Roe v Wade struck down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Donnie Two Scoops is in panic mode over the moronic decision that happened in Arizona. He knows it’s bad news.

Kind of a wild take you have there. He just reinforced the idea that states' rights exists.

No, he backed away from one of his dumbest brags yet.

And I looooooove that you’re willing to sign away women’s citizenship like it’s nothing.

Citizenship? Do tell.

What do you call it when a person has no bodily autonomy and no legal rights to make decisions for their own body and future? I’d call that second class citizenship. Or straight up slavery. It’s what Republicans want.

You call it what you want.

There's a point where it's about infanticide, not bodily autonomy. Do you have two brains, two hearts, four eyes, etc? Comes a point where your views on killing the innocent are unacceptable.

Okay, so where is the point where it is a reasonable decision to have an abortion -- or do you believe in a total ban on abortion?

First trimester, but my "reasonableness" doesn't matter. Everyone has an opinion, so let states work it out with their constituents. I'm against federalizing every f'n issue. Washington DC does not have all the answers.

So premature rupture of membranes in second trimester, 17 weeks, nonviable to deliver, just wait for sepsis to set in and deliver the fetus after it does naturally? Hope the woman survives septic shock, but because it's past the first trimester, no other options?

I am the previous poster. Exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, incest, etc.

But you're not going to be doing partial-birth abortions because you changed your mind/couldn't make up your mind in the later parts of the pregnancy.

Or you sleep around and have had 17 abortions to your name. That s*** ain't happening. I'm reasonable, but you want to make a business out of encouraging abortions and selling stem cells for $$$, no.

If you're in an area where there are more abortions than live births, that s*** has got to stop. You understand my wavelength now. I'm talking about abuse of the system. Things like clinics pushing abortions to make money. Much like medicare fraud.

Things like Planned Parentthood shifting funds and using fungibility clauses to whack the tax payer for funding when the law clearly states you shall not. Lawfare against the Hyde Amendment. MONETIZING the industry for disgusting evil ends.

And not just the fiscal angle, but also pushing abortions as a right to the point you have to announce you had one just to be cool. It's not cool. Making statements like "I regret not getting pregnant just so I could have an abortion" are counterproductive, but it's reality.

I'm not unreasonable, but there are two sides to every argument.

Where do you consider the line for "life of the mother"?

I had an ectopic pregnancy that was caught early and treated with methotrexate, enabling me to avoid getting to the point of needing surgical removal of the ectopic/tube, or getting to the point of rupture and possible hemorrhage. But the methotrexate was given before my life was "officially" in jeopardy (way before chance of tubal rupture). In your mind, was that acceptable? Or should I have been forced to wait until I was actively hemorrhaging?

Similarly, what about cases like Savita Halapannavar in Ireland, or Amanda Zurawski in Texas (the subject of the new Biden ad)? In both cases, water broke far too early for the fetus to survive but, since there was still a fetal heartbeat, both women were denied appropriate medical treatment (abortion) and went septic. Savita died (and Ireland's anti-abortion laws soon changed). Amanda survived but will likely never be able to carry a pregnancy due to the damage inflicted on her body. What is your threshold for deciding their lived are enough at risk to provide appropriate medical care?

Still no answer to this??

Where do you consider the line for "life of the mother"?

In Idaho it’s never. Their abortion ban doesn’t even include the procedure to save life of mother. If Dr. intervene it’s to save the fetus.

Literal horror movie stuff. To ignore an entire living, breathing sentient human in favor of a fetus, usually a pre-viability fetus is truly the stuff of nightmares.

It’s Christian Taliban crap. And they love it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Donnie Two Scoops is in panic mode over the moronic decision that happened in Arizona. He knows it’s bad news.

Kind of a wild take you have there. He just reinforced the idea that states' rights exists.

No, he backed away from one of his dumbest brags yet.

And I looooooove that you’re willing to sign away women’s citizenship like it’s nothing.

Citizenship? Do tell.

What do you call it when a person has no bodily autonomy and no legal rights to make decisions for their own body and future? I’d call that second class citizenship. Or straight up slavery. It’s what Republicans want.

You call it what you want.

There's a point where it's about infanticide, not bodily autonomy. Do you have two brains, two hearts, four eyes, etc? Comes a point where your views on killing the innocent are unacceptable.

Okay, so where is the point where it is a reasonable decision to have an abortion -- or do you believe in a total ban on abortion?

First trimester, but my "reasonableness" doesn't matter. Everyone has an opinion, so let states work it out with their constituents. I'm against federalizing every f'n issue. Washington DC does not have all the answers.

So premature rupture of membranes in second trimester, 17 weeks, nonviable to deliver, just wait for sepsis to set in and deliver the fetus after it does naturally? Hope the woman survives septic shock, but because it's past the first trimester, no other options?

I am the previous poster. Exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, incest, etc.

But you're not going to be doing partial-birth abortions because you changed your mind/couldn't make up your mind in the later parts of the pregnancy.

Or you sleep around and have had 17 abortions to your name. That s*** ain't happening. I'm reasonable, but you want to make a business out of encouraging abortions and selling stem cells for $$$, no.

If you're in an area where there are more abortions than live births, that s*** has got to stop. You understand my wavelength now. I'm talking about abuse of the system. Things like clinics pushing abortions to make money. Much like medicare fraud.

Things like Planned Parentthood shifting funds and using fungibility clauses to whack the tax payer for funding when the law clearly states you shall not. Lawfare against the Hyde Amendment. MONETIZING the industry for disgusting evil ends.

And not just the fiscal angle, but also pushing abortions as a right to the point you have to announce you had one just to be cool. It's not cool. Making statements like "I regret not getting pregnant just so I could have an abortion" are counterproductive, but it's reality.

I'm not unreasonable, but there are two sides to every argument.

Where do you consider the line for "life of the mother"?

I had an ectopic pregnancy that was caught early and treated with methotrexate, enabling me to avoid getting to the point of needing surgical removal of the ectopic/tube, or getting to the point of rupture and possible hemorrhage. But the methotrexate was given before my life was "officially" in jeopardy (way before chance of tubal rupture). In your mind, was that acceptable? Or should I have been forced to wait until I was actively hemorrhaging?

Similarly, what about cases like Savita Halapannavar in Ireland, or Amanda Zurawski in Texas (the subject of the new Biden ad)? In both cases, water broke far too early for the fetus to survive but, since there was still a fetal heartbeat, both women were denied appropriate medical treatment (abortion) and went septic. Savita died (and Ireland's anti-abortion laws soon changed). Amanda survived but will likely never be able to carry a pregnancy due to the damage inflicted on her body. What is your threshold for deciding their lived are enough at risk to provide appropriate medical care?

Still no answer to this??

Where do you consider the line for "life of the mother"?

In Idaho it’s never. Their abortion ban doesn’t even include the procedure to save life of mother. If Dr. intervene it’s to save the fetus.

Literal horror movie stuff. To ignore an entire living, breathing sentient human in favor of a fetus, usually a pre-viability fetus is truly the stuff of nightmares.

It’s Christian Taliban crap. And they love it.

“God’s will”, and all of that. Having dealt with infertility, I was on the receiving end of lots of “God’s will” comments from the evangelical side of my family.
Funny how “God’s will” never applies to cancer treatment, erectile dysfunction, etc. Just infertility and maternal health outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Donnie Two Scoops is in panic mode over the moronic decision that happened in Arizona. He knows it’s bad news.

Kind of a wild take you have there. He just reinforced the idea that states' rights exists.

No, he backed away from one of his dumbest brags yet.

And I looooooove that you’re willing to sign away women’s citizenship like it’s nothing.

Citizenship? Do tell.

What do you call it when a person has no bodily autonomy and no legal rights to make decisions for their own body and future? I’d call that second class citizenship. Or straight up slavery. It’s what Republicans want.

You call it what you want.

There's a point where it's about infanticide, not bodily autonomy. Do you have two brains, two hearts, four eyes, etc? Comes a point where your views on killing the innocent are unacceptable.

Okay, so where is the point where it is a reasonable decision to have an abortion -- or do you believe in a total ban on abortion?

First trimester, but my "reasonableness" doesn't matter. Everyone has an opinion, so let states work it out with their constituents. I'm against federalizing every f'n issue. Washington DC does not have all the answers.

So premature rupture of membranes in second trimester, 17 weeks, nonviable to deliver, just wait for sepsis to set in and deliver the fetus after it does naturally? Hope the woman survives septic shock, but because it's past the first trimester, no other options?

I am the previous poster. Exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, incest, etc.

But you're not going to be doing partial-birth abortions because you changed your mind/couldn't make up your mind in the later parts of the pregnancy.

Or you sleep around and have had 17 abortions to your name. That s*** ain't happening. I'm reasonable, but you want to make a business out of encouraging abortions and selling stem cells for $$$, no.

If you're in an area where there are more abortions than live births, that s*** has got to stop. You understand my wavelength now. I'm talking about abuse of the system. Things like clinics pushing abortions to make money. Much like medicare fraud.

Things like Planned Parentthood shifting funds and using fungibility clauses to whack the tax payer for funding when the law clearly states you shall not. Lawfare against the Hyde Amendment. MONETIZING the industry for disgusting evil ends.

And not just the fiscal angle, but also pushing abortions as a right to the point you have to announce you had one just to be cool. It's not cool. Making statements like "I regret not getting pregnant just so I could have an abortion" are counterproductive, but it's reality.

I'm not unreasonable, but there are two sides to every argument.

Where do you consider the line for "life of the mother"?

I had an ectopic pregnancy that was caught early and treated with methotrexate, enabling me to avoid getting to the point of needing surgical removal of the ectopic/tube, or getting to the point of rupture and possible hemorrhage. But the methotrexate was given before my life was "officially" in jeopardy (way before chance of tubal rupture). In your mind, was that acceptable? Or should I have been forced to wait until I was actively hemorrhaging?

Similarly, what about cases like Savita Halapannavar in Ireland, or Amanda Zurawski in Texas (the subject of the new Biden ad)? In both cases, water broke far too early for the fetus to survive but, since there was still a fetal heartbeat, both women were denied appropriate medical treatment (abortion) and went septic. Savita died (and Ireland's anti-abortion laws soon changed). Amanda survived but will likely never be able to carry a pregnancy due to the damage inflicted on her body. What is your threshold for deciding their lived are enough at risk to provide appropriate medical care?

Still no answer to this??

Where do you consider the line for "life of the mother"?

In Idaho it’s never. Their abortion ban doesn’t even include the procedure to save life of mother. If Dr. intervene it’s to save the fetus.

Literal horror movie stuff. To ignore an entire living, breathing sentient human in favor of a fetus, usually a pre-viability fetus is truly the stuff of nightmares.

It’s Christian Taliban crap. And they love it.

“God’s will”, and all of that. Having dealt with infertility, I was on the receiving end of lots of “God’s will” comments from the evangelical side of my family.
Funny how “God’s will” never applies to cancer treatment, erectile dysfunction, etc. Just infertility and maternal health outcomes.

Enterprising young activists could do a lot of hacking to find out which men are availing themselves of the medications they need in order to have intercourse. I mean if they’re going to shame people like you (all women, actually. It’s not like they stop shaming women at any point ever), then they deserve to experience the turnabout. Because you’re right; only women are somehow violating god’s will and should just accept childlessness or death.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is a little hokey.

I think this one from a few years ago hits home a little more:

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Oral arguments at SCOTUS today: Turner representing Idaho fighting EMTALA to prevent doctors there from performing lifesaving abortions.

[Anonymous]

Oh sweet Amy!
No they aren’t covering those abortions.
That’s the point.
She doesn’t get it.
She refuses to get it.
She is such a disappointment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh sweet Amy!
No they aren’t covering those abortions.
That’s the point.
She doesn’t get it.
She refuses to get it.
She is such a disappointment.

Again, that dummy’s whole worldview hinges on her missing the point.

[Anonymous]

Next up for a ballot referendum: Arkansas, hopefully
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/26/abortion-ban-arkansas-overturn-activists/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Next up for a ballot referendum: Arkansas, hopefully
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/26/abortion-ban-arkansas-overturn-activists/

The forced birthers in that article sounded especially dim. Lest anyone think that’s a slam on the south, I have family in Arkansas.

[Anonymous]

Missouri digging to find the bottom as usual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Missouri digging to find the bottom as usual.

#life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Missouri digging to find the bottom as usual.

WTAF is actually with these people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Next up for a ballot referendum: Arkansas, hopefully
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/26/abortion-ban-arkansas-overturn-activists/

“One Trump supporter hesitated at the idea of legalizing abortion through 18 weeks, but said she would probably back the ballot measure if that was the only way to change the law. Sonya, speaking on the condition that only her first name be used to protect her privacy, said she had had an abortion many years ago as a struggling single mother and would want her daughters to have the same option.
“I know for a fact, for me, it was the best decision,” said Sonya, 59, who added that she is a devout Christian and opposes abortion in many cases.”
You guys… an abortion was the best choice for her, but she only reluctantly supports a restrictive law. Can’t make it up.