For many that would involve uprooting their family completely. Also, Americans are great about threatening to do things when life isn't going well but rarely following through with it.
You can’t find jobs in those states most of the time. Metropolitans are mostly saturated job markets.
I'm sure someone who has republican parents would think that now is the time to move away from them since they know that if they get pregnant by any means that they will be forced to carry the baby to birth.
Hey, and don't forget 'ol Thomas is coming for your birth control and anything that isn't PIV heterosexual sex too, per his own statements. People forget that sodomy laws don't just cover a very specific act between gay men, it covers all "unnatural" sex acts. So get ready to go back to the days when birth control wasn't legal except in rare circumstances and you can go to jail for pleasuring your partner the "wrong" way if the law so decides. The Republicans really just want to make sure we're free to do exactly as they say and nothing more or less
This is why we need to vote. I'm not homosexual but everyone deserves equal rights. This nation is not as free as I thought.
All right what do you propose? People protested and congress responded by increasing security to the soctus. What do you think people should do?
I think we need protests that are so disruptive to society that a failure to change becomes untenable
That could end up backfiring pretty handily.
VA Hopeful
And the world is ending....Yea, let me know when all those people flee.
Please define "so disruptive', I'd be curious what you mean.
So, you propose a one-party system, yea that's real democracy...We are going down a terrible path when people disagree with one party, they think that opposing party is bad and should disappear. You have no idea what a one-party system would be like. Having choices is what makes the United States the best country in the world, although, it is starting to change in all the wrong ways.
Maybe, maybe not
This isn't an issue of parties. We've got a group of people saying fundamental human rights should be revisited. Rights aren't up for debate, they're not a political chip to be bargained with. That is precisely why this country is a republic and not a democracy. Rights are fundamental, and we have a court that was intentionally stacked with partisan representatives that were carefully curated by an organization that seeks to undo 200 years of precedents in order to take many of our rights away. Look no further than the partisan nonsense that stole a judicial nomination, and the outright perjury committed during confirmation hearings during which it was stated by multiple justices that Roe was settled law.
Have you actually read the SC ruling, just curious?
The rights in the Bill of Rights are fundamental and should not be revisited, except by the difficult step of constitutional amendment. Those who want to limit the right to bear arms should amend the constitution
I support it as long as it doesn't get violent. If hard to replace people leave these states with the strictest abortion laws I think they would have to change it.
Did you read Clarence Thomas' opinion? That is what I'm discussing, he outright said the quiet part out loud. What is posted a few lines ago was a direct quote from his official opinion on the ruling.
I'm all about gun rights and those were never a part of the conversation?
Creating a sense of disaffection is a core Republican strategy, it would literally only play into their narrative while also strengthening their hold on the votes within the state. If liberals want to save this country, they need to move to Texas in droves
Stay on track here, Roe v Wade..........
The country needs saving by liberals.....do you mean the same liberals like the former DA in Sn Fran or the one in LA that are allowing violent criminals to remain out and continue to do more harm. As a matter of fact, the left policies are hurting the very same people they are claiming to help. Go to your inner cities and find out how they feel.
You clearly do not understand what Roe v Wade was based on from a legal perspective. The other cases brought up by Thomas were directly based upon the same precedents made by Roe. This is therefore about the dominoes that fall directly because of Roe
Republicans need to evolve and the only thing that will cause that is being unable to win elections without change. There is no middle ground on human rights.
You're comical, you have no idea what I do or don't understand. No more discussing with you, since you are now resorting to negative comments and inferring that I don't understand....more intolerance, but you know that. Hopefully, if you treat patients, you are more willing to accept opposing views.
Liberals don't? You are too funny. You are probably the same person that believes it's ok to have an abortion during a full term delivery.
How many strawmen do you intend to stuff today?
Yeah, hence why I should could. But if it does it has the potential to be utterly disastrous.
I'm not being insulting, I'm stating facts. Either you do understand the reason Roe was relevant to the cases mentioned and are wilfully ignoring the significance it has on undoing precedents or you do not understand it. Either way you either refuse to or cannot meaningfully contribute to the discussion.
www.npr.org
My thing is in these states that permit abortions if the life of the mother is threatened, where is that line going to be? If you have a patient with an ectopic pregnancy can you just terminate it? I have a feeling these lawmakers want you to wait until the patient starts circling the drain before you can intervene. This is going to cause alot of dead women and angry family members. What's going to happen if medical staff start getting offed because people's wives and daughters are dying unnecessarily?Abortion bans with no exceptions may be politically risky
Some conservative states pressing for abortion bans with no exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother. But public opinion polls suggest those limits could cause blowback.
Politicians make laws. They are, quite frankly, ignorant when it comes to medicine and write laws having no idea what they are actually talking about, as was the case with the state senator that insisted ectopic pregnancies could just be re-implanted elsewhere. These people don't know how placentas function, they don't know what a molar pregnancy is, they have no concept of the complexity and often impossibility of performing many procedures in-utero. Having the strictest ban is now going to be the stance that shows you're the Best Republican, and it's going to kill people, mark my words. Just as I called Trump's election almost a year prior, just as I called Roe falling, just as I'm calling a soon-to-pass loss of LGBT rights, I'm calling blood on the hands of these legislatures out of ignorance of what constitutes a viable pregnancy and what constitutes a risk of harm or death to the mother
It puts you in an ethically impossible position. Very likely will result in OB/Gyns leaving the states for fear of being prosecuted if a patient isn't dying enough before they intervene
More specialties will be effected by this. Surgeons will be less likely to operate on pregnant women if they can be charged with murder if the baby dies from the surgery. I wonder if failing to diagnose or properly treat someone and the baby dying could end in a manslaughter charge? If so that's the entire nonsurgical field of medicine at risk.
I haven’t either which is why it’s so confusing that it’s a main talking point of the pro-abortion crowd.I keep asking because I can’t find any evidence of abortion for ectopic pregnancy/miscarriage/endangered patients not being allowed by the states that are anti-abortion. When I ask for the evidence pro-abortion proponents don’t seem to have that evidence either. What I have seen are states have laws allowing for that in terms of ectopic pregnancy/miscarriage/endangered mothers life or just simply not addressing it. To me not having a law specifically addressing the life of a mother being endangered wouldn’t prevent a physician from performing those in medically necessary cases. I don’t see a doctors certification getting pulled for providing life saving measures for a situation that would end with the mothers death. That’s something that can be brought to courts and defended to set precedence as well if it even comes to that. It seems like more emotionalism to make the roevwade decision appear worse than it actually is with a bunch of “what if’s” rather than actual facts of the situation. I think the real issue is that pro-abortion people simply want abortion on demand and are trying to use a talking point that’s simply not supported at this time to try and shift focus from what’s actually being banned here, which is abortion on demand and not medical emergency related abortion.
You are quite unhinged. Repeal of Roe does not outlaw or ban abortion. It lets states decide. Horrifying? A bit melodramatic are we?
Your inability to understand context is startling. And yes, I find the idea that states will limit reproductive rights, which are human rights, to be horrifying
Yeah according to pro lifers because Miracles happen.
Listen, stop with the psychoanalyzing people on the forum because they disagree with you. Save it for your patients....It sounds like it is you who has an inability to understand and although I wouldn't jump to unhinged, you're getting close.
There were legitimately people that would use the "unhinged" argument when people would advocate for the human rights of enslaved persons in in the 18th and 19th centuries. It's a classic means of attempting to control a narrative by implying the individual on the other side of the table are hysterical because of their ridiculous beliefs that people should have rights and that being angry to any degree that people's rights are being violated is a sign of this hysteria. Good for you both, perpetuating a long and proud conservative tradition of gaslighting anyone that has a problem with people that believe others have human rights.
No, just the facts. White people can be poor as well, so I’m not sure why you would interpret the comment as racist? People have a large misconception of who actually has abortions in the United States. The popular conception is that young high schoolers get abortions to avoid pregnancy prior to furthering their education. This makes up something like 3% of abortions. The vast majority of abortions are done on women who already have children and are single parents. Generally speaking, these women can’t afford to have another child and don’t have a support network for childcare. They are on the edge of falling into poverty. Poverty is a vicious cycle that leads to a population that can’t escape it. This is a systemic problem that does have an effect on women of color more so than white women, but that isn’t really why the poverty rate will increase. The color of the skin doesn’t change the calculus. Children are expensive and for a single parent just barely over the poverty line, the extra $12,000 a year to raise another kid can easily knock them into a dangerous zone. Children who grow up in poverty are more likely to experience childhood trauma (ACE Score increases). The higher a child’s ACE score, the less likely they are to go onto escape the cycle of poverty.
