Below is my Hill column on what to expect in a post-Roe world. That world is already taking shape with states crafting their laws reflecting the values of their citizens from Colorado passing a law protecting the right to abortion up to the moment of birth to Louisiana banning all abortions except in limited circumstances. The fact is that most Americans are in the middle in this debate with more nuanced views than many political leaders. In the months to come, we will see if that view will prevail in the majority of states.
Here is the column:
In their historic ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, six Supreme Court justices noted that the nation was grappling with this deeply divisive issue in 1973 but that “Roe abruptly ended that political process.” The court has now declared that the future of abortion will rest with 330 million Americans rather than nine justices.
As this matter returns to the states, it is striking to consider what has changed legally and socially in the past 50 years. The comparison may hold some interesting surprises for politicians who are now declaring, as did President Biden, that “this fall, Roe is on the ballot.”
How little has changed
If one looks solely at the alignment of states, surprisingly little has changed. In 1973, 30 states banned abortion at any stage of a pregnancy, with some exceptions for the health of the mother. In the Dobbs litigation of 2022, 26 states asked the court to overturn Roe and its successor, Casey.
Thus, we remain deeply divided.
Roughly 16 states are poised or expected to make abortion illegal immediately under so-called trigger laws. South Dakota, Louisiana and Kentucky have immediate prohibitions that will come into effect. Missouri claimed to be the first to declare all abortion as unlawful except for medical emergencies.
Twenty-seven states have protections for abortion that are expected to continue. States like Colorado, New Jersey, Oregon and Delaware actually protected abortion without any limit on the stage of a pregnancy — guaranteeing the right up to just before time of birth.
Internationally, only seven countries allow abortion after the 20th week. While many countries have decriminalized abortion, most are closer to Mississippi than Michigan in limiting abortion to the first or second trimester.
How much has changed
While Dobbs is a major reversal of a long-standing precedent, much has changed legally since 1973. After Roe, the Supreme Court continued to expand protections over lifestyles and intimate relations. In the parade of horribles that followed Friday’s release of the Dobbs ruling, politicians and pundits warned that the decision could undo cases protecting contraception, same-sex marriage and other rights.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Vice President Harris and other Democrats continue to claim that the court was taking the country back to the last century. The image of criminalized homosexuality, marriage bans and contraception limits is unnerving — but also untrue.
In the Dobbs decision, the court’s majority expressly, repeatedly rejects the application of this holding to these other rights. Indeed, it is relatively rare to see the court go to this extent to proactively close off the use of a new case in future cases. The court said that “intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage” are not impacted by its holding because “abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged.” It noted that abortion is unique in dealing with “what those decisions called ‘fetal life’ and what the law now before us describes as an ‘unborn human being.’”
The court repeatedly stressed that those claiming the country will be put into a legal Wayback Machine are simply using the opinion “to stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil those other rights.” It could not be more clear, as the court said, that “rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed ‘potential life.’”
The court and Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence repeat, almost mantra-like: “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Only Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that these other cases should be examined, yet even he stressed this opinion expressly rejects that application.
Putting aside the legal changes, there are major technological changes since 1973 that will impact the post-Roe world. Roughly 60 percent of abortions today are carried out at home, not in clinics, using pills with mifepristone and misoprostol to abort a pregnancy. In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration permanently removed the in-person requirement for these prescriptions and allowed women to access the drugs via telehealth appointments and online pharmacies. It will be difficult for states to interfere with such prescriptions, particularly if the federal government protects such access.
How we have changed
The greatest change may be us. As this issue returns to the states for citizens to decide, we are a different country than we were in 1973. Great strides have been made in the advancement of women and a wider acceptance of people making decisions about their own lives and values. While we remain divided on abortion, the public seems far more moderate and unified than the leaders of either party.
While some Democrats are voicing absolute views of abortion, and some Republicans are calling for total bans, most Americans hold a more nuanced view.
In 1975, polling showed 54 percent supported abortion under some circumstances, with 21 percent saying it should be entirely legal; 22 percent said it should be illegal.
According to recent polling by the Pew Research Center, only 8 percent of adults say abortion should be illegal without exception, while just 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases, without exception. Yet, polls also show that 65 percent of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80 percent would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester.
These polls suggest that the majority of Americans will continue to live in states protecting abortion while citizens would support limits like the one in Mississippi. In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) announced an effort to limit abortions to Mississippi’s 15-week standard but expressed a willingness to compromise on that cutoff date. In other words, there may be room for compromise as states work out their own approaches to abortion.
Of course, none of the political or legal realities will likely penetrate the rage and rhetoric following the decision.
Indeed, there is a tendency toward Roe revisionism. Roe supporters ignore that Roe’s constitutional rationale was always controversial, including among some liberals. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, called the ruling “heavy-handed judicial activism” and felt the decision went too far. The original Roe actually died years ago when it was gutted by Casey in 1992 in its logic and tests. It was later the subject of 5-4 decisions that created a confusing muddle of what constituted “undue burdens.”
Such revisionism is a natural part of grieving. In Shakespeare’s “Richard III,”the Queen Mother was asked how to deal with the hate of loss. She responds: “Think that thy babes were sweeter than they were; And he that slew them fouler than he is.” The same is true of Roe revisionism. Roe is now presented as inviolate and beyond question in its constitutional footing, while the opinion that slew it is presented as threatening every right secured since 1973.
Our post-Roe world will not be written by Congress with the proposed federalization of Roe or another 50 years of conflicting court decisions. Instead, it will rest with citizens in 50 different states in coming years. The process just might surprise us.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
334 thoughts on “What to Expect in a Post-Roe World”
If the left wants to punish you for how you use your organs of speech, then why punish them for how they use their organs of reproduction?
57% Believe Court’s Decision Was Purely Political
A majority of Americans (57%) think the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was politically motivated and not motivated by the law of the land (36%). The debate over abortion rights will most likely play out on the campaign trail. 62% of registered voters say the Supreme Court’s decision will make them more likely to vote in this year’s midterm elections. Democrats (78%) are more motivated by the decision than Republicans (54%) and independents (53%).
Of thoe 57% 90% could no tell you what the decision say, and how it was arrived at.
Polls of the ignorant, are meaningless.
Of those 57% how many support elective abortion in the 9th month? Some where close to zero?
The argument has come down to, Abortion is killing babies, after some random number of weeks. One tick of the clock, it moves from cluster of cells, to Baby!
Leaps Of Joy Felt In Millions Of Wombs Across Nation
US – Across the country, a “mysterious leap” was reportedly felt in the wombs of millions of women which experts say may be linked to the recent SCOTUS decision which overturned Roe v. Wade, rendering abortion no longer a protected federal procedure.
The feeling of unbridled excitement emanating from the womb was said to have occurred simultaneously across the country as a million unborn children seemed to cry out all at once in joy.
“Weird,” said Dr. Menantee, the nation’s leading obstetrician. “A fetus seemingly expressing joy shouldn’t be possible since we all know they are nothing more than parasitic cell clumps that make women fat. These reports seem to suggest some sort of sentience…”
Dr. Menantee broke off his sentence and stared thoughtfully at the heavens for a moment as if contemplating the meaning of life and his role in the grand scheme of things.
“Nah, that couldn’t be it,” he laughed nervously.
At publishing time, sources had confirmed the leaps of joy weren’t felt in about half the states, most notably California and New York.
this is retarded
They aren’t “unborn children”–they are undeveloped primitive life forms that history has always held are not people until the age of quickening. This is just more of the rhetoric used to hook the gullibles.
“………undeveloped primitive life form”………… Like Natacha?
U.S. Joins Dubious List
Since the 1990s, over 60 countries have liberalized laws for sexual and reproductive health and rights, and many have moved toward the decriminalization of abortion. … Only Poland, El Salvador and Nicaragua have enacted more restrictive laws since then.
“Global Reproductive And Women’s Groups React To Overturn Of Roe V Wade”
47 of 50 European Nations limit elective abortions to ~15 weeks
The left keeps wanting to model the US after our erudite betters in Europe. Or is that another talking point they have never looked into?
Most of those nations also pay for the abortion as routine healthcare and provide time off of work. It’s more feasible to set a 15 week limit when you support women and girls in obtaining an abortion.
Do those nations pay for boob jobs and face lifts too? They are all elective medical procedures.
NPR’s Brilliant Self-Own
NPR has not run a piece critical of Democrats since Christ was a boy. Moreover, much like the New York Times editorial page (but somehow worse), the public news leader’s monomaniacal focus on “race and sexuality issues” has become an industry in-joke. For at least a year especially, listening to NPR has been like being pinned in wrestling beyond the three-count. Everything is about race or gender, and you can’t make it stop.
Conservatives have always hated NPR, but in the last year I hear more and more politically progressive people, in the media, talking about the station as a kind of mass torture experiment, one that makes the most patient and sensible people want to drive off the road in anguish.
Stooge, attacking NPR is the signature of redneck tubs of lard.
The last time I enjoyed NPR was long ago when they did a piece on Author Paul Auster from Brooklyn, NY. And the ‘car guys’ was always enjoyable. You may not like Dennis Prager, but he has his moments — one of which is this: “the left destroys everything it touches.” Think about it.
On the morning of June 6, 2020, NPR via one of their stooges,insisted that we all investigate our personal home libraries to see if they contained any books about white colonialism…..and that we should dispose of such books post haste.
Dispose of them? Send them to me!
Supreme Court Judges…
Went in dumb…
Come out dumb too!
Hustling round DC I’m their alligator shoes…
They’re keeping the humans down.
I don’t know my hole from a pole in the ground.
Keeping the welfare up!
There is no coherent Constitutional argument to be made in support of Roe so it’s worshippers have to resort to lies, fear, and calumny.
There are logical positions to be taken by both sides and they belong in the legislative process.
SUPREME COURT GREENLIGHTS THEOCRACY
For Kathy, friend, mentor and wife. Stupor Mundi.
Copyright ©2022 A. J. Reffes. All rights reserved. Published by Progress Publishers, Berlin, Germany.
Seismic waves are disturbances which travel through the earth’s layers and are caused by earthquakes, landslides, explosions, volcanic eruptions and magma movements. These disturbances are enormous in their proportion and effect and can cause massive damage to natural and man made structures. The deadliest earthquake in history occurred in 1556 in Shaanxi, China, and led to the deaths of 850,000 people and the generation of seismic waves recorded throughout the world. Students of history have observed the detonation of an explosion whose cultural and political repercussions will be recorded for all time to come. They have observed the eruption of an earthquake whose seismic waves have toppled the world’s fortress of liberty and caused the traditions and institutions of Western liberal order to tumble to the ground. On June 24, 2022, the United States Supreme Court overruled the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision which recognized, under a substantive interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, a constitutional right to obtain an abortion under the right to liberty. In the new case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the court has upheld a Mississippi law which bans abortion after fifteen weeks of pregnancy, asserted that the constitution does not protect a right to obtain an abortion, and given state legislatures the right to ban the procedure. At the basis of the court’s decision is the religiously inspired assertion that an actual human person appears at the moment of conception. This assertion is as absurd and unempirical as it is a symptom of a detachment from reality and a descent into psychosis. The precepts of sanity affirm that what appears at the moment of conception is a potential human life as opposed to an actual human life. The counsels of science affirm that what appears at the moment of conception is a prehuman life as opposed to an actual human person. The judgment of common sense affirms that what appears at the moment of conception is a possible human being as opposed to an unborn human being. A potential human life or a prehuman life possesses no constitutional rights. A potential existence is an actual nullity and possesses no actual legal protections of any kind. There is no moral question presented by abortion because a potential human person possesses no actual, legal, moral existence: ”The Court considers whether a right to obtain an abortion is part of a broader entrenched right that is supported by other precedents. The Court concludes the right to obtain an abortion cannot be justified as a component of such a right. Attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s ‘concept of existence’ prove too much. (Casey). Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like. What sharply distinguishes the abortion right from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roe and Casey rely is something that both those decisions acknowledged: Abortion is different because it destroys what Roe termed ‘potential life’ and what the law challenged in this case calls an ‘unborn human being.’ None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion. Accordingly, those cases do not support the right to obtain an abortion, and the Court’s conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in any way.” (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, decided June 24, 2022, majority opinion by Associate Justice Samuel Alito). In its decision, the court asserts that a claimed right which is unenumerated, not specified in the eight amendments to the constitution, must be rooted in the history and traditions of the nation in order to be protected by the constitution. This opinion flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s constitutionally mandated function. In addition to interpreting the meaning of laws passed by Congress, the function is to guard and interpret the constitution. The text of the constitution says what it says, and the words of the constitution mean what they mean, independently of the history and traditions of the nation. Nowhere in the constitution is it written that a right must be grounded in the history and traditions of the nation in order to be protected. The fact that abortion was a crime when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, and continued to be a crime when Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, is irrelevant to the court’s function of guarding and interpreting the constitution. A historical understanding of liberty has no bearing whatever on a textual understanding of liberty and the court is charged with a textual understanding of liberty independently of the nation’s history or traditions. The Fourteenth Amendment protects a person’s rights to life, liberty and property, and life, liberty and property mean life, liberty and property. A means A. Because an actual human life does not appear at the moment of conception, a woman has a property right over this potential, prehuman life and has the right to abort it: ”The Court examines whether the right to obtain an abortion is rooted in the nation’s history and tradition and whether it is an essential component of ‘ordered liberty.’ The Court finds that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition. The underlying theory on which Casey rested—that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides substantive, as well as procedural, protection for liberty—has long been controversial. The Court’s decisions have held that the Due Process Clause protects two categories of substantive rights—those rights guaranteed by the first eight Amendments to the Constitution and those rights deemed fundamental that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. In deciding whether a right falls into either of these categories, the question is whether the right is ‘deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition’ and whether it is essential to this Nation’s ‘scheme of ordered liberty.’ (Timbs v. Indiana). The term liberty alone provides little guidance. Thus, historical inquiries are essential whenever the Court is asked to recognize a new component of the liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. In interpreting what is meant by liberty, the Court must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what the Fourteenth Amendment protects with the Court’s own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy. For this reason, the Court has been ‘reluctant’ to recognize rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution. (Collins v. Harker Heights). Guided by the history and tradition that map the essential components of the Nation’s concept of ordered liberty, the Court finds the Fourteenth Amendment clearly does not protect the right to an abortion. Until the latter part of the twentieth century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right. Until a few years before Roe, no federal or state court had recognized such a right. Nor had any scholarly treatise. Indeed, abortion had long been a crime in every single State. At common law, abortion was criminal in at least some stages of pregnancy and was regarded as unlawful and could have very serious consequences at all stages. American law followed the common law until a wave of statutory restrictions in the 1800s expanded criminal liability for abortions. By the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States had made abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy. This consensus endured until the day Roe was decided. Roe either ignored or misstated this history, and Casey declined to reconsider Roe’s faulty historical analysis.” (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, decided June 24, 2022, majority opinion by Associate Justice Samuel Alito). In its decision, the court asserts that the doctrine of substantive due process has been subject to reasonable disagreement by constitutional scholars and is far from settled in their eyes: ”The underlying theory on which Casey rested—that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides substantive, as well as procedural, protection for liberty—has long been controversial.” (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, decided June 24, 2022, majority opinion by Associate Justice Samuel Alito). In point of fact, the doctrine has been anything but controversial in the eyes of constitutional scholars. The doctrine rests upon the fact that, in nonfiction literature and texts, the use of a word entails its reference to reality. The clause in the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits states from depriving a person of his ”life, liberty or property without due process of law” refers to the existence of, and therefore the rights to, life, liberty and property. On the left hand side of the conjunction without are the words life, liberty and property. On the right hand side of the conjunction is the phrase due process of law. The words on the left hand side refer to the existence of the things named. The phrase on the right hand side refers to a fair and impartial adjudication process for depriving a person of his rights. This clause no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law would not be found in a communist constitution, because such constitution would not recognize the reference of the words, life, liberty and property, and therefore the existence of the rights to which the words refer. The words life, liberty and property may only be found in constitutions which govern free societies. The doctrine of substantive due process was enshrined in American jurisprudence in the landmark Supreme Court decision Lochner v. New York in 1905. In its decision, the court ruled that a New York state law which set maximum working hours for bakers violated the right to liberty under a substantive interpretation of the Due Process Clause of the Nineteenth Amendment: ”The law constitutes an unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty of the individual to contract.” (Lochner v. New York, 1905, majority opinion by Associate Justice Rufus Peckham). The fundamental symptom of a civilization in decline is the rejection of reason. Since the early decades of the twentieth century, America has been under attack by the two flanks of a fearsome pincer movement. These flanks are manned by religious movements which reject reason and seek to impose their dogmas upon society. One flank is manned by materialists who advocate communism. They celebrated their first Supreme Court victory in Nebbia v. New York in 1934. In its decision, the court rejected the substantive component of the Due Process Clause, rejected liberty of contract. and stated that ”due process demands only that the law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, and that the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained.” The other flank of the pincer movement is manned by spiritualists who project the primacy of a supernatural dimension. In 2022, they celebrated their first Supreme Court victory in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which authorizes states to ban abortion on the grounds that human life is a supernatural substance which mystically appears at the moment of conception. The worshipers of a god called Society and the worshipers of a God in Heaven have closed in on America and killed off the soul of reason.
This comment is too long.
Yep, took three swipes to get past, what ever it was. It is most likely a cut and paste of someone else’s intellectual work.
The name of the poster matches the name of the author, see below. Either way, I would not classify this as “intellectual” work, it is a word salad.
SUPREME COURT GREENLIGHTS THEOCRACY
For Kathy, friend, mentor and wife. Stupor Mundi.
Copyright ©2022 **A. J. Reffes**. All rights reserved.
Thanks. Like I said 3 swipes
Why is this endless, unreadable comment back a second time???
Many wonder why your endless Stooge rants appear over and over, so deal with it Stooge of all Stooges
So the post is your’s, Stooge. Thanks for confirming!
Adam reffes, according to your philosophy a child is the property of a women even after birth and she should be able to end that child’s life if she so decides. Why should her property right end after birth? Consequently a child’s life does not belong a man or a women but to God. Without an understanding of this principle any atrocity against your fellow man can be justified. Consider the millions who have been slaughtered by godless nations. Do you consider the leaders of such nations your brethren? One must wonder because you repeat their exact words. I ask again, are they your brothers.
“The worshipers of a god called Society and the worshipers of a God in Heaven have closed in on America and killed off the soul of reason.”
Good line, that gets to the fundamental issue.
(Next time, use paragraphs.)
yeah it’s only precedent that stood for 49 years and got overturned by justices who literally lied about not overturning it.
Please explain how they lied because making a statement on a future case during confirmation hearing is a federal crime.
So enlight us o wise person..
“yeah it’s only precedent that stood for 49 years ….”
Guess you’re a big Dredd Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson fan, too.
In overturning those, people’s rights were expanded.
In overturning Roe, people’s rights have been narrowed.
Handing back to the citizens the responsibility to decide abortion policy is an important first step in correcting the overreach of activist litigants and Judges — not to mention Congresspeople — who got very comfortable using Federal Court as a policymaking body.
The conditions of 2022 America make for a difficult transition. It’s impossible to craft good policy in a hypercharged atmosphere — that tends to make people be locked into side-taking and oppo-branding (making it a game more about thwarting your opponents than serving the common good). The mainstream media only intensify these unproductive atmospherics by clinging tenaciously to a “conflict theatrics” news and opinion format.
For instance, a helpful starting point would be to study how other nations have dealt with the issue, and which policy approaches were able to reach a stable consensus. But, whoa!….there’s no “buzz” or “punch” to such a cerebral, rationalist approach — so, U.S. media will predictably ignore success models abroad. Our media are interested in covering failure — the more spectacular, the better for eyeballs and clicks.
But, I have faith that the audience is tiring of that media format, and beginning to reject it. Is it possible, having endured a decade of unproductive rancor, Americans will stop electing “infotainers” to public office, and instead pick the serious and competent candidate lower in charisma? Will many more voters take up a fiercely independent political identity, finally realizing that “undecideds” wield the greatest power to influence the two parties?
How is it we have so much compassion for a convicted murderer and go to extremes to fight for their right to life. We scream out when an execution doesn’t go so well, yet we’re so cavalier with the termination of the pure life of a voiceless little human?
So yes women and men should have complete control over their bodies, if they did maybe there would be no need for an abortion. I’m starting to get to hate that word “abortion”.
“ So yes women and men should have complete control over their bodies, if they did maybe there would be no need for an abortion. ”
Complete control includes the right to decide whether to keep a pregnancy or not. Denying women that option is not giving them…complete control. That means staying out of their personal decisions. But anti-abortion supporter don’t like the idea that someone can make those kinds of decisions. Because it’s not within THEIR control.
Stooge, everyone knows Ballhere is one of your puppets.
Have you posted anything but juvenile troll stuff? Your ability to take on the debate is very telling
If the real citizens, not the “rent a crowd’ activists and terror organizations, wish to be effective in protest, they should follow the example of MLK and roll up their sleeves to effect legislation in the states that have trigger laws.
The heartbeat bills are simply that. A heartbeat is the universal sign of human life. We don’t leave automobile accident victims lying on the side of the road to die because they might not be viable without medical intervention. We declare a human has died when their heart stops beating.
The knee jerk hysteria and apoplexy is bizarre and can become dangerous. In some states a viable baby can be killed the minute before birth and is legal to have physician assistant suicide. Who will draw and who will blur the bright line when it is a person’s time to die or live? The Nazis were students of American Eugenic advocates such as Margaret Sanger and they took it to the “useless eater” level.
For years there has been a systematic dismantling of the value of human life. Mankind has been atomized into biological functions and humanity has been shoved to the side.
Deep inside, every human knows that there are mysteries that cannot be explained. We have deviated far from nature, such as our sterile treatment of the elderly,
Both sides should step back, take a deep breath and reflect before barreling headlong into mindless chatter and undisciplined action.
The following clip is an SNL spoof on “I’m just a bill.” That is truer to our modern way of government.
organizations, wish to be effective in protest, they should follow the example of MLK and roll up their sleeves to effect legislation in the states that have trigger laws.
Abortion Pills Are Safe
But They Threaten Abortion Bans
Medication abortion became legal in the United States in 2000, when mifepristone was approved by the F.D.A. The agency imposed tight restrictions on the drug, many of which remain in place. But access to the method increased in 2016, when the F.D.A. expanded the time frame within which the drug could be taken — from seven weeks to 10 weeks into a pregnancy.
Major medical groups cite years of data showing that medication abortion is safe. For example, a research program that the F.D.A. allowed to provide telemedicine consultations and send pills by mail reported that 95 percent of the 1,157 abortions that occurred through the program between May 2016 and September 2020 were completed without requiring any follow-up procedure. Patients made 70 visits to emergency rooms or urgent care centers, with 10 instances of serious complications, the study reported.
As conservative states began passing more laws restricting access to surgical abortions, more patients opted for pills, especially because they could be taken in the privacy of one’s home.
The Covid pandemic fueled that trend. The Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights, reported that in 2020, medication abortion accounted for 54 percent of all abortions.
As patients look for ways to obtain the pills, some are expected to turn to international websites like Aid Access, a European organization that the F.D.A. has tried — so far unsuccessfully — to stop from mailing pills to the United States, further complicating enforcement efforts.
Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, who has written widely on abortion, said in an interview last month that there might be attempts by states that ban abortion to prosecute doctors and other health providers in other states who provide abortion services like consultations and pills to their residents, or to try to block organizations or funds that give financial help to patients to travel to other states.
Stealing others content, does not add gravitas
Especially the NYT. They have admitted they are nothing but the Democrat Party Propaganda company
Stooge, no one reads your puppets. So just FO.
Do you have something to say? I mean other than the childish stooge schtick, and stealing other intellectual work.
Who would win in a fight: G7 or G Force?
Okay people, we might soon be witnessing democracy in action. Buckle up – it could be a bumpy ride. Let’s see who is really afraid of the process
You in favor of a federal ban on abortion? Are you content to reside in a state that bans abortion while so-called “babies” are being killed just across the state line?
I don’t think so. No one would bet against pro-lifers demanding a federal ban. Let’s be real.
You in favor of a federal ban on abortion?
Hey retard, Get an eighth grader to read you the SCOTUS opinion. To sum it up. Abortion regulation is outside the enumerated powers of Congress.
Iowan2 you retard. Congress CAN enact a nationwide ban on abortions. Because it’s NOT a right under the constitution they CAN ban it. Remember roe was repealed because there was no basis to declare it a right. That doesn’t mean congress can enact a nationwide ban if it chose to. I’m sure states that already have them would gladly support such legislation.
Those Federal powers not enumerated in the constitution, remain the power of the States.
No one would bet against leftists acting like Nazis. They do already.
Under what enumerated power would any ban be based? The Court has spoken, and until overturned, any action must (should) be state action. Some states will impose strict limits, some not so strict, and some (or at least one so far) none.
Putting babies in quotations tells so much about you
“Pro-Lifers Should Hold Off on Seeking National Abortion Ban”
I just want it be known that I, for one, reject the notion that pro-lifers exalt at the idea that women will die. It’s bad enough that they would force a raped teenager to give birth as if the rape was not traumatic enough.
I expect women to die from treatable illness because the procedures they need are prohibited. I expect “pro life” champions to exalt at the idea that women will die….the ultimate control.
Holmes: Good breeding stock will not be allowed to die.
I expect women to …
Women? What is that? My kingdom for a biologist in the room!
Because liberals are very, very concerned for women, whatever that word means. Maybe Meryl Streep can help by her supplications to God!
I can see that the Liberals have put out so much rope these past few years, that they literally will hang themselves every time they attempt to moralize anyone about anything
thanks for fixing my HTML error, Darren
“I expect women to die from treatable illness”
What are you muttering about?
Soros talking points for the day. I hope you are paid well for this schlock
What those states that ban abortions and criminalize it don’t yet realize is the consequences of their choices. Their economic outlooks will be worse. Their workforce will either shrink or move to legal states. With no real support for women who can’t afford childcare, food, or get a better education those states will be seeing increasing pressure to support welfare programs or be forced to increase taxes or increase benefits such as paid maternity leave, increase child tax credits, free school lunches, etc. The very same legislators and pro-life supporters will balk at such notions. Suddenly you will see disdain and rejection of such proposals because it’s “not their problem”. Suddenly those who are staunchly pro-life” will be against helping those women whose babies they cared for so much.
These states will be seeing increasing intolerance of poor women having babies and “burdening” their state with welfare costs and other inconveniences to their lives. Religious zealots will waste no time laying blame on the very women they forced to bear children on their state economic problems borne out of their abortion bans.
If the US Stops funding the Illegal Action for the Ukrainian NAZI, Stop Funding for the around 330 US Illegal Bio-Weapon Labs World Wide, & Stops fund a bunch of these other Commie type programs in the Pentagon, Corporate & elsewhere, then there’d likely be plenty of money
I will always remember the words of professor Peter Singer when he was asked how far along we could abort babies. His reply was classic, oh up to about the age of 2.
what to expect? Democrat Fascism…of FORCING people to theirways using edicts, DOJ, businesses, media, terrorism, etc
“ In the Dobbs decision, the court’s majority expressly, repeatedly rejects the application of this holding to these other rights. Indeed, it is relatively rare to see the court go to this extent to proactively close off the use of a new case in future cases.”
Turley is comically naive. The court has lost credibility to a majority of Americans. After justices claimed Roe was either settled law or long established precedent they clearly lied to the public. Just because they say the other issues won’t be overturned isn’t a guarantee. Alito and Thomas already made explicit overtures to the far right that if cases challenging the constitutionality of same sex marriages and contraception they would not rule in favor of upholding them. They already noted that the cases relied on the same principle as Roe. Justice Thomas went as far as openly stating that the doctrine used to justify those cases should be done away with completely.
Make no mistake zealots and the right are already pushing for further restrictions including travel to legal states, punishing companies for providing benefits like reimbursement for travel to legal states and even a national ban when republicans gain control of the house. These are religious zealots and they won’t stop until their views are firmly forced upon everyone.
Evangelicals are commanded to spread the faith to the unbelievers. Devout Jews only try to convert secular Jews. The only time a Christian is required to convert is when a shiksa marries a Jew.
To not even mention the additional women that will die, including those who won’t get the pre-natal care given by clinics that will be closing is more than an oversight. Turley has evolved from legal scholar to right wing shill.
“To not even mention the additional women that will die, including those who won’t get the pre-natal care given by clinics that will be closing is more than an oversight. Turley has evolved from legal scholar to right wing shill.”
Pure unsupported speculation but why vary your style. But on the bright side, I guess you won’t waste your time reading or commenting. Who said unintended consequences were always bad things,
There’s historical evidence. The people always crying “freedom” are always seeking to control others.
Mespo. I think you have mentioned this before, but the change is more likely to speed things up so that women who decide to abort will do so earlier or be more careful. They will think more about health and life. In the end, it might improve their well-being. It could be a mini-Renaissance. 🙂
That’s wishful thinking. States where bans will be in effect won’t stop at just banning abortions. They will seek to ban contraception and things like Plan B. which many right wing zealots claim is abortion. Anything that stops a pregnancy is unacceptable to them. Some states are already considering such restrictions and won’t hesitate to create cases where they will end up in front of the Supreme Court where it’s virtually guaranteed they will agree with their claims.
That is your ideology taking over your mind. You are thinking of how you would act. Retaiiation is more of a leftist type of action and though it can occur from the right, it occurs with much less frequency.
I think the smallest portion the religious right might want to end birth control.
You have listened to too much BS.
S. Meyer, they have made it very clear that is their goal. It’s not my ideology. It’s theirs. I’m just stating what they are literally saying to everyone. It’s not an assumption.
It’s the majority of the religious right that is advocating for it. Now that they have momentum they are wasting no time pushing for more.
Retaliation is mostly a leftist way of thinking. The religious right forgives you and some will continue to push for a ban on abortion. It will not happen and there will always be states performing the procedure. I think now that the issue of Roe is settled, some of the states with the most stringent laws will gradually loosen them a little.
It takes up to10 days for a woman to know she is pregnant with the home test. The tests are very inexpensive. There is no reason for a woman not to make her decision and prepare very early in the pregnancy when it is safest.
Anything that stops a pregnancy is unacceptable to them.
Do you think these so called zealots will seek to ban the practice of abstinence? As long as we’re trying to predict the future, I expect there will be cases where a female’s natural rights were violated by rape, incest or her pregnancy threatened her life. In the first two violations, they occurred prior to the potential or actual pregnancy. Preventing or terminating a pregnancy in those cases would restore her rights. Ignoring the physical health of the mother will never be a majority opinion.
Olly, “ Do you think these so called zealots will seek to ban the practice of abstinence? As long as we’re trying to predict the future, I expect there will be cases where a female’s natural rights were violated by rape, incest or her pregnancy threatened her life.”
Their only acceptable solution is abstinence.
Missouri’s abortion ban makes no exception for rape or incest. None.
“ Ignoring the physical health of the mother will never be a majority opinion.”
It may not be, but you underestimate religious zealots. They are the ones who are pushing or have pushed for these bans including no exceptions for rape or incest. They are already pushing for prohibition of contraceptives. They deem them to be abortifacients.
It may not be, but you underestimate religious zealots.
Not at all. Zealots of all ideologies are by nature a threat to the equal security of our natural rights. As a result, they will always be on the radar of anyone fighting to preserve our constitutional republic.
It’s already working. Lot’s of pro-abortion women are saying they will not have sex with men until their “rights” are restored. 😎 Challenge accepted.
That is a good thing, if you are married. The wife is giving you an excuse. 🙂
Olly, so religious zealots have succeeded in forcing others to adhere to their views by eliminating their options into THEIR preferred options.
so religious zealots have succeeded in forcing others to adhere to their views by eliminating their options into THEIR preferred options.
Nope. Abortion zealots have been forced by Constitutionalists to make their case at the state level. At this point, Pro-Life and Pro-Abortion advocates will need to convince the people of their respective states what abortion laws they will support and then elect representation toward that effort. Legally, this rolls the abortion clock back about 30 years. Culturally, the pro-abortion side has a 50 year head start. Constitutionalism. Federalism. Democracy. [R]ights. Those are the winners of the Dobbs decision. As long as we have a majority of our citizens supporting all four, then we will be just fine.
Turley has evolved from legal scholar to right wing shill.”
As is often explained here. Turley supports the Constitution. So happens, a Conservative philosophy aligns nicely with the Constitution. Conversely, Democrat policy usually is in conflict with the Constitution.
enigma…………..Oh, I just want to reach for my hanky when you start crying those Frederick Doiuglass crocodile tears over the plight of women………
How did we get to “Frederick Douglass crocodile tears?” I forget to mention the babies that were wanted that will die as well. mespo calls it “unsupported speculation.” Do you agree? I know this isn’t the place where people care much about others than themselves (except the sudden concern for Asiana that can’t get into Harvard because of policies that pit minorities against each other) but more women will die.
enigma: How did we get to “Frederick Douglass crocodile tears?”
Cindy: How did we get to killing fetuses is women’s healthcare?
Because the clinics that are closing do more than one thing. You are smart enough to know of the multiple services they provide, I am aware of no plans for states to pick up the slack, are you? This is of course really a class issue, rich women will do what they did fifty years ago, safely. Poor women will take their chances.
Because the clinics that are closing do more than one thing.
Right. Because those other services are so vital to the bottom line that without abortion services they have to close their doors.
If they weren’t frauds, they would easily partner with pregnancy resource facilities to continue their important services.
Strange. I have been lectured to, that abortions are a minor revenue stream. According the clinics themselves, carrying on with other services would be no problem.
Iowan is referring to statements made by Planned Parenthood like the one described below.
“Federal funds are barred from paying for abortions, and Planned Parenthood says abortion represents a single-digit fraction of the services it provides to more than 2 million people annually — including breast cancer screening, pap smears and contraceptives.”
The clinics do relatively little except abortions and pregnancy prevention. Can you give an example of other things they do on a frequent basis?
Next argument by Enigma: Jews received free medical exams while in concentration camps. True those exams determined which Jews were sent to the gas chambers vs who worked digging graves, but free medical exams!
Enigma, I am driving to Miami sometime in August / September with likely stayover in St Augustine area. Perhaps we can meet for coffee and chat, introduce you to my spouse.
“Cindy: How did we get to killing fetuses is women’s healthcare?”
How about we get to, Karen, that a woman’s medical decisions are none of your damn business.
Sam….You can call me “gorgeous”….. That’s what I identify as…
You are gorgeous to me, Cindy. Sam is not my type though.
Estovir…..LOL…Thank you. I doubt that Sam is anyone’s type.
“I doubt that Sam is anyone’s type.”
Notice how those who believe in Christian “love” are filled with malice.
Sam, you are better than this. I have a lot of agreement with your underlying ideology and appreciate the things you say, but I think you paint with too broad a brush.
“that a woman’s medical decisions are none of your damn business.”
This is a bit superficial, Sam. You can do better. There are two entities involved. One must understand in a meaningful way that no one has complete autonomy over their bodies when another entity is involved. If that were so, we could take a homeless person sleeping in the park and give the kidney to a woman who needed it.
Sam is right. It’s certainly none of your business at all. You wouldn’t stand for others to nose in on your medical decisions.
The fact that she is pregnant still doesn’t give you the right to dictate what decisions they can’t make. It’s still her decision, not yours or anyone else’s. If you insist on forcing your opinion into someone else’s because of the “unborn child”. Then when you volunteer to provide for all of her child’s needs and requirements thru payments you get to offer your opinion. But if you don’t think that you are under no obligation to offer any support or anything in regards to facilitating that person’s pregnancy directly you should shut up and mind your own business. It’s really that simple.
It is none of my business if someone shot you dead, yet the state becomes involved, even if that would raise the intelligence of the rest of the population.
… the troll says, looking in the mirror.
Anonymous the Stupid, why the sudden infatuation with mirrors? Are you are a proud chimpanzee that learned to recognize his reflection. You are moving up in the world.
Planned Parenthood does prenatal care? Who knew?
In other words you don’t have the answer as to whether or not Planned Parenthood offers the prenatal care that is needed. I don’t think they do.
In other words examples of the care they offer won’t satisfy you. Bye!
I thought PP just aborted babies, sold their pieces and parts on the black market, and laundered money for Democrats? No?
You thinking instead of reading is where you went astray. Look it up for yourself.
Planned Barrenhood exclusively focuses on terminating life.
Their services are not free. Check their website and observe how they direct uninsured individuals to the Federal Marketplace (Healthcare.gov). Their 2019 revenue was over $1.6 Billion, with half coming from the Federal Govt.
The Left covers for Margaret Sanger’s founding clinic. Like Margaret, liberal whites want nothing more than to curtail the number of blacks in America. Thus, liberal blacks denigrate Clarence Thomas as an Uncle Tom, while willingly empowering the genocide of blacks by wealthy liberal whites. See who comprises upper management of the organization.
or worse, blacks are calling Justice Thomas the one word which they claim no one should ever, ever, utter…. unless if it is a useful invective on their terms
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a house (deleted by Estovir)
7:43 PM · Jun 24, 2022·Twitter for Android
Once again you have been caught napping. You provide the generic link for PP but have little useful knowledge of what they do.
What happens next is dead women. Abortion is medical care, and denied abortion will kill women. There are many times where it is needed and as we have seen before, doctors and hospitals will be afraid to do abortions and allow women to suffer. This will happen much more now. And to make things worse, Republicans cheer this outcome.
Prof Turley – I simply hope we can have some healing. Maybe I’m a dreamer. I even look forward to this no longer being the only issue hanging over a confirmation hearing. I think Alito did us a favor in that we can now have self determination. Instead of black robes and central planning. I would be happy if we could end up closer to an Ireland or Poland instead of right behind North Korea and China. I wrote a book on miscarriage from a dad’s perspective that had international success but the past decade I have devoted myself to simply buying supplies like diapers for new moms who are actually mostly happy. No preaching just love and money. Btw/ Project Rachel in the Catholic Church is very healing for those struggling with post abortion— completely free of judgement. I hope we can heal.
Well Sammy take heart, we know for a fact that all those female babies in the womb that were so easily and so ruthlessly aborted under the old bad law probably won’t be now in at least 22 states. That oughta make you feel better about your selectively “compassionate” mathematics.
UB40 classic: “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime””
If you do not want a baby, don’t do sex without precausions.
And if still worried or intercorse without consent, take the morning-after pill.
But no, thast would mean that the responsibility is put back to where it was: man & woman.
“What happens next is dead women.”
What happens next is what you fear most. You might have to think.
“The image of criminalized homosexuality, marriage bans and contraception limits is unnerving”
With the exception of contraception limits, my guess is that most Trumpists WOULD FAVOR a return to criminalizing homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
Because most of you use pseudonyms and your real identity will never be known, be honest and tell us how far back in time you really want to take this country. In a perfect world, how much religious morality do you wish America embraced?
Straw man argument. Not all right to lifers are religious. And advances science and medicine has made fetal viability earlier than when Roe was a issued. On the other hand, how would you feel about a law legalizing infanticide?
Life beginning at conception is an article of faith. It is not based upon science. I accept viability as a compromise. People of faith will not.
Jeff, I am a person of faith. And as stated before, viability is where I draw the line. Admittedly viability is open to debate. But in my mind, certainly not at conception. Grew up Catholic. Now Protestant.
But as far as ” people of faith ” I know many ” devout Catholics” that aren’t lying hypocrites like Biden and Pelosi.
According to Catholic doctrine, abortion at anytime is MURDER.
A mortal sin. And to advocate for abortion you are enabling MURDER.
Not my rules, theirs.
If I believed that life began at conception, I would be anti-abortion, but I can’t make myself believe it anymore than I can accept massive voter fraud.
Neither do Religious people truly believe the fetus is a baby; otherwise, they would demand that pregnant women be charged with first-degree premeditated murder for committing an abortion. They CANNOT have it both ways- baby but no mother.
That’s “no murder”!
Jeff, you used the term ” religious people”. I merely commented on one subset of ” religious people’, Catholics. In this case a term you love to use here . HYPOCRITES. That would be Biden and Pelosi.
By definition you cannot be pro- abortion and a devout Catholic. I was not referring to murder in a legal context. Just a Catholic one. Catholics do not call for secular punishment for any ” sin”. Only that the person who sins acknowledges it and seeks forgiveness. You are conflating two different remedies.
I defer to your expertise on the subject of sin.
Jeff, identifying it or committing it?
After I did a Google search, I found this:
Several “classic” Church rules govern gambling:
(1) A player must be free to dispose of the stakes wagered in the game. He must be able to accept the risk of losing the stakes without incurring harm to himself or to others. Basically, the stakes should be “disposable” money.
(2) The player must make the gamble with full knowledge and consent.
(3) All players must have an equal chance of winning.
(4) The game must be fair. All fraud or deception is prohibited.
(5) While everyone enjoys winning, the motive for playing the game should be one of pleasure rather than of gain. One must not depend upon gambling for one’s livelihood. (Prummer, Handbook of Moral Theology).
Number 3 kind of rules out all handicapped gambling based upon odds. I suppose giving points in a football game is Christian since it attempts to give each bettor an equal chance. But under this theory, it would be cheating to buy more than one lottery ticket per person.
If religious people were pro life they would support universal health care, pollution contro and gun control to name just a few. Guess what they don’t.
Pro-lifers would also be against capital punishment. They misunderstand the “Lex Talionis.”
If religious people were pro life they would support universal health care, pollution contro and gun control to name just a few. Guess what they don’t.
I see you believe in the resurrection, Holmes, by raising this dead non-sequitur
If liberals were pro-people, they would open their homes to immigrants, the poor, the homeless, share their food and resources, and sell their expensive refrigerators, private jets and stocks to curb CO2 emissions and care for the poor. Al Gore need not worry since Tipper dumped him for the hypocrite that he is. OTOH, Barry Obama did not reply to a request for comment possibly because his multimillion dollar ocean side mansion is being decked out to host his rich liberal friends for his upcoming birthday party.
Nancy Pelosi however does have something to say on this topic:
She actually “pushes” little brown girls. https://twitter.com/i/status/1540799498342936578
No were in Scripture, suggests, Rulers should provide for the people.
ONLY that the people be of service to each other.
JH, do you understand what the words universal health care mean? They mean all have access to health care. Is waiting on line access to healthcare? Is being denied good drugs, access to healthcare? Do you know what healthcare is? Are you talking about universal healthcare for life-threatening illnesses?
The US has a healthcare safety net, and if one has a life or limb-threatening problem, with or without money, they will be treated in a hospital even if they don’t pay.
Our system is far from perfect, but in the world of nations, we are doing better than most, if not all, based on one’s perspective.
“ The US has a healthcare safety net, and if one has a life or limb-threatening problem, with or without money, they will be treated in a hospital even if they don’t pay.
Our system is far from perfect, but in the world of nations, we are doing better than most, if not all, based on one’s perspective.”
No we are not. We are doing much worse than most countries with universal healthcare. In countries with universal healthcare people don’t go into deep debt when needing medical care. Here you do.
That “safety net” you refer to is simply a bad joke.
“people don’t go into deep debt”
In other words the problem is not healthcare but debt. At least you understand that debt is not good. Tell the people in Washington.
But, you do realize that people go into debt for many reasons and healthcare costs are only a minor cause of bankruptcy. There are lots of other causes.
Now that we understand your number 1 complaint, financial concerns, not healthcare, let us deal with what you call a bad joke. That joke protects millions of people and one could say protects virtually everyone. Therefore that complaint is inaccurate as well. It’s not perfect but it isn’t a joke.
You do mention other countries and some are better than others. However let me ask you a question. Do you consider waiting in line, access to healthcare?
Of course there is life, or some living thing, at the earliest stage — ie, conception. The idea that there is no life, then suddenly there is, or that life develops out of some inanimate substance, is not only anti-scientific, but ludicrous. The cells that create life are all “live.” You can call it a baby, fetus, embryo, clump of cells, or whatever, but whatever it is, it’s alive…or else the body would expel it, as in miscarriage. And certainly by the second trimester there is a recognizable being. Instead of playing word games, why not just own your opinion. To those who believe that abortion should be legal, how you describe or define the fetus is irrelevant. That, at least, is an honest approach.
The point is that it is not a “baby” at conception before viability.
Okay when does life begin? You must know since you deny one possibility.
Viability is a dividing line that is rational and not spiritual.
Why it begins when I say it does!
“The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception – fertilization…. Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth. At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development. The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being from the moment of conception.”
When Human Life Begins, American College of Pediatricians, March 2004
The American College of Pediatricians stands solidly on the left, so this is not a political issue. They added the word personhood to satisfy their ideological need, but when an abortion occurs, it is a human that dies. Personhood is vague and differs amongst the experts. It is a way to kill a human without recognizing it is a human being.
Abortion will exist in this country long after you and I are dead. No side will be 100% satisfied. The least we can do is to recognize that when an abortion takes place, the death of a human being takes place as well. Most women understand that fact when they miscarry. They realize their child has died, and they grieve over the loss.
be honest and tell us how far back in time you really want to take this country.
All the way back to TODAY. 47 of 50 European nations max out abortion on demand at 15 weeks. Just like Mississippi. Of course, those Nations reached their
limits thru legislation.
How many more babies need to be murdered, before it is too much
I reject the faith-based myth that pre-viable fetuses are “babies.” Always have; always will. If we cannot compromise on viability, this is war.
Your last sentence is not an invitation to negotiate a compromise, it is an ultimatum.
I am willing to split the “baby” if you like. There is no way that people of faith can force their irrational religious beliefs on a secular country.
maybe you are UNAWARE of the basis of the United States
I’m all ears….
Fetal Viability changes to an earlier point in time every decade or so. It’ll get to conception with new technology. That’s a good rule. Follow the science.
I’ll agree. Religious fundamentalists won’t! You convince them!
That is your leftist faith-based religion talking.
You don’t IVave to compromise. I don’t have to compromise
The legislature will take care of it. If I don’t like it, I work to change the legislature.
That is exactly what Republicans did. Concentrate on the States, and govern from there. As the Nation is designed.
While Republicans worked to change State Legislatures, Governor Mansions, City mayors and councils…
Democrats went to war with the people, through the administrative state.
Making rules about bathrooms and locker rooms.
Gutted title IV, to allow men to compete in women sports
teach 3rd graders how to masturbate
Impeach President Trump 3 times.
Punish men for sexual assault, with no due process.
Print $trillions of new money to bribe the masses, unleashing rampant inflation.
Teaching elementary white kids they are bad because of the sins of the Great, Great, Great Grandfathers
Eliminating civic and American History to dumb down the masses.
Democrats fail at leadership. Their agenda always fails under open debate. Explaining their hyperbolic rhetoric of late.With out the courts to advance their twisted agenda, they will be out of power until they come back to listening to people.
The Religious Right admittedly has won a few tactical battles, but strategically the Right has lost the culture was unless it can strike down same-sex marriage.
The left talking point about Religious Right, is not working. We all know its a strawman.
I’ve listened to dozens of hours of debate since Dobbs was handed down. The only analysis I have not heard, what part of the decision is wrong.
“We all know its a strawman.”
“I’ve listened to dozens of hours of debate since Dobbs was handed down. The only analysis I have not heard, what part of the decision is wrong.”
Stop listening to Newsmax.
I jump between msnbc, cnn, pbs. 100% of the “analysis” is hyperbolic babbling. But not a single mention of Constitutional concepts violated.
You could’ve proved me wrong. But you got nothing
“If we cannot compromise on viability, this is war.”
Why would we be interested in a compromise, we won!
This is but the end of the beginning of this religious war. We are a nation now divided by abortion. States will be fighting states.
You should start organizing your fellow citizens of Marin County into a Militia. Perhaps they will let you be the commander. You will need to pick a name for your group, I suggest “the Fruits and Nuts Brigade”. I am sure that you will strike fear into the hearts of Trumpists everywhere.
I expect the militarized police or National Guard will defend the country from the Trumpist militia groups like the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, 3 Percenters, Michigan Militia, Atomwaffen Division, etc.
Once again, the Right is not the side that is up in arms about this matter, WE WON!
The left, on the other hand…Wow, you guys have been nothing but a hot mess since the J6 clown show went the way of CNN+, the 2nd Amendment was upheld (again!), Roe was relegated to the same dust bin as Plessy vs. Ferguson, and the right to prayer in schools was affirmed. What a week!
So go on now, the Fruits and Nuts Brigade is awaiting their fearful leader. Not that I expect you guys to get very far; with a marching cadence of “Left, Left, Left, Left” you will find yourselves passing the same spot quite often. Also, if I may offer a tip; you will probably avoid much bickering if you agree up front that everyone can have a turn with the bugle boy.
Very funny! I’m glad you have a sense of humor. So do I.
A momentous battle could be in the offing if and when there comes a prosecution of Trump. That will certainly clarify the dividing line as everyone will have to declare where they stand- “Deep State” or “no man is above the law.” You know that I stand for the latter, and I know you stand for the former.
Sure Jeff, all the more reason for you and the Fruits and Nuts to keep practicing. Now remember; “Your left, your left, your left, left, left…to MY REAR, March!”
And don’t worry, you will get your chance to be the bugle boy one of these days and I am sure the boys of Company B will just love you. Blow Jeff, blow like the wind!
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you are insinuating that I am homosexual. Assure me that I have misunderstood your repeated reference to Bugle boy.
Surely you have heard of the “Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy of Company B”. Haven’t you?
when there comes a prosecution of Trump.
You you going to name a crime, or do I have to wait for sentencing to find out? We are 16 months into this charade, and not a single crime has been identified.
Wait for it
Most, like me, would settle for not being forced to proclaim homosexuality’s innate glory and inevitability. Tolerance is fine, just don’t expect me to bow every time it’s mentioned.
“Tolerance is fine, just don’t expect me to bow every time it’s mentioned.”
You are not a fundamentalist? A buffet style of religion? Choose what you like?
Jeff has shown his total lack of knowledge concerning the constitution and Government.
The religious tack is nothing but a straw man argument.
Here is a dirty little fact, leftist can’t admit. Banning abortions after ~ 15 weeks, admits that babies are human and are protected under the Constitution.
~ 15 weeks, is not supported by the Constitution. But it does admit babies are human beings, with the right to life.
Anti-abortionists will not rest until there is a federal ban except for the life of the mother. T or F?
Jeff, you miss what the debate is all about. Many do not believe abortion to be a federal issue and their feelings regarding abortion are secondary. Most that fought against Roe accept abortion at some level. You remain with a small number of anti-Abortionists who want the federal government to ban abortion.
Pence proclaimed to millions on the Religious Right:
“Roe v. Wade has been consigned to the ash heap of history, a new arena in the cause of life has emerged and it is incumbent on all who cherish the sanctity of life to resolve that we will take the defense of the unborn and support for women in crisis pregnancies to every state Capitol in America. Having been given this second chance for Life, we must not rest and must not relent until the sanctity of life is restored to the center of American law in every state in the land.”
I rest my case.
Jeff, what is your case? Again you are missing what the debate is all about. Many do not believe abortion to be a federal issue and their feelings regarding abortion are secondary. Most that fought against Roe accept abortion at some level. You remain with a small number of anti-Abortionists who want the federal government to ban abortion.
Pence is one who remains completely against abortion as his primary concern. He will be followed by many but percentage wise the numbers are low. Abortion will continue to exist all around the US. The impact of the decision is minimal to the nation as a whole though initially especially some will have problems.
Do you get the point?
Is America not a Christian nation?
jeffsilberman, in principle, no.
But of course…
“A Theocratic Movement Hiding in Plain Sight”
“Dominionism is the theocratic idea that regardless of theological camp, means, or timetable, God has called conservative Christians to exercise dominion over society by taking control of political and cultural institutions. The term describes a broad tendency across a wide swath of American Christianity. People who embrace this idea are referred to as dominionists. Although Chip Berlet, then of Political Research Associates, and I defined and popularized the term for many in the 1990s, in fact it had (along with the term dominion theology) been in use by both evangelical proponents and critics for many years.”
Jeff, that is a very interesting question with many different answers. I commented to Estovir the other day about national conservatism, the triad of which is conservativism, religion, and nationalism. Washington and many of the founders thought religion to be an essential part of a free nation even if they weren’t especially religious themselves. I agree with the idea because religion adds a moral component necessary when people are free to do what they will. No law will substitute for morality.
That leads to the question of whether or not this is a Christian nation. It was founded as such and some different states had their state religion. The federal government’s restriction was based on a fear that one sect would prevail.
I don’t know what you truly believe, especially since some of the things you say are so far off the wall. However, your ends might not be that far from my own except for your affinity toward an ism other than capitalism. You certainly are a capitalist but you swing toward collectivism which likely solves only a few of your perceived requirements.
This can be a type of leftist virtue signaling which demonstrates the need for a higher authority that one believes in. Going to church or temple doesn’t mean one has established that special bond with religion or a higher authority. What I see is ‘socialism’ becoming the religion of those that are not fulfilled with their own. Maybe I am not expressing myself correctly so what I say might sound crazy to you.
I’d like to cut through the BS and hear what you have to say about America, Christianity, and the related things I mentioned in this response. Your own thoughts not someone else’s.
America is a Nation of Christians.
Christian believe that God desires Christians to rise to power through civil systems so that His Word might then govern the nation.
“A Theocratic Movement Hiding in Plain Sight”
That theocratic ideology is why, long-term, the religious right is a greater threat to America (and to Western civilization) than is the socialist left.
“That theocratic ideology is why, long-term, the religious right is a greater threat to America (and to Western civilization) than is the socialist left.”
Sam, I would like an explanation to show that what you say has merit.
Who has been rioting and destroying cities? The left.
Who has taken away our civil liberties? The left
Who is not compliant with the Constitution? The left.
What has the religious right accomplished by itself which has negatively changed society? Don’t say abortion because the Supreme Court didn’t stop abortion. The Supreme Court rightfully reversed an ill-advised decision and left the question of abortion to the states where it belongs.
“Who has been . . .”
I believe that I wrote “long-term.”
And by “long-term” I do not mean what’s for dinner tomorrow.
If you want a full explanation, look at the history of religious cultures.
Having been given this second chance for Life, we must not rest and must not relent until the sanctity of life is restored to the center of American law in every state in the land.
What Pence is advocating is for the legal debate to be centered on the sanctity of life, with laws enacted at the state level. That’s federalism at work. As ubiquitous as abortions have become over the last 50 years, centering the culture on the sanctity of life will not happen overnight, if at all.
Once again Silberman preaches over reach and professes to read minds. I could also say that there is a heavy dose of antisemitism in modern progressive thought but I won’t because I can’t read minds. Most of the Trumpists I know just want to go to work, get a good wage, live peacefully with their families and get all the looney toon leftist’s off the roads and sidewalks so they can get to work and pay for Biden’s green revolution that seems to be close to wrecking the economy and costing them their job in the looming recession.
Ok. You choose to ignore my sincere question. Next….
Ok, in regards to your “sincere” question, my definition of human life begins with conception and implantation. All the genetic code of a human being is there and if allowed to grow and is not aborted by nature or other humans it will eventually grow into an adult human being. It’s not going to be a toad, or cat or snake (depending on your definition of a snake). But there are no guarantees. Once you are conceived death stalks us all from then on and eventually claims us all. This is not religious at all. It’s simple biology. You place an artificial threshold of ability to be viable outside the body. Why? Even a born human is not viable unless it receives total care from someone and I don’t think it will be suckled by a wolf like Romulus and Remus. Viability out of the womb is an artificial threshold and simply is another step in the progression of growth of a human being. If things go wrong then we can die whether in the womb or outside. As far as return to an earlier time, I have no desire for that at all. Letting the people of each state decide what they want is sufficient for me. They may make decisions I do not care for but I can live with that. As far as biology is concerned, I am a biologist, human biologist and physician, internist and critical care and pulmonary specialist. So I have had an intimate relationship with birth, life, death, from pregnancy to old age and points in between. And yes I have dealt with many an obstetrical disaster also. And assisted in an abortion also (wish I had not).
I am sure there are other biologists and physicians that would disagree with me. Thats too bad but it won’t change a thing I write. My oath was to human life.
It is not a “baby” at the moment of conception so that an abortion prior to viability is not murder as anti-abortionists charge. The art of politics is compromise. Viability is just that.
Jeff….President Trump appointed the first ever openly gay Presidential Cabinet member. (Rick Grenell)
I guess you missed that story in the Jr. Scholastic.
It took long enough.
Jeff………..So why didn’t Obama appoint an openly gay American to his Cabinet? Oh. that’s right. He opposed gay marriage.
Good question, Cindy. can’t answer it. You tell me. He did evolve on same-sex marriage.
Jeff——I participated in TWO gay weddings in our Baptist Church, here in Texas…..20 years ago, before it was cool. So, yeah, I’m good on gay marriage.
Cindy, Jeff has a lot of hang-ups that he has yet to resolve. Give him time because he is trying to catch up with a forward moving society, that works and enjoys life.
S. Meyer………and he seems to be very young and inexperienced about life.
The shocking thing is JS is neither young nor inexperienced. Instead, he became brain-dead living in Marin County. I know his area quite well. It’s expensive (though he sounds like the lower-status living on expensive land and a home that doesn’t keep up with traditional land values). The houses are crowded together with probably less than a quarter-acre. Sausalito is right around the corner, as is Napa & Sonoma (for the Whiners) and San Fransisco. This can lead to a person recognizing only his surroundings and being full of himself.
Who was responsible then for the resistance to the legalization of same sex marriage? It certainly was not atheists.
Jeff: “:Who was responsible then for the resistance to the legalization of same sex marriage?”
You should ask Obama and Bill and Hillary. They were the biggest names opposing it.
” my guess is that most Trumpists WOULD FAVOR a return to criminalizing homosexuality and same-sex marriage.”
Jeff, your statements are ludicrous. I am a strong supporter of Trump and you would consider me on the hard right. In my entire life I have never had a friend who was in favor of criminalizing homosexuality or same-sex marriage. What world do you live in?
Marin County must have some special gas seeping from the ground that makes one’s intellect fade. Does this problem occur with all your neighbors?
To paraphrase George Carlin (RIP):
Why should homosexuals be exempt from suffering the institution of marriage?
(disclaimer: I have friends who are homosexual and married. Yep, they suffer the same as anyone in any marriage.)