Impact of Dobbs and Abortion Laws

[Pokebball]

31 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

This is blatantly false.

Let's assume they did. Would you then support restricting all other abortions in the 3rd trimester?

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Let's assume they did. Would you then support restricting all other abortions in the 3rd trimester?

 

Sure, but you would have to be pretty clear and unambiguous in the language.

 

The problem with heartbeat bills and "life of the mother" as the exceptions is that non-viable pregnancies (that can be dangerous to continue) can still have a heartbeat. Also, mothers can sustain permanent damage that is short of life threatening.

 

The problem is that the people writing these laws aren't experts in medicine and seem to not want to listen to people who are.

 

Which is part of why I would prefer to focus on the root causes of abortion to prevent putting people in the position to begin with.

[BillStime]

11 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Other than that, what else they got?  

 

You best worry about the GQP's platform... so far, it's not very popular.

 

[Pokebball]

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Sure, but you would have to be pretty clear and unambiguous in the language.

 

The problem with heartbeat bills and "life of the mother" as the exceptions is that non-viable pregnancies (that can be dangerous to continue) can still have a heartbeat. Also, mothers can sustain permanent damage that is short of life threatening.

 

The problem is that the people writing these laws aren't experts in medicine and seem to not want to listen to people who are.

 

Which is part of why I would prefer to focus on the root causes of abortion to prevent putting people in the position to begin with.

Sure, but the root causes aren't an either or. 

13 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

You best worry about the GQP's platform... so far, it's not very popular.

 

The right thing to do isn't always the most popular

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, Pokebball said:

The right thing to do isn't always the most popular

 

F around and find out.

 

 

[Pokebball]

3 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

F around and find out.

 

 

That's the plan

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, Pokebball said:

That's the plan

 

So much winning, eh?

[Pokebball]

4 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

So much winning, eh?

Yeah, we knew this before we did it. Eyes wide open!

Edited August 9, 2023 by Pokebball

[ChiGoose]

52 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

Sure, but the root causes aren't an either or. 

 

True, but addressing the root cause of abortion should be the focus of those looking to reduce or eliminate elective abortions. 

 

However, they absolutely refuse to do so and even oppose policies that would address them.

[Pokebball]

22 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

True, but addressing the root cause of abortion should be the focus of those looking to reduce or eliminate elective abortions. 

 

However, they absolutely refuse to do so and even oppose policies that would address them.

"They" is probably me. What do I oppose?

[ChiGoose]

17 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

"They" is probably me. What do I oppose?

 

Not necessarily. I don't know you and I'm not going to make assumptions about your beliefs. 

 

Studies have been done on why people seek elective abortions and the results seem to be fairly consistent.

Here is what one such study found: (participants could choose multiple reasons)

• 40% - Not financially prepared
• 36% - Not the right time
• 31% - Partner related reasons
• 29% - Need to focus on other children
• 20% - Interferes with future opportunities
• 19% - Not emotionally or mentally prepared
• 12% - Health related reasons
• 12% - Want a better life for the baby than she can provide
• 7% - Not independent or mature enough for a baby
• 5% - Influence from family or friends
• 4% - Don't want a baby

Given that list, robust financial support for pregnant mothers combined with easy access to contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies would go a long way to reducing abortions without jeopardizing anyone's health.

 

Since a large number seem to be concerned about finances and opportunities, ensuring financial support and career protection (mandated leave, childcare, etc) would probably help raise the birthrate by helping people who would want more kids but aren't sure they can afford to have them.

[Pokebball]

7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Not necessarily. I don't know you and I'm not going to make assumptions about your beliefs. 

 

Studies have been done on why people seek elective abortions and the results seem to be fairly consistent.

Here is what one such study found: (participants could choose multiple reasons)

• 40% - Not financially prepared
• 36% - Not the right time
• 31% - Partner related reasons
• 29% - Need to focus on other children
• 20% - Interferes with future opportunities
• 19% - Not emotionally or mentally prepared
• 12% - Health related reasons
• 12% - Want a better life for the baby than she can provide
• 7% - Not independent or mature enough for a baby
• 5% - Influence from family or friends
• 4% - Don't want a baby

Given that list, robust financial support for pregnant mothers combined with easy access to contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies would go a long way to reducing abortions without jeopardizing anyone's health.

 

Since a large number seem to be concerned about finances and opportunities, ensuring financial support and career protection (mandated leave, childcare, etc) would probably help raise the birthrate by helping people who would want more kids but aren't sure they can afford to have them.

Interesting. Obviously, it was possible to give more than one answer.

 

It is really, really, easy to not get pregnant if one doesn't want to get pregnant. I think some personal responsibility would go a long way to eliminate a need for abortion.

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, Pokebball said:

It is really, really, easy to not get pregnant if one doesn't want to get pregnant. I think some personal responsibility would go a long way to eliminate a need for abortion.

 

Ok, well that's not happening now. Would you prefer the government force personal responsibility on people?

[Joe Ferguson forever]

5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Ok, well that's not happening now. Would you prefer the government force personal responsibility on people?

I would think forced subcutaneous birth control would be unpopular with MAGA's.

[SoCal Deek]

3 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

How is that a qualification to pontificate on abortion law?

good thing you aren't kin to anyone in the early examples.

No I’m not kin to any of those few examples….but that doesn’t make what I said incorrect. We don’t or shouldn’t govern on the basis of limited exceptions. There’s always someone you can cite that’s been damaged at some time, somewhere by every law. But…I remain utterly amazed at how few issues there have been around the reversal of the abortion law. It’s been many many many many months now. 

[Pokebball]

5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Ok, well that's not happening now. Would you prefer the government force personal responsibility on people?

Let's make this simple for you. I assume you agree with me that mom shouldn't be able to kill her 1yr old baby because:

 

Not financially prepared

Not the right time

Partner related reasons

Need to focus on other children

Interferes with future opportunities

Not emotionally or mentally prepared

Health related reasons

Want a better life for the baby than she can provide

Not independent or mature enough for a baby

Influence from family or friends

Don't want a baby

 

Why? Is it because you prefer the government should or shouldn't force personal responsibility on people? Nah!

 

The difference is simply when you and I believe a life begins and deserves the liberties we've asked our government to protect. It isn't whether you or I prefer the government to force personal responsibility, cause we both actually do. The difference is simply when it should begin.

[Doc]

23 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Ok, well that's not happening now. Would you prefer the government force personal responsibility on people?

 

Like being forced to get a vaccine?

Edited August 9, 2023 by Doc

[BillStime]

😢

 

 

[Pokebball]

Just now, BillStime said:

😢

 

 

Has Armageddon begun? Billsy's in line with Ann Coulter!

[Joe Ferguson forever]

5 minutes ago, BillStime said:

😢

 

 

Littig said almost the same thing but went further.  "There is no Republican party"  Coulter's a wench and wouldn't be saying such things if trump didn't disown her.  But it's true.

[BillStime]

4 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

Littig said almost the same thing but went further.  "There is no Republican party"  Coulter's a wench and wouldn't be saying such things if trump didn't disown her.  But it's true.

Yes but he said it on CNN so it’s not legit. 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Pokebball said:

Has Armageddon begun? Billsy's in line with Ann Coulter!

 

Coulter is still around? 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Is Dana running for something?  Maybe she forgot.  If not, isn't your stance that lying is protected free speech?

[BillStime]

Please do - build on it 

 

 

[SCBills]

As someone that is personally pro-life, it’s gross that it has to be this way.. but it is…

 

Republicans have got to chill on this topic.   Overturning Roe was a shock to the system, and going for the jugular isn’t the move.  
 

Most Americans believe in protections for unborn life at some point in the second trimester.  They become uncomfortable with talk of bans, strict 6 week limits and random initiatives like in Ohio.  
 

R’s can win while being pro-life, but focusing on it will constantly backfire.

 

Kemp passed a heartbeat ban, then won in a landslide.  
 

DeWine, in the above referenced Ohio passed a similar law, and then also won in a landslide. 
 

Take a step back. Chill out. And work on messaging.  Because the media will run cover for Dems (we just saw it in the DeSantis interview) and right now, Republicans are taking it on the chin in both messaging and energy on this issue. 
 

Democrats are struggling on the economy, the border, crime and .. for the first time in my life .. Republicans are winning the culture wars, but Dems will summon the powers of Moloch and drown out all those advantages in ‘24 if R’s can’t counter/negate them on this. 
 

 

Edited August 10, 2023 by SCBills

[Doc]

36 minutes ago, SCBills said:

As someone that is personally pro-life, it’s gross that it has to be this way.. but it is…

 

Republicans have got to chill on this topic.   Overturning Roe was a shock to the system, and going for the jugular isn’t the move.  
 

Most Americans believe in protections for unborn life at some point in the second trimester.  They become uncomfortable with talk of bans, strict 6 week limits and random initiatives like in Ohio.  
 

R’s can win while being pro-life, but focusing on it will constantly backfire.

 

Kemp passed a heartbeat ban, then won in a landslide.  
 

DeWine, in the above referenced Ohio passed a similar law, and then also won in a landslide. 
 

Take a step back. Chill out. And work on messaging.  Because the media will run cover for Dems (we just saw it in the DeSantis interview) and right now, Republicans are taking it on the chin in both messaging and energy on this issue. 
 

Democrats are struggling on the economy, the border, crime and .. for the first time in my life .. Republicans are winning the culture wars, but Dems will summon the powers of Moloch and drown out all those advantages in ‘24 if R’s can’t counter/negate them on this.

 

And like I said, if aborting a baby in the 3rd trimester is the most important topic in most peoples' lives, we're ***** as a country.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 hour ago, SCBills said:

As someone that is personally pro-life, it’s gross that it has to be this way.. but it is…

 

Republicans have got to chill on this topic.   Overturning Roe was a shock to the system, and going for the jugular isn’t the move.  
 

Most Americans believe in protections for unborn life at some point in the second trimester.  They become uncomfortable with talk of bans, strict 6 week limits and random initiatives like in Ohio.  
 

R’s can win while being pro-life, but focusing on it will constantly backfire.

 

Kemp passed a heartbeat ban, then won in a landslide.  
 

DeWine, in the above referenced Ohio passed a similar law, and then also won in a landslide. 
 

Take a step back. Chill out. And work on messaging.  Because the media will run cover for Dems (we just saw it in the DeSantis interview) and right now, Republicans are taking it on the chin in both messaging and energy on this issue. 
 

Democrats are struggling on the economy, the border, crime and .. for the first time in my life .. Republicans are winning the culture wars, but Dems will summon the powers of Moloch and drown out all those advantages in ‘24 if R’s can’t counter/negate them on this. 
 

 

they'll follow trump's lead.  Think he'll fold?  This  is the R repeating dilemma.  Do you want part of your wishes or none.  Disown him...

Edited August 10, 2023 by redtail hawk

[BillStime]

41 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

And like I said, if aborting a baby in the 3rd trimester is the most important topic in most peoples' lives, we're ***** as a country.

Please stop - you don’t give a F about this. If you did - you would also support forced vasectomies.

 

Hey “Doc” - what does it say about all these Republicans crossing over and voting against these abortion bans? 
 

South Carolina

Nebraska

Kansas

Montana

Ohio

Are they RHINOS? Never Trumpers? 

 

 

 

 

 

[BillStime]

FU Texas - you 💩hole state

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

28 minutes ago, BillStime said:

FU Texas - you 💩hole state

 

 

This particular story is the red line for you? Seems like an odd set of circumstances. I’m not commenting on who’s right and who’s wrong here, but this seems like a cherry picked outlier….not systemic in any way. 

[TSOL]

31 minutes ago, BillStime said:

FU Texas - you 💩hole state

 

 

 

 

This is really tragic and goes beyond any political statement to be made. I know that hindsight is 20/20, but it sounds like she should have called her husband to come pick her up once she knew she was going into labor. Forget the job, just get to the hospital. This is her child, it's more important than any job. 

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, TSOL said:

 

 

This is really tragic and goes beyond any political statement to be made. I know that hindsight is 20/20, but it sounds like she should have called her husband to come pick her up once she knew she was going into labor. Forget the job, just get to the hospital. This is her child, it's more important than any job. 

But why is this story about abortion? 

[BillStime]

6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

This particular story is the red line for you? Seems like an odd set of circumstances. I’m not commenting on who’s right and who’s wrong here, but this seems like a cherry picked outlier….not systemic in any way. 

A state passes laws that place bounties on women seeking an abortion and anyone who assists TO saying the fetus has no rights.

 

I’m sorry you don’t see the hypocrisy but I’m not surprised.

 

It’s not about the baby - it’s about control.

[TSOL]

5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

But why is this story about abortion? 

 

 

Who knows, It's billstime, up is down and down is up with him*. Don't try to figure her out 

Edited August 12, 2023 by TSOL

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, BillStime said:

A state passes laws that place bounties on women seeking an abortion and anyone who assists TO saying the fetus has no rights.

 

I’m sorry you don’t see the hypocrisy but I’m not surprised.

 

It’s not about the baby - it’s about control.

Huh? The story says she had a stillborn baby because she stayed at work. I apologize but I don’t see what this has to do with abortion. And if she ultimately didn’t want a baby, it appears in the end, she doesn’t have one. 

[BillStime]

6 minutes ago, TSOL said:

 

 

This is really tragic and goes beyond any political statement to be made. I know that hindsight is 20/20, but it sounds like she should have called her husband to come pick her up once she knew she was going into labor. Forget the job, just get to the hospital. This is her child, it's more important than any job. 

She couldn’t leave until someone relieved her - this had nothing to do with her husband. 

 

Seven months pregnant, Issa said she quickly alerted her supervisors. She told them she needed to go to the hospital but knew prison policy wouldn’t allow her to leave her post until someone could replace her.

 

No one came for hours.

 

Issa kept calling for relief, but her supervisor repeatedly refused her, even telling her she was lying, according to a federal lawsuit filed against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and prison officials.

You just want to go home,” the supervisor allegedly told her.

 

[TSOL]

Just now, BillStime said:

She couldn’t leave until someone relieved her - this had nothing to do with her husband. 

 

Seven months pregnant, Issa said she quickly alerted her supervisors. She told them she needed to go to the hospital but knew prison policy wouldn’t allow her to leave her post until someone could replace her.

 

No one came for hours.

 

Issa kept calling for relief, but her supervisor repeatedly refused her, even telling her she was lying, according to a federal lawsuit filed against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and prison officials.

You just want to go home,” the supervisor allegedly told her.

 

   

My point is she could have just left on her own accord., it's a medical emergency she was pregnant, hers and the unborn babys life is more important than the job. 

[BillStime]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Huh? The story says she had a stillborn baby because she stayed at work. I apologize but I don’t see what this has to do with abortion. And if she ultimately didn’t want a baby, it appears in the end, she doesn’t have one. 

For a state obsessed about passing abortion laws and placing bounties on women seeking an abortion - why don’t they care about those looking to  keep their child?

 

I hope she sues the F out of them.

Just now, TSOL said:

   

My point is she could have just left on her own accord., it's a medical emergency she was pregnant, hers and the unborn babys life is more important than the job. 

She should have but she also prob needed the income. 
 

Just pathetic and expected in a red 💩 hole state.

 

 

[TSOL]

2 minutes ago, BillStime said:

For a state obsessed about passing abortion laws and placing bounties on women seeking an abortion - why don’t they care about those looking to  keep their child?

 

I hope she sues the F out of them.

She should have but she also prob needed the income. 
 

Just pathetic and expected in a red 💩 hole state.

 

 

 

Not everything is political, it's tragic that she had to go through this. Why don't you take a minute to feel for an actual person's tragedy instead of using a tragic event to politicize a point. Who cares if it happened in Texas or Massachusetts she lost her baby because of a series of mistakes.