Diversion fail.

what right does society have to tell everyone they can't murder people?
Or speed through a school zone?
Or take Top secret documents out of the white house?

Way to miss the point.

 

Like I said, you assume that all abortions are wrong. That's not your decision to make.

 

I realllllllllly hope that the end of Row V Wade is going to incense enough people to run specifically against sitting Republicans, and America can finally free itself from its shackles.

We saw the "teal wave" sweep aside a bunch of conservatives here, and looking at your above post @stumbler - I wonder if the same will happen for America. Our trigger was mostly the environment, yours can be abortion, but the sky is the limit!

 

I have never been able to predict the American Electorate. In fact that's why back in 2016 I was one of the few screaming don't kid yourselves that mentally ill, pathological lying, sick and sadistic con man Trump can win.

And I was also battling with the Bernie Bros and the never vote that bitch Hillary screaming its the Supreme Court stupid. Even after Moscow Mitch tried to steal a Supreme Court justice seat. But for the first time in a generation there was still a chance to change the majority of the court from conservative to liberal. And we not only blew that opportunity electing Trump gave Moscow Mitch and the treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans an opportunity to cheat, change all the rules and put a super majority of conservatives on the court.

We also had another problem in that when many of us on the left said if we didn't elect Clinton Roe V Wade would be overturned and most people didn't believe us. The majority of the people did not believe the Supreme Court would dare do that. But they did and now the majority of Americans are playing catch up. And its dawned on them the only way they can do that is to vote and vote for progressive/liberal/Democrats.

And so far that seems to be working. But can that momentum be maintained for another year and make a real difference? We can only hope.

 

Since you won't answer the question Shooter will.
Society has an absolute right, an obligation, to establish those rules and laws necessary to an orderly society.
This is why we have the laws that say murder is illegal, speeding is illegal, taking documents out of the white house is illegal.
The issue with abortion really comes down to when life begins. Before life begins abortion is a medical procedure between a woman and her doctor. After life begins it is infanticide.

It is not your decision or Shooters to decide what is legal or illegal. It is our decision to follow laws or break them.
Your continual anger and trolling does not serve the discussion.
It does provide for some humorous moments.

 

Every source I have read, and they all generally agree, says that infanticide is causing the death of a child from birth to one year of age. Your attempt to sensationalize the issue by using this term is wrongheaded.

 

And you intentionally ignore the point. There is not a massive problem with infanticide, as you keep bringing it up. The point of having legal abortion in later stages is so doctors are free to treat their patients as necessary.

But hey, we know you'll ignore that because you want to demonize a woman that is experiencing a miscarriage. And we know that's true because you've demonized women in Texas who have had complications.

 

The genius yet again sticks his head up his ass far enough that we can see his belly button moving when he talks.
28 week abortion. Hopefully the baby was dead when the boyfriend tossed it in a fire to get rid of it. All so the "mother" could wear her favorite jeans.
Shooter doesn't know more than the doctor. He does know infanticide when he sees it.
What about you, genius?
Still support this "mother" and her decision to murder her baby?

Nebraska teen and mother facing charges in abortion-related case that involved obtaining their Facebook messages | CNN Business

 

anon bend over more.

 

No matter how you look at it, or feel about it, big tech puts themselves between a rock and a hard place.....
The fact that data from social media sites, maybe even this site, can be obtained and used in criminal cases, is all the more reason NOT to post things on social media sites that can come back and bite you in the ass.....

 

Pro-life, my ass!

 

There were three things that made me laugh at that.

One


Society has an absolute right, an obligation, to establish those rules and laws necessary to an orderly society.

What sicking and hypocritical dishonest dodge. The vast majority of our"society" wants abortion to be legal in all 50 states. They want abortion to be a right between the woman and her doctor. It is only a small minority wanting to make abortion illegal in all cases including rape and incest. It is a minority trying to inflict Sharia Law For Christians enforced by the American Taliban on the nation.


Two

The issue with abortion really comes down to when life begins. Before life begins abortion is a medical procedure between a woman and her doctor. After life begins it is infanticide.

Notice the use of "doublespeak" here. The position of the anti abortion forces has always been life begins at conception. In fact for many of them before conception because they also want to outlaw birth control. And he supports that saying its a state's right.


Three

It is not your decision or Shooters to decide what is legal or illegal. It is our decision to follow laws or break them.


But not Trump and treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans which he constantly defends meaning they are above all laws and the Constitution.

 

Republicans are warming up the jail cells they want to put American women into

Thom Hartmann
October 23, 2023 7:36AM ET



Lauren Boebert Image via Creative Commons


Last year, all three candidates in the Republican race for Michigan Attorney General proudly confirmed that they believed the 1965 Supreme Court case Griswold v Connecticut was “wrongly decided” on privacy grounds and that it was an infringement on a state’s right to imprison women, regardless of marital status, who use birth control.

Yes, birth control.

Each described himself as a “Christian” and implied his opposition to Griswold was grounded in his religious faith.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

For over a hundred years in heavily Catholic (39% of the population) Connecticut it had been a crime punishable by imprisonment for a married couple to possess any form of birth control. Estelle Griswold, the head of Connecticut Planned Parenthood, sued to overturn the law and the Court agreed, saying a couple’s “right to privacy” in their own bedroom couldn’t be violated.

That was followed, in 1972, by the Supreme Court legalizing possession of birth control for unmarried men and women in their Eisenstadt v. Baird decision; it was also based on a reading of the Bill of Rights starting with the 14th Amendment’s Due Process clause that guarantees legal process before government can violate our privacy.

Starting with Griswold in 1965, the Court asserted every American’s right to privacy as a function of that clause (among others) in several cases.

The following year, 1973, the Court used that same rationale of “an individual’s right to privacy” over what goes on with, in, and about their own body to legalize abortion in Roe v Wade. The right to privacy argument also undergirds the Court legalizing gay relationships in Lawrence v Texas (2003) and gay marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).

The Michigan Republicans weren’t the only ones saying that the entire idea of a “right to privacy” is a bunch of hooey. In his concurring opinion in the 2022 Dobbs decision that struck down Roe, billionaire fanboy Clarence Thomas wrote:

“The resolution of this case is thus straightforward. Because the Due Process Clause [of the 14th Amendment] does not secure any substantive rights, it does not secure a right to abortion. … For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

In other words, bring back the power of states to criminalize birth control, gay sex, and to outlaw gay marriage. (Interestingly, the only other big case SCOTUS decided based on this rationale was Loving v Virginia, which struck down state laws against interracial marriage: Thomas, a Black man married to a white woman, chose not to name that one.)

Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn recently jumped on the bandwagon, telling her peers on the Senate Judiciary Committee that:

“Constitutionally unsound rulings like Griswold v Connecticut … confused Tennesseans and left Congress wondering who gave the Court permission to bypass our system of checks and balances.”

Last year, Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) brought legislation to the Senate that would enshrine the Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell decisions in federal law by establishing a federal “right to privacy.”

The bill passed the House and had enough votes to pass the Senate, too, unless any senator objected to “unanimous consent” and threw up a filibuster. Sure enough, on July 28, 2022 Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) rose to object, after Senator John Cornyn had said:

“[C]oming to the floor and listening to some of my colleagues talk about their concern for lack of access to contraception … reminds me of the old story about the little boy who cried wolf. He cried wolf when there wasn't any danger; and then, once there was danger, people didn't come to his aid because they thought it was another phony crying wolf.
“I can understand our colleagues -- given inflation, given crime, given the broken borders -- wanting to change the subject to something else, but that is all this is. This is mere posturing pre-November, pre-midterm elections. This isn’t about changing the law because the law already permits ready access to contraceptives.”

The bill, which would have definitely and finally established an American’s right to use birth control, died at the hands of Ernst’s Republican filibuster.

A few weeks ago, David D. Kirkpatrick wrote an in-depth piece for The New Yorker profiling Alan Sears, the head of the rightwing culture-wars juggernaut Alliance Defending Freedom. The group reportedly has a $100 million a year budget, over 70 lawyers, and has won 14 Supreme Court and other cases including:

— Overturning Roe v Wade,
— Letting employers refuse to pay for health insurance that covers birth control,
— Allowing a baker to refuse to make a cake for a same-sex wedding,
— Blowing up some pandemic-related masking, vaccine, and other requirements,
— Eviscerating federal transparency requirements for nonprofit donors,
— Gutting federal regulations on religious organizations’ use of federal money, and
— Outlawing the abortion pill, Mifepristone (this one is being appealed).

The most startling part of the article, though, is when Sears tells Kirkpatrick:

“We are on a winning trajectory. It may be that the day will come when people say the birth-control pill was a mistake.”

Earlier this year, the Republican Attorney General of Iowa, Brenna Bird, suspended payments for emergency contraception for rape victims.

Two years ago, Republicans in the Idaho legislature made it a crime for people working in state-funded student health centers in that state’s colleges to discuss abortion with their patients or distribute Plan B emergency contraception.

Last year, Colorado Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert tried to bar all federal funds for “abortifacient contraceptive drugs” (which is how groups like Students For Life define garden-variety birth control pills) and when discussing a Republican nationwide abortion ban, Republican Rep. Matt Rosendale tried to add in a ban on emergency contraception.

In almost every case, these are not secular or scientific arguments: they’re based in religion and Republican efforts to pander to rightwing Catholics and evangelicals.

I’ve seen this up-close and personal. On August 2, 1998 Louise and I spent an evening with Pope John Paul II and about two dozen other VIPs who’d been invited to his summer palace, Castel Gandolfo, to hear a concert and have private audiences with His Holiness afterwards.

Watching all the pomp and ceremony, it struck me that if that man were to just say a few words, for example, “Kill all the Muslims,” it could plunge the world into war and turn civilization on its head. In fact, several of his predecessors had done just that, kicking off the Crusades hundreds of years earlier. This was a head-spinning level of political power.

When we met privately with him later that evening, it had all the trappings of a visit to a head of state. The power was palpable and the security as tight as I’d experienced when dining with Obama and Putin.

The day before we went up to Castel Gandolfo, one of the Pope’s personal assistants gave Louise and me a private tour of the Vatican. The art, gold, and wealth were astonishing; this is more than a church: it’s an actual nation-state, complete with a seat at the United Nations where they can weigh in on decisions around family planning.

Here in the US, the Catholic Church lobbies aggressively on a variety of fronts; during the pandemic, according to the AP, that effort brought it more than a billion dollars in federal money. And one in seven hospitals in the US is Catholic-owned and thus unwilling to provide birth control or perform abortions.

Just a few years before our visit to Rome, John Paul II had said that the Church was unalterably opposed to “all propaganda and misinformation directed at persuading couples that they must limit their family to one or two children.”

Seven years earlier, I’d been in Bogotá, Colombia and met with the Archbishop of Bogota, Mario Cardinal Revollo Bravo, at his headquarters, the Cathedral-Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, a massive church and building structure off Bolivar Square.

I was then doing relief work for Salem International out of Germany, and we’d been offered an abandoned church property down near Medellin to house homeless people. A Colombian/German co-worker, Elizabeth, accompanied me to serve as a translator, although we soon discovered that the archbishop spoke fluent English.

When we determined that the property in Medellin wasn’t appropriate for our needs, Elizabeth and I made an appointment to meet with the archbishop. He kept us waiting for several hours and then we were ushered into a huge space converted from a wing of an old Spanish church to meet him.

The massive room was filled with ancient art and stained-glass windows, and the Archbishop sat on a huge carved chair resembling a throne.

I got off to a bad start, as he extended his hand apparently expecting me to kiss his ring, but being Protestant I instead shook his hand. He looked offended, and didn’t bother to extend it to Elizabeth, who he merely scowled at and then ignored.

I thanked him for the possibility of the land in Medellin and told him it wouldn’t work for us, but we appreciated his consideration and looked forward to working closely with the Church in the future on our projects in Colombia and the region. He said a few words about how there were so many street children, and all help was appreciated.

At which point Elizabeth, standing to my side and a step behind me, spoke up, very simply and gently asking him what he thought of the possibility of some sort of special dispensation (she was speaking in Spanish and I didn’t get all the nuance) for people who worked in family planning, or even pharmacists and drug store-owners so they wouldn’t fear going to hell if they sold condoms or other means of birth control.

The lack of birth control in Colombia, she said, was one of the things driving the epidemic of homeless children who were then taking over entire parts of Bogotá and Medellin.

His face turned red and the muscles bunched around his jaw and neck. His thinning hair seemed to bristle.

He refused to look at Elizabeth and instead turned to me, pushing his right index finger into my face and pounding his left fist on the arm of his throne, shouting angrily. I’d not seen somebody become so furious so fast in years.

In English he shouted words to the effect of:

“This population explosion is all the fault of women! It began with Eve, the original deceiver of the first man. They know when they’re fertile and when they’re not. They must learn to be chaste and control themselves!”

He was trembling with rage, and Elizabeth and I backed out of his throne room, saying “Sorry, sorry,” in English and Spanish, as fast as we could.

At the end of the day, it’s all about the power. Power of men over women. Power of the state over the individual. And, for the anti-birth-control religious fanatics, power of their church over the state and, by extension, over the rest of us.

Don’t expect much action on the birth control front over the next 13 months; Republicans know that more than 90 percent of Americas are okay with birth control staying legal and they don’t want to risk the 2024 election.

But if they can hold the House and take back the Senate or — G-d forbid — take the White House, you should sign up now with a Canadian pharmacy while you still can.

The next step for Republicans, like the Texas counties that have authorized their police to stop cars they think are transporting women to other states for abortions, will be to have postal inspectors open your mail looking for contraband birth control pills.

And warming up the jail cells they want to put American women into who have the temerity to continue using them after the GOP’s bans take effect.



https://www.rawstory.com/raw-investigates/thom-hartmann-2666043679/

 

Attaboy. Get Trump in there somehow.
You're a big reason why we can't have any adult conversations around here.
Shame on you.

 

When do you have conversations at all, let alone adult ones?

 

Trolling genius dismissed.

 

We will have to see how this goes and personally I don't like making grand predictions about any election or issue. But so far it looks like the right to abortion is a very big issue even in deep red states like Kentucky. With a lot of help from Daniel Cameron who like some posters here just keep contradicting themselves about abortion. Contradictions like that usually do jump out to voters.




In deep red Kentucky, Democrats bet abortion will be a winning issue in the governor's race
Adam Edelman
Mon, October 23, 2023 at 7:00 AM MDT·6 min read
162



AP; Getty Images

• 
  

Last fall, voters in deep red Kentucky delivered a win for Democrats when they rejected an amendment that would have written opposition to abortion into the state constitution.

This year, state Democrats are again banking that voters will side with protecting abortion rights. They're putting the issue front and center in the closely watched governor's race on Nov. 7, hoping it will help boost Gov. Andy Beshear to another term.

The race between Beshear, the popular Democratic incumbent, and his Republican challenger, Daniel Cameron, the conservative attorney general, has emerged as yet another test of whether abortion rights can help Democrats in otherwise tough political terrain.


In the 16 months since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, candidates and measures supporting abortion rights have won in every election in which the issue was on the ballot or a prominent feature of the campaign.

“Abortion is going to win Beshear the race, because it is a winning issue,” said Tamarra Wieder, the Kentucky state director of Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, one of the national reproductive rights group’s political arms. “We have already won on this in Kentucky.”

Sam Newton, a spokesperson for the Democratic Governors Association, which has spent heavily in the race, said, "The 2022 ballot initiative paved the way for this election to hold Cameron accountable for his extreme position."

“Cameron clearly learned none of the lessons,” Newton added.

Abortion is almost entirely banned in Kentucky under a 2019 law called the Human Life Protection Act, which prohibits abortion in every situation, except when a doctor has deemed the woman’s life to be at risk. The law was one of more than a dozen so-called state trigger bans that went into effect after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in June 2022. As the state’s attorney general, Cameron has repeatedly defended the law in court.

Democratic-aligned groups have bombarded voters with ads and other messaging attacking Cameron. Cameron has maintained his support for the ban, though he has made conflicting comments about whether he supports adding exceptions.

The loudest Democratic voice on the issue so far has been that of Defending Bluegrass Values — a political action committee affiliated with the Democratic Governors Association — which plans to spend over $17 million on the race.

In an ad that hit the air last week, the group criticized Cameron for opposing adding exceptions to the existing law for situations when fetuses face serious birth defects if they are carried to term. It featured a couple who was forced to travel out of state to obtain an abortion for a fetus with a serious brain defect. The couple were forced to terminate the pregnancy with a procedure they didn’t want because of restrictions issued by their Kentucky-funded health insurance.

Other ads have criticized Cameron for having supported the ban, even though it doesn’t include exceptions for victims of rape and incest. One such spot, put on the air last month and paid for by the Beshear campaign, featured a Kentucky woman who said she was raped at age 12.

Cameron, meanwhile, appears to have repeatedly shifted his stance on what exceptions he would support adding to the ban.

In a Sept. 18 local radio interview, Cameron said that, if he is elected, he would sign legislation that would provide exceptions for rape and incest if the Republican-controlled Legislature passed such a bill.

But the next week, Cameron was captured on an audio recording obtained by The Associated Press telling voters that he would support exceptions for rape and incest only “if the courts made us change that law.”

In a statement to NBC News, a spokesperson said Cameron remained supportive of the 2019 near-total ban on abortion and of exceptions for rape and incest.

“Daniel Cameron is the pro-life candidate for governor and supports the Human Life Protection Act,” said the spokesperson, Courtney Norris. “If the Legislature brought him a bill to add exceptions for rape and incest, he would, of course, sign it.”

Norris went on to slam Beshear — who defeated Republican Gov. Matt Bevin in 2019 by less than 1 percentage point in a state Donald Trump would win the next year by 26 percentage points — as an “extremist” on the issue who supports “abortion on demand all the way up until the moment of birth.”

In April 2022, before the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, Beshear vetoed a ban on abortion after 15 weeks, but the veto was overridden by the GOP-controlled Legislature.

Cameron and Republican groups have moved to make the race about anything other than abortion, focusing instead on issues like the economy and Joe Biden's presidency.

Abortion “is not going to be the deciding issue in this race,” a Republican strategist involved in the race said.

GOP groups, including Kentucky Values, a Republican Governors Association affiliate that plans to spend at least $10 million on the race, have largely aimed the bulk of their own messaging at trying to tie Beshear , whose above-60% approval rating is among the highest for any governor in the country, to Biden, who, an Emerson College poll this month found, has a dismal 22% approval rating in the state.

Beshear has largely avoided discussing Biden, and at a debate last week, he criticized Cameron for so doggedly trying to link the two Democrats.

Beshear’s campaign and Defending Bluegrass Values have outspent Cameron and GOP-allied groups on the airwaves since the May Republican primary by $35.6 million to $21.6 million, according to AdImpact.

Meanwhile, polling shows Beshear with a sizable lead in the race: An Emerson College survey this month showed Beshear leading Cameron among Kentucky registered voters 49% to 33%, with 13% undecided.

Polling specifically about abortion rights has been sparse in Kentucky, though a survey published in June by the Democratic Governors Association found that 62% of registered voters in the state opposed the 2019 ban, while 14% said abortion should be illegal in all situations.

But even without nonpartisan polling on the question of abortion rights, reproductive rights groups say the 2022 ballot measure defeat should have been a wake-up call for Republicans to understand that voters didn’t support hard-line abortion policy in their state.

Their failure to do so, however, reproductive rights groups said, has allowed Democratic-aligned groups to seize on the issue in a state that many national groups had long seen as hostile territory for abortion messaging.

“We’ve been written off a lot of times in the national discourse on what issues can win in states like Kentucky, and we don’t always get the investment to be able to run full-fledged campaigns. But we were able to last year, so we were able to change the narrative a bit,” said Wieder, of Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates. “And that has continued to some degree into this race.”



https://www.yahoo.com/news/deep-red-kentucky-democrats-bet-130000781.html