So I was right about abortion - Roe v Wade is dead

[theblether]

Once again, I'm comfortable with abortion law in the UK ( I'm British ). This thread is not about abortion - its about electoral reality. 

 

The time of Roe v Wade being an election issue is over. This was the first Presidential election since it was sent back to state legislature, and the pro-choice party lost in a landslide. 

 

Including the popular vote. 

 

Three years ago no one would have believed you. 

 

Apparently seven out of ten abortion related bills passed at state level during this election. 

 

Abortion is legal in every state. 

 

There will be more adjustments to abortion law during the midterms. By 2028 this issue will be effectively gone from national politics. 

 

And the new mantra against the few who will continue to talk about it will be - "you've got access to abortion already." 

 

Roe v Wade is finished. 

[theblether]

The strange thing is - both Democrats and Republicans will miss the issue at national level. It was a masthead issue. And now it's gone. 

 

Most US states will settle for European style abortion access. There will be bitter local arguments over the issue but that's fine, because at the end of the day. 

 

All politics are local. 

[KhunLA]

18 minutes ago, theblether said:

Abortion is legal in every state. 

Not exactly ...

... Kentucky as one example, unless life of mother at risk.

 

 

Agree with you, it's not a national election issue, and just a state issue, where is should be.

 

Some states, 9 or 13, are very restrictive, but yes, abortions are readily available in the USA.  Have and will be for a long time.

 

Shouldn't even be mentioned at federal level.  Just one distraction, of many 

[theblether]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Not exactly ...

... Kentucky as one example, unless life of mother at risk.

 

 

Agree with you, it's not a national election issue, and just a state issue, where is should be.

 

Some states, 9 or 13, are very restrictive, but yes, abortions are readily available in the USA.  Have and will be for a long time.

 

Shouldn't even be mentioned at federal level.  Just one distraction, of many 

 

There are exceptions to the Kentucky law - I am of the opinion its way too restrictive 

 

If you’re in Kentucky, you may need to travel out of Kentucky to get an abortion unless you qualify for an exception. Exceptions are very limited and include:

• To save the pregnant person's life
• To prevent serious risk to the pregnant person's physical health.

You can leave Kentucky and get an abortion out of state.

[theblether]

The problem for the Democrats is that the Republicans have four years to eradicate this Democrat totem pole. Nebraska 12 week rule is a good example. 

[Sandboxer]

Abrakadabra, FETUS DELETUS~

[John Drake]

5 hours ago, theblether said:

Once again, I'm comfortable with abortion law in the UK ( I'm British ). This thread is not about abortion - its about electoral reality. 

 

The time of Roe v Wade being an election issue is over. This was the first Presidential election since it was sent back to state legislature, and the pro-choice party lost in a landslide. 

 

Including the popular vote. 

 

Three years ago no one would have believed you. 

 

Apparently seven out of ten abortion related bills passed at state level during this election. 

 

Abortion is legal in every state. 

 

There will be more adjustments to abortion law during the midterms. By 2028 this issue will be effectively gone from national politics. 

 

And the new mantra against the few who will continue to talk about it will be - "you've got access to abortion already." 

 

Roe v Wade is finished. 

 

Your forgetting that the anti-abortion zealots want a federal ban on abortion. They will keep this topic going. Deciding at the state level isn't good enough for them. It would serve them right if they lost everything because they demand complete surrender.

[JonnyF]

Harris made a big deal of this because it's one issue she can understand. Economics?  not so much.

 

Average Americans care about feeding and schooling their children, not how late they can abort them.  Maybe the NYC "sex in the city" watching progressive socialites care more? But not enough of them obviously.

 

The Dems are in a complete mess. Woke, Liberal and totally out of touch. Good riddance to them. And those who gaslight on their behalf. 

 

Someone call an uber for Harris. The discount code is DEI.

[theblether]

48 minutes ago, John Drake said:

 

Your forgetting that the anti-abortion zealots want a federal ban on abortion. They will keep this topic going. Deciding at the state level isn't good enough for them. It would serve them right if they lost everything because they demand complete surrender.

 

There's zealots on both sides, the difference is that as long as Roe v Wade was in the mix, centrist Republicans who were outraged about judicial ( Supreme Court ) overreach amplified their zealots. Centrist Republicans have now walked off the battlefield. 

 

And contrary to expectations, many red states now have European style laws on the book.

 

The lesson for Democrats is to never again select nominees by coronation. They tried it with Hillary and saw three SCOTUS seats filled, and now they've tried it with Harris and wait till you see the number of thirty-year old conservatives nominated to fill judge vacancies in the next four years 🤣🤣🤣

[jas007]

In the grand scheme of things, it's not a major issue.  Anyone who wants an abortion can obtain one. 

[tai4de2]

I am (R), and pro-choice within "common sense" European-style limits (generally banned, or at least harder to get, after a period such as 12 or 24 weeks). I cheered Roe v. Wade falling because this issue is not something the Constitution designates as a in-scope at the federal level. My position is that this is rightly a state-level issue. Consistent with that position, I strongly oppose a national ban.

 

There are a *lot* of moderate (R) people who feel like me -- probably a sizable majority of what we can now see as the 2024-era big-tent (R) base. We don't want religious orthodoxy to dictate national policy. Extreme abortion prohibition is a losing issue for us in most places, and especially at a national level. I can't see a national ban actually gaining credence.

 

Given the more localized nature of abortion rights, I really struggle to understand what all the fuss is actually about. Only states that the abortion pushers snidely deride as backwards Dumb<deleted>istan will have abortion restrictions. And by said people's thinking, who wants to live in those places anyway?

 

And this should, over time, tend to cause people to move out of said states into more "enlightened" places like west coast and north eastern states. So those places will gain more political power vs. Dumb<deleted>istan as a result -- and thus have a greater say about things like abortion.

 

In other words, backwards, inbred Kentucky will lose and progressive awesome California will win, because Abortion!

 

Right? Right?

 

 

[Cryingdick]

5 hours ago, John Drake said:

 

Your forgetting that the anti-abortion zealots want a federal ban on abortion. They will keep this topic going. Deciding at the state level isn't good enough for them. It would serve them right if they lost everything because they demand complete surrender.

It doesn't matter. A nationwide ban would be ruled unconstitutional. 

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, theblether said:

 

There are exceptions to the Kentucky law - I am of the opinion its way too restrictive 

 

If you’re in Kentucky, you may need to travel out of Kentucky to get an abortion unless you qualify for an exception. Exceptions are very limited and include:

• To save the pregnant person's life
• To prevent serious risk to the pregnant person's physical health.

You can leave Kentucky and get an abortion out of state.

It's like contraception doesn't exist.

 

Not engaging in casual sex without precautions usually works to prevent pregnancy.

I have no sympathy for any woman in a western country that gets pregnant when she didn't want to.

 

One way to solve the problem would be to force men to either pay the full cost of the abortion or support their unwanted babies- there would be a big drop in unwanted pregnancies if that happened.

There has been a lot of chatter in the ruling classes that western countries need more children to grow up and be taxpayers, so it's a bit strange that they want to allow abortion so easily. However, modern politics makes little sense anyway.

[theblether]

2 hours ago, tai4de2 said:

I am (R), and pro-choice within "common sense" European-style limits (generally banned, or at least harder to get, after a period such as 12 or 24 weeks). I cheered Roe v. Wade falling because this issue is not something the Constitution designates as a in-scope at the federal level. My position is that this is rightly a state-level issue. Consistent with that position, I strongly oppose a national ban.

 

There are a *lot* of moderate (R) people who feel like me -- probably a sizable majority of what we can now see as the 2024-era big-tent (R) base. We don't want religious orthodoxy to dictate national policy. Extreme abortion prohibition is a losing issue for us in most places, and especially at a national level. I can't see a national ban actually gaining credence.

 

Given the more localized nature of abortion rights, I really struggle to understand what all the fuss is actually about. Only states that the abortion pushers snidely deride as backwards Dumb<deleted>istan will have abortion restrictions. And by said people's thinking, who wants to live in those places anyway?

 

And this should, over time, tend to cause people to move out of said states into more "enlightened" places like west coast and north eastern states. So those places will gain more political power vs. Dumb<deleted>istan as a result -- and thus have a greater say about things like abortion.

 

In other words, backwards, inbred Kentucky will lose and progressive awesome California will win, because Abortion!

 

Right? Right?

 

 

 

California will need the immigration as they are on line to lose 4 electoral college votes due to immigration decline. 

 

Guess which state is increasing by 4? 

 

That's right. Ruby red Florida

[MicroB]

8 hours ago, John Drake said:

 

Your forgetting that the anti-abortion zealots want a federal ban on abortion. They will keep this topic going. Deciding at the state level isn't good enough for them. It would serve them right if they lost everything because they demand complete surrender.

 

Its relatively easy for the FDA to withdraw approval for mifepristone and misoprostol, or reinstate previous prescription requirements. Robert Califf has been director of the FDA for a long time, and will probably step down very soon. The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine nearly succeeded in getting approval overturned last year for Mifepristone, which is used in about 2/3rds of abortions. Depends what Kennedy's role will be. The FDA isn't independent. Its part of the Department of Health and Human Services. HHS can and has done, over rule FDA approvals. The HHS wouldn't even need to have approval withdrawn, but insist on a tightening of the prescribing instructions, effectively killing it. The government could very well argue that while it respects the Rights of States to approve Abortions, the Federal government cannot be a facilitating party. The FDA might reduce the number of weeks which Mifepristone can be used; 70 days. 45% of abortions in the US occur before 6 weeks. Tweaking the prescribing instructions can reduce abortions, as well as tightening up where it can be prescribed. RFK is supportive of lack of restrictions on abortions, but maybe he'll have to drop his objections if he is really to be allowed to run "wild" at the FDA.

[MicroB]

3 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

It doesn't matter. A nationwide ban would be ruled unconstitutional. 

 

The FDA can greatly restrict the ability to perform an abortion legally.

[MicroB]

5 hours ago, tai4de2 said:

I am (R), and pro-choice within "common sense" European-style limits (generally banned, or at least harder to get, after a period such as 12 or 24 weeks). I cheered Roe v. Wade falling because this issue is not something the Constitution designates as a in-scope at the federal level. My position is that this is rightly a state-level issue. Consistent with that position, I strongly oppose a national ban.

 

There are a *lot* of moderate (R) people who feel like me -- probably a sizable majority of what we can now see as the 2024-era big-tent (R) base. We don't want religious orthodoxy to dictate national policy. Extreme abortion prohibition is a losing issue for us in most places, and especially at a national level. I can't see a national ban actually gaining credence.

 

Given the more localized nature of abortion rights, I really struggle to understand what all the fuss is actually about. Only states that the abortion pushers snidely deride as backwards Dumb<deleted>istan will have abortion restrictions. And by said people's thinking, who wants to live in those places anyway?

 

And this should, over time, tend to cause people to move out of said states into more "enlightened" places like west coast and north eastern states. So those places will gain more political power vs. Dumb<deleted>istan as a result -- and thus have a greater say about things like abortion.

 

In other words, backwards, inbred Kentucky will lose and progressive awesome California will win, because Abortion!

 

Right? Right?

 

 

 

Unless said (allegedly) backward State passes abortion trafficing laws (Idaho, Iowa). Tennessee .is embroiled in courts as to whether their trafficing laws are legal. Alabama, Mississippi and Oklahoma looking at similar legislation. Then you have the ordinances in Texas that have encouraged people to take civil action preventing said travel.

 

Take Idaho for example. When their HoR was elected in 2022, from where this awful law originated, about 1 in 3 people didn't bother to register to vote. Of those who registered to vote, only 57% actually turned up. Of those, 76% voted Republican. So the politicians took their mandate to pass this from the vote of Idaho resident. Such is democracy when people don't care much about it.

 

I'm sure its a similar picture in other state elections, relatively low turnouts.

 

Idaho isn't as bad as some States. "Only" 16% of the adult population are classified as having "low literacy", so 15th in the Nation. What does Low Literacy mean; the inability to read or write well enough to perform everyday tasks. Still being 15th for barely being able to read is nothing to boast about, when its the 29th least educated. Not only can't they read, Idaho residents apparently can't add up either. 20% have no access to healthcare, 16% are in abject poverty. Yet prosecuting doctors was high on the priorities of those lawmakers when they took their seats in 2022.

 

Laws like that get states into the news, for grandstanding politicians keen to make a point. These are quite momentous laws. The Idaho State Legislature consists of 70 people,  49 of them men. 57 voted for this legislation.

 

The way the electoral college was conceived was deliberately to stop the more populous States run roughshod over the small ones. The system gives more power to those smaller states, those poorers states, those illiterate states. And you saw that in the recent election, when the candidates didn't spend all their time in New York or California appealing to the most populous, but were hitting the road to places in the middle of nowhere.

 

So when so-called enlightened people flee these "Dumb<deleted>istan" States, you are not reducing their power, their influence, but you are creating theocratic states of increasing influence.

 

I guess some of these states could, in principle, be free to declare adultery to be a capital crime.

[Hanaguma]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's like contraception doesn't exist.

 

Not engaging in casual sex without precautions usually works to prevent pregnancy.

I have no sympathy for any woman in a western country that gets pregnant when she didn't want to.

 

One way to solve the problem would be to force men to either pay the full cost of the abortion or support their unwanted babies- there would be a big drop in unwanted pregnancies if that happened.

There has been a lot of chatter in the ruling classes that western countries need more children to grow up and be taxpayers, so it's a bit strange that they want to allow abortion so easily. However, modern politics makes little sense anyway.

I always thought that choice was the way. Women already have 4 choices:  celibacy, contraception, adoption, motherhood.