Supreme Court Draft Decision Would Strike Down Roe v. Wade

a reply to: Vroomfondel

The next step is contraception. Here's what will happen. Some states will ban abortion completely and declare a fertilized egg is a person, and will ban abortion pills, of course, but also Plan B, IUDs, The Pill and all hormonal birth control. There will be lawsuits, all the way to the Supreme Court, where the court will overturn Griswold.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: peaceinoutz

That is not the next step in GOP minds. It cant be. All this does is put it in the hands of the states where it belongs. What the states do is up to them. The only thing this accomplishes is that it takes the fed out of the game, as it should be.

It's in not only their minds but their words. Did you read the link?

I’m not going by my opinion, it's what they're saying themselves. Sure, it's up to the states now, but they are saying outright they want to put a federal ban on abortion and hold GOP presidential candidates to that pledge. That’s a fact.

a reply to: peaceinoutz

Here are some more quotes from that article

Here is a quote from the US Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Exactly. Why stick to the constitution when rhetoric and agenda are preferred?

a reply to: TheRedneck

States' rights are a valid concept no doubt, but not absolutely. The constitution on one level exists when any majority starts to impose their will on a minority. Example. A religious sect takes over a state and starts passing crazy laws. That's actually happened once.

The problem is no document can in time cover all issues a civilization might confront, therefore literally no document like the constitution can cover all things.

Excuse me, maybe not a whole state but a municipality.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I get what you are saying, but I just cant get behind that concept achieving fruition. I cant imagine anything that draconian taking place.

If we followed that line of thinking all the way to the end, celibacy would be a criminal act - an act meant to prevent pregnancy. That is the problem with that kind of thinking. You cant just arbitrarily pick a point to stop. I think its safe to say we won't get that far down the road, so, something a little less stringent must be the actual goal here.

I would like to see an end to late term/partial birth abortion. At that point a person has had 8 or 9 months to think about it. Enough time has passed, there is no more deliberation necessary. That is, of course, unless the life of the mother is in danger. I would also make an allowance for cases determined to result from rape or incest. I don't think its right to force a woman to carry, and care for, a daily reminder of such a horribly traumatic event in her life. That should be her choice.

a reply to: peaceinoutz

A few years ago, Chucky Schumer swore that of he was elected he was going to legalize pot. He got re-elected.

Pot is still illegal on the Federal level.

The Moral of the Story: never put too much trust in a politician's words. Their job is to trick people into voting for them.

TheRedneck

a reply to: peaceinoutz

The US Constitution is not meant to cover everything. It's a framework that exists to limit the Federal government. To cover everything, we have states and Federal legislators to make law. The US Constitution decides what the Federal government has to do, what the Federal government can do, and everything else is off limits to the Federal government. Then the states take over.

I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept? "Here, you can do A, B, and C. Anything else, hands off; someone else does that."

That is the whole problem with Roe v. Wade. The Federal government has no authority to handle abortion, never had. But people wanted the Federal government to handle abortion anyway, so now we have been living under an illegal mandate for decades. Worse, it wasn't even the legislature that did it! Courts do not make laws; Courts review and where necessary, interpret law! But not over abortion... no, no, we just do whatever we want and ignore everything we don't like.

If people want the Federal government to handle the abortion debate, fine... there's a way to do that: amend the Constitution. Nothing less is legal. Nothing.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I would like to see an end to late term/partial birth abortion.

Most on demand abortions are done in the first 3 months.

Partial birth abortions have been banned in the USA since 2003. As far as "late term", 20 weeks is around the time when fetal anomalies can first be detected. When a happily pregnant woman finds out her fetus suffers from a fatal or debilitating disease, under Roe V Wade she could choose to terminate. Sometimes an unhealthy, let's say, 30 week along fetus may go into distress and threaten the mom's health. She may be at risk for heart failure, liver or kidney failure, sepsis, etc. Rather than an emergency delivery of a baby that's incompatible with life and will suffer in pain for days, maybe weeks, before it dies, the woman, or her family, and her doctor may decide to "abort" the fetus rather than have her deliver it alive.

Sometimes, a woman carrying more than one fetus discovers one them is unhealthy and may risk the health of the other(s). Doctors will offer the woman, and her family, the choice to abort one to save the other(s).

That's what late term abortion are for and why they exist.

I get what you are saying, but I just cant get behind that concept achieving fruition. I cant imagine anything that draconian taking place

That's what they said about Roe V Wade.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Partial birth abortions have been banned in the USA since 2003.

Are you still spouting this nonsense?

18 USC § 1531(b)(1):

(1) the term “partial-birth abortion” means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion—

(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and

(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus

It is completely legal (Federally) to kill a child during the birth as long as the living, breathing, full-term child is killed just before it reaches a specific point in the birth canal. This is usually accomplished by inserting tools vaginally into the woman that rip the child to pieces, and primary attention is usually taken to ensure the brain is ripped apart to ensure death. It is then completely legal to remove the dismembered child (in pieces) and discard it as human waste (or sell what's left for organ or stem cell harvesting).

That law means nothing. It just establishes a loophole wide enough to drive a fleet of semis through sideways.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

FACT: Partial birth abortions have been banned in the USA since 2003.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003


This is what you're talking about.

Dilation & Evacuation (D&E)
Dilation & Evacuation is performed 13 weeks LMP and up. At this stage, the abortion provider will usually insert a synthetic dilator inside the cervix 24 hours or more prior to the actual abortion procedure. The following day, a surgical instrument and dilating rods are used to continue the dilation process. A local anesthetic is used to numb the cervix, and a shot may be used to ensure fetal death. Then, a long tube will be used to remove the contents of the uterus. Remaining fetal parts will be removed with forceps. A spoon-shaped instrument is used to scrape the lining, followed by a final suctioning.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

And that is OK with you? Killing the child as it is being delivered? Because words?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Later term abortion are often non-surgical and induce labor
Abortion by Medical (Non-Surgical) Induction Abortion

This method is generally used after 16 weeks from the last menstrual period and before the viability of the unborn child, unless such abortion is necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent impairment to her health. In a medically induced abortion, medicines will be used to start labor. Labor induction may require a hospital stay. For this procedure, the physician will:

Perform laboratory tests to confirm the pregnancy, test for Rh status, and test for anemia and red blood cell count.
Take a medical and obstetrical history, including a history of allergies and all current medications.
Examine the uterus and perform an ultrasound to confirm how far along the pregnancy is.
Educate the patient about the abortion process, side effects, and clear instructions for assessing emergency services.
Insert a speculum into the vagina, to hold it open. The physician cleans the vagina and cervix with an antiseptic solution. At this time, a numbing agent (local anesthetic) may be injected in the cervix.
Insert osmotic dilators (small tubes that absorb moisture from the tissues surrounding the cervix and swell) approximately 2 or more days before the surgical procedure to open the cervix, allowing access to the uterus.
Medicines to start early labor can be inserted into the vagina, or a vein (IV), or swallowed to start uterine contractions and soften the cervix, this can take 12 – 48 hours.
Inject medicine through the abdomen or vagina into the amniotic fluid, or the heart or umbilical cord of the fetus. This causes the death of the fetus.
Monitor the contractions and delivery of the fetus.
Monitor the expulsion of the placenta. May scrape the uterus with a curette to ensure there is no retained placenta.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Later term abortion are often non-surgical and induce labor

Yes, non-surgical for the mother because there is no incision made to the mother. Very surgical, I would say, to the child, whose body is ripped apart as delivery starts. Labor is induced to start that delivery and send the baby to its doom.

And you are in support of this? You think it is a good thing?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I would say, to the child, whose body is ripped apart as delivery starts.

False. The fetus is delivered intact, but stillborn.

And you are in support of this? You think it is a good thing?

I think the government staying out of our bodies and bedrooms is a good thing. Abortion in an inconvenient societal necessity.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

False. The fetus is delivered intact, but stillborn.

Hahaha, that might be the intent. In your description it is sucked out, remember? Any idea what a suction hose can do to a newborn's body? I watched my wife give birth, twice... the passageway the baby travels through has to stretch considerably for it to fit, to the point that the child's skull has to remain somewhat flexible until after birth for it to physically fit... so how is a suction hose that large inserted without ripping the mother apart?

Answer: it's not. The suction hose used is too small for the baby to fit intact, so it can be inserted. If that damages the child, so be it... if it's not already dead it will be in a few minutes. They don't hold the procedure up just because the baby survives the poisoning attempt.

Also, you are describing one procedure. Others rip the child's body apart. As long as the child dies before reaching that magic point in the birth canal, all's good with the world.

And a second also: stillborn means DEAD. It may sound nicer, as it has a connotation of an accidental miscarriage, but it still means DEAD. Hopefully from the same kind of chemical poison that is used to execute murderers, but if not, from the suction or the tools used to disassemble it.

And you are OK with this? Just a "yes" or "no" will suffice.

TheRedneck

there has been ALOT of spin, deflection and outright LYING on this decision (if it is accurate).

there is the cold hard FACT/TRUTH/LEGALILTY.

it WILL NOT (LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN LOUD FOR THOSE WITH THEIR FINGERS IN THEIR EARS GOING "WOMENS RIGHTS, MAKES IT ILLEGAL, ECT) ....WILL NOT MAKE ABORTION ILLEGAL.

all it does is say THERE IS NO GUARANTEED RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND CURRENT AMENDMENTS FOR ABORTION (SPECIFICALLY WHAT THEY WANT, ABORITON ON DEMAND/NO RESTRICTIONS).

that it FALLS UNDER THE 10TH AMENDMENT (to those playing the home game) that states "ANY RIGHTS NOT SPECIFICALLY (again for those in the back) SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE UNDER STATES RIGHTS (jurisdiction) "

NO MORE... NO LESS... NO SPIN BS.

so what it means is those championing ABORTION WITH NO RESTRICTIONS have to CONVINCE EITHER EACH STATE LEGISLATORS , TO GET AN AMENDMENT PASSED TO THE CONSTITUTION, OR BOTH.

so why all this "protest", deflection, and outright lying both here and in the public?

i suspect it is because unlike their LOUD RANTS, multiple social media postings and (as in here) die hard defense is this

their view/claims of a majority want this (again abortion with NO RESTRICTIONS) is NOT TRUE.

in fact i go so far as to think they are trying to intimidate others and make a great noise to hide this fact.

because if their numbers were as great as they claim..

they should have LITTLE TO NO PROBLEM getting each state to pass ABORTION WITH NO RESTRICTIONS and get an CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PASSED.

but yet it appears they cant so logic dictates they are a MINORITY and thus cannot nor should not win.

but back to the point i stated...

all this judgement says is that THE STATES INDIVIDUALLY DECIDE ABOUT ABORTION LAW and THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AT FEDERAL LEVEL

NO MORE, NO LESS NO BS

scrounger

a reply to: TheRedneck

False.

Insert osmotic dilators (small tubes that absorb moisture from the tissues surrounding the cervix and swell) approximately 2 or more days before the surgical procedure to open the cervix, allowing access to the uterus.
Medicines to start early labor can be inserted into the vagina, or a vein (IV), or swallowed to start uterine contractions and soften the cervix, this can take 12 – 48 hours.

The woman goes into labor and delivers an intact, stillborn/dead baby.

And a second also: stillborn means DEAD.

What did you think abortions do?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

False.

No, Sookie. It's true. What you posted is how labor is induced. You didn't specify how the baby is killed.

The woman goes into labor and delivers an intact, stillborn/dead baby.

The child does not spring into life upon delivery. It is alive the entire time in the womb. Something must be done to kill it (that is what i describe above). Labor alone does not kill the child; if that were true, no child would ever be born alive.

Oh, and Sookie... you conveniently left out RPC (Retained Products of Conception). RPC is a potential side effect of several pregnancy-related conditions, including notably, abortion. The chance of RPC increases when suction or metallic tools are used.

RPC is a potentially serious condition that occurs when fetal tissue, usually from the placenta but sometimes from the child, is not removed from the womb. It leads to uterine bleeding, pelvic pain, fever, inflammation, enlarged uterus, etc., and can become quite serious if not treated quickly. That is not healthy for the mother.

Abortion, especially late-term, can have some serious consequences for the mother as well as the child.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You didn't specify how the baby is killed.

I did and I even bolded it so that you could easily see it.

Inject medicine through the abdomen or vagina into the amniotic fluid, or the heart or umbilical cord of the fetus. This causes the death of the fetus.