Voters reject late-term abortion law (Albuquerque: to rent, tax, costs)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,742 posts, read 23,795,420 times
Reputation: 14625
I'm just glad it's over. People have tried to get me started on a debate with this topic. I'm Switzerland (and didn't vote), and I don't talk about abortion and I can't think of a more worse topic of discussion. The End.
I'm happy ABQ voters came out and defended women's rights, even though I believe it was an illegal bill that would have been struck down in the courts had it passed. This thing was in the national news and the whole country was watching to see which way ABQ went. Apparently this was the first time in the country that a municipality voted on abortion.
If you had seen some of the demonstrators from out-of-state who were in favor of the ban, and the kinds of things they were doing on the UNM campus, you would have run, not walked, to the polls to vote against it!
As far as I know late term abortions are done for medical, not personal, reasons. The state (i.e. the rest of us) has no place in the medical decisions made by an individual as advised by their doctor.
As far as I know late term abortions are done for medical, not personal, reasons. The state (i.e. the rest of us) has no place in the medical decisions made by an individual as advised by their doctor.
That's precisely the reason abortion (along with a host of other issues) should never have been made a political issue to start with. Ever.
Glad it's over didn't vote because didn't have an opinion either way, but there was alot of out of state people that seemed to be involved which turned me off to the whole thing.
I wonder why they targeted ABQ as this seemed to be driven by out of state people on the ground/radio/media etc, perhaps they thought the catholic angle would give it a greater chance of passing?
Either way this is a very divisive issue which needs to be left alone as it's going nowhere.
Glad it's over didn't vote because didn't have an opinion either way, but there was alot of out of state people that seemed to be involved which turned me off to the whole thing.
I wonder why they targeted ABQ as this seemed to be driven by out of state people on the ground/radio/media etc, perhaps they thought the catholic angle would give it a greater chance of passing?
Either way this is a very divisive issue which needs to be left alone as it's going nowhere.
You would have hated being a Californian during Prop 8. Hundreds of millions in out-of-state dollars poured in for its support. It was on commercials, billboards, the news...I thought I would be so glad when the vote was over, but after it passed there were multiple protests to repeal it...followed by more commercials, billboards, etc!
You would have hated being a Californian during Prop 8. Hundreds of millions in out-of-state dollars poured in for its support. It was on commercials, billboards, the news...I thought I would be so glad when the vote was over, but after it passed there were multiple protests to repeal it...followed by more commercials, billboards, etc!
Oddly enough, Blake's Lotaburger's ownership (Blake's is NM only for all intents and purposes, even though they've been in Arizona and are expanding into TX) put a fair amount of corporate money into that (supporting Prop 8, which outlawed gay marriage in California).
Since I don't appreciate when out-of-state money futzes with our local government, I choose to go elsewhere to get my hamburgers in reciprocity.
There was some local grassroots support for that late-term ban, but the cost of holding this election (not only to rent space and pay volunteer poll workers, but the voters having to take time out of their day and gas out of their tank to participate) was disproportionately borne by those opposed to it. They say it cost city taxpayers $600k. Our tax dollars should not go to special elections with deliberately confusing and inflammatory language.
A big hearty "you reap what you sow" to the remaining 4 Republican city councilors- a previously uninspiring and underfunded D candidate was ushered in solely because of their insistence on this issue. Would not be surprised if it costs them each 5 percentage points in their individual races in 2 or 4 years- even many of the pro-ban voters hated this election and the way it was conducted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
