Arizona Obliterates Signature Requirements for Abortion Initiative

a reply to: Vermilion

18 weeks was deemed the furthest they could push it without approaching fetal viability I would imagine. Kansas went a month further to 22 weeks. Huckabee's Arkansas may put a similar 18 week one on the ballot.

It says something when South Dakota, Kansas, and Arkansas will likely land at 18, 22, and 18 week limits. Some may do 15, but I feel 18-22 is the compromise between the 15 week and fetal viability standards. And it's polling favorably in the reddest of states. So why make it needlessly more restrictive?

a reply to: Irishhaf

Abortions also go up during economic uncertain times. 22-24 hasn't exactly been cheap. On this one, I will blame Biden's economy. Cost of living/inflation.

In the late 70s, under Carter, abortion numbers also jumped with inflation. It was partly misattrubuted to feminism then too. There was a concurrent rise in The Woman-Identifed-Woman/female primacy (1970s radical feminism).

There are similar elements of that happening NOW, especially since 2022. But the rise in abortions is once again more related to Carter's and Biden's expensive economies.

a reply to: Degradation33

So why make it needlessly more restrictive?

1) 15 weeks gets considerably more support than anything longer, says the polls
2) it’s state sanctioned murder after all, so one would think a civilized society would set the bar high as possible, if you’re going to allow it, just like they do with criminal death sentences

At the end of the day, they won’t be happy with 18 and will push to extend it sooner than you think.
We know how this goes.
We know how they are.

a reply to: Degradation33

why does there need to be restrictions on this? Killing a kid is just that. May as well just make that legal, and we can just smash those little crumb crunchers when they mouth off. They see a few of them being eliminated with some violence, and they might think twice about how polite they will be in the future. Or is that wrong?

a reply to: network dude

No one is killing kids, or babies.

Why do you keep being hyperbolic about it all? The more gruesome and descriptive you become to try and sway people's opinions on the matter the more it's just going to keep women from wanting to allow the pro life crowed from taking control of their reproductive systems.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Degradation33

Surprisingly, is it's not the divisive issue where the President is concerned. I made the mistake of thinking Democrats and reproductive freedom was connected. One goes with the other. It clearly doesn't connect as much as I thought.

Republican women need abortions and use IVF too! Who knew? You wouldn't know it the way the right wingers around here talk about women and abortions.

But, as far as Trump protecting states' rights, or access to safe abortion. He's transactional. Trump doesn't care about "issues". He cares about power and money and the people that give it to him.

Most non D's I know are saying either NO abortions ever period or, If you do that at least do it before the 2nd trimester. Bottom line, this is a states issue and if I lived in an anti any abortion state and hated that, I would dang sure move to Cali or where the rules were more inline with my beliefs. I am a none of my business type Libertarian, but they should not wait till the baby can live outside the mom's womb unaided. So, there would be a limit. We can all agree none should be aborted after they are born which literally is an option spoken of in the news for NY and maybe Maryland or Jersey?

originally posted by: xuenchen
Mapped: How late in pregnancy states allow abortions

Well 8 with no defined limit to how late the abortion is allowed there. NJ and N Hampshire on the E Coast.

a reply to: Justoneman

We can all agree none should be aborted after they are born which literally is an option spoken of in the news for NY and maybe Maryland or Jersey?

Nobody is given the option of abortion after birth, not in Maryland, not in Jersey. We can't agree on anything as long as you're being disingenuous and hyperbolic.

Well 8 with no defined limit to how late the abortion is allowed there. NJ and N Hampshire on the E Coast.

The limits are defined by the medical standards and ethics imposed on doctors and medical facilities by the AMA, the FDA, insurance carriers, et al, not politicians.

a reply to: network dude

That's precisely why the democrats have never worked to codify RvW. It takes away a powerful political talking point. If It's left up to the states and the states take care of it themselves, the democrats have one less major boogyman to scare people with.

a reply to: nugget1

I'm only going to address the tubal ligation aspect of this. Early in our relationship, my wife wanted that procedure done. We were in our 20s then; you couldn't find a doctor to do it because "you might change your mind." So I said, well, I can get a vasectomy; it wasn't until I was 40 that I found a doctor who was willing to perform it. We have no children and have no plans to have children ever.

I understand birth control is a thing; my wife has the arm implant now. However, there needs to be more comprehensive access to more permanent forms of birth control for those who want it.

a reply to: Hypntick

I worked with a gal who was adamant she never, ever wanted children and in her early 20's found a doctor who would perform a tubal.
In her late 20's she changed her mind and had a very expensive reversal; insurance paid for it.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It isn't disingenuous. It's looking at the 'logic' that the pro abortion advocates use to justify their position and taking it to its logical conclusion.

"A mother should have the right to terminate a pregnancy because the fetus requires the mother to survive" (Also the same 'logic' they use to justify calling an unborn child a parasite by the way). A child doesn't stop requiring outside assistance to survive once it's born, so why should access to abortion end upon birth?

If the AMA, FDA, insurance, etc. define the limits, then why aren't all of the limits across the states the same? Are medical ethics different in California than they are in Nebraska? It sure seems to me that lawmakers define the limits. If medical standards and ethics defined the limits then there would be no abortions for convenience. Ending the life of an innocent human being as a matter of convenience is the definition of unethical.

a reply to: MrGashler

If this was really about ethics and medical standards pro choice blows the pro life argument out of the water.
But it's not. We've seen time and time again that controlling women's reproductive systems for some sort state control over the people or some moral standard set by a religious institution doesn't work.

a reply to: nugget1

I worked with a lady as well when I was about 22 who had four kids, she was 27. She still couldn't find a doctor who would tie her tubes due to her age. Insurance should cover the initial procedure; if you change your mind, it should come out of your pocket. Makes you think things through a bit more thoroughly when you've got an expensive reversal on the line. Then again I think people should be more thoughtful about the sex they have anyway.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: network dude

No one is killing kids, or babies.

Whatever they’re doing, it doesn’t sound civilized.

a reply to: NorthOS

Majority of people don't support after 12 - 13 week abortions.
That doctor, is telling a graphic tale that we don't even know all the angles to either.

Personally, this guy believes we need safe abortion procedures and more family planning support or support for struggling females who can't cope with carrying a child to term. But that's just me, I have my moral opinion and everyone else has their own, and I also don't have the same opinion, not even close to any females on the matter.

a reply to: MrGashler

A child doesn't stop requiring outside assistance to survive once it's born, so why should access to abortion end upon birth?

Sigh.
Because an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. You know what else terminates a pregnancy? Delivery, giving birth. There's no such thing as an abortion AFTER birth.

This is an example a disingenuous argument.

If a woman's water breaks at 17 weeks, there is no chance of that fetus surviving, but it's going to have a heartbeat. There are myriads of complications, however, that can threaten the woman's health and survival if she doesn't receive the timely medical assistance she may need to expel the fetus.

If the AMA, FDA, insurance, etc. define the limits, then why aren't all of the limits across the states the same?

They are. Laws vary from state to state, and hospitals have discretion as to what services they will provide. A Catholic Hospital, in any state, for example, probably won't assist the woman in my example. A Planned Parenthood or similar clinic could, if she can find one.

Ending the life of an innocent human being as a matter of convenience is the definition of unethical.

Whatever.
You guys are all over the place. There is a huge difference between abortion on demand, in which 98% are performed within the first 10 weeks, and an emergency abortion of a very wanted fetus, because the fetus has a dire abnormality and/or the mother's health/life is at risk.

a reply to: Hypntick

I worked with a lady as well when I was about 22 who had four kids, she was 27. She still couldn't find a doctor who would tie her tubes due to her age.

It's not a problem the government wants to solve. As with illegal immigration it's too useful of a tool to keep people divided.

If people/government really wanted to make great strides solving the problem they would offer FREE birth control to all. It would save millions in tax dollars, and would also end the majority of the problem.

WASHINGTON — Today, the Biden-Harris administration released toplines of its proposed budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024, which reaffirms its support for sexual and reproductive health care. The release reiterates the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to addressing the abortion crisis, and includes $512 million for the Title X program, 79% more than it received in 2023, and modest increases for global programs – with $600 million for bilateral family planning and reproductive health and $57.5 million for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

[www.plannedparenthood.org... -looks-forward-to-full-fiscal-year-2024-budget]

People lack common sense to a shocking degree. They want government to grant them the 'right' to end a pregnancy yet the 'mu body my choice' crowd show no outrage that they can't chhose a vasectomy or tubal ligation to prevent the need for aborting a fetus.

It makes zero sense except when acknowledging the fact the whole issue benefits our overlords more than the citizens.

Preventing life makes a lot more sense than ending it, which just proves how stupid the masses really are.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

There is a huge difference between abortion on demand, in which 98% are performed within the first 10 weeks

So limit it to 10 weeks.
Would you go for that?

That's not how I heard it from the legislators in those states. They are trying to do it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Justoneman

We can all agree none should be aborted after they are born which literally is an option spoken of in the news for NY and maybe Maryland or Jersey?

Nobody is given the option of abortion after birth, not in Maryland, not in Jersey. We can't agree on anything as long as you're being disingenuous and hyperbolic.

Well 8 with no defined limit to how late the abortion is allowed there. NJ and N Hampshire on the E Coast.

The limits are defined by the medical standards and ethics imposed on doctors and medical facilities by the AMA, the FDA, insurance carriers, et al, not politicians.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: network dude

No one is killing kids, or babies.

Why do you keep being hyperbolic about it all? The more gruesome and descriptive you become to try and sway people's opinions on the matter the more it's just going to keep women from wanting to allow the pro life crowed from taking control of their reproductive systems.

and nobody is coming for your guns.

What age does a clump of cells become a child? As long as it's before that point, you can blend them up in a smoothie. Sorry killer, I think it's murder either way. Law says it's all good, then kill away. But don't pretend it's something different. Man up, as they say. Own your truth.