Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Less than an hour after debate began, lawmakers voted on changing the bill to include the rape and incest exceptions. It failed on a 75-25 vote, with almost all the House’s Democrats joining more conservative Republicans.
Some form of the exceptions could come back later in the debate, but it was an indication Democrats want to force Republicans to have to vote on an extreme form of the legislatio
Tugger wrote:And South Carolina did not pass the near total ban that some Republicans had tried to get through.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... -proposal/
So there is a real split that has emerged within the Republican party with the loss of Roe v Wade protections. There are "limited access" Republican's and "forced birth" absolutist Republicans. I'll be curious to see how that affects coming elections and future candidates that come after.
Tugg
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina introduced a bill on Tuesday that would ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy nationwide, the biggest step by Republicans to restrict abortion on a federal level since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
The bill “would say after 15 weeks, no abortion on demand, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother,” Graham said at a news conference. “That should be where America is at.”
casinterest wrote:Looks like Lindsey didn't get the memo about putting the issue on the backburner for this election cycle. It also goes against that old GOP argument of States Rights.
https://time.com/6213018/lindsey-graham ... rtion-ban/Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina introduced a bill on Tuesday that would ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy nationwide, the biggest step by Republicans to restrict abortion on a federal level since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
The bill “would say after 15 weeks, no abortion on demand, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother,” Graham said at a news conference. “That should be where America is at.”
Tugger wrote:casinterest wrote:Looks like Lindsey didn't get the memo about putting the issue on the backburner for this election cycle. It also goes against that old GOP argument of States Rights.
https://time.com/6213018/lindsey-graham ... rtion-ban/Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina introduced a bill on Tuesday that would ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy nationwide, the biggest step by Republicans to restrict abortion on a federal level since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
The bill “would say after 15 weeks, no abortion on demand, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother,” Graham said at a news conference. “That should be where America is at.”
Yeah, direct conflict of the old "this should be a state decided issue!" trope.
He is doing it to try and get the noose off the necks of every Republican that runs in a competitive district. However he is just highlighting the issue.
Tugg
casinterest wrote:Tugger wrote:casinterest wrote:Looks like Lindsey didn't get the memo about putting the issue on the backburner for this election cycle. It also goes against that old GOP argument of States Rights.
https://time.com/6213018/lindsey-graham ... rtion-ban/
Yeah, direct conflict of the old "this should be a state decided issue!" trope.
He is doing it to try and get the noose off the necks of every Republican that runs in a competitive district. However he is just highlighting the issue.
Tugg
I don't see how it gets the noose off of their necks, if they are supporting federal overreach,
GalaxyFlyer wrote:And, Graham’s silly idea should be struck down as unconstitutional as there’s no basis in Art. 1, Sec 8 for Congress to regulate abortions. It’s purely a state issue.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:And, Graham’s silly idea should be struck down as unconstitutional as there’s no basis in Art. 1, Sec 8 for Congress to regulate abortions. It’s purely a state issue.
Tugger wrote:casinterest wrote:Tugger wrote:Yeah, direct conflict of the old "this should be a state decided issue!" trope.
He is doing it to try and get the noose off the necks of every Republican that runs in a competitive district. However he is just highlighting the issue.
Tugg
I don't see how it gets the noose off of their necks, if they are supporting federal overreach,
It gives Republican's that need it something to point to and not be "some extremist wacko" and sets a center for any discussion that may arise. What he is proposing is comparatively reasonable to many who lean more conservative or Republican. Three and a half months and includes the popular exceptions. So it won't chase away the majority of the party that does support access. It is also more conservative that his previous proposals to lessen the number of forced birth supporters that woudl turn out against.
Tugg
casinterest wrote:This sets the GOP into a very bad state, as it is a very fascist and non-scientific move. If anything it gives the republicans a headache in battleground districts in liberal states and in conservative states. It shows that the GOP is not interested in local government, and that the legislation of a woman's rights to health is a sliding scale on which the GOP will constantly move the bar. The GOP is working on shrinking it's big tent.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:And, Graham’s silly idea should be struck down as unconstitutional as there’s no basis in Art. 1, Sec 8 for Congress to regulate abortions. It’s purely a state issue.
“It is imperative that Republicans and conservatives resolve, here and now, that we will not shrink from the fight,” he added. For their part, Republican leadership would rather not. At least, not right now.
More specifically, on Capitol Hill, GOP brass groused Tuesday that South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s bill to ban most abortions at 15 weeks had elevated a divisive social issue ahead of the midterms at the expense of their economic broadside against the White House. “Most of the members of my conference,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters, “prefer that this be dealt with at the state level.”
Pence understands the argument. He just believes advocating for a national abortion ban, as well as individual state restrictions, “is profoundly more important than any short-term politics.”
And despite the risk touted by various GOP political consultants, he believes that those state and federal level efforts will not harm Republican chances of taking Congress. “I'm convinced,” he said, “that enthusiasm among pro-life Americans in states across the country is equal to, or greater than, any new motivation by people that support abortion rights.
casinterest wrote:And here comes Mike Pence in his effort to back Lindsey Graham's Bill. The Sharia law faction of the GOP that wants to use the fascist wing to implement Religion into the US law.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 48191.html
“It is imperative that Republicans and conservatives resolve, here and now, that we will not shrink from the fight,” he added. For their part, Republican leadership would rather not. At least, not right now.
More specifically, on Capitol Hill, GOP brass groused Tuesday that South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s bill to ban most abortions at 15 weeks had elevated a divisive social issue ahead of the midterms at the expense of their economic broadside against the White House. “Most of the members of my conference,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters, “prefer that this be dealt with at the state level.”
Pence understands the argument. He just believes advocating for a national abortion ban, as well as individual state restrictions, “is profoundly more important than any short-term politics.”
And despite the risk touted by various GOP political consultants, he believes that those state and federal level efforts will not harm Republican chances of taking Congress. “I'm convinced,” he said, “that enthusiasm among pro-life Americans in states across the country is equal to, or greater than, any new motivation by people that support abortion rights.
Pence and Graham are the reason I always lower expectations of all the "Don't Tread on Me" flag flying folks. They don't want anyone to tread on their rights, but they are fine in destroying others rights.
luckyone wrote:casinterest wrote:And here comes Mike Pence in his effort to back Lindsey Graham's Bill. The Sharia law faction of the GOP that wants to use the fascist wing to implement Religion into the US law.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 48191.html
“It is imperative that Republicans and conservatives resolve, here and now, that we will not shrink from the fight,” he added. For their part, Republican leadership would rather not. At least, not right now.
More specifically, on Capitol Hill, GOP brass groused Tuesday that South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s bill to ban most abortions at 15 weeks had elevated a divisive social issue ahead of the midterms at the expense of their economic broadside against the White House. “Most of the members of my conference,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters, “prefer that this be dealt with at the state level.”
Pence understands the argument. He just believes advocating for a national abortion ban, as well as individual state restrictions, “is profoundly more important than any short-term politics.”
And despite the risk touted by various GOP political consultants, he believes that those state and federal level efforts will not harm Republican chances of taking Congress. “I'm convinced,” he said, “that enthusiasm among pro-life Americans in states across the country is equal to, or greater than, any new motivation by people that support abortion rights.
Pence and Graham are the reason I always lower expectations of all the "Don't Tread on Me" flag flying folks. They don't want anyone to tread on their rights, but they are fine in destroying others rights.
This is all about short term fundraising for Mike Pence for whatever his next steps are. By doing the right thing, he knows he lost his long term credibility with enough of the Trump base to ever hope to win an election again.
casinterest wrote:
Pence and Graham are the reason I always lower expectations of all the "Don't Tread on Me" flag flying folks. They don't want anyone to tread on their rights, but they are fine in destroying others rights.
seb146 wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:And, Graham’s silly idea should be struck down as unconstitutional as there’s no basis in Art. 1, Sec 8 for Congress to regulate abortions. It’s purely a state issue.
So, to fix that, he proposed a law banning all abortions after 15 weeks
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... ?gnt-cfr=1
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/13/11227009 ... the-senate
Even though it is a state right?
Avatar2go wrote:casinterest wrote:
Pence and Graham are the reason I always lower expectations of all the "Don't Tread on Me" flag flying folks. They don't want anyone to tread on their rights, but they are fine in destroying others rights.
The reason for that is they don't see civil rights as a balance between all people and interests, rather as an assertion of an entitlement. It's a zero sum game to them. If someone else argues for their rights, it takes away my rights (the source of the bogeyman perspective, they are coming for me & mine).
In that mindset, it's ok to trample another person's rights, if doing so assures theirs. This is also the reason they hate the idea of a living Constitution that adapts to the times, through judicial interpretation. They call it judicial overreach and legislation, to conceal their agenda. But it's really about the sense of loss to them personally, that change represents. Rather than a sense of gain to society, as most rational people would experience.
You mentioned Sharia law, the same agenda is present there, as evident in the suppression of women in Afghanistan. For women to succeed and have their own stature in society, is considered loss to the men that view them as property. If my property decides to up and walk away, that is a theft of my entitlement.
M564038 wrote:Choice up to 15 weeks, then all kinds of social and medical exceptions to restrictions after that is more or less in-line with a lot of liberal european countries. Hard to see it as controversial, moralistic or anywhere close to fascistic.
casinterest wrote:M564038 wrote:Choice up to 15 weeks, then all kinds of social and medical exceptions to restrictions after that is more or less in-line with a lot of liberal european countries. Hard to see it as controversial, moralistic or anywhere close to fascistic.
Why?
The baby can't survive without the mother. It should be the mother's choice up until the baby is viable outside of the womb. That is why 24 weeks was the general spot in Roe. Anything outside of that is just arbitrary number tossing for people that want to control other people's bodies and choices.
Tugger wrote:casinterest wrote:M564038 wrote:Choice up to 15 weeks, then all kinds of social and medical exceptions to restrictions after that is more or less in-line with a lot of liberal european countries. Hard to see it as controversial, moralistic or anywhere close to fascistic.
Why?
The baby can't survive without the mother. It should be the mother's choice up until the baby is viable outside of the womb. That is why 24 weeks was the general spot in Roe. Anything outside of that is just arbitrary number tossing for people that want to control other people's bodies and choices.
24 weeks was an arbitrary number as well.
That is why a court is a difficult if not impossible place to "define" a number with no absolute value or science behind it. That was one of the big vulnerabilities of RvW. For each case it is subjective.
To me the real rule is "It is the woman's choice as she is a living conscious being, with rights to her life and body under US law."
Tugg
A baby born between 20 and 26 weeks is a considered to be periviable, or born during the window when a fetus has a chance of surviving outside the womb. These babies are called “micro-preemies.”
A baby born before 24 weeks has less than a 50 percent chance at survival, say the experts at University of Utah Health.
casinterest wrote:M564038 wrote:Choice up to 15 weeks, then all kinds of social and medical exceptions to restrictions after that is more or less in-line with a lot of liberal european countries. Hard to see it as controversial, moralistic or anywhere close to fascistic.
Why?
The baby can't survive without the mother. It should be the mother's choice up until the baby is viable outside of the womb. That is why 24 weeks was the general spot in Roe. Anything outside of that is just arbitrary number tossing for people that want to control other people's bodies and choices.
Tugger wrote:24 weeks was an arbitrary number as well
Tugg
scbriml wrote:Tugger wrote:24 weeks was an arbitrary number as well
Tugg
I’d dispute that 24 weeks was just arbitrarily chosen. When set, it was generally accepted as the crossover point at which more embryos could survive than not.
Kent350787 wrote:scbriml wrote:Tugger wrote:24 weeks was an arbitrary number as well
Tugg
I’d dispute that 24 weeks was just arbitrarily chosen. When set, it was generally accepted as the crossover point at which more embryos could survive than not.
Even now, 23 weeks gestation is considered a borderline below which the risk of serious disability is largely untenable. 23 weeks is the Dutch boundary for birth viability.
bennett123 wrote:So was the 1860's law never repealed?.