Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-08-2021, 01:41 PM
 
13,388 posts, read 6,493,811 times
Reputation: 10022

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
You can't counter with actual facts, so you're relying on an awful lot of 'but what ifs.'

How is a law that could save 27,000+ females' lives per year a "war on women?" It's just simply not.
Courts look at probable outcomes/harms all the time. I don't need to come up with ironclad facts that will happen in the future.

Any rational person can foresee the negative outcomes of this law. Also, we know what happened in the past when women did not have access to legal, safe abortion.

This bill is quite simply a war on women any way you slice or dice it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-08-2021, 01:44 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,677 posts, read 45,312,497 times
Reputation: 13908
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATX Wahine View Post
Hey, what’s with racist crap like this? Not cool.
I'm not a male. But those who post regularly know that.

As to race, I'm guessing he's/she's referring to the fact that Black and Hispanic women have higher abortion rates than white women. The takeaway they might have from that is that white people value life more than minorities do (it sure looks that way with all the Black on Black murders), so assumed I'm white because I place a higher value on life.

Last edited by CaseyB; 09-08-2021 at 04:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2021, 01:48 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,677 posts, read 45,312,497 times
Reputation: 13908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy View Post
I think you mean a bunch of Republicans and one Democrat passed it.
That's bipartisan.

Bipartisan: of, relating to, or involving members of two parties
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2021, 01:49 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,677 posts, read 45,312,497 times
Reputation: 13908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy View Post
Courts look at probable outcomes/harms all the time. I don't need to come up with ironclad facts that will happen in the future.

Any rational person can foresee the negative outcomes of this law. Also, we know what happened in the past when women did not have access to legal, safe abortion.

This bill is quite simply a war on women any way you slice or dice it.
I'm not seeing it. Saving the lives of 27,000+ females per year is NOT a war on women.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2021, 01:49 PM
 
3,048 posts, read 1,169,304 times
Reputation: 3719
This law is an end run around the ability of the judiciary to uphold the Constitution, and it will have lasting consequences. Neither pro-choice nor pro-life people should be in favor of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2021, 01:56 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,677 posts, read 45,312,497 times
Reputation: 13908
Quote:
Originally Posted by kj1065 View Post
This law is an end run around the ability of the judiciary to uphold the Constitution, and it will have lasting consequences. Neither pro-choice nor pro-life people should be in favor of it.
There is no right to abortion or any other form of healthcare in the US Constitution. If you disagree, cite the Amendment that states women have the right to an abortion, or that anyone has a right to healthcare.

It'll look something like the 2nd Amendment does in regards to arms:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2021, 01:58 PM
 
Location: Tucson/Nogales
23,412 posts, read 29,308,237 times
Reputation: 32761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburban_Guy View Post
I can totally see this becoming another "medical tourism" to Mexico thing.

Mexico's Supreme Court rules that abortion is not a crime
The Mexican border towns, bordering Texas, are applauding this bill, and they'll be laughing all the way to the bank. Abortion pills, 90% effective in aborting a fetus, are available at most pharmacies. In El Paso, a woman only has to walk across the bridge into Juarez.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2021, 01:59 PM
 
Location: Austin TX
11,027 posts, read 6,547,829 times
Reputation: 13259
Quote:
Originally Posted by tijlover View Post
The Mexican border towns, bordering Texas, are applauding this bill, and they'll be laughing all the way to the bank. Abortion pills, 90% effective in aborting a fetus, are available at most pharmacies. In El Paso, a woman only has to walk across the bridge into Juarez.
Anybody can buy Plan B at WalMart for $11.74. The days of traipsing across the border are long gone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2021, 02:01 PM
 
13,388 posts, read 6,493,811 times
Reputation: 10022
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That's bipartisan.

Bipartisan: of, relating to, or involving members of two parties
Technically yes.

I'm just providing larger context because you are trying to mislead people by inferring that lots of Democrats support this bill. They dont.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2021, 02:02 PM
 
3,048 posts, read 1,169,304 times
Reputation: 3719
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
There is no right to abortion or any other form of healthcare in the US Constitution. If you disagree, cite the Amendment that states women have the right to an abortion, or that anyone has a right to healthcare.

It'll look something like the 2nd Amendment does in regards to arms:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
I'm not talking about a Constitutional right to abortion, which as you point out does not exist. (Note that RvW decision upholds a woman's Constitutional right to privacy determined by SCOTUS to be enshrined in the first, third, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments.) Rather, I'm talking about empowering states to pass laws and deputize citizens without standing to bring lawsuits against their neighbors in order to enforce a law. Regardless of how anybody feels about abortion, nobody should be in favor of that.

Last edited by kj1065; 09-08-2021 at 02:20 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:13 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top