Now that women have some semblance of control of their own bodies again in Missouri, how will the sexist pro-government old white men who want control over women's uteri respond?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
31 Answers
The plan is, and always has been, a federal abortion ban.
All this “states’ rights” nonsense has always been nothing but a pretense, to first destroy the federal right to abortion guaranteed by constitutional SC interpretation, followed by a federal ban once they have the power to do so.
And just as a preview: this is going to be the same play with contraceptives, gay marriage, possibly even interracial marriage, and beyond. Concurrences by conservative justices when Roe was repealed have pretty much announced that.
They have a few pieces of agenda forming to make sure clinics and doctors dont victimize clients ie safe, CLEAN environments, local doctors. Thats why the last clinic closed due to blood and tissue not being cleaned in the St Louis clinic.
Believe it or not some people do want them safe, even if they abhor the process/profit.
They just find other ways to put barriers in place. Mandatory waiting periods. Mandatory ultrasound. Close clinics because their doorway is too narrow. They’ll find new ways too.
It’s like when FL voters approved an amendment to allow people with former felony convictions to be able to vote. The government didn’t like it, so they enacted policy that they had to pay back whatever fees, intimidated them, made things so confusing that people were afraid they’d be arrested if they went to vote. There are a million different strategies to go against the will of the people.
@KNOWITALL I believe you and agree that clean and safe are vitally important.
It’s all for nought, actually. With the Republicans in power, they will now pass a national ban on abortion. So all these people from individual states getting excited about having abortion rights enshrined in their constitutions, or maybe going to lose it anyway.
Although, does having it enshrined in their state constitution overrule and national ban? Maybe somebody can answer that.
They’ll put some obstacles or hurdles if they are not already there, like parental notification for under 18. Also, waiting periods and forcing a girl to have an ultrasound, the typical that has been done for the last 40 years.
Since the people voted it will become less of an issue maybe, because part of the reason for the pro-life fight was to get votes for the Republicans. If they might lose talking about it, they will move onto other topics.
We’ll see if it can get past Trump to do something nationally as @LifeQuestioner has said. Since Roe was overturned I have said in the face of Republicans telling me it is a states’ rights issue that “of course the people at the top of the pro-lifer organizations will go after a national law or ban, don’t be fooled.” If a bill is too radical maybe Trump won’t sign it. We’ll probably get a chance to find out.
@JLeslie ^^^ “If a bill is too radical maybe Trump won’t sign it.” Trump will sign anything that is revenge !
It’s interesting and fitting that the laws in MO were changed. That was, after all, the point of taking control of abortion out of the federal level. Those laws can get changed more easily at the state level AND if you have a majority of people that want change and the state legislature isn’t responsive, you can more easily change them out too.
The other thing I find hilarious is that there are so many that are sure Trump is going to sign a national abortion ban into being. Forget that Trump fought to move control to the states, forget that he has said consistently that he isn’t in favor of a national ban, that he doesn’t want it back at the federal level and that on a personal level he is pretty much in agreement with sane folks when it comes to abortion. None of that is what is so funny, What is funny is that you are afraid of a national ban, but want to put control of abortion back at the national level. I guess the irony is lost on many of you.
@seawulf575 Are you trying to sell that the pro-life movement wanted abortion at the state level so some states can allow abortion until viability? Give me a break. Pro-life wants to stop fetuses from being aborted period. Trump was catering to them.
“Your body, my choice”. White nationalists refrain.
Well. Once Trump is sworn in, ALL men will automatically be considered a licensed Gynecological Doctor.
Remember ladies, “we’re gonna protect women, whether they like it or not.” (D. Trump.)
Why just men? What about the white women who support these white men?
They should tie the tubes of all baby boys and reconnect them when they’re 21. Birth control can and should go both ways.
^^I heard someone else say the same thing last week. Is that some sort of meme going around? I think the woman who said it to our group was serious.
Women HAD the chance, to easily turn this election.
I know that’s frustrating, but it’s a fact.
Men, essentially put women’s rights on the ballot this election.
Women threw their last 60 years of advancement away, if they voted for Trump.
It WILL catch up to them, as well…
It’s a matter of time before it’s federally illegal, and probably abortions will be considered homicides (or something equally insane.)
Doctors will need to think hard, about each scenario that could implicate them.
The Christian people, will need to be consulted as far as what is the legal/“moral” and therefore correct way of treating pregnant women.
A woman was talking about a trend or movement, in which women would “withhold” sexual activities, and marriages in protest. That same woman also mentioned how that would be a terrible strategy. As the conservatives would no doubt “out-breed” the non-concervatives, further weakening pro-choice voices…
I have to admit, she’s right.
I agree @MrGrimm888 women had the chance this election, they took a look at the leaders and chose to go with the convicted felon ,and rapist .
I still can’t figure that one out.
@JLeslie No, what I’m trying to sell is the truth. That I wanted abortion to be at the state level for a long time. Each state is already fine tuning their abortion laws. The case in MO is a perfect example. That cannot happen at the federal level.
What are you trying to sell? That it is all or nothing? Someone can’t possibly think that abortion is wrong as a contraceptive tool and still see it might be needed under certain circumstances? Here’s a consideration for you: The pro-abortion side keeps screaming about how they want Roe v. Wade back. The Dobbs case overturned Roe v Wade. Did you ever know what the Dobbs case was about? The Mississippi law that governed abortion was being challenged by Planned Parenthood. That law was almost identical to RvW. PP felt that a law that wanted to restrict abortion after 15 weeks was completely unfair. Yet RvW had all the same limitations as the Mississippi law. The SCOTUS ruled that this nonsense doesn’t belong at the federal level, that abortion is not a Constitutional right. The rules for abortion need to reside with the states. That was the gist of the case. Pro-abortion people didn’t want the limitations of RvW so they kept suing until it finally got us to where we are. That was the unintended consequence of their wild efforts to make abortion up to the point of birth for any reason the law of the land.
@seawulf575 I’m not really talking about what I think is in your head and heart about abortion. I think you are against abortion at-will and for saving women in a life threatening situation.
I’m talking about the leaders in the pro-life movement. The billionaire Christian Dominionists, the people who actually think if there is a heartbeat there is still a chance even if the HSG level is plummeting.
OBGYN’s for many years already have some of the highest insurance coverage, and some were letting go of their OB practice. Now, you add laws that they worry they at minimum break a law and at worst can go to jail. Maybe the politicians voting for the laws or governors writing executive orders want women to be saved, the problem is they don’t understand doctors will be afraid of the detail in the language and being accused of the woman not being sick enough.
Your intention might be good, but you are being unrealistic and idealistic about the outcome.
Do you believe most Republican Congressmen will vote to no on a bill to restrict abortion? Think about it. They will be willing to say they voted no on saving life?
@JLeslie Do I believe most Republican Congressmen will vote no on a bill to restrict abortion? I don’t think there will be such a bill. The SCOTUS already told us abortion is not a federal issue. I don’t believe such a bill would even be brought to the floor for a vote. As for the hypothetical “if”, “if” such a bill was written and “if” such a bill were to be brought to a vote, I don’t believe most Republican congressmen would vote for such a bill…a complete ban on abortion. But you used the term “restrict”. Define that term for us so we are speaking the same language.
@JLeslie I heard that from my sister. Although it’ll never happen, I like the idea.
@smudges It does not work that way. Vasectomies can only be successfully reversed around half the time and that’s for procedure reversals done within ten years.
Although, if we’re talking men vs. women, the procedure for a vasectomy is way easier, physically, than the procedure for a tube tying.
It’s also much safer for men to get vasectomies.
@Blackwater_Park I forgot about the 10 years reversal window.
You’re right @JLeslie, it’s probably the latest thing going around. I think my sister heard of it on FB.
We ALREADY perform genital mutilation, on most male children in America. It’s called a circumcision. Women often overlook that.
Life sucks, when you don’t have control over your own body.
I would NOT have been circumcised, if I was involved in the decision.
We are victims of puritans, and Christians who pull important strings… Why further mutilate male genitals? Because you women, voted for Trump?...
Good point, @ragingloli. I didn’t know that. I worked in an ob/gyn office and did the sperm washing for insemination, but that must be something that has come about in the past 25 years. What a great idea! Knowing that, it really behooves men to get vasectomies. They can’t use the reason that they might want to have kids in the future. We need equal birth control responsibility. We need to join other industrialized nations. A 2015 report by the United Nations showed that 1 in 10 men in the United States get vasectomies. That’s half the rate of men in Canada and the United Kingdom. In other countries it’s the norm.
^I forgive you, for your misdirected anger…
^^ Huh? I was thanking Loli for posting that link, then I briefly expounded on the topic. Sorry if you took it to mean something about you.
^I forgive you, for not meaning to be needing of forgiveness, if you forgive me.
I do want to be on the record, for not supporting mass vasectomies.
I would support a program, like I believe they have somewhere in India. They used to pay men $50, to get the procedure.
I love this idea. Especially because, if you’re the type of person to do that for $50, maybe you shouldn’t be reproducing.
Ultimately, it’s less money down the road,with less people.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
