Republicans block bill to shield people who travel out of state for abortions

The truth is we have a lot of laws on the books, but we don't catch every instance of law breaking. The goal here is not to set up some kind of dystopian surveillance society so we catch every single law breaker. You have things on the books that are against the law, but there is a realistic limit to how many law breakers the state is going to catch.

For example, certain drugs are against the law, but it doesn't mean we need cameras in every house, car, and on every street corner and drones flying around everywhere to catch every single person who would do drugs, lol. And can I make the argument that people who think we shouldn't have cameras and drones everywhere can still be against drugs too and there is nothing inconsistent about that? Can we also agree that it would not really be fair to level the criticism that we are passing a law that we are unwilling to enforce because we don't want cameras and drones everywhere? I feel like the level of absurdity in the argumentation coming from your direction is on that level.

Yes, I am against abortion. I think it should be criminalized, but no it does not mean we have to create some kind of dystopian state to enforce it. Some laws are on the books, and they are there so that Murder Inc, aka Planned Parenthood, and others like them will be forced to close their doors. It would effectively force baby killing underground. And if Murder Inc continued doing what they do out in the open, then they would be arrested and prosecuted. And when someone underground is caught as well, then they would be prosecuted as well.

 

You have unwittingly revealed your hand. While you say that abortion is murder, you say it it isn’t realistic to investigate or enforce most of these murders. Then, quite shockingly, you bring up the womens right to….wait for it….privacy, as an argument for not investigating murder. Then you equate abortion as a crime similar to that of consuming illegal drugs.

What does this all mean? For all the hype and wailing the fact is you really don’t see abortion as murder. You see it as wrong and should be illegal but it isn’t murder. Why is that important? Because the fundamental argument of pro lifers is that the life of a peanut size fetus is just as valuable as anybody else, and as such is more important than the woman’s right to privacy. But you’ve just demonstrated you think the opposite, that it is effectively a misdemeanor level crime.

I think anybody using a sense of logic would think that a woman’s right to privacy, to not be forced to carry a fetus to term, would exceed the importance of preventing a misdemeanor level offense. You basically said so yourself, that a woman’s right to privacy trumps the state’s right to investigate even murder.

You can’t make this stuff up.

 

Selective law enforcement due to budget constraints is nothing new. Nor is it controversial. Two 911 calls come in at the same time, one for a minor car accident, and one for armed robbery in process, the accident can wait. But murder? That's a crime you don't want to put on the back burner. Ever.

There are good reasons why a crime like murder has no statute of limitations. And even police forces with limited budgets allocate monies to solve cold murder cases. The last thing anyone should want is to allow someone to get away with murder. Even the idiom, "get away with murder" is significant. Nobody says, "it's like he got away with J-walking!"

So if you really think abortion is murder, then all miscarriages should be investigated. Otherwise, you could be letting women get away with murder. But of course, it's not that simple. Even the most qualified medical professionals cannot distinguish between a natural miscarriage and drug induced abortion. So, to prove a woman had an abortion, you would need to dig into her personal life. Did she Google abortion pills? What did she say about being pregnant, if anything, on social media? And yes, this would be an invasion of privacy, but necessary unless you are willing to allow women to get away with murder.

There are also questions about just how much in danger does a woman's life have to be before allowing an abortion. @gatorplank says let each state decide, but do we really want politicians to be deciding medical risk issues? And speaking of medical risk, doctors don't always agree with each other on every case. What happens if the level is say 50% or higher risk of maternal death, and Doctoral A says the risk is 33%, but Doctoral B says 55%? If the woman has the abortion with Doctor B, does she and that Doctor risk murder charges based on the testimony of Dr. A?

Or, we can eliminate all this and just allow the decision to carry to term be between the woman, her doctor, and anyone else she wishes to include in the decision.

 

Well here's a sad story on the fear being instilled in doctor's to provide basic healthcare to women, a woman forced to carry her dead fetus for two weeks. This is becoming medieval, is this really what Republicans want?

 

Well, it’s what they want for YOU. They themselves? That’s what the exchange above preserving a workaround is for. When they get busted availing themselves of the freedom they deny everyone else they’ll go to these rationales.

 

Of course they will. And by the playbook, they will go after this lady for being 'fake' or criminalize her for the miscarriage to deflect from facing the cruelty inflicted because of their policies.

 

One issue that was touched on but not expanded on is central to the bill.
The Fed (supreme court) said abortion is a states right issue. Fed has no say in it correct?
Well, murder is illegal in all states so with those crimes, suspects can be extradited to stand trial. But what if it's not illegal in one of the states?
It would be more like leaving your dry county to buy liquor, drinking it in the wet county, and coming back the next day. The county or sheriff in the wet county/state wouldn't arrest the person because they didn't break the law.

Point is, not ALL states call abortion murder so this bill can't be enforced.

 

Abortion isn't a nice thing.

 

Lol. He isnt dead serious.

 

What do you mean by “a woman and her doctor.” What rights does the mythical Dr have in the decision? Can he veto the decision? Does the woman have to compromise to satisfy the doctor? Do they have to both come to an agreement on the course of action? It seems to me that the most a doctor can do is provide information and possibly advice, but the decision now rests with the woman.

I think the medical doctor gets dragged into it because people don’t think that saying it’s merely the woman’s decision is a weighty enough. Which is rather ironic, considering this is supposedly all about the woman. But adding the mythical Dr. adds gravitas.

I think people should just say what they really mean, that decision is up to woman, plain and simple, and nobody else.

 

I don’t think they said it is a states rights issue. They said it isn’t a constitutionally guaranteed right. There is nothin stopping the federal government from making abortion legal, or illegal, or anything in between.

 

Early first trimester abortions are largely the decision of the woman and are primarily birth control of last resort. Although the woman may still have the final say, later abortions are serious surgical procedures and are almost never undertaken unless the pregnant woman is advised by a physician (hence the phrase "her doctor") that continued pregnancy could adversely affect her health and/or the fetus has serious abnormalities which could result in its death in utero if the pregnancy continues or it has a very serious condition making survival after birth problematic.

 

And if the Republicans regain control of both Houses of Congress it's very possible that they will try to enact legislation outlawing abortion nationally. Interestingly, should that happen and with a Republican president the Democrats very likely decide that eliminating the filibuster may not be such a good idea.

 

I’ve asked the question here before - if you had a Republican Congress and president, would the republicans do away with the filibuster in order to push through a national abortion ban? I kind of think it is 50/50. It would be a loser issue for them nationally but it would excite their base and Republicans tend to stop at nothing to get what their base wants.

 

Then it should be referred to as “a woman with the advice of her doctor” and not “a woman and her doctor.”

 

Rough story….

“A woman in Texas said after finding out she had a miscarriage, her doctor refused to perform the necessary medical procedure, which means she carried her dead fetus for two weeks until she found a doctor who would help her. “just emotionally carrying it around and just knowing that there’s nothing you could do. It just feels very ... it’s like I can’t grieve or move past it because I’m just walking around carrying it.”

carrying around a dead fetus is also dangerous to the mother. “She can develop an infection that can make her sterile and never able to have children again,” she said.

Or even worse. “When the baby dies inside, the baby starts to release parts of its tissue that can get into the mother’s blood supply. It can cause organ failure. It can cause death,” Schapiro said.”




Woman says Texas abortion law prevented her from getting timely miscarriage care

 

As I said earlier…people of certain political persuasions have perverted privacy into something it was never supposed to be. Privacy does not entail the right to murder. The founding fathers did not intend to start a genocide that would exterminate one third of each generation of Americans when they wrote of privacy in the constitution. It is total revisionist history with zero respect to authorial intent to suggest that is what the authors of the constitution meant by privacy. None of the founding fathers would defend your use of the word.

What privacy does entail, as stated by the constitution is unnecessary searches and siezures. That is it. An unnecessary search of one’s body goes a step further than that, and is certainly in line with that principle.

Roe vs. Wade was an activist ruling, and even Ginsburg, a saint in the eyes of the left, insinuated it was handed to down to control undesirable populations at the time it was handed down. It is a ruling that perverted the meaning of the words on the page, and now it has been overruled. Praise God.

Unlike you, I am using the word privacy in the sense of its authorial intent. You are using privacy in a leftist political activist sense with no respect to original authorial intent, one that unfortunately was codified by corrupt activist judges from the bench of the SCOTUS. And that is the danger of one perversion of the law. Perversion of words sets precedent. Precedent determines future law, but the SCOTUS as it currently is imposed has at least done something to reverse that.

Nonetheless, I have thought more about your question and balancing the various factors at play. There are 21,570 murders per year in the United States, but that is a statistic that only tracks people outside the womb. In 2019 there were 630,000 abortions each year in the United States. There are also 1,000,000 miscarriages every year in the United States. The cost to investigate a murder is somewhere in the neighborhood of $22,000 to $44,000. To make things simple assume $33,000 per murder.

So, lets investigate every single one of those 1,800,000 cases. It will cost $59,000,000,000 every single year to do that. US GDP in 2021 was $23,000,000,000. So, hey we would double our GDP. We'll have to cut back basically all other government spending including military and all social welfare programs. The Federal Tax revenue was about $3,000,000,000 last year, but we could increase the tax rate to 100% to help make up for the increased cost of government spending. Even with that we'll probably have to borrow tens of trillions of dollars from China annually, but hey we believe in modern monetary policy, so it shouldn't be that big of deal. And it is no big deal that future generations of Americans will be Chinese slaves. I'm sure the world economy will probably collapse, and people will die as a result of that but hey that doesn't matter. And China, Iran, and Russia probably take over the world as a consequence of us cutting our military, but yep no consideration of these kinds of consequences are allowed to go into our decision making because these are the terms set by lboy. And if I don't meet those terms then I can't really say that I care about babies being murdered. Thank you for enlightening me.

 

Day 1.