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.
In the Mississippi case (economic correlation) being brought before the Supreme Court, Lynn Fitch, presented her brief:
"She wrote that policies like paid family leave, child care, and greater work flexibility have allowed women to have “a full family life and a successful career,” something there was little support for in 1973. Fitch further argued that linking abortion policy to economic advancement constituted a “stunted debate on how we support women,” and encouraged the court to let states make their own decisions about abortion rights by overturning Roe." The US Supreme Court is considering the economic impact of abortion
Then the article continues with the argument against Fitch's brief --- but on a national level, in time, the country may pay for our sins ... time will tell.
The vast majority of women who get abortions, ie the 49% that live below the Federal poverty level, and the additional 25% that live between 100% and 200% of the Federal poverty level, typically don't have jobs that provide paid family leave, child care, or work flexibility.
The vast majority of women who get abortions, ie the 49% that live below the Federal poverty level, and the additional 25% that live between 100% and 200% of the Federal poverty level, typically don't have jobs that provide paid family leave, child care, or work flexibility.
"State legislatures across the country will be responding to the possibility of seismic change to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion across the U.S. Republican-led legislatures are ready to further restrict or ban abortions outright while Democratic-led ones are seeking to ensure access to abortion in their state law."
Local control is always best. Good to see. We do not restrict movement between states, so if one falls within the minority point of view in their state, and finds that distasteful, there will be other states with points of view more to their liking.
Actually, it is. It's exactly what the pro-abortion/pro-choice contingent proclaim every time: State laws restricting abortion violate a woman's right to abortion.
Well, guess what... State gun control laws violate everyone's 2nd Amendment Rights.
Just stop. When has a State's gun control laws placed state officials beyond the reach of federal judicial review by outsourcing the enforcement to an army of private-sector gun control activists?
No one ha ever said that except you. Abortion is the removal of a non-viable fetus from a woman's body. How you can conflate that with your approval of killing the neighbor for loud music makes absolutely no sense at all.
That's because you refuse to see the truth. Legal precedent has already established that an unborn child is a separate human life. That's true in both fetal homicide laws and the prosecution for and conviction of child abuse for women who abused drugs while pregnant.
This entire issue reminds of the infamous poem. To paraphrase...
First, they came for ... and I said nothing
Then they came for ... and I still said nothing
(insert more of the same)
Then, they came for me. And by then, it was too late.
We accepted restrictions on our 2nd Amendment Rights as state legislatures passed increasingly restrictive gun control laws.
We accepted restrictions on our 4th and 5th Amendment Rights when state legislatures and local governing bodies passed civil forfeiture laws that let the government strip us of our assets regardless of whether we've been convicted of a crime or even charged with one at all.
Etc.
Now, state legislatures are choosing to restrict abortion to varying degrees, and suddenly some of you act all surprised and indignant? Really?
As soon as the first infringement on any of our rights was accepted, the slide down that slippery slope began. It should surprise no one, at this point, that state legislatures CAN and DO restrict our rights as they see fit. Abortion is no different.
Last edited by InformedConsent; 12-31-2021 at 06:24 AM..
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 26 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,590,375 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
Are you seriously unaware that abortion IS an economic issue? It costs about $15,000/yr to raise a middle class child. To age 18 its over $200,000 and as much as 230K to 260K depending on the source.
That's without college tuition.
In any case, there has not been to my recollection the current situation where a court ruling may deprive people of significant civil rights. That is uncharted territory.
Until now Democrats claims against Republicans chipping away at abortion rights have been seen as crying wolf. If a court ruling results in a wolf at the door, things will change.
Americans in general are reactive, not proactive. The Supremes decision will be announced just as mid-terms are gearing up. If their ruling leaves Roe in tatters it will be a whole new ball game.
Raising money, plus relevant messaging and aggressive voter registration/turnout is an election changing proposition.
Thanks though once again for the reminder that fund raising is important. Anyone pro-choice should check out NARAL where your donation for the fight to secure safe/legal abortion will be matched until tomorrow at midnight. Spread the word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
Are you seriously unaware that abortion IS an economic issue?
"Many findings from other country contexts are similar to those from the United States: abortion access increased educational attainment among women and improved outcomes for children. Decreased fertility increased women’s labor market participation."
On a national level with fertility rates at 1.79 we're in uncharted territory and economist haven't done the math yet.
In the Mississippi case (economic correlation) being brought before the Supreme Court, Lynn Fitch, presented her brief:
"She wrote that policies like paid family leave, child care, and greater work flexibility have allowed women to have “a full family life and a successful career,” something there was little support for in 1973. Fitch further argued that linking abortion policy to economic advancement constituted a “stunted debate on how we support women,” and encouraged the court to let states make their own decisions about abortion rights by overturning Roe." The US Supreme Court is considering the economic impact of abortion
Then the article continues with the argument against Fitch's brief --- but on a national level, in time, the country may pay for our sins ... time will tell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
Oh for gods sake lol. There is no paid child care in MS. And, I seriously doubt the Supremes are considering the economic impact of abortion. What la la land are you living in? Are you aware that MS women die from pregnancy at a rate three times that of the rest of the country? Seriously, get real.
According to the article:
"Caitlin Myers, an economics professor at Middlebury College who also signed onto the brief, wrote in a Washington Post op-Ed that economists have refrained from weighing in on the issue of abortion during the last two major Supreme Court cases, but decided to do so in this case because data indicates there is “absolutely a causal link between abortion access and women’s lives.”" (emphasis is mine)
What they may not consider is the slow rate of population growth and its economic impact. imo, that we will have to learn the effects the hard way ... I've been following the population decline for awhile now and I thought there would be the day that both the laws on abortion and immigration would be revisited. Russia is facing extinction sometime in the future and they redid their abortion laws; it made sense to me that the u.s. and Europe might do the same.
That's because you refuse to see the truth. Legal precedent has already established that an unborn child is a separate human life. That's true in both fetal homicide laws and the prosecution for and conviction of child abuse for women who abused drugs while pregnant.
This entire issue reminds of the infamous poem. To paraphrase...
First, they came for ... and I said nothing
Then they came for ... and I still said nothing
(insert more of the same)
Then, they came for me. And by then, it was too late.
We accepted restrictions on our 2nd Amendment Rights as state legislatures passed increasingly restrictive gun control laws.
We accepted restrictions on our 4th and 5th Amendment Rights when state legislatures and local governing bodies passed civil forfeiture laws that let the government strip us of our assets regardless of whether we've been convicted of a crime or even charged with one at all.
Etc.
Now, state legislatures are choosing to restrict abortion to varying degrees, and suddenly some of you act all surprised and indignant? Really?
As soon as the first infringement on any of our rights was accepted, the slide down that slippery slope began. It should surprise no one, at this point, that state legislatures CAN and DO restrict our rights as they see fit. Abortion is no different.
The 2nd Amendment wasn't incorporated until Heller, which is fairly recent. Before then, it had been treated as only applying to the Federal government. State and local restrictions on firearms have been in place since prohibition, some earlier. Prior to 1994, it was illegal in Texas to carry a handgun, with no exceptions. There were defenses to prosecution, but you can't use those until trial. Many of the restrictions on firearms were enacted to apply to Blacks only, with a tacit understanding that Whites would not be arrested or charged with violating those laws.
4th and 5th Amendment do not apply to Civil forfeiture. Those are Amendments that apply to criminal acts.
Back on topic. What do you think your reaction will be when women start dying at higher rates from illegal abortions?
"State legislatures across the country will be responding to the possibility of seismic change to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion across the U.S. Republican-led legislatures are ready to further restrict or ban abortions outright while Democratic-led ones are seeking to ensure access to abortion in their state law."
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960
Local control is always best. Good to see. We do not restrict movement between states, so if one falls within the minority point of view in their state, and finds that distasteful, there will be other states with points of view more to their liking.
Thanks for sharing.
Yep, we are free to move about the country --- and you're welcome.
"The Supreme Court did not "invent" legal abortion, much less abortion itself, when it handed down its historic Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Abortion, both legal and illegal, had long been part of life in America."
Roe's face (in what they painted of the picture) was that of a desperate woman, she even testified that she had been raped, which was a lie ... it was all a ruse. There was never a need to make a federal case out it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
I am only concerned with today. There is today a need to codify at the federal level the right to abortion for women.
States cannot be trusted as they have proven over and over again to protect the civil rights of women.
I'd rather not live under dictatorship; democracy is best served through the people who vote to have what the need locally. Rather that than some one thousands of miles away putting undo burden on funds that would better serve the community in other areas like schools, parks etc ...
According to the article:
"Caitlin Myers, an economics professor at Middlebury College who also signed onto the brief, wrote in a Washington Post op-Ed that economists have refrained from weighing in on the issue of abortion during the last two major Supreme Court cases, but decided to do so in this case because data indicates there is “absolutely a causal link between abortion access and women’s lives.”" (emphasis is mine)
What they may not consider is the slow rate of population growth and its economic impact. imo, that we will have to learn the effects the hard way ... I've been following the population decline for awhile now and I thought there would be the day that both the laws on abortion and immigration would be revisited. Russia is facing extinction sometime in the future and they redid their abortion laws; it made sense to me that the u.s. and Europe might do the same.
No one is revisiting abortion laws because of a slow rate of population growth.
MS is the most ignorant state in the country. Texas is equally stupid and on top of it crazy. They have a guv who says women don't need exceptions for rape because he is going to get rid of rape in TX.
If you think these bozos are even capable of designing a plan to increase population growth, I have a bridge to sell you......real cheap.
MS can't take care of the people they already have and Texas which likes to think of itself as energy central cant even keep their power grid up.
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.
