What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Do Married And Settled People Realize That The Overturning Of Roe Affects Them, Too? In Ways One Might Not Have Thought Of? (1 Viewer)

Hey maybe politicians will quit being lazy ### grifters milking abortion as a hot button issue for the last 50 years on both sides. With RvW and Casey no longer able to keep them from doing their jobs and making a decision at the federal level, this is what the real outrage is about. Some of these politicians have been in office when RvW was decided and have made a fortune off of pandering to either side of it just to stay in power. God forbid they actually #### or get off the pot finally. 
I totally agree with your insight into the problem of the legislature abdicating policy to the judiciary. I took Admin Law specifically because I didn't like how the legislature was abdicating legislative responsibility and passing it off to the executive. So I'm not seeking to disparage any line or mode of thought like that. Indeed, we will see an accountability in our politicians within the federal and state legislatures that we haven't seen in fifty years. 

So what you speak of is legitimate. My problem is that Roe was a national policy, and it was fixed and counted on for fifty years. Now that it is no longer, I see so many problems emanating from its overturning that I can't even begin to list them. I'm on Twitter and reading the tweets pro- and con-, and even among the dissenters, I don't see people asking some really fundamental questions about the enforcement by states that seek to restrict abortion access. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This really was a loaded question. I sort of regret that. I have to admit I just wanted to present the extreme example and potential ramifications of some things that really upset me about the overturning of Roe and certain states' reactions and trigger laws from that overturning. 

This wasn't meant to be "Your wife is going to die." It was meant to ask a question where I seek to see if people are acknowledging the ramifications of completely restricted access to abortions, which some states (through their governors and representatives) have advocated, to the best of my understanding. 

 
I totally agree with your insight into the problem of the legislature abdicating policy to the judiciary. I took Admin Law specifically because I didn't like how the legislature was abdicating legislative responsibility and passing it off to the executive. So I'm not seeking to disparage any line or mode of thought like that. Indeed, we will see an accountability in our politicians within the federal and state legislatures that we haven't seen in fifty years. 

So what you speak of is legitimate. My problem is that Roe was a national policy, and it was fixed and counted on for fifty years. Now that it is no longer, I see so many problems emanating from its overturning that I can't even begin to list them. I'm on Twitter and reading the tweets pro- and con-, and even among the dissenters, I don't see people asking some really fundamental questions about the enforcement by states that seek to restrict abortion access. 
The accountability part is what I'm looking forward to. So long we've heard a majority are in favor of abortion. Well now we can prove it. Those states that just kicked in with abortion bans are going to find out if that is truly what the people want or not. The states that maintain abortion until birth are going to see if the people really believe that is truly "a choice". 

 
Here is a list of ways that the overturning of Roe could have a potential impact: 

Basic questions, assuming restrictions on abortion even within the former Roe framework of first trimester abortions being allowed: 

What will be...

the right of citizens of one state to travel out of state if suspected of being pregnant?
the right to provide services within a state to a state resident suspected of being pregnant?
the right to provide services to a pregnant, out-of-state resident within one's own state?
the right of companies to provide travel and other services to in-state residents for out-of-state destinations?
the right of businesses to provide certain services for people within states that place restrictions on abortion?

Questions of enforcement, assuming state restrictions on abortion from conception:

Off of the top of my head:

How would this be enforced? Would we punish the mother for having an abortion if she indeed does? Would we punish the provider for providing the service? How? Would we make providers illegal? How would we know and how could we enforce these things? 

What would constitute, in the event of a prosecution for an abortion, evidence to prove that somebody is pregnant? Who declares that to the state? What are the mechanisms by which the state is informed that somebody is or was pregnant? Are there mandatory reporting requirements for pregnancies now? If so, what agency handles that? What powers does that agency have? 

What could the police rightfully search and seize to make a case against a person suspected of having an abortion? Could they search your house? Your curtilage? Your phone? Your medical records? 

In the event of a miscarriage, what proof is necessary for exoneration? Does the burden of proof lie with the state to prove that it was an abortion, or does the burden of proof lie with the mother in the event of prosecution for abortion? 

Questions for those that would not allow exceptions for rape and incest: 

What constitutional framework or tenet of law would allow for a fetus to have primacy over a living, sentient thing? 

Would there be challenges to these laws that pit the fetus as a hostile object in the body needing removal? 

Is there an extraconstitutional right to self-defense inherent in English and American common law that would require allowing fetuses to be terminated in the event that the fetus threatens the mother's life? 

_____________________________________________

I mean, the questions go on and on. I'm not sure we've thought this through. This will have such far-reaching implications that unsettled policy will have to work its way through the courts. The jurisprudential problems with that are many. It's just a few questions to mull that I have asked here. There are going to be unforeseen instances of fact patterns creating new law that I'll be stunned if this doesn't re-write 4th Amendment jurisprudence, just like the drug laws did. 

Anybody think of anything else that I've missed. I'm sure there's a ton. This was off of the top of my head. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The accountability part is what I'm looking forward to. So long we've heard a majority are in favor of abortion. Well now we can prove it
I think you overestimate both state legislatures and the federal legislature as embodying the will of the people. Right now, about 71% of people support abortion within limitations. Let's see the first state to pass restrictions on abortion without limits. That might show us, in a microcosm (depending on the polling in that state), how the will of the people is manifest in the legislature. I'm not as sanguine as you are that this newfound accountability will lead to abortion laws more reflective of the general will. 

Don't forget, we're a representative Republic. The distance between legislators' votes and the people's will can be vast for a myriad of reasons. 

 
I think you overestimate both state legislatures and the federal legislature as embodying the will of the people. Right now, about 71% of people support abortion within limitations. Let's see the first state to pass restrictions on abortion without limits. That might show us, in a microcosm (depending on the polling in that state), how the will of the people is manifest in the legislature. I'm not as sanguine as you are that this newfound accountability will lead to abortion laws more reflective of the general will. 

Don't forget, we're a representative Republic. The distance between legislators' votes and the people's will can be vast for a myriad of reasons. 
Believe me. I'm well aware. But with this being a fresh issue on people's minds, we'll get an instant referendum this fall on how much people care about it. 

 
And two-thirds of Americans oppose late term abortions.

This is where the Left lost me.  Governor Northam, the New York law, 7 states allowing abortion up until labor…. I’m ok with abortion up until viability.  But the Left went nuts and started allowing it up until birth, which the vast majority of people agree is infanticide.
Do you think we would have still gotten here if those types of things were reigned in years ago, or was this outcome what was coming from the right anyway? 

 
That’s a good point.  I think the next shoe to drop is going to be a SC decision brought on personhood, at which time the life of a viable fetus will be afforded protection.
Does that mean that they are citizens and cannot be deported if the pregnant mother to be is undocumented?

 
Really. A question for the right here. Are you willing to potentially watch your wife die if she gets accidentally pregnant at the age of forty or forty-five (assuming an unplanned pregnancy) and you happen to live in a state that outlaws abortion even in the event of life-threatening pregnancy? 

Have we thought about our tribal affiliations long and hard enough to sacrifice our wives, potentially, to a state system that knows no bounds and will indeed affect some of us in the future? 
My wife and I are past that point, but we're both pro-life and always have been.  Our understanding from early on was that if, for some reason, we had a problem with contraceptive failure, we would just roll with it.

I get your point, and I also get that things are a little different now.  Until yesterday, questions along the lines of "what would we do if . . ." were totally hypothetical and we knew that we could change our mind and do something totally different if we actually found ourselves in that situation.  Now we can't and we'd be stuck with "just roll with it."  But I don't think we would have changed our minds on this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My wife and I are past that point, but we're both pro-life and always have been.  Our understanding from early on was that if, for some reason, we had a problem with contraceptive failure, we would just roll with it.
This was a terrible way to frame the topic on my end. I was tired when I started it. I should have started with the post I've linked below. The long one right on this page. I'm really getting at the ancillary ways in which the overturning of Roe is going to influence both rights of travel and 4th Amendment issues. 

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/804801-do-married-and-settled-people-realize-that-the-overturning-of-roe-affects-them-too-in-ways-one-might-not-have-thought-of/page/2/#elControls_24081552_menu

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't really edit the OP without disturbing the discussion, so I won't. 

Rest assured this wasn't out of malice or anger or even being upset. I just framed the issue wrongly, now that I think about it. 

 
I can't really edit the OP without disturbing the discussion, so I won't. 

Rest assured this wasn't out of malice or anger or even being upset. I just framed the issue wrongly, now that I think about it. 
No problem.  There are a lot of different angles to consider, and abortion policy is (obviously) very unsettled right now.  All of the items that you raised are going to have to be addressed in the legislative process at some point.

 
No problem.  There are a lot of different angles to consider, and abortion policy is (obviously) very unsettled right now.  All of the items that you raised are going to have to be addressed in the legislative process at some point.
Yeah, it's more of an intellectual apology than one where I'm apologizing for temperament. I'm also apologizing more broadly; namely, to those whom I personalized the issue. Instead of personalizing it, I could have distanced it from that by laying out an intellectual and dispassionate case that these issues will come to the fore and that they have the potential, much like the drug war, to shape legislative measures and Supreme Court jurisprudence in other areas that consider fundamental rights. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This really was a loaded question. I sort of regret that. I have to admit I just wanted to present the extreme example and potential ramifications of some things that really upset me about the overturning of Roe and certain states' reactions and trigger laws from that overturning. 

This wasn't meant to be "Your wife is going to die." It was meant to ask a question where I seek to see if people are acknowledging the ramifications of completely restricted access to abortions, which some states (through their governors and representatives) have advocated, to the best of my understanding. 


Don't rationalize. It's beneath you.

 
Don't rationalize. It's beneath you.
I'm not rationalizing. I'm apologizing. That would seem to be a full stop on rationalizing. I'm just explaining why. 

This really isn't that big of a deal. It's me looking at the question, not being happy with how I was getting to the subject matter I was trying to address, and realizing that I probably went about it wrong. 

I don't think one person said they were offended. This is me getting out in front it, actually. I'm realizing that it probably wasn't beneficial to the discussion I wanted to have. 

 
Unfortunately at the end of the day it’s not.  
Yes it is more complex then that. This court didn’t need to hear the case. Obama could have been allowed to nominate a Justice, etc. There’s been decades of work to get this to happen. 

 
Questions of enforcement, assuming state restrictions on abortion from conception:

Off of the top of my head:

How would this be enforced? Would we punish the mother for having an abortion if she indeed does? Would we punish the provider for providing the service? How? Would we make providers illegal? How would we know and how could we enforce these things? 


The only answer is looking at the situation state by state.

For those with "trigger laws"  or trigger bans immediately, those can be scrutinized right now. The rest will take some time to unpack.

Go down the list. State by state.

The reality of any situation with public demand is that if a formal methodology is removed or doesn't exist, a black market or some other type of "smoothing/easing" mechanism will be created.

In effect, a new network and likely business model of shuttling women across state lines will emerge. A "secondary market" of the abortion pills will emerge. Where there's money and profit, there's innovation and counter tactics.

In short, the idea that states in general will allow women to die on the table to hold some Pro Life leanings is not realistic. I said "in general"  I say that with regard that there are people here who had wives and others who were pregnant and had health issues/complications and/or a miscarriage or some other tragedy. I'm not minimizing anyone's pain. I am saying nothing indicates the current pathway will legally become some kind of new dystopian state regarding abortion. Could it go there? Maybe. I won't deny anything is possible when we are dealing with the dip -----s in elected office are in charge. The most bipartisan thing I can say is people have to hope their local "leader" isn't a Lauren Boebert or a London Breed type. In that regard,  everyone perishes on the table then, pregnant or not.

Look at it state by state and give it a little time to play out. Those are your only real pathways right now today.

 
I am saying nothing indicates the current pathway will legally become some kind of new dystopian state regarding abortion
I know what you're saying here, and it's quite possible that our legislatures act accordingly, taking the general will into consideration, but... 

The most bipartisan thing I can say is people have to hope their local "leader" isn't a Lauren Boebert or a London Breed type
we have too many of these types of politicians for me to be fully confident in a measured response to the overturning of Roe. And there really is no defense against a majority when they're voting people like this into office. That's where the individual liberty aspect of Roe becomes an appealing concept. Knowing that a majority who would vote for Boebert can't take certain fundamental rights away. 

Look at it state by state and give it a little time to play out. Those are your only real pathways right now today
It would seem to be the wise thing to do so. I just wanted to raise some issues that might be coming down the pike. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I appreciate the POV here because it seems like even people like Marco Rubio aren’t seeing this correctly. He’s celebrating because the right to decide has been returned to the people. What he really means is the right to decide is being returned to the representatives. Each individual person already had the right to choose. Some will retain it and some may lose it. That POV isn’t discussed enough when I scroll through Twitter, flip the channels, talk to people in real life. I’m not sure why.

 
It’s a tough one for me. I’m pretty far left on  the abortion scale but further right on federalism and states rights. People like to live , work and be around like people. It’s just the way it is. It’s why even after 100+ years every city in America has a name your ethnicity “town” or “little” where did you come from. 

The push from the left for an ever powerful federal government and discussing in the open eliminating things like the EC, filibuster and packing the court is pushing people like me further to the right. We are too large and too culturally diverse to live under 1 party/ideology rule and the only countries larger than us have zero diversity and are run by dictators. The people that want to eliminate fossil fuels for example, also refuse to build nuclear power and desalination plants. I don’t want to be governed by those people.

If this decision moves us back in the direction of states rights, it was a good decision for the country. 

 
Really. A question for the right here. Are you willing to potentially watch your wife die if she gets accidentally pregnant at the age of forty or forty-five (assuming an unplanned pregnancy) and you happen to live in a state that outlaws abortion even in the event of life-threatening pregnancy? 

Have we thought about our tribal affiliations long and hard enough to sacrifice our wives, potentially, to a state system that knows no bounds and will indeed affect some of us in the future? 


Which states outlaw abortion even in the event of life-threatening pregnancy?

https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2022/06/13-states-have-abortion-trigger-bans-heres-what-happens-when-roe-overturned

Every single state that has a trigger ban also has an exception where the woman's life is in danger.  

 
The accountability part is what I'm looking forward to. So long we've heard a majority are in favor of abortion. Well now we can prove it. Those states that just kicked in with abortion bans are going to find out if that is truly what the people want or not. The states that maintain abortion until birth are going to see if the people really believe that is truly "a choice". 
I think my state of Florida is a pretty good example of why you won't get the results the electorate is wanting.  We are (at worst 55/45 split...I'd argue closer than that) in terms of "sides" and our representation in the state is 76/42.  This isn't a purple state...it's firmly red because of it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I appreciate the POV here because it seems like even people like Marco Rubio aren’t seeing this correctly. He’s celebrating because the right to decide has been returned to the people. What he really means is the right to decide is being returned to the representatives. Each individual person already had the right to choose. Some will retain it and some may lose it. That POV isn’t discussed enough when I scroll through Twitter, flip the channels, talk to people in real life. I’m not sure why.
Been saying this for months GB

 
I think my state of Florida is a pretty good example of why you won't get the results the electorate is wanting.  We are (at worst 55/45 split...I'd argue closer than that) in terms of "sides" and our representation in the state is 76/42.
I was going to get into gerrymandering, but that's another issue for another day. Suffice it to say gerrymandering distorts how the popular will might be exerted regarding representation. 

 
I was going to get into gerrymandering, but that's another issue for another day. Suffice it to say gerrymandering distorts how the popular will might be exerted regarding representation. 
Yeah....it's not unique to this situation.  It applies to any of the "we'll see what the people REALLY want" arguments....we won't...not until that's fixed across the board.

 
Which states outlaw abortion even in the event of life-threatening pregnancy?

https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2022/06/13-states-have-abortion-trigger-bans-heres-what-happens-when-roe-overturned

Every single state that has a trigger ban also has an exception where the woman's life is in danger.  
It's clearly framed as a hypo in the question and there have been states to introduce legislation (I remember reading of two) that do not allow exceptions for rape or incest. The slippery slope is omnipresent here. With respect to the health of the mother, I'll leave this portion of an article by the New Yorker, a liberal magazine for sure, but not an inaccurate one. 

From the New Yorker: 

If, as expected, the Supreme Court abolishes the constitutional right to abortion in its forthcoming decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, scenarios such as the one that killed Savita Halappanavar will become more likely to occur in the United States. Twenty-six states are likely to ban or criminalize abortion if Roe is overturned, including thirteen with “trigger bans.” These typically include a “life of the mother” exception, but the language of these exceptions varies in its scope and specifics state to state. Texas’s current six-week ban—its proponents call it the “heartbeat bill”—allows exceptions for “a medical emergency.” North Dakota would permit abortion “to prevent the pregnant female’s death.” Louisiana invokes “death or substantial risk of death,” or “permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ,” but also requires “reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child.”

The questions implicit in these phrases—What constitutes an “emergency”? How does one define “substantial” or “reasonable”?—are left unanswered. “These laws presume a certainty that doesn’t exist in medicine,” Cara Heuser, a maternal-fetal-medicine physician in Salt Lake City, said. “How ‘life-threatening’ the situation has to be—I don’t know what that means.”

“In states where abortion becomes illegal, and particularly in states where there are criminal penalties for doctors or anyone who assists in an abortion, I fear that it will send a chill through the entire medical community,” Audrey Lance, an ob-gyn in Michigan, said. “People are going to be scared to intervene until the last minute or perhaps until it’s too late.” According to the Guttmacher Institute, the reproductive-rights think tank, as many as twenty-two states are likely or certain to enforce felony bans on abortion, with potential penalties including jail time and fines. A doctor who is inclined to provide an emergency termination would have to weigh her medical judgment against the possibility of criminal charges, losing her license, and never being able to practice medicine again. “There’s a very real fear: Will they force people to prove that they really had a miscarriage?” Heuser said.

 
I appreciate the POV here because it seems like even people like Marco Rubio aren’t seeing this correctly. He’s celebrating because the right to decide has been returned to the people. What he really means is the right to decide is being returned to the representatives. Each individual person already had the right to choose. Some will retain it and some may lose it. That POV isn’t discussed enough when I scroll through Twitter, flip the channels, talk to people in real life. I’m not sure why.


Is it the right to decide to have an abortion or the right to decide to protect an unborn child.  I was born in 1974 and I never had the power to decide whether we should be able to protect an unborn child.  Roe took that power away from me by granting women the power to terminate a child before my elected representative had the ability to protect it.

 
How many states that are poised to enact severe restrictions on abortion have the ability to hold referenda for direct democracy?

Generally, I'm not in favor of direct democracy as I think that legislatures should do their jobs properly, but if the legislature  abrogates their responsibility...

 
Is it the right to decide to have an abortion or the right to decide to protect an unborn child.  I was born in 1974 and I never had the power to decide whether we should be able to protect an unborn child.  Roe took that power away from me by granting women the power to terminate a child before my elected representative had the ability to protect it.
Then things haven't changed all that much for you in this situation.  Abortion is still an option albeit not as easy to get for some.  Or are you saying in your state a man has a say over a woman's medical choices?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is it the right to decide to have an abortion or the right to decide to protect an unborn child.  I was born in 1974 and I never had the power to decide whether we should be able to protect an unborn child.  Roe took that power away from me by granting women the power to terminate a child before my elected representative had the ability to protect it.
Should it be your choice when 70+% believe it should be the mother’s choice? Isn’t there some spirit of the will of the people that should be respected?

 
How many states that are poised to enact severe restrictions on abortion have the ability to hold referenda for direct democracy?

Generally, I'm not in favor of direct democracy as I think that legislatures should do their jobs properly, but if the legislature  abrogates their responsibility...
Here in Florida, we have a path to getting amendments to our Constitution.  Is that what you're asking?  Of course, as history showed even if the amendment is passed it's STILL up to the legislature to write the law and that hasn't gone well.

 
It’s a tough one for me. I’m pretty far left on  the abortion scale but further right on federalism and states rights. People like to live , work and be around like people. It’s just the way it is. It’s why even after 100+ years every city in America has a name your ethnicity “town” or “little” where did you come from. 

The push from the left for an ever powerful federal government and discussing in the open eliminating things like the EC, filibuster and packing the court is pushing people like me further to the right. We are too large and too culturally diverse to live under 1 party/ideology rule and the only countries larger than us have zero diversity and are run by dictators. The people that want to eliminate fossil fuels for example, also refuse to build nuclear power and desalination plants. I don’t want to be governed by those people.

If this decision moves us back in the direction of states rights, it was a good decision for the country. 
I'm sorta here.  I am not "far left" on abortion.  I'll counsel until I'm blue in the face that keeping the baby is the way to go, but ultimately I understand it should be the woman's decision.  I feel like our federal government has it's hands in a bunch of things it shouldn't and not enough in the things it should.  To the bold, filibuster is smacked around by both sides often so I feel that's a wash.  I do think the EC should be altered and made proportional, but not removed completely.  I think "packing the courts" is dumb, but the alternative is not ok either.  Not doing your job to run out the clock is just as dumb.  I look left and the group is getting further and further away.  I look right and it's getting further and further away.  And neither is worth chasing down.  That's not my job.

My biggest struggle in all this is that in my view, MOST of what is "law" needs to come from the states.  The problem is, MOST states aren't set up with fair representation in the first place.  I offered my state as a good example of that up thread.  So, the more we push things down to the states, the more representation becomes a problem.

 
Then things haven't changed all that much for you in this situation.  Abortion is still an option albeit not as easy to get for some.  Or are you saying in your state a man has a say over a woman's medical choices?


I'm saying I now have the power to vote for a representative in my state that is pro-life and they are able to vote for laws that ban abortion.  Prior to yesterday, the best I could do was get a law on the books at 20+ weeks when 95% of the abortions happen well before that.  

Your second question is a bit more muddied.  I am not making a medical decision for a woman, I am protecting what I believe to be a life.  I am acting en loco parentis for that child.

 
Morally, no. I also think such a situation would be so rare that said woman would not even be able to find someone to perform the procedure. It's all propaganda of the pro-life movement to show how awful abortion is when the vast majority are performed when it is an embryo at less than 9 weeks (80% or so). I also don't think that if a woman decides to have an abortion at any stage in her pregnancy it's anyone's damn business why. Aren't conservatives the party of small government? If a woman and her doctor decide to do a late term abortion that is between them.
Isn’t this entire thread discussing an extremely rare situation?  Note how many times rape is brought up as being a reason to be pro-choice, even though it’s rare.  Whether you like it or not, there are people who have abortions after the baby could technically live outside the womb, simply because they don’t want to have the baby.

The fact that it’s rare is irrelevant. 

 
Tons of people are looking this from a "bottom line" approach.

Why do you think disney will pay for travel expenses to get an abortion? Because abortions with travel are cheaper than births and maternity leave. 

Dont you think wanting a better career is a big motivator for getting an abortion? 

How about the fact that the vast majority of down syndrome babies get aborted? Is that just an extra work issue, or do you think money factors in? 
In her disgusting statement yesterday, Michelle Obama said as much.

 
I am but one vote of many, I abide by the will of the people.  
We don’t believe in many cases the people will vote on this. It will be the representatives who routinely do things that are unpopular with the majority That seems like one of the biggest problems in the country and now we are adding another issue to it. That’s my view at least. 

 
We don’t believe in many cases the people will vote on this. It will be the representatives who routinely do things that are unpopular with the majority That seems like one of the biggest problems in the country and now we are adding another issue to it. That’s my view at least. 


To be fair, I'm not a single issue voter and abortion is down on the list for me and I wouldn't not vote for somebody because the are pro-choice.  

 
I think my state of Florida is a pretty good example of why you won't get the results the electorate is wanting.  We are (at worst 55/45 split...I'd argue closer than that) in terms of "sides" and our representation in the state is 76/42.  This isn't a purple state...it's firmly red because of it.
I have a hard time believing a state with that large of a Hispanic population believes in abortion being as they are very faith based. 

Ultimately, abortions are going to happen. Maybe now we can get to the table and discuss the limitations and put them to paper instead of doing this back and forth of getting people riled up every election cycle. 

 
I have a hard time believing a state with that large of a Hispanic population believes in abortion being as they are very faith based. 

Ultimately, abortions are going to happen. Maybe now we can get to the table and discuss the limitations and put them to paper instead of doing this back and forth of getting people riled up every election cycle. 


You are much more hopeful than I am.  I look at politicians like drug companies, you don't want to find the cure, you just want to treat the symptoms. 

 
Yes it is more complex then that. This court didn’t need to hear the case. Obama could have been allowed to nominate a Justice, etc. There’s been decades of work to get this to happen. 
Of course it is.  But at the end of the day one person an their actions (ultimately selfish actions) could have changed the whole course of this by themselves.  Obama, even if he was allowed to nominate, didn’t have the votes. So while the action to stop the nom was overt it was ultimately meaningless (which in part was why the nomination stopping was so egregious imo).  And of course the conservative justices (who lied to get on the court) wanted to hear this case (https://news.yahoo.com/chief-justice-roberts-wanted-slow-090030424.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall), that was set in motion the moment they held the majority locked down.   RBG could have stopped all of this single-handedly.  

 
I appreciate the POV here because it seems like even people like Marco Rubio aren’t seeing this correctly. He’s celebrating because the right to decide has been returned to the people. What he really means is the right to decide is being returned to the representatives. Each individual person already had the right to choose. Some will retain it and some may lose it. That POV isn’t discussed enough when I scroll through Twitter, flip the channels, talk to people in real life. I’m not sure why.
I can’t fathom how people don’t see this.  There is not other way to frame it then choice was taken away here.  

 
I have a hard time believing a state with that large of a Hispanic population believes in abortion being as they are very faith based. 

Ultimately, abortions are going to happen. Maybe now we can get to the table and discuss the limitations and put them to paper instead of doing this back and forth of getting people riled up every election cycle. 
You are likely right. Though the also very Roman Catholic country of Ireland voted 66% in favor of repealing their abortion laws in 2018. 
 

A lot of that probably had to do with the hideous scandals that came out about what the Church was doing with the unwanted kids that they took charge. So that could be a huge factor in skewing their outlook.

 
Really. A question for the right here. Are you willing to potentially watch your wife die if she gets accidentally pregnant at the age of forty or forty-five (assuming an unplanned pregnancy) and you happen to live in a state that outlaws abortion even in the event of life-threatening pregnancy? 

Have we thought about our tribal affiliations long and hard enough to sacrifice our wives, potentially, to a state system that knows no bounds and will indeed affect some of us in the future? 
A lot of the Trigger laws contain language to allow for abortion if there is a threat to the life or organs of the mother.  Some are extreme and seem to leave no room for anything. 

 
Of course it is.  But at the end of the day one person an their actions (ultimately selfish actions) could have changed the whole course of this by themselves.  Obama, even if he was allowed to nominate, didn’t have the votes. So while the action to stop the nom was overt it was ultimately meaningless (which in part was why the nomination stopping was so egregious imo).  And of course the conservative justices (who lied to get on the court) wanted to hear this case (https://news.yahoo.com/chief-justice-roberts-wanted-slow-090030424.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall), that was set in motion the moment they held the majority locked down.   RBG could have stopped all of this single-handedly.  
I understand. As for Obama not having the votes, that’s also BS. The only reason he didn’t have the votes is ####ty partisan politics. It’s a systemic problem. But yes RBG played a role.

 
I understand. As for Obama not having the votes, that’s also BS. The only reason he didn’t have the votes is ####ty partisan politics. It’s a systemic problem. But yes RBG played a role.
Of course he didn’t have the votes because of partisan politics, that’s how it works.  I hate it but it’s real and not BS.  Partisan politics are destroying this country and for some reason we’ve completely lost the ability to compromise.  But that’s neither here nor there is regards to his nomination. The bottom line is he didn’t have the votes.   

 
I have a hard time believing a state with that large of a Hispanic population believes in abortion being as they are very faith based. 

Ultimately, abortions are going to happen. Maybe now we can get to the table and discuss the limitations and put them to paper instead of doing this back and forth of getting people riled up every election cycle. 
I have no idea what you're talking about.  I was talking specifically about the "representation" argument that was made.  This state is almost right down the middle between Dem and Repub in terms of electorate.  The representation in the state legislature is not.  That has nothing to do with what you post here.  As things sit now, the state legislature will NOT put on paper legislation that reflects the fact that the electorate is almost 50/50.  It will put on paper legislation that is more a reflection of the 70/30 make up.  Until that's fixed, anyone saying "finally, we'll get to see what the people want" is just wrong in many states.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top