Abortions in first 12 weeks should be legalised in Germany, commission says

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: rickymouse

From your link:

During the second trimester the state could regulate abortion procedures to protect the health of pregnant persons, but it could not prohibit abortions altogether. From the end of the second trimester, which the Court identified as the starting point of viability the state could regulate or prohibit abortions in order to protect the pregnant person’s health or to preserve fetal viability.

That's what I said.

States could make restrictions during the second trimester, but their power had limitations.

The people doing the pushing were the people who wanted to restrict abortion more than Roe allowed, not the other way around, and were chipping away at the constitutional right until it was gone.

Dobbs was about a group trying to stop the Jackson Woman's Health Clinic from administering abortions after 15 weeks. Not at fetal viability which typically begins between 21-24 weeks. Texas ordered clinics to stop administering abortions at 6 weeks, and the Supreme Court let them, even before the Dobbs case was heard.

No, it wasn't pro-choice people pushing for more than Roe offered that sunk Roe, it was the constant chipping away at Roe by the far Christian Right that did her in.

From the info from the link that you posted. " the state could regulate abortion procedures to protect the health of pregnant persons, but it could not prohibit abortions altogether." It clearly states the state can regulate abortion procedures to protect the health of the pregnant persons...so it couldn't prohibit abortions altogether.

That means they can stop abortions for women who are not at threat of health problems. Now states could enact their own allowable second trimester laws to increase abortions into the second trimester if they wanted to...but they could not stop abortions that were medically necessary. In Michigan abortions were limited to the first trimester unless medically necessary, but Wisconsin's laws were a little less stringent in one town on the border with Illinois.

a reply to: rickymouse

This is what you said:

I would not have a problem with abortions being legal within a twelve week time frame here in America. I approved of them being approved back in the seventies for I think the first trimester originally. But it didn't stay that way, they kept pushing it up all the time. I think if they would have left it at the first Trimester the law would still be standing.

(Bold mine)

To which I answered:

What are you talking about?

Roe V Wade made abortions legal nationwide up to fetal viability. It's always been that way. Nobody was "pushing it up all the time".

That means they can stop abortions for women who are not at threat of health problems

No it didn't.
Roe said that all abortion, including abortion on demand, up to fetal viability was a constitutional protected right that the states couldn't interfere with until viability. Nobody was pushing for more abortion rights. But the far right was pushing for less, and less and less, until the constitutional right was gone.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: rickymouse

From your link:

During the second trimester the state could regulate abortion procedures to protect the health of pregnant persons, but it could not prohibit abortions altogether. From the end of the second trimester, which the Court identified as the starting point of viability the state could regulate or prohibit abortions in order to protect the pregnant person’s health or to preserve fetal viability.

That's what I said.

States could make restrictions during the second trimester, but their power had limitations.

The people doing the pushing were the people who wanted to restrict abortion more than Roe allowed, not the other way around, and were chipping away at the constitutional right until it was gone.

Dobbs was about a group trying to stop the Jackson Woman's Health Clinic from administering abortions after 15 weeks. Not at fetal viability which typically begins between 21-24 weeks. Texas ordered clinics to stop administering abortions at 6 weeks, and the Supreme Court let them, even before the Dobbs case was heard.

No, it wasn't pro-choice people pushing for more than Roe offered that sunk Roe, it was the constant chipping away at Roe by the far Christian Right that did her in.

From the info from the link that you posted. " the state could regulate abortion procedures to protect the health of pregnant persons, but it could not prohibit abortions altogether." It clearly states the state can regulate abortion procedures to protect the health of the pregnant persons...so it couldn't prohibit abortions altogether.

That means they can stop abortions for women who are not at threat of health problems. Now states could enact their own allowable second trimester laws to increase abortions into the second trimester if they wanted to...but they could not stop abortions that were medically necessary. In Michigan abortions were limited to the first trimester unless medically necessary, but Wisconsin's laws were a little less stringent in one town on the border with Illinois.

From the statement there: it says something for pregnant persons...

I don't agree with this description.
Pregnant women is the right phrase.

originally posted by: Consvoli

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: rickymouse

From your link:

During the second trimester the state could regulate abortion procedures to protect the health of pregnant persons, but it could not prohibit abortions altogether. From the end of the second trimester, which the Court identified as the starting point of viability the state could regulate or prohibit abortions in order to protect the pregnant person’s health or to preserve fetal viability.

That's what I said.

States could make restrictions during the second trimester, but their power had limitations.

The people doing the pushing were the people who wanted to restrict abortion more than Roe allowed, not the other way around, and were chipping away at the constitutional right until it was gone.

Dobbs was about a group trying to stop the Jackson Woman's Health Clinic from administering abortions after 15 weeks. Not at fetal viability which typically begins between 21-24 weeks. Texas ordered clinics to stop administering abortions at 6 weeks, and the Supreme Court let them, even before the Dobbs case was heard.

No, it wasn't pro-choice people pushing for more than Roe offered that sunk Roe, it was the constant chipping away at Roe by the far Christian Right that did her in.

From the info from the link that you posted. " the state could regulate abortion procedures to protect the health of pregnant persons, but it could not prohibit abortions altogether." It clearly states the state can regulate abortion procedures to protect the health of the pregnant persons...so it couldn't prohibit abortions altogether.

That means they can stop abortions for women who are not at threat of health problems. Now states could enact their own allowable second trimester laws to increase abortions into the second trimester if they wanted to...but they could not stop abortions that were medically necessary. In Michigan abortions were limited to the first trimester unless medically necessary, but Wisconsin's laws were a little less stringent in one town on the border with Illinois.

From the statement there: it says something for pregnant persons...

I don't agree with this description.
Pregnant women is the right phrase.

Yes that is the part where their circular logic comes back around.
A snake eating its own tail.

Lib women: Men should have no vote regarding abortion! They aren’t the ones having babies!

Men: But you’ve been telling us that men can get pregnant.

Lib women: This tail I found tastes delicious! Why am I in pain all of a sudden?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The people doing the pushing were the people who wanted to restrict abortion more than Roe allowed, not the other way around, and were chipping away at the constitutional right until it was gone.

Why was Javier Becerra, the secretary of HHS, in front of congress pushing for no limits abortion yesterday?
You pro abortion people keep saying Roe and its limitations.
Now you want no limits? Or you’ve wanted no limit abortion all along?
twitter.com... 7a02bea58bd7c9d0b64fc59f655922%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fsister-toldjah%2F2024%2F04%2F17%2Fsen-john-kennedy-exposes-democrat- abortion-extremism-in-two-minute-grilling-of-hhs-sec-xavier-becerra-n2172896

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The people doing the pushing were the people who wanted to restrict abortion more than Roe allowed, not the other way around, and were chipping away at the constitutional right until it was gone.

Why was Javier Becerra, the secretary of HHS, in front of congress pushing for no limits abortion yesterday?
You pro abortion people keep saying Roe and its limitations.
Now you want no limits? Or you’ve wanted no limit abortion all along?
twitter.com... 7a02bea58bd7c9d0b64fc59f655922%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fsister-toldjah%2F2024%2F04%2F17%2Fsen-john-kennedy-exposes-democrat- abortion-extremism-in-two-minute-grilling-of-hhs-sec-xavier-becerra-n2172896

In reality most states allow abortion but there are time limits and the same is happening in most other western and developed countries.

a reply to: Vermilion

Why was Javier Becerra, the secretary of HHS, in front of congress pushing for no limits abortion yesterday?

I don't know, but I would assume it's because he thinks legislators don't have any business deciding when a woman's health and/or life is at risk, and that it should be the doctors who decide.

You pro abortion people keep saying Roe and its limitations.

Roe did have limitations, and it wasn't Roe's limitations that brought the constitutional right down.

Now you want no limits? Or you’ve wanted no limit abortion all along?

It seems to me that States like Texas, Alabama and Mississippi have shown us that states can't be trusted to decide limits, since they're willing to cripple women and let them die, so now it probably should be left up to the doctors to decide and states should just butt out altogether.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It’s a states rights issue.
We know you don’t want the state to have their rights.
You libs are always trying to take away rights of others when you want something.
There are ways to get what you want without trampling on the rights of others.
You keep pushing the lie that the pro-abortion folks don’t want unlimited abortion, except these jokers like Becerra keep giving up the game. Exposed once again.
If they think their position is correct then why do these folks even lie about it?

a reply to: Vermilion

It’s a states rights issue.

It's a Human Rights issue.

We know you don’t want the state to have their rights.

And we know that you don't want pregnant women, and the doctors who support them, to be able to access medical care when their lives and health are at risk.

You libs are always trying to take away rights of others when you want something.

You hard core right wing religious nut jobs have never wanted women to be able to access equal rights. Women couldn't even have a checking account without a man's permission until 1974, a year after Roe V Wade. So am I surprised you wanted to take women's rights away again? Nope.

You keep pushing the lie that the pro-abortion folks don’t want unlimited abortion,

And you anti-women liars keep pushing the fairy tale lie that women and their doctors want abortions after birth.

If they think their position is correct then why do these folks even lie about it?

The lie is the fantasy fiction you're pushing, that women and their doctors are champing at the bit and can't wait to kill healthy viable fetuses and newborn babies for fun and games.