On Tuesday, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed a law that bans abortions except in the event of a medical emergency. This law provides no exceptions for rape or incest. Penalties for an abortion include a prison term of up to 10 years and a fine of up to $100,000. Interesting to see how this will turn out and hopefully, federal courts will strike this law down.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/12/politics ... index.html

It’s hard to think of a louder way to tell the women of Oklahoma: ‘you are inferior and we hate you’

Aaron747 wrote:

It’s hard to think of a louder way to tell the women of Oklahoma: ‘you are inferior and we hate you’

You must obey the state morality because the state knows better than you. Kinda Orwellian...

We're seeing the drawbacks of federalism - while the national government is paralyzed by obstructionists and fools, states get to be petty little tyrannies of the worst sort. I don't think the Supreme Court really realizes to what degree they're playing with fire here.

Texans were driving to OK for abortions after that state's own six week abortion ban

Republican landed on abortion as a critical wedge issue to attract fundamentalist evangelicals and catholics in the 60s/70s. They have gone so far as to rewrite one obscure passage in the Old Testament to conform to their beliefs. Abortion is not discussed in ANY rules, regulations, laws by God, Moses, the prophets, Jesus, Paul nor anyone else. No christian organization has ever required the naming, baptizing, or burial of pre-term organisms. Jewish rules generally is that a human is ensouled when the first breath is drawn at birth. Atheistic extreme conservatives have cynically adopted extreme opposition to abortion. Generally religious groups in the olden days were not in favor of abortion, but vaguely tolerant, and didn't talk about it. It has been a successful wedge issue for the near fascist conservatives.

Is the same vigilante law written into this Oklahoma law that is written into Texas law? You know: small government and keep government out of our lives and such...

So much for separation of church and state. If you believe something then fine, I fully accept your right to. But what I don't accept is you demanding others follow that belief or your opinions.

Honestly no idea how in this day and age so much of America is going back to the stone age. Completely nuts.

It actually is not a religious issue, it is an invented extreme conservative issue. It is wrapped as a religious issue. These people are well on track to destroy constitutional government.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

It actually is not a religious issue, it is an invented extreme conservative issue. It is wrapped as a religious issue. These people are well on track to destroy constitutional government.

When conservatives couldn't get what they really wanted: segregation, they pivoted to abortion

The Real Origins of the Religious Right
They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ns-107133/

Why can’t these people just live and let live and stop the relentless effort to ban everyone and everything they dislike? They’d be more than happy to light a match and burn our democracy to the ground if they could get a theocracy out of it. Truly terrifying to see progress being stripped away to satiate a bunch of knuckle dragging rubes from some weed hole in Oklahoma.

MaverickM11 wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

It actually is not a religious issue, it is an invented extreme conservative issue. It is wrapped as a religious issue. These people are well on track to destroy constitutional government.

When conservatives couldn't get what they really wanted: segregation, they pivoted to abortion

The Real Origins of the Religious Right
They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ns-107133/

If they succeed in this I wonder what their next target will be? Their entire system breaks down without an imagined enemy or a group to demonize and hate.

CitizenJustin wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

It actually is not a religious issue, it is an invented extreme conservative issue. It is wrapped as a religious issue. These people are well on track to destroy constitutional government.

When conservatives couldn't get what they really wanted: segregation, they pivoted to abortion

The Real Origins of the Religious Right
They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ns-107133/

If they succeed in this I wonder what their next target will be? Their entire system breaks down without an imagined enemy or a group to demonize and hate.

The education system. Its already started in some areas. My local school board has switched to a political election instead of just running for seats. And its 100% republican area.

CitizenJustin wrote:

Why can’t these people just live and let live and stop the relentless effort to ban everyone and everything they dislike? .

If you want to have that then it goes for all things not just abortion.

LabQuest wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

When conservatives couldn't get what they really wanted: segregation, they pivoted to abortion

The Real Origins of the Religious Right
They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ns-107133/

If they succeed in this I wonder what their next target will be? Their entire system breaks down without an imagined enemy or a group to demonize and hate.

The education system. Its already started in some areas. My local school board has switched to a political election instead of just running for seats. And its 100% republican area.

Yup. And that has driven private schools, charter schools, and now looney tunes hysteria over CRT and Don't Say Gay bills. They're all very open about their goals. Women are also next on the menu: it won't be just abortion. Next will be birth control, and then they'll dream up new and creative ways for men to "protect" women... Just listen to the GOP leader:

“I’m going to tell you right now what is a woman .. We came from Adam’s rib .. We are the weaker sex, but we are our husband’s wife.”

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/stat ... 7301821442

NIKV69 wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

Why can’t these people just live and let live and stop the relentless effort to ban everyone and everything they dislike? .

If you want to have that then it goes for all things not just abortion.

Talking about bans by government here, not actions by companies or organizations.

Aaron747 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

Why can’t these people just live and let live and stop the relentless effort to ban everyone and everything they dislike? .

If you want to have that then it goes for all things not just abortion.

Talking about bans by government here, not actions by companies or organizations.

I know I was referring to bans by government.

NIKV69 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

If you want to have that then it goes for all things not just abortion.

Talking about bans by government here, not actions by companies or organizations.

I know I was referring to bans by government.

If you're referring to assault weapons, take that up with suburban moms in blue counties. If you're referring to drugs, take that up with conservatives over 50. If you're referring to sex business, take that up with evangelical nutcases who secretly love it.

For added fun, guess which group in the above list loves banning abortion?

NIKV69 wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

Why can’t these people just live and let live and stop the relentless effort to ban everyone and everything they dislike? .

If you want to have that then it goes for all things not just abortion.

Like marriage equality and letting minorities vote?

I just wonder what the harsh penalty is for women who miscarry and what the reward is for those who turn her in?

A thanks for that Politico link. It is factual and includes most of the really salient developments of the anti-abortion movement. It was and it is an unholy alliance.

Aaron747 wrote:

If you're referring to assault weapons, take that up with suburban moms in blue counties. If you're referring to drugs, take that up with conservatives over 50. If you're referring to sex business, take that up with evangelical nutcases who secretly love it.

For added fun, guess which group in the above list loves banning abortion?

I am not the one picking and choosing. I think it should all be legal it's you who don't feel the same way. Let's keep that in perspective. You want abortion legal? Then lets have legal drugs, guns and prostitution. It's all great until all of a sudden we can't have guns. It's such hypocrisy.

I've long stated that to move the nation's business forward, both political parties need to come to an agreement; the left will leave the status quo in place regarding the Second Amendment/gun rights and the right will leave the status quo in place regarding Roe v. Wade/abortion. Then, both ends of the spectrum can focus on all other business, knowing those places are etched in stone and aren't to be touched by either side, period, regardless of what "mandate" either side sees in elections going forward.

NIKV69 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

If you're referring to assault weapons, take that up with suburban moms in blue counties. If you're referring to drugs, take that up with conservatives over 50. If you're referring to sex business, take that up with evangelical nutcases who secretly love it.

For added fun, guess which group in the above list loves banning abortion?

I am not the one picking and choosing. I think it should all be legal it's you who don't feel the same way. Let's keep that in perspective. You want abortion legal? Then lets have legal drugs, guns and prostitution. It's all great until all of a sudden we can't have guns. It's such hypocrisy.

I never said we shouldn't have legal guns, so no idea why you think 'I don't feel the same way'. As I said, take that up with suburban women in blue counties driving that issue. Drugs and prostitution should also be legal - it would dramatically change the market dynamics and crime associated with both.

EA CO AS wrote:

I've long stated that to move the nation's business forward, both political parties need to come to an agreement; the left will leave the status quo in place regarding the Second Amendment/gun rights and the right will leave the status quo in place regarding Roe v. Wade/abortion. Then, both ends of the spectrum can focus on all other business, knowing those places are etched in stone and aren't to be touched by either side, period, regardless of what "mandate" either side sees in elections going forward.

These are two of the most reliable wedge issues for Republicans in all of American politics. They aren't giving them up, no matter how much or how little the left cares about either.

NIKV69 wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

Why can’t these people just live and let live and stop the relentless effort to ban everyone and everything they dislike? .

If you want to have that then it goes for all things not just abortion.

What is your actual position on this law as stand alone legislation?

NIKV69 wrote:

I am not the one picking and choosing. I think it should all be legal it's you who don't feel the same way. Let's keep that in perspective. You want abortion legal? Then lets have legal drugs, guns and prostitution. It's all great until all of a sudden we can't have guns. It's such hypocrisy.

Why does it have to be "all or nothing"? Why can't each point be debated and legislated? I think prostitution should be decriminalized, as should possession and use of small amounts of drugs. There are some guns that must be kept in the hands of the military, but most guns should be available, with protections. These are three separate issues. As is marriage equality and voting rights and abortion. They are not a lump sum package.

If you are against abortion, don't get one.
If you are against gay marriage, don't marry a gay.
If you are against guns, don't buy guns.
If you are against decriminalizing prostitutions, don't solicit.
If you are against (insert vice here), don't do it.

Why does the right think they must legislate their brand of morality on the country? The answer should NOT start with "but 'liberals'". It is not "liberals" who are legislating morality. Republicans have decided that, because of their interpretation of God, they must legislate morality. When did they decide to become everyone's savior? That we all want to live by their moral code?

NIKV69 wrote:

I am not the one picking and choosing. I think it should all be legal it's you who don't feel the same way. Let's keep that in perspective. You want abortion legal? Then lets have legal drugs, guns and prostitution. It's all great until all of a sudden we can't have guns. It's such hypocrisy.

Is your position really just "you're a hypocrite if you want government to ban thing, but not other unrelated thing?"

Virtual737 wrote:

What is your actual position on this law as stand alone legislation?

I am pro life but I believe any abortion law should be in the first trimester only. A woman can make her decision by then. There is no need for late term abortion.

seb146 wrote:

Why can't each point be debated and legislated?

Didn't that happen in this case?

Newark727 wrote:

Is your position really just "you're a hypocrite if you want government to ban thing, but not other unrelated thing?"

Not really, read what I post.

Aaron747 wrote:

It’s hard to think of a louder way to tell the women of Oklahoma: ‘you are inferior and we hate you’

I go back and forth on this topic, and can see both sides of the agurment, but this is my problem with the "pro-choice" side...making it out to be an anti-woman issue when it's clearly a religious and moral issue.

I mean are you saying that only men are anti-abortion? That no woman are? Just because someone believes that a life begins at conception doesn't make them anti-woman, and I think this is where the pro-choice side has failed at trying to sway people to their side.

SoCalPilot wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

It’s hard to think of a louder way to tell the women of Oklahoma: ‘you are inferior and we hate you’

I go back and forth on this topic, and can see both sides of the agurment, but this is my problem with the "pro-choice" side...making it out to be an anti-woman issue when it's clearly a religious and moral issue.

I mean are you saying that only men are anti-abortion? That no woman are? Just because someone believes that a life begins at conception doesn't make them anti-woman, and I think this is where the pro-choice side has failed at trying to sway people to their side.

My mistake...anti-‘any woman who doesn’t worship the way I do’ I guess is more accurate. Still wrong.

Aaron747 wrote:

SoCalPilot wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

It’s hard to think of a louder way to tell the women of Oklahoma: ‘you are inferior and we hate you’

I go back and forth on this topic, and can see both sides of the agurment, but this is my problem with the "pro-choice" side...making it out to be an anti-woman issue when it's clearly a religious and moral issue.

I mean are you saying that only men are anti-abortion? That no woman are? Just because someone believes that a life begins at conception doesn't make them anti-woman, and I think this is where the pro-choice side has failed at trying to sway people to their side.

My mistake...anti-‘any woman who doesn’t worship the way I do’ I guess is more accurate. Still wrong.

What about people who aren't religious that simply have a difference in opinion of when a life begins? What label do you put on those people?

SoCalPilot wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

SoCalPilot wrote:

I go back and forth on this topic, and can see both sides of the agurment, but this is my problem with the "pro-choice" side...making it out to be an anti-woman issue when it's clearly a religious and moral issue.

I mean are you saying that only men are anti-abortion? That no woman are? Just because someone believes that a life begins at conception doesn't make them anti-woman, and I think this is where the pro-choice side has failed at trying to sway people to their side.

My mistake...anti-‘any woman who doesn’t worship the way I do’ I guess is more accurate. Still wrong.

What about people who aren't religious that simply have a difference in opinion of when a life begins? What label do you put on those people?

Nothing in particular. But since courts and the legal system in general need to make evidence-based decisions, medical opinion should be more relevant to the issue than whatever we laymen think about it emotionally.

And if such persons are mostly concerned about fetal life yet otherwise unconcerned about larger socioeconomic circumstances some children are born into, that’s obviously a potential issue too.

SoCalPilot wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

SoCalPilot wrote:

I go back and forth on this topic, and can see both sides of the agurment, but this is my problem with the "pro-choice" side...making it out to be an anti-woman issue when it's clearly a religious and moral issue.

I mean are you saying that only men are anti-abortion? That no woman are? Just because someone believes that a life begins at conception doesn't make them anti-woman, and I think this is where the pro-choice side has failed at trying to sway people to their side.

My mistake...anti-‘any woman who doesn’t worship the way I do’ I guess is more accurate. Still wrong.

What about people who aren't religious that simply have a difference in opinion of when a life begins? What label do you put on those people?

Good luck, I've tried to have this conversation before and just got attacked. Most people on here don't listen to any other idea or opinion that is different from there's.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why can't each point be debated and legislated?

Didn't that happen in this case?

Roe v. Wade is settled law. Or, at least, it was until the far right wing extremists got ahold of the courts and found they could legislate from the bench...

bpatus297 wrote:

SoCalPilot wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

My mistake...anti-‘any woman who doesn’t worship the way I do’ I guess is more accurate. Still wrong.

What about people who aren't religious that simply have a difference in opinion of when a life begins? What label do you put on those people?

Good luck, I've tried to have this conversation before and just got attacked. Most people on here don't listen to any other idea or opinion that is different from there's.

Corrections to views that purport a lack of scientific/medical consensus on life are simply corrections, not attacks. If one leaves the emotion out of it, it is quite easy to see a lot of reasonable adult discussions are simply an examination of validity of claims. Not everyone handles things that way, granted, but 'attack' gets thrown about far too easily as well.

seb146 wrote:

Roe v. Wade is settled law. Or, at least, it was until the far right wing extremists got ahold of the courts and found they could legislate from the bench...

What on earth are you talking about? What law did these far right judges pass? I think you meant to say that elections have consequences right?

NIKV69 wrote:

I think you meant to say that elections have consequences right?

They do.


Source: https://www.justice-integrity.org/image ... n-robe.jpg

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why can't each point be debated and legislated?

Didn't that happen in this case?

Roe v. Wade is settled law. Or, at least, it was until the far right wing extremists got ahold of the courts and found they could legislate from the bench...

This is a state law signed into effect by a governor. It's not in the courts...yet.

Aaron747 wrote:

It’s hard to think of a louder way to tell the women of Oklahoma: ‘you are inferior and we hate you’

Are you a biologist?

scbriml wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

I think you meant to say that elections have consequences right?

They do.


Source: https://www.justice-integrity.org/image ... n-robe.jpg

Good for you but she is a liberal vote replacing another liberal vote and was simply a campaign pay back favor. 6-3 is still a nice right leaning court.

N5301D wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

It’s hard to think of a louder way to tell the women of Oklahoma: ‘you are inferior and we hate you’

Are you a biologist?

Negative. But quite familiar with this topic - two good friends from HS are PhDs in ecology and genetics, and two first cousins are MDs...one is an OB-GYN.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Roe v. Wade is settled law. Or, at least, it was until the far right wing extremists got ahold of the courts and found they could legislate from the bench...

What on earth are you talking about? What law did these far right judges pass? I think you meant to say that elections have consequences right?

"We have to wait and let the people decide" nine months before an election vs. "WE NEED TO SEAT THIS EXTREMIST NOW!!!" days before an election.

Abortion bans were upheld by the far right wing extremist SCOTUS legislating from the bench which cancels settled law.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... v-n1285114
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/11 ... eme-court/

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

I think you meant to say that elections have consequences right?

Says a guy who supports the Jan 6th crowd.

This is inflammatory and a total fabrication. Please provide any post of mine that supports this or retract this ridiculous statement. Are you only just going to bomb throw or do have anything constructive to add? Jeez.

NIKV69 wrote:

Good for you but she is a liberal vote replacing another liberal vote and was simply a campaign pay back favor. 6-3 is still a nice right leaning court.

Not nice at all - it's a crisis of legitimacy waiting to happen. The public's trust in SCOTUS has been sliding continuously since Bush v. Gore.

My country has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world, yet abortion is legal in every jurisdiction in the country.

Maybe there are ways other than criminalising women to reduce the number of abortions (if that, rather than control, is the aim of legislation such as this in Oklahoma).

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

You are a noted and loud 45 supporter who routinely embraces extremist and racist right wing policies & propaganda. You said nothing to condemn Jan 6th and thus still remain in that position. You supported that and would obviously have been pleased if that had somehow managed to succeed. Attempting to play word games will not alter that reality.

Lying about it now is not an affirmative defense.

Again you post another inflammatory post without any evidence and revert to the old "if you voted for Trump you are a racist" sound byte it's total far left propaganda and a smear and nothing else since it's been disproved many times. Again if you can't provide any of my posts that contain any of the totally ridiculous claims you just throw against the wall and hope stick then retract them. You won't since all you can do at this point is triple down on your nonsensical posting. Also embracing the MSNBC talking points that if you aren't loudly condemning the Jan 6th crap you support them also shows your lack of independent thought and is just more bomb throwing. Your "word game" claim is also complete and utter BS. Again abide by the rules and use the quote feature and provide my posts or stop smearing everyone here that doesn't agree with your world view. You can try to use Jan 6th every day as a way to try to make the entire GOP some monster in your head but you will be very disappointed come this November I can assure you since the Obama voters that put Trump in office are going to send the Dems who have gone off the rails packing like they did in 2010. No mail in voting can save you now.

NIKV69 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

You are a noted and loud 45 supporter who routinely embraces extremist and racist right wing policies & propaganda. You said nothing to condemn Jan 6th and thus still remain in that position. You supported that and would obviously have been pleased if that had somehow managed to succeed. Attempting to play word games will not alter that reality.

Lying about it now is not an affirmative defense.

Again you post another inflammatory post without any evidence and revert to the old "if you voted for Trump you are a racist" sound byte it's total far left propaganda and a smear and nothing else since it's been disproved many times. Again if you can't provide any of my posts that contain any of the totally ridiculous claims you just throw against the wall and hope stick then retract them. You won't since all you can do at this point is triple down on your nonsensical posting. Also embracing the MSNBC talking points that if you aren't loudly condemning the Jan 6th crap you support them also shows your lack of independent thought and is just more bomb throwing. Your "word game" claim is also complete and utter BS. Again abide by the rules and use the quote feature and provide my posts or stop smearing everyone here that doesn't agree with your world view. You can try to use Jan 6th every day as a way to try to make the entire GOP some monster in your head but you will be very disappointed come this November I can assure you since the Obama voters that put Trump in office are going to send the Dems who have gone off the rails packing like they did in 2010. No mail in voting can save you now.

I wouldn't necessarily say that people who voted for Trump are racists. However, I would argue they don't seem to have a problem with racism.