Susan Collins is a WINO

[Anonymous]

I support the protection that a woman should not have to present a reason prior to viability. If I have CVS and find out that my fetus has severe birth defects and will die in a few days why do I have to document that for the government. If I am in an abusive marriage, about to leave, find out I’m pregnant and decide to abort at 10 weeks why should I have to prove to the government that I’m in an abusive relationship. Providing a reason in a piece of legislation means that someone has to collect my reason and my reason is subject to some governmental agency deciding whether it’s valid or not.

As for the health of mother, it is not loophole if a licensed ob/gyn identifies and signs this. Medicine is all about decision trees and standards. My ob//gyn would not put me under general anesthesia because I’m afraid of big needles as it’s against the standard of care. No ob/gyn is going to abort because someone just wants to abort. This is Republican crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She, like others in the Senate (including some Democrats) are appalled by what is actually IN the WHPA.

It does not codify Roe. It goes much further.

Maybe Democrats should rethink what they actually put in bills.

Bill Clinton’s artful framing was that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare,” but that’s ancient history to today’s Democrats. The WHPA would guarantee abortion access “at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability,” about 23 weeks. Women seeking such services could not be asked to “disclose the patient’s reason.” Some states have tried to prohibit sex-selective abortion, the practice usually of terminating a girl merely because a boy is desired. The WHPA appears to protect that choice.

After fetal viability, the WHPA would assure a right to an abortion whenever the physician’s “good-faith medical judgment” is that “the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.” What counts as “health”? This is sometimes defined to include mental, emotional or familial factors, a loophole that permits elective abortions, more or less, through all nine months of pregnancy.

The legislation also exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is why Ms. Collins says it would undercut “basic conscience protections” for religious healthcare providers. In its findings, the bill says abortion access “has been obstructed” by state “parental involvement laws (notification and consent).”

Is the Democratic policy in 2022 that abortion should be safe, legal and don’t tell your parents? “Ultimately I feel that young women at a certain age should have the rights to make these kind of decisions with their doctor,” Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly told National Review reporter John McCormack. “I’m not going to be the arbiter of an age and a timeline.” Nobody is asking him to be the arbiter. Yet he’s voting to nullify state laws.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/chuck-schumers-radical-abortion-bill-senate-democrats-roe-v-wade-womens-health-protection-act-11652133702

All of this is important and absolutely necessary. Maybe you meant to quote something else, PP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She, like others in the Senate (including some Democrats) are appalled by what is actually IN the WHPA.

It does not codify Roe. It goes much further.

Maybe Democrats should rethink what they actually put in bills.

Bill Clinton’s artful framing was that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare,” but that’s ancient history to today’s Democrats. The WHPA would guarantee abortion access “at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability,” about 23 weeks. Women seeking such services could not be asked to “disclose the patient’s reason.” Some states have tried to prohibit sex-selective abortion, the practice usually of terminating a girl merely because a boy is desired. The WHPA appears to protect that choice.

After fetal viability, the WHPA would assure a right to an abortion whenever the physician’s “good-faith medical judgment” is that “the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.” What counts as “health”? This is sometimes defined to include mental, emotional or familial factors, a loophole that permits elective abortions, more or less, through all nine months of pregnancy.

The legislation also exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is why Ms. Collins says it would undercut “basic conscience protections” for religious healthcare providers. In its findings, the bill says abortion access “has been obstructed” by state “parental involvement laws (notification and consent).”

Is the Democratic policy in 2022 that abortion should be safe, legal and don’t tell your parents? “Ultimately I feel that young women at a certain age should have the rights to make these kind of decisions with their doctor,” Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly told National Review reporter John McCormack. “I’m not going to be the arbiter of an age and a timeline.” Nobody is asking him to be the arbiter. Yet he’s voting to nullify state laws.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/chuck-schumers-radical-abortion-bill-senate-democrats-roe-v-wade-womens-health-protection-act-11652133702

Lol at the GOP trying to make this about sex selection when they’re trying to make birth control illegal. And which Democrats are balking at any of that totally reasonable legislation? What bonehead would balk at any of that?

Reasonable? uh, no.

“They’re trying to make people believe that this is the same thing as codifying Roe v. Wade. And I want you to know, it's not. This is not the same. It expands abortion,” Manchin said in an interview Wednesday.

The bill before the Senate, written by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), prohibits states from enacting restrictions on abortion, even ones that fall short of full bans, and protects the right to an abortion later in pregnancy. GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine) generally oppose abortion restrictions, but are voting against Democrats’ legislation today. They argue the Democratic bill is too expansive, and have introduced their own legislation that would more narrowly protect abortion rights.

The takeaway: With Manchin’s opposition, Senate Democrats will demonstrate there’s a bipartisan majority that opposes their proposal, though they seem unworried by that result. Regardless, they would need 60 votes under current Senate rules to actually pass protections, and they seem most interested in putting Republicans on record in voting against abortion protections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hard to believe Collins was re-elected. She is horrible.

Susan Collins managed to outstrip her polling by really rather fantastical margins. The final poll in Gideon/Collins had Gideon up by +6 and Collins managed to win +8.6. She gained an effective 14 points in a race that was alleged to be a toss up. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/senate/me/maine_senate_collins_vs_gideon-6928.html It’s curious that so many Republican senators were able to magically and rather statistically improbably were able to do that.

And now Maine and the US are stuck with a woman in name only. An Aunt Lydia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She, like others in the Senate (including some Democrats) are appalled by what is actually IN the WHPA.

It does not codify Roe. It goes much further.

Maybe Democrats should rethink what they actually put in bills.

Bill Clinton’s artful framing was that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare,” but that’s ancient history to today’s Democrats. The WHPA would guarantee abortion access “at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability,” about 23 weeks. Women seeking such services could not be asked to “disclose the patient’s reason.” Some states have tried to prohibit sex-selective abortion, the practice usually of terminating a girl merely because a boy is desired. The WHPA appears to protect that choice.

After fetal viability, the WHPA would assure a right to an abortion whenever the physician’s “good-faith medical judgment” is that “the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.” What counts as “health”? This is sometimes defined to include mental, emotional or familial factors, a loophole that permits elective abortions, more or less, through all nine months of pregnancy.

The legislation also exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is why Ms. Collins says it would undercut “basic conscience protections” for religious healthcare providers. In its findings, the bill says abortion access “has been obstructed” by state “parental involvement laws (notification and consent).”

Is the Democratic policy in 2022 that abortion should be safe, legal and don’t tell your parents? “Ultimately I feel that young women at a certain age should have the rights to make these kind of decisions with their doctor,” Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly told National Review reporter John McCormack. “I’m not going to be the arbiter of an age and a timeline.” Nobody is asking him to be the arbiter. Yet he’s voting to nullify state laws.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/chuck-schumers-radical-abortion-bill-senate-democrats-roe-v-wade-womens-health-protection-act-11652133702

Lol at the GOP trying to make this about sex selection when they’re trying to make birth control illegal. And which Democrats are balking at any of that totally reasonable legislation? What bonehead would balk at any of that?

Reasonable? uh, no.

“They’re trying to make people believe that this is the same thing as codifying Roe v. Wade. And I want you to know, it's not. This is not the same. It expands abortion,” Manchin said in an interview Wednesday.

The bill before the Senate, written by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), prohibits states from enacting restrictions on abortion, even ones that fall short of full bans, and protects the right to an abortion later in pregnancy. GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine) generally oppose abortion restrictions, but are voting against Democrats’ legislation today. They argue the Democratic bill is too expansive, and have introduced their own legislation that would more narrowly protect abortion rights.

The takeaway: With Manchin’s opposition, Senate Democrats will demonstrate there’s a bipartisan majority that opposes their proposal, though they seem unworried by that result. Regardless, they would need 60 votes under current Senate rules to actually pass protections, and they seem most interested in putting Republicans on record in voting against abortion protections.

Ah. So no Democrats oppose this, just Republicans.

This is totally reasonable legislation. Just because your personal Overton Window has moved to Serena Joy doesn’t mean everyone else has gone mental. Under his eye, right, SJ?

[Anonymous]

Wow, so much blatant misogyny on this thread. If Collins was a Democrat, you’d all be exploding in outrage at these ugly comments. But she’s a Republican, so go for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, so much blatant misogyny on this thread. If Collins was a Democrat, you’d all be exploding in outrage at these ugly comments. But she’s a Republican, so go for it.

You’re trying so hard to make it work, but she’s a gasbag. Note the disdain we also have for Manchin, allegedly a “Democrat.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to believe Collins was re-elected. She is horrible.

Susan Collins managed to outstrip her polling by really rather fantastical margins. The final poll in Gideon/Collins had Gideon up by +6 and Collins managed to win +8.6. She gained an effective 14 points in a race that was alleged to be a toss up. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/senate/me/maine_senate_collins_vs_gideon-6928.html It’s curious that so many Republican senators were able to magically and rather statistically improbably were able to do that.

And now Maine and the US are stuck with a woman in name only. An Aunt Lydia.

Thank you for this. We saw a lot of these results in the last decade, didn’t we?

Republicans steal elections. They lie, repeatedly and with gusto, about what they will support. And what do Democrats do? Donate to Act Blue in late October of an election year, cry on message boards, and post FB memes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to believe Collins was re-elected. She is horrible.

Susan Collins managed to outstrip her polling by really rather fantastical margins. The final poll in Gideon/Collins had Gideon up by +6 and Collins managed to win +8.6. She gained an effective 14 points in a race that was alleged to be a toss up. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/senate/me/maine_senate_collins_vs_gideon-6928.html It’s curious that so many Republican senators were able to magically and rather statistically improbably were able to do that.

And now Maine and the US are stuck with a woman in name only. An Aunt Lydia.

Gideon wasn’t born in Maine. And lives in a wealthy suburb of Portland.

Mainers like that Collins was born in northern Maine and lives in Bangor. Even though she was born with a silver spoon in her mouth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s a wino? Drinks a lot of wine?

Woman In Name Only.

Since Republicans like to throw the term, RINO, around, it seemed fitting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, so much blatant misogyny on this thread. If Collins was a Democrat, you’d all be exploding in outrage at these ugly comments. But she’s a Republican, so go for it.

ITA
They love her when she votes as they want... hate her when she doesn't. And, they have no issue with a little misogyny as long as it's a Republican.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She, like others in the Senate (including some Democrats) are appalled by what is actually IN the WHPA.

It does not codify Roe. It goes much further.

Maybe Democrats should rethink what they actually put in bills.

Bill Clinton’s artful framing was that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare,” but that’s ancient history to today’s Democrats. The WHPA would guarantee abortion access “at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability,” about 23 weeks. Women seeking such services could not be asked to “disclose the patient’s reason.” Some states have tried to prohibit sex-selective abortion, the practice usually of terminating a girl merely because a boy is desired. The WHPA appears to protect that choice.

After fetal viability, the WHPA would assure a right to an abortion whenever the physician’s “good-faith medical judgment” is that “the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.” What counts as “health”? This is sometimes defined to include mental, emotional or familial factors, a loophole that permits elective abortions, more or less, through all nine months of pregnancy.

The legislation also exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is why Ms. Collins says it would undercut “basic conscience protections” for religious healthcare providers. In its findings, the bill says abortion access “has been obstructed” by state “parental involvement laws (notification and consent).”

Is the Democratic policy in 2022 that abortion should be safe, legal and don’t tell your parents? “Ultimately I feel that young women at a certain age should have the rights to make these kind of decisions with their doctor,” Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly told National Review reporter John McCormack. “I’m not going to be the arbiter of an age and a timeline.” Nobody is asking him to be the arbiter. Yet he’s voting to nullify state laws.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/chuck-schumers-radical-abortion-bill-senate-democrats-roe-v-wade-womens-health-protection-act-11652133702

Lol at the GOP trying to make this about sex selection when they’re trying to make birth control illegal. And which Democrats are balking at any of that totally reasonable legislation? What bonehead would balk at any of that?

Reasonable? uh, no.

“They’re trying to make people believe that this is the same thing as codifying Roe v. Wade. And I want you to know, it's not. This is not the same. It expands abortion,” Manchin said in an interview Wednesday.

The bill before the Senate, written by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), prohibits states from enacting restrictions on abortion, even ones that fall short of full bans, and protects the right to an abortion later in pregnancy. GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine) generally oppose abortion restrictions, but are voting against Democrats’ legislation today. They argue the Democratic bill is too expansive, and have introduced their own legislation that would more narrowly protect abortion rights.

The takeaway: With Manchin’s opposition, Senate Democrats will demonstrate there’s a bipartisan majority that opposes their proposal, though they seem unworried by that result. Regardless, they would need 60 votes under current Senate rules to actually pass protections, and they seem most interested in putting Republicans on record in voting against abortion protections.

Ah. So no Democrats oppose this, just Republicans.

This is totally reasonable legislation. Just because your personal Overton Window has moved to Serena Joy doesn’t mean everyone else has gone mental. Under his eye, right, SJ?

Joe Manchin is actually a traditional Democrat. Reasonable, principled. He hasn't moved far left like the rest of the party.
He has pretty much stuck to his values and beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, so much blatant misogyny on this thread. If Collins was a Democrat, you’d all be exploding in outrage at these ugly comments. But she’s a Republican, so go for it.

ITA
They love her when she votes as they want... hate her when she doesn't. And, they have no issue with a little misogyny as long as it's a Republican.

I’ve never liked her, let alone loved her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She, like others in the Senate (including some Democrats) are appalled by what is actually IN the WHPA.

It does not codify Roe. It goes much further.

Maybe Democrats should rethink what they actually put in bills.

Bill Clinton’s artful framing was that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare,” but that’s ancient history to today’s Democrats. The WHPA would guarantee abortion access “at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability,” about 23 weeks. Women seeking such services could not be asked to “disclose the patient’s reason.” Some states have tried to prohibit sex-selective abortion, the practice usually of terminating a girl merely because a boy is desired. The WHPA appears to protect that choice.

After fetal viability, the WHPA would assure a right to an abortion whenever the physician’s “good-faith medical judgment” is that “the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.” What counts as “health”? This is sometimes defined to include mental, emotional or familial factors, a loophole that permits elective abortions, more or less, through all nine months of pregnancy.

The legislation also exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is why Ms. Collins says it would undercut “basic conscience protections” for religious healthcare providers. In its findings, the bill says abortion access “has been obstructed” by state “parental involvement laws (notification and consent).”

Is the Democratic policy in 2022 that abortion should be safe, legal and don’t tell your parents? “Ultimately I feel that young women at a certain age should have the rights to make these kind of decisions with their doctor,” Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly told National Review reporter John McCormack. “I’m not going to be the arbiter of an age and a timeline.” Nobody is asking him to be the arbiter. Yet he’s voting to nullify state laws.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/chuck-schumers-radical-abortion-bill-senate-democrats-roe-v-wade-womens-health-protection-act-11652133702

Lol at the GOP trying to make this about sex selection when they’re trying to make birth control illegal. And which Democrats are balking at any of that totally reasonable legislation? What bonehead would balk at any of that?

Reasonable? uh, no.

“They’re trying to make people believe that this is the same thing as codifying Roe v. Wade. And I want you to know, it's not. This is not the same. It expands abortion,” Manchin said in an interview Wednesday.

The bill before the Senate, written by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), prohibits states from enacting restrictions on abortion, even ones that fall short of full bans, and protects the right to an abortion later in pregnancy. GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine) generally oppose abortion restrictions, but are voting against Democrats’ legislation today. They argue the Democratic bill is too expansive, and have introduced their own legislation that would more narrowly protect abortion rights.

The takeaway: With Manchin’s opposition, Senate Democrats will demonstrate there’s a bipartisan majority that opposes their proposal, though they seem unworried by that result. Regardless, they would need 60 votes under current Senate rules to actually pass protections, and they seem most interested in putting Republicans on record in voting against abortion protections.

Ah. So no Democrats oppose this, just Republicans.

This is totally reasonable legislation. Just because your personal Overton Window has moved to Serena Joy doesn’t mean everyone else has gone mental. Under his eye, right, SJ?

Joe Manchin is actually a traditional Democrat. Reasonable, principled. He hasn't moved far left like the rest of the party.
He has pretty much stuck to his values and beliefs.

Getting paid off to vote Republican 90% of the time isn’t reasonable, principled or traditionally Democratic. And can someone revive the thread about how extremist the GOP has become? It’s not the Democrats that have changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hard to believe Collins was re-elected. She is horrible.

Susan Collins managed to outstrip her polling by really rather fantastical margins. The final poll in Gideon/Collins had Gideon up by +6 and Collins managed to win +8.6. She gained an effective 14 points in a race that was alleged to be a toss up. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/senate/me/maine_senate_collins_vs_gideon-6928.html It’s curious that so many Republican senators were able to magically and rather statistically improbably were able to do that.

And now Maine and the US are stuck with a woman in name only. An Aunt Lydia.

So you’re saying she isn’t a woman bc she doesn’t fit your definition of woman? All women must act and think the same way? WTF?