Youngkin supports full abortion ban

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin supports a full ban on abortion / abortifacients. Period.

Until he can get that he will chip away at women’s rights.

Repeating a lie over and over doesn’t make it come true. Period.
If only your statements were as good as your persistence.

DP. He is on video acknowledging that he supports a full abortion ban. Can you cite to any statements he has made to support abortion access? “I will compromise at 15 weeks because I don’t it’s politically viable right now to go further” does not count as supporting abortion access.

If you cannot, I will take that ad a concession that Youngkin supports a ban on abortion.

Conveniently leaving out that he supports abortion is cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. But we all know, it wouldn’t benefit you to tell the whole story.

Those exceptions are meaningless in practice, because either you have to leave it completely to the discretion of the woman and her health care provider whether they apply (in which case the ban would be meaningless because everyone could get around it based on the inherent risk of pregnancy), or the process for qualifying for an exception has to be so onerous that basically no one will meet the standard so the exceptions don’t have any effect.

If there my are meaningless in practice and he didn’t support it, you’d be fake raging. But he does support it and you try to dismiss it. Nothing makes you happy.
You can’t have it both ways.

He doesn’t “support” exceptions. He sees exceptions as a short-term way to chip away at women’s rights. Until he has the general assembly.

You admit that he supports exemptions.

He supports exemptions that are exemptions in name only and do not, as a practical matter, allow women to access abortion when they need it. And the only reason he is claiming to support these exemptions is because he knows he would be unelectable if he said otherwise since a lot of voters don’t think critically about this issue.

Let’s put it in concrete terms. I had pre-eclampsia with both of my pregnancies, and after the second was advised to never have another child because the risk to my health would be too great. If I found myself pregnant tomorrow, regardless of how, do you think Youngkin would support me getting an abortion right away based on the potential risk to my life? Or would I have to wait until I was having active seizures and going into organ failure before anyone could consider whether to terminate my pregnancy, even though at that point I wound likely die even with termination?

If I would have to wait for the latter, then then supposed “exemption” is meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like he said 15 weeks, not permaband.

Go read all of the posted links before you make a fool of yourself again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin is another evangelical Christian imposing his religious views on everyone.

Similarly to how you try to impose your views on everyone.

The majority of people in the US are not pro-life. Why is a minority trying to force its views on the majority? If you oppose abortion, you don't have to have one. If you oppose contraception, you don't have to use it. If you oppose IVF, that's ok, you can adopt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin is another evangelical Christian imposing his religious views on everyone.

Similarly to how you try to impose your views on everyone.

The majority of people in the US are not pro-life. Why is a minority trying to force its views on the majority? If you oppose abortion, you don't have to have one. If you oppose contraception, you don't have to use it. If you oppose IVF, that's ok, you can adopt.

You don’t know what the majority of people think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin is another evangelical Christian imposing his religious views on everyone.

Similarly to how you try to impose your views on everyone.

The majority of people in the US are not pro-life. Why is a minority trying to force its views on the majority? If you oppose abortion, you don't have to have one. If you oppose contraception, you don't have to use it. If you oppose IVF, that's ok, you can adopt.

You don’t know what the majority of people think.

Is that all you've got? You know that you're in the minority. Why do you think that women fought so hard for abortion to be legalized? You know why? Because outlawing abortion does not stop abortions. It just drives them underground. You are not saving babies, you are making women's lives harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin is another evangelical Christian imposing his religious views on everyone.

Similarly to how you try to impose your views on everyone.

The majority of people in the US are not pro-life. Why is a minority trying to force its views on the majority? If you oppose abortion, you don't have to have one. If you oppose contraception, you don't have to use it. If you oppose IVF, that's ok, you can adopt.

You don’t know what the majority of people think.

DP. Would you believe Gallup that 55% of Americans identify as pro-choice and 39% as pro-life? Or are you going to accuse them of lying too?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin is another evangelical Christian imposing his religious views on everyone.

Similarly to how you try to impose your views on everyone.

The majority of people in the US are not pro-life. Why is a minority trying to force its views on the majority? If you oppose abortion, you don't have to have one. If you oppose contraception, you don't have to use it. If you oppose IVF, that's ok, you can adopt.

Exactly. Stop pushing your extremist religious views on others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin supports a full ban on abortion / abortifacients. Period.

Until he can get that he will chip away at women’s rights.

Repeating a lie over and over doesn’t make it come true. Period.
If only your statements were as good as your persistence.

DP. He is on video acknowledging that he supports a full abortion ban. Can you cite to any statements he has made to support abortion access? “I will compromise at 15 weeks because I don’t it’s politically viable right now to go further” does not count as supporting abortion access.

If you cannot, I will take that ad a concession that Youngkin supports a ban on abortion.

Conveniently leaving out that he supports abortion is cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. But we all know, it wouldn’t benefit you to tell the whole story.

Those exceptions are meaningless in practice, because either you have to leave it completely to the discretion of the woman and her health care provider whether they apply (in which case the ban would be meaningless because everyone could get around it based on the inherent risk of pregnancy), or the process for qualifying for an exception has to be so onerous that basically no one will meet the standard so the exceptions don’t have any effect.

If there my are meaningless in practice and he didn’t support it, you’d be fake raging. But he does support it and you try to dismiss it. Nothing makes you happy.
You can’t have it both ways.

He doesn’t “support” exceptions. He sees exceptions as a short-term way to chip away at women’s rights. Until he has the general assembly.

You admit that he supports exemptions.

He supports exemptions that are exemptions in name only and do not, as a practical matter, allow women to access abortion when they need it. And the only reason he is claiming to support these exemptions is because he knows he would be unelectable if he said otherwise since a lot of voters don’t think critically about this issue.

Let’s put it in concrete terms. I had pre-eclampsia with both of my pregnancies, and after the second was advised to never have another child because the risk to my health would be too great. If I found myself pregnant tomorrow, regardless of how, do you think Youngkin would support me getting an abortion right away based on the potential risk to my life? Or would I have to wait until I was having active seizures and going into organ failure before anyone could consider whether to terminate my pregnancy, even though at that point I wound likely die even with termination?

If I would have to wait for the latter, then then supposed “exemption” is meaningless.

Very telling that there has been zero response to this question from the Youngkin supporters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin is another evangelical Christian imposing his religious views on everyone.

Similarly to how you try to impose your views on everyone.

The majority of people in the US are not pro-life. Why is a minority trying to force its views on the majority? If you oppose abortion, you don't have to have one. If you oppose contraception, you don't have to use it. If you oppose IVF, that's ok, you can adopt.

You don’t know what the majority of people think.

DP. Would you believe Gallup that 55% of Americans identify as pro-choice and 39% as pro-life? Or are you going to accuse them of lying too?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Prochoice to about 15 weeks.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin is another evangelical Christian imposing his religious views on everyone.

Similarly to how you try to impose your views on everyone.

The majority of people in the US are not pro-life. Why is a minority trying to force its views on the majority? If you oppose abortion, you don't have to have one. If you oppose contraception, you don't have to use it. If you oppose IVF, that's ok, you can adopt.

You don’t know what the majority of people think.

DP. Would you believe Gallup that 55% of Americans identify as pro-choice and 39% as pro-life? Or are you going to accuse them of lying too?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Prochoice to about 15 weeks.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/

Which is not what Youngkin wants. He wants a full ban but will accept 15 weeks as a starting point in moving toward a full ban.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin supports a full ban on abortion / abortifacients. Period.

Until he can get that he will chip away at women’s rights.

Repeating a lie over and over doesn’t make it come true. Period.
If only your statements were as good as your persistence.

DP. He is on video acknowledging that he supports a full abortion ban. Can you cite to any statements he has made to support abortion access? “I will compromise at 15 weeks because I don’t it’s politically viable right now to go further” does not count as supporting abortion access.

If you cannot, I will take that ad a concession that Youngkin supports a ban on abortion.

Conveniently leaving out that he supports abortion is cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. But we all know, it wouldn’t benefit you to tell the whole story.

Those exceptions are meaningless in practice, because either you have to leave it completely to the discretion of the woman and her health care provider whether they apply (in which case the ban would be meaningless because everyone could get around it based on the inherent risk of pregnancy), or the process for qualifying for an exception has to be so onerous that basically no one will meet the standard so the exceptions don’t have any effect.

If there my are meaningless in practice and he didn’t support it, you’d be fake raging. But he does support it and you try to dismiss it. Nothing makes you happy.
You can’t have it both ways.

He doesn’t “support” exceptions. He sees exceptions as a short-term way to chip away at women’s rights. Until he has the general assembly.

You admit that he supports exemptions.

He supports exemptions that are exemptions in name only and do not, as a practical matter, allow women to access abortion when they need it. And the only reason he is claiming to support these exemptions is because he knows he would be unelectable if he said otherwise since a lot of voters don’t think critically about this issue.

Let’s put it in concrete terms. I had pre-eclampsia with both of my pregnancies, and after the second was advised to never have another child because the risk to my health would be too great. If I found myself pregnant tomorrow, regardless of how, do you think Youngkin would support me getting an abortion right away based on the potential risk to my life? Or would I have to wait until I was having active seizures and going into organ failure before anyone could consider whether to terminate my pregnancy, even though at that point I wound likely die even with termination?

If I would have to wait for the latter, then then supposed “exemption” is meaningless.

Very telling that there has been zero response to this question from the Youngkin supporters.

Oh yes, it’s sooooo telling that in dcum there has been zero responses. It’s the quantifier on this matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin is another evangelical Christian imposing his religious views on everyone.

Similarly to how you try to impose your views on everyone.

The majority of people in the US are not pro-life. Why is a minority trying to force its views on the majority? If you oppose abortion, you don't have to have one. If you oppose contraception, you don't have to use it. If you oppose IVF, that's ok, you can adopt.

You don’t know what the majority of people think.

DP. Would you believe Gallup that 55% of Americans identify as pro-choice and 39% as pro-life? Or are you going to accuse them of lying too?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Conveniently in you writing you left out that the poll shows most want restrictions which aligns with Youngkin. You inadvertently shutting down your own argument.

[Anonymous]

We shouldn't make abortion like a zit removal it's much more

[Anonymous]

If the Democrats would stop focusing on transvestite rights maybe this would not have happened. The Democrats were fools when they thought pushing school closures and indefinite masks in contradiction to actual science would be a winner with Independents. Now they are too focused on LGBT expansion into school aged children. Sorry most parents, even when libral, do not support this agenda. Nor is the defund police BLM a winner with swing voters. Fix the Democratic Party and he’s out of VA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We shouldn't make abortion like a zit removal it's much more

Why don’t you let women and their doctors make this decision? It’s like you don’t think women can make decisions for themselves. Why do you have this mindset? Why do you think the government can make better decisions for a woman? Do you want to mandate when men can get vasectomies as well?