Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand why anyone would think a 15 week ban is a good idea. Just on a purely practical basis, women don't get decent ultrasound information about the viability/physical condition of the fetus until 18-20 weeks.

Having carried a child to birth that had a significant defect, (50% chance of surviving to 5 yrs), it's really crucial for women to have that information, and to make decisions based on that information. To be forced to carry a child to term knowing that the child may die before birth or thereafter is forcing that woman into psychological trauma.

But, I guess men don't understand the timing of pregnancy info.

You think they give a sit if a woman has to carry a fetus for four more months when she knows it’s doomed? You think they care about the private struggles of a family if a profoundly disabled child is born and the Catholic hospital refuses to just supply comfort care? You think they care if families are bankrupted? They LOVE when people go bankrupt.

The cruelty is the point. The GOP hates women.
The cruelty is the point. The GOP hates women.
The cruelty is the point. The GOP hates women.

Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand why anyone would think a 15 week ban is a good idea. Just on a purely practical basis, women don't get decent ultrasound information about the viability/physical condition of the fetus until 18-20 weeks.

Having carried a child to birth that had a significant defect, (50% chance of surviving to 5 yrs), it's really crucial for women to have that information, and to make decisions based on that information. To be forced to carry a child to term knowing that the child may die before birth or thereafter is forcing that woman into psychological trauma.

But, I guess men don't understand the timing of pregnancy info.

Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand why anyone would think a 15 week ban is a good idea. Just on a purely practical basis, women don't get decent ultrasound information about the viability/physical condition of the fetus until 18-20 weeks.

Having carried a child to birth that had a significant defect, (50% chance of surviving to 5 yrs), it's really crucial for women to have that information, and to make decisions based on that information. To be forced to carry a child to term knowing that the child may die before birth or thereafter is forcing that woman into psychological trauma.

But, I guess men don't understand the timing of pregnancy info.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the results of the dems playing by outdated rules. Where is the reform of the court dems? What about passing laws like Texas did but for guns? The 2nd amendment is only viable if republicans have a majority on the Supreme Court. Come on dems don’t let the “moderates” continue to sell you bridges to nowhere.

“Outdated rules” like rule of law. I get it. It’s annoying af that we keep getting out classed by a pack of feral pit bulls, but I think that’s the Democrats’ big concern - regretfully we only have one political party right now and it’s the Democrats, and they want to keep the US from becoming the Christo-fascist state the GOP has been trying to install.

That said I agree they should be doing more. Just say the effing truth FFS. The GOP cheats. The GOP has abandoned any and all principles of the Constitution (except that Second Amendment, but they ignore the clause they don’t like and take it to mean that kindergartners should have rocket launchers because SeCoNd AmEnDmEnT). The GOP hates women. Talk about what’s going to happen to women - poor women, that is. Middle class and wealthy women will find a way to New York or wherever stands as a beacon of liberty against the tyranny of the “Christian.” Poor women are going to be forced to give birth to children with handicaps they can’t afford to pay for. To children who will die shortly after birth. Poor women are going to be killed, leaving their existing children motherless.

I do not have enough words to express what scum I think forced birthers are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could you drop them off at a baby safe haven location?

WTF?

Anonymous wrote:This is the results of the dems playing by outdated rules. Where is the reform of the court dems? What about passing laws like Texas did but for guns? The 2nd amendment is only viable if republicans have a majority on the Supreme Court. Come on dems don’t let the “moderates” continue to sell you bridges to nowhere.

Anonymous wrote:Could you drop them off at a baby safe haven location?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what would an overturning of Roe mean for Assisted Reproductive Technology? I had 6 embryos from my IVF. All were genetically defective so I did not proceed with implantation. Will the destruction of un-implanted embryos be illegal in a post-Roe world?

Claire McCaskill just said that there’s already a law on the books in Missouri that states that personhood begins at conception. She says that would make IVF illegal.

Why would that make IVF illegal?

What do you do with the non implanted embryos? Those are now humans according to state law. What do you do if you never implant? You can't just dispose of the embryos, because that's now murder.

Since we're just making up rights, laws, and science, now, we can make an exception for those. Not a problem.

This is the Federalist Society agenda. They have not hidden it. They have bought at least 5 Supreme Court Seats, maybe 6. This is what they want and what is coming, unless we get enough Senators in to make the law and change the balance of the court at the same time.

Wake up.

The irony, of course, is how many FedSoc female lawyers or the wives of male FedSoc lawyers have availed themselves of IVF. It's probably A LOT with that crowd.

Of course, because it’s not like they actually subscribe to any of the religious nonsense they use to push their corporate, pro billionaire agenda. But it will catch up with them eventually. When in the history of humanity has an extremist religious group moderated when they got what they want? Crazy Eyes Barrett is the future here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Is anyone surprised? Apparently men are but women knew conservatives are full of s**t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Is anyone surprised? Apparently men are but women knew conservatives are full of s**t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what would an overturning of Roe mean for Assisted Reproductive Technology? I had 6 embryos from my IVF. All were genetically defective so I did not proceed with implantation. Will the destruction of un-implanted embryos be illegal in a post-Roe world?

Claire McCaskill just said that there’s already a law on the books in Missouri that states that personhood begins at conception. She says that would make IVF illegal.

Why would that make IVF illegal?

What do you do with the non implanted embryos? Those are now humans according to state law. What do you do if you never implant? You can't just dispose of the embryos, because that's now murder.

Since we're just making up rights, laws, and science, now, we can make an exception for those. Not a problem.

This is the Federalist Society agenda. They have not hidden it. They have bought at least 5 Supreme Court Seats, maybe 6. This is what they want and what is coming, unless we get enough Senators in to make the law and change the balance of the court at the same time.

Wake up.

The irony, of course, is how many FedSoc female lawyers or the wives of male FedSoc lawyers have availed themselves of IVF. It's probably A LOT with that crowd.

Of course, because it’s not like they actually subscribe to any of the religious nonsense they use to push their corporate, pro billionaire agenda. But it will catch up with them eventually. When in the history of humanity has an extremist religious group moderated when they got what they want? Crazy Eyes Barrett is the future here.

Anonymous wrote:So will child support now start in utero?