NYT story: Trump administration could strike abortion almost immediately using Comstock law

[Anonymous]

Make sure you understand what you are voting for. Your rights to your body are done if Trump gets elected.


https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/us/politics/trump-allies-abortion-restrictions.html


Behind the scenes, specific anti-abortion plans being proposed by Mr. Trump’s allies are sweeping and legally sophisticated. Some of their proposals would rely on enforcing the Comstock Act, a long-dormant law from 1873, to criminalize the shipping of any materials used in an abortion — including abortion pills, which account for the majority of abortions in America.

“We don’t need a federal ban when we have Comstock on the books,” said Jonathan F. Mitchell, the legal force behind a 2021 Texas law that found a way to effectively ban abortion in the state before Roe v. Wade was overturned. “There’s a smorgasbord of options.”

[Anonymous]

This is terrifying. And it would all be very hard to undo.

No woman in any state would be able to access abortion unless they left the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is terrifying. And it would all be very hard to undo.

No woman in any state would be able to access abortion unless they left the country.

They'll probably try to prohibit that, too.

[Anonymous]

So why don’t the democrats DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW

[Anonymous]

I am going to go ahead and guess that the bodily rights of the unborn babies (i.e., the right to actually keep their body) are not going to be given much consideration in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So why don’t the democrats DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW

The senate has a filibuster and the GOP controls the House. What, exactly would you like them to do?

The option is to vote and get everyone you know to vote, and financially support candidates who won't support this nonsense.

[Anonymous]

I don’t get why republicans are so anti abortion when ending it just makes the country less white on a proportional basis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am going to go ahead and guess that the bodily rights of the unborn babies (i.e., the right to actually keep their body) are not going to be given much consideration in this thread.

Point to the federal law that establishes those rights and then we will consider it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So why don’t the democrats DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW

Biden has done all he can at the executive level.

But you knew that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get why republicans are so anti abortion when ending it just makes the country less white on a proportional basis

I don't know, maybe because that is the pinnacle of evil: "Let's kill millions of babies so that our race will have proportionately more people."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get why republicans are so anti abortion when ending it just makes the country less white on a proportional basis

I don't know, maybe because that is the pinnacle of evil: "Let's kill millions of babies so that our race will have proportionately more people."

I am one of the many women who has had a miscarriage. It was an incredibly sad experience. But it was not a death - there was no funeral and no death certificate. Anybody who equates an abortion and killing a baby is not arguing in good faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get why republicans are so anti abortion when ending it just makes the country less white on a proportional basis

I don't know, maybe because that is the pinnacle of evil: "Let's kill millions of babies so that our race will have proportionately more people."

I am one of the many women who has had a miscarriage. It was an incredibly sad experience. But it was not a death - there was no funeral and no death certificate. Anybody who equates an abortion and killing a baby is not arguing in good faith.

Completely disagree, and I could just as easily say that anyone who doesn't believe abortion is "killing" a human being is not arguing in bad faith.

I honestly have never understood that argument. If you want to say, sure, it is a human being being killed, but I believe other interests, etc. outweigh it. But to argue that it literally is not killing a human being is simply anti-science and bad faith. It is, by definition, a human being, just in the early stages of life. If you are arguing that it is not killing a baby, then what is it? Are you saying it magically becomes a human being for "value" purposes once it just happens to exit the woman, which would mean five seconds earlier it had no value? If someone kills a baby inside a woman by punching the woman's stomach, would you say that it was not murder or even not a crime as to the baby? And if you say abortion should not be legal after a certain point, why? Why is abortion "killing a baby" at 30 weeks, but not at 10 weeks?

[Anonymous]

It is the potential for life. It is not a human being.

I could lay before you the million parts that make an automobile. But that is not a car, even though every piece that would make it a car is there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get why republicans are so anti abortion when ending it just makes the country less white on a proportional basis

I don't know, maybe because that is the pinnacle of evil: "Let's kill millions of babies so that our race will have proportionately more people."

I am one of the many women who has had a miscarriage. It was an incredibly sad experience. But it was not a death - there was no funeral and no death certificate. Anybody who equates an abortion and killing a baby is not arguing in good faith.

That’s the forced birther movement in a nutshell: arguing in the worst faith possible.

[Anonymous]

And yeah, this is pretty obviously what the GOP plans, then they’ll go after abortion and women’s suffrage. All the pick me Republican girls think they’ll be spared, but they don’t get it. Women aren’t people in the GOP.