David Frum: Texas abortion law will cost the GOP electorally

[adrina]

Correct. I oppose government-funded abortion on demand, you support it.

No you oppose all abortion for everything. You guys elect politicians who won't allow medicare to cover abortions, who allow insurance to deny abortion coverage and allow states to limit insurance coverage. Then you want to cut off all public funding.

You're zealots.

And it is all based on your gross and disgusting demeaning assumptions about women.

Again. Wny?

 

[icanhelp1]

No, I wrote that a woman is under no obligation to justify having an abortion because it's legal. The timeframe / location is irrelevant to that statement.

NO! Do you read what you write?

 

[Rightguide]

It's kinda hard to read the 14th Amendment any other way, considering that jus sanguinis to the exclusion of jus solis has never at any time been the established principle in American citizenship law.

Actually it's very easy if you understand the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in its historical legal sense, which was explained by the authors of the 14th Amendment, and that I have posted a few years ago. Understand this language in the opening statement of Amendment has never been adjudicated or reviewed by the SCOTUS, but it's meaning was explained by the author of the amendment.

 

[ll74]

NO! Do you read what you write?

You obviously don't.

Abortion is legal, on demand or not on demand. I don't need to "want" on demand abortions because the procedure is already legal.

Eighties want to change the current situation. And as part of the discussion, they require people to defend the reasoning for something that requires none.

If you wish to discuss timing, then that is not related to my point.

So instead of responding with some Inane bullshit, just.accept this as closure for your whine.

 

[ll74]

I would just like abortion to be treated like every other medical procedure. Go to your doc. Get a referral. Get the procedure. Insurance coverage applies. Done.

If they are in the poverty group then yes there should be programs for care - like there are for every other type of condition.

This isn't rocket science.

Medical insurance should not have requirements outside of consultation with doctors. Qualify medical procedures as elective or not elective and charge two diff prices for insurance. No other questioning should be required.

 

[JohnnySavage]

No you oppose all abortion for everything. You guys elect politicians who won't allow medicare to cover abortions, who allow insurance to deny abortion coverage and allow states to limit insurance coverage. Then you want to cut off all public funding.

You're zealots.

And it is all based on your gross and disgusting demeaning assumptions about women.

Again. Wny?

Medicaid. It's unlikely a woman on Medicare would need abortion services.

Nobody asked, but that never stopped me from giving my opinion before: Abortion isn't really a trigger issue for me. If I were forced to advocate for a position, I suppose I'd be a pro-choicer. I generally believe that the government has no business telling anyone what they can put into their body, or take out of it.

But... I don't have strong feelings one way or another

 

[adrina]

Medical insurance should not have requirements outside of consultation with doctors. Qualify medical procedures as elective or not elective and charge two diff prices for insurance. No other questioning should be required.

Agreed. However that's not what has happened.

 

[adrina]

Medicaid. It's unlikely a woman on Medicare would need abortion services.

Nobody asked, but that never stopped me from giving my opinion before: Abortion isn't really a trigger issue for me. If I were forced to advocate for a position, I suppose I'd be a pro-choicer. I generally believe that the government has no business telling anyone what they can put into their body, or take out of it.

But... I don't have strong feelings one way or another

I had that thought too, however that didn't stop the zealots.

https://www.valuepenguin.com/health-insurance-abortions

They actually have both medicare and medicaid restrictions. There are only 15 states without restrictions, and with almost as many that allow employer restrictions. The majority of states have restrictions allowed for medicare/medicaid, private insurers and state level.

They have continually pushed to close off all avenues. They are so irrational, so hysterical about it that they can't just be happy that they don't want an abortion - they want to make it so no one can. Even those who desperately need them. It's... not rational.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I've never understood why the anti people get so worked up about it. But I seldom understand why people get worked up over things. If you are opposed to abortion, don't get one.

 

[ll74]

Agreed. However that's not what has happened.

Nope...because people who enroll in public insurance plans believe they decide what is covered rather than the patient.

 

[Lazaran]

Oh bullshit.

You won't let it and don't want it to be treated like every other insurance covered procedure.

What's really behind it? Why block it at every turn? Why apply your morality to other people fucking? What's in it to you?

ETA - the bolded part is not only a disgusting mischaracterization but is something born out of your own hysteria. You know nothing of abortion performed in later pregnancy. Nothing. You are grotesque.

I thought BabyBooBoo's entire post was idiotic, but the part that really caught my eye was where he tried to act "reasonable and rational" by suggesting that the decisions be returned to the states. Returning decisions to "the states" is the RWCJ's strategy for retroactively winning the Civil / Civil Rights war. They know that if decisions on major issue get returned to "the states", they can exercise their tyranny of the majority(and in some gerrymandered states, tyranny of the minority) over those who are unable to defend themselves or leave the state.

Look what happened when the Supreme Court gutted the voting rights act and returned more autonomy to "the states."

Everybody sees the RWCJ's game when they continually emphasize "states rights."

Even Captain Obvious.

*nods*

 

[The_Trouvere]

The Roe vs Wade Supreme Court Decision of 1973 benefited the Republican Party. For that same reason, its reversal is likely to benefit the Democrats.

In 1973 public opinion was shifting on the abortion issue. More states were legalizing the operation. By removing the issue from legislative politics this was not obvious to Christian conservatives. Most imagined that they belonged to a "moral majority" whose values had been thwarted by a powerful and strategically placed but small minority of "secular humanists."The religious right has been a social movement composed largely of lower middle class whites. These generally agree with the Democrats on economic issues like Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, and the minimum wage, but since 1980 they have voted Republican because social issues, especially abortion, are more important to them.

In order to be a political activist with any enthusiasm one usually needs to believe that the majority agrees with one, or that the majority would agree if it listened to one's arguments. Once one realizes that the majority has different values and concerns, and that one cannot change them by argumentation, One is likely to retreat into political cynicism.

If the Roe decision is overturned, or even made irrelevant, it will become obvious that most Americans favor legal abortion. Most Christian conservatives will either stop voting, or they will vote Democrat for economic reasons.

Christian conservatism is conducive to political quiescence. In the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 2:1-3 St. Paul writes:

"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition."

Christian conservatives are likely to see the wide spread acceptance of legal abortion, as well as other social changes they dislike, as part of the "falling away," and they are likely to wait passively for the Second Coming of Christ. This is what they did after the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 revealed that most Americans thought they were silly.

 

[pecksniff]

Christian conservatism is conducive to political quiescence.

It was, once. That all changed in the 1970s.

 

[YDB95]

Some believe it’s perfectly fine to abort a healthy child in the final stages of pregnancy on the taxpayer’s dime.

Adrina already called you out on this, but I might as well ask: Exactly who supports the right to "abort a healthy child in the final stages of pregnancy on the taxpayer's dime"? I've been hearing such things for years, and I have literally never heard of a single example of an elective late term abortion ever happening or even being desired. Not one. So who is advocating such things when literally no one wants it?

I have my theories as to what you're referring to here, but I won't assume. Who has ever called for tax-paid elective third-trimester abortions?

[Cue BoBo posting a link to something else entirely any minute now...]