McConnell sabotages the Senate
There is a lot of speculation on what happened to the Red Wave, but I am reminded of the old Japanese monster movies, where Godzilla and Mothera fight it out and Tokyo gets stomped to rubble in the process.
Both former President Trump and Sen McConnell controlled huge sums of advertising funds and used them to thwart each other’s candidates or to build a war chest for their own future purposes. Both Trump and McConnell raised funds in States with close Senate races, sucking the money out of donors, and then either directed those funds elsewhere or in Trump’s case, held those funds for his planned Presidential run. McConnell was just as bad, defunding campaigns where the candidate was supported by Trump or simply would not pledge to support McConnell as party leader in the Senate.
In both cases, the Senate candidates would have been better off if McConnell and Trump had never entered their states to suck up the funds.
So, to a large extent, the GOP got trampled by a pissing match between competing narcissists who forgot what the election was really about. It’s time for both of them to fade away, or failing that, be rejected by their party.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
RE: “It’s time for both of them to fade away, or failing that, be rejected by their party.”
The issue is generational. It is time for us Baby Boomers to step aside.
LikeLike
Who would take our place? Millennials? I think the whole age spectrum has its place. We boomers have memories that the younger generations lack, that need to be expressed. How many Gen-Xers or millennials remember the Carter inflation? Or had classmates drafted and killed in a foreign war?
We need to start choosing candidates we admire, rather than envy. There are problems with candidate quality in the GOP, but even so, we could have had the Senate if McConnell had focused more on winning seats and less on humiliating Trump.
LikeLike
May I offer a humble suggestion as to why the “red wave” never happened:
https://www.thebulwark.com/the-data-have-spoken-abortion-was-a-decisive-issue-in-the-2022-midterms/?fbclid=IwAR1AgS9SCcyLPYh9Alhdpw2q7jFvtG3v22KITF_iLP60qRmSt6adeP7Tnz4
It happened because the Republican Party stacked the Supreme Court and that Court took away a woman’s right to control her own body. And the GenZ women are never going to forget that. It is burned into their brains. Republicans have lost women’s votes for at least one generation.
LikeLiked by 3 people
In 2 years, the States will have resolved the abortion issue, and it will be moot.
We can’t get bogged down fighting the last war.
LikeLike
When someone stabs you in the back, you may heal in a couple of years, but you never forget who stabbed you. And you never give them the chance to do it again. I promise you, the GenZ women will not forget.
LikeLiked by 3 people
They will see that in those places where people feel as you do, little will change as States assert themselves. and they will realize they never really had a problem. Have faith in your State government. All you lost was the ability to impose your will on others with no effort.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“All you lost was the ability to impose your will on others with no effort.”
An odd but typical way for you to frame this. The people who have the state force the continuation of unwanted pregnancies are the ones imposing their will on others. It is not those who say nobody’s will should be imposed. Duh!
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Constitution clearly leaves that to the legislatures.
Hiding behind the court to avoid the work of legislating is imposing their will on the people of states which see it differently
LikeLike
“The Constitution clearly leaves that to the legislatures.”
No, it doesn’t. It is not even obliquely addressed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly.
Read the tenth Amendment.
LikeLike
Wrong. The constitutional right to bodily autonomy has been removed from women. It’s a right that should not be questioned, much less have to be fought for at state levels.
It’s like the right slaves had to be free. If that right had to be debated at state level, the south would still have slave states. Not only would black people living in New York not feel comfortable knowing black people in Louisiana were slaves, they would know they wouldn’t be safe traveling in parts of the country where slavery was legal… just as pregnant women will know it’s not safe to travel in parts of the country where a miscarriage could get them thrown in jail for murder.
Demanding freedom for yourself is not imposing your will on others. Giving slaves in Louisiana their freedom was not “imposing the will of black people on white people.” Although I’m certain the Klan thinks otherwise.
No, it is not something women will forget. Even if your state recognizes your bodily autonomy, you are limited in where you can move and expect the same freedoms. It’s something every woman of child bearing age will have to consider every time she moves. She can’t forget. Even if she tries. And she won’t try.
LikeLiked by 3 people
13th Amendment overruled the previous tolerance of slavery. Prior to that, it was left to the States.
Slavery should never have been allowed at all, but it was legal, though wrong.
LikeLike
“…but it was legal, though wrong.”
You have answered the question.
A fertilized egg is not a person no matter what the vote is in the legislature. Same with an embryo and same with a fetus. Now, a legislature can decide that abortion is not acceptable, but that does not make the fetus any different than what it is: a fetus.
Medical science has evolved in the last century so that viability can be artificially stretched to 24 weeks with considerable technical effort and some luck. Which can result in a forced birth with essentially a transfer to an artificial womb in a neonatal unit. Once the cord is cut, we have a person.
The messaging on “an unborn baby” is just that. An emotional appeal to make the fetus appear to be the same as a born person. Historically, we celebrate birth as the beginning of a new life, a new member of society. Our laws are based on dates of birth for all kinds of issues. Life birth certificates are the legal recognition of just that.
Women have had a difficult role until recent times. Genital mutilation was based on removing the possibly of sexual pleasure for women. Now the push is to make every unintended pregnancy punishment for sex. Punishment to be borne by the woman only, of course. Regardless of whether the pregnancy was forced or accidental. Pregnancy is relatively dangerous for a woman. Complications are not uncommon with sometimes dire consequences for the woman. Maternal death rates are much higher than for abortion.
Modern industrial societies have reduced family sizes. No longer do families have 10 children so a handful might survive, as in the Third World. But sexual desire is still present for both sexes. So we evolved to being able to enjoy the natural pleasures without having a baby a year until someone dies. But in a male dominated world, that is unacceptable. Think chador in some cultures. Think also about the societal condemnation not long ago that women desired sex as much as men.
Bottom line to me is that we should do everything we can to make sure that every child that is born is wanted, loved, supported and nurtured.
LikeLiked by 3 people
There is a lot there to agree with, but for legal purposes. a person is present when the legislature says there is. There is really no other way to determine that for legal purposes.
LikeLike
The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution.
On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a fundamental “right to privacy,” which protects a pregnant woman’s right to an abortion.
It was considered “settled law.”
On June 24, 2022, a Supreme Court that had been stacked by Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump ruled that the Constitution provided no federal protection for a pregnant woman’s right to an abortion and the issue could be decided at a state level.
Two different Supreme Courts. Same Constitution. The only difference was, one Supreme Court was full of Justices appointed by Republicans, not to interpret the Constitution, but to carry out their political agenda.
Damn right women will remember.
LikeLiked by 3 people
And I would look at it the opposite way. The Warren court put its view of what was good ahead if what the clear meaning of the Constitution provided.
Remember that Plessy was settled law too.
LikeLike
“Read the tenth Amendment.”
Read how you get to be a citizen of these United States. Hint – it involves being born. There is no way that the Founding Fathers considered a fetus to be a person. Abortion was explicitly legal in British colonies. It remained legal throughout the United States until at least the 1860s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you really have that little faith in State legislatures?
But being a citizen is not the same thing as being a person. Recent immigrants are not citizens, but you still can’t legally murder them.
LikeLike
“Do you really have that little faith in State legislatures?”
It is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of principle. Fundamental human rights are not subject to the choices of “local political leaders.” Dominion over your own body is such a fundamental human right. It is true for men and it is true for women. Period.
It is also a violation of the Establishment Clause for the state to enforce the religious beliefs of a particular religion – and that is what these “pro-lifers” are doing. Period.
Besides those egregious Constitutional violations, several state legislatures have already adopted completely abusive new restrictions that are both directly and indirectly killing actual persons – women.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then contribute ti the efforts to change those laws,
But It is not a matter of religious belief, though some people might be guided by them.
And once again, it is not a matter of bodily autonomy. It is entirely a matter of defining when a person is present. and there is no arbiter of that other than the legislatures
LikeLike
“Then contribute to the efforts to change those laws. . .”
Oh, that is what Democrats are doing. And you are whining about those efforts and trying to pretend it is no longer an issue.
“And once again, it is not a matter of bodily autonomy”
That is EXACTLY what it is. And that could not be more obvious. You want women’s choices on what to sacrifice for other “people” to be for “local political leaders” to decide. Maybe the “local political leaders” should compel YOU to donate blood? Save some lives. Oh, wait. You have dominion over your body. They can’t do that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because you say so?
I see the issue as protection of innocent life. When that life begins is the thing that changes everything. Prior to that, the woman’s right to do as she pleases is not contested. But once another person is present, that life must be considered.
LikeLike
“But once another person is present, that life must be considered.”
Yes, by the woman or girl who will have to endure pain, suffering, disfigurement and risk of death if that “person” is not removed from her body. It is her body. She – not some claque of “local political leaders” is the only one with the right to decide.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Childbirth is a normal part of life.
Yes it can be painful and even dangerous, but that is something the woman should weigh when she takes the decision to risk pregnancy.
But she took that choice, the baby, once there is a baby, did not. The baby is innocent of any part in her problems.
LikeLike
“Childbirth is a normal part of life.”
That has nothing to do with the issue. We no longer live in caves.
But, I understand your position. Women are second-class citizens whose bodies belong to the collective and they can be compelled to sacrifice themselves for others by “local political leaders.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
And I understand your position.
Women bear no responsibility to the lives they willingly create and can discard them like trash once they become inconvenient, even after they are self-aware and near birth.
Because no one can ever be held responsible for their choices.
LikeLike
“Women bear no responsibility to the lives they willingly create . . .”
The key word is WILLINGLY. Rape is not willingly. Incest is not willingly. Ignorance is not willingly. Accidents are not willingly. Birth control failures are not willingly.
“. . . even after they are self-aware and near birth.”
As always, you are dishonestly characterizing the pro-freedom, pro-choice position. Near birth abortions are not done for convenience. Late term abortions for “convenience” are not protected under Roe v. Wade. You know that, so why are you always so dishonest? Really, why?
“Because no one can ever be held responsible for their choices.”
Doesn’t your butt get saddle sore from spending so much time on that high horse? Do you not understand that the choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is usually the responsible thing to do? You bitch and moan about single mother households and bitch and moan about women who take the difficult decision to not go down that road.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Roe V Wade is gone. What is under consideration is state law.
Rape and incest account for less than 1% of abortions.
In these days of readily available birth control, ignorance and accident are even more rare. Carelessness is irresponsible, And in the rare circumstance when birth control is not readily available, waiting until it is works every time.
One thing for certain, the baby DID NOT cause the situation.
LikeLike
“What is under consideration is state law.”
No, it is not acceptable that ANY state strip women of a fundamental right.
What is under consideration is national politics. You talk about accepting responsibility. It is time to hold the GOP accountable at every level for this abomination of a Theocrat Supreme Court.
There are two items on the agenda.
1. National legislation restoring a woman’s right to choose termination of an unwanted pregnancy.
2. Overturning Dobbs and restoring sanity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Where is the Dobbs decision in error?
I know you don’t like it, but your preferences are not in the Constitution.
Roe was in error. It assumed powers that the Constitution reserves to the State legislatures per the 10th Amendment.
SCOTUS is not a legislature, and should never have made law.
LikeLike
“Where is the Dobbs decision in error?”
Read the dissent.
It is a bogus decision dishonestly decided by dishonest people who dishonestly assured the Senate that Roe was settled law in order to win confirmation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
…”but that is something the woman should weigh when she takes the decision to risk pregnancy.”
Most women don’t KNOW that a pregnancy will be risky to her own life until it actually happens. My wife’s pregnancy with our first ended up dangerously close to her needing a transfusion after delivery. She as never given any indication that there was a risk until it was too late. If a women is informed that a pregnancy could kill her if carried to term AFTER she becomes pregnant, she should have the choice to decide what is best. Some legislator in Wyoming should not be able to force a woman in Cheyenne to carry to term a fetus that could kill her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Who has said abortions should be forbidden if there are life threatening complications?
The subject was the normal risk of pregnancy, which a woman can avoid by not getting pregnant.
LikeLike
“Who has said abortions should be forbidden if there are life threatening complications?”
Theocrat Republicans writing Draconian anti-choice laws.
LikeLike
Where has such a law passed?
LikeLike
“Where has such a law passed?”
The answer provided was accurate.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/abortion-ban-life-of-the-mother-exception/670582/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tha Atlantic’s fantasies about what Republicans might want to do, the question was what state has PASSED a law banning abortion to save the life of the mother?
LikeLike
“The Atlantic’s fantasies . . .”
Lame. There is nothing fantastic in the piece. The article names several active Theocrat groups doing their best to eliminate the life of the mother exceptions. And that confirms my answer to your original question which was who was advocating not protecting the life of the mother. You seem to hope that there lack of success SO FAR implies that they need not be taken seriously. Sorry, the issue is not going to disappear until Dobbs is overturned.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But have any been PASSED INTO LAW?
You’re answering a different question from what was asked.
LikeLike
“You’re answering a different question from what was asked.”
Uh, no I am not. Your question was . . .
“Who has said abortions should be forbidden if there are life threatening complications?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul Murphy
November 15, 2022 at 6:25 pm Edit
“Who has said abortions should be forbidden if there are life threatening complications?”
Theocrat Republicans writing Draconian anti-choice laws.
Like
Don Tabor
November 15, 2022 at 6:47 pm Edit
Where has such a law passed?
LikeLike
You keep moving the goal posts on Paul. Laws are being PROPOSED that will forbid ALL abortions, regardless of cause, mother’s health or any other way Theocratic legislators want to control women. You are in denial if you believe that some of these laws will not receive serious consideration in some ruby red states. You are correct hat they have not yet passed. You are naieve if you think the possibility is nil
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really? What states have advanced any of those proposals?
LikeLike
The fact that they are even being considered has no effect on your way of thinking. Which appears to be “Whatever the GOP controlled state legislatures decide is fine for their states.”
You CONSTANT drumbeat of “Where have they been passed?” is blind to the fact hat they are being considered. But, hey, YOU can’t get pregnant so YOUR way, as a MAN, is the ONLY right way to decide.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have some faith in the legislatures
LikeLike
Again, my wife knew of no risks to her pregnancy or body because of it. Yet if it had been medically necessary to save her life late in the pregnancy, that would have been a decision between her, her doctor and myself.
The laws being discussed take that out of the equation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, what laws ban abortion to save the life of the mother?
LikeLike
“In 2 years, the States will have resolved the abortion issue, and it will be moot.”
I predict that your prediction is dead wrong. Just because some Gerrymandered state legislature cancels or infringes a fundamental right does not mean that people will just meekly accept it. This issue is not going away.
Women are as mad as Hell. And not because they expect to be treated like second class citizens but because women in many states will be. I am sure there are some, but personally, I do not know a single woman who thinks her medical decisions should be in the hands of “local political leaders.” Do you really not understand how motivating such disrespect is?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why is it you think the women of Berkely and NYC should be able to impose their will on the women of Florida or Louisiana?
LikeLike
“. . . impose their will . . .”
I am not aware of any movement to force anybody to have an abortion.
The answer to your question is that under our federal Constitution fundamental human rights are not up for a vote in ANY state.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Including the right to not be murdered once your legislature has determined you are a person.
LikeLike
Forcing all pregnancies to term regardless of the situation, health or capabilities of a woman is imposing will. Letting women decide for themselves without consulting local politicians is freedom.
You have it backwards. Berkley voters are not forcing Texas women to have abortions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t think anyone said anything about forcing all pregnancies to term. I have no problem with abortions for any reason before 18 weeks, and most GOP legislatures are finding consensus ate 15 weeks,
After that I have no problem with ending a pregnancy to protect the life or physical health of the mother from serious harm, or in case of gross fetal abnormality.
I think consensus can be found there or near there. And That is what I’ll support. I suggest you decide what you can live with and work for that.
But raging about Dobbs is a waste of energy.
LikeLike
The people of Pungo get to impose their rights on the people of Kempsville. What’s your point?
THERE IS NOONE!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The only FORCE in question is that being women being forced to carry to term a pregnancy that could kll them.
LikeLike
Killing a baby shortly before birth is not force?
LikeLike
“Killing a baby shortly before birth is not force?”
And who is advocating that?
Under Roe states could – and did – ban abortion from about 24 weeks onward. I think you are well aware of that so again you do not argue honestly. Arguing without honesty is a significant character flaw in my opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It was not within the court’s authority to set the 24 week standard. If you want to argue that threshold before the general assembly, do so,
I will argue for 18 weeks. but if a 15 week threshold is passed I am OK with that.
But it is the legislature that sets the threshold.
LikeLike
“I will argue for 18 weeks. but if a 15 week threshold is passed I am OK with that.”
Argue what you want, but do so honestly. Demonizing those whom disagree with ugly LIES is not civil. No one – and I repeat no one – had advocated “killing babies shortly before birth.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Uh, that is current Virginia law.
LikeLike
“Uh, that is current Virginia law.”
Uh, not it isn’t.
Virginia law allows abortion in the third trimester only when three doctors certify that it is medically necessary.
Taking this fact and twisting it to say that those advocating the pro-freedom, pro-choice position are advocating the killing of babies shortly before birth is slimy dishonesty – something that we see a lot of from the so-called “pro-life” fanatics. And now from you too. Sad.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“It was not within the court’s authority to set the 24 week standard”
Says you. Doesn’t make it right, it just makes it your opinion. You’ve made enough legal errors in some of your posts there is no reason to believe you are correct in this one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
10th Amendment
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Powers delegated to the Federal government are enumerated in Article 1 Section 8.
Crimes such as murder are not delegated to the Federal government and thus fall to the State legislatures.
Per Article 1 section 1, all lawmaking powers are under the legislative branch.
It’s not my opinion, it’s the black letter of the law.
LikeLike
So the right to privacy isn’t in the Constitution? Go figure. I never knew. 😇
LikeLiked by 1 person
Show me the Article and section.
The 4th Amendment provides protection against searches, but that’s not the kind of privacy we’re talking about
LikeLike
Why is it you think the MEN of Florida and Louisiana should be able to impose THEIR will on women ANYWHERE? You use that argument on several different discussions, yet I have yet to see YOU answer why residents of Pungo can force their will on the people of Kempsville or Town Center.
It’s a two-way street. You can’t go both ways at the same time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re making no sense.
Opposition to murder is not a gender issue. Under our Constitution, that is in the jurisdiction of the states.
LikeLike
Opposition to murder is one thing, banning abortion is another. It means redefining murder to include fertilized eggs, embryos, fetuses at levels of development that have no chance of survival outside the uterus. Miscarriage would be chargeable as at least involuntary manslaughter if the woman did not live a pristine life.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Where are such laws in place?
The conservative consensus is centered on 15 weeks. I prefer 18, but I’m not king.
So, what is terrible about limiting abortions after 15 weeks to cases of serious harm to the mother and fetal abnormalities?
There is no point in arguing extremes no one is trying to pass.
LikeLike
Well, then the anti-choice folks need to stop lying about ripping 8 and 9 month fetuses from the womb for convenience.
In my thinking, I compromise on 24 weeks which is realistically the earliest for viability. And even at that, abortions were extremely rare and almost always for some tragic problems.
The issue is whether or not a doctor and the patient need to get legal permission in medically dicey situations. In Texas it is 6 weeks with vigilante enforcement.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A person with COVID temporarily on a respirator would not count as a person under your definition.
My 18 week threshold is the point at which self awareness can be demonstrated.
The 15 week threshold is where the ability to feel and react to pain is demonstrated.
I find both of those more rational than viability, which is really more a measure of our skill level for life support which is temporary.
LikeLike
“My 18 week threshold is the point at which self awareness can be demonstrated.”
Only by the most rudimentary criteria which bear little resemblance to the self-awareness of an actual person.
“Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed.”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/14767059209161911?cookieSet=1
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rudimentary is OK with me, Once the baby can identify itself as “me” and separate from its surroundings that is sufficient.
LikeLike
“Once the baby can identify itself as “me” and separate from its surroundings that is sufficient.”
And that BEGINS to happen around 30 weeks. Six weeks AFTER the Roe standard. You are just in love with your own opinions and do not care about evidence. On this and every other subject.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have reported the reason for that line before.
Recently aborted, but still living, fetuses were tested for responses to being touched on the eye with probe. As early as twelve weeks, the fetus will flinch, but that could be just a reflex. At 18 weeks, the baby pushed the probe away with a hand.
That’s not solving quadratic equations, but it is coordinated self-defense. That is self-aware enough for me.
LikeLike
“I have reported the reason for that line before.”
Yes, so? That does not make it make sense.
The projection of consciousness onto what are clearly reflexive movements is not even pseudo-scientific. Consciousness requires formations in the brain that are not present at that stage of development.
The arbitrarily low standards you prefer will only cause harm. And you still do not address the core issue – why should women and girls be compelled to sacrifice themselves for another “person” – or before 24 weeks – a thing? You cannot be forced to give up a drop of blood. But then you are not a second-class citizen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A flinch can be a reflex. but using a hand to protect an eye is not a reflex. Coordinated actions separate from the stimulus are not reflexes. Clearly your understanding of neurophysiology is lacking.
But I get it, You will never hold anyone responsible for their actions. With the rare exception of rape, women who become pregnant do so either by choice or by negligence. If they fail to act promptly when that happens, they have a duty to stay the course.
LikeLike
“A flinch can be a reflex. but using a hand to protect an eye is not a reflex.”
Baloney.
As for the rest – your misogyny is showing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A reflex is limited to preprogramed responses to a stimulus, like a sneeze triggered by irritation to the nasal lining.
Pushing a probe away from the eye requires recognizing the stimulus as something that can be pushed away and then accurately doing it. It is way above reflex level.
Further, real time ultrasound now lets us see 4 month fetuses satisfying themselves by sucking their hands.
The real misogyny here is your assumption that women are incapable of acting responsibly.
LikeLike
“The real misogyny here is your assumption that women are incapable of acting responsibly.”
Uh, no. The real misogyny is YOU deciding that “women are incapable of acting responsibly” which, of course, requires the government to control their bodies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It is way above reflex level.”
Now you are just playing with words. Let’s use words according to their meaning.
“reflex : an action that is performed as a response to a stimulus and without conscious thought.”
The brain structures required for conscious thought do not exist before the 30th week of gestation. So any attempt to attribute conscious thought to an 18 week fetus is – as I said above – baloney.
And as for suckling, it is a classic reflex which is done WITHOUT conscious thought as well.
https://tinyurl.com/49254xfr
LikeLiked by 1 person
Broken link
Suckling is an instinct, not a reflex, and in any case, putting a hand up to suck on is volition.
I don’t know where you get that 30 week stuff, but it is clearly in error, or misapplied. I’m not claiming full cognition, just self awareness.
LikeLike
Doesn’t sound like awareness. It sounds more like reflex which dos not require awareness to exist.
LikeLike
Well disagree if you want, but in the end it is up to the legislature to decide when a person is present.
How else can that be determined, as a matter of law?
I’m not king, neither are you. Neither are appointed judges.
So who other than the legislature can make that determination?
LikeLike
“So who other than the legislature can make that determination?”
The woman or girl who is faced with a choice to suffer pain and risk death. Obviously.
There is far more reason and justice in my answer than in yours. Already 12 states have enacted extremist Theocratic abuse of women’s natural right to dominion over their own bodies with no hint of that reasonable “conservative consensus” you think we should just accept.
If you do not like that answer then it has to be Congress. The very idea that a sixteen year-old getting an abortion is a murderer in one state but simply seeking medical care in the next state is not tenable. It echoes of Lincoln’s House Divided speech.
“I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other.”
LikeLike
House divided?
So you think a million or so women each year gets to define who is a person to suit herself and that is not a house divided?
Do I get to decide that people with red hair aren’t people and it’s OK to kill them? Do we each get to define murder?
There is merit to a national standard, but there is also merit to Federalism.
But in any case the 10th Amendment assigns it to the states regardless of what we thing a good idea might be.
LikeLike
People with red hair?
That is a very silly analogy. Babies are like pornography – you know what it is when you see it.
The Constitution does not assign to the states the power to abrogate basic human rights. Dominion over one’s own body is such a right. The Constitution deals with this directly in the Ninth Amendment . . . “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
LikeLike
The 9th Amendment simply says the Constitution does not deny rights retained by the people.
The 10th Amendment deals with POWERS, not rights, and leaves those powers not assigned to the Federal government nor denied to the States (article 1 section 10) to the States.
That allows the States to define when a person is due the protection of the Rule of Law.
LikeLike
“The 9th Amendment simply says the Constitution does not deny rights retained by the people.”
“Rights” and “powers” are always in conflict. You obviously believe either that dominion over your own body is not a basic right or that it is only a basic right if you are male. Take your pick.
LikeLike
A straw man question?
Not that you will ever look past your blinkers, but dominion over a woman’s body isn’t the issue.
At some point there is another person there, innocent of being there, and there at the woman’s invitation, who deserves the protection of the Rule of Law.
That point is determined by the people, acting through their legislatures.
If you want an issue in which the woman’s dominion over her own body is the clear issue, that would be prostitution.
LikeLike
“. . . but dominion over a woman’s body isn’t the issue.”
Of course, it is. Whether a fertilized egg is a “person” or not does not alter the issue – can someone be FORCED to sacrifice their body to benefit another “person.” YOU cannot be forced to even give blood to save a life but you say it is okay for a woman to be forced to suffer pain, disfigurement and risk death for “someone else” when she chooses not to.
And, of course, the “person” is not actually a “person” by any objective standard when it is still a blob of protoplasm.
You think women are second-class citizens. I don’t. We are not going to agree. And this issue is not going to go away. It will be front and center in politics for the foreseeable future. IMHO.
LikeLike
You are not the judge of what I think and distorting what I write to create a straw man is dishonest.
When a woman, either by intent or carelessness, takes on a passenger, she has an obligation to deliver that passenger to a safe port. If she waits until that passenger is a person, she is obligated to follow through unless there is some unusual risk to her above what is normal for pregnancy.
LikeLike
“You are not the judge of what I think and distorting what I write to create a straw man is dishonest.”
YOU calling me “dishonest.” That’s a hoot.
The implications of your position are clear. It is not mind-reading or creating a straw man. If someone can be forced to sacrifice their body for another person they have been deprived of a basic human right. They – compared to you and me – are second class citizens. You say that it is the woman’s own doing for not taking action before the “person” is present and she MUST accept responsibility. What does that even mean in the states where the “person” is there from the moment of conception?
LikeLike
A person on a respirator was already born.
Here is my point, as you really already know.
A woman, single or married, should be the final decision maker as to what family she wants to have. No imaginary timeline needs to be involved, nor politicians or anyone else.
The idea that a fetus feels pain or has a heartbeat at 6 weeks is not based on science. Or that a fetus is self-aware at 15 weeks is similarly bogus. Regardless, these “tests” should have no bearing on whether a woman needs to endure pregnancy or delivery.
Every person born deserves to be wanted, nurtured, healthy and in circumstances that allow proper care, nutrition and education. Handing that decision over to a vote would be like your reference to a ventilator. Should we call for a vote for putting a person on or off one?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“There is no point in arguing extremes no one is trying to pass.”
Except the dozen or so states that ALREADY ban abortion from the moment of conception. And many with no exceptions for rape or incest. So, who is in this benign “conservative consensus?”
https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws
LikeLiked by 1 person
The table in you cite contradicts itself.
LikeLike
“The table in you cite contradicts itself.”
Whatever quibbles you may have with that particular table, a dozen states have ALREADY enacted extremist laws. Your comment about a reasonable “conservative consensus” appears to be baloney. Based on the evidence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The conservative consensus is centered on 15 weeks.”
Really? You have proof of that? Or are you just saying it because it is where YOU have decided the line should be drawn.
…”arguing extremes no one is trying to pass.”
You are delusional if you don’t believe that “no one is trying to pass” extreme laws effectively BANNIING abortion. Lindsay Graham has proposed a NATIONAL 6 week ban. And there are several members of the House GOP, both old and new, who are onboard with the idea. INCLUDING our new VA-02 representative. So much for the states getting to decide.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The circular firing squad often forms in the aftermath of defeat. This is an example of that.
It is psychologically easier to look for scapegoats than to look at oneself. There was no “Red Wave” because the Republicans offered nothing but lies, invective, finger-pointing, fear-mongering and whiny white victimhood. They don’t even have a platform because they have no ideas, policies or plans they can sell. Just gripes. It is a moribund minority party literally dominated by “deplorables” and Theocrats. In order to get a GOP nomination the candidate has to take positions that sabotage their general election hopes. We have seen that over and over again.
Trumpism is the final stage of the cancer that has been consuming the GOP from within for decades. They have had short-term success with their “wedge issues” over the years but have created a monster in the process.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Stopping doing stupid things is a plan,
Spending into massive inflation is stupid.
Abandoning fossil fuels with no alternative in place is stupid.
Stopping doing those things will help the people, it’s a good plan, it just has to be made plain why it is.
LikeLike
LOL!
I guess they were reluctant to identify the “stupid things” they would stop doing or what spending they were going to cut. Things were just going to get better by magic!
BTW, we are transitioning away from fossil fuels. We are not abandoning them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Funny how when the previous administration was spending towards massive inflation, it was full on go by the GOP. Same with Debt ceiling, When they have the Oval Office, the GOP will do whatever it takes. When they don’t they will do NOTHING and threaten government shutdowns and then try to blame it on the WH.
Hypocrisy to the highest level is in the index of the GOP playbook.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I note all that talk about popular vote has suddenly gone silent.
LikeLike
What are you getting at? This is not a Presidential election year?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Only that the popular vote is not reflected in the results. That’s not a complaint, that’s just how it works out. But I note that those who complained before are silent now.
LikeLike
Gerrymandering. Both parties do it, of course, but the Republicans did it “better” by taking statehouses as a strategy over the last decades. Plus they used computer data analysis to perfect it in 2010.
I have always thought it a bad idea for the majority party to redraw districts. The founders blew that one.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My silence was due to not having seen this analysis. It may be correct but it seems cherry-picked to me. Which makes me doubt its trustworthiness with regard to the facts offered.
For the record, Gerrymandering is very bad for democracy. It is the principle reason that the GOP has come to be ruled by the deplorables. In most Congressional districts, the only bad thing that can happen to an incumbent is to be primaried.
Senate seats won vs Senate votes cast is meaningless. It is purely a function of where the contests were held. Whole states cannot be Gerrymandered.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I really don’t place much significance on it. It is simply a function of close vs large margins in different states.
I’m just pointing out that all of a sudden there was silence when every previous election when it was the other way it was a big deal.
LikeLike
Think of this way. Wyoming gets 2 senators for a few hundred thousand votes.
California get two senators for 10 million votes. A lot of red states have low populations but they all get two senators.
LikeLiked by 2 people