Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's alienate as many voters as possible! While we are placing blame, let's not forget the liberals who refused to vote for Hillary and got us in the mess in the first place!

+1

I blame Bernie and all Bernie supporters.

Anonymous wrote:Let's alienate as many voters as possible! While we are placing blame, let's not forget the liberals who refused to vote for Hillary and got us in the mess in the first place!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are against women and children. See school closures. It will take decades to win me back, sorry. BTW, any Virginia resident who wants an abortion can simply go to DC.

You know that there is more to Virginia than NoVa, right?

Women are going to die because of your ignorant politics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just announced - https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/24/virginia-youngkin-abortion-15-week-ruling/

I seriously wanted to know. Did those of you who voted for Youngkin really think he wouldn't do it? I truly, genuinely, want to know.

This is what I don’t get…. Are people seriously upset with a 15 or 20 week ban, with exceptions? To me this sounds like just the kind of compromise most people would agree with. 6 week bans- I get the objection because you may not even know you are pregnant. But is what you seriously want is for people to be free to abort, for any reason at all, at any time during pregnancy? That is actually the extreme position here, not Youngkin’s.

Yes, people are upset about this. Personally, I am upset about it for two reasons.

First, when Republicans say they would allow exceptions, they are deliberately vague on what those exceptions would look like because they know the details would prove that the exceptions are meaningless in practice. For instance, how would a rape exception work? Does a woman have to make a criminal complaint to get an abortion? Does there have to be an adjudication that the rape occurred? If not, what would stop women from claiming they were raped weeks ago (when there would no longer be physical evidence) by an unknown assailant so they would be eligible for abortion? The prospect of this happening is why there would be onerous requirements of reporting the rape, providing evidence, etc., to justify an abortion, which means in practice it would take so long to get approval for the abortion that it would be too late to get it.

Similar issues are raised with life/health of the mother exceptions. If it is sufficient just to have a doctor's sign off that a pregnancy may jeopardize a woman's life/health, then any woman could get an abortion at any time because pregnancy is inherently risky (moreso than abortion). To avoid that, they would need to impose more restrictions about imminence of death, panel reviews of the medical justification, etc., which would mean in practice women could only have an abortion if they are literally on the verge of death, in which case it may be too late to save them or avoid serious permanent injury even if the abortion is performed.

These "exceptions" will be meaningless in practice. Just look at what happens to teens to try to get a judicial bypass of a parental consent law.

Second, the data on abortions shows that abortions performed after 15 weeks are overwhelmingly due to severe fetal abnormalities or life/health of the mother. They are performed on women who wanted those pregnancies to continue but find themselves in a situation where it cannot. In those cases, government intrusion adds absolutely nothing of value to a decision that should be made between a woman and her doctor. All that government intrusion does is make it harder for women to access necessary healthcare, thereby increasing the risk to their health.

Untrue.

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2013/11/who-seeks-abortions-or-after-20-weeks

This is referring to women getting abortions after 20 weeks:

"Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous."

I don't see anything about abnormalities or life/health of the mother as you're claiming is the case even earlier along in pregnancy. These are not women who wanted those pregnancies.

Can’t read the article, but health problems don’t even get mentioned which leads me to believe they weren’t even screening for that. Aren’t many conditions that allow a mom to go to 20 weeks with a fetus that’s not compatible with life. In their sample, the people getting abortion either didn’t know they were pregnant (it can happen especially when you have no medical care for years on end) or couldn’t afford to jump through the hoops necessary to do it sooner. Others found out that their partner didn’t like the idea of a baby and started beating them. In other words, the people who are doing this are DESPERATE.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are against women and children. See school closures. It will take decades to win me back, sorry. BTW, any Virginia resident who wants an abortion can simply go to DC.

What on earth makes you think any Virginia resident who wants an abortion can "simply" go to DC? This is so absurd.

And guess who passed a bill saying schools had to stay open? That would be...democrats. Dems are not my favorite but they are not against women and children. That would be the party who wants to take away social supports for women and children.

The party that closed schools and screwed working moms are the democrats. I’m pro-choice but will never again vote democrat. Sorry.

You are not pro-choice. Stop lying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just announced - https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/24/virginia-youngkin-abortion-15-week-ruling/

I seriously wanted to know. Did those of you who voted for Youngkin really think he wouldn't do it? I truly, genuinely, want to know.

This is what I don’t get…. Are people seriously upset with a 15 or 20 week ban, with exceptions? To me this sounds like just the kind of compromise most people would agree with. 6 week bans- I get the objection because you may not even know you are pregnant. But is what you seriously want is for people to be free to abort, for any reason at all, at any time during pregnancy? That is actually the extreme position here, not Youngkin’s.

Yes, people are upset about this. Personally, I am upset about it for two reasons.

First, when Republicans say they would allow exceptions, they are deliberately vague on what those exceptions would look like because they know the details would prove that the exceptions are meaningless in practice. For instance, how would a rape exception work? Does a woman have to make a criminal complaint to get an abortion? Does there have to be an adjudication that the rape occurred? If not, what would stop women from claiming they were raped weeks ago (when there would no longer be physical evidence) by an unknown assailant so they would be eligible for abortion? The prospect of this happening is why there would be onerous requirements of reporting the rape, providing evidence, etc., to justify an abortion, which means in practice it would take so long to get approval for the abortion that it would be too late to get it.

Similar issues are raised with life/health of the mother exceptions. If it is sufficient just to have a doctor's sign off that a pregnancy may jeopardize a woman's life/health, then any woman could get an abortion at any time because pregnancy is inherently risky (moreso than abortion). To avoid that, they would need to impose more restrictions about imminence of death, panel reviews of the medical justification, etc., which would mean in practice women could only have an abortion if they are literally on the verge of death, in which case it may be too late to save them or avoid serious permanent injury even if the abortion is performed.

These "exceptions" will be meaningless in practice. Just look at what happens to teens to try to get a judicial bypass of a parental consent law.

Second, the data on abortions shows that abortions performed after 15 weeks are overwhelmingly due to severe fetal abnormalities or life/health of the mother. They are performed on women who wanted those pregnancies to continue but find themselves in a situation where it cannot. In those cases, government intrusion adds absolutely nothing of value to a decision that should be made between a woman and her doctor. All that government intrusion does is make it harder for women to access necessary healthcare, thereby increasing the risk to their health.

Untrue.

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2013/11/who-seeks-abortions-or-after-20-weeks

This is referring to women getting abortions after 20 weeks:

"Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous."

I don't see anything about abnormalities or life/health of the mother as you're claiming is the case even earlier along in pregnancy. These are not women who wanted those pregnancies.

The women in those studies had elective, scheduled abortions performed at clinics. You don’t go to those places for an abortion if there is a severe fetal abnormality or risk of health to the mother.

But wow, after reading that study I am even more in favor of later abortion. Than ever. That one woman who thought she would be killed by her husband if she had an abortion but then he went to jail so she did get an abortion? All the ones who got an abortion after they saved up enough funds which wasn’t until 20 weeks? My heart breaks for these people and others who won’t get to be able to access abortions they need.

DP. Also, that study was specifically looking at women terminating unwanted pregnancies. Women terminating wanted pregnancies for medical reasons were excluded from the study.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just announced - https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/24/virginia-youngkin-abortion-15-week-ruling/

I seriously wanted to know. Did those of you who voted for Youngkin really think he wouldn't do it? I truly, genuinely, want to know.

This is what I don’t get…. Are people seriously upset with a 15 or 20 week ban, with exceptions? To me this sounds like just the kind of compromise most people would agree with. 6 week bans- I get the objection because you may not even know you are pregnant. But is what you seriously want is for people to be free to abort, for any reason at all, at any time during pregnancy? That is actually the extreme position here, not Youngkin’s.

Yes, people are upset about this. Personally, I am upset about it for two reasons.

First, when Republicans say they would allow exceptions, they are deliberately vague on what those exceptions would look like because they know the details would prove that the exceptions are meaningless in practice. For instance, how would a rape exception work? Does a woman have to make a criminal complaint to get an abortion? Does there have to be an adjudication that the rape occurred? If not, what would stop women from claiming they were raped weeks ago (when there would no longer be physical evidence) by an unknown assailant so they would be eligible for abortion? The prospect of this happening is why there would be onerous requirements of reporting the rape, providing evidence, etc., to justify an abortion, which means in practice it would take so long to get approval for the abortion that it would be too late to get it.

Similar issues are raised with life/health of the mother exceptions. If it is sufficient just to have a doctor's sign off that a pregnancy may jeopardize a woman's life/health, then any woman could get an abortion at any time because pregnancy is inherently risky (moreso than abortion). To avoid that, they would need to impose more restrictions about imminence of death, panel reviews of the medical justification, etc., which would mean in practice women could only have an abortion if they are literally on the verge of death, in which case it may be too late to save them or avoid serious permanent injury even if the abortion is performed.

These "exceptions" will be meaningless in practice. Just look at what happens to teens to try to get a judicial bypass of a parental consent law.

Second, the data on abortions shows that abortions performed after 15 weeks are overwhelmingly due to severe fetal abnormalities or life/health of the mother. They are performed on women who wanted those pregnancies to continue but find themselves in a situation where it cannot. In those cases, government intrusion adds absolutely nothing of value to a decision that should be made between a woman and her doctor. All that government intrusion does is make it harder for women to access necessary healthcare, thereby increasing the risk to their health.

Untrue.

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2013/11/who-seeks-abortions-or-after-20-weeks

This is referring to women getting abortions after 20 weeks:

"Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous."

I don't see anything about abnormalities or life/health of the mother as you're claiming is the case even earlier along in pregnancy. These are not women who wanted those pregnancies.

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are against women and children. See school closures. It will take decades to win me back, sorry. BTW, any Virginia resident who wants an abortion can simply go to DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are against women and children. See school closures. It will take decades to win me back, sorry. BTW, any Virginia resident who wants an abortion can simply go to DC.

What on earth makes you think any Virginia resident who wants an abortion can "simply" go to DC? This is so absurd.

And guess who passed a bill saying schools had to stay open? That would be...democrats. Dems are not my favorite but they are not against women and children. That would be the party who wants to take away social supports for women and children.

The party that closed schools and screwed working moms are the democrats. I’m pro-choice but will never again vote democrat. Sorry.

You are not pro-choice. Stop lying.

and how do you explain red states that also closed schools?

Red states that closed schools opened a year before dmv. The democrats idiocy with schools knows no bounds. It’s ridiculous to claim they are the party that cares about women. Those idiots destroyed my career and caused permanent harm to my kids. Ps: we are all getting covid.

What a selfish and small minded person you are. Schools were already open when Youngkin won. But Republican campaigns against democracy and women’s right were ongoing. But waah, you needed to vote based on a past action that you blamed your problems on. You are the problem with democracy — unintelligent and unthinking voters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are against women and children. See school closures. It will take decades to win me back, sorry. BTW, any Virginia resident who wants an abortion can simply go to DC.

What on earth makes you think any Virginia resident who wants an abortion can "simply" go to DC? This is so absurd.

And guess who passed a bill saying schools had to stay open? That would be...democrats. Dems are not my favorite but they are not against women and children. That would be the party who wants to take away social supports for women and children.

The party that closed schools and screwed working moms are the democrats. I’m pro-choice but will never again vote democrat. Sorry.

You are not pro-choice. Stop lying.

and how do you explain red states that also closed schools?

Red states that closed schools opened a year before dmv. The democrats idiocy with schools knows no bounds. It’s ridiculous to claim they are the party that cares about women. Those idiots destroyed my career and caused permanent harm to my kids. Ps: we are all getting covid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White women are sure dumb

Please stop with the misogyny. I’m white and didn’t vote for Youngkin. Plenty of men and POC also voted for him.

Plenty of men, yep.

Plenty of POC, WRONG!

DP. A lot of Asian (South and East), and Catholic Latino people voted for youngkin. They are an embarrassment to all POC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m so happy with today’s announcement. Looking forward to seeing what Youngkin brings our way.

You’re cheering for women to die from wire hanger abortions? You are really sick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just announced - https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/24/virginia-youngkin-abortion-15-week-ruling/

I seriously wanted to know. Did those of you who voted for Youngkin really think he wouldn't do it? I truly, genuinely, want to know.

This is what I don’t get…. Are people seriously upset with a 15 or 20 week ban, with exceptions? To me this sounds like just the kind of compromise most people would agree with. 6 week bans- I get the objection because you may not even know you are pregnant. But is what you seriously want is for people to be free to abort, for any reason at all, at any time during pregnancy? That is actually the extreme position here, not Youngkin’s.

Yes, people are upset about this. Personally, I am upset about it for two reasons.

First, when Republicans say they would allow exceptions, they are deliberately vague on what those exceptions would look like because they know the details would prove that the exceptions are meaningless in practice. For instance, how would a rape exception work? Does a woman have to make a criminal complaint to get an abortion? Does there have to be an adjudication that the rape occurred? If not, what would stop women from claiming they were raped weeks ago (when there would no longer be physical evidence) by an unknown assailant so they would be eligible for abortion? The prospect of this happening is why there would be onerous requirements of reporting the rape, providing evidence, etc., to justify an abortion, which means in practice it would take so long to get approval for the abortion that it would be too late to get it.

Similar issues are raised with life/health of the mother exceptions. If it is sufficient just to have a doctor's sign off that a pregnancy may jeopardize a woman's life/health, then any woman could get an abortion at any time because pregnancy is inherently risky (moreso than abortion). To avoid that, they would need to impose more restrictions about imminence of death, panel reviews of the medical justification, etc., which would mean in practice women could only have an abortion if they are literally on the verge of death, in which case it may be too late to save them or avoid serious permanent injury even if the abortion is performed.

These "exceptions" will be meaningless in practice. Just look at what happens to teens to try to get a judicial bypass of a parental consent law.

Second, the data on abortions shows that abortions performed after 15 weeks are overwhelmingly due to severe fetal abnormalities or life/health of the mother. They are performed on women who wanted those pregnancies to continue but find themselves in a situation where it cannot. In those cases, government intrusion adds absolutely nothing of value to a decision that should be made between a woman and her doctor. All that government intrusion does is make it harder for women to access necessary healthcare, thereby increasing the risk to their health.

Untrue.

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2013/11/who-seeks-abortions-or-after-20-weeks

This is referring to women getting abortions after 20 weeks:

"Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous."

I don't see anything about abnormalities or life/health of the mother as you're claiming is the case even earlier along in pregnancy. These are not women who wanted those pregnancies.

The women in those studies had elective, scheduled abortions performed at clinics. You don’t go to those places for an abortion if there is a severe fetal abnormality or risk of health to the mother.

But wow, after reading that study I am even more in favor of later abortion. Than ever. That one woman who thought she would be killed by her husband if she had an abortion but then he went to jail so she did get an abortion? All the ones who got an abortion after they saved up enough funds which wasn’t until 20 weeks? My heart breaks for these people and others who won’t get to be able to access abortions they need.