Ohio voters overwhelmingly approve constitutional amendment to protect abortion rights

the SCOTUS sent this back to the states to decide and Ohio did.

Alabama—Near-total ban.
Arkansas—Near-total ban.
Idaho—Near-total ban. ...
Kentucky—Near-total ban. ...
Louisiana—Near-total ban. ...
Mississippi—Near-total ban.
Missouri—Near-total ban.
Oklahoma—Near-total ban.

those states so far did not. If you are into killing babies, you will want to live in a state the allows for such a thing. If you are against abortion, then living in a state that doesn't allow abortion might be more to your liking.

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: Mengelon
www.theguardian.com...

Ohio voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment on 7 November, guaranteeing its citizens the right to abortion access, but a group of rightwing Republican lawmakers is already trying to reverse that result.

The referendum, which Ohioans passed by 57% of votes, established a constitutional right to an abortion, overriding laws passed by the Republican-dominated legislature to dramatically restrict access. In response, 27 GOP members of the Ohio general assembly signed a statement the next day arguing the abortion rights proposal “failed to mention a single, specific law”, and vowing to “do everything in [their] power” to prevent the restrictive abortion laws on the books in Ohio from being challenged.

Another blow against the republican-dominated legislature and the views of right wing Christians who want to completely ban abortion motivated by their medieval views and version of reality.

A huge win for common sense and basic human rights delivered by the people of Ohio.

 

MOD NOTE
This Guardian article is from mid-November, so not current.

See, this is how it is supposed to be.
The States choose these things.
I certainly do not agree with abortion but I do agree with the States authority to make their laws.

Next on the agenda should be to protect men and have mandatory DNA testing to insure paternal responsibilities as we begin to hold both birthing parents accountable for allowing a child to live and who should be responsible for taking care of it for the next 18 years. Especially important for those men that do not want to abort their child.
The debate has begun in 50 jurisdictions on fair accountability for bringing in new life or choosing to end it.

I for one choose to support life AND personal accountability.
And the only way you can get me to ever agree on abortion as the go to option is if you identify both birthing parents and extend abortion up to 18 years of age in order to establish control over unruly and disruptive, disrespective and unaccountable children that abuse their parents. If it is considered a parasite in the womb then it should be identified as so out of the womb until it can survive on its own.

In my opinion the abortion issue should be determined in referendums in the different states. I am sure most states will vote in favour of abortion rights. The people should decide and not some republicans.

That why referendums are never called for because the majority of people will be against the slim minority of extremist Christians who hold political power.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This is why states rights are so important.

Sure, in Ohio you can get an abortion.

In Oregon you can legally buy drugs.

States cannot dictate what other states want.

And that's the main point, federal government should be minimal, at best and not dictate to states what they want.

If there was a vote in each state you would hardly find any states not allowing abortion.

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: Mengelon
www.theguardian.com...

Ohio voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment on 7 November, guaranteeing its citizens the right to abortion access, but a group of rightwing Republican lawmakers is already trying to reverse that result.

The referendum, which Ohioans passed by 57% of votes, established a constitutional right to an abortion, overriding laws passed by the Republican-dominated legislature to dramatically restrict access. In response, 27 GOP members of the Ohio general assembly signed a statement the next day arguing the abortion rights proposal “failed to mention a single, specific law”, and vowing to “do everything in [their] power” to prevent the restrictive abortion laws on the books in Ohio from being challenged.

Another blow against the republican-dominated legislature and the views of right wing Christians who want to completely ban abortion motivated by their medieval views and version of reality.

A huge win for common sense and basic human rights delivered by the people of Ohio.

 

MOD NOTE
This Guardian article is from mid-November, so not current.

See, this is how it is supposed to be.
The States choose these things.
I certainly do not agree with abortion but I do agree with the States authority to make their laws.

Next on the agenda should be to protect men and have mandatory DNA testing to insure paternal responsibilities as we begin to hold both birthing parents accountable for allowing a child to live and who should be responsible for taking care of it for the next 18 years. Especially important for those men that do not want to abort their child.
The debate has begun in 50 jurisdictions on fair accountability for bringing in new life or choosing to end it.

I for one choose to support life AND personal accountability.
And the only way you can get me to ever agree on abortion as the go to option is if you identify both birthing parents and extend abortion up to 18 years of age in order to establish control over unruly and disruptive, disrespective and unaccountable children that abuse their parents. If it is considered a parasite in the womb then it should be identified as so out of the womb until it can survive on its own.

In my opinion the abortion issue should be determined in referendums in the different states. I am sure most states will vote in favour of abortion rights. The people should decide and not some republicans.

Constitutionally, it is the State Legislatures duty to create these laws.
Not from the bench or media influence.
Let the debates begin.
All 50 of them

originally posted by: network dude
the SCOTUS sent this back to the states to decide and Ohio did.

Alabama—Near-total ban.
Arkansas—Near-total ban.
Idaho—Near-total ban. ...
Kentucky—Near-total ban. ...
Louisiana—Near-total ban. ...
Mississippi—Near-total ban.
Missouri—Near-total ban.
Oklahoma—Near-total ban.

those states so far did not. If you are into killing babies, you will want to live in a state the allows for such a thing. If you are against abortion, then living in a state that doesn't allow abortion might be more to your liking.

Should they give the vote to the people to decide instead of going for total bans? I say yes!

See what happened in Ohio?! Republicans wanted to ban abortions and the people said no.

originally posted by: Allaroundya4k
a reply to: DAVID64

So the left forced you to get the jab?
Sure they implored people to take it in the US. But forced.....no, that would be ones own decision.

This administration certainly did and I wouldnt call them conservative.

I had just moved 4400 miles to start a new job and 1 week after I got there I was told jab or your fired, and I had a wife and 2 yr old depending on me to provide.

thousands of military people at different stages of their career jab or your out.

in contrast, trump kept it as you read up on it and make your own decision.

Personally, I love how up in arms people get about this issue.

It certainly gets people emotional.

Probably because we love the wider social implications (which many of are secretly racist) and at the same time we hate the individual implications (young women that get abortions will at times develop mental health issues afterwards). Me, I say that SCOTUS kicking it down to the states was a good idea. We are always hearing from the left about the sanctity of democracy, and here you have a human issue kicked out of the ivory tower and down to the masses to VOTE on, which is DEMOCRACY, and for some reason they can't stand it being that way.

HAHA freaking HA.

Anyway, the person that posted the Alito references, I will probably get to that after my work week ends because I am sure it is vastly more complicated than that. I am sure that was just one reference out of many that were sited for precidence, which is something you see in nearly every legal decision that ever occurs coming from the judiciary.

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This is why states rights are so important.

Sure, in Ohio you can get an abortion.

In Oregon you can legally buy drugs.

States cannot dictate what other states want.

And that's the main point, federal government should be minimal, at best and not dictate to states what they want.

If there was a vote in each state you would hardly find any states not allowing abortion.

*shrugs*

That's up to individual states, so far many states have gone for near total bans.

The mob mentality does not work within the confines of the US Constitution.

originally posted by: dust2023
Personally, I love how up in arms people get about this issue.

It certainly gets people emotional.

Probably because we love the wider social implications (which many of are secretly racist) and at the same time we hate the individual implications (young women that get abortions will at times develop mental health issues afterwards). Me, I say that SCOTUS kicking it down to the states was a good idea. We are always hearing from the left about the sanctity of democracy, and here you have a human issue kicked out of the ivory tower and down to the masses to VOTE on, which is DEMOCRACY, and for some reason they can't stand it being that way.

HAHA freaking HA.

Anyway, the person that posted the Alito references, I will probably get to that after my work week ends because I am sure it is vastly more complicated than that. I am sure that was just one reference out of many that were sited for precidence, which is something you see in nearly every legal decision that ever occurs coming from the judiciary.

When state populations vote they vote on many issues all at once, offer a referendum to one issue only and the majority of people will vote differently. As in Ohio, it is plain to see what will happen when it comes to women's rights being taken away.

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: Mengelon
www.theguardian.com...

Ohio voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment on 7 November, guaranteeing its citizens the right to abortion access, but a group of rightwing Republican lawmakers is already trying to reverse that result.

The referendum, which Ohioans passed by 57% of votes, established a constitutional right to an abortion, overriding laws passed by the Republican-dominated legislature to dramatically restrict access. In response, 27 GOP members of the Ohio general assembly signed a statement the next day arguing the abortion rights proposal “failed to mention a single, specific law”, and vowing to “do everything in [their] power” to prevent the restrictive abortion laws on the books in Ohio from being challenged.

Another blow against the republican-dominated legislature and the views of right wing Christians who want to completely ban abortion motivated by their medieval views and version of reality.

A huge win for common sense and basic human rights delivered by the people of Ohio.

 

MOD NOTE
This Guardian article is from mid-November, so not current.

See, this is how it is supposed to be.
The States choose these things.
I certainly do not agree with abortion but I do agree with the States authority to make their laws.

Next on the agenda should be to protect men and have mandatory DNA testing to insure paternal responsibilities as we begin to hold both birthing parents accountable for allowing a child to live and who should be responsible for taking care of it for the next 18 years. Especially important for those men that do not want to abort their child.
The debate has begun in 50 jurisdictions on fair accountability for bringing in new life or choosing to end it.

I for one choose to support life AND personal accountability.
And the only way you can get me to ever agree on abortion as the go to option is if you identify both birthing parents and extend abortion up to 18 years of age in order to establish control over unruly and disruptive, disrespective and unaccountable children that abuse their parents. If it is considered a parasite in the womb then it should be identified as so out of the womb until it can survive on its own.

In my opinion the abortion issue should be determined in referendums in the different states. I am sure most states will vote in favour of abortion rights. The people should decide and not some republicans.

I actually agree with you at this point in time.
But this is only because the media has controlled this narrative of pro abortion since Roe.

But I can absolutely guaranteeing that after the debates and Legislatures arguments for and against, mandatory DNA testing for paternity, men's rights for abortion advocated you will see a heavy sway in the other direction as the States themselves will have to carry the burden for raising either the children or the adults to maturity and accountability.
Municipalities are not going broke, they are broke, and broken.

The sway towards personal accountability is now unavoidable.

I want to add to my abortion for children up to 18yo stance.

I also believe if you are going to promote abortion and sell the baby body parts there should be fair market value given to the breeder parents in compensation for their burden as chattel property of the state.

I see no reason for poor people to carry the financial burden of carrying a child and giving it to planned parenthood without just compensation.
Pay the ones doing all the work and expenses incurred.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This is why states rights are so important.

Sure, in Ohio you can get an abortion.

In Oregon you can legally buy drugs.

States cannot dictate what other states want.

And that's the main point, federal government should be minimal, at best and not dictate to states what they want.

If there was a vote in each state you would hardly find any states not allowing abortion.

*shrugs*

That's up to individual states, so far many states have gone for near total bans.

The mob mentality does not work within the confines of the US Constitution.

You mean democracy doesn't work?

What's wrong with having referendums in each state for this very serious issue?

Since when democracy and the will of the people is called now 'mob mentality'.

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This is why states rights are so important.

Sure, in Ohio you can get an abortion.

In Oregon you can legally buy drugs.

States cannot dictate what other states want.

And that's the main point, federal government should be minimal, at best and not dictate to states what they want.

If there was a vote in each state you would hardly find any states not allowing abortion.

*shrugs*

That's up to individual states, so far many states have gone for near total bans.

The mob mentality does not work within the confines of the US Constitution.

You mean democracy doesn't work?

Here we agree again.
Democracy does not work.
Democracy, especially this topic, is 2 wolves and a lamb voting for what is for dinner.
I feel blessed knowing I live in a representative constitutional republic.
I propose a new law.
If you do not support yourself by either having the money and resources, a job, or business.
You do not get to vote.
Because democracy is at its worst when everyone is broke.
And our country is broke.
Time to stop having so many unaccountable children by irresponsible adults.
At least pay the breeders.
And mandatory DNA paternity testing across the board.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: dust2023
Personally, I love how up in arms people get about this issue.

It certainly gets people emotional.

Probably because we love the wider social implications (which many of are secretly racist) and at the same time we hate the individual implications (young women that get abortions will at times develop mental health issues afterwards). Me, I say that SCOTUS kicking it down to the states was a good idea. We are always hearing from the left about the sanctity of democracy, and here you have a human issue kicked out of the ivory tower and down to the masses to VOTE on, which is DEMOCRACY, and for some reason they can't stand it being that way.

HAHA freaking HA.

Anyway, the person that posted the Alito references, I will probably get to that after my work week ends because I am sure it is vastly more complicated than that. I am sure that was just one reference out of many that were sited for precidence, which is something you see in nearly every legal decision that ever occurs coming from the judiciary.

When state populations vote they vote on many issues all at once, offer a referendum to one issue only and the majority of people will vote differently. As in Ohio, it is plain to see what will happen when it comes to women's rights being taken away.

I also reject that the issue of abortion is PURELY a womans right. Men should have a say in the matter if the child can be proven to be theirs and they do or do not want the female to have an abortion. Although I have to be honest that most men probably do not care if a woman they had sex with had or has an aborion, as most women they have sex with these days, they are not emotionally attached to them in any way, shape, or form. Such is the "sexual revolution".

Must be weird to be a woman and know that your genetic suicide is at hand because society doesn't REALLY want you for anything other than a few moments of pleasure here and there.

Regardless, we are currently led by women in the west, and therefore in so many places it will be regarded as a woman only issue.

originally posted by: Allaroundya4k
a reply to: DAVID64

So the left forced you to get the jab?
Sure they implored people to take it in the US. But forced.....no, that would be ones own decision.

There’s a lot of short memory’s on here.
Many people were forced to take the fake vaccine or lose their jobs.
There was even talk by certain deranged assholes to force people to take it or not be able to leave their house, obviously that didn’t happen but some wanted it.

originally posted by: dust2023

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: dust2023
Personally, I love how up in arms people get about this issue.

It certainly gets people emotional.

Probably because we love the wider social implications (which many of are secretly racist) and at the same time we hate the individual implications (young women that get abortions will at times develop mental health issues afterwards). Me, I say that SCOTUS kicking it down to the states was a good idea. We are always hearing from the left about the sanctity of democracy, and here you have a human issue kicked out of the ivory tower and down to the masses to VOTE on, which is DEMOCRACY, and for some reason they can't stand it being that way.

HAHA freaking HA.

Anyway, the person that posted the Alito references, I will probably get to that after my work week ends because I am sure it is vastly more complicated than that. I am sure that was just one reference out of many that were sited for precidence, which is something you see in nearly every legal decision that ever occurs coming from the judiciary.

When state populations vote they vote on many issues all at once, offer a referendum to one issue only and the majority of people will vote differently. As in Ohio, it is plain to see what will happen when it comes to women's rights being taken away.

I also reject that the issue of abortion is PURELY a womans right. Men should have a say in the matter if the child can be proven to be theirs and they do or do not want the female to have an abortion. Although I have to be honest that most men probably do not care if a woman they had sex with had or has an aborion, as most women they have sex with these days, they are not emotionally attached to them in any way, shape, or form. Such is the "sexual revolution".

Must be weird to be a woman and know that your genetic suicide is at hand because society doesn't REALLY want you for anything other than a few moments of pleasure here and there.

Regardless, we are currently led by women in the west, and therefore in so many places it will be regarded as a woman only issue.

With all referendums all adults vote not just women, so men do have a say in the matter with this type of voting.

Hey, women are now allowed to enjoy sex these days too.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: dust2023

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: dust2023
Personally, I love how up in arms people get about this issue.

It certainly gets people emotional.

Probably because we love the wider social implications (which many of are secretly racist) and at the same time we hate the individual implications (young women that get abortions will at times develop mental health issues afterwards). Me, I say that SCOTUS kicking it down to the states was a good idea. We are always hearing from the left about the sanctity of democracy, and here you have a human issue kicked out of the ivory tower and down to the masses to VOTE on, which is DEMOCRACY, and for some reason they can't stand it being that way.

HAHA freaking HA.

Anyway, the person that posted the Alito references, I will probably get to that after my work week ends because I am sure it is vastly more complicated than that. I am sure that was just one reference out of many that were sited for precidence, which is something you see in nearly every legal decision that ever occurs coming from the judiciary.

When state populations vote they vote on many issues all at once, offer a referendum to one issue only and the majority of people will vote differently. As in Ohio, it is plain to see what will happen when it comes to women's rights being taken away.

I also reject that the issue of abortion is PURELY a womans right. Men should have a say in the matter if the child can be proven to be theirs and they do or do not want the female to have an abortion. Although I have to be honest that most men probably do not care if a woman they had sex with had or has an aborion, as most women they have sex with these days, they are not emotionally attached to them in any way, shape, or form. Such is the "sexual revolution".

Must be weird to be a woman and know that your genetic suicide is at hand because society doesn't REALLY want you for anything other than a few moments of pleasure here and there.

Regardless, we are currently led by women in the west, and therefore in so many places it will be regarded as a woman only issue.

With all referendums all adults vote not just women, so men do have a say in the matter with this type of voting.

Hey, women are now allowed to enjoy sex these days too.

This is true and it's a very strong argument that nobody can go against it. You want abortions? Fine! Put it in a referendum and see what happens.

Ohio had a ban on abortions and it was overturned by the people and the judges who blocked the ban. My opinion is that very few states will vote in favour of abortion.

a reply to: quintessentone

Funny, I left my job with the Feds because they threatened my job if I didn't take an experimental injection. Wasn't my body, my choice then was it? I have zero sympathy for that cause, especially whencyou add that over 90% of abortions are purely contraceptive.

originally posted by: Boogerpicker
a reply to: quintessentone

Funny, I left my job with the Feds because they threatened my job if I didn't take an experimental injection. Wasn't my body, my choice then was it?

Hopefully you are suing them.

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This is why states rights are so important.

Sure, in Ohio you can get an abortion.

In Oregon you can legally buy drugs.

States cannot dictate what other states want.

And that's the main point, federal government should be minimal, at best and not dictate to states what they want.

If there was a vote in each state you would hardly find any states not allowing abortion.

*shrugs*

That's up to individual states, so far many states have gone for near total bans.

The mob mentality does not work within the confines of the US Constitution.

You mean democracy doesn't work?

What's wrong with having referendums in each state for this very serious issue?

Since when democracy and the will of the people is called now 'mob mentality'.

Because we're a Representative Republic, NOT a democracy.

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This is why states rights are so important.

Sure, in Ohio you can get an abortion.

In Oregon you can legally buy drugs.

States cannot dictate what other states want.

And that's the main point, federal government should be minimal, at best and not dictate to states what they want.

If there was a vote in each state you would hardly find any states not allowing abortion.

*shrugs*

That's up to individual states, so far many states have gone for near total bans.

The mob mentality does not work within the confines of the US Constitution.

You mean democracy doesn't work?

Here we agree again.
Democracy does not work.
Democracy, especially this topic, is 2 wolves and a lamb voting for what is for dinner.
I feel blessed knowing I live in a representative constitutional republic.
I propose a new law.
If you do not support yourself by either having the money and resources, a job, or business.
You do not get to vote.
Because democracy is at its worst when everyone is broke.
And our country is broke.
Time to stop having so many unaccountable children by irresponsible adults.
At least pay the breeders.
And mandatory DNA paternity testing across the board.

I propose simple referendums.
This way it will be decided by the people and nobody can say anything against the will of the majority.