I'm reading "A Majority in Arizona Supports Establishing Right to Abortion, Poll Finds/A ballot measure codifying 'the fundamental right to an abortion' is supported by 58 percent of the state’s likely voters, according to a New York Times/Siena College poll" (NYT).
The NYT links to the Arizona ballot initiatives. There are a lot of them! I had to scroll to find the one on abortion and struggle to read it — and I taught the law school course that covers the right to abortion! The all-caps are painful:
I think this ought to say that a "no" vote also allows the state legislature to pass laws that do things other than "to further restrict or ban abortion." The legislature could pass a law choosing to draw the line at exactly the place this proposition is choosing — viability. The question is whether to end the ongoing legislative role. But it seems fair enough to let the people decide whether they want a constitutional right, at the state level, that gives them back approximately what they had under the Supreme Court case law before the overruling of Roe v. Wade.
The question raised in the NYT article is whether excitement over voting for this proposition will attract more Democrats to the polls and overwhelm what the poll says is the strong preference for Trump on economic matters.
ADDED: I'm assuming that a person "assisting an individual obtaining an abortion" does not include doctors providing abortions. I see "Arizona law currently allows abortions up until 15 weeks of pregnancy." I think a fair-minded person who is confused by the language might think 15 weeks is sufficient time, the legislature has done a good enough job of balancing the difficult interests, and there's isn't enough reason right now to enshrine abortion as a right in the state constitution or to extend the period from 15 weeks to the harder-to-discern point of "viability."
पोस्ट्स
५० टिप्पण्या:
since abortion has come to be a motivating issue on the left.
Can you still say "has come to be" when it has been used as a motivating issue since it was first a thing at all? i.e. since SCOTUS initially dreamed it into a "right"?
Well, the "America is already great!" people benefit from inflation, they own things that produce revenue, like real estate, and it's the people paying, for example, those high rents, who are upset about high prices.
The Biden/Harris Administration has made it a policy to break the wage-price spiral by suppressing wages, by bringing in millions of migrants and granting them work permits as they cross the border. We already know that those working people, who find themselves powerless and used as cannon fodder in Biden/Harris's conception of how to fight inflation are going to vote for Trump. But it's not because they have a legitimate political beef! No, it's because they are racist and crypto fascists.
The question raised in the NYT article is whether excitement over voting for this proposition will attract more Democrats to the polls and overwhelm what the poll says is the strong preference for Trump on economic matters.
Is it not also just a likely that this proposition will attract additional "conservatives" to the polls in order to vote against it? Isn't it likely that something on the ballot that is expected to draw strong "for it" representation in the electorate might also draw strong "against it" representation as well? You may could expect a "lop sided" draw if it were a niche issue that was for something few cared about but this is maybe the largest "dividing" issue of all the issues as the left has made this "the issue" for decades.
BTW, why are gas prices so low now? It's because Joe Biden's signature issue of expanding NATO to within a couple of hundred miles of Moscow, nuclear missiles and all, and his imposition of an economic Iron Curtain across Europe has created a worldwide economic slowdown.
I would argue that a good economy would reduce abortions. So, to link it for political gain could backfire if Vance and Trump are on their best game. The DE&I language the legislation uses, instead of simply saying “the life of the mother” is a turn off. Maybe “turn off” is not what I’m looking for to say here. Sorry, I’m on the clock with these packages that have to be delivered by a certain time.
You’re ignoring voting propensity. Older conservative people of both sexes are already diligent voters. Foolish young women are not, but if they can be persuaded to turn out to “save abortion” by the likes of Taylor Swift, it could affect support for other candidates and propositions in the ballot.
Has anyone been asked why, post viability, to save the life of the mother, the baby is not delivered somehow? Why is it aborted post viability when it could be born instead? We never hear this question dealt with as part of these abortion law discussions.
The question raised in the NYT article is whether excitement over voting for this proposition will attract more Democrats to the polls and overwhelm what the poll says is the strong preference for Trump on economic matters.
Another important question raised is why would someone vote against their interest in other matters like preventing economic suicide to support a Presidential candidate that aligns with their free-flowing abortion beliefs when they're already presented with the opportunity to vote for exactly what they fancy with respect to abortion?
Expanding NATO to Moscow’s doorstep has been the policy of every president since the first George Bush. Gas prices are low because Biden is raiding the strategic oil reserves to manipulate the inflation rate heading in to the election.
I think this type of law is what the SC meant to allow when they put the abortion in the state courts, but it's too vague. For example, a Kermit Gosnell would never judge the baby "viable" so there's nothing to prevent he and the abortion subject from agreeing on healthy baby's non viability during actual birth. Besides, how does one even judge viability? For instance, one might consider a 1 pound, 10 ounces baby delivered at around the end of the second trimester to be unviable. Not necessarily true. Thanks in part to the pediatric IC unit at San Diego children's hospital and my daughter's determination, my own 26 ounces birthweight granddaughter is today both a college junior and an extremely "viable" young woman.
Abortion is a nasty business and folks who operate those businesses never make money by putting the interests of the baby before business profitability. Does "Planned Parenthood" ever reject an abortion because the fetus is viable? I wouldn't want to bet my granddaughter's life on it.
Breezy, because as difficult as it is to face head on, if a "person with a uterus" gets to the point of their body needed to eject the internally generated genetically distinct organic mass and they gets the sadz from the experience, Democrats believe that this is cause enough to terminate the organic mass thus relieving (even if only temporarily) that individual's feelings of sadz. According to the Democrats this action is the ultimate expression of girlz-power and can be very emotionally uplifting. So much so that some individuals that have gone through this personal growth experience are so joyful of the event that they even get t-shirts proclaiming this fact.
The physical and mental health of the individual living through this event is so important that anything that might cause negative effects no matter how small as determined by the affected individual and those attending the ejection process (in some jurisdictions have no need to be actual doctors) are sufficient grounds to end the metabolic processes of the now ejected, self sustaining organic mass.
Democrats very strongly believe that ALL individuals have worth and should be valued, no matter who or what they are. Be they criminals, government workers, poor, illegal immigrants, rapists, etc. Well EXCEPT if they are a pre or post "self sustaining organic mass" (oh and also Catholics, Republicans, conservatives, Jews, Libertarians, white men, men, black men that disagree with them, etc.).
Seems to me this initiative goes way beyond Roe v Wade to enshrine abortion.
Breezy, because as difficult as it is to face head on, if a "person with a uterus" gets to the point of their body needed to eject the internally generated genetically distinct organic mass and they gets the sadz from the experience, Democrats believe that this is cause enough to terminate the organic mass thus relieving (even if only temporarily) that individual's feelings of sadz. According to the Democrats this action is the ultimate expression of girlz-power and can be very emotionally uplifting. So much so that some individuals that have gone through this personal growth experience are so joyful of the event that they even get t-shirts proclaiming this fact.
The physical and mental health of the individual living through this event is so important that anything that might cause negative effects no matter how small as determined by the affected individual and those attending the ejection process (in some jurisdictions have no need to be actual doctors) are sufficient grounds to end the metabolic processes of the now ejected, self sustaining organic mass.
Democrats very strongly believe that ALL individuals have worth and should be valued, no matter who or what they are. Be they criminals, government workers, poor, illegal immigrants, rapists, etc. Well EXCEPT if they are a pre or post "self sustaining organic mass" (oh and also Catholics, Republicans, conservatives, Jews, Libertarians, white men, men, black men that disagree with them, etc.).
"I taught the law school course that covers the right to abortion!
There is no such "right" to abortion to be found anywhere in the United States Constitution or its amendments. It is a medical procedure that we (the community) allow or do not allow, depending on which state you live in.
In the linked election this post references, the state is attempting to establish the legality of abortion pre-viability (an unconstitutionally vague term); but then post-viability limiting abortion to only those cases where the life or health of the mother is in jeopardy.
This is akin to traffic laws. You may proceed when the light is green; but if it is red, it is illegal to proceed. You do not have a "right" to travel as you see fit.
The state is attempting to be sneaky and to create laws which are easily violatable; and in this case, providing safe-harbor to those engaged in illegal abortions.
This is a horrible way to govern ... encouraging people to deliberately violate the law and then protecting them when they do it. We need Democrats OUT of political office up and down the electoral ballot. They are criminals and are now creating laws that protect criminals.
This is an evil amendment they want to continue the machinery of death
Vagueness is unconstitutional and you are right. The word "viable" is unconstitutionally vague.
It would protect even criminals in the acquisition of an illegal abortion.
It's a horrible law.
And what in the world does "unless it has a compelling reason" mean?
Supreme Court justices of late cannot even define the word woman ... yet somehow have divined a method of discovering what a "mother" is.
The sabotage and rigging of the upcoming election is flagrant, right out in the open. It’s even more flagrant than in 2020. Who can take this Soviet style shit seriously? I’ll hold my nose and vote for Trump. In an honest election, he’d win all 50 states. What happens after this farce?
Inflation is entirely due to the pandemic, nobody producing and everybody consuming, and working out the price dislocations that that put into the system. The working out is mostly businesses starting up or closing to produce new levels of supply using the existing price signals.
Government spending financed by borrowing doesn't produce inflation - it takes the dollars out of the system (borrowing) before spending them into the system. That's the point of borrowing.
I'm not confident that Trump is any better at fighting inflation - before 2020 he disparaged the Fed for ruining "his" economy by raising rates, which means that he doesn't understand what the Fed is doing any better than Biden does.
Texas, every General Election will have several Constitutional Amendments on ballot. Invariably carve-outs. Mostly exemptions from Property Tax or addition to protected group for benefits. Makes a mockery of "equality for all under the Law."
What Tim Maguire said (about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve).
The SPR contained 635 million barrels of crude oil the day Biden was inaugurated.
Today it contains 380 million barrels.
Draining the SPR to bolster one's reelection chances should be impeachable.
Source:
https://tinyurl.com/yc5weyxc
I would be more inclined to believe Trump’s promises had he made them standing on the wall Mexico paid for.
You mean printing trillions of dollars had nothing to do with it? I rather think it does.
Democrats have legalized sexual orientations (e.g. transgenderism, pedophilia, sadomasochism, incest) under federal law. Democrats have legalized redistributive change (e.g. progressive prices, capital extraction) under the law. Democrats have voted for war and ethnic Spring. Liberals feel compelled to vote for human rites.... homicides (and clinical cannibalism) after six weeks without discrimination, because leftists lack empathy and respect for women's dignity and agency. American Civil Liberties Unburdened
How can it be a right that only half of the population enjoys?
I have never offered to donate bone marrow or a kidney and I’m sure there are people who are dying right now because mine has not been made available to them. But I do not consider myself morally depraved or responsible for their deaths. I believe that’s because I am not a misogynist who thinks that women should have less rights over their uterus than I have over my own biological organs.
I am also not a theocrat who believes that fetuses should be more privileged in being entitled to a “right” to other people’s organs (such as a uterus and placenta) that no other organ recipients are entitled to.
But thanks for the moralizing. It makes the pro-choice case (which is winning every time it’s put to the vote) easier and easier to make each time we hear it.
Women fear the ascendancy of "a fetus is a human" religious dogmatists, for being both inconvenient and plainly wrong. Only half of the right itself agrees with them but the dogmatic half is sure that everybody on the right is with them. They'll commit election suicide until they realize it's 75%-25% of the population against them.
I hope this amendment passes; I will vote for it simply to get rid of abortion as a never-ending political issue. It is the only political issue for the Democratic party in Arizona, and they have ridden it to great success. I would like to see the discussion turn to other matters. Like it or not, the majority of voters here want abortion to be legal and widely available. You can lament or celebrate that fact, but it is what it is.
I’m certainly not politically active, or even vocal, on this issue. It’s just too ugly and ghoulish to focus on. But, I won’t criticize people who are willing to commit election suicide over this monstrous, awful obsession liberal woman have with abortion. It’s disgusting. Seems worth committing election suicide from a moral standpoint. I’m just old and the issue is null with me. The election is thoroughly rigged anyway.
At the present moment, the Biden Admin has put out bids to buy oil, not that they haven't done exactly what you said in the past.
Europe is in recession right now. Germany has lost its access to cheap Russian energy and has fallen into a recession, it's being de-industrialized by the sanctions. Look at VW. France is skating on the edge of recession, who knows what kind of jiggery pokery is going on with the numbers to "keep them out of recession" The US is borrowing $4 trillion a year to keep our economy afloat, I guess this is likely to be the first time in all of history that such a strategy has worked long term. China is experiencing a slowdown as well. It's a drop in demand, likely because of the Smoot Hawley style effects of the US sanctions on the world.
I will allow that expansion of NATO has been the policy since Clinton, George H W Bush did not have such a policy, and only the most lawyerly readings of what we said to the Russians at the time can come to any other conclusion, but it was Biden's efforts regarding Ukraine that brought us right up to Moscow's doorstep, even Obama famously said that it was stupid, he said that we could not win a war over Ukraine because it was not of vital interest to the US and was of vital interest to Russia. Third grade repeater Joe Biden, though, he plowed right on ahead, and here we are.
Measures to enshrine a right to abortion in state constitutions boost voter turnout in swing states. And we all know: the higher the turnout -- the better for Democrats.
Abortionists deny the evolution of human life. They deny the capacity of women to understand the function of their own bodies. The same people endorse Diversity (e.g. racism, sexism) to deny the dignity and liberty of every person. Planned parenthood is a religious rite performed for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress to sequester rhe "burden" of evidence under the existing laws in all 50 states. Women are kept affordable, available, reusable, and taxable under the religious authority of nominally secular theists.
Rusty raises an excellent question: Do men have the right to abort their children? Are not all mankind created equally?
Inflation is ONLY caused by government overspending. Period. - Milton Friedman, noted economist.
"Measures to enshrine a right to abortion in state constitutions boost voter turnout in swing states. And we all know: the higher the turnout -- the better for Democrats."
True, but it's a gun that can only be fired once, assuming it wins. Unless Republicans are stupid enough to spend the rest of their lives trying to repeal the amendment.
A woman willingly having sex grants the right to the uterus by the fetus.
Or put Hillary Clinton in jail where she belongs.
And slavery before. And Diversity (e.g. racism, sexism) and affirmative discrimination still. And redistributive change (e.g. capital extraction schemes), too. And ethnic Springs where they can get away with rhem.
Establishment of an ethical (i.e. selective, opportunistic) religion has forward-looking consequences and collateral damage. The female sex has been reduced to a womb and taxable commodity under the Pro-Choice religion. And the male predators enjoy legal indemnity with sequestration of the "burden" of evidence. All's fair in lust and abortion at any age.
There is no such thing as "abortionists." They're eugenicists. They're out to improve the bloodline by removing blacks from it.
So many women demand the standard of standing is to be female at the exclusion of men. In truth everyone has a stake in the argument but if women want to nitpik it is appropriate to use their argument to support the idea that gar less than half the population has standing…
Did you ever bother to teach a course on how rickety penumbra and emanation based law is?
Electoral selfie-abortion. The same was predicted before the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, etc. And they were right. The legal carve-out from existing homicide laws in all 50 states is a human rite... right. The problem is that demos-cracy can be aborted in darkness is a hard problem with a wicked solution. Deja vu.
My suggestion for changing the perceptions on the supposed "right to abortion" in the minds of childless cat ladies is to convince them that fetuses are actually baby kittens before they become baby humans. Silly you say? Compared to what...saying that once they are born as baby girls they can become baby boys or vice-versa?
Black lives matter a la George "Fentanyl" Floyd syndrome imported from China, assembled and transported by protected migrants, aborts thousands of American lives annually, which are replaced through immigration reform. Its a neat trick that is on the ballot in Democratic jurisdictions.
rhhardin, then lets have a "final answer". Either a fetus is a person with rights or it is NOT. The country needs to pick a side and then enact that side fully. If a fetus is a person with rights then those rights need to be balanced with the mother's rights, which is where a lot of the country is right now, abortion (as distasteful as it is) until some number of weeks.
If a fetus is NOT and has no rights then abortion whenever a mother wants AND the "loss" of a fetus is not murder, ever. A pregnant woman dies, one death. Additionally as a fetus is now only "property", a man can terminate any/all rights in that property at any time and carries no liability for that property (i.e. child support). Also, every birth must include a parental DNA test so "ownership" can be positively determined.
"plainly wrong."
You are a pretty smart man, I have no doubt that you are smarter than I am, based on your comments here, so by what logic is your statement not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact? Or is it that an "unborn child" is human, but a "fetus" isn't.
Don't get me wrong, I support the idea of a right to abortion, I just don't support that opinion by lying to myself about what it really is.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा