Roe v Wade overturned????? Draft says so

[knapplc]

1 hour ago, commando said:

it's amazing that so many republican states had the abortion laws ready when the info was just leaked.   

 

Isn't it just the amazingest of amazing things?

 

Pure coincidence! This wasn't a plot devised decades ago at all!

 

 

[DevoHusker]

 

 

[JJ Husker]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Every single state that has an abortion law ready to go, has a medical exception.  So ya, facts and such 

 

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/05/03/us/state-abortion-trigger-laws-roe-v-wade-overturned/index.html

I must not trust the wording of the exceptions as much as you do. “Immediate danger”, “prevent death”….Hello courtrooms.

[BigRedBuster]

46 minutes ago, admo said:

No doubt they are brains.  I always knew you were super smart tho.  Congrats!

Thanks. But, I just spent the evening at my daughters honors banquet.  Looking around, I’m pretty sure I was the dumbest person there. Proven by me having the lowest GPA of anyone. 
 

But, I had more fun. 

[Archy1221]

26 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

I must not trust the wording of the exceptions as much as you do. “Immediate danger”, “prevent death”….Hello courtrooms.

Is that better…

 

“reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health.” 

[TGHusker]

6 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

And I want to be clear I know there are dedicated, caring people on the Pro-Life side, whose hearts are in the right place and who aren't shouting horrible things at the women entering clinics. Those are not the people I'm gigging. You know (and have likely met) the people I made that flat-earth comment about.

Yep for sure 

[Lorewarn]

7 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

No one is in danger of not being treated for those conditions in the near future or later.  That’s pure hyperbole.

 

 

For the last 50 years nobody has been in danger of not having a constitutionally protected right to get an abortion. Until, presumably, not long from now.

 

It's not hyperbole to guess at how things might change based upon the news that...things are changing.

[Archy1221]

7 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

For the last 50 years nobody has been in danger of not having a constitutionally protected right to get an abortion. Until, presumably, not long from now.

 

It's not hyperbole to guess at how things might change based upon the news that...things are changing.

When every law being proposed (even in the Reddest of states) has a life of the mother exception, yes it’s hyperbole.  Unless you think the Blue states will not have that exception. 

[JJ Husker]

9 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Is that better…

 

“reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health.” 

Surprisingly I don’t have much of a problem with Utah’s….

 

Utah passed a law in May 2020 banning almost all abortions if Roe is overturned. Exceptions include cases of rape or incest, detection of severe birth defects, or prevention of the death or serious injury of the person giving birth. Performing an abortion in violation of the law is a second-degree felony.

 

I still think they should be legal in the first trimester, even if I don’t personally approve of using it as a substitute for birth control. IMO there is no good justification for allowing abortion later than that except for the reasons allowed by Utah. Too many of the other states don’t make these same allowances.

[Cdog923]

14 hours ago, Moiraine said:

I thought the problem was women who have too much sex, not cat lady spinsters aged 25-40

 

Even that's too old of an age bracket for Matty Gaetz, though. 

[Cdog923]

10 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

Isn't it just the amazingest of amazing things?

 

Pure coincidence! This wasn't a plot devised decades ago at all!

 

 

 

Nebraska just barely defeated theirs this last session, but due to circumstances, it's got a pretty good chance of passing if a special session is called this summer. 

[Scarlet]

13 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

So this lady is making a really big deal about “imminent” and “immediate”.  
 

Yet as I read the article, the “immediate” she is taking about isn’t Immediate danger to the mother, it’s immediate abortion once the danger to the mother is found out.  She’s playing word games that don’t match up.   
 

Mississippi’s contentious abortion law defines medical emergencies as “a condition that in the physician’s good-faith medical judgment, based upon the facts known to the physician at that time, so endangers the life of the pregnant woman or a major bodily function of the pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate performance or inducement of an abortion.” The problem is that not all conditions that threaten a pregnant person’s life are active emergencies when they are known, treated, and managed — as my own situation shows.

I'm shocked that you'd minimize the opinion of someone who actually had a condition that would be life threatening and most likely would not have been exempted.....until she died of a coronary.  Even more shocked that you'd place your expertise in this matter above her's. 

 

Do you really think the laws as that have been written aren't going to get more and more restrictive as the religious zealots keep hammering away on this?  You can't see a scenario where we go as far as countries like El Salvador?  

[knapplc]

 

[DevoHusker]

The graph and stats are from AP NORC

[Archy1221]

51 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

14 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

 

I'm shocked that you'd minimize the opinion of someone who actually had a condition that would be life threatening and most likely would not have been exempted.....until she died of a coronary

Minimizing a statement of concern and pointing out the statement of concern was factually incorrect are two different things.   I did the later one.  
 

as far as not being exempted…that’s just a hyperbolic opinion of yours not grounded in reality.