What it actually does is say that healthcare providers have the right to conduct abortion services without unnecessary burdens placed on them and for any reason up until fetal viability (i.e. roughly 24 weeks), and that a prohibition cannot be made for abortions after that point where the provider determines that the life or health of the pregnant individual is at risk. There is also nothing about funding.
So 100% of the republicans and Manchin voted against that? Will of the people, right there folks.
(05-12-2022, 01:24 PM)Sled21 Wrote: And you do. If Roe is overturned, and the majority of people in a state vote to allow abortion by electing pro abortion legislators, then their will will prevail. Likewise, if the majority votes to not allow abortion, then the will of the majority in that state will prevail. I don't believe you want that society, you just want people to do what YOU want.
And Janet Yellen in her little speech the other day to Tim Scott let go again the ugly truth of why the left wants all abortion allowed. For the same reason as Margaret Sanger.... to kill more African-American babies so society won't have to support them.
What a shit take.
Republican voters are outnumbered by millions, yet they constantly retain their legislators not because of the will of the people but by the power of gerrymandering. To think otherwise is willfully ignoring every map that's been drawn for the last 40 years.
I don't know who 'the left' is, but most sane people want abortions allowed because it's makes medical sense to have a professional do it than Toothless Joe and his coat hanger behind the drug store. Not that anyone who claims to be 'pro-life' actually gives a flying **** about life, and the SCotUS basically said as much with their 'domestic infant rate' remark. They don't give a shit about health or life - they give a shit about keeping stupid people breeding and keeping the cogs of their economy spinning so the rich get richer and the dumb get dumber.
(05-12-2022, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hollo already covered this, but you could not be more wrong. The protests are being done at their home for that exact reason, to intimidate. We had this discussion in the MI protest. The intent of any protest is to influence and intimidate others into falling in line with your position. When it is done outside your private residence the implication is clear, we know where you live and we want you to fall in line with our position. If you're claiming you wouldn't feel uneasy and intimidated with hundreds of people protesting outside your home I'm going to have to call 100% bullshit on that.
I didn't mention inter-racial marriage. That aside, you're going to have to show me some proof that the majority of US citizens were in favor of either same sex marriage or forced integration at the time they were enacted. Honestly, the fact that SCOTUS had to be the ones to implement both really puts the onus on you to prove otherwise. If they were the "will of the people" why did SCOTUS have to be the one to enact them and not Congress, the organ that is actually supposed to represent the will of the people.
I don't disagree with your position on Roe in so far as it certainly will put women in red states in a difficult position. But there has always been a balancing act between majority will and minority rights. Pure majority rule is a recipe for some very ugly outcomes. I'll conclude by stating that your ire should really be directed at the Dems, who failed to codify Roe style protections into federal law despite having the majority and the presidency on several occasions since the decision was made. When you let SCOTUS write legislation for you then be prepared for SCOTUS to undo said "legislation" in the future.
Fine - its intimidation. Whatever. I still feel zero sympathy for the people intimidating the same folks who made intimidation of employees of abortion clinics legal. **** them.
I quoted you and misremembered desegregation of schools for interracial marriage for some reason (probably because I read some dumb ass headline an hour or so before about Thomas undoing his own marriage next; leftist fear mongering I'm sure). That said, I'll attach some photos I've found from articles about the subject (and will edit this to link to articles if asked; I'm on mobile so links are a pain).
I don't tend to get irritated at politicians who do nothing - that's what they're good for. I will take umbrage with the SCotUS suddenly going back on their words (please note I'm not shocked as I trusted Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barret, and Alito about as far as I could throw their combined mass) about 'settled law' and spitting in the face of every damn American they sat in front of and lied through their teeth to. I'm tired of the country rolling over for these grifters and thieves.
(05-12-2022, 02:13 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Fine - its intimidation. Whatever. I still feel zero sympathy for the people intimidating the same folks who made intimidation of employees of abortion clinics legal. **** them.
I can understand the allegation of hypocrisy, but these protections don't extend to just SCOTUS justices, or even just judges. It extends to jurors and attorneys as well. Just remember, this is a sword that cuts both ways. Intimidating the justices regarding Roe may be palatable to you, but it would absolutely be used in the future to influence a case you feel very strongly about in the affirmative.
Quote:I quoted you and misremembered desegregation of schools for interracial marriage for some reason (probably because I read some dumb ass headline an hour or so before about Thomas undoing his own marriage next; leftist fear mongering I'm sure). That said, I'll attach some photos I've found from articles about the subject (and will edit this to link to articles if asked; I'm on mobile so links are a pain).
No worries, I certainly didn't take it as intentional. Also, thank you for providing the proof I requested, it is appreciated.
Quote:I don't tend to get irritated at politicians who do nothing - that's what they're good for. I will take umbrage with the SCotUS suddenly going back on their words (please note I'm not shocked as I trusted Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barret, and Alito about as far as I could throw their combined mass) about 'settled law' and spitting in the face of every damn American they sat in front of and lied through their teeth to. I'm tired of the country rolling over for these grifters and thieves.
Eh, we've really already covered this. They never said they wouldn't vote to overturn Roe, they merely agreed with the fact that it was, at the time they were asked, "settled law." Now this may come off as weaselly and mealy mouthed, but that's the legal profession for you. Words have very definite meanings and they did not give false testimony in this regard. In fact you have RBG to thank for this, she, IIRC, established the precedent of refusing to comment on how she'd rule on "x" during her confirmation hearing and pretty much everyone has followed suit since.
What it actually does is say that healthcare providers have the right to conduct abortion services without unnecessary burdens placed on them and for any reason up until fetal viability (i.e. roughly 24 weeks), and that a prohibition cannot be made for abortions after that point where the provider determines that the life or health of the pregnant individual is at risk. There is also nothing about funding.
Ah, the old catch phrase.....
Quote:(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.
So the abortion provider can just sign off it was for the patient's health, ie pregnancy makes her sad, and the collect for the abortion. The life part I have no problem with, the generic "health" is just a term to be used.
(05-12-2022, 03:38 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Ah, the old catch phrase.....
So the abortion provider can just sign off it was for the patient's health, ie pregnancy makes her sad, and the collect for the abortion. The life part I have no problem with, the generic "health" is just a term to be used.
It'll never be specific enough. The whole covid thing showed how easily people are manipulated into believing that doctors are lying and conniving in order to push a murderous agenda. A doctor could say that a woman with an entopic pregnancy is in grave danger and they'll just wave it off as another lie and she is fine and in no danger at all.
(05-12-2022, 03:50 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It'll never be specific enough. The whole covid thing showed how easily people are manipulated into believing that doctors are lying and conniving in order to push a murderous agenda. A doctor could say that a woman with an entopic pregnancy is in grave danger and they'll just wave it off as another lie and she is fine and in no danger at all.
Then of course when she dies those same people saying it was a lie will want the doctor's head for not doing more. See also: Covid.
(05-12-2022, 04:14 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Then of course when she dies those same people saying it was a lie will want the doctor's head for not doing more. See also: Covid.
Actually, I think it will be that the doctor killed her in order to blame it on a lack of an abortion in order to promote the narrative that abortion should be legal to save lives of women. Some folks in my wife's family were all-in on the covid conspiracy thinking, and even after they went to the hospital via ambulance to be saved from covid they were still convinced doctors were intentionally killing people who were unvaccinated in order to push the covid agenda.
Basically, what they read on the internet was still more believable than their own personal experience.
(05-12-2022, 01:48 PM)Nately120 Wrote: So 100% of the republicans and Manchin voted against that? Will of the people, right there folks.
I have to say though, just catching up on that I have to wonder about the Democrat's strategy here. This bill was not the legislative version of Roe, but an expansion. This is, imho, just unexplicable timing for trying a progressive step, almost as if they want to guarantee failure.
Why not just put the law forward Manchin and those two republicans stated they'd agree to?
(05-12-2022, 05:30 PM)hollodero Wrote: I have to say though, just catching up on that I have to wonder about the Democrat's strategy here. This bill was not the legislative version of Roe, but an expansion. This is, imho, just unexplicable timing for trying a progressive step, almost as if they want to guarantee failure.
Why not just put the law forward Manchin and those two republicans stated they'd agree to?
There likely isn't such a law to put forth. What I do want to know, and I have heard the claim in multiple places, is was this bill a codification of Roe, or was it an expansion of Roe? If it's the latter then shame on the Dems for lying to everyone. It would also be the likely reason you got a no from Manchin.
(05-12-2022, 06:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There likely isn't such a law to put forth. What I do want to know, and I have heard the claim in multiple places, is was this bill a codification of Roe, or was it an expansion of Roe? If it's the latter then shame on the Dems for lying to everyone. It would also be the likely reason you got a no from Manchin.
I mainly caught that from Manchin himself, who quite clearly stated that he'd vote for a codification of Roe, but nor for this bill. Apparently the two Republicans said similar things.
"It wipes 500 state laws off the books" is what Manchin said. I did not fact-check that, for sure.
--- In general, I would have expected the Democrats to take their best shot. This does not have the appearance of being a best shot.
(05-12-2022, 07:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: I mainly caught that from Manchin himself, who quite clearly stated that he'd vote for a codification of Roe, but nor for this bill. Apparently the two Republicans said similar things.
"It wipes 500 state laws off the books" is what Manchin said. I did not fact-check that, for sure.
--- In general, I would have expected the Democrats to take their best shot. This does not have the appearance of being a best shot.
I literally watched Manchin's interview after posting that, good on you for spotting it as well. It really shoots holes in the Dem claim to want to codify Roe. As you say, they chose to play politics with this issue instead of trying to get Roe codified. Warren was disingenuous in the extreme afterwards, claiming that the minority was blocking the majority and that means the filibuster has to go. Whatever you think of the filibuster, last I looked 51 was a bigger number than 49. I honestly think this was a deliberate fail on their part to try and make this a mid-term issue. It will be regardless, but not nearly the one they're hoping for. Inflation is rampant, gas prices are at record levels, as noted in another thread people can't even feed their babies. Whether it's fair to blame the Dems for this or not, they're in charge (as Biden said) and they're going to get the blame regardless.
(05-12-2022, 07:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I literally watched Manchin's interview after posting that, good on you for spotting it as well. It really shoots holes in the Dem claim to want to codify Roe. As you say, they chose to play politics with this issue instead of trying to get Roe codified. Warren was disingenuous in the extreme afterwards, claiming that the minority was blocking the majority and that means the filibuster has to go. Whatever you think of the filibuster, last I looked 51 was a bigger number than 49. I honestly think this was a deliberate fail on their part to try and make this a mid-term issue.
Yeah, no matter how to turn it in the end this explanation makes the most sense. For sure, it would have changed nothing either way, so I might even get over dirty tricks. Don't hate the player, hate the game and all that, maybe politicians have to be that way. What I'd consider way more frustrating is how this to me has no apparent strategic value and seems to be a dirty trick for nothing. What is the goal of making it 49-51 really, chase Manchin out of the party or what. It doesn't make for a good filibuster talking point, that's indeed for sure.
(05-12-2022, 07:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It will be regardless, but not nearly the one they're hoping for. Inflation is rampant, gas prices are at record levels, as noted in another thread people can't even feed their babies. Whether it's fair to blame the Dems for this or not, they're in charge (as Biden said) and they're going to get the blame regardless.
Well there is the fact that many of the republican opponents are insurrection-denying, Trump-admiring sycophants that tend to say some pretty weird stuff about election fraud and then some. Employment numbers are still good too. Inflation could easily, and correctly, be painted as a largely global phenomena (not that anyone would try to make such a point). But I get it's a pendulum and the midterm smackdown just probably is a given.
I hope the Hunter Biden committees will at least be fun.
(05-12-2022, 08:21 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, no matter how to turn it in the end this explanation makes the most sense. For sure, it would have changed nothing either way, so I might even get over dirty tricks. Don't hate the player, hate the game and all that, maybe politicians have to be that way. What I'd consider way more frustrating is how this to me has no apparent strategic value and seems to be a dirty trick for nothing. What is the goal of making it 49-51 really, chase Manchin out of the party or what. It doesn't make for a good filibuster talking point, that's indeed for sure.
The Dem playbook with Manchin is honestly baffling to me. He's a guy with no issues going it alone, so he won't be bullied or intimidated into changing his position. He's also literally the only Dem, and likely the last for some time, that can win a statewide election in West Virginia, which is as deep red as it gets. Getting rid of him just ensures a slam dunk GOP Senate seat pickup.
Quote:Well there is the fact that many of the republican opponents are insurrection-denying, Trump-admiring sycophants that tend to say some pretty weird stuff about election fraud and then some. Employment numbers are still good too. Inflation could easily, and correctly, be painted as a largely global phenomena (not that anyone would try to make such a point). But I get it's a pendulum and the midterm smackdown just probably is a given.
I hope the Hunter Biden committees will at least be fun.
People have very short attention spans, which I'm sure is true in your country as well. Jan. 6th is already fading rapidly, hence the constant reminder from Dem politicians that it happened. As far as inflation being a global phenomena, Americans don't give two shits about that. We aren't used to shortages and high prices. Whichever party was currently in charge would bear the full brunt of the blame. Employment numbers also don't mean much when you're paying over $6 a gallon for gas and can't find food to feed your baby. Unless there's an economic miracle, and history rather disproves that being likely, if even possible, the Dems are going to take it in the shorts. The real question becomes who gets the GOP nod in '24. If it's Desantis then I think they've got a virtual lock. Trump would be more of a toss up. But that's two years plus from now, a virtual eternity.
(05-12-2022, 03:38 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Ah, the old catch phrase.....
So the abortion provider can just sign off it was for the patient's health, ie pregnancy makes her sad, and the collect for the abortion. The life part I have no problem with, the generic "health" is just a term to be used.
Moving the goalposts again. I don't know why I bother. At least I have made it clear you were stating a falsehood.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-12-2022, 05:30 PM)hollodero Wrote: I have to say though, just catching up on that I have to wonder about the Democrat's strategy here. This bill was not the legislative version of Roe, but an expansion. This is, imho, just unexplicable timing for trying a progressive step, almost as if they want to guarantee failure.
Why not just put the law forward Manchin and those two republicans stated they'd agree to?
So, the bill is said to be an expansion by its opponents but really isn't one. What is considered to be an expansion is the inclusion of rules that prohibit attempts by states to work around the law under Roe by saying they can't put in place policies that unnecessarily target abortion providers to shut them down as has happened in many states. There is a reason that abortion providers are few and far between in some states under Roe, and it is because of these loopholes that the Senate attempted to close in the bill. It would leave healthcare decisions up to healthcare providers and their patients and would prohibit medically unnecessary burdens put in place by lawmakers.
As for a more narrow bill, it will never pass. The GOP would filibuster any attempt to codify Roe. Manchin and everyone else in the Senate knows this.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-12-2022, 06:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There likely isn't such a law to put forth. What I do want to know, and I have heard the claim in multiple places, is was this bill a codification of Roe, or was it an expansion of Roe? If it's the latter then shame on the Dems for lying to everyone. It would also be the likely reason you got a no from Manchin.
Manchin could be voting no on anything the democrats propose in order to prime himself for a 2024 presidential run as a republican. The guy is a red state-elected money grubbing shill for big coal, he's a very notable enemy of liberals and the liberal agenda, and he's on the republican side of votes that are otherwise party line 100% D vs 100% R.
Add in that Trump and Regan set the bar for democrats "seeing the light" and becoming successful non-Texan republicans, and I think you find a more compelling case of what is going on rather than Manchin actually reading these bills and is waiting for democrats to send something acceptable to him.
Just my 2 cents on this guy. If he isn't spending 2024 making commercials where he shoots guns and brags about how he voted to protect innocent babies I'll eat my hat. Or I'll at least declare the nearest pizza a hat and then eat that.
(05-12-2022, 08:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, the bill is said to be an expansion by its opponents but really isn't one. What is considered to be an expansion is the inclusion of rules that prohibit attempts by states to work around the law under Roe by saying they can't put in place policies that unnecessarily target abortion providers to shut them down as has happened in many states. There is a reason that abortion providers are few and far between in some states under Roe, and it is because of these loopholes that the Senate attempted to close in the bill. It would leave healthcare decisions up to healthcare providers and their patients and would prohibit medically unnecessary burdens put in place by lawmakers.
As for a more narrow bill, it will never pass. The GOP would filibuster any attempt to codify Roe. Manchin and everyone else in the Senate knows this.
I think I understand. It doesn't really change much, replacing expansion with closing loopholes. Democrats could have gotten Manchin and two republicans, but pass on them for they'd rather close loopholes and take the 49-51 instead. I do not see the sense or the benefit in that, including in messaging. By that I do not doubt that closing said loopholes in altering the Roe codification a bit (altering is it?) would be desirable and the right thing. Right time, not so much.
Just my thoughts, for sure. Just looks weird to me.
(05-12-2022, 08:53 PM)hollodero Wrote: I think I understand. It doesn't really change much, replacing expansion with closing loopholes. Democrats could have gotten Manchin and two republicans, but pass on them for they'd rather close loopholes and take the 49-51 instead. I do not see the sense or the benefit in that, including in messaging. By that I do not doubt that closing said loopholes in altering the Roe codification a bit (altering is it?) would be desirable and the right thing. Right time, not so much.
Just my thoughts, for sure. Just looks weird to me.
The thing to keep in mind is that any attempt to codify Roe would fail. It is dead on arrival because to GOP would filibuster. So by looking to close those loopholes they try to signal that they are taking it seriously (and hoping the people ignore the fact they did nothing about it for 50 years).
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(05-12-2022, 08:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: People have very short attention spans, which I'm sure is true in your country as well. Jan. 6th is already fading rapidly, hence the constant reminder from Dem politicians that it happened.
Yeah, well, sure we have short attention spans as well. Usually. I have to say though, if a mob had assembled in front of our parliament and then overran police and broke into it, in protest against a fair election that their candidate lost, if that had resulted in deaths and in sights of people breaking into offices and spookily shouting after parliament members and so on, and if said mob had brought gallows to hang the guy that would not break the consitution to declare their losing candidate the winner; then no, we would not forget about that shocking event for decades, of that I'm pretty sure.
And any party that would still deny what happened and call it legitimate protest and a vacation and the deed of patriots fighting election fraud, said party, besides probably being watched by our consitution protection agency, would never stand a chance to win an election ever again. We're a healthy democracy, that's why. And while doing my best to understand the unique dynamics of US politics, that this is allegedly turning into ancient history already is just baffling. Healthy, not so much.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
