN! But you don't actually care about that anyway, so moot point, right?

 

"As nations around the globe have expanded the grounds on which people can access reproductive health services, the quality and safety of abortion care has improved, as has maternal survival. However, the safety of abortion procedures diverges widely between countries where abortion is generally legal and countries with high restrictions on abortion. Almost 90 percent of abortions in countries with liberal abortion laws are considered safe, compared with just 25 percent of abortions [PDF] in countries where abortion is banned. According to the WHO, approximately 5–13 percent of maternal deaths worldwide are due to complications from unsafe abortions, the vast majority of which occur in developing countries."

 

And of course you're cool with 5-13% of maternal deaths being because of unsafe abortions, right? Sanctity of life blah blah blah. I do hope you're going full nutter on us and value the life of the unborn more than the mother, after all, why value what already exists more than an abstract possibility for which you need not provide any support or tax dollars to? At least until it's born, at which point "not my problem", amirite?

[KhunLA]

15 minutes ago, JCauto said:

 

Oh, I've been listening. And to pretend that this is about when life begins and when life deserves protection is just disingenuous. Almost as disingenuous as pretending that you think this is a "State's rights" issue, similar to the pretend way the Right likes to push any issue they don't like as being somehow having to be decided at lower levels due to "the Constitution". Of course, once they stack the courts and succeed in getting their way with "State's Rights" arguments, it's immediately onto the ultimate objective, federal statutes that enshrine it as the law throughout the USA. At that point, you won't hear a peep about "State's Rights".

 

So you'd be totally cool with the male in the relationship having to support their partner from the moment of conception? And if they engage in domestic assault, that puts the life of the foetus in danger, so that's attempted murder, correct? And they have to support that baby once born throughout their childhood, no? Of course, that means supporting the mother too if she doesn't have sufficient income, so you're down with that, right? And if they don't, then because they've already demonstrated that they won't take responsibility for what's theirs, then you're cool with State-sponsored mandatory vasectomies or SSRIs to suppress the man's uncontrollable desires?

 

I don't know why I bother, it's obvious to me that none of our Far Right interlocutors have any religious conviction or moral ground for their arguments, they simply enjoy trolling and want to get their people in power so they can enjoy the cruelty they inflict on women and minorities.

 

I wish you would have put "religious conviction" in the first sentence, as then I would have avoided reading the rest.   Religious & moral in same sentence = oxymoron.

 

And yes, the states have the right to self rule, as long as it doesn't conflict with the Constitution.   That's a democracy in a Constitutional Republic.   All parties agree to that, not just right wing nutters.

 

And apparently just the way most citizens want it, as it's been that way over 230 years.

 

You disagree, write your state or federal representative ... or move out of the country.   I moved, as couldn't live within the over taxed nanny state it has become.   Didn't want my tax money contributing to their world terrorism policies, of invade & occupy for corporate profits ... IMHO

Edited April 10 by KhunLA

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Would the citizens of those states have not recourse or will they cease all voting? 

Two of the judges who voted for the abortion ban are up for re-election in November.

 

Trump is going to lose Arizona in November over this abortion ban.

 

BTW, the law was passed before Arizona became a state. That may become an issue.

[bamnutsak]

7 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

BTW, the law was passed before Arizona became a state. That may become an issue.

 

 

I think it was ratified/codified several times including after state-hood.

 

 

I wonder how people feel about travel bans, for those who would leave a state to obtain an abortion where it is legal.

 

Or how they feel about the restrictive state prosecuting a woman who did get an abortion elsewhere?

 

 

 

The right-wing fought long and hard to overturn Roe. They caught the car, and now seem intent on driving it off a cliff.

 

This decision comes just one day after trump's rambling "statement" on abortion, where he changed his mind for the thirteenth time.

 

This is going to be tough for Republicans to hide from for seven months.

 

[Hanaguma]

2 hours ago, JCauto said:

 

So you'd be totally cool with the male in the relationship having to support their partner from the moment of conception? And if they engage in domestic assault, that puts the life of the foetus in danger, so that's attempted murder, correct? And they have to support that baby once born throughout their childhood, no? Of course, that means supporting the mother too if she doesn't have sufficient income, so you're down with that, right? And if they don't, then because they've already demonstrated that they won't take responsibility for what's theirs, then you're cool with State-sponsored mandatory vasectomies or SSRIs to suppress the man's uncontrollable desires?

 

Yes to all of the above except enforced vasectomies.  But strictly enforced child support, of course.  It takes two to make a baby, so of course both should be held equally responsible to the extent that it can be done.

[Hanaguma]

2 hours ago, JCauto said:

 

And once again, as usual, you'd be completely wrong.

https://www.cfr.org/article/abortion-law-global-comparisons

 

"The past fifty years have been characterized by an unmistakable trend toward the liberalization of abortion laws, particularly in the industrialized world. Each year, around seventy-three million abortions take place worldwide, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). This translates to about thirty-nine abortions per one thousand women globally, a rate that has stayed roughly the same since 1990. Notably, rates have diverged between countries with fewer restrictions and those with more: Between 1990–94 and 2015–19, the average abortion rate in countries with generally legal abortion (excluding China and India) declined by 43 percent. By contrast, in countries with severe restrictions on abortion, the average abortion rate increased by around 12 percent."

 

So if you are actually interested in reducing the rates of abortion, the answer is clear and always has been - provide open access because by having choice and easy access to birth control and reproductive health services, the number of abortions goes DOWN! But you don't actually care about that anyway, so moot point, right?

 

"As nations around the globe have expanded the grounds on which people can access reproductive health services, the quality and safety of abortion care has improved, as has maternal survival. However, the safety of abortion procedures diverges widely between countries where abortion is generally legal and countries with high restrictions on abortion. Almost 90 percent of abortions in countries with liberal abortion laws are considered safe, compared with just 25 percent of abortions [PDF] in countries where abortion is banned. According to the WHO, approximately 5–13 percent of maternal deaths worldwide are due to complications from unsafe abortions, the vast majority of which occur in developing countries."

 

And of course you're cool with 5-13% of maternal deaths being because of unsafe abortions, right? Sanctity of life blah blah blah. I do hope you're going full nutter on us and value the life of the unborn more than the mother, after all, why value what already exists more than an abstract possibility for which you need not provide any support or tax dollars to? At least until it's born, at which point "not my problem", amirite?

Not at all. I think free and widely available birth control is a great idea. I never said a total ban on abortion was the way to go. But you seemed to ignore that most industrialized nations do put time based restriction on abortion, which generally match what Trump said was his policy. Generally 10 to 14 weeks across western Europe (with exceptions, but generally). 

 

No need for the hysteria and hyperbole though. What happens in developing countries has zero to do with policy in the US. Let them make up their own minds.  As to the value of the baby vs the mother, that has been covered. I think abortion should be permitted if the life of the mother is in danger. Period. 

 

Now, time to lay YOUR cards on the table. What restrictions, if any, should there be? Please try to be specific without using euphemisms or dodges. 

[Danderman123]

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So, they do have recourse and all's good, yes? 

So you are okay with bad laws being passed, as long as citizens maybe can overturn it months later?

 

Maybe next time, some legislature will pass something you don't like, and you will forget what you just posted.

[JCauto]

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Not at all. I think free and widely available birth control is a great idea. I never said a total ban on abortion was the way to go. But you seemed to ignore that most industrialized nations do put time based restriction on abortion, which generally match what Trump said was his policy. Generally 10 to 14 weeks across western Europe (with exceptions, but generally). 

 

No need for the hysteria and hyperbole though. What happens in developing countries has zero to do with policy in the US. Let them make up their own minds.  As to the value of the baby vs the mother, that has been covered. I think abortion should be permitted if the life of the mother is in danger. Period. 

 

Now, time to lay YOUR cards on the table. What restrictions, if any, should there be? Please try to be specific without using euphemisms or dodges. 

 

Viability. Which apparently is 24 weeks. If it's past 24 weeks and threatens the mother's life and she and her physician agree that the abortion is necessary, then allowed. If it is before 24 weeks, then no restrictions, completely up to the mother. Clear?

[Hanaguma]

32 minutes ago, JCauto said:

 

Viability. Which apparently is 24 weeks. If it's past 24 weeks and threatens the mother's life and she and her physician agree that the abortion is necessary, then allowed. If it is before 24 weeks, then no restrictions, completely up to the mother. Clear?

Very clear, thanks. So we really aren't that far apart then, wonder why you were spewing all the vitriol.   

 

Just curious, would you change your stance if medical technology advances and the age of viability becomes shorter? 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Very clear, thanks. So we really aren't that far apart then, wonder why you were spewing all the vitriol.   

 

Just curious, would you change your stance if medical technology advances and the age of viability becomes shorter? 

The problem is, the evangelists who are dictating Republican policy are not interested anything other than a total ban.

It’s not a matter of technological advances, not even medical science it’s one of theocratic absolutism.

 

The GOP is under the control of religious zealots.

 

 

 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

I find the left's language hilarious.  "Reproductive health services" is abortion and "gender health care" is surgery to ruin kids lives. 

 

So, the mother's life is at risk, and she can abort a full-term baby is she can find a leftist doctor that says she's over-stressed. 

 

 

[riclag]

20 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Like so many other abortion supporters, you lose yourself in euphemisms. Which is a sign of attempting to skirt the issue. A 'personal medical decision' that happens to impact another persons' life is hardly something that could be left up to an individual. Particularly as the pregnancy goes on, the abortion procedure gets more gruesome and hard to justify.

The progressive’s only care about the future of children when they can use it to their political narratives!

Shameful & sick

 

[sirineou]

Quote

Trump says abortion law should be determined by states

Great idea!

wealthy women would be able to travel to another state and have their abortion, where the poor would have to settle for back alley abortions. 

Brilliant!!

 

[Yellowtail]

Just now, sirineou said:

Great idea!

wealthy women would be able to travel to another state and have their abortion, where the poor would have to settle for back alley abortions. 

Brilliant!!

 

Would you not pay for a woman in need of an abortion to travel? 

 

 

[Tug]

12 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Ah... so you hate that he has money... so sad... did you read the article or are you happy being ignorant?

No I don’t hate the money or the good fortune of winning the birth lottery……it’s what he’s done with the gift……here’s a thought it would sure be nice to hear from the woman folk on this thread seems to me it’s just a bunch of dudes…