*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10080
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #340 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’ - https://freebeacon.com/issues/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?
« Last Edit: June 26, 2022, 11:01:09 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 1261
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #341 on: June 26, 2022, 10:56:58 PM »
From my neck of the woods it looks like the land of the free just got a whole lot less so, and judging by Thomas' remarks it's only going to get worse.

Sad thing is that a lot of people here seem delighted that your rights are being stripped away.
Quote from: Ironic Pete
I DO NOT NEED DATA, I'M PRETTY SURE I'M RIGHT!!!!

You think something is true, and that's good enough for you.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10080
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #342 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.

https://www.chicagonow.com/dennis-byrnes-barbershop/2022/06/the-little-noticed-loophole-in-illinois-law-that-would-allow-abortions-up-to-the-moment-of-birth/

    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:

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=3987&ChapterID=64



« Last Edit: June 26, 2022, 11:24:50 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3867
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #343 on: June 27, 2022, 12:15:51 AM »
Tom, what is your actual point? You're happy RvW has been overturned because less than 1% of abortions are during the third trimester? Gr8 deb8 m8

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10080
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #344 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:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/now-a-california-bill-to-permit-infant-death-by-neglect/

    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.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2022, 01:29:50 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 6666
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #345 on: June 27, 2022, 01:12:18 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.
What if complications arise in the 3rd trimester that cause the fetus to become non-viable and/or threaten the life of the mother?  Should a woman be forced to risk her life just to give birth to a baby that won't survive anyway?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9769
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #346 on: June 27, 2022, 01:33:44 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:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/now-a-california-bill-to-permit-infant-death-by-neglect/

    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.

Whatever the answer is, you’re not going to bother to find out!!

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.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2022, 01:48:57 AM by Rama Set »
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 2911
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #347 on: June 27, 2022, 01:41:46 AM »
There is no "cultural swing to the right." The majority of Americans support at least some abortion rights, regardless of whatever extreme cases you can find and then argue shouldn't be allowed. Republicans know that their policies are broadly unpopular among the current American population - and not likely to become any more popular in the future - so they're doing everything they can to entrench their unpopular beliefs and policies into law as firmly as they can while they still have the power to do so. It's not a coincidence that this is happening at the same time as the deliberately coordinated attacks on LGBT people from the right. That's another subject Republicans want to lock their unpopular policies into place on, as the majority of Americans also support LGBT rights and gay marriage.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3867
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #348 on: June 27, 2022, 02:03:57 AM »
Yeah, there's no cultural swing. And there's no reason to be focusing on late term abortions.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10080
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #349 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:

https://archive.ph/yN7SR



The Hill issued another alert in October:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/575275-democrats-voter-registration-edge-shrinks-in-key-states/



Gallup has also suggested shifting of political preferences:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/388781/political-party-preferences-shifted-greatly-during-2021.aspx



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:

« Last Edit: June 27, 2022, 05:59:07 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 2911
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #350 on: June 27, 2022, 05:53:25 AM »
Americans being less likely to call themselves Democrats (which, like the article points out, is almost certainly in direct correlation to Biden's declining approval rating) is not evidence that Americans have grown more ideologically conservative. Whether they call themselves Republicans or Democrats, Americans largely support (limited) abortion rights, LGBT rights, and gay marriage, and they overwhelmingly support sexual freedom and contraceptive access. It's going to be absolutely nuts when Republicans come for those last two - which they have they every intention of doing, for the optimists out there who need a reality check. Republicans are not going to stop at abortion, nor at gay people. They will eventually be policing us all.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline crutonius

  • *
  • Posts: 629
  • Just a regular guy. No funny business here.
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #351 on: June 27, 2022, 05:56:34 AM »
I can't speak for everyone switching party affiliation but I've switched mine to Republican.  The reason for this is that the Democratic candidates seem harmless generally but the Republicans often scare the shit of me.  The primary offers me an extra chance to head off these maniacs.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3287
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #352 on: June 27, 2022, 08:42:39 AM »
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.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9769
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #353 on: June 27, 2022, 10:07:46 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.

As was pointed out, the bill isn’t anything nefarious but hey continue projecting.

Quote
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?

No. What I’m saying is is that you are misinterpreting the bill to mean something it doesn’t and was never intended to mean you pizzagate loving weirdo.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10080
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #354 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.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2022, 07:44:01 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3287
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #355 on: June 27, 2022, 08:45:31 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.

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?

Why have just about anything Federally mandated? Why not turn it all over to the States?

As for polygamy, Utah reduced it from a felony to a misdemeanor, basically a traffic ticket, in 2020. So you might be getting close to what you want.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15170
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #356 on: June 27, 2022, 09:01:28 PM »
Why have just about anything Federally mandated? Why not turn it all over to the States?
You know, there once was a group of people who felt that way, and they got violently suppressed.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10080
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #357 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:

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xiii



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.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2022, 09:49:56 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3080
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #358 on: June 27, 2022, 09:24:05 PM »
https://twitter.com/davidnhackney?lang=en

Quote
Abortion for *lethal* fetal anomalies is now *illegal* in Ohio
 
I’m a high-risk obstetrician here. I diagnose birth defects
 
So some point soon I may look someone in the eyes & say that they, against their will, will carry to term, undergo delivery & then have their child die
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7063
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #359 on: June 27, 2022, 09:57:47 PM »
https://twitter.com/davidnhackney?lang=en

Quote
Abortion for *lethal* fetal anomalies is now *illegal* in Ohio
 
I’m a high-risk obstetrician here. I diagnose birth defects
 
So some point soon I may look someone in the eyes & say that they, against their will, will carry to term, undergo delivery & then have their child die
Makes sense.
Convervatives are big on ensuring they're born, less so if they die after.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.