Alabama passes near total abortion ban

Leftists who like big government always argue for the extreme horrific case, which is also very rare.

 

It's as hilarious as it is poignant, and on-point as well.

 

I got a solution Alabama should pay for all of the costs of pregnancy for women that are forced to carry a baby they have had no choice in conceiving. I mean full paid leave from work. Free medical during and after pregnancy the whole nine yards. Free psychological support everything.

 

Instead of pro-choice and pro-life I've tried to use pro-abortion and anti-abortion as those are cleaner for legality issues which is what this is about. It's not a judgement of your values. You are clearly "pro-choice" though. If you are hung up on labels I'll use that for you. You had no reason to get all worked up.

The people writing these laws are not hillbillies. They are highly intelligent individuals. You can disbelieve that all you want. While the left has been laughing and thinking this was a hillbilly southern issue, the right has been building an anti-abortion infrastructure of legal minds to fill courts and legislatures and write bills to try to tackle Roe.

 

Have you seen one of these "slut walk" parades? The "protestors" look like that ....

 

What about the baby's body?

 

I don't believe that there are five Supreme Court Justices who are committed to interpreting the US Constitution who believe they have the wisdom to make a final and crystal clear ruling on the subject of personhood. They may establish some loose boundaries, possibly based on viability, but beyond that, there are so many incredibly difficult moral and medical questions that they are likely to continue to keep the issue around conception a bit flexible and undefined.

For example, someone quoted Pat Robertson earlier. He and most Christians realize that there are circumstances that require a certain amount of flexibility, and that for the doctors involved, these questions are sometimes impossibly difficult from a medical ethics perspective.

But we also know that the left has no moral boundaries or compunctions on this subject, so we certainly cannot and should not leave it to them on a national basis. In recent months, this issue has now morphed to the point where Democrat controlled states are effectively debating what amounts to legalizing infanticide. Anyone who does not see this for the evil that it is, is not someone that I intend to waste a lot of time with discussing this issue.

The way that our constitution is designed to work is to leave these issues to the states. So if Roe is overturned, what might our abortion law here in Texas look like? I think it would be tougher than what we have now, but I also believe that it would address all of the sorts of concerns that Pat Robertson was expressing about this. What I expect the Texas law would not permit is easy abortion as an optional elective birth control procedure. If you want birth control, there are a variety of methods available. Abortion on demand should not be one of them.

But of course that would be up to our elected state legislators to determine that policy. And if another, different legislature came along in a few years that had the support to change it, they could do so using the same procedures that were used to pass the original laws and regulations.

So this is what I would expect the Texas law to be. Other states would have laws and regulations that would be more or less restrictive. What would the California law be? Perhaps that state would fund all abortions with state funds. Perhaps California would pay people to have abortions and make a market in selling the baby parts. I would find that maximally repugnant, as any person with a capacity for moral thought would. But under a federalist system, post-Roe, who knows what sort of evil these people would be off into.

 

Well, once they're born and have a body, the state of Alabama has proven it couldn't care less about them.

 

It isn't purely or solely tribalism. (Although yes that is involved.)

It seems that no one ever looks at the numbers:

Between 1970 and 2015, CDC reports nearly 45.7 million legal induced abortions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States

I believe that this far surpasses the men and women the USA has lost in all its wars combined, and by a long shot.

At a certain point, the numbers themselves compel action; or at least force a re-think about what has been going on.

 

Bravo. Great post.

 

I am dubious of polls. Didn't all the polls say Hillary was a shoo-in?

 

No.

 

And that's as it should be. Parents, not the government, should be taking care of children.

 

I agree. If the State is going to require someone, who through no fault of their own, became pregnant, they should definitely be provided for.

Ok, there were 6,063 abortions in Alabama in 2017.

Say 1% were from rape.

That's something like 60 moms/babies per year. Expensive for sure but in the grand scheme of things not that expensive.

 

Are presidential elections determined by popular vote? No? Then the poll was flawed, just as any poll can be flawed in its sample size, questions asked etc.

I don't believe Roe has popular support; or if it did, then that popular support has been eroding as the 45 million abortions in the US have been mounting.

I do want to be clear: I don't want to take (or totally take) a woman's right to choose away.

But I am also unconvinced that she should be able to do this at any time; and without the input of other stakeholders (namely would-be grandparents and the would-be father); and with public funding.

Also, if the woman has the right to walk away, so should the man.

 

I think you are misstating the facts here on public sentiment.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Overturning Roe has never polled over 36% since 89. It's not really that hard to tell, based on the polling, where the pro-life crowd is. "Illegal under all circumstances" has never polled above 23%. The spikes over time have been very minimal at best.

Literally the ONLY thing that has changed is Brett Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and John Roberts taking over as the "Kennedy Swing" vote. That's it.

I also think you are highly misinterpreting the role of the courts. Its the role of the courts to enforce THE LAW as it is written, and in cases where law is not written clearly, to relay to sentiment.

If public opinion shifts to a majority opinion, it is the role of CONGRESS to then pass new legislation that reflects the will of the majority. That's how our democracy is supposed to work. Best excuse you could make here in regards to overturning Roe in the Supreme Court (which wouldn't really be an overturning) would be to point at Congress & say until Congress can pass new legislation that supersedes State and Local Gov legislation at a Federal Level & potentially pass an amendment to the Constitution stands, the Supreme Court will take NO action to strike down State legislation that doesn't affect the rights as noted in the Constitution.

Which is kind of what they've already been doing in a sense. That's why the Roberts court has taken the position that you can do all this restrictive stuff (wide hallways, etc.) but you can't flat out send someone to prison for something you cannot prove is a crime. The most obvious statement that anyone can make is this 40 year debate is simply here to gin up a base of hardcore conservatives, and if the government really wanted to solve abortion they would have created a constitutional committee to come up with a federal law that gives clear parameters around a woman's right to choose.