5 ms·

I would say they underestimated the impact of federal abortion ban had on women. I live in Wisconsin and seen it first hand. Women who are struggling financiall

I would say they underestimated the impact of federal abortion ban had on women. I live in Wisconsin and seen it first hand. Women who are struggling financially wanting to vote Republican but they don't and they vote democrat because they have young girls at home and worried about their future and having options. It was a mistake on Republicans part to ban abortion at the federal level. Personally, I'm against abortion and I find it immoral but I also think government shouldn't interfere with women's healthcare.

copenseethe 4y ago
Mdndndns 4y ago
Republicans never banned abortion at the federal level.
pc86 4y ago
Abortion is not banned at the federal level.
- amir734jj 4y ago
  You are playing with semantics. Please look into Dobbs decision. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Health_Organization#:~:text=The%20majority%20held%20that%20abortion,to%20regulate%20access%20to%20abortion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_H....
  - devwastaken 4y ago
    "individual states have the authority to regulate access to abortion" Not the same thing.
  - gfdsgfsdg 4y ago
    You are wrong. Being not a constitutional right doesn't mean it's banned.
  - pc86 4y ago
    It's only "playing with semantics" if that phrase is interchangeable with "actually using the correct words" which I don't think it is. You said it's banned. It's not. That's not semantics, that's cut and dry.
- nozzlegear 4y ago
  This is technically correct, but don't forget that Senator Graham had attempted to introduce a federal abortion ban immediately after the Dobbs decision. The threat of a federal abortion ban being implemented by Republicans was no doubt on the minds of many women who voted against them in this election.
piva00 4y ago
> I'm totally against abortion and I find it immoral I'd recommend in the topic of abortion to not use absolutes, in this case you are also stating you are against abortions in case of rape, when a fetus is missing vital organs (brain, heart, etc.) and so on...
- amir734jj 4y ago
  You are right. Wrong choice of words. Thank you.
- CoastalCoder 4y ago
  Excellent point regarding the need to make finer distinctions on the topic. Also worth mentioning that depending on one's reasons / world view, those distinctions may or may not be significant.
devwastaken 4y ago
There was not a federal abortion ban. Point to me a law that says abortions are federally illegal. What was done is a current supreme court reversed a precedent that was created by a older supreme court. Roe v Wade. This precedent should never have been created in the first place, it was a violation of powers. If we want to force states into making it legal then that must be done at a legislative level. Imagine if the current supreme court just said "nope abortions are illegal because constitution says murder is wrong somewhere and the founders didn't like abortion.". It has just as much merit. Therefore we must ensure they don't have the power. Regardless of whether we consider the result right or wrong.
blamazon 4y ago
And if abortion is first on the list of women's reproductive rights to take away, what's next? Affordable access to reliable birth control is currently enjoyed by many voters in this country.
- amir734jj 4y ago
  Agreed. It's sad that we are even talking about this and it's even a possibility.
nozzlegear 4y ago
The people replying to you arguing on semantics that abortion is not banned at the federal level are technically correct and conveniently omitting the fact that Senator Graham had attempted to introduce a federal abortion ban after Roe v Wade was overturned. The threat of a federal abortion ban was real, and was certainly on the mind of all the people who voted against the Republican party this election.
- amir734jj 4y ago
  Yes. Thank you. I'm not very up to date with politics and what I wrote above is just my observation as a voter.
- gfdsgfsdg 4y ago
  He may have introduced an abortion ban but the bill never passed and Republicans in Congress never voted for it. The poster above you said Republicans banned abortion at the federal level which is 100% wrong.
  - nozzlegear 4y ago
    Again, this is correct but they've already shown that their intent is to ban abortion at the federal level. You're right that it's not banned right now.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > He may have introduced an abortion ban but the bill never passed and Republicans in Congress never voted for it. The poster above you said Republicans banned abortion at the federal level which is 100% wrong. Calling that bill an "abortion ban" is misleadingly overstating it. IIRC, it didn't ban all abortions, just those after 16 weeks (after the first trimester?).
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
  So much deception and lies. Graham introduced a 15-week limit on abortions, not an outright ban: https://www.dailywire.com/news/sen-lindsey-graham-introduces-national-15-week-abortion-ban-bill https://www.dailywire.com/news/sen-lindsey-graham-introduces... 15 weeks is similar to the limit in France and most European countries, which lean far more left than the U.S: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_France Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Europe France only allows abortions up to 14 weeks unless doctors certify the mother's life is a risk. Graham's bill similarly "offers exceptions for rape, incest, and the protection of the life of a mother during pregnancy." And The bill also "prohibits the prosecution of women who seek abortions." The point is: framing the proposed law as a "ban" is disingenuous because no one thinks abortion is banned in Europe, and yet this law is completely in line with European abortion policy. But dishonest framing is what the democrat party is all about, unfortunately. The reality is that abortion gets more obviously bad for both humans involved the later the abortion occurs. https://www.liveaction.org/news/researchers-abortionists-abortion-second-trimester-dangerous/ https://www.liveaction.org/news/researchers-abortionists-abo... "That study found that a woman’s risk of death from abortion increased by 38% for each additional week of gestation. Compared to women who underwent abortions at or before eight weeks (two months), women who underwent abortions in the second trimester were found to be “significantly more likely to die of abortion-related causes.” The results showed that “[u]p to 87% of deaths in women who chose to terminate their pregnancies after 8 weeks of gestation may have been avoidable if these women had accessed abortion services before 8 weeks of gestation.”" And from the baby's perspective: https://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/late-term-abortion/ https://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/late-term-abo... "a lethal dose of the heart medication Digoxin is injected into the baby’s heart or into the amniotic fluid directly through the woman’s abdomen. (Potassium chloride is infrequently substituted for Digoxin.) Digoxin gives the baby a fatal heart attack." Not exactly a peaceful or painless way to die! However, the alternative method, dismemberment, is even worse! https://www.frc.org/dismembermentabortion https://www.frc.org/dismembermentabortion If you want to abort, you should do it quickly, both to cut down on your own risks and to limit the pain and suffering of the human whose life you are ending. I would not like to experience death by heart attack or dismemberment either, if I can avoid it. And laws that protect the health of its citizens are clearly in scope. A late-term ban protects the health of adult women. That's one of the reasons these restrictions exist in other parts of the world.
rob74 4y ago
Overturning Roe v. Wade certainly played a part, but I think it was, more generally, moderate Republican and Republican-leaning voters saying that they're not happy with the course the Republican party is on: turning back the clocks by 50 years (not only on abortion - one justice also suggested revisiting other related decisions, e.g. the legality of contraception, same-sex relations and marriage: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/24/clarence-thomas-roe-gay-marriage-contraception-lgbtq https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/24/clarence-thoma...), picking candidates by their loyalty to Trump rather than their competence and so on.

copenseethe 4y ago

Mdndndns 4y ago

Republicans never banned abortion at the federal level.

pc86 4y ago

Abortion is not banned at the federal level.

amir734jj 4y ago
You are playing with semantics. Please look into Dobbs decision. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Health_Organization#:~:text=The%20majority%20held%20that%20abortion,to%20regulate%20access%20to%20abortion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_H....
- devwastaken 4y ago
  "individual states have the authority to regulate access to abortion" Not the same thing.
- gfdsgfsdg 4y ago
  You are wrong. Being not a constitutional right doesn't mean it's banned.
- pc86 4y ago
  It's only "playing with semantics" if that phrase is interchangeable with "actually using the correct words" which I don't think it is. You said it's banned. It's not. That's not semantics, that's cut and dry.
nozzlegear 4y ago
This is technically correct, but don't forget that Senator Graham had attempted to introduce a federal abortion ban immediately after the Dobbs decision. The threat of a federal abortion ban being implemented by Republicans was no doubt on the minds of many women who voted against them in this election.

piva00 4y ago

> I'm totally against abortion and I find it immoral I'd recommend in the topic of abortion to not use absolutes, in this case you are also stating you are against abortions in case of rape, when a fetus is missing vital organs (brain, heart, etc.) and so on...

amir734jj 4y ago
You are right. Wrong choice of words. Thank you.
CoastalCoder 4y ago
Excellent point regarding the need to make finer distinctions on the topic. Also worth mentioning that depending on one's reasons / world view, those distinctions may or may not be significant.

devwastaken 4y ago

There was not a federal abortion ban. Point to me a law that says abortions are federally illegal. What was done is a current supreme court reversed a precedent that was created by a older supreme court. Roe v Wade. This precedent should never have been created in the first place, it was a violation of powers. If we want to force states into making it legal then that must be done at a legislative level. Imagine if the current supreme court just said "nope abortions are illegal because constitution says murder is wrong somewhere and the founders didn't like abortion.". It has just as much merit. Therefore we must ensure they don't have the power. Regardless of whether we consider the result right or wrong.

blamazon 4y ago

And if abortion is first on the list of women's reproductive rights to take away, what's next? Affordable access to reliable birth control is currently enjoyed by many voters in this country.

amir734jj 4y ago
Agreed. It's sad that we are even talking about this and it's even a possibility.

nozzlegear 4y ago

The people replying to you arguing on semantics that abortion is not banned at the federal level are technically correct and conveniently omitting the fact that Senator Graham had attempted to introduce a federal abortion ban after Roe v Wade was overturned. The threat of a federal abortion ban was real, and was certainly on the mind of all the people who voted against the Republican party this election.

amir734jj 4y ago
Yes. Thank you. I'm not very up to date with politics and what I wrote above is just my observation as a voter.
gfdsgfsdg 4y ago
He may have introduced an abortion ban but the bill never passed and Republicans in Congress never voted for it. The poster above you said Republicans banned abortion at the federal level which is 100% wrong.
- nozzlegear 4y ago
  Again, this is correct but they've already shown that their intent is to ban abortion at the federal level. You're right that it's not banned right now.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > He may have introduced an abortion ban but the bill never passed and Republicans in Congress never voted for it. The poster above you said Republicans banned abortion at the federal level which is 100% wrong. Calling that bill an "abortion ban" is misleadingly overstating it. IIRC, it didn't ban all abortions, just those after 16 weeks (after the first trimester?).
PathOfEclipse 4y ago
So much deception and lies. Graham introduced a 15-week limit on abortions, not an outright ban: https://www.dailywire.com/news/sen-lindsey-graham-introduces-national-15-week-abortion-ban-bill https://www.dailywire.com/news/sen-lindsey-graham-introduces... 15 weeks is similar to the limit in France and most European countries, which lean far more left than the U.S: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_France Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Europe France only allows abortions up to 14 weeks unless doctors certify the mother's life is a risk. Graham's bill similarly "offers exceptions for rape, incest, and the protection of the life of a mother during pregnancy." And The bill also "prohibits the prosecution of women who seek abortions." The point is: framing the proposed law as a "ban" is disingenuous because no one thinks abortion is banned in Europe, and yet this law is completely in line with European abortion policy. But dishonest framing is what the democrat party is all about, unfortunately. The reality is that abortion gets more obviously bad for both humans involved the later the abortion occurs. https://www.liveaction.org/news/researchers-abortionists-abortion-second-trimester-dangerous/ https://www.liveaction.org/news/researchers-abortionists-abo... "That study found that a woman’s risk of death from abortion increased by 38% for each additional week of gestation. Compared to women who underwent abortions at or before eight weeks (two months), women who underwent abortions in the second trimester were found to be “significantly more likely to die of abortion-related causes.” The results showed that “[u]p to 87% of deaths in women who chose to terminate their pregnancies after 8 weeks of gestation may have been avoidable if these women had accessed abortion services before 8 weeks of gestation.”" And from the baby's perspective: https://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/late-term-abortion/ https://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/late-term-abo... "a lethal dose of the heart medication Digoxin is injected into the baby’s heart or into the amniotic fluid directly through the woman’s abdomen. (Potassium chloride is infrequently substituted for Digoxin.) Digoxin gives the baby a fatal heart attack." Not exactly a peaceful or painless way to die! However, the alternative method, dismemberment, is even worse! https://www.frc.org/dismembermentabortion https://www.frc.org/dismembermentabortion If you want to abort, you should do it quickly, both to cut down on your own risks and to limit the pain and suffering of the human whose life you are ending. I would not like to experience death by heart attack or dismemberment either, if I can avoid it. And laws that protect the health of its citizens are clearly in scope. A late-term ban protects the health of adult women. That's one of the reasons these restrictions exist in other parts of the world.

rob74 4y ago

Overturning Roe v. Wade certainly played a part, but I think it was, more generally, moderate Republican and Republican-leaning voters saying that they're not happy with the course the Republican party is on: turning back the clocks by 50 years (not only on abortion - one justice also suggested revisiting other related decisions, e.g. the legality of contraception, same-sex relations and marriage: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/24/clarence-thomas-roe-gay-marriage-contraception-lgbtq https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/24/clarence-thoma...), picking candidates by their loyalty to Trump rather than their competence and so on.