Newest attempted power grab by Ohio Republicans

[Eraserhead]

(05-13-2023, 06:29 PM)pally Wrote: It is frustrating to see Republicans accuse Democrats for the things they do themselves.  Then you see it amplified by the right-wing media.  And all of a sudden it becomes lore. Then Republicans laugh all the way to the ballot box

Every accusation is a confession when it comes to politicians on the right.

[samhain]

(05-14-2023, 08:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Respectfully, you're making my point for me here.

Probably, but I see it more as fear of losing seats that a fundraising advantage.  Hell, they're probably raising more money with Roe dead than they were when people thought abortion on demand would always be available.  

It's a strange issue, thought.  People get pretty passionate about it down party lines, but when it comes to voting on it individually (and anonymously), I think a majority would prefer that it remain legal and accessible to at least some extent.  Kansas and Kentucky demonstrated that much.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-15-2023, 09:38 PM)samhain Wrote: Probably, but I see it more as fear of losing seats that a fundraising advantage.  Hell, they're probably raising more money with Roe dead than they were when people thought abortion on demand would always be available.  

It's a strange issue, thought.  People get pretty passionate about it down party lines, but when it comes to voting on it individually (and anonymously), I think a majority would prefer that it remain legal and accessible to at least some extent.  Kansas and Kentucky demonstrated that much.

To the first point, I agree.  I've always been a pro-choice person, but as I've gotten older I understand the pro-life opposition to it a lot more.  A compromise would probably be a good idea, something along the lines of the vast majority of Europe.  Three months for elective abortions and nothing beyond that not necessitated by medial emergency.  A good compromise leaves everyone dissatisfied, and that would certainly be the case there.  I doubt there's much, if any, stomach for such a move in today's climate though.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-15-2023, 09:05 PM)Eraserhead Wrote: Every accusation is a confession when it comes to politicians on the right.

This is hardly confined to the right my friend.

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-15-2023, 09:05 PM)Eraserhead Wrote: Every accusation is a confession when it comes to politicians on the right.

Yea. Makes me think real hard about that 2016 election.

Good chance it was rigged. Lose the popular vote in a land slide. And still win…

We all know he isn’t afraid to coerce someone over the phone to find more votes. The fake electorates. And tampering at the local level by trumpets. Am I going to give him the benefit of the doubt he wasn’t a cheater in 2016? If he pays me off like Stormy, maybe.

[*pally*]

per Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose in a speech to supporters "This is 100% about keeping radical pro-abortion amendment out of our constitution" Of course this line is in direct contrast to the public line about "protecting" the constitution against outside forces. He went on to say that this amendment protects against the radical left agenda...what's next $15.00 minimum wage.

-He all but admitted that these "radical left" ideas would pass if put to the electorate
-He wants to change the constitution for everything instead of putting abortion bans to voters...he knows it can't pass...

Nikki Haley said last night that pushing minority ideals onto the majority is "woke". By that definition, Issue 1 is the most awake of the woke

CAUGHT ON TAPE: Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who is working to make it harder for Ohioans to pass any majority-supported ballot measure, admits at a GOP event that the effort is "100%" about denying abortion access.

(VIDEO: @WEWS ) pic.twitter.com/lvNVPz9V96

— Heartland Signal (@HeartlandSignal) June 3, 2023

[Luvnit2]

(05-10-2023, 07:22 PM)pally Wrote: Today in a straight party-line vote the Ohio State Legislature voted to place a referendum on the ballot that would change the threshold for the voters to amend the state constitution from 50% to 60%.  The 50% threshold for ballot amendments has been in place for over 100 years and somehow has never been an issue.  Additionally, instead of simply requiring signatures that exceed 10% of the votes in the previous gubernatorial election with signatures coming from 44 counties (=to 5% of that county's gubernatorial election) to requiring signatures from all 88 Ohio counties with each county needing the 5% mark.

On top of that, just months after making Aug special elections illegal, other than in fiscal emergency votes, they voted to place this vote in August at the cost of over $20 million to Ohio taxpayers.

Originally brought up by Secretary of State Frank LaRose, this whole change is to prevent the passage of a pro-choice amendment and an enhanced anti-gerrymandering amendment.  The abortion amendment is widely expected to be on the Nov ballot. He claims it is to prevent "big-money" and "out-of-state special interests" from driving an amendment change.  However, this proposed amendment is being bankrolled by an Illinois billionaire Richard Uihlein (Schlitz Beer heir) and his Save Our Constitution super PAC.

This proposed change to the state constitution is opposed by our last 4 governors and AGs (both Republican and Democratic), by the Libertarian Party, and hundreds of other Ohio public interest groups. The proposed amendment is supported by Ohio Right to Life.

Arkansas overwhelmingly defeated a similar bill in 2022.

Now, for those not in Ohio, there really is a "rest of the story".  Several years ago Ohio voters amended the constitution to attempt to eliminate political gerrymandering.  Last year the redistricting commission blatantly ignored the new amendment and proposed maps that didn't fit the new rules.  Each time the map was overturned in a bipartisan vote of the state Supreme Court.  Finally, we were forced to use one of those illegal maps by a 3 judge panel from the Federal District Court.  The 3 judges were all Republican with 2 nominated by Trump.

So what we have is a legislature voted in on illegally drawn districts that guaranteed a Republican supermajority in our State House putting forth an amendment that essentially eliminates citizen referendums from passing, one of which would permanently remove politicians from being involved in legislative district redistricting.  58% of Ohioans believe that abortion should be legal in this state.  This whole power grab is because Republicans are afraid to let us vote.

All of this comes after they passed the most restrictive voter ID law in the country

Ironically, this new 60% threshold requirement will only need a 50% vote to pass

This goes against the whole one person one vote idea by allowing a minority of Ohio voters to dictate our future

I lived and voted in Ohio for almost 50 years. Ohio is one of the simple states to vote IF YOU ARE A RESIDENT OF OHIO. I voted absentee 80% of the time because my job required travel so I was not going to be in town on election day. It was easy to vote. The times I voted in person was also easy. I just went in to my voting place, showed a picture ID and was handed a ballot. This hard to vote line pushed by Democrats is simply a lie.

As far as using the legislative process to create change to anything, that is what elections are all about. If it does pass, the voters want it, if rejected the voters did not want it. I think you don't trust the process and that is your problem.

[Luvnit2]

(05-15-2023, 11:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To the first point, I agree.  I've always been a pro-choice person, but as I've gotten older I understand the pro-life opposition to it a lot more.  A compromise would probably be a good idea, something along the lines of the vast majority of Europe.  Three months for elective abortions and nothing beyond that not necessitated by medial emergency.  A good compromise leaves everyone dissatisfied, and that would certainly be the case there.  I doubt there's much, if any, stomach for such a move in today's climate though.

The left took abortion to an extreme and why the Supreme Court intervened. They pushed abortion back to the states which is where it belongs. Medical science has learned a lot since Roe vs Wade. and when a baby is no longer a fetus, but a living baby who feels pain in the womb.

I agree there should be  compromise in every state. I feel 6 weeks is too soon, and 10-12 weeks unless the life of the mother is in jeopardy at any point in the pregnancy. 

I have lived my life fighting for the baby while others have no issue killing babies late term. Again, this assumption is based on a healthy mother. A mother who has been raped should be able to make a decision within the 10-12 weeks to terminate the pregnancy.

[Luvnit2]

(05-12-2023, 07:28 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: So you’re saying the democrats are not allowed to be just as hypocritical  and underhanded?  LMAO! That’s what I mean about them bringing a knife to a gun fight and it’s time they repay the favor.  That’s the thing about the GOP is everything is supposed to be on the up and up when they’re not in control, but when they’re in control and have the opportunity to stick it to the democrats, they do it without hesitation.  But GOD forbid the democrats do it, that’d be just coloring outside the lines of decorum. GFY!

You know Harry Reid is the culprit changing the rules in the Senate, not a Republican. That is the issue with changing rules for your party gets short term benefits, the moment the minority becomes the majority, rules get reversed or used against the former majority.

[*Nately120*]

(06-05-2023, 10:41 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The left took abortion to an extreme and why the Supreme Court intervened. They pushed abortion back to the states which is where it belongs. Medical science has learned a lot since Roe vs Wade. and when a baby is no longer a fetus, but a living baby who feels pain in the womb.

I agree there should be  compromise in every state. I feel 6 weeks is too soon, and 10-12 weeks unless the life of the mother is in jeopardy at any point in the pregnancy. 

I have lived my life fighting for the baby while others have no issue killing babies late term. Again, this assumption is based on a healthy mother. A mother who has been raped should be able to make a decision within the 10-12 weeks to terminate the pregnancy.

Women can lie about being raped to get an abortion and a doctor could lie about a woman's life being at risk to get one, too.  Exceptions aren't going to cut it for some of the pro-life folks. 

[Luvnit2]

(06-05-2023, 10:45 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Women can lie about being raped to get an abortion and a doctor could lie about a woman's life being at risk to get one, too.  Exceptions aren't going to cut it for some of the pro-life folks. 

There are simple solutions for the exceptions. If raped, they could require a police report. It is a crime to lie to police. As far as a medical emergency, doctors also take an oath and could lose their medical license if they do not definitive reasons why the mother's life is in jeopardy. Insurance companies also examine everything prior to paying so they also are a check and balance.

[*Nately120*]

(06-05-2023, 10:51 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: There are simple solutions for the exceptions. If raped, they could require a police report. It is a crime to lie to police. As far as a medical emergency, doctors also take an oath and could lose their medical license if they do not definitive reasons why the mother's life is in jeopardy. Insurance companies also examine everything prior to paying so they also are a check and balance.

I hear you, but when people like you say that it is inhumane and criminal because a living baby being aborted feels pain it seems odd that a living baby who is a product of rape through no fault of its own is ok to be subject to that pain where what, a "legitimate baby" should be protected from it?  I just don't get the line of thinking.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-05-2023, 10:41 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The left took abortion to an extreme and why the Supreme Court intervened.

That abortion laws in the US were among the most permissive in the world is not in dispute.  That being said, I take issue with saying SCOTUS "intervened".  What they did was state that the 14th amendment right to privacy did not extend to abortion.  IMO this is a much less radical position than Roe, which said it did.  

Quote:They pushed abortion back to the states which is where it belongs. Medical science has learned a lot since Roe vs Wade. and when a baby is no longer a fetus, but a living baby who feels pain in the womb.

Respectfully, this type of argument doesn't advance the issue.  The ardent pro-choice side isn't going to care about this and it's not definitive enough to persuade people who may be on the fence.

Quote:I agree there should be  compromise in every state. I feel 6 weeks is too soon, and 10-12 weeks unless the life of the mother is in jeopardy at any point in the pregnancy. 

Your position here isn't very clear.  Six weeks is "too soon" for what?  If I'm interpreting you correctly you think six weeks is too low a cut off point but 10-12 weeks is a reasonable cut off point.  As stated in my previous post, 3 months for elective abortion would put the US squarely in line with the vast majority of Europe, so in the regard I agree, it would be a good compromise.

Quote:I have lived my life fighting for the baby while others have no issue killing babies late term. Again, this assumption is based on a healthy mother. A mother who has been raped should be able to make a decision within the 10-12 weeks to terminate the pregnancy.

Ehh, you're omitting a lot of potential factors here.  Some women don't report the rape out of fear or shame.  Some women hide the pregnancy for the same reason, especially if they are under age.  A woman who has been sexually assaulted and is now pregnant because of it is going through a tremendous amount of trauma.  One way many people deal with trauma is to ignore it/bury it.  While this never works long term it's a very common thing in the short term.

[Luvnit2]

(06-05-2023, 10:53 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I hear you, but when people like you say that it is inhumane and criminal because a living baby being aborted feels pain it seems odd that a living baby who is a product of rape through no fault of its own is ok to be subject to that pain where what, a "legitimate baby" should be protected from it?  I just don't get the line of thinking.

Maybe  I was not clear. I feel rape should be an exception, but the decision to abort needs to be made within 10 to 12 weeks while it is a fetus and does not feel pain.

[*pally*]

(06-05-2023, 10:41 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The left took abortion to an extreme and why the Supreme Court intervened. They pushed abortion back to the states which is where it belongs. Medical science has learned a lot since Roe vs Wade. and when a baby is no longer a fetus, but a living baby who feels pain in the womb.

I agree there should be  compromise in every state. I feel 6 weeks is too soon, and 10-12 weeks unless the life of the mother is in jeopardy at any point in the pregnancy. 

I have lived my life fighting for the baby while others have no issue killing babies late term. Again, this assumption is based on a healthy mother. A mother who has been raped should be able to make a decision within the 10-12 weeks to terminate the pregnancy.

Bull! The left wanted the states to comply with the parameters set down in Roe. as the right passed more and more, unreasonable restrictions.  The conservatives on the SCOTUS were itching to get a case they could turn into a decision on Roe.  Then when it was sent back to the states with the Dobbs decision, the extremist right-wing legislatures couldn't move fast enough to write rules that all but banned abortion in all cases.  They are willing to let women die or suffer severe health consequences because they fail to define "medical emergency".  They are forcing women to carry non-viable fetuses or ones that are destined to die almost immediately after delivery with the associated mental trauma and frankly expense that comes with it.

Despite all the rules keep in mind that ABORTION WILL NEVER EVER BE LEGISLATED OUT OF EXISTANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For any number of reasons, many women don't even know they are pregnant at 6 weeks but even with that by far and away the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester. Those that occur in the early trimester are often due to late recognition of pregnancy, delays in ability to access an abortion, and involvement of courts.  Fetal genetic testing can't occur until between 15-22 weeks of gestation. Late 2nd trimester and later are always due to fetal anomalies and maternal health.   Abortions are not being obtained "up to the time of birth" 

Women shouldn't have to lie to police in order to receive reproductive care.  Women shouldn't be forced by the state to put their health at risk to carry a pregnancy or raise a child they don't want

Women who have money will always be able to obtain an abortion, even in a state that bans them.  Abortion access is becoming another notch in the different healthcare systems available to those with means and without them 

[*pally*]

(06-05-2023, 10:45 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: You know Harry Reid is the culprit changing the rules in the Senate, not a Republican. That is the issue with changing rules for your party gets short term benefits, the moment the minority becomes the majority, rules get reversed or used against the former majority.

Reid changed the rules for confirming Federal judges, it was McConnell who changed them for the SCOTUS.  It was McConnell who made up his own rules on the timing of when to hold hearings...or in Garland's case not

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-05-2023, 01:42 PM)pally Wrote: Bull! The left wanted the states to comply with the parameters set down in Roe. as the right passed more and more, unreasonable restrictions.  The conservatives on the SCOTUS were itching to get a case they could turn into a decision on Roe.  Then when it was sent back to the states with the Dobbs decision, the extremist right-wing legislatures couldn't move fast enough to write rules that all but banned abortion in all cases.  They are willing to let women die or suffer severe health consequences because they fail to define "medical emergency".  They are forcing women to carry non-viable fetuses or ones that are destined to die almost immediately after delivery with the associated mental trauma and frankly expense that comes with it.

Despite all the rules keep in mind that ABORTION WILL NEVER EVER BE LEGISLATED OUT OF EXISTANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree.  It is interesting when you make the same point about gun violence the exact people saying this refuse to hear it.

Quote:For any number of reasons, many women don't even know they are pregnant at 6 weeks but even with that by far and away the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester. Those that occur in the early trimester are often due to late recognition of pregnancy, delays in ability to access an abortion, and involvement of courts.  Fetal genetic testing can't occur until between 15-22 weeks of gestation. Late 2nd trimester and later are always due to fetal anomalies and maternal health.   Abortions are not being obtained "up to the time of birth" 

The underlined and bolded simply isn't true, and even pro abortion advocates acknowledge this.

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/

Reasons individuals seek abortions later in pregnancy include medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion.

You are, of course, correct that late term abortions are a tiny fraction of overall procedures, but stating that all of them are due to fetal anomalies and maternal health is not accurate.

Quote:Women shouldn't have to lie to police in order to receive reproductive care.  Women shouldn't be forced by the state to put their health at risk to carry a pregnancy or raise a child they don't want

I would agree with both of these points, up to a point.  Which I'll get to shortly.

Quote:Women who have money will always be able to obtain an abortion, even in a state that bans them.  Abortion access is becoming another notch in the different healthcare systems available to those with means and without them 

I agree with this as well.  But returning to my earlier statement, I have a question.  Would you support any limits on voluntary abortions, such as a three month time limit?

(06-05-2023, 01:45 PM)pally Wrote: Reid changed the rules for confirming Federal judges, it was McConnell who changed them for the SCOTUS.  It was McConnell who made up his own rules on the timing of when to hold hearings...or in Garland's case not

You just confirmed what he stated.  Reid changed the rules and was warned about the precedent he was setting.  He ignored the warnings and did it anyways.  I have made my opinion on McConnell's underhanded tactics well known, but the blame for the rule changes lies at the feet of Harry Reid.  To state otherwise is partisan, ignorant or both.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(06-05-2023, 10:45 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Women can lie about being raped to get an abortion and a doctor could lie about a woman's life being at risk to get one, too.  Exceptions aren't going to cut it for some of the pro-life folks. 

Much harder for physicians b/c of notes, labs, and imaging.  Example: An ultrasound is going to show that a woman's water broke-- if it isn't a viable pregnancy like let's say 20-weeks along, then the baby can't survive outside the amniotic sac,  so it's going to die anyway without the protection of amniotic sac, then if an abortion isn't performed--> then mom will go septic and be in big trouble.  So in that situation, you're at risk of having two deaths instead of only one. 

Other Labs will show high protein in mom's urine indicating preeclampsia putting both mom and baby at risk of severe stroke or heart attack b/c of extreme blood pressure.  So unless an OBGYN has this info then they're not going to entertain the suggestion of an abortion to save mom's life. 

[*Nately120*]

(06-05-2023, 05:22 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Much harder for physicians b/c of notes, labs, and imaging.  Example: An ultrasound is going to show that a woman's water broke-- if it isn't a viable pregnancy like let's say 20-weeks along, then the baby can't survive outside the amniotic sac,  so it's going to die anyway without the protection of amniotic sac, then if an abortion isn't performed--> then mom will go septic and be in big trouble.  So in that situation, you're at risk of having two deaths instead of only one. 

Other Labs will show high protein in mom's urine indicating preeclampsia putting both mom and baby at risk of severe stroke or heart attack b/c of extreme blood pressure.  So unless an OBGYN has this info then they're not going to entertain the suggestion of an abortion to save mom's life. 

That stuff won't play with the MAGA folks who were claiming doctors were lying if not outright killing people on purpose because of covid.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(06-05-2023, 05:35 PM)Nately120 Wrote: That stuff won't play with the MAGA folks who were claiming doctors were lying if not outright killing people on purpose because of covid.

IN Re your example: Who cares what the MAGA base thinks?  That's just another example of knuckle-dragging ignorance.  


I'm talking about what can be proven,  or disproven for that matter, in a court of law.  OBGYNs will have to keep great records to in fact prove their innocence in some of these states who'd rather see both mom and baby dead other than allow an abortion.