Jump to content

Impact of Dobbs and Abortion Laws


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, TSOL said:

 

 

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. 


Her employer thought she was lying.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BillStime said:


And the state of Texas politicized this whole thing the second they could.


Little wonder why controlling women is not popular for most of America.

 

 

Nobody wants to control women, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only candidate who offered an anti-abortion yet consistent (and respectful of the constitution) argument last night is gonna get 1%

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/doug-burgum-backed-abortion-ban-north-dakota-outlaw/story?id=99943781#:~:text=Doug Burgum said Thursday that,states was the right one.

 

"I think the decision that was made returning the power to the states was the right one. And I think we're going to have -- we have a lot of division on this issue in America. And what's right for North Dakota may not be right for another state ... the best decisions are made locally," Burgum said on "CNN This Morning."

 

For 50 years the pro-life movement argued that Roe improperly took the issue away from the states. Now that Dobbs returned it to the states, the Pence types are saying "jokes on you; we didn't really just want to return it to the states, we just wanted federal law prohibiting it everywhere."

Edited by The Frankish Reich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m really not sure why the GOP can’t just repackage Nikki Haley’s answer on this and neutralize the issue. 
 

It’s a states rights debate. 
 

South Carolina, Georgia, Florida all have heartbeat bans because the citizens of those states are either in support of/or, at least, ok with it. 
 

Cali & NY, the opposite. 
 

This was the point of overturning Roe. 
 

Now, if you’re pro-life, it’s about winning the debate locally in those blue states. 
 

The only issues Dems have going for them are abortion and Trump… and the GOP base is determined to give them both. 

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chris farley said:


blah

blah

blah

blah 

blah

blah

 

You never talk about Trump’s PACs - why is that?

 

blah

blah

blah

blah 

blah

blah


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

 

 

Save America PAC Donors • OpenSecrets

 

I am sorry if you look at the funding to both and dont see the difference.

 

but understand you need to have it shown to you on the cave wall for it to stick.

 

 

 

 

 

Only idiots would donate to a Trump PAC which is under DOJ investigation for wire fraud and money laundering.

 

Did you donate money to Bannon’s Build the Wall charity, too?

 

Tell us you’re an idiot without actually telling us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2023 at 12:57 PM, BillStime said:

 

Only idiots would donate to a Trump PAC which is under DOJ investigation for wire fraud and money laundering.

 

Did you donate money to Bannon’s Build the Wall charity, too?

 

Tell us you’re an idiot without actually telling us. 

You calling anyone an idiot is beyond rich. Holy hell can u get anymore broken?

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/24/2023 at 11:06 AM, SCBills said:

I’m really not sure why the GOP can’t just repackage Nikki Haley’s answer on this and neutralize the issue. 
 

It’s a states rights debate. 
 

South Carolina, Georgia, Florida all have heartbeat bans because the citizens of those states are either in support of/or, at least, ok with it. 
 

Cali & NY, the opposite. 
 

This was the point of overturning Roe. 
 

Now, if you’re pro-life, it’s about winning the debate locally in those blue states. 
 

The only issues Dems have going for them are abortion and Trump… and the GOP base is determined to give them both. 

Oh really? Well a president appoints judges, and they will be ruling on abortion issues. So it very much is an issue to hurt Republicans 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Oh really? Well a president appoints judges, and they will be ruling on abortion issues. So it very much is an issue to hurt Republicans 


Exactly… if it’s a state issue - why is the GQP in Washington anxious to pass a federal abortion ban? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earlier this year, Jennifer Adkins learned during a 12-week ultrasound that her second child — nicknamed “Spooky” because she was due near Halloween — was unlikely to survive her pregnancy.

Adkins said doctors told her the likely miscarriage could result in mirror syndrome, a rare disorder that would cause her to experience the same life-threatening symptoms as the fetus. Adkins recalled that her medical providers were “visibly distraught” when they told her Idaho law prevented them from performing an abortion. After traveling to Oregon for a legal abortion, Adkins said she and her husband struggled to pay their mortgage.

Now Adkins is suing the state alongside a group of doctors and three Idaho other women who were also denied abortions despite dangerous pregnancy complications. The legal complaint asks a court to clarify the circumstances that are grounds for a legal abortion in Idaho, which bans the procedure in all cases unless it was necessary to prevent the death of a pregnant patient.

“It isn’t safe to be pregnant in Idaho,” Adkins told reporters during a news conference Tuesday. “People in Idaho must be able to make informed decisions with their doctors, without the intrusion from politics. What I needed was an abortion, a safe and standard medical procedure that is often required to save lives and keep families intact.”

 

https://news.yahoo.com/unsafe-pregnant-idaho-women-had-193757496.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZHJ1ZGdlcmVwb3J0LmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABW3vKj0_i9E0FCJluswcRWPryKGfYusAkjJUZaW9-eoH1zVCe2FiwQagQes5QY2hBtAVGpTWjRzKn-TrL5sZOoyR9-Jodr7sZ77vInZTm-j8gzDagRyohPiw-uGlPksXP0QO79jcPaziAgsWUrmULHtZubmFZXbAmkItgHTIhGn

  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Earlier this year, Jennifer Adkins learned during a 12-week ultrasound that her second child — nicknamed “Spooky” because she was due near Halloween — was unlikely to survive her pregnancy.

Adkins said doctors told her the likely miscarriage could result in mirror syndrome, a rare disorder that would cause her to experience the same life-threatening symptoms as the fetus. Adkins recalled that her medical providers were “visibly distraught” when they told her Idaho law prevented them from performing an abortion. After traveling to Oregon for a legal abortion, Adkins said she and her husband struggled to pay their mortgage.

Now Adkins is suing the state alongside a group of doctors and three Idaho other women who were also denied abortions despite dangerous pregnancy complications. The legal complaint asks a court to clarify the circumstances that are grounds for a legal abortion in Idaho, which bans the procedure in all cases unless it was necessary to prevent the death of a pregnant patient.

“It isn’t safe to be pregnant in Idaho,” Adkins told reporters during a news conference Tuesday. “People in Idaho must be able to make informed decisions with their doctors, without the intrusion from politics. What I needed was an abortion, a safe and standard medical procedure that is often required to save lives and keep families intact.”https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/2022_Annual-Report_Digital-Spreads.pdf

 

https://news.yahoo.com/unsafe-pregnant-idaho-women-had-193757496.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZHJ1ZGdlcmVwb3J0LmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABW3vKj0_i9E0FCJluswcRWPryKGfYusAkjJUZaW9-eoH1zVCe2FiwQagQes5QY2hBtAVGpTWjRzKn-TrL5sZOoyR9-Jodr7sZ77vInZTm-j8gzDagRyohPiw-uGlPksXP0QO79jcPaziAgsWUrmULHtZubmFZXbAmkItgHTIhGn

you mean the 503C PAC (DEM funded) called center for reproductive, Rights did.

 

Funded by 

 

The Center for Reproductive Rights grossed $31,713,408 in 2016. 23 Much of that funding came from corporate and non-profit donors. The Laura and John Arnold Foundation donated $500,000 or more while George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and the left-leaning grantmaker Libra Foundation donated between $100,000 and $500,000.

 

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/center-for-reproductive-rights/

 

interesting to see Perkins and Cole on the list of pro bono.

 

The list of funding is interesting to say the least.

 

https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/2022_Annual-Report_Digital-Spreads.pdf

 

love to know who those 5 mega unnamed donors were.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

 

There really is no denying the fact that there is an agenda here and that just the talk of making contraception harder to get furthers that agenda
 

The GOP really doesn’t want this It’s a total loser for them at the ballot box, and the Dems are going to point straight at them.

Edited by John from Riverside
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

There really is no denying the fact that there is an agenda here and that just the talk of making contraception harder to get furthers that agenda
 

The GOP really doesn’t want this It’s a total loser for them at the ballot box, and the Dems are going to point straight at them.

PACS. just like the one suing for the 12-week limit in Tenn.

 

or in Miss that took Row to the supreme court.

 

Just as much if not more money (agenda) to make abortion on demand.  

 

mostly again, from PACS funded by who knows who.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Chris farley said:

PACS. just like the one suing for the 12-week limit in Tenn.

 

or in Miss that took Row to the supreme court.

 

Just as much if not more money (agenda) to make abortion on demand.  

 

mostly again, from PACS funded by who knows who.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just saw that you understand me I am definitely not for abortion on demand just some thing reasonable
 

I also think there should be a limit on the amount of abortions that you can have I believe that all surgeries are bad even though some are necessary I hate them.

 

There should be some number I don’t know what that number should be where doctors just say OK if you’re not going to have your kids, then it’s time to get your tubes tied

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...