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

[JJ Husker]

14 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Not sure what you are talking about because this was his question that prompted the discussion….Notice he didn’t ask about third trimester abortion! 

 

 

3 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

Does this mean that you are for legal abortions, even in the third trimester, if they are being done for the health of the mother or when a fetus is no longer viable?

 

I ask because that has not been the vibe you’ve been laying down. And it also is not the position of the red state R politicians, who you support.

 

Mmmm, actually I did ask you that exact question. 
 

I have not seen a response other than some health/viability caveats. And as you were so quick to point out earlier that the PEW research indicated that abortions at anytime is the same as being for third trimester. I guess without a direct answer from you that were are to assume that you are for third trimester abortions.

[Archy1221]

3 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

 

Mmmm, actually I did ask you that exact question. 
 

I have not seen a response other than some health/viability caveats. And as you were so quick to point out earlier that the PEW research indicated that abortions at anytime is the same as being for third trimester. I guess without a direct answer from you that were are to assume that you are for third trimester abortions.

posted prior to you saying someone (me) wasn’t clear
 

 

Perfect!   So what’s the need for abortion in the third trimester being legal outside of the life of a mother and a change in the viability of the fetus?  

[JJ Husker]

3 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

1)  I’m glad you could disregard your previous post and admit I answered your question.  
 

2) how do you make abortion on demand illegal after 12 weeks while having exceptions?  You make a law.  
 

3) do I want government involved?   Sure, they make the laws so who else would you prefer to do it?  IMO the health of the mother/viability of fetus should be determined by the attending physician.  Make it broad to give the physician the comfort of making a recommendation based on how the patient presents.  

Finally. So you do disagree with all of these state laws that have popped up since RvW was overturned….even as you continue arguing for them and even as you continue supporting the politicians and political party instituting them. Odd that you say one thing but do another. The definition of inconsistency.

[JJ Husker]

Just now, Archy1221 said:

posted prior to you saying someone (me) wasn’t clear
 

 

Perfect!   So what’s the need for abortion in the third trimester being legal outside of the life of a mother and a change in the viability of the fetus?  

I don’t think there is a need for third trimester abortions for other than those reasons….but I’m not the one wanting to make it illegal at 12 weeks.

[Archy1221]

3 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Finally. So you do disagree with all of these state laws that have popped up since RvW was overturned….even as you continue arguing for them and even as you continue supporting the politicians and political party instituting them. Odd that you say one thing but do another. The definition of inconsistency.

Do you even read/comprehend what I write?  Seriously asking because of the above post. 
 

Do you understand what States rights mean?   Basically means  they can make a law for their state as long as it isn’t covered by Federal law and is not unconstitutional.  
 

since that’s covered, you also know I’ve said 12 weeks seems like a reasonable compromise.  Not what I would pick, but is a compromise.   I’m fine with the heartbeat bills states have come up with, but would have picked 8 weeks if it were up to me.   
 

so you are on record as believing willingness to compromise is now considered inconsistency.  Odd! 

[JJ Husker]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Do you even read/comprehend what I write?  Seriously asking because of the above post. 
 

Do you understand what States rights mean?   Basically means  they can make a law for their state as long as it isn’t covered by Federal law and is not unconstitutional.  
 

since that’s covered, you also know I’ve said 12 weeks seems like a reasonable compromise.  Not what I would pick, but is a compromise.   I’m fine with the heartbeat bills states have come up with, but would have picked 8 weeks if it were up to me.   
 

so you are on record as believing willingness to compromise is now considered inconsistency.  Odd! 

You are so f#&%ing frustrating to deal with. Not sure why I try.

 

The inconsistency you’ve exhibited is stating you are for a 8 week (or compromise 12 week ban) but, and try to follow along here, you’ve also said you would make exceptions after that, apparently also including third trimester, for the health of the mother and viability issues with the fetus….WHICH THE BANS THAT YOU SUPPORT DO NOT ALLOW.

 

It has nothing to do with understanding the state’s rights to determine their own laws. That’s just blowhard BS to make yourself seem knowledgeable and to distract.  None of the red states that have instituted these bans have included these allowances and exceptions in their new laws. In fact most have gone overboard to prevent any abortions for any reason including rape/incest of a minor. Where are these exceptions you say you support? How are they even possible when the people banning abortion don’t give a flying f#&% about rape of a minor, health of the mother or fetal viability issues?

 

It is inconsistent and not realistic whether or not you want to admit/believe it.

[ZRod]

This can not be a states rights issues. End of discussion. Some states will put people on death row for this stuff even if it was legal in another state where it occurred.

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, JJ Husker said:

You are so f#&%ing frustrating to deal with. Not sure why I try.

 

The inconsistency you’ve exhibited is stating you are for a 8 week (or compromise 12 week ban) but, and try to follow along here, you’ve also said you would make exceptions after that, apparently also including third trimester, for the health of the mother and viability issues with the fetus….WHICH THE BANS THAT YOU SUPPORT DO NOT ALLOW.

 

It has nothing to do with understanding the state’s rights to determine their own laws. That’s just blowhard BS to make yourself seem knowledgeable and to distract.  None of the red states that have instituted these bans have included these allowances and exceptions in their new laws. In fact most have gone overboard to prevent any abortions for any reason including rape/incest of a minor. Where are these exceptions you say you support? How are they even possible when the people banning abortion don’t give a flying f#&% about rape of a minor, health of the mother or fetal viability issues?

 

It is inconsistent and not realistic whether or not you want to admit/believe it.

I assume you are just trying to be difficult here once again, so I will reply once more and then move on from the silliness.  
 

You do understand that most people who believe in a limit to abortion also believe in exceptions to that limit.  Right?  I mean you have to know this very basic concept.   Hopefully.

 

IVE NEVER ONCE ON THIS BOARD NOT AGREED WITH AN EXCEPTION TO AN ABORTION LAW FOR OR A PROPOSED ABORTION LAW.   NEVER, NOT ONCE, EVER.   You do have to know that when I’m talking about a limit to abortion refers to abortion on demand  for any reason.   I get you want to disagree with everything to be disagreeable, but it’s bordering absurd at this point with what you are trying to make issues with.   
 

Of the 50 states, how many have ZERO exceptions like you want to portray?   OF the posts I’ve made, how many have said I am for no exceptions to abortion laws?   I’ve been nothing but consistent and willing to compromise towards the middle.  
 

Good grief.  

[JJ Husker]

3 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I assume you are just trying to be difficult here once again, so I will reply once more and then move on from the silliness.  
 

You do understand that most people who believe in a limit to abortion also believe in exceptions to that limit.  Right?  I mean you have to know this very basic concept.   Hopefully.

 

IVE NEVER ONCE ON THIS BOARD NOT AGREED WITH AN EXCEPTION TO AN ABORTION LAW FOR OR A PROPOSED ABORTION LAW.   NEVER, NOT ONCE, EVER.   You do have to know that when I’m talking about a limit to abortion refers to abortion on demand  for any reason.   I get you want to disagree with everything to be disagreeable, but it’s bordering absurd at this point with what you are trying to make issues with.   
 

Of the 50 states, how many have ZERO exceptions like you want to portray?   OF the posts I’ve made, how many have said I am for no exceptions to abortion laws?   I’ve been nothing but consistent and willing to compromise towards the middle.  
 

Good grief.  

Maybe inconsistent was the wrong way to phrase it for you.  Probably should’ve just said you are a hypocrite. Saying one thing while voting for something else. I mean that’s what you’re doing, right? You want to present yourself on this board as compromising and consistent but in the real world you don’t actually support compromise or abortion exceptions. I can live with hypocritical if you’re having trouble seeing how saying one thing while doing and voting for another is also being inconsistent.

 

It’s okay, I understand it can be tough, almost impossible really, to support Rs today when they are so completely out of touch with reality.

You support a party and politicians and policies unwilling to compromise or provide exceptions yet you also support compromise and exceptions and allowances. How on earth could anyone be confused? 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, JJ Husker said:

Maybe inconsistent was the wrong way to phrase it for you.  Probably should’ve just said you are a hypocrite. Saying one thing while voting for something else. I mean that’s what you’re doing, right? You want to present yourself on this board as compromising and consistent but in the real world you don’t actually support compromise or abortion exceptions. I can live with hypocritical if you’re having trouble seeing how saying one thing while doing and voting for another is also being inconsistent.

 

It’s okay, I understand it can be tough, almost impossible really, to support Rs today when they are so completely out of touch with reality.

You support a party and politicians and policies unwilling to compromise or provide exceptions yet you also support compromise and exceptions and allowances. How on earth could anyone be confused? 

JJ is showing he may not understand what it means to not be a single issue voter.   
 

JJ also proves he doesn’t understand which gubernatorial candidate I voted for in the last four election cycles (yep that Ruby Red abortion fanatic Laura Kelly…..errrrr Democrat got my vote in an election) or the abortion views of the Senate candidates I have voted for.  Imagine that.

 

JJ calling me a hypocrite 

 Color me shocked that he’s confused.  

 

 

[teachercd]

Let me make it easy for everyone as usual.

 

You can get an abortion at anytime. If you don't want to get one, don't get one.

 

Next issue?

[Scarlet]

Just to set the record straight there are a number states that do not have exceptions such as fetal anomaly in their abortion laws.  These states may have exceptions for the risk to the pregnant woman but as we've seen they are so bureaucratic in nature with the threat of felons to providers that they are essentially non-existent. Some states do not allow for an exception of rape or incest.

 

There are also a number of states that have tried to eliminate those exceptions but are now tied up in the courts.  

 

And of course the most draconian states are red. 

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/22/abortion-laws-roe-00099270

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/a-guide-to-abortion-laws-by-state

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/us/abortion-laws-roe-v-wade.html

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/abortion-stands-state-year-overturning-roe-wade/story?id=100229092

 

 

[JJ Husker]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

JJ is showing he may not understand what it means to not be a single issue voter.   
 

JJ also proves he doesn’t understand which gubernatorial candidate I voted for in the last four election cycles (yep that Ruby Red abortion fanatic Laura Kelly…..errrrr Democrat got my vote in an election) or the abortion views of the Senate candidates I have voted for.  Imagine that.

 

JJ calling me a hypocrite 

 Color me shocked that he’s confused.  

 

 

[knapplc]

 

[TGHusker]

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

That kind of falls under the "Be careful for what you wish for' category.   The GOP got what they wanted, I'm Pro-life - I wanted restrictions.  But the SC took it to far and opened up pandora's box to the states for in many case draconian laws.   The GOP could face huge loses on this topic alone in 2024 esp if they as a group push a national mandate/constitutional amendment/law to restrict abortion to draconian levels.