"Trump Hits DeSantis Over ‘Terrible’ Abortion Ban in Florida"

[Hvizsgyak]

That some will rationalize that Trump was the best option is baffling to me. Sure he panders to Christian and right wing demands for his own means, but is he really the best that the almighty creator of all could muster? Not a great endorsement for God/Christianity.

You misunderstand the point. We are given freewill to choose and Americans chose Clinton and Trump and a few candidates from other smaller political parties. Trump appealed to alot of people in America (though I don't know why either) and he won. The overturning of Roe vs Wade was set into motion. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the Bible but God uses whoever He wants to do things whenever He wants. Yeah, Trump was a lousy person and a lousy candidate and a lousy president BUT Roe vs Wade ended and that's all that matters.

 

[Pommer]

The way I always viewed Trump's presidential victory back in 2016 (and I'll add that I neither voted for him nor Hillary Clinton) was God willed it to be that way. God knew how the dice would role and Trump was the only candidate who could put to rest the "abortion on demand" mentality in America. Trump served God's purpose by placing the right people in the right places to overturn Roe vs Wade. Trump lost 2020 Election because God's will was done and He, knowing Trump's mindset (corrupt), gave Biden the win because He knew Biden's mindset. God is always in control. We may not like some of His outcomes but He knows all and we know nothing.

But where the people have been allowed to vote for reproductive rights, “prolife” has taken a beating. Just sayin’.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

But where the people have been allowed to vote for reproductive rights, “prolife” has taken a beating. Just sayin’.

Hence the reason Trump was made president, the pro-abortionist are wrong (even if they were in the majority) and the killing of innocent pre-born children had to be stopped.

Any of the other Republican candidates seeking the nomination in 16 would have installed anti-abortion justices in the open seats. had they won. There is no reason Trump was needed for that to take place.

That is only a theory of yours that cannot been proven true. Remember most Republican are spineless when it comes to defying the wishes of the voters.

 

[Desk trauma]

That is only a theory of yours that cannot been proven true.

It’s silly to pretend otherwise.

Remember most Republican are spineless when it comes to defying the wishes of the voters.

Yeah, how dare a representative support the will of the voters. Madness.

 

[Ave Maria]

I wish he would have the courage to support a total ban on abortion from the moment of conception.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

It’s silly to pretend otherwise.


Yeah, how dare a representative support the will of the voters. Madness.

I'm glad we have some representatives who weigh what's good for the country and every single citizen (born and unborn) when distinguishing between constructive wishes of the voters and madness of the voters.

 

[jayem]

Hence the reason Trump was made president, the pro-abortionist are wrong (even if they were in the majority) and the killing of innocent pre-born children had to be stopped.

But elective abortion wasn't stopped nationwide. In the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, SCOTUS ruled that the legality of elective abortion is a state issue. And as was noted, in every state where the issue was put to the voters, a pro-choice position won. The President alone has no Constitutional authority to criminalize abortion nationwide. Congress could pass a federal law to that effect, and the President could sign it. But it would probably be filibustered in the Senate. And if the Democrats ever won majorities in both houses and the Presidency, the law would likely be repealed.

The fundamental legal issue is that the Constitution never states, nor even implies, that the unborn are "persons' with 14th Amendment rights. So as of now, the legality of abortion is left to the states. And as we see, some states allow abortion, and some don't. The most secure way--and as I see it--the only way to prohibit abortion nationwide is with a Constitutional amendment that would grant legal personhood to the unborn.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

But elective abortion wasn't stopped nationwide. In the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, SCOTUS ruled that the legality of elective abortion is a state issue. And as was noted, in every state where the issue was put to the voters, a pro-choice position won. The President alone has no Constitutional authority to criminalize abortion nationwide. Congress could pass a federal law to that effect, and the President could sign it. But it would probably be filibustered in the Senate. And if the Democrats ever won majorities in both houses and the Presidency, the law would likely be repealed.

The fundamental legal issue is that the Constitution never states, nor even implies, that the unborn are "persons' with 14th Amendment rights. So as of now, the legality of abortion is left to the states. And as we see, some states allow abortion, and some don't. The most secure way--and as I see it--the only way to prohibit abortion nationwide is with a Constitutional amendment that would grant legal personhood to the unborn.

Doing away with Roe vs Wade gave the unborn babies and the Pro-Life movement this outcome:

Six Months Post-Roe, 24 US States Have Banned Abortion or Are Likely to Do So: A Roundup

www.guttmacher.org

Which would have never occurred if Roe vs Wade wasn't struck down. Hundreds of thousands of lives were saved by this move. Thank you Almighty God! States can now choose whether they want to allow abortions performed in their state.

 

[jayem]

Doing away with Roe vs Wade gave the unborn babies and the Pro-Life movement this outcome:

Six Months Post-Roe, 24 US States Have Banned Abortion or Are Likely to Do So: A Roundup

www.guttmacher.org

Which would have never occurred if Roe vs Wade wasn't struck down. Hundreds of thousands of lives were saved by this move. Thank you Almighty God! States can now choose whether they want to allow abortions performed in their state.

The Guttmacher map is constantly changing. Check the link. 16 states are now either protective or very protective of abortion rights. 8 states have some protections and some restrictions. Another 8 allow abortion, with a higher level of restrictions. 17 states are very or most restrictive. Missouri, where I live, is one of the most restrictive states. But our state allows voters to amend the state constitution by referendum. An amendment to protect abortion rights--with some very reasonable restrictions-- has already been written. It takes somewhat over 100,000 petition signatures by registered voters to get it on the ballot. 50% +1 yes vote in next year's general election, will make it a law. As you can imagine, our very conservative AG is doing everything possible to keep it off next year's ballot. Because he knows it will pass. Even in a strongly conservative state, women voters will not tolerate infringement of their reproductive rights.

Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe

 

[KCfromNC]

As you can imagine, our very conservative AG is doing everything possible to keep it off next year's ballot. Because he knows it will pass. Even in a strongly conservative state, women voters will not tolerate infringement of their reproductive rights.

In addition to showing how unpopular the GOP reactionary wing is, referendums like those also drive voter turnout from independents and moderates, and that tends to hurt he GOP candidates overall. Including the guy in the OP who has now flip-flopped back to opposing laws against abortion.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

The Guttmacher map is constantly changing. Check the link. 16 states are now either protective or very protective of abortion rights. 8 states have some protections and some restrictions. Another 8 allow abortion, with a higher level of restrictions. 17 states are very or most restrictive. Missouri, where I live, is one of the most restrictive states. But our state allows voters to amend the state constitution by referendum. An amendment to protect abortion rights--with some very reasonable restrictions-- has already been written. It takes somewhat over 100,000 petition signatures by registered voters to get it on the ballot. 50% +1 yes vote in next year's general election, will make it a law. As you can imagine, our very conservative AG is doing everything possible to keep it off next year's ballot. Because he knows it will pass. Even in a strongly conservative state, women voters will not tolerate infringement of their reproductive rights.

Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe

So a mere 100,000 signatures out of over 6 million people in Missouri gets a referendum on the ballot and then ONLY 50%+1 gets it amended to the Missouri Constitution? I'll have to tell all my retiring friends that Missouri is the place to go for retirement so that abortion referendum is DOA at the petition phase. Pro-abortionists just don't make sense to me. They would rather have babies murdered in the mother's womb than to prevent pregnancies. And please don't be ignorant and say that the reason babies are conceived is because the schools aren't allowed to pass out information about "safe sex". That is such a cop out answer.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Pro-abortionists just don't make sense to me. They would rather have babies murdered in the mother's womb than to prevent pregnancies.

That's just nonsense. Of course we're interested in reducing unwanted pregnancies. Abortion should be safe, legal, accessible and rare.

And please don't be ignorant and say that the reason babies are conceived is because the schools aren't allowed to pass out information about "safe sex".

Sex education does help reduce unwanted pregnancies, so of course we support it. Because (contrary to your assertion) we would rather prevent pregnancies than have to resort to abortion.

 

[jayem]

So a mere 100,000 signatures out of over 6 million people in Missouri gets a referendum on the ballot and then ONLY 50%+1 gets it amended to the Missouri Constitution? I'll have to tell all my retiring friends that Missouri is the place to go for retirement so that abortion referendum is DOA at the petition phase. Pro-abortionists just don't make sense to me. They would rather have babies murdered in the mother's womb than to prevent pregnancies. And please don't be ignorant and say that the reason babies are conceived is because the schools aren't allowed to pass out information about "safe sex". That is such a cop out answer.

The number of signatures is based on the most recent census data. I made an error by quoting the number needed to get a statutory change on the ballot. Which is currently just over 107,000. For a constitutional change to be on the ballot, the number is higher--slightly over 176,000. But in both case, it just takes a simple majority vote to change a statute or the state constitution.

And BTW, I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Earlier this month, I posted an idea to reduce elective abortions by incentivizing adoption. If you have time to read it, it's post #56 in the thread "How to stop abortions." Which is in the American Politics subforum. The thread is closed, but the posts are still available.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Don't blame me... I voted for Kodos.

KANG FOREVER!!!

 

[Hvizsgyak]

That's just nonsense. Of course we're interested in reducing unwanted pregnancies. Abortion should be safe, legal, accessible and rare.



Sex education does help reduce unwanted pregnancies, so of course we support it. Because (contrary to your assertion) we would rather prevent pregnancies than have to resort to abortion.

That is your opinion but what I hear from the mouths of those in the spotlight is "hands off my body, I'll do whatever I want with it. And if you truly wanted to reduce abortions, you would put some restrictions on it. I have heard yours and most of the lefts rhetoric about reducing the abortions for 40 or so years and it hasn't worked. Now, Pro-Lifers will show you all has it needs to be done.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

The number of signatures is based on the most recent census data. I made an error by quoting the number needed to get a statutory change on the ballot. Which is currently just over 107,000. For a constitutional change to be on the ballot, the number is higher--slightly over 176,000. But in both case, it just takes a simple majority vote to change a statute or the state constitution.

And BTW, I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Earlier this month, I posted an idea to reduce elective abortions by incentivizing adoption. If you have time to read it, it's post #56 in the thread "How to stop abortions." Which is in the American Politics subforum. The thread is closed, but the posts are still available.

"Apart from conscientious use of birth control, I think a reasonable way to reduce elective abortion is to incentivize adoption. And what better incentive is there than cash? Consider this: The US adult population is over 250,000,000. Wouldn't at least 10% be pro-life, and willing to donate to a charitable fund with a mission of reducing abortion? It would be a purely private endeavor, with no government funding. If 25,000,000 people donated $100 a year--$8.33 a month--that would raise $2.5 billion. Ramp this up over 3 years, and we'd have $7.5 billion. (Corporate donations could add signifcantly more, but we'll ignore that for now.) Take off 25% for admin expenses, staff salaries, etc., and we have $5.6 billion. We don't want to use it all in the first year of operation. $3.5 billion would be a good start. That would pay $35,000 each to 100,000 pregnant women. All they have to do is provide a birth certificate confirming they delivered a newborn, and within 3 months of age, the child was irrevocably surrendered for adoption through a legitimate agency. I think something like this could definitely reduce abortions. In no way is it baby selling. It's simply an award--from a charitable organization--for doing a good deed. There are many infertile couples (or singles) who desperately want children. And this should reduces a need to adopt a child from overseas. Would some women make a career of being a birth mother? Maybe so. But I'll trust that women know enough not to threaten their health. And anyway, there are far worse ways of earning money than giving people who very much want children the greatest gift of their lives." Jayem - Forum Member

Sorry, I couldn't put your post in a quote, it didn't allow me. I hope by copying your post to here is ok for you. Whenever someone comes up with a decent way to reduce abortions in the US, I like to pass it around for as many people to see it as possible. I have a small qualm about the "10% be Pro-Life" statement but other than that it could work well. I feel though all Americans should pay for the children put up for adoption through your proposal (all though I could be reading what you are saying there incorrectly). But I truly support your proposal as long as it truly does bring down the number of abortion performed in the US in a decisive way.

I will still argue though that by eliminating abortion (except possibly for rape, incest, or the true health of the mother) would start new generations of people who would never think about killing a child in the mother's womb.

And as they say in the upper echelons of humanity - it's a living child, not a choice.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I have heard yours and most of the lefts rhetoric about reducing the abortions for 40 or so years and it hasn't worked.

It did work. There has been a reduction in abortions over the past 40 years. It was cut in half over that period.

 

[NxNW]

Trump served God's purpose by placing the right people in the right places to overturn Roe vs Wade.

The abortion rate has increased since Roe was overturned. One wonders if that was the intended effect.

 

[Pommer]

The abortion rate has increased since Roe was overturned. One wonders if that was the intended effect.

The Streisand effect?

 

[Hvizsgyak]

It did work. There has been a reduction in abortions over the past 40 years. It was cut in half over that period.

View attachment 336917

I believe that chart like I believe in the tooth fairy. Abortions were consistently over 1 million every year to the point that Planned Parenthood stopped showing how many abortions were performed each year. Too many Pro-Lifers and conservative politicians were commenting on how the Democrats kept saying "we want to reduce abortions but make them safer" but the numbers weren't reflecting that. I'm sure the numbers will show a different story now that abortions aren't that easy to get. Of course, Planned Parenthood will skew the numbers to make them say what they want the public to believe.