Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz have both said they want to codify Roe. The "abortion should be between a woman and her doctor" is because the right insists on constantly portraying this narrative that women are waking up 8 or 9 months pregnant going "welp, changed my mind" or that people are killing babies after they are born which are just lies that show how the right views women.

0% chance Trump codifies Roe. He has consistently backed its overturn by saying "everyone wanted it to go back to the states" (obviously a lie).

Difficult to codify laws that no longer exist

Roe never existed as a law, simply precedent. And it's not difficult at all to codify laws that don't exist, you just...write them. Literally every law doesn't exist until it does.

If you were at all familiar with the US system of government you'd know that. This is basic stuff. Do a little research and your trolling might be slightly more believable comrade.

wrong, wrong, and wrong

Imagine being this proud of being this ignorant.

Show me the current Roe related law that could be codified? You can't codify laws that don't exist. You do understand that Roe V Wade was overturned, don't you? Idiots everywhere

Are you somehow under the impression that new laws can't be made, or do you not understand that ehen people say the government will codify Roe, they are saying that the law will be created. Are you really just arguing these stupid semantics? Christ, what a tiring chode you are.

Some people suggests Roe V Wade needs to be codified as if it were still in existence. There are a few steps that have to be completed before any Federal abortion related laws can be codified. Let's focus on those steps first.

Why? SCOTUS will justifiably shut down any “codified national abortion law” as federal overreach and therefore unconstitutional. That was the entire point of the overturn. It’s a state matter. You’re wasting your time.

SCOTUS did no such thing. They didn’t “send it back to the states” like Trump and other liars keep telling you. They left the issue up to “the people and their representatives” which includes Congress.

DP. Yes they did.

Read the tenth amendment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz have both said they want to codify Roe. The "abortion should be between a woman and her doctor" is because the right insists on constantly portraying this narrative that women are waking up 8 or 9 months pregnant going "welp, changed my mind" or that people are killing babies after they are born which are just lies that show how the right views women.

0% chance Trump codifies Roe. He has consistently backed its overturn by saying "everyone wanted it to go back to the states" (obviously a lie).

Difficult to codify laws that no longer exist

Roe never existed as a law, simply precedent. And it's not difficult at all to codify laws that don't exist, you just...write them. Literally every law doesn't exist until it does.

If you were at all familiar with the US system of government you'd know that. This is basic stuff. Do a little research and your trolling might be slightly more believable comrade.

wrong, wrong, and wrong

Imagine being this proud of being this ignorant.

Show me the current Roe related law that could be codified? You can't codify laws that don't exist. You do understand that Roe V Wade was overturned, don't you? Idiots everywhere

Are you somehow under the impression that new laws can't be made, or do you not understand that ehen people say the government will codify Roe, they are saying that the law will be created. Are you really just arguing these stupid semantics? Christ, what a tiring chode you are.

Some people suggests Roe V Wade needs to be codified as if it were still in existence. There are a few steps that have to be completed before any Federal abortion related laws can be codified. Let's focus on those steps first.

Why? SCOTUS will justifiably shut down any “codified national abortion law” as federal overreach and therefore unconstitutional. That was the entire point of the overturn. It’s a state matter. You’re wasting your time.

SCOTUS did no such thing. They didn’t “send it back to the states” like Trump and other liars keep telling you. They left the issue up to “the people and their representatives” which includes Congress.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump has as much chance of winning this election as he has of winning Michigan. It's unlikely, but possible.

Despite what the very partisan and biased junk polls like Trafalgar want to make you think, Trump is not gaining and is not leading. Harris is holding steady and slightly ahead, but within the margin of error. The fake polls that are out there are laying the groundwork for what Trump does best, lie and cheat. His internal polling shows that he is losing and he is seeding the media so that he can claim the election was stolen (it wasn't, he's just a terrible candidate) and give him what he believes are plausible reasons to do what he did in 2020, which is try to steal the election himself. He will fail just like he did in 2020. 62 court cases and people like Kemp and Raffensperger will continue to tell the truth, that he lost and that he doesn't have any grounds to contend that he won.

I'd love to believe you, but facts from today say otherwise. There has been a slight uptick in Trump support in swing states. Nate Silver has a piece about it, and the NYT and 538 have registered the same effects. These are credible sources, PP.

Everything is still within the margin of error... but the trend is not in Harris' favor.

Anonymous wrote:Trump has as much chance of winning this election as he has of winning Michigan. It's unlikely, but possible.

Despite what the very partisan and biased junk polls like Trafalgar want to make you think, Trump is not gaining and is not leading. Harris is holding steady and slightly ahead, but within the margin of error. The fake polls that are out there are laying the groundwork for what Trump does best, lie and cheat. His internal polling shows that he is losing and he is seeding the media so that he can claim the election was stolen (it wasn't, he's just a terrible candidate) and give him what he believes are plausible reasons to do what he did in 2020, which is try to steal the election himself. He will fail just like he did in 2020. 62 court cases and people like Kemp and Raffensperger will continue to tell the truth, that he lost and that he doesn't have any grounds to contend that he won.

Anonymous wrote:Trump has as much chance of winning this election as he has of winning Michigan. It's unlikely, but possible.

Despite what the very partisan and biased junk polls like Trafalgar want to make you think, Trump is not gaining and is not leading. Harris is holding steady and slightly ahead, but within the margin of error. The fake polls that are out there are laying the groundwork for what Trump does best, lie and cheat. His internal polling shows that he is losing and he is seeding the media so that he can claim the election was stolen (it wasn't, he's just a terrible candidate) and give him what he believes are plausible reasons to do what he did in 2020, which is try to steal the election himself. He will fail just like he did in 2020. 62 court cases and people like Kemp and Raffensperger will continue to tell the truth, that he lost and that he doesn't have any grounds to contend that he won.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz have both said they want to codify Roe. The "abortion should be between a woman and her doctor" is because the right insists on constantly portraying this narrative that women are waking up 8 or 9 months pregnant going "welp, changed my mind" or that people are killing babies after they are born which are just lies that show how the right views women.

0% chance Trump codifies Roe. He has consistently backed its overturn by saying "everyone wanted it to go back to the states" (obviously a lie).

Difficult to codify laws that no longer exist

Roe never existed as a law, simply precedent. And it's not difficult at all to codify laws that don't exist, you just...write them. Literally every law doesn't exist until it does.

If you were at all familiar with the US system of government you'd know that. This is basic stuff. Do a little research and your trolling might be slightly more believable comrade.

wrong, wrong, and wrong

Imagine being this proud of being this ignorant.

Show me the current Roe related law that could be codified? You can't codify laws that don't exist. You do understand that Roe V Wade was overturned, don't you? Idiots everywhere

Are you somehow under the impression that new laws can't be made, or do you not understand that ehen people say the government will codify Roe, they are saying that the law will be created. Are you really just arguing these stupid semantics? Christ, what a tiring chode you are.

Some people suggests Roe V Wade needs to be codified as if it were still in existence. There are a few steps that have to be completed before any Federal abortion related laws can be codified. Let's focus on those steps first.

Why? SCOTUS will justifiably shut down any “codified national abortion law” as federal overreach and therefore unconstitutional. That was the entire point of the overturn. It’s a state matter. You’re wasting your time.

SCOTUS did no such thing. They didn’t “send it back to the states” like Trump and other liars keep telling you. They left the issue up to “the people and their representatives” which includes Congress.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to look at this the other way, will people who were going to vote for Trump consider voting for Harris? For many it’s a resounding no. And the conversation ends there.

Just like there is nothing Harris could do at this point that would make you vote for Trump.

If they don't want to vote for Harris they don't have to vote for Harris. But I can't see how anyone can, in good conscience, vote for Trump, given how clearly cognitively unfit he is to serve. A third choice would be to sit it out. They can absolutely survive Harris and will do just fine under a Harris term (sorry but the MAGA doom and gloom over a Harris term is grossly overblown), but Trump is at this point at best incoherent and at best outright malignant and likely to throw us into yet another set of completely unwarranted and unnecessary constitutional crises and other chaos far worse than his first term.

What were your plans before Biden dropped out? Were you still voting for him? Were you going to vote for a 3rd party? Did you think voting for Biden in his current mental state was better than the alternative? Try to understand how others in the same situation feel. Don’t agree with their decision but you were in the same situation not too long ago.

Biden was tored, slowing down, and a little confused. I trusted his administration to pursue their vision, and I trusted him to step down when the time would come for it

Trump is an erratic and insane career criminal megalomaniac who has never done a good thing for anyone but himself in 60 years.

The person given the power of the most powerful position in the world should never ever be tired, slowing down, and confused on the job. This is why Biden shouldn't be POTUS and why Trump has absolutely no business being anywhere close to power. Sorry, truth hurts sometimes.

Except the proof is in the pudding - and Biden did, and is doing, a great job as president.

Most Americans disagree with you. We see that in “wrong track” polls and in his approval ratings.

I think we’re on the wrong track, as in the MAGA crowd is removing fundamental rights of women. So the results of that poll may not mean what you think they mean.

+1
I’m another one of those “wrong track” people and it’s because of the loss of women’s rights and the fact that we’re cooking the planet and killing so many species. Biden and Harris have done and are doing what they can, but they’re having to fight the GOP who want to end women’s humanity and to cook the world.

The loss of “women’s rights”? The end of “women’s humanity”? All because some states have implemented laws protecting unborn babies? All countries have laws governing abortion, because the humanity of the child has to be considered as well. I find you and other women who are hyperfocused on abortion as the singular most important issue to be very strange.

Spoken like someone who has never had a doomed pregnancy that could turn dangerous at any moment.

Women are human beings. And yes they come first, before the embryos that rely on them to be gestated into babies.

None of the Republicans are after women with doomed pregnancies or emergency abortions.

They’re after elective abortions in the third term which Democrats are pushing nationwide. You can get an elective abortion at 9 months pregnant in Maryland, Washington DC, New York, and a few other places

No, Democrats want the decision to be between a woman and her doctor, not the government. The actual reality of a third trimester abortion - which is a very small percentage of abortions as a whole - is a woman who likely had a very wanted pregnancy and found out devastating news that there are significant fetal abnormalities or their life is at risk. And the decision on how to approach this should be solely between the woman/couple and the doctor.

Yes, and with appropriate abortion laws, that choice between a woman and her doctor can be protected due to it be a special exception case. We used to have these sensible laws that most agreed with. They went away.

So you agree with codifying Roe v. Wade?

What people do not think through is how nuance is lost depending on how the laws are written. For example, you agree that abortion should be allowed to save the life of the mother. At what point is this allowed? If there is a complication that may endanger the life of the mother, but the mother is currently medically stable, can you get an abortion in that case? Or (as is being seen now) does there have to be an IMMINENT risk of death, and prior to that doctors cannot intervene due to worry about getting sued? What if there is a fetal abnormality that is incompatible with life, but they would theoretically be able to survive days outside the womb? Weeks? What is the line?

Yes, I'd be fine with codifying Roe. Life was normal and I never heard anyone complain about abortion laws other than the evangelical idiots back when Roe V Wade was in effect.

The progressive left and the prolife right are united in their opposition to codifying Roe.

Progressive left is fine with Roe. What are you bleating about?

No they aren't. They are very clear, as they like to say. They say abortion is between a woman and her doctor and the government has no role whatsoever in restricting that. Only in funding it.

Not true. There are a few complete idiots out there that don't want Roe codified but the 99% of us normal people want to go back to when life was normal.

It's not 99%. It's both the far right and the progressive left, which makes up a sizable chunk.

Just watch. When Trump wins, he will seek to codify Roe and the left will fight it. Mark my words.

This may be the dumbest statement I've seen in ages. Trump would never codify Roe. Not only is he too senile, self-absorbed, and uninterested in actually doing the job of President to even care about policy, even if he wasn't the GOP in the legislature would never allow it or support it.

Trump says he supports Roe because it's something someone told him to say to attempt damage control once they saw the GOP was hemorrhaging women voters and that's it. There is zero conviction behind it. If someone told him tomorrow to say his policy would be to make women chattel property he'd say that.

He was a New York Democrat for decades. He's lived a largely secular existence that included marriages to models and lots of womanizing. Now you want me to believe that he's a theocratic fascist intent on enforcing strict traditional gender roles. No. I'll take him at his word. He got into it with DeSantis about Florida's abortion restrictions, he's talked about codifying Roe, and he's campaigning on requiring insurance companies to cover IVF (which treads the same moral ground as abortion). Why would I believe you, internet stranger, and not what I see and hear?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz have both said they want to codify Roe. The "abortion should be between a woman and her doctor" is because the right insists on constantly portraying this narrative that women are waking up 8 or 9 months pregnant going "welp, changed my mind" or that people are killing babies after they are born which are just lies that show how the right views women.

0% chance Trump codifies Roe. He has consistently backed its overturn by saying "everyone wanted it to go back to the states" (obviously a lie).

Difficult to codify laws that no longer exist

Roe never existed as a law, simply precedent. And it's not difficult at all to codify laws that don't exist, you just...write them. Literally every law doesn't exist until it does.

If you were at all familiar with the US system of government you'd know that. This is basic stuff. Do a little research and your trolling might be slightly more believable comrade.

wrong, wrong, and wrong

Imagine being this proud of being this ignorant.

Show me the current Roe related law that could be codified? You can't codify laws that don't exist. You do understand that Roe V Wade was overturned, don't you? Idiots everywhere

Are you somehow under the impression that new laws can't be made, or do you not understand that ehen people say the government will codify Roe, they are saying that the law will be created. Are you really just arguing these stupid semantics? Christ, what a tiring chode you are.

Some people suggests Roe V Wade needs to be codified as if it were still in existence. There are a few steps that have to be completed before any Federal abortion related laws can be codified. Let's focus on those steps first.

Why? SCOTUS will justifiably shut down any “codified national abortion law” as federal overreach and therefore unconstitutional. That was the entire point of the overturn. It’s a state matter. You’re wasting your time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz have both said they want to codify Roe. The "abortion should be between a woman and her doctor" is because the right insists on constantly portraying this narrative that women are waking up 8 or 9 months pregnant going "welp, changed my mind" or that people are killing babies after they are born which are just lies that show how the right views women.

0% chance Trump codifies Roe. He has consistently backed its overturn by saying "everyone wanted it to go back to the states" (obviously a lie).

Difficult to codify laws that no longer exist

Roe never existed as a law, simply precedent. And it's not difficult at all to codify laws that don't exist, you just...write them. Literally every law doesn't exist until it does.

If you were at all familiar with the US system of government you'd know that. This is basic stuff. Do a little research and your trolling might be slightly more believable comrade.

wrong, wrong, and wrong

Imagine being this proud of being this ignorant.

Show me the current Roe related law that could be codified? You can't codify laws that don't exist. You do understand that Roe V Wade was overturned, don't you? Idiots everywhere

Are you somehow under the impression that new laws can't be made, or do you not understand that ehen people say the government will codify Roe, they are saying that the law will be created. Are you really just arguing these stupid semantics? Christ, what a tiring chode you are.

Some people suggests Roe V Wade needs to be codified as if it were still in existence. There are a few steps that have to be completed before any Federal abortion related laws can be codified. Let's focus on those steps first.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to look at this the other way, will people who were going to vote for Trump consider voting for Harris? For many it’s a resounding no. And the conversation ends there.

Just like there is nothing Harris could do at this point that would make you vote for Trump.

If they don't want to vote for Harris they don't have to vote for Harris. But I can't see how anyone can, in good conscience, vote for Trump, given how clearly cognitively unfit he is to serve. A third choice would be to sit it out. They can absolutely survive Harris and will do just fine under a Harris term (sorry but the MAGA doom and gloom over a Harris term is grossly overblown), but Trump is at this point at best incoherent and at best outright malignant and likely to throw us into yet another set of completely unwarranted and unnecessary constitutional crises and other chaos far worse than his first term.

What were your plans before Biden dropped out? Were you still voting for him? Were you going to vote for a 3rd party? Did you think voting for Biden in his current mental state was better than the alternative? Try to understand how others in the same situation feel. Don’t agree with their decision but you were in the same situation not too long ago.

Biden was tored, slowing down, and a little confused. I trusted his administration to pursue their vision, and I trusted him to step down when the time would come for it

Trump is an erratic and insane career criminal megalomaniac who has never done a good thing for anyone but himself in 60 years.

The person given the power of the most powerful position in the world should never ever be tired, slowing down, and confused on the job. This is why Biden shouldn't be POTUS and why Trump has absolutely no business being anywhere close to power. Sorry, truth hurts sometimes.

Except the proof is in the pudding - and Biden did, and is doing, a great job as president.

Most Americans disagree with you. We see that in “wrong track” polls and in his approval ratings.

I think we’re on the wrong track, as in the MAGA crowd is removing fundamental rights of women. So the results of that poll may not mean what you think they mean.

+1
I’m another one of those “wrong track” people and it’s because of the loss of women’s rights and the fact that we’re cooking the planet and killing so many species. Biden and Harris have done and are doing what they can, but they’re having to fight the GOP who want to end women’s humanity and to cook the world.

The loss of “women’s rights”? The end of “women’s humanity”? All because some states have implemented laws protecting unborn babies? All countries have laws governing abortion, because the humanity of the child has to be considered as well. I find you and other women who are hyperfocused on abortion as the singular most important issue to be very strange.

Spoken like someone who has never had a doomed pregnancy that could turn dangerous at any moment.

Women are human beings. And yes they come first, before the embryos that rely on them to be gestated into babies.

None of the Republicans are after women with doomed pregnancies or emergency abortions.

They’re after elective abortions in the third term which Democrats are pushing nationwide. You can get an elective abortion at 9 months pregnant in Maryland, Washington DC, New York, and a few other places

No, Democrats want the decision to be between a woman and her doctor, not the government. The actual reality of a third trimester abortion - which is a very small percentage of abortions as a whole - is a woman who likely had a very wanted pregnancy and found out devastating news that there are significant fetal abnormalities or their life is at risk. And the decision on how to approach this should be solely between the woman/couple and the doctor.

Yes, and with appropriate abortion laws, that choice between a woman and her doctor can be protected due to it be a special exception case. We used to have these sensible laws that most agreed with. They went away.

So you agree with codifying Roe v. Wade?

What people do not think through is how nuance is lost depending on how the laws are written. For example, you agree that abortion should be allowed to save the life of the mother. At what point is this allowed? If there is a complication that may endanger the life of the mother, but the mother is currently medically stable, can you get an abortion in that case? Or (as is being seen now) does there have to be an IMMINENT risk of death, and prior to that doctors cannot intervene due to worry about getting sued? What if there is a fetal abnormality that is incompatible with life, but they would theoretically be able to survive days outside the womb? Weeks? What is the line?

Yes, I'd be fine with codifying Roe. Life was normal and I never heard anyone complain about abortion laws other than the evangelical idiots back when Roe V Wade was in effect.

The progressive left and the prolife right are united in their opposition to codifying Roe.

Progressive left is fine with Roe. What are you bleating about?

No they aren't. They are very clear, as they like to say. They say abortion is between a woman and her doctor and the government has no role whatsoever in restricting that. Only in funding it.

Not true. There are a few complete idiots out there that don't want Roe codified but the 99% of us normal people want to go back to when life was normal.

It's not 99%. It's both the far right and the progressive left, which makes up a sizable chunk.

Just watch. When Trump wins, he will seek to codify Roe and the left will fight it. Mark my words.

This may be the dumbest statement I've seen in ages. Trump would never codify Roe. Not only is he too senile, self-absorbed, and uninterested in actually doing the job of President to even care about policy, even if he wasn't the GOP in the legislature would never allow it or support it.

Trump says he supports Roe because it's something someone told him to say to attempt damage control once they saw the GOP was hemorrhaging women voters and that's it. There is zero conviction behind it. If someone told him tomorrow to say his policy would be to make women chattel property he'd say that.

He was a New York Democrat for decades. He's lived a largely secular existence that included marriages to models and lots of womanizing. Now you want me to believe that he's a theocratic fascist intent on enforcing strict traditional gender roles. No. I'll take him at his word. He got into it with DeSantis about Florida's abortion restrictions, he's talked about codifying Roe, and he's campaigning on requiring insurance companies to cover IVF (which treads the same moral ground as abortion). Why would I believe you, internet stranger, and not what I see and hear?

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to look at this the other way, will people who were going to vote for Trump consider voting for Harris? For many it’s a resounding no. And the conversation ends there.

Just like there is nothing Harris could do at this point that would make you vote for Trump.

If they don't want to vote for Harris they don't have to vote for Harris. But I can't see how anyone can, in good conscience, vote for Trump, given how clearly cognitively unfit he is to serve. A third choice would be to sit it out. They can absolutely survive Harris and will do just fine under a Harris term (sorry but the MAGA doom and gloom over a Harris term is grossly overblown), but Trump is at this point at best incoherent and at best outright malignant and likely to throw us into yet another set of completely unwarranted and unnecessary constitutional crises and other chaos far worse than his first term.

What were your plans before Biden dropped out? Were you still voting for him? Were you going to vote for a 3rd party? Did you think voting for Biden in his current mental state was better than the alternative? Try to understand how others in the same situation feel. Don’t agree with their decision but you were in the same situation not too long ago.

Biden was tored, slowing down, and a little confused. I trusted his administration to pursue their vision, and I trusted him to step down when the time would come for it

Trump is an erratic and insane career criminal megalomaniac who has never done a good thing for anyone but himself in 60 years.

The person given the power of the most powerful position in the world should never ever be tired, slowing down, and confused on the job. This is why Biden shouldn't be POTUS and why Trump has absolutely no business being anywhere close to power. Sorry, truth hurts sometimes.

Except the proof is in the pudding - and Biden did, and is doing, a great job as president.

Most Americans disagree with you. We see that in “wrong track” polls and in his approval ratings.

I think we’re on the wrong track, as in the MAGA crowd is removing fundamental rights of women. So the results of that poll may not mean what you think they mean.

+1
I’m another one of those “wrong track” people and it’s because of the loss of women’s rights and the fact that we’re cooking the planet and killing so many species. Biden and Harris have done and are doing what they can, but they’re having to fight the GOP who want to end women’s humanity and to cook the world.

The loss of “women’s rights”? The end of “women’s humanity”? All because some states have implemented laws protecting unborn babies? All countries have laws governing abortion, because the humanity of the child has to be considered as well. I find you and other women who are hyperfocused on abortion as the singular most important issue to be very strange.

Spoken like someone who has never had a doomed pregnancy that could turn dangerous at any moment.

Women are human beings. And yes they come first, before the embryos that rely on them to be gestated into babies.

None of the Republicans are after women with doomed pregnancies or emergency abortions.

They’re after elective abortions in the third term which Democrats are pushing nationwide. You can get an elective abortion at 9 months pregnant in Maryland, Washington DC, New York, and a few other places

No, Democrats want the decision to be between a woman and her doctor, not the government. The actual reality of a third trimester abortion - which is a very small percentage of abortions as a whole - is a woman who likely had a very wanted pregnancy and found out devastating news that there are significant fetal abnormalities or their life is at risk. And the decision on how to approach this should be solely between the woman/couple and the doctor.

Yes, and with appropriate abortion laws, that choice between a woman and her doctor can be protected due to it be a special exception case. We used to have these sensible laws that most agreed with. They went away.

So you agree with codifying Roe v. Wade?

What people do not think through is how nuance is lost depending on how the laws are written. For example, you agree that abortion should be allowed to save the life of the mother. At what point is this allowed? If there is a complication that may endanger the life of the mother, but the mother is currently medically stable, can you get an abortion in that case? Or (as is being seen now) does there have to be an IMMINENT risk of death, and prior to that doctors cannot intervene due to worry about getting sued? What if there is a fetal abnormality that is incompatible with life, but they would theoretically be able to survive days outside the womb? Weeks? What is the line?

Yes, I'd be fine with codifying Roe. Life was normal and I never heard anyone complain about abortion laws other than the evangelical idiots back when Roe V Wade was in effect.

The progressive left and the prolife right are united in their opposition to codifying Roe.

Progressive left is fine with Roe. What are you bleating about?

No they aren't. They are very clear, as they like to say. They say abortion is between a woman and her doctor and the government has no role whatsoever in restricting that. Only in funding it.

Not true. There are a few complete idiots out there that don't want Roe codified but the 99% of us normal people want to go back to when life was normal.

It's not 99%. It's both the far right and the progressive left, which makes up a sizable chunk.

Just watch. When Trump wins, he will seek to codify Roe and the left will fight it. Mark my words.

This may be the dumbest statement I've seen in ages. Trump would never codify Roe. Not only is he too senile, self-absorbed, and uninterested in actually doing the job of President to even care about policy, even if he wasn't the GOP in the legislature would never allow it or support it.

Trump says he supports Roe because it's something someone told him to say to attempt damage control once they saw the GOP was hemorrhaging women voters and that's it. There is zero conviction behind it. If someone told him tomorrow to say his policy would be to make women chattel property he'd say that.

He was a New York Democrat for decades. He's lived a largely secular existence that included marriages to models and lots of womanizing. Now you want me to believe that he's a theocratic fascist intent on enforcing strict traditional gender roles. No. I'll take him at his word. He got into it with DeSantis about Florida's abortion restrictions, he's talked about codifying Roe, and he's campaigning on requiring insurance companies to cover IVF (which treads the same moral ground as abortion). Why would I believe you, internet stranger, and not what I see and hear?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz have both said they want to codify Roe. The "abortion should be between a woman and her doctor" is because the right insists on constantly portraying this narrative that women are waking up 8 or 9 months pregnant going "welp, changed my mind" or that people are killing babies after they are born which are just lies that show how the right views women.

0% chance Trump codifies Roe. He has consistently backed its overturn by saying "everyone wanted it to go back to the states" (obviously a lie).

Difficult to codify laws that no longer exist

Roe never existed as a law, simply precedent. And it's not difficult at all to codify laws that don't exist, you just...write them. Literally every law doesn't exist until it does.

If you were at all familiar with the US system of government you'd know that. This is basic stuff. Do a little research and your trolling might be slightly more believable comrade.

wrong, wrong, and wrong

Imagine being this proud of being this ignorant.

Show me the current Roe related law that could be codified? You can't codify laws that don't exist. You do understand that Roe V Wade was overturned, don't you? Idiots everywhere

Are you somehow under the impression that new laws can't be made, or do you not understand that ehen people say the government will codify Roe, they are saying that the law will be created. Are you really just arguing these stupid semantics? Christ, what a tiring chode you are.

Some people suggests Roe V Wade needs to be codified as if it were still in existence. There are a few steps that have to be completed before any Federal abortion related laws can be codified. Let's focus on those steps first.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to look at this the other way, will people who were going to vote for Trump consider voting for Harris? For many it’s a resounding no. And the conversation ends there.

Just like there is nothing Harris could do at this point that would make you vote for Trump.

If they don't want to vote for Harris they don't have to vote for Harris. But I can't see how anyone can, in good conscience, vote for Trump, given how clearly cognitively unfit he is to serve. A third choice would be to sit it out. They can absolutely survive Harris and will do just fine under a Harris term (sorry but the MAGA doom and gloom over a Harris term is grossly overblown), but Trump is at this point at best incoherent and at best outright malignant and likely to throw us into yet another set of completely unwarranted and unnecessary constitutional crises and other chaos far worse than his first term.

What were your plans before Biden dropped out? Were you still voting for him? Were you going to vote for a 3rd party? Did you think voting for Biden in his current mental state was better than the alternative? Try to understand how others in the same situation feel. Don’t agree with their decision but you were in the same situation not too long ago.

Biden was tored, slowing down, and a little confused. I trusted his administration to pursue their vision, and I trusted him to step down when the time would come for it

Trump is an erratic and insane career criminal megalomaniac who has never done a good thing for anyone but himself in 60 years.

The person given the power of the most powerful position in the world should never ever be tired, slowing down, and confused on the job. This is why Biden shouldn't be POTUS and why Trump has absolutely no business being anywhere close to power. Sorry, truth hurts sometimes.

Except the proof is in the pudding - and Biden did, and is doing, a great job as president.

Most Americans disagree with you. We see that in “wrong track” polls and in his approval ratings.

I think we’re on the wrong track, as in the MAGA crowd is removing fundamental rights of women. So the results of that poll may not mean what you think they mean.

+1
I’m another one of those “wrong track” people and it’s because of the loss of women’s rights and the fact that we’re cooking the planet and killing so many species. Biden and Harris have done and are doing what they can, but they’re having to fight the GOP who want to end women’s humanity and to cook the world.

The loss of “women’s rights”? The end of “women’s humanity”? All because some states have implemented laws protecting unborn babies? All countries have laws governing abortion, because the humanity of the child has to be considered as well. I find you and other women who are hyperfocused on abortion as the singular most important issue to be very strange.

Spoken like someone who has never had a doomed pregnancy that could turn dangerous at any moment.

Women are human beings. And yes they come first, before the embryos that rely on them to be gestated into babies.

None of the Republicans are after women with doomed pregnancies or emergency abortions.

They’re after elective abortions in the third term which Democrats are pushing nationwide. You can get an elective abortion at 9 months pregnant in Maryland, Washington DC, New York, and a few other places

No, Democrats want the decision to be between a woman and her doctor, not the government. The actual reality of a third trimester abortion - which is a very small percentage of abortions as a whole - is a woman who likely had a very wanted pregnancy and found out devastating news that there are significant fetal abnormalities or their life is at risk. And the decision on how to approach this should be solely between the woman/couple and the doctor.

Yes, and with appropriate abortion laws, that choice between a woman and her doctor can be protected due to it be a special exception case. We used to have these sensible laws that most agreed with. They went away.

So you agree with codifying Roe v. Wade?

What people do not think through is how nuance is lost depending on how the laws are written. For example, you agree that abortion should be allowed to save the life of the mother. At what point is this allowed? If there is a complication that may endanger the life of the mother, but the mother is currently medically stable, can you get an abortion in that case? Or (as is being seen now) does there have to be an IMMINENT risk of death, and prior to that doctors cannot intervene due to worry about getting sued? What if there is a fetal abnormality that is incompatible with life, but they would theoretically be able to survive days outside the womb? Weeks? What is the line?

Yes, I'd be fine with codifying Roe. Life was normal and I never heard anyone complain about abortion laws other than the evangelical idiots back when Roe V Wade was in effect.

The progressive left and the prolife right are united in their opposition to codifying Roe.

Progressive left is fine with Roe. What are you bleating about?

No they aren't. They are very clear, as they like to say. They say abortion is between a woman and her doctor and the government has no role whatsoever in restricting that. Only in funding it.

Not true. There are a few complete idiots out there that don't want Roe codified but the 99% of us normal people want to go back to when life was normal.

It's not 99%. It's both the far right and the progressive left, which makes up a sizable chunk.

Just watch. When Trump wins, he will seek to codify Roe and the left will fight it. Mark my words.

This may be the dumbest statement I've seen in ages. Trump would never codify Roe. Not only is he too senile, self-absorbed, and uninterested in actually doing the job of President to even care about policy, even if he wasn't the GOP in the legislature would never allow it or support it.

Trump says he supports Roe because it's something someone told him to say to attempt damage control once they saw the GOP was hemorrhaging women voters and that's it. There is zero conviction behind it. If someone told him tomorrow to say his policy would be to make women chattel property he'd say that.