Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 455  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: Today at 08:34:07 AM »
The Constitution doesn't say anything about leaving. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t address the issue of secession. It neither gives states the right to secede nor denies it. Where do these "rules" come from then? The Constitution is silent on the issue.

Doesn’t matter.

Actually, it kind of does. The current Supreme Court just made a determination that if it's not spelled out in the Constitution then it can be ruled unconstitutional. This is why you were worried about the reversal of other rulings based on loose concepts being ruled unconstitutional.

By this standard a lot of those old creative interpretations based on vague concepts are unconstitutional.

The 1869 Texas v. White ruling incredulously took the definition from the Articles of the Confederation declaring a union to be "perpetual" and also took the "more perfect union" phrase from the US Constitution to creatively and illogically declare that a state can't ever leave the US. Clearly reprehensible.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: Today at 08:02:59 AM »
According to the Medium article posted the 1869 Supreme Court relied on the Articles of the Confederation in its constitutional argument, which is curious if true.

    The Supreme Court opinion relied on the supposed perpetual nature of the union. Whence did they obtain this idea? The Articles of Confederation. Indeed, the formal name of this document is “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.”

    The perpetual nature of the union, under the Articles of Confederation, is addressed in section XIII in the following phrase: “And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual…” (Page on The ruling also made use of the preamble of the Constitution, something rarely done. But I guess all bets are off, when you are relying on the Articles of Confederation to support your constitutional argument. Specifically, the ruling made use of the fact that the Constitution was an attempt to “form a more perfect union” (Preamble).

    Utilizing on these two ideas, Supreme Court Justice Chase asked “What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?” (LII / Legal Information Institute) One question that must be asked is “why must a perpetual union be inherently the most perfect kind of union?”

It doesn't really sound like that ruling was thought through. It defined the union from the Articles of Confederation as "perpetual" and then takes the "more perfect union" statement in the US Constitution to declare that it was a binding agreement that would last forever.

This site characterizes it in the same way:

    The case of Texas v. White (1869) is particularly important because in it the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, gave its judgment on the large issue that the Civil War had raised: could a state lawfully secede from the union? The Court sided with the victors in the war; secession, it held, was not constitutionally permissible. The Court appealed to the provision in the Articles of Confederation declaring the union to be “perpetual,” and to the preamble of the Constitution “ordaining” a “more perfect union.” “It is difficult,” Chase remarked, “to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?” Chase concluded, “The Constitution in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states.”

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: Today at 07:25:11 AM »
Yeah, the Supreme Court has made invalid interpretations in the past and its past rulings are regularly overruled. One was just overruled a few days ago.

When Texas left the Union it was stripped of its representation as a State:

    "This U.S. Supreme Court decision is full of contradictions. The most obvious of these is the contention that Texas never ceased to be a state, yet, the people of Texas were denied representation as a state until they agreed to certain “reconstruction” acts of the U.S. Congress."

A state denied representation and rights of a state as guaranteed by the Constitution, how does that work? If you think the Civil War decided the issue and not the Constitution, as you have argued previously, then by all intents Texas was not a State.

On what basis exactly, does Lincoln appointed Salmon P. Chase say that the states couldn't leave?

The Constitution doesn't say anything about leaving. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t address the issue of secession. It neither gives states the right to secede nor denies it. Where do these "rules" come from then? The Constitution is silent on the issue.

The tenth amendment gives powers not determined in the Constitution to the states to decide on their own:

    How does another nation become a state in the union? Congress must vote to allow the nation to become a state. This is clearly written in ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 1 (Article IV). However, there is nothing in the constitution about how a state can go about leaving the union. Neither is there anything in the constitution saying that a state cannot leave the union. Therefore, as per the tenth amendment, the federal government has no authority on the matter, and it is the decision is left to each individual state. To demand that the states lack the power to seceded is to ignore the tenth amendment itself

What is the rebuttal to this? The Confederate states used the same argument:

    The Confederate states did not consider secession an act of rebellion. In fact, they argued that leaving the United States was well within the states’ legal powers under the Constitution. Jefferson Davis (1808–1889) of Virginia was elected president of the Confederacy. He and other Confederate leaders argued that the states had voluntarily entered the Union when they ratified the Constitution; therefore, it was logical that any state could voluntarily leave it.

    Davis also used the Tenth Amendment as a justification for secession. Since the Constitution did not give the federal government any powers to regulate secession (in fact, the Constitution made no mention of secession whatsoever), the Tenth Amendment must grant the power of secession to the states.

There has to be something more coherent than "nah-uh" and mumblings about how a perfect union is forever here.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: Today at 05:51:08 AM »
They weren't kicked out. They left. It says right here on this "Today in History" Library of Congress page:

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: Today at 05:34:08 AM »
You keep acting as if South Carolina wasn't part of the USA.

It wasn't. They weren't readmitted into the Union until July 9, 1868.

United States = the Union

It was projection all along:

Or the democrats living in red areas are hypersexualized deviants.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: Today at 02:36:00 AM »
The link clearly says that Lincoln attempted to send hundreds of troops via ship into South Carolina on January 9, 1861. This is less than a month after South Carolina peacefully left the Union.

So a State indicated that they were leaving, and then was met with Lincoln trying to send hundreds of troops into their State. Lincoln was warned that attempting to send further ships would be seen as an act of aggression. Lincoln decided to do so anyway. It doesn't matter if the ships were armed or not. The Chinese military can't send ships into the harbor of any country and expect it to be fine, especially if they kept doing it after being warned not to do so.

Quote from: Rama Set
As you admitted the constitution doesn’t recognize self-declared independence as legal, so it was still US territory.

The Constitution doesn't say anything at all about secession or the power to leave.

The Constitution does say this though:

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It says that if it's not in the Constitution it's up for the States to decide themselves. The tenth amendment was ratified in 1791 and is the source of the broad and expansive powers of the States.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: Today at 02:17:04 AM »
It wasn't a US port anymore. South Carolina had already given their notice that they were leaving the Union peacefully, yet we can see below that at least at one point Lincoln attempted to send hundreds of troops via ship into South Carolina. When a foreign government sends troops into your country uninvited it's usually seen as an act of war.

In January of that year the Union was fired upon when trying to send a military vessel into the harbor:

    "A standoff ensued until January 9, 1861, when a ship called the Star of the West arrived in Charleston with over 200 U.S. troops and supplies intended for Fort Sumter. South Carolina militia batteries fired upon the vessel as it neared Charleston Harbor, forcing it to turn back to sea."

Lincoln later announced he was sending ships anyway, even though he was already fired upon, and was specifically warned by South Carolina that it would be an act of aggression:

    "Lincoln announced his intention to send three unarmed ships to relieve Fort Sumter. Having already declared that any attempt to resupply the fort would be seen as an act of aggression, South Carolina militia forces soon scrambled to respond."

From what stack had posted, the first shot from the Confederates had exploded in the air. It's possible that this was ineptitude, but this could have been interpreted as a warning shot to go away. Lincoln was clearly the aggressor in this situation.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: Today at 01:42:01 AM »
Quote from: stack
So the bottom line is that you would be ok with some States making interracial marriage illegal if SCOTUS says it's not a constitutional right?

Actually I wouldn't. But I would accept that different cultures have the right to govern themselves and make their own laws. The United States does not go around invading countries because of their marriage laws.

Quote from: stack
The Constitution doesn't bring it up specifically. But I'm pretty sure it's been "explored", mostly between 1861 through 1865.

According to this Georgia was readmitted into the Union in 1870, a full five years after the Civil War. How is that possible if it was impossible to leave?

Seems to say that it was established that it was possible to leave.

However, it's not so clear that there had to be murder involved.

Quote from: stack
"George Sholter James, the commander of the mortar battery that fired the first shot of the American Civil War, was born in Laurens County, South Carolina in 1829. He was the second son of a prominent attorney and merchant and spent most of his young life in Columbia, the state capital. At the age of seventeen, James left his college studies for the adventure of fighting in the Mexican-American War."

Looks like the South, not the North, started the killing.

That occurred when the Union sent a military supply vessel into their harbor.

    On April 4, Lincoln informs southern delegates that he intends to attempt to resupply Fort Sumter, as its garrison is now critically in need. To South Carolinians, any attempt to reinforce Sumter means war. “Now the issue of battle is to be forced upon us,” declared the Charleston Mercury. “We will meet the invader, and the God of Battles must decide the issue between the hostile hirelings of Abolition hate and Northern tyranny.”

Read your link carefully:

"Captain George S. James ordered his battery to fire a 10-inch mortar shell, which soared over the harbor and exploded over Fort Sumter, announcing the start of the war."

It doesn't even say that it killed anyone or damaged any property. The first shot shell flew over the entire harbor and exploded in the air. It was a warning shot due to the entrance of the vessel. A shell that explodes in the air and which doesn't actually kill anyone is hardly a start of the "killing".

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: Today at 12:15:46 AM »
Quote from: stack
So you're saying that there needs to be an amendment for every right that isn't specifically named in the constitution?

Correct. The Constitution originally just gave men the right to vote. There was a successful Constitutional amendment for the right for women to vote, for which a super majority of States agreed. By this standard there should be something specific in the Constitution about abortion if you are insisting on the national right to abortion. If a super majority of the States can't agree on it then it is a subject that is still too controversial for a national blanket law.

Obviously, this topic is too controversial for such an amendment. The Constitution is clear: It is given to the States to decide. The same standard is given to all other "rights".

The argument you are making is that you know that there is an agreed upon procedure in place, but you simply don't care. This is a fault on your part.

Quote from: stack
I'm not sure why you bring up the EU. If a nation state doesn't want to play under EU rules, they can leave whenever they want. I.e., Brexit.

If a US State doesn't want to play under US Fed rules, they can't leave. Not at least without having to go to war over it. I.e., US Civil War.

Apples & Oranges

Actually the Constitution doesn't mention what happens when a State wants to leave the Constitution at all. Some say the lack of a procedure means that it is impossible to leave, but that has not been fully explored. The Constitution doesn't bring it up at all.

But the Constitution definitely does not say that if a State leaves the Constitution that people must start killing each other. That would clearly be a naked act of aggression, and the North was probably guilty of that when they started killing people for wanting to break away from the Constitution.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 27, 2022, 11:01:50 PM »
Why have a United States? I mean all men are created equal, right? Should it be a State's right to allow slavery? Should it be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal? Because that's what the people want?

This is NOT what you want to do, however. You don't want a proper amendment to the Constitution. You have certain rights which you are demanding and want to force it onto people without going through the proper procedure.

Is what you’re saying that it should be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal in the absence of a specific amendment protecting interracial marriage? Thereby potentially resulting in some States making interracial marriage illegal an punishable? And that’s ok with you?

The things you are bringing up are simply no longer applicable. Many years ago people did not like interracial marriage because it was an unknown, like sodomy, and thought that it would lead to the degradation of society. This is no longer the case, and now interracial marriage is widely supported by over 90% of the population.

Going by your fantasy, if the Supreme Court determined that it was one of those rulings that was improperly made, and several States then made interracial marriage illegal, which is extremely doubtful at this point, the States could simply band together simply make a proper Constitutional amendment on that subject. If by another stretch of fantasy they could not get a 3/4ths majority then it is not accepted well enough and society has not progressed enough that it should be a national blanket rule.

If the States failed to get the required agreement they would then treat each other like countries in the EU who have objectionable laws to each other: Peacefully, diplomatically, and under mutual understanding that they are part of a Constitution or Charter with an understood and agreed upon method for amendment.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 27, 2022, 09:09:11 PM »
Why have a United States? I mean all men are created equal, right? Should it be a State's right to allow slavery? Should it be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal? Because that's what the people want?

In the case of slavery, the states were able to garner the 3/4th requirement and amended the US Constitution in 1865:

This is NOT what you want to do, however. You don't want a proper amendment to the Constitution. You have certain rights which you are demanding and want to force it onto people without going through the proper procedure.

This is like demanding the moderators of this website to enforce a specific rule based on a vague word you found about 'liberty', imagining and demanding the 'liberties' you should have, even though you know full well that the rules are created specifically. You need go through the proper process to get that amended.

In 1920 there was another landmark amendment, Women's Right to Vote:

Again, this went through the proper procedure and wasn't implicitly granted through vague words about liberty and freedom.

The Constitution is very specific and landmark rights are not granted on singular words like "liberty" or "freedom" or "privacy", which can mean almost anything. So tell us why you are refusing a proper Constitutional amendment.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 27, 2022, 05:00:37 PM »
Incorrect. Party affiliation has shifted in recent months. Washington Post issued a warning just today:

Would you like to see a further swing to the right and have SCOTUS overturn: Griswold v. Connecticut (right to access contraceptive), Lawrence v. Texas (states could not outlaw consensual gay sex) Obergefell v. Hodges (established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage), and Loving v. Virginia (protects the right to interracial marriage)

They’re all predicated on the 14th amendment just like RvW. And Thomas seems to want to venture down that path, except for Love v Virginia, of course.

I would like to see it discussed in light of the RvW precedent, sure. It is possible that the Constitution was never intended to decide that, and should be a topic left to the states. Each state has its own culture, as different as a country, and each have populations as large as European countries. I don't see why a state should be forced to recognize or reject anyone's marriage. A state might want to recognize polygamous marriages like some countries do. Another state might reject those marriages. I don't see why they should be prohibited from doing that if it's what its people really want. The Constitution was originally intended as a loose unifying framework for these massive states, who already had their own laws. The bulk of health laws were always given to the states.

If your argument is... "But but but my state might make my sodomy illegal!!!", your state can already make a lot of the things you do illegal. But they generally don't. Anti-sodomy laws were a thing of the past due to unknowns and perceived societal harm. But there is data on that now, and is unlikely to regain societal support. Polygamy is currently thought to harm society and is illegal, also due to perceived unknowns. If there was enough polygamist support, a patchwork of states might start to legalize polygamy. A blanked ban on a national level would prevent that development and acceptance from naturally occurring.

If the European Union went into different countries and started enacting specific health and wellness laws at their own determination and pointed at a vague word in the EU Constitution like "liberty"  as their justification that would be a no-go, obviously. This is the current situation with the rulings you referenced. It is unjustifiable to take a vague word and use it to enact specific laws. The people must decide for themselves if they want their states to codify it, or if they want to rally their states together and meet the 3/4ths requirements to codify it into the US Constitution.

There is already a process to amend the Constitution, but you want to ignore that for some reason and rely on an extremely vague word.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Texas GOP
« on: June 27, 2022, 08:35:54 AM »
To expand on my reply to Tom. I'm a Remainer, I didn't want to Brexit. But the majority voted that way and while I think it was an idiotic decision I haven't been "discriminated against" because Brexit happen. That's democracy, not discrimination.

You would be mistaken then. Democracy is clearly a form of discrimination against the minority. You were just conditioned to accept it.
Literally quoted the definition above:

Discrimination can mean "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another."
But the definition which most people understand is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability."

I've not been discriminated against because we have left the EU. We had a vote, my side lost. I'm still waiting to see what the other side won, but regardless I haven't been discriminated against

The majority is not inherently correct, and nor should it be inherently followed. In the 1600's people believed in the existence of witches and burned young women at the stake. They were not correct because they were the majority. Democracy can be a form of mob rule. It is a form of discrimination against the minority.

The Founders of the United States recognized this and framed the US as a republic with a Constitution and Bill of Rights which prevented the mob from trampling on certain inalienable rights. It is not a direct democracy where the majority can do anything they please. Representatives vote on laws and in elections, not the people directly. In US Presidential elections the person who wins the popular vote can sometimes lose the electoral vote.

Representative democracy has been seen as far superior, since smaller groups of people elect who they think is the best or most qualified person for the job and to pass a law you have to convince a series of qualified people to vote for it, not the masses who may be uneducated or easily convinced. The Ancient Greeks also recognized the danger of direct democracy and scholars like Plato critiqued it harshly.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Texas GOP
« on: June 27, 2022, 08:04:13 AM »
To expand on my reply to Tom. I'm a Remainer, I didn't want to Brexit. But the majority voted that way and while I think it was an idiotic decision I haven't been "discriminated against" because Brexit happen. That's democracy, not discrimination.

You would be mistaken then. Democracy is clearly a form of discrimination against the minority. You were just conditioned to accept it.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 27, 2022, 05:11:19 AM »
Whatever the answer is, you’re not going to bother to find out!!

I see that you are finally implicitly admitting that leftists are doing these unethical late term abortion bills. I would call it an achievement, but you are a leftist and don't care that you are unethical.

Quote from: Rama Set
EDIT: I did about ten minutes of reading to predictably discover that the bill which that piece of “journalism” is referring to was amended long months ago to clarify the perianatal clause in order to avoid the confusion which Tom is so eager to subscribe to. The bill prevents, among other things, criminal investigation solely on the grounds of perianatal death, there must be evidence of foul play. So no, it doesn’t legalize infanticide. What a silly idea to promote based on one shitty article from the National Review. Read a primary source, Tom.

Actually I said that they were criticized for pushing it. I didn't say it was enacted. Their extremist material doesn't always survive. Are you claiming that it was a typo that would have happened to make infanticide legal? And it just happened to be authored by Democrats?

Quote from: honk
There is no "cultural swing to the right."

Incorrect. Party affiliation has shifted in recent months. Washington Post issued a warning just today:

The Hill issued another alert in October:

Gallup has also suggested shifting of political preferences:

The last time Republicans had near a five point lead was in 1991 when Gallup began polling a couple of years after the Regan era:

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 27, 2022, 01:04:03 AM »
It doesn't matter if it's one 40 week old baby who is sawed apart or 100 of them. Wrong is wrong. A disgruntled father slipping a pregnant ex-lover an abortion pill is also rare. But when it does happen, it's terrible and there should be a law against it, more than assault.

My point is simply that Democrats are clearly on the side of loosening late term abortion laws for whatever reason. They push and push for weakening all abortion laws. People see a group of extremists trying to loosen abortion laws and don't like it. Hence the cultural swing to the right against this and the other terrible things Democrats do.

Leftists have also been criticized for pushing pro-infanticide laws:

    Now, a California Bill to Permit Infant Death by Neglect

    A little while ago I highlighted a shocking Maryland bill that would essentially decriminalize neglecting an infant to death in the “perinatal” period — i.e., through the first 28 days after birth — by preventing investigations and prosecution of such deaths that resulted from “a failure to act.”

    I was interviewed on several talk-radio programs and was asked what the sponsor was thinking. My most charitable thought was that he was unaware of the definition of “perinatal.”

    That “defense” is now inoperative. A bill was just filed in the California Legislature that is even worse than the Maryland legislation.


    One blue-state bill that would allow a born baby to be neglected to death might be an anomaly. A second that does that — and perhaps could be interpreted to allow infanticide, also — is a pattern. The cultural Left is blazing new grounds of depravity.

Who are sponsoring these bills? The Democrats and the left are, clearly.

Why are they sponsoring these bills? Maybe they hate families, or they hate America; possibly because they are social societal outcasts who have formed a political movement and have a goal of attempting to trick the general public into thinking that they are the caring side and that the Republicans with traditional values are evil.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 26, 2022, 11:23:17 PM »
The Illinois law uses the same loopholes which allows for easy third trimester abortions with the same type of vague language seen in other laws.

    Abortion in Illinois now is governed by The Reproductive Health Act that proclaims that the procedure is a “fundamental” right. Some reports note that the law supposedly bans abortion after the fetus reaches “viability.”

    Generally overlooked, however, is a provision in the law that says that some exceptions are allowed after viability. For example, the State Journal Register reported, “One can have an abortion in Illinois up to viability, considered to be 24 weeks after conception. After that period of time, an abortion can only be performed if the mother is in medical distress.”

    Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? So, how does one define “medical distress?” When does the law allow an exception after viability?

    The Illinois law specifically lays out the exception:

    "If the health care professional determines that there is fetal viability, the health care professional may provide abortion care only if, in the professional judgment of the health care professional, the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the patient."

    Okay, so how does the law define “health?” Here’s the loophole:

    "'Health of the patient' means all factors that are relevant to the patient’s health and well-being, including, but not limited to, physical, emotional, psychological, and familial health and age."

    In other words, any abortion, even late-term ones, is legal in Illinois if the abortionist simply approves it. He can in his “judgment” conclude that an abortion is necessary for any poorly defined reason. “Health of the patient” includes not just physical health, but also “emotional, psychological and familial health and age.” What is the chance that abortionist would not grant that exception? How emotional does the patient have to be? What is “familial health?” All of these reasons are so subjective that they’re, in effect, an open door.

The text of the bill is here, and the above can be easily verified:

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 26, 2022, 10:41:56 PM »
Quote from: crutonius
I haven't seen this Vermont bill but seeing as you're misinformed about the recent bills in congress I'm going to guess you're misinformed about this one as well.

You are merely claiming that it is misinformed. You have provided zero demonstration that Democrats were voting in favor of late-term abortion bills in 1998 but have decided to change their mind. It should be easy to get voting records to demonstrate this if that were true.

Yet another example of Democrats supporting late term abortion bills:

Illinois House Declares Late-Term Abortion a ‘Right’ -

    Illinois Democrats are attempting to make it the most liberal state in America for abortion, declaring it a right and repealing nearly every limit on the practice.

    On Tuesday evening, the Illinois House approved a measure to do away with nearly every abortion limit. The bill will loosen clinic inspection and safety standards, guarantee abortion until birth, and declare abortion a "fundamental right." House Democrats inserted it into a Senate bill during Memorial Day weekend, rushing the bill through a Sunday committee hearing. The amendment was introduced by Democratic state representative Kelly Cassidy, who had seen a standalone bill stall in committee. She did not respond to request for comment.

    Cassidy defended the bill as a response to pro-life legislation passed in Georgia, Alabama, and Missouri. Rep. Avery Bourne, a Republican, took to the Illinois House floor prior to the vote to argue against the bill.

    "This bill is not about keeping abortion legal in Illinois," Bourne, who is pregnant, said. "This is about a massive expansion that will impact viable babies. And that is wrong."

    The bill would give Illinois the most liberal abortion regime in the country. Peter Breen, a former Illinois state representative and vice president at the non-profit Thomas More Society, said it would make the Land of Lincoln the "abortion capital" of America. He said it would exploit "vulnerable women and girls," as well as toss out widely popular compromises. The bill could undermine the state parental notification law and a state ban on partial birth abortion—a practice in which a full-term baby is delivered feet-first while the head is purposely kept inside the mother so abortionists can suck the brain out. Polling has found more than 70 percent of Americans, including majorities of Democrats, approve of such bans. The federal partial birth abortion ban will remain in effect.

    "These legislators have rejected the deep convictions of a strong majority of Illinoisans and voted to legalize late-term abortions without limit … This bill expressly strips all rights from unborn children and wipes nearly every abortion regulation off the books in Illinois," Breen said in a statement. "The legacy of any legislator who voted for this bill is a cruel dehumanization on a mass scale."

    The Illinois House approved the bill by a 64-50 vote. Opposition to it drew bipartisan support with six Democrats voting no and four voting present. There is little Republicans can do to prevent the bill from becoming law as Democrats have a supermajority. Gov. J.B. Pritzker praised his party-mates for passing the bill.

    "We must do everything in our power to protect women's rights in Illinois," he said in a statement following the vote.

    Pro-life activists in the state and nationwide criticize the bill as "radical" and "extremist." Illinois Right to Life mustered fierce opposition to the bill, including a rally against late-term abortion that organizers said attracted 4,000 people.

    "No words can express the disappointment and heartache pro-life Illinoisans, like myself, are feeling," Illinois Right to Life Action legislative chairman Ralph Rivera said in a release. "The incredible grassroots efforts of Illinois citizens who worked against this bill was astounding and makes it clear that we were in the majority.

So this website claims that Illinois Democrats were voting to loosen abortion restrictions.

Did Democrats they really vote for this bill?

Does the bill really loosen abortion restrictions?

If Democrats are no longer voting in favor of late-term abortion bills why is it always Democrats who are accused of loosening of abortion laws?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 26, 2022, 08:47:48 PM »
Quote from: crutonius
1998?  Times have changed quite a bit.  The Democrats now resemble the Republicans then quite a bit more than the current Republican party.  Things have shifted to the right quite a bit.  I don't think it's relevant to dig into that one.

So your argument is to concede that Democrats once voted in favor of late-term abortions, but claim that they don't hold that position any more? Do you have any voting records you can show us demonstrating that they have changed their mind, or are you just going to deny all present data? Democrats introduced and voted on the 2019 late term Vermont and Virginia bills discussed previously. Everything indicates that they still support late term abortions.

On the 2021/2022 Women's Health Protection Act bill the Town Hall characterizes the bill as a late term abortion bill:

    "On Monday night, the U.S. Senate voted 46-48 for the so-called Women's Health Protection Act, which will not only codify Roe v. Wade into federal law, but would override virtually every pro-life law at the state level, thus allowing for unrestricted abortion up until birth. While the radical legislation could not overcome the filibuster, it would have been a close vote without it in place."

National Review also characterizes the bill as a late term abortion bill:

    "Congressional Democrats have reintroduced a bill that would invalidate nearly all state-level restrictions on abortion, including existing laws placing limits on late-term abortions.


    The bill would also invalidate state limits on late-term abortions: If passed, the Women’s Health Protection Act will require states to permit abortion after an unborn child is viable (that is, old enough to survive outside the womb) if a single doctor asserts that an abortion is necessary to protect the mother’s “health.” The text of the bill explicitly instructs the courts to “liberally” interpret the legislation, and the bill “doesn’t distinguish” between physical and mental health, as its chief Senate sponsor Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut has said.

This is identical to the 2019 Virginia late term abortion bill discussed above, which Democrats favored. All it would take is for an abortion doctor to think that the pregnancy would impact the mental health of the mother.

    BBC - Virginia late-term abortion bill labelled 'infanticide'

    A bill that would have removed restrictions on late-term abortions in Virginia has led to a conservative outcry.

    The Democrat who sponsored the measure said it would allow abortions at any point in pregnancy up until the point of childbirth in certain cases.

    Critics said the bill, which failed on Monday to be voted out of subcommittee, would have allowed infanticide.


    Under current Virginia law, third-trimester abortions are only permitted if the risk to the mother's life is "substantial and irremediable" - language that Democrats wanted removed.

    The Democratic bill sought to allow for late-term abortions if the mother's physical or mental safety were at risk .

    The procedure would also have required sign-off by only one doctor, rather than the three required under existing law.

It is Democrats who sought to weaken the laws, removing language that it requires the risk to the mother's life to be "substantial and irremediable"

If a single abortion doctor thinks the mother's "mental safety" is at risk, late term abortion is permissible.

It is Democrats who are introducing these pro- late-term abortion bills and who seek to weaken the laws.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 455  Next >