Kansas votes 62% to retain the right to access an abortion in its constitution.

[ThatRobGuy]

The second set in your quote above are practically nonexistent.

That's not true...we have multiple states that advocate for that...including the District of Columbia, which has an abortion policy that's far left of what any European country has.

As a point of reference, the FL abortion laws (that many US progressives are up in arms about) are largely on par with Finland, Norway, and Iceland...yet many US progressives are labeling it as oppressive.

It's like any other hyper-polarized issue in the US. If one party pushes for something, the other party feels compelled to oppose it simply for the sake of "smiting one's enemies"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Some in the pro-life crowd. To be fair I have meet some who are fair minded and willing to put their money where their mouth is.

Well sure, as noted the "Scandinavian abortion model" is something that, according to public polling, would have majority support...to clarify for CF rules, I'm not promoting anything, just saying what position is the most popular...don't ban me lol.

Most people are reasonable on most issues, but having to choose between two polarized options forces people into a corner they normally wouldn't want to be in.

 

[Belk]

Well sure, as noted the "Scandinavian abortion model" is something that, according to public polling, would have majority support...to clarify for CF rules, I'm not promoting anything, just saying what position is the most popular...don't ban me lol.

Most people are reasonable on most issues, but having to choose between two polarized options forces people into a corner they normally wouldn't want to be in.

Yet we can not seem to break out of this polarizing cycle. Third parties are pretty much a non starter and so we wind up with a bunch of laws way outside of the center. How do we get to rational policy in this environment?

 

[NxNW]

people who think that elective abortions up through the 3rd trimester are a "celebration-worthy" symbol of women's' autonomy.

we have multiple states that advocate for that...including the District of Columbia

DC is not a state, and neither states nor DC are people, which is what your first quote above refers to. The two quotes have nothing to do with each other.

It's like any other hyper-polarized issue in the US. If one party pushes for something, the other party feels compelled to oppose it simply for the sake of "smiting one's enemies"

The right pushed to ban abortion for any reason in the third trimester, even though medical emergencies can still make it a necessity. The left fought to preserve that medical necessity, and so now the right is falsely claiming that the left is pushing for elective abortion in the third trimester. The vast majority of falsehoods on this issue come from the right. Claims of a heartbeat at 6 weeks are false, claims of brainwaves detected 6 weeks are false, claims of fetal reaction to stimuli before 20 weeks are false. Using the words "unborn baby" or "child" are deceptive, when neither are accurate.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Nebraska Republicans lack votes to pass 12-week abortion ban
(Reuters) - Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts will not convene the state legislature for a special session to consider stricter abortion laws because Republican lawmakers did not have the votes to pass a ban on abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy, he said on Monday.

Like Kansas, Nebraska is a deep red Midwestern state where the state house has a huge Republican majority. But not quite huge enough and not all support this ban.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

DC is not a state, and neither states nor DC are people, which is what your first quote above refers to. The two quotes have nothing to do with each other.

The right pushed to ban abortion for any reason in the third trimester, even though medical emergencies can still make it a necessity. The left fought to preserve that medical necessity, and so now the right is falsely claiming that the left is pushing for elective abortion in the third trimester. The vast majority of falsehoods on this issue come from the right. Claims of a heartbeat at 6 weeks are false, claims of brainwaves detected 6 weeks are false, claims of fetal reaction to stimuli before 20 weeks are false. Using the words "unborn baby" or "child" are deceptive, when neither are accurate.

Perhaps I should've said states, and in addition, District of Columbia. Semantic faux pas on my part

Here's a state by state overview
An Overview of Abortion Laws


To say that the left was just trying to prevent restrictions in terms of medical necessity is false. They also fought to preserve that, but that's not where it stopped and where the line was drawn.

And to pretend that nobody is pushing for abortion to be legal at all stages, and for any reason, would also be false. Here's how one clinic is advertising their services:
Abortion after 26 weeks - Dupont Clinic | Gynecology & Reproductive Health | Washington DC


Prior to the overturning of Roe, a certain faction within the left was none too pleased with the bill FL enacted which was exceptions for medical necessities, but elective abortions capped at 15 weeks. (which would be similar the style of legislation surrounding the matter that many progressive European countries have)

In reality, many of the red states already had abortion laws that mimicked the Scandinavian laws (exceptions for medical/rape/incest), but capping elective abortions between the 10-16 mark.

So, given that we know that pro-choice activists thought that wasn't good enough, and you say they're not pushing for elective abortions in the 3rd trimester and that's just "right wing falsehoods".

What exactly is the week limitation for elective abortions they're advocating for or what they would find to be an acceptable/reasonable cutoff?

You say it's not week 27+
Clearly they thought 10-16 weeks was too low

So which week (from 17-26) are they advocating for?


Look, I'm not claiming that "the right was right" about all of their proposed restrictions that some states tried to jam through. I thought many were unreasonable...but we can't pretend that everything the left is advocating for is reasonable either. One side being unreasonable in one direction doesn't make any alternative viewpoint reasonable by default.

 

[NxNW]

And to pretend that nobody is pushing for abortion to be legal at all stages, and for any reason, would also be false. Here's how one clinic is advertising their services:
Abortion after 26 weeks - Dupont Clinic | Gynecology & Reproductive Health | Washington DC

That's merely an ad describing a legal service. Do you have an example of an effort "push" for it?

In reality, many of the red states already had abortion laws that mimicked the Scandinavian laws (exceptions for medical/rape/incest), but capping elective abortions between the 10-16 mark.

The right is pushing to ban it altogether, for any reason, asking with contraception.

So, given that we know that pro-choice activists thought that wasn't good enough, and you say they're not pushing for elective abortions in the 3rd trimester and that's just "right wing falsehoods".

Not happening.

What exactly is the week limitation for elective abortions they're advocating for or what they would find to be an acceptable/reasonable cutoff?

It's against forum rules to answer that question.

Look, I'm not claiming that "the right was right" about all of their proposed restrictions that some states tried to jam through. I thought many were unreasonable...but we can't pretend that everything the left is advocating for is reasonable either. One side being unreasonable in one direction doesn't make any alternative viewpoint reasonable by default.

The right wants to ban it under any and all circumstances, along with contraception. The left has never pushed for anything approaching that extreme.[/QUOTE]

 

[essentialsaltes]

Per @tbonier: Women have been registering to vote at higher rates than men since the Dobbs decision. You can particularly see the mismatch in KS, where obviously there was this specific abortion related election and the mismatch got to 70/30. But the gender gap is also high in several other key red states.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Nebraska Republicans lack votes to pass 12-week abortion ban

West Virginia governor Jim Justice called a special session into order to criminalize abortion.
It failed. Democrats have suggested putting the issue on the ballot.

West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice has rejected a suggestion by Democratic lawmakers to let voters decide whether abortion should continue to be allowed in the state.

 

[Bradskii]

West Virginia governor Jim Justice called a special session into order to criminalize abortion.
It failed. Democrats have suggested putting the issue on the ballot.

West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice has rejected a suggestion by Democratic lawmakers to let voters decide whether abortion should continue to be allowed in the state.

I thought the whole thrust of the movement was 'let the states decide'. In other words, let the individuals in each state decide, by democratic means, what the law on abortion should be.

Seems that's not actually the case. Colour me unsurprised.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Do you have an example of an effort "push" for it?

Yes, I highlighted that when Florida (prior to the overturning of Roe) implemented a new set of abortion restrictions, which kept the medical exemptions, but dropped the elective abortion cutoff from 26 weeks down to 15, pro-choice advocates/activists protested it.

The CEO of planned parenthood for responded with this (per politico)

“If these politicians think the fight against this abortion ban is over they are sadly mistaken,” Fraim wrote. “We won’t rest until our rights are restored. No one has the right to control what we can and cannot do with our own bodies.”

So, we're back to my original premise... if 15 weeks for elective (with medical exemptions), was viewed as an infringement so overreaching that the top brass at planned parenthood referred to it as something to fight against it... then where would you guestimate the CEO of planned parenthood would place the cutoff if they were "king for a day"?

The right is pushing to ban it altogether, for any reason

Again, "what the right wants to do" doesn't by default validate the other sides position.

If one side says "We think people should be locked up for 20 years if they smoke a joint" which would be absurd, that doesn't, by default, validate a polar opposite position of "I think recreational heroin should be legal for 10 year olds"

Not happening.

What's not happening? There aren't people on the left advocating for the right to elective abortions in the 3rd trimester? Per my previous link, and I'll post it again, there are already states and localities that allow it.

An Overview of Abortion Laws

It's against forum rules to answer that question.

Not it's not...asking you to describe what a side is advocating for isn't you promoting anything.

IE: It's against the rules to promote violence, but it's not against the rules to say "Group XYZ is promoting violence"

There's a distinction between you advocating for something, vs. describing what a group is advocating for in a broad sense.

The right wants to ban it under any and all circumstances, along with contraception.

They want to ban contraception?

I'd be interested in hearing more about which republicans are aiming to ban birth control pills, condoms, IUDs, and diaphragms.

Everyone else should probably hear about that too, so they can make sure not to vote for them.

 

[NxNW]

Yes, I highlighted that when Florida (prior to the overturning of Roe) implemented a new set of abortion restrictions, which kept the medical exemptions, but dropped the elective abortion cutoff from 26 weeks down to 15, pro-choice advocates/activists protested it.

That's not an example of pushing for it at all stages.

So, we're back to my original premise... if 15 weeks for elective (with medical exemptions), was viewed as an infringement so overreaching that the top brass at planned parenthood referred to it as something to fight against it... then where would you guestimate the CEO of planned parenthood would place the cutoff if they were "king for a day"?

I don't speak for Planned Parenthood.

What's not happening? There aren't people on the left advocating for the right to elective abortions in the 3rd trimester? Per my previous link, and I'll post it again, there are already states and localities that allow it.

Again, describing the current state of the law is not an example of anyone pushing for something.

They want to ban contraception?

Absolutely. I've seen Republicans on TV proudly claim that they're coming after birth control next.

I'd be interested in hearing more about which republicans are aiming to ban birth control pills, condoms, IUDs, and diaphragms.

Everyone else should probably hear about that too, so they can make sure not to vote for them.

GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters wants to allow states to ban contraception use

Mississippi governor refuses to rule out banning contraception

Brent Crane, a senior state lawmaker in Idaho, said publicly he wanted to hold hearings on banning emergency contraception.

Contraception - Students For Life of America - pushing for a ban on Plan B and birth control pills, false claiming they cause abortions.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't speak for Planned Parenthood.

But planned parenthood (and their leadership) do speak for the pro-choice movement in many ways.

Denying such would be a cop out.

Much like it'd be a cop out for someone on the right (when challenged on the position that they're trying to weaken gun control laws), when faced with a person providing a quote from the NRA, claiming "well I don't speak for the NRA"

So you asked for an example, I provided one, and your response is "that one doesn't count".

Again, describing the current state of the law is not an example of anyone pushing for something.

In order for those laws to be in place, someone would've had to have pushed for it yes? Laws just don't magically make their way to the states' revised codes.

GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters wants to allow states to ban contraception use

Mississippi governor refuses to rule out banning contraception

Brent Crane, a senior state lawmaker in Idaho, said publicly he wanted to hold hearings on banning emergency contraception.

Contraception - Students For Life of America - pushing for a ban on Plan B and birth control pills, false claiming they cause abortions.

So is the the part of the conversation where I can spin your original logic around on you and use it and claim "I don't speak for Mississippi or a college pro-life advocacy group?"

I won't do that...

A couple points.

1) I don't see in the student for life America where they're pushing for a ban in the link you provided, simply highlighting the distinction between what they're labelling "Abortifacient vs Non-Abortifacient" methods of birth control (which they're wrong about half of them). They could be advocating for what you mention, but I'm not up on all of the pro-life groups and what they stand for, as I'm not in that camp.

2) Again, pointing out the absurdities of the extreme positions of the right doesn't negate the existence of the extreme positions of the left. (and vice versa)

If the CEO of Planned Parenthood is saying "15 weeks (with medical exceptions) is too restrictive and we need to fight against it", and that doesn't count as a leading pro-choice organization in your view, we're on different wavelengths then.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Per @tbonier: Women have been registering to vote at higher rates than men since the Dobbs decision. You can particularly see the mismatch in KS, where obviously there was this specific abortion related election and the mismatch got to 70/30. But the gender gap is also high in several other key red states.

I suppose it's probably too early to have the granular data as to their leaning on this issue with regards to it being a motivation for voter registration.

I know there was an uptick in voter registrations leading up to the 2016 and 2020 elections, and some where people who said

"I need to get registered so I can vote for Trump"

and other doing it because "I need to get registered so I can vote against Trump"

In the case of Kansas...

It would appear that the polarizing issue is causing an increase of voter registrations among both political persuasions.

The number of registered republicans in the state has jumped by about 8k from June, and the number of registered democrats has jumped by 10k.

So it looks like it could be a little bit "up in the air" with regards to whether or not this spike in voter registration is actually indicative of "the tide is changing" or if it's just a case where the polarizing topic drew out passionate people on both sides of the issue.

 

[NxNW]

So you asked for an example, I provided one, and your response is "that one doesn't count".

You asked me to provide the example for you, on behalf of another entity.

So is the the part of the conversation where I can spin your original logic around on you and use it and claim "I don't speak for Mississippi or a college pro-life advocacy group?"

You seemed skeptical that Republicans were pushing to ban contraception, and I provided examples.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You seemed skeptical that Republicans were pushing to ban contraception, and I provided examples.

And you seemed skeptical that there were people advocating for late term abortions.

19% of people say last trimester abortion should be "Legal in all cases/Legal in most cases"

If you cross reference with this Washington Post/ABC News poll (that allows to filter down by political ideology), the numbers are pretty similar.
April 24-28, 2022 Washington Post-ABC News crosstabs

When you look at the section for "Legal, All Cases", and look at self-identified liberals specifically, the number that selected that option was over 40%.

You juxtapose that against polling done (broken out by political party) and how republicans responded to it with regards to contraception.

So if the two extremes of this issue are
"Late term elective abortion < - > Banning contraception"

48% of liberals voiced support for the one the extreme...

While fewer that 10% of republicans want to ban condoms or birth control pills, fewer than 20% want to ban IUDs, fewer than 40% want to ban Plan B.

And with the latest house vote over the matter (the one that many house republicans voted against), many said that had they would've been open a bipartisan bill that carved out Plan B (since that seemed to be their sticking pointing...misguidedly)...but none the less it shows that they're not opposed to all contraception, but the democrats rejected the proposal.

Per WaPo:
...said they opposed the bill because it didn’t carve out emergency contraception like Plan B, which many conservatives object to on the grounds that it’s tantamount to abortion. (Some Republicans suggested the parties could negotiate on a more bipartisan bill that excluded Plan B, which Democrats rejected.)

 

[NxNW]

And you seemed skeptical that there were people advocating for late term abortions.

No, "pushing" was the term used.

19% of people say last trimester abortion should be "Legal in all cases/Legal in most cases"

Answering a poll is not "pushing".

While fewer that 10% of republicans want to ban condoms or birth control pills, fewer than 20% want to ban IUDs, fewer than 40% want to ban Plan B.

The thing is, Plan B is the same medication as birth control pills, just a difference in dosage. And yet a 4X difference in response. That's like banning 22-oz beers while keeping 12-oz beers legal. That one fact shows that the GOP position is indefensible.

And with the latest house vote over the matter (the one that many house republicans voted against), many said that had they would've been open a bipartisan bill that carved out Plan B (since that seemed to be their sticking pointing...misguidedly)...but none the less it shows that they're not opposed to all contraception, but the democrats rejected the proposal.

Banning Plan B is the same as banning birth control pills. The GOP knows it's the same medication, but misrepresenting Plan B is a specific strategy to get birth control pills banned along with it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No, "pushing" was the term used.

Feels like we're just playing a semantic game at this point.

If I change the phrasing from "pushing for third trimester elective abortion" to "vociferously expressing objections to the restriction of third trimester abortions, and protesting when a state restricts them", would that clear things up?
(like protesters did in North Carolina when they reduced the elective abortion cutoff from 28 weeks down to 20 *with medical exceptions still in tact*)

Seems like it's just a longer way of saying the same thing.

If the protestors and advocates weren't "pushing" for the rule to be reversed so that they could go back to getting elective abortions at 28 weeks instead of 20, what exactly was the point of their protest? They were just out there to complain and not demand change?

The thing is, Plan B is the same medication as birth control pills, just a difference in dosage. And yet a 4X difference in response. That's like banning 22-oz beers while keeping 12-oz beers legal. That one fact shows that the GOP position is indefensible.

As noted, their efforts on Plan B are misguided, I mentioned that in my post.

But it should also be noted that the particular dosages of a particular medication being restricted at different levels isn't a new concept and doesn't mean one is a slippery slope into banning the other.

And given that the GOP polling response was that over 90% of republicans think birth control pills should be legal, but only 63% think Plan B should be legal shows they likely just didn't know that it was the same drug or were just underinformed on the issue.

You can't attribute to malice what can easily be explained by ignorance.

 

[NxNW]

And given that the GOP polling response was that over 90% of republicans think birth control pills should be legal, but only 63% think Plan B should be legal shows they likely just didn't know that it was the same drug or were just underinformed on the issue.

You can't attribute to malice what can easily be explained by ignorance.

I can when the Republican legislators are advocating the misinformed position.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I can when the Republican legislators are advocating the misinformed position.

There's nothing that says that legislators are (or have to be) smarter or well-informed on a given issue than the electorate they represent. Especially when you're talking about house reps or state level legislators.

IE:
We've had republicans saying "Global warming can't be that bad...look, a snowball!"
We've had democrats trying to make gun policy without knowing the difference between semi and fully automatic

You can find plenty of examples from both sides of people doing a "self own" (or putting their own ignorance on display) so to speak.