Kansas voters block effort to ban abortion in state constitutional amendment vote

I disagree that R v W was made in err. It may have not been perfect, perhaps would have been stronger incorporated into a broader argument inclusive of other amendments, but it stood for a long time, upheld in numerous subsequent rulings spanning 50 years.

I'm reminded of the old adage ,'if it's not broke, don't fix it', and for 50 years, Roe served America well, women, more or less, depending on the state, had access to abortion. In short, Roe worked. There was no inherent reason to repeal Roe other than to fuffill the promise made by hard right ideologues in the Federalist Society who chose the latest three justices for Trump. Personally, given Trump's history of waffling on issues, picking parties which suits his particular need at the moment, I doubt Trump cares at all about abortion. In fact, he was pro choice before he became a Republican, which he only did when he finally threw his hat into the ring, because he recognized that in order to win the hearts of republicans, he'd have to promise picking justices, when given the chance, who would repeal Roe. He made good on that promise. Never, not once, did Trump ever speak of, hint at, make the argument of why Roe had to be repealed, he only promised what he knew his new base wanted to hear.

Again, I reiterate, no moderate conservative court would have repealed Roe, evidence of which is the fact that Chief Justice Roberts, himself, tried, though in vain, to get the other justices to uphold stare decisis. Alas, they didn't, and thus it is safe to presume that it is the Roberts court, and not the Burger court, that erred.

It had the effect of law for over 50 years, and by that measure, was a right.

The only time in 50 years that Democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate was a small window during Obama, about two months, maybe a little more, that duration of which the Affordable Care Act, negotiated on for over a year with over 100 amendments, took up all the oxygen. Without a supermajority no codifying of Roe would ever be possible, and no hint that any case before the court would ever repeal Roe, there was no need. Until Trump, there never was any hint that the court would become radicalized as they are now.

Yes, sometimes change is for the better, but that fact isn't evidence that repealing Roe was for the better. IN fact, repealing Roe has caused chaos.

https://phr.org/news/irreparable-ha...n-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization/

Doctors are denying critical care in emergency cases because of fears of being prosecuted. The Dobbs decision has thrown American in chaos in many emergency rooms across America:

https://news.yahoo.com/confusion-post-roe-spurs-delays-143021096.html

A woman with a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy sought emergency care at the University of Michigan Hospital after a doctor in her home state worried that the presence of a fetal heartbeat meant treating her might run afoul of new restrictions on abortion.

At one Kansas City, Mo., hospital, administrators temporarily required "pharmacist approval" before dispensing medications used to stop postpartum hemorrhages, because they can also be also used for abortions.

And in Wisconsin, a woman bled for more than 10 days from an incomplete miscarriage after emergency room staff would not remove the fetal tissue amid a confusing legal landscape that has roiled obstetric care.


So, Dems and moderates alike will see you at the ballot box at the midterms. We shall see what the electorate thinks about the court decision.

 

A state's medical board is where doctor's licenses are reviewed and revoked.
So exactly how is Indiana going to try and pull of their latest "must also lose their medical license" fiasco?

Indiana becomes 1st state to approve abortion ban post RoeSource: AP

By ARLEIGH RODGERS

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana on Friday became the first state in the nation to approve abortion restrictions since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, as the Republican governor quickly signed a near-total ban on the procedure shortly after lawmakers approved it.

The ban, which takes effect Sept. 15, includes some exceptions. Abortions would be permitted in cases of rape and incest, before 10-weeks post-fertilization; to protect the life and physical health of the mother; and if a fetus is diagnosed with a lethal anomaly. Victims of rape and incest would not be required to sign a notarized affidavit attesting to an attack, as had once been proposed.

Under the bill, abortions can be performed only in hospitals or outpatient centers owned by hospitals, meaning all abortion clinics would lose their licenses. A doctor who performs an illegal abortion or fails to file required reports must also lose their medical license — wording that tightens current Indiana law that says a doctor “may” lose their license.

“I am personally most proud of each Hoosier who came forward to courageously share their views in a debate that is unlikely to cease any time soon,” Gov. Eric Holcomb said in the statement announcing that he had signed the measure. “For my part as your governor, I will continue to keep an open ear.”




Read more: https://apnews.com/article/abortion...olis-indiana-83fe300188fcf15d8a3b4a36ceee7443


Abortion-rights protesters fill Indiana Statehouse corridors and cheer outside legislative chambers, Friday, Aug. 5, 2022, as lawmakers vote to concur on a near-total abortion ban, in Indianapolis. (AP Photo/Arleigh Rodgers)

 

I disagree. There is a difference. A miscarriage is natural.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/miscarriage
noun, a natural loss of the products of conception

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/natural
Natural describes something that comes from nature, rather than being man-made.

An abortion is a planned man-made termination via a medical procedure. It’s a choice.

Your coworker will be the only person making that decision after consultation with her Doctor.

A women can only be treated as an object if she allows it to happen. The women of the past proves that via the fact they won the right to vote.

People & Politicians statements are just words. The woman can choose for herself if those words are beneficial or harmful for her.

Read all of Ephesians. Force is not implied. It is advice for both the Husband and Wife. That has changed. It’s old news. Women currently make the decision to be either working or stay at home Mothers.

Women can decide for themselves which Pastors are Biblically sound. Women can also decide for themselves…if the Bible is the word of God.

Currently, Women can make their voices heard both pro-life & pro-choice via their votes within the States they reside. Since the Women of the past gave us that right to vote. Women of today need to make their voices heard just like the Women of the past.

 

My question is does the body of a pregnant woman actually own the body of another human temporarily residing in her uterus?

When that temporary human body had absolutely no choice taking up residence within the uterus?

When the actions of the man and woman knew their actions could cause temporary residence of a human body.

 

Simple — the next of kin is always given complete medical latitude when another isn’t able to make said decisions. A zygote is completely unformed and it takes a bit of a stretch to say one has any individual rights.

A zygote also is requiring sustenance removed from the body of another. There is no other instance where one is required to sacrifice their own body for that of another.

If y’all want to eliminate abortions, develop medical science to be able to remove the zygote and place in an article environment but telling a woman that she loses control of her body to the state should terrify everyone.

 

How is a Women who has not given birth to a live baby considered to be legally the next of kin of a zygote or fetus?

Remember, the zygote or fetus is not considered to be a baby until born alive.

Is the Women considered to be the Mother (next of kin) of the zygote or fetus in uterus?

Roe v Wade allowed ownership of the woman over the non-person residing in her uterus. Which allowed the termination of the non-person.

How can a Women be next of kin to a non-person.

Women can not be a Mother or Next of Kin of fetal tissue within the uterus according to Roe v Wade.

And if that zygote or fetus requiring that sustenance is putting any Woman’s Life in jeopardy should be terminated to save the Life of the Woman!!!

 

If a fetus is a “person” then it is required to have a next of kin — if it isn’t a “person” then it has zero rights and the woman should have sole control of her body.

RvW has been terminated by the installed right wing court — those opinions are meaningless

 

Problem is, if the fetus is a Person does the woman have any justification under the law as the next of kin to be legally allowed to terminate an Innocent Person through no fault of their own being held as a Prisoner of nature within a Woman’s body?

Especially since the Person is a Prisoner of nature based on the actions of 2 adults with the full knowledge that their actions can cause that imprisonment of nature.

And, just because the Mother of the Person is the next of kin under the law… The Person who is imprisoned will be unable to speak for themselves concerning the matter of their Life or Death for many years even after they are born alive. Like the many next of kins that may have spoken about their concerns of their Life or Death. If, they ever in the future can not speak for themselves and hopefully their next of kin will be trust worthy enough to abide by their kin’s request and not the kin putting their self interest above their kin’s self interest request.

Yes, The Supreme Court Justices made a ruling concerning the controversial Roe v Wade decision. Okay. I Disagree.

 

I would be fine with medical professionals removing the zygote and leaving it to its own devices. Does that work for you?

 

That is your choice to be fine with that option. My choice is No, it does not work for me.

No. I was once a zygote. So was my Mother, Father, 3 Brothers, Aunts, Uncles, Cousins, My 1st born Daughter, My 2nd born Son, My youngest Son, Friends, Neighbors… etc.

If, medical professionals removed all of us that once were zygotes and left all us to our own devices we would never have lived our lives.

Plus, I wouldn’t be debating with you… who was once a zygote just like all of us who were born alive & kicking. An able to take our first breath.

I had one brother that died of crib death. Another sibling that miscarried. Maybe a sister. I’ll never know.

I was 27 when my daughter was born. Did not use birth control. Thought I would never have a baby. Was extremely happy when all of my once zygote children were born!!! I was 30 & 34 when I had my Sons.

 

Absolutely, as long as a woman is not forced to be an incubator to the state.

Maybe all of these pro-forced birth individuals will allow these zygotes to be implanted in themselves.

 

I agree, but you were missing my point. This has to do with fetal protection laws that states have modified with their abortion bans. For instance, a woman, who was 5 months pregnant, was shot during an argument. She survived, but her fetus didn't, a miscarriage. The police arrested her for fetal homicide. Luckily the DA dropped the charges citing that is not the intent of fetal protection laws. Fetal homicide is intended when a person murders another person who was pregnant, in their third trimester and is charged with the homicide of the mother and their baby, such as Scott Peterson for instance. But now, states in their rush to ban abortion access, abortions, and so forth, enhanced those fetal protection laws in which a mother who has a miscarriage may get arrested, Another instance is a woman, who wanted natural childbirth, was arrested, because her doctors believed a c section would have been safer for the fetus although the C section was more harmful to the woman, from what I understand. The irony is that the state agreed and stated that the woman's rights were secondary to the state's interest.

Abortion is manmade, but the issue here is at what degree should abortion be legal and illegal. Second, as I have discussed with you, take away the politics of abortion, the decision is based on a variety of factors. I am not pro-abortion, but my priorities are that the decision should be left to the patient and her physicians, medical doctors, etc, if she is an adult, and with parental consent, if she is a minor with protections for both the minor and parents. There are times when an abortion is medically necessary, such as a woman's water breaks very early in pregnancy and she has an infection. Then there are plenceta abortions where the placenta starts to break from the uterus, and so forth.

Finally, it is not as simple or simplistic as a woman can choose. You can choose to walk to Anchorage Alaska with the clothes on your back and nothing else. The better question is, will you do that? Most likely not. Same with a woman who has no access to abortions who need an abortion or can choose one. Most southern states and some midwestern states have shut down access to abortions, Texas, my state is one of them. A woman would have to travel to New Mexico, some 10 plus hours from DFW, or 5 hours to Kansas and such. So is the choice really there? No, just as the choice of walking to Alaska from where you are is not really a choice, is it?

I have read Ephesians. In the English language Bibles, we use the word "submit" It is not that force is implied, it is that a woman must do as the Husband says to be a good Christian wife. But English is such an imprecise language and if you read the original greek, it is more like enjoin or support the husband as long as the Husband is godly in his motives and actions. People tend to forget that last part. However, there are Christians out there, yes Evangelical Christians, who have argued that a woman must obey the commands of the husband at all costs. This includes pastors such as Greg Locke.

Finally, choosing a pastor is not exactly choosing which beef to have for BBQ dinner here. For most people, the church they go to including the pastor they listen to is based on a variety of factors. The pastors with the largest denominations tend to be pastors who preach wealth gospels, which makes people feel good and think that if god is on their side, then they can become wealthy. Second, the music at churches nowadays, especially in large churches is like a mini concert, fun, adventurous, etc. And then the pastor will come up and give a "motivational" speech even though the specifics are not really Biblical. That's why they choose their pastors. And it is also why I am very selective whom I listen too.

 

And Jews were subhumans to the Nazi's. Prove conception is just a religious term.

 

That's one way of telling us you have no idea whatsoever how to do this.

 

Prove conception is a religious term.

 

Thanks for proving my point.

Giving legal rights to a thimble full of cells is nuts.

 

Uh, who else's would it be?

IF it's the states then the state should pay all medical expenses for pregnancy and birth and the next 18 years of IT'S ( the state's) child's life ...

The woman's.

Having sex and getting pregnant are not crimes that should punish women by having their rights destroyed..

 

Does that apply to those in a coma as well?

 

A fetus with brain damage will usually abort spontaneously..

That happens to about 30%, spontaneous abortion, not brain damage..

You have less than nothing, do you really need to waste our time?

 

No one is forcing you to respond.

 

"The Federalist Society" to capture and control the SCOTUS.

 

Exactly, the ladies in that article aren't lying and Australia's abortion laws include criminalizing abortion in parts of their country.

 

I defer to the posters that live there on this subject.