ChiGoose

If you think overturning Roe and banning abortions is about having more babies, then you're not paying attention. And as I have pointed out elsewhere, this can have dire consequences for women who have miscarriages. If people really wanted to reduce the number of abortions, there are proven methods for that. Banning abortions is not one of them, but reducing the number of abortions isn't the point for them anyway.

Well for one, because one would hope that women would have access to proper healthcare regardless of which state they were in. And for another, states like mine are now going to have to provide services to people from other states, in effect subsidizing them. Decisions in some states can have impacts on people in other states.

There are proven ways to reduce the numbers of abortions, but "pro-life" advocates generally oppose them in favor of banning abortion. Truly pro-life would be advocating for pro-natalist policies (which would likely find decent bipartisan support). Banning abortion will not end abortions, it'll just make them less safe. Hard to argue that cruelty isn't the point.

Here is an article outlining it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/abortion-state-laws-criminalization-roe/ 13 states with trigger laws will ban abortion shortly. 5 states likely will ban abortion soon

Illinois is already prepping to service the midwest and Texas. Just another example of blue states subsidizing red states.

As someone who has had to unfortunately become intimately familiar with all of this over the last couple of years, I am going to try to spell this out as clearly as I can. Medically, there is little difference between an abortion and treatment for a miscarriage. Depending on how far along, it might be a pill or a shot like methotrexate, or it might be D&C or D&E. In fact, when you have severe bleeding in a pregnancy and go to the ER only to find everything is still fine, your paperwork will read "threatened abortion." A miscarriage is labeled "spontaneous abortion." When you have a miscarriage, doctors generally suggest one of these methods because the other option is to wait and hope the body expels the fetus and tissue. This risks the mother going septic and potentially dying. A simple procedure is preferable to that risk. Legally, it all depends on how the laws are written. Under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the law required an exception for the life or health of the mother. So someone who is pregnant but the fetus dies or stops developing is able to get the proper care because without it, they could go septic. Now that Roe and Casey are overturned, there is no such requirement nationally. States can absolutely enact full abortion bans with no exceptions. This will mean that doctors may not be able to provide treatment for miscarriages until the mother starts suffering from something like sepsis. Or they may make the law vague enough that doctors are unsure of what they can or cannot do, and side on the edge of caution and reject treatment. We've already seen this in Texas since their new abortion law was enacted. Depending on how the laws are written, it may make providing abortion care so difficult and risky, the abortion providers just shut down, leaving people with few to no options. The immediate pushback to this is that states won't pass those kinds of laws. I would love for that to be the case. But like I said, we've already seen doctors in Texas unsure if they can provide care in certain instances of miscarriage. Also, we've seen idiotic attempts like a proposed law in Ohio that would require ectopic pregnancies (pregnancies in the fallopian tube that can cause a rupture and kill the mother are treated with an abortion) to be re-implanted, a procedure that does not exist. Thankfully, that did not pass. But we also see in countries with very strict abortion laws that women die from miscarriage because they cannot get the proper treatment. With today's decision, there is absolutely nothing stopping states from passing similar laws. So when I said that I am happy I live in Illinois, it's because we have laws here that protect my wife and if we lost another pregnancy, she would have no problem getting the help she needs. Soon, women in many states will likely not have that safety.

1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage and the proper treatment for a miscarriage is an abortion. My wife has had several miscarriages and it was easy to get her the care she needed. Without Roe and Casey, there is nothing stopping a state from banning abortions outright, with no exceptions. People in Poland are dying because of their abortion ban today.

Up next: Contraceptives Same Sex Marriage Same Sex Relationships

Thank god I live in Illinois. This is going to be so awful for so many people.

It’s also telling that we frequently see “otherizing” by people on this board supporting the Trump side. The Left is deranged Liberals are Commies Enemy of the people. It’s this kind of language that dehumanizes the other side, giving permission to dismiss them and often leads to violence. While those with more left positions certainly talk crap about GOP officials and public figures, you do not see nearly as much vitriol directed at other regular Americans.

Nice dodge.

Ok, let's say that you're correct. Frankly, I don't have the time or patience to chase down everything posted on RedStateThisIsRealNewsBenShapiroFederalistWeThinkOurReadersAreIdiotsAndWeAreScammingThemForProfitDotCom, but let's say you're right: Trump asked for more security and it was denied by Nancy Pelosi, the Deep State, Democratic Socialist Liz Cheney, the reverse vampires, Hillary Clinton, George Soros, and all of those people who eat babies. How is that exculpatory for the recorded phone call where Trump commits a crime?

Wait, you think I wasn't aware that they did not have the proper security for Jan 6th? It was clear that the decision was made that they didn't need the kind of force that they had for the riots after George Floyd's death. And it was clear that the people who made that decision were wrong. And of the three people on the board that oversees the Capitol Police, two of them lost their jobs the next day. None of this is new.

@DRsGhost is so incompetent that his big "gotcha" that negates the fact that we have a recording of Trump literally committing crimes is that two people rejected help prior to Jan 6th and then were fired the next day. Now we just need several balls of red twine and a carton of thumbtacks to prove that this was all a big deep state conspiracy and our God King Trump was framed.

Pretty sure you only ask for pardons when you never did anything wrong and were totally in the right. Yep, that's probably it.

According to this article, the request was denied by the House and Senate Seargant at Arms: Considering that both of them lost their jobs the very next day, it would seem they royally screwed up and got what they deserved.

Patel is a grifter, so he targets the easiest marks that most grifters target: diehard Trump supporters. Tell them what they want to hear and then sell them a book or some vitamin pills or whatever. He's not as good as Trump though, who can just ask for money for a defense fund that doesn't exist and they'll give him $250 million. But you gotta start somewhere!

Reeks of the pathetic "debate me" garbage of the Ben Shapiro types. What a joke.

The problem is that even if they release it in full, Patel will likely claim that it's doctored. Nor do I have any trust that you, someone who has yet to have an original thought, would be trustworthy enough to actually follow through on this. But if they do not release Patel's testimony, I will change my icon to a picture to one of Tom Brady for a full year. I do not require any action on your part.

I didn't include Patel as someone whose testimony we've seen because we have not seen it. I know that comprehension is difficult for you, but maybe give it a shot some time. Also, it's already been noted that the committee plans to release all of the transcripts in September. Patel is just grandstanding because he knows that gullible people will believe there's some bombshell the committee is hiding. He is hoping that the same people who are easy marks for obvious grifting will also swallow the unbelievable line that all of the Trump employees, campaign workers, appointees, and supporters who are testifying under oath are partisan hacks. If you did watch the hearings, you would have heard Donald Trump on tape committing a crime. You also would have heard sworn testimony that he was taking actions that he had been informed multiple times were illegal. But your ignorance is your bliss, and you must be incredibly blissful. You're a barely literate troll and I feel bad for anyone who thinks you've ever contributed anything of merit to any discussion.

I know that @DRsGhostis simply a troll with a skull so thick that no facts could possibly hope to penetrate it, but in case anyone else reads their statement and thinks they might be making a point, I would look at the witnesses who have testified under oath versus the witnesses that have been called to testify under oath but refuse. The answer lies in those two lists.

It is clear that we cannot rely on presidential impeachments as an enforcement mechanism since they just devolve into partisan squabbling, and I do not believe there is a law on the books that directly addresses this issue of a president acting with unlawful intent to overturn an election. A legislative remedy for this would be a good idea to come from the committee when they get to that point. All of that being said, under current law, you could definitely build a case on 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy to defraud the United States) against Eastman, Giuliani, and Trump from the evidence we've seen. I do not know if that will happen, or if it would lead to a conviction if there was an indictment, but yesterday's raid on Jeff Clark's home combined with what I've seen so far from today's testimony makes me think it's not off the table.

Yeah, I think this is where the analogy breaks down a bit, but I wanted to illustrate that what we have seen is different from a spit-balling meeting. Executive privilege exists for a reason and the president and his advisors absolutely should be free to throw out crazy scenarios as part of a discussion without fear of repercussions. But what we are seeing here is that the president was told repeatedly that a course of action he wished to take was illegal, and yet he and a handful of people (who also knew it was illegal) still pursued those actions anyway. They took actions to further a scheme that they had been repeatedly informed was illegal. And I think that is different from just tossing ideas around.

Yes, this is exactly what Trump's people are doing. Thank you for calling it out.

I do not miss having a president who was suffering from severe Very Online Brain syndrome.