Lindsey Graham to introduce federal abortion ban

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So let me get this straight, Republicans are supporting a bill that would legalize 95 plus percent of all abortions nationwide including in states where they are currently banned and Dems are trying to block this?

This is completely wrong. The federal 15-week ban would apply to all of the states with less restrictive laws now, but would not help increase access in the states where the laws are more restrictive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A federal Constitutional right cannot be left to the states. Supreme Court is so dang wrong on this one. They really messed up.

They messed up if you believe in the Constitution and what the founders believed. They’re right on track if you want a christofascist dictatorship.

The founders believed in abortion on-demand?

Uh... yes? This is from a book published by Ben Franklin telling ladies how to get their menstrual cycles back (for when they, you know, mysteriously don't come when you expect them to...):

Now I am upon Female Infirmities, it will not be unreasonable to touch upon a common Complaint among unmarried women, namely The Suppression of the Courses. This don’t only disparage their Complexions, but fills them besides with sundry Disorders. For this Misfortune, you must purge with Highland Flagg (commonly called Belly ach Root) a Week before you expect to be out of Order ; and repeat the same two Days after: the next Morning drink a Quarter of a Pint of Pennyroyal Water, or Decoction, and as much again at Night when you go to Bed. Continue this 9 Days running ; and after resting 3 Days, go on with it for 9 more. Ride out every fair Day, stir nimbly about your Affairs, and breathe as much as possible in the open Air...

And there are product advertisements from the 1800s like this. You hardly have to read between the lines to understand what removing an "obstruction" for "married ladies whose health forbid too rapid an increase of family" is about... https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/08/history-of-contraception-19th-century-classified-ads-for-abortifacients-and-contraceptives.html

It’s so funny to me when they ask these questions they’re sure are gotcha questions and they just won the argument. It’s almost like they don’t understand that the anti abortion movement in the US was a response to desegregating schools and is rooted in racism, and it’s not a common value that’s been near and dear to every American’s heart since the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

It was rooted in Victorian "morality" and in doctors (who were an emerging profession) that were trying to drive midwives out of business (i.e., competition).

Misogyny might be what got a few laws on the books about medications and treating patients as doctors. But racism was the cause of evangelical christians voting. After schools desegregated, tons of all white religious schools popped up to allow them to send their kids to white schools. After it became obvious what was happening, the IRS got involved and their tax exempt status became iffy, and they were going to have to choose between greed and racism if they couldn't come up with a plan to change the laws so they could hold true to both of their sacred values. It turns out, racism doesn't get out the vote effectively, so they fiddled around to see what they could come up with to get conservatives out on voting day. If they could find an issue that they cared about enough to show up in big numbers, segregationists could count on voters to also allow them to keep their white religious schools and their tax exemptions. Eventually they figured out that abortion was what would drive people out to vote in droves, and while they're there voting to instate misogyny, they can also vote to uphold greed and racism. It was a win-win-win for RWNJs.

You can even see the changing point in the southern baptist convention's doctrine. Before this movement, it talked about how abortion is a private medical decision among a woman, her family, and her doctor. Soon after, it became the mother of all sins, and the good christians must try and save all the babies, even at the expense of women and society. I don't think they were expecting it to take off and become such a political issue. It was just a tool to keep their kids in all white schools, and bonus that it controls women too. But I guess when it took off, they figured they'd roll with it, because no one would be crazy enough to make it completely illegal and cause women to die, lose fertility, or women and girls to have to birth their rapists' babies.

So yeah, abortion restrictions might be rooted in Victorian "morality"/misogyny, but the current nonsense stems directly from racism.

Hard disagree. Misogyny is its own horrifying beast, one that people seem even less willing to reckon with than they are with racism and bigotry.

I don't understand what you're disagreeing with. Conservative evangelicals used a misogynistic idea to drive their evangelical base to the polls to perpetuate their racist, segregated education system. That's why the evangelical base got all up on abortion as a political issue. Before that, they didn't care, and supported privacy. This is fact. People had private feelings about abortion before that, but evangelical christians didn't take it up as a political issue until they were told to by the powers that be, who wanted to be both greedy and racist within the law. That's why they weaponized abortion. If they could've gotten there by extending blue laws, they may have done that. Abortion wound up being the motivating topic, and it became a beast they couldn't control.

[Anonymous]

so...not states rights....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A federal Constitutional right cannot be left to the states. Supreme Court is so dang wrong on this one. They really messed up.

They messed up if you believe in the Constitution and what the founders believed. They’re right on track if you want a christofascist dictatorship.

The founders believed in abortion on-demand?

Uh... yes? This is from a book published by Ben Franklin telling ladies how to get their menstrual cycles back (for when they, you know, mysteriously don't come when you expect them to...):

Now I am upon Female Infirmities, it will not be unreasonable to touch upon a common Complaint among unmarried women, namely The Suppression of the Courses. This don’t only disparage their Complexions, but fills them besides with sundry Disorders. For this Misfortune, you must purge with Highland Flagg (commonly called Belly ach Root) a Week before you expect to be out of Order ; and repeat the same two Days after: the next Morning drink a Quarter of a Pint of Pennyroyal Water, or Decoction, and as much again at Night when you go to Bed. Continue this 9 Days running ; and after resting 3 Days, go on with it for 9 more. Ride out every fair Day, stir nimbly about your Affairs, and breathe as much as possible in the open Air...

And there are product advertisements from the 1800s like this. You hardly have to read between the lines to understand what removing an "obstruction" for "married ladies whose health forbid too rapid an increase of family" is about... https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/08/history-of-contraception-19th-century-classified-ads-for-abortifacients-and-contraceptives.html

It’s so funny to me when they ask these questions they’re sure are gotcha questions and they just won the argument. It’s almost like they don’t understand that the anti abortion movement in the US was a response to desegregating schools and is rooted in racism, and it’s not a common value that’s been near and dear to every American’s heart since the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

It was rooted in Victorian "morality" and in doctors (who were an emerging profession) that were trying to drive midwives out of business (i.e., competition).

Misogyny might be what got a few laws on the books about medications and treating patients as doctors. But racism was the cause of evangelical christians voting. After schools desegregated, tons of all white religious schools popped up to allow them to send their kids to white schools. After it became obvious what was happening, the IRS got involved and their tax exempt status became iffy, and they were going to have to choose between greed and racism if they couldn't come up with a plan to change the laws so they could hold true to both of their sacred values. It turns out, racism doesn't get out the vote effectively, so they fiddled around to see what they could come up with to get conservatives out on voting day. If they could find an issue that they cared about enough to show up in big numbers, segregationists could count on voters to also allow them to keep their white religious schools and their tax exemptions. Eventually they figured out that abortion was what would drive people out to vote in droves, and while they're there voting to instate misogyny, they can also vote to uphold greed and racism. It was a win-win-win for RWNJs.

You can even see the changing point in the southern baptist convention's doctrine. Before this movement, it talked about how abortion is a private medical decision among a woman, her family, and her doctor. Soon after, it became the mother of all sins, and the good christians must try and save all the babies, even at the expense of women and society. I don't think they were expecting it to take off and become such a political issue. It was just a tool to keep their kids in all white schools, and bonus that it controls women too. But I guess when it took off, they figured they'd roll with it, because no one would be crazy enough to make it completely illegal and cause women to die, lose fertility, or women and girls to have to birth their rapists' babies.

So yeah, abortion restrictions might be rooted in Victorian "morality"/misogyny, but the current nonsense stems directly from racism.

Hard disagree. Misogyny is its own horrifying beast, one that people seem even less willing to reckon with than they are with racism and bigotry.

I don't understand what you're disagreeing with. Conservative evangelicals used a misogynistic idea to drive their evangelical base to the polls to perpetuate their racist, segregated education system. That's why the evangelical base got all up on abortion as a political issue. Before that, they didn't care, and supported privacy. This is fact. People had private feelings about abortion before that, but evangelical christians didn't take it up as a political issue until they were told to by the powers that be, who wanted to be both greedy and racist within the law. That's why they weaponized abortion. If they could've gotten there by extending blue laws, they may have done that. Abortion wound up being the motivating topic, and it became a beast they couldn't control.

I’m saying that it sounds like the PP was dismissing misogyny as secondary to racism as an animating force for why they are so rabidly forced birth, and that is what I disagree with. Misogyny seems to be the water we swim in. There are minorities who will sell their race/creed/religion out for gain in the GOP, but there are tons of women who actively hold down their fellow women. The archetypes of Serena Joy and Aunt Lydia exist because those women exist. Every woman who furthers Republican causes is a woman with deeply internalized misogyny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:so...not states rights....

Never was. It was always about getting women under the GOP’s thumb. They will take away our rights to work outside the house, to get birth control, to vote… this is all about oppressing women because they hate us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:so...not states rights....

He is so slimy. And no one believes he cares about the unborn. He certainly doesn’t gaf about babies as soon as they emerge from the womb.

[Anonymous]

Maybe this has been explained upthread, but isn't he lying about Europe? Don't many EU countries allow numerous exceptions beyond 15 weeks? And he claims his bill has exceptions but that's bull?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this has been explained upthread, but isn't he lying about Europe? Don't many EU countries allow numerous exceptions beyond 15 weeks? And he claims his bill has exceptions but that's bull?

Yes. And yes. He is lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this has been explained upthread, but isn't he lying about Europe? Don't many EU countries allow numerous exceptions beyond 15 weeks? And he claims his bill has exceptions but that's bull?

Why yes, yes they do.

And UK allows abortion up to 24 weeks

So I guess Graham is saying the US is aligned with UK. While he wants us to be aligned with Venezuela.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So let me get this straight, Republicans are supporting a bill that would legalize 95 plus percent of all abortions nationwide including in states where they are currently banned and Dems are trying to block this?

No you are purposely lying to get people to think that. This bill will not legalize abortion in the many states that have banned it from conception or after 6 weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this has been explained upthread, but isn't he lying about Europe? Don't many EU countries allow numerous exceptions beyond 15 weeks? And he claims his bill has exceptions but that's bull?

Actually he's 100% right about Europe. Very few exceptions beyond 15 weeks. He's exposing Democrats as fraudsters, to say the least.

Very few except the reasons that most women get abortions after 15 weeks: fetal abnormality, the health of the mother (health, not life), underage pregnancy, etc. Now the most common reason— lack of access— is addressed by easy access to publicly funded abortion before 15 weeks. Where is the Republican proposal to model Europe in that respect?

Obamacare would have been a great opportunity to model things after Europe (15 weeks, easy access). Too bad.

Are you advocating a full-scale adoption of European model or not? You can’t pick and choose. You want 15 weeks, it’s 15-16 weeks with public funding and guaranteed access. After that it’s available to protect the health of the mother, in cases of fetal abnormality, for any underage pregnancy. If you’re not advocating for all of that, you’re just as much a hypocrite as Graham and the Europe point is irrelevant.

You should check your head and see if there's a brain inside.

Yes, I'd be happy with the "European model", and indicated that it was a missed opportunity to not try that when Obamacare was introduced. I quess activists wouldn't have liked the 15-weeks, but Obama could/ should have sold that as part of the deal.

Then why aren’t all you “moderate” republicans out there advocating for public funding and a legal end to restrictions before 15 weeks, with broad exemptions in all of the categories for which women actually seek abortion after 15 weeks? What a mystery that is.

It is such a mystery how Republicans lie and lie and will take away all women’s rights if they get in power. They haven’t exactly made a secret of how much they hate women.

[Anonymous]

It’s really funny to watch republicans underestimate an entire generation of women who have had just about enough of their BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this has been explained upthread, but isn't he lying about Europe? Don't many EU countries allow numerous exceptions beyond 15 weeks? And he claims his bill has exceptions but that's bull?

Actually he's 100% right about Europe. Very few exceptions beyond 15 weeks. He's exposing Democrats as fraudsters, to say the least.

Very few except the reasons that most women get abortions after 15 weeks: fetal abnormality, the health of the mother (health, not life), underage pregnancy, etc. Now the most common reason— lack of access— is addressed by easy access to publicly funded abortion before 15 weeks. Where is the Republican proposal to model Europe in that respect?

Obamacare would have been a great opportunity to model things after Europe (15 weeks, easy access). Too bad.

Are you advocating a full-scale adoption of European model or not? You can’t pick and choose. You want 15 weeks, it’s 15-16 weeks with public funding and guaranteed access. After that it’s available to protect the health of the mother, in cases of fetal abnormality, for any underage pregnancy. If you’re not advocating for all of that, you’re just as much a hypocrite as Graham and the Europe point is irrelevant.

You should check your head and see if there's a brain inside.

Yes, I'd be happy with the "European model", and indicated that it was a missed opportunity to not try that when Obamacare was introduced. I quess activists wouldn't have liked the 15-weeks, but Obama could/ should have sold that as part of the deal.

Then why aren’t all you “moderate” republicans out there advocating for public funding and a legal end to restrictions before 15 weeks, with broad exemptions in all of the categories for which women actually seek abortion after 15 weeks? What a mystery that is.

I have been advocating for this all along. It is the moderate Dems who are blocking this!!! Essentially the Dems are responsible for the current abortion bans in some states. Congress could have acted and still could act but the Dems are playing politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this has been explained upthread, but isn't he lying about Europe? Don't many EU countries allow numerous exceptions beyond 15 weeks? And he claims his bill has exceptions but that's bull?

Actually he's 100% right about Europe. Very few exceptions beyond 15 weeks. He's exposing Democrats as fraudsters, to say the least.

Very few except the reasons that most women get abortions after 15 weeks: fetal abnormality, the health of the mother (health, not life), underage pregnancy, etc. Now the most common reason— lack of access— is addressed by easy access to publicly funded abortion before 15 weeks. Where is the Republican proposal to model Europe in that respect?

Obamacare would have been a great opportunity to model things after Europe (15 weeks, easy access). Too bad.

Are you advocating a full-scale adoption of European model or not? You can’t pick and choose. You want 15 weeks, it’s 15-16 weeks with public funding and guaranteed access. After that it’s available to protect the health of the mother, in cases of fetal abnormality, for any underage pregnancy. If you’re not advocating for all of that, you’re just as much a hypocrite as Graham and the Europe point is irrelevant.

You should check your head and see if there's a brain inside.

Yes, I'd be happy with the "European model", and indicated that it was a missed opportunity to not try that when Obamacare was introduced. I quess activists wouldn't have liked the 15-weeks, but Obama could/ should have sold that as part of the deal.

Then why aren’t all you “moderate” republicans out there advocating for public funding and a legal end to restrictions before 15 weeks, with broad exemptions in all of the categories for which women actually seek abortion after 15 weeks? What a mystery that is.

I have been advocating for this all along. It is the moderate Dems who are blocking this!!! Essentially the Dems are responsible for the current abortion bans in some states. Congress could have acted and still could act but the Dems are playing politics.

It's called the filibuster. Nothing is getting passed until that hurdle is removed or are you that dense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this has been explained upthread, but isn't he lying about Europe? Don't many EU countries allow numerous exceptions beyond 15 weeks? And he claims his bill has exceptions but that's bull?

Actually he's 100% right about Europe. Very few exceptions beyond 15 weeks. He's exposing Democrats as fraudsters, to say the least.

Very few except the reasons that most women get abortions after 15 weeks: fetal abnormality, the health of the mother (health, not life), underage pregnancy, etc. Now the most common reason— lack of access— is addressed by easy access to publicly funded abortion before 15 weeks. Where is the Republican proposal to model Europe in that respect?

Obamacare would have been a great opportunity to model things after Europe (15 weeks, easy access). Too bad.

Are you advocating a full-scale adoption of European model or not? You can’t pick and choose. You want 15 weeks, it’s 15-16 weeks with public funding and guaranteed access. After that it’s available to protect the health of the mother, in cases of fetal abnormality, for any underage pregnancy. If you’re not advocating for all of that, you’re just as much a hypocrite as Graham and the Europe point is irrelevant.

You should check your head and see if there's a brain inside.

Yes, I'd be happy with the "European model", and indicated that it was a missed opportunity to not try that when Obamacare was introduced. I quess activists wouldn't have liked the 15-weeks, but Obama could/ should have sold that as part of the deal.

Then why aren’t all you “moderate” republicans out there advocating for public funding and a legal end to restrictions before 15 weeks, with broad exemptions in all of the categories for which women actually seek abortion after 15 weeks? What a mystery that is.

I have been advocating for this all along. It is the moderate Dems who are blocking this!!! Essentially the Dems are responsible for the current abortion bans in some states. Congress could have acted and still could act but the Dems are playing politics.

It's called the filibuster. Nothing is getting passed until that hurdle is removed or are you that dense?

The so called ban that Lindsey is proposing is very close to the compromise that the previous posters were advocating. Admittedly it will be harder to get Rs to sign on to the 15 week compromise nationwide now that some states have successfully enacted even stricter bans. I have no doubt that they would have almost all agreed to this proposal if it was brought up for consideration when it was leaked that the court was going to overturn Roe.