nonniey

Not saying this was her case but there are some states where the Federal Government should resist what is permitted under state law.

Not enough info provided - how far along in her pregnancy was she - would be the first question that comes to mind.

Maybe unnecessary or over blown would have been a better adjectives.

Ah yes the old I know you are but what am I defense. Is that you Pee Wee?

Says one of the Lemmings.

.....🙄

Definitely yes. Point being is activists will count them as pro-choice when it is convenient and pro-life at other times depending what the argument is. Pro choice activists for example would certainly count them as pro-choice when used to highlight the statistic that most American's are pro-choice.

Depends on the definition you use. Most support abortion with restrictions (what that makes them depends on the context of the point trying to be made by Pro-choice activists).

I have a bridge I'd like to sell you in Brooklyn - any interest? At the time - the actual stated reason from Try was that a Trump nomination guaranteed a Clinton victory so he voted for him to help her and hurt the Republicans. He didn't want a Kasich or Rubio upsetting Clinton's apple cart.

Are you suggesting the states restricting abortions are not abiding by the wishes of their electorate?

Did you notice the Giant Metal Godzilla head at the primary base?

That would be called a busted flush in Poker.

Well yes what LadySkinFan is claiming doesn't make a lick of sense. I may be confused on how you read my response though given the smiley face.

Good god woman you couldn't be more off of actual reality than if you deliberately lied about this (I don't think you are lying I think you actually believe this). - 60% of all abortions are of minorities (Minorities only make up 35% of the population). - Black abortions are over 300% higher than their proportion of the overall population. - If there had been no abortions (again I'm not advocating bans on all or even the vast majority of abortions) the white population would already be a minority.

Well seen different stats but for the sake of argument lets say everyone but one was a legitimate serious/critical health issue - should it be legal to abort that one child?

Do you think he is unique - that there is no possible way that there can be any other unethical Doctor out there? Many (maybe most) of the charges brought against him in Pennsylvania couldn't have been brought against him in Vermont or now in NY. Is what you want the legalization or continued legalization of much of what Gosnell routinely did?

"A distinction without a difference," was an excellent way of putting it. In some states that is exactly what it is, NY being one of them. It's why I argue that it has to be more than one Dr (really more than two - three would be satisfactory imo) that are independent of each other and can't work together routinely (Tiller got in trouble over violating an independent 2 Dr clause in Kansas), and the penalties have to be severe enough to bite for violating procedures. In a world with Gosnells I think that is reasonable.

If you like Godzilla /Kaiju movies you'll love this. If you don't - well maybe maybe not.

Vermont was very clear that they have been at that extreme for a long time. And they were so adamant about it they decided to specifically protect that extreme by putting it formally into law just last month.

Yet that is what the Pro-Choice movement (movement as in activists, planned parenthood etc.) supports. Planned parenthood opposes any new measures that may interfere with unlimited/unrestricted abortions and supports efforts to remove restrictions currently in place such as occurred in NY and almost in VA. Of course places like Alabama help Planned Parenthood and Pro-choice activists by giving them ammunition and cover by passing draconian anti-abortion laws that the vast majority find unreasonable (when the vast majority would find what the Activists/Planned Parenthood support just as draconian and unreasonable, if they were aware what it is those pro-choice factions actually support). The fight needs to be over these late term abortions.

Ok let me be clearer it is the Democratic Parties policy position and the policy they defend and propose if not already in place. New York (Fig leaf), Vermont (not even a fig leaf), the attempt in VA last year etc. Any place that allows any abortion with concurrence of just 1 doctor (who could be the abortion provider) allows abortion in practice up to the last minute for any reason. The difference between NY and Vermont late term abortions is in NY you just have to give any reason related to health no matter how minor the health issue while In Vermont Medea can come in and say she is mad at Jason and wants to get an abortion to hurt him.

Well her position is the Democrat's position. Still don't see much criticism or calls for boycotts of Vermont or New York here. Seems like the extremes on both sides are in the drivers seats.

PR game. They won't boycott any state unless the bottom-line gets threatened.

I get why the lower courts blocked that provision as it would interfere with abortions pre-viability (How could you enforce it without restrictions on early abortions which ROE was specific can't be restricted). That said doing it for those reasons would be anethema and treads into the eugenics arena. As for the disposal of remains not sure why all the animosity/gnashing of teeth over it. It doesn't interfere with abortions.

Larry say it ain't so - You have a reading comprehension problem too??????