The reason why Alaska, a Republican state has no gestational limits is rather interesting:

Despite having a Republican governor (Mike Dunleavy) and a significant Republican presence in its politics, abortion remains legal with no gestational limits in Alaska due to the state's constitution and an aberrational judicial decision: In 1997, the Alaska State Supreme Court ruled in Valley Hospital Association v. Mat-Su Coalition for Choice that the explicit "Right to Privacy" clause in the Alaska Constitution protects a woman's right to an abortion. This court precedent means that even though the state's political leadership is often conservative, lawmakers cannot pass enforceable gestational bans or restrictions without first passing a constitutional amendment, which would require voter approval. Alaska's legislature operates differently than most states. Rather than strict partisan control, both the Alaska state House and state Senate are governed by bipartisan coalitions made up of Democrats, Independents, and moderate Republicans. This unique setup has consistently blocked more restrictive abortion bills from reaching the governor's desk.

Of course it does not explain why Alaska is such a haven for serial killers.

the state now relies on doctors to use their medical expertise to handle severe, late-stage pregnancy complications on a case-by-case basis.

Everyone knows this is a fig leaf to make abortion easier. Anyone who supports the killing of babies is devoid of moral judgement.

Thankfully conservatives have ensured that in the vast majority of states in the US this abortion free for all is impossible. If it were up to people like you and the Democrats there would be a line of tiny caskets stretching from Alaska to New Mexico.

But then this is what we have come to expect from Democrats who support transgender books for children, women painting their hair red, marriage between a woman and her labrador and other aberrations.

19 minutes ago, MarcelV said:

Could we please including aborting nations too? Preferably up to 250 years old.

So you want to abort nations founded in the last 250 years, post August 13, 1776…

Afghanistan

Albania

Algeria

Angola

Antigua and Barbuda

Argentina

Armenia

Australia

Austria

Azerbaijan

Bahamas

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Barbados

Belarus

Belgium

Belize

Benin

Bhutan

Bolivia

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Botswana

Brazil

Brunei

Bulgaria

Burkina Faso

Burundi

Cabo Verde

Cambodia

Cameroon

Canada

Central African Republic

Chad

Chile

Colombia

Comoros

Congo

Costa Rica

Croatia

Cuba

Cyprus

Czechia

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Djibouti

Dominica

Dominican Republic

Ecuador

Egypt

El Salvador

Equatorial Guinea

Eritrea

Estonia

Eswatini

Ethiopia

Fiji

Finland

Gabon

Gambia

Georgia

Germany

Ghana

Greece

Grenada

Guatemala

Guinea

Guinea-Bissau

Guyana

Haiti

Honduras

Hungary

Iceland

India

Indonesia

Iraq

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Ivory Coast

Jamaica

Jordan

Kazakhstan

Kenya

Kiribati

Kosovo

Kuwait

Kyrgyzstan

Laos

Latvia

Lebanon

Lesotho

Liberia

Libya

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Madagascar

Malawi

Malaysia

Maldives

Mali

Malta

Marshall Islands

Mauritania

Mauritius

Mexico

Micronesia

Moldova

Mongolia

Montenegro

Morocco

Mozambique

Myanmar

Namibia

Nauru

Nepal

New Zealand

Nicaragua

Niger

Nigeria

North Korea

North Macedonia

Norway

Oman

Pakistan

Palau

Panama

Papua New Guinea

Paraguay

Peru

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Qatar

Romania

Russia

Rwanda

Saint Kitts and Nevis

Saint Lucia

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Samoa

Sao Tome and Principe

Saudi Arabia

Senegal

Serbia

Seychelles

Sierra Leone

Singapore

Slovakia

Slovenia

Solomon Islands

Somalia

South Africa

South Korea

South Sudan

Spain

Sri Lanka

Sudan

Suriname

Sweden

Switzerland

Syria

Tajikistan

Tanzania

Thailand

Timor-Leste

Togo

Tonga

Trinidad and Tobago

Tunisia

Turkey

Turkmenistan

Tuvalu

Uganda

Ukraine

United Arab Emirates

Uruguay

Uzbekistan

Vanuatu

Vatican City

Venezuela

Vietnam

Yemen

Zambia

Zimbabwe

There is something seriously wrong with you.

And those kind of policies are alienating a lot of democratic voters. As a Centrist Democrat I believe that abortion should not be allowed after the first trimester, with very few exceptions.

6 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Up to birth. Maybe we should extend to kindergarten to see first report card.

Massachusetts will allow abortion up to delivery after Gov. Maura Healey signed legislation Monday extending abortion protections.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/abortion/massachusetts-revises-abortion-law-extending-up-to-birth/

In my opinion, this is an excellent law for the United States. It would also be good to allow the legal termination of children under one year of age.

Why is this beneficial to the United States? It's very simple. This country reproduces not sexually, but by accepting immigrants. Therefore, such measures will have no impact on the US population. However, the US is a global leader and has the means to impose its standards on other countries that reproduce sexually, not by accepting immigrants. Therefore, the population of all countries except the US will ultimately decline, which will strengthen the US leadership in the world.

Why do the Democrats enable child killers? Why Oh Lord? Why?

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Why do the Democrats enable child killers? Why Oh Lord? Why?

Why do the Republicans kill women and children civilians in Iran? And why do Don and Pete gloat over it?

32 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Why do the Democrats enable child killers? Why Oh Lord? Why?

Which part of this change in the Massachusetts law enables child killers?

53 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Everyone knows this is a fig leaf to make abortion easier. Anyone who supports the killing of babies is devoid of moral judgement.

Thankfully conservatives have ensured that in the vast majority of states in the US this abortion free for all is impossible. If it were up to people like you and the Democrats there would be a line of tiny caskets stretching from Alaska to New Mexico.

But then this is what we have come to expect from Democrats who support transgender books for children, women painting their hair red, marriage between a woman and her labrador and other aberrations.

It might have been better not to have taken down Roe v Wade.

And quit your ridiculous hyperbole already, there is no ‘Abortion free for all’, never has been, never will be.

Why give birth to a child if unwanted ? Very selfish as the child will not be happy. Abortion within the legal timeline is a right, a must to have a societal balance. revoking the right to abord, under any absurd religious and ideological beliefs is a backward, selfish and absurd concept.

Edited August 13Aug 13 by SingAPorn

6 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Why not up to teenage years ....... then we could dispose of all the obvious failures?

National Socialists, liberals, feminism, eugenics all part of the same game .......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

I think that’s what school shootings are for.

Take note who it is that opposes sensible gun laws to reduce actual murder of children.

2 hours ago, riclag said:

, a ex wife turned gay

Do you ever think you might have caused this?

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

Other States and Jurisdictions with No Gestational Limits

• Alaska

• Colorado

• Maryland

• Massachusetts

• Michigan

• Minnesota

• New Jersey

• New Mexico

• Oregon

• Vermont

• District of Columbia

Of these 10 states 9 are Democrat run. We can only conclude that Democrats have no morals and are completely beholden to their feminist women. Disgraceful to be a Democrat.

Or that they listen to the scientific community (you know, the experts) and act accordingly?

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Good move by Massachusetts.

Ignore the totally deceptive maga fascist spin about that this actually is.

They are really disgusting.

I support a woman's right to unalive her baby. I believe this choice is an important aspect of civilized society.

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

And those kind of policies are alienating a lot of democratic voters. As a Centrist Democrat I believe that abortion should not be allowed after the first trimester, with very few exceptions.

And as a 'centrist Democrat' you would have thought you would have been doing a bit more research and try to understand this is NOT a free-for-all, kill them when you want policy. It's a right-wing MAGA fan trying his best to obfuscate a serious issue of medical neccessity.

NO woman is choosing to carry a child to 7/8 months only then to suddenly realise she doesn't want the kid and wants an abortion. It's for when the child is already dead in the womb, is severely handicapped (to the point of being a vegatable) and/or will cause her in turn to die. ALL of which are verified by a medical professional.

Edited August 13Aug 13 by johnnybangkok

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

Why do the Republicans kill women and children civilians in Iran?

Indeed, that was a terrible mistake to be dragged into a war by Israel, but you can see the warped thinking, stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. However, this baby killing has no excuse whatsoever.

47 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Which part of this change in the Massachusetts law enables child killers?

You are joking? Obviously the part where all limits on abortion are removed and it is basically left up to feminist fanatical anti-life doctors to kill babies.

there is no ‘Abortion free for all’, never has been, never will be.

There is in 9 Democrat states, where gestation time limits were completely removed. You may have faith in sensible doctors, but we all know they can be as ideological, extreme and untrustworthy as the Democrats who pushed for this, especially if they're feminists.

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Indeed, that was a terrible mistake to be dragged into a war by Israel, but you can see the warped thinking, stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. However, this baby killing has no excuse whatsoever.

No excuse whasoever? What if the baby is already dead and by carrying it to full term the mother will die?

You do talk some nonsense.

8 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

And as a 'centrist Democrat' you would have thought you would have been doing a bit more research and try to understand this is NOT a free-for-all, kill them when you want policy. It's a right-wing MAGA fan trying his best to obfuscate a serious issue of medical neccessity.

NO woman is choosing to carry a child to 7/8 months only then to suddenly realise she doesn't want the kid and wants an abortion instead. It's for when the child is already dead in the womb, is severely handicapped (to the point of being a vegatable) and/or will cause her in turn to die. ALL of which are verified by a medical professional.

Total bs, any woman can now go to any feminist, warped, ideologically twisted leftist extremist Doctor and have her baby killed for the most ludicrous reasons. You'd probably support Lindsay Clancy.

2 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

No excuse whasoever? What if the baby is already dead and by carrying it to full term the mother will die?

You do talk some nonsense.

You talk nonsense, this never happens. We all know that abortions are done for spurious, often economic reasons, relationship reasons, almost NEVER because the "baby is already dead".

Total bs. This change in the law is designed to make abortion easier for ideological reasons. Not to address situations where a "baby is already dead" which is almost never the reason for an abortion.

Typical leftist obfuscation of the truth.

Edited August 13Aug 13 by Cameroni

Post breaking forum guidelines removed. @HolmesEquivelant

Low-Value Posts Reminder.

Posts that add no written contribution harm the forum and reduce its value for readers and search engines.

This includes:

2–3 word replies

Emoji-only posts

Memes or GIFs with no explanation or context.

Screenshots with no supporting text

Embedded social media posts with no comment or opinion

Youtube videos with no explanation or comment

If your post does not explain, add context, or express a view in your own words, it has no value here.

What happens next

Any such content will be removed without notice

Repeat posting of this type may lead to further moderation action

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

You talk nonsense, this never happens. We all know that abortions are done for spurious, often economic reasons, relationship reasons, almost NEVER because the "baby is already dead".

Total bs.

Ok, lets take out the 'baby is already dead' part since you don't seem to like that and just go with by carrying it to full term the mother will die.

What about that one?

16 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

You are joking? Obviously the part where all limits on abortion are removed and it is basically left up to feminist fanatical anti-life doctors to kill babies.

There is in 9 Democrat states, where gestation time limits were completely removed. You may have faith in sensible doctors, but we all know they can be as ideological, extreme and untrustworthy as the Democrats who pushed for this, especially if they're feminists.

No I’m not joking, Imm calling out your utter nonsense.

No part of this new law enables child killers or babies.

You’ve lost touch with reality.

16 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Total bs, any woman can now go to any feminist, warped, ideologically twisted leftist extremist Doctor and have her baby killed for the most ludicrous reasons. You'd probably support Lindsay Clancy.

Utter hogwash, and quite frankly unhinged nonsense too.

Well, AOC and the other socialist morons basically are:

Maybe Beef Supreme too...

Edited August 13Aug 13 by Sir Dude

4 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

Yes, not only insane but completely made up.

Does 20% sound better?

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductive-health/data-statistics/abortion-surveillance-findings-reports.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

18 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Ok, lets take out the 'baby is already dead' part since you don't seem to like that and just go with by carrying it to full term the mother will die.

What about that one?

Are those 2 situations specifically addressed in the bill? No they're not.

re

Europe appears to be systematically oppressing women.

https://righttolife.org.uk/what-are-the-abortion-time-limits-in-eu-countries

22 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No part of this new law enables child killers or babies.

You cannot be serious. They removed all gestation limits for abortion. Obviously this will make killing babies easier.

33 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Ok, lets take out the 'baby is already dead' part since you don't seem to like that and just go with by carrying it to full term the mother will die.

What about that one?

Then it's obviously justified, but those instances are extremely rare.