• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

They finally tried to do something I honestly thought they would never do: Write and pass an abortion bill.

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,098
12,904
126


The reason I thought they'd never try is because its a hot button issue they knew they could never decide on and for a while it seemed like the states were doing just fine on their own. Not to mention potential voters angry at them when they might need support on other issues. And for reference by "they" I mean republicans AND democrats.
However, in recent years too many states have started making up their own rules to circumvent federal law and opponents keep having to bring it back up the supreme court over and over. Sometimes the supreme court refuses to hear such cases because they've already ruled on them and in theory it should be a waste of time. In practice the Republicans know they use that as an opportunity to break the law for years at a time because their horse shit isn't being challenged.

In case anyone doesn't know, and I suspect that's a lot of Americans as well as some Europeans: There is no actual federal law in America which specifically legalizes or outlaws abortions. The united states supreme court has ruled on 3 separate occasions that women have a right to medical privacy, which included the right to an abortion. Too many state governments don't like the supreme court ruling so they come up with clever ways to effectively ban abortion without making an actual blanket law that bans abortion which would obviously be illegal.

Its medically similar to Jim Crow laws. After the civil war slaves were freed and according to the law written at the time, they should have enjoyed all freedoms and rights and privilege's as everyone else. Problem is they were black and they couldn't just integrate into a society that didn't want them. Southern States said "sure, you can vote, but you have to pass a literacy test first, or be the great grand-son of a free man" or some other bullshit. That abuse of civil rights went on for literally a hundred years, until congress passed a new law guaranteeing civil rights regardless of race. The new law was necessary because the old law was being deliberately misinterpreted to abuse the minority. The abortion rulings from our supreme court have basically the same problem. Weird little state and local laws that shouldn't be constitutional are being treated as legitimate. At least until somebody can run them up to the supreme court. But that takes time and money and a lot of people have to suffer in the meantime.

What frequently happens is illegal abortion clinics set up temporarily, they do a lousy job, many women get sick, some die, and others get arrested. In my humble opinion this is totally unacceptable for a developed nation where in theory people can go to a legit hospital or clinic and not die because of poor quality medical practices.

Now, as to why the Dems picked this year to push an abortion bill thru I can only guess. Maybe they think they have the sway across America to get something controversial passed. Maybe they are worried about mid term elections and losing seats. I do know they need a lot of backing to get something like this done and its been a very long time since they've had a majority. Unless I'm misremembering. However at 218 to 211 that tells me it just barely squeaked by and I bet fifty bucks the states use that as an excuse to ignore or circumvent the new law even if it passes.

Anyone wanna lay odds on this passing the senate?

(oh, and I bet ten thousand dollars the regulars of Anandtech can NOT discuss the legislative issue without also having the abortion debate itself, again, for the hundredth time, even though it makes no difference and we never resolve anything.)
 

SmCaudata

Senior member
Oct 8, 2006
776
1,001
136
It needs to be a law. Glad they did something. With 60 vote threshold this will be forgotten in next few days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
37,501
12,030
136
Now, as to why the Dems picked this year to push an abortion bill thru I can only guess.
Er Texas SB8 which SCOTUS has let go into effect effectively intimidating abortion providers to shut down in the state and a dozen other GOP run states will soon emulate.

While public preferences on abortion are complex few really thought it was going to end and fewer still approve of what TX is doing.

Anyone wanna lay odds on this passing the senate?
Zero percent chance.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,098
12,904
126
Is this pretty much the equivalent of the GOP symbolically repealing the ACA a few dozen times?
not quite. with abortion the democrats are NOT trying to use taxpayer dollars to fund it, despite what the GOP claims constantly.
also the right to an abortion is still not clearly defined by the constitution or amendments or any current federal laws.

the ACA is very clearly defined and funded and it took a long time and lots of fighting to get it passed, but it is in fact law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
52,064
4,497
126
not quite. with abortion the democrats are NOT trying to use taxpayer dollars to fund it, despite what the GOP claims constantly.
also the right to an abortion is still not clearly defined by the constitution or amendments or any current federal laws.

the ACA is very clearly defined and funded and it took a long time and lots of fighting to get it passed, but it is in fact law.
I meant more from a perspective of "we're passing this bill, even though we know it won't ultimately go anywhere".
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,098
12,904
126
I meant more from a perspective of "we're passing this bill, even though we know it won't ultimately go anywhere".
well, again, no.

They knew they could get the ACA thru if they played the game well, and they knew it would have a definite affect on the nation. With the abortion bill its more of "we honestly tried, and we hope our constituents continue to support us no matter what happens".
Also they are hoping the supreme court will hear the other cases soon, and vote in their favor. Despite being shoehorned in by the one party, justices have frequently gone against the people in power to support the general public.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
52,064
4,497
126
well, again, no.

They knew they could get the ACA thru if they played the game well, and they knew it would have a definite affect on the nation. With the abortion bill its more of "we honestly tried, and we hope our constituents continue to support us no matter what happens".
Also they are hoping the supreme court will hear the other cases soon, and vote in their favor. Despite being shoehorned in by the one party, justices have frequently gone against the people in power to support the general public.
Yeah, I don't think you're understanding the words that are present in my posts, I'm talking about the GOP's dozens of attempts to repeal the ACA as an analogy, not the ACA as an analogy.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,692
9,878
136
I'd support a Constitutional amendment affirming the backbone of Roe v Wade, that all Americans are guaranteed due process and equal protection of the laws, but the 14a already exists.

On that note, what are the odds that the 14a would be ratified today? I ask this because IMO more or less the entirety of the division in America today is over the 14a, with abortion being used as the rallying flag for each side.
It all boils down IMO to what Locke said (paraphrashing because I can't the exact quote right now) that a free person's soul did not belong to the church nor their body to the king. There's no doubt that the "pro-life" side is largely church-based, but the greater ramifications of laws against abortion is their enforcement is impossible unless a pregnant woman's body is confiscated by the state for the duration of their pregnancy.
And in order for that to happen, the 14a must be infringed upon.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,098
12,904
126
I'd support a Constitutional amendment affirming the backbone of Roe v Wade, that all Americans are guaranteed due process and equal protection of the laws, but the 14a already exists.

On that note, what are the odds that the 14a would be ratified today? I ask this because IMO more or less the entirety of the division in America today is over the 14a, with abortion being used as the rallying flag for each side.
It all boils down IMO to what Locke said (paraphrashing because I can't the exact quote right now) that a free person's soul did not belong to the church nor their body to the king. There's no doubt that the "pro-life" side is largely church-based, but the greater ramifications of laws against abortion is their enforcement is impossible unless a pregnant woman's body is confiscated by the state for the duration of their pregnancy.
And in order for that to happen, the 14a must be infringed upon.
yup, we started the Abortion Debate, which I knew would happen.

Morally I'm fine with abortion and from the perspective of freedom and democracy I do NOT want the government over stepping its bounds in medical privacy. That leads to further abuse and invasion by the government which is always a problem. The only issue I'm seeing here is typically the democrats are pushing for more and bigger government, and the republicans usually push for smaller and less intrusive government, so I'm hoping a success on the abortion issue does not encourage dems to take control of anything else.
 

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
9,877
1,489
136
I'd support a Constitutional amendment affirming the backbone of Roe v Wade, that all Americans are guaranteed due process and equal protection of the laws, but the 14a already exists.

On that note, what are the odds that the 14a would be ratified today? I ask this because IMO more or less the entirety of the division in America today is over the 14a, with abortion being used as the rallying flag for each side.
It all boils down IMO to what Locke said (paraphrashing because I can't the exact quote right now) that a free person's soul did not belong to the church nor their body to the king. There's no doubt that the "pro-life" side is largely church-based, but the greater ramifications of laws against abortion is their enforcement is impossible unless a pregnant woman's body is confiscated by the state for the duration of their pregnancy.
And in order for that to happen, the 14a must be infringed upon.
Does life begin at conception? Science says it does, so it's a pretty settled question from a scientific standpoint. DNA of the child is not the same as the mother, it's a different life.Which would mean the 14th Amendment would protect their lives from conception on.
I'm glad to see the proponents of abortion on demand, abortion up to actual birth and abortion paid for by taxpayers actually trying to pass a law making it legal.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi420

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
4,522
1,831
136
I'd rather they not try to pass laws because this will be seen by the courts as evidence that abortion isn't a right but rather something codified by laws which can be altered by politicians. You can see SCOTUS judges now ruling that the state of Texas or Mississippi can do whatever they want because congress is also trying to pass a law so therefore its something that falls under the legislative domain and so states and congress can do whatever they want (knowing that congress will never pass anything and so basically states will have free reign).

To me it'd be better if they did nothing and just let the legal precedent set the rules; at least until there is a legitimate shot of getting this as an amendment, talk less passing the senate.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,692
9,878
136
yup, we started the Abortion Debate, which I knew would happen.

Morally I'm fine with abortion and from the perspective of freedom and democracy I do NOT want the government over stepping its bounds in medical privacy. That leads to further abuse and invasion by the government which is always a problem. The only issue I'm seeing here is typically the democrats are pushing for more and bigger government, and the republicans usually push for smaller and less intrusive government, so I'm hoping a success on the abortion issue does not encourage dems to take control of anything else.
I see the pro-choice camp as the obvious small govt side of this debate. It takes laws and govt action to enforce a pregnancy, while on the flipside the govt doesn't need to anything except affirm a woman's Constitutional right to her own body.
That said, there does seem to a large group of people who see govt interference in their efforts to take other people's rights as a form of big govt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,098
12,904
126
I'd rather they not try to pass laws because this will be seen by the courts as evidence that abortion isn't a right but rather something codified by laws which can be altered by politicians. You can see SCOTUS judges now ruling that the state of Texas or Mississippi can do whatever they want because congress is also trying to pass a law so therefore its something that falls under the legislative domain and so states and congress can do whatever they want (knowing that congress will never pass anything and so basically states will have free reign).

To me it'd be better if they did nothing and just let the legal precedent set the rules; at least until there is a legitimate shot of getting this as an amendment, talk less passing the senate.
One reason I'd actually like a definite law on the subject is theres a lot of angry violent assholes harming women and pro-abortion men and I think the problem is getting worse. I'd like them arrested by the FBI BEFORE they attempt violent acts and if them trying to violate civil rights is a tool used to capture them before hand, I'm all for it.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,098
12,904
126
Does life begin at conception? Science says it does, so it's a pretty settled question from a scientific standpoint. DNA of the child is not the same as the mother, it's a different life.Which would mean the 14th Amendment would protect their lives from conception on.
I'm glad to see the proponents of abortion on demand, abortion up to actual birth and abortion paid for by taxpayers actually trying to pass a law making it legal.
Hey genius: Science says a single cell is alive.
It does NOT say a fetus is a human being.

You are full of shit.
You are pushing an agenda.
Your agenda is based on a "narrative" which is a big work meaning "bucket of lies used to alter the very fabric of reality".
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,692
9,878
136
Does life begin at conception? Science says it does, so it's a pretty settled question from a scientific standpoint. DNA of the child is not the same as the mother, it's a different life.Which would mean the 14th Amendment would protect their lives from conception on.
I'm glad to see the proponents of abortion on demand, abortion up to actual birth and abortion paid for by taxpayers actually trying to pass a law making it legal.
Science does NOT say that life begins at conception. While the 14a clearly infers that rights begin at birth, and that's the law, which is the actual topic here.

Meanwhile using the same straw men tactic in your last paragraph, one could just easily say that the anti-abortion crowd, who opposes abortion even in cases of rape, is trying to get the taxpayers to pay for their inability to reproduce consensually.
 

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
9,877
1,489
136
Hey genius: Science says a single cell is alive.
It does NOT say a fetus is a human being.

You are full of shit.
You are pushing an agenda.
Your agenda is based on a "narrative" which is a big work meaning "bucket of lies used to alter the very fabric of reality".
You can be as anti-science as you want. The DNA of the fetus says it's human and the offspring from a male and a female donor. Science says you're wrong.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi420

SmCaudata

Senior member
Oct 8, 2006
776
1,001
136
Does life begin at conception? Science says it does, so it's a pretty settled question from a scientific standpoint. DNA of the child is not the same as the mother, it's a different life.Which would mean the 14th Amendment would protect their lives from conception on.
I'm glad to see the proponents of abortion on demand, abortion up to actual birth and abortion paid for by taxpayers actually trying to pass a law making it legal.
Forcing someone to carry to term is no less invasive than you being mandated to donate a life saving kidney to a child that you don't know. We obviously would never do that, so why do Republicans only care about the life of unborn and often unviable? Where's the outrage for living children that are sick, dying, starving, homeless?

So, are you ready to donate to random strangers?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
12,029
8,713
136
Forcing someone to carry to term is no less invasive than you being mandated to donate a life saving kidney to a child that you don't know. We obviously would never do that, so why do Republicans only care about the life of unborn and often unviable? Where's the outrage for living children that are sick, dying, starving, homeless?

So, are you ready to donate to random strangers?
We all know Taj is filth, and we all know the fake pro life crowd are really only pro fetus so they can control women, they don't give a fuck about that pregnant mothers healthcare, for example, or for any pro life things for a baby and it's mother once it's born. Pro lifers are the worst of the worst shite people

 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
29,663
10,015
136
You can be as anti-science as you want. The DNA of the fetus says it's human and the offspring from a male and a female donor. Science says you're wrong.
Authoritarians like you are the reason I support a woman’s right to an abortion. If just one aborted fetus prevented another traitor like you from being born, it would have been worth it.

It’s also hilarious to hear you reference the constitution when it’s obvious to everyone you’ve never read it and are only repeating talking points you’ve heard in your bubble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BD:) and Pohemi420

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
4,522
1,831
136
One reason I'd actually like a definite law on the subject is theres a lot of angry violent assholes harming women and pro-abortion men and I think the problem is getting worse. I'd like them arrested by the FBI BEFORE they attempt violent acts and if them trying to violate civil rights is a tool used to capture them before hand, I'm all for it.
Yeah but violence is already illegal.
 

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
9,877
1,489
136
Forcing someone to carry to term is no less invasive than you being mandated to donate a life saving kidney to a child that you don't know. We obviously would never do that, so why do Republicans only care about the life of unborn and often unviable? Where's the outrage for living children that are sick, dying, starving, homeless?

So, are you ready to donate to random strangers?
Donate............ SURE! Can i pick the ones i donate to?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY