world

Republicans push anti-abortion measures with new majority

63 Comments
By MARY CLARE JALONICK

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


63 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

I thought Republicans wanted this all to be decided by the states.

No, actually I never believed that. Just like I never believed they were serious about economic issues.

16 ( +18 / -2 )

They don’t learn anything. Shooting themselves in both feet with both barrels. Again.

14 ( +16 / -2 )

“You don’t have freedom, true liberty, unless government protects your most fundamental right, your right to live,”

Says the man who turned a blind eye to rampant sexual abuse at Ohio State.

Disingenuous schmuck.

15 ( +16 / -1 )

The medieval fascists clowns of the GOP want to take away the reproductive rights of women throughout the country, but they won't be able to, the people will not allow them to take away the rights of all minorities..

The pathetic pink wave of the GOP circus will be the new ridicule of 2023..

10 ( +11 / -1 )

This doubly stupid. Firstly, women's' rights to their bodies is overwhelmingly popular, so introducing legislation to take these rights away is unpopular. Secondly, it won't go anywhere, because the Democrats control the Senate. So the GOP marks themselves as anti-women's rights at political cost, with no actual gain.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

“You don’t have freedom, true liberty, unless government protects your most fundamental right, your right to live,” said new House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan

I look forward to Jordan submitting a bill to outlaw the death penalty.

14 ( +16 / -2 )

Says the man who turned a blind eye to rampant sexual abuse at Ohio State.

Wish I could give you two +'s for that one. Dude should probably be in jail or at least sued into homelessness instead of in Congress making life harder for honest people.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

The medieval fascists clowns of the GOP want to take away the reproductive rights of women throughout the country,

Controlling women is how a political movement attempts to control all of society. It is why the mullahs in Iran and other Muslim dictatorships impose hijab or burka requirements on women, deny them the right to do anything without a male family member. Treat women like children who can't be trusted to make their own life decisions and you can control all of society.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

We don’t want to ban abortion. We just want it sent back to the states to decide.

This was always a lie. They wanted it sent back to the states so GQP state legislators could ban abortion.

It’s as disingenuous a claim as the “lost cause” conspiracy that the South didn’t secede for slavery but for “State’s Rights.” (The State’s Right to permit human slavery, but I digress..)

As such a test case was prepared in my home state of Red Kansas. It was tailored, one might say “manipulated”, to pass.

It wasn’t voted on in the general, but in the primary election where only the stalwarts vote and only registered GOP and Democratic voters are eligible (no independents thank you) in a state that is nearly 2:1 GQP.

It was also vaguely worded. One had to vote “no” to vote to preserve the state’s abortion rights protections.

It was in a word, “designed” to pass.

And then a funny thing happened on the way to victory; Kansas women went apoplectic. Not just the college kids in Lawrence and the Black women in Kansas City Kansas. No, the white suburban mothers In Johnson County and Wichita, even the Rural women in Western Kansas said “Nope!”

It failed by 20 points.

And then in the General, Kansas democratic governor Laura Jelly won a tight re-election. Suburban 3rd district rep Shella David’s won her re-election in one of the few remaining purple districts by 12 points.

Similarly worded ballot measures were rejected in every state there was voting on them including equally Red Kentucky.

So, this is Plan B, pardon the pun.

It’s also virtue signaling (which some of our lot love to harp on) as it will never pass the Senate and would be vetoed if it did, which it won’t.

So much for inflation, gas prices, crime and liberty, eh?

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Hey Kevin, how about doing something for the people of your own district? You know, that county in central California that has one of the lowest college degree attainment rates in California but has among the highest rates of STDs and drug addiction in the state. Kern County Mississippi I call it. How about doing something useful for the people you claim to represent?

As a friend of mine says, there is LA in the south, the Bay Area to the north and Texas in between, and she ain't being complimentary calling it Texas.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

Good. Stop killing the unborn out of convenience. Abortion should be only for special cases such as - but not strictly limited to - rape and when the mother's life is in danger and there's no other option.

Your body, your responsibility. Don't want a baby? Use proper protection. That goes for women and men equally.

Now let the flaming begin.

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

Your body, your responsibility. Don't want a baby? Use proper protection. That goes for women and men equally.

This is awfully convenient for the men who don’t have to carry a child in their body for nine months and can just bounce.

13 ( +15 / -2 )

This is awfully convenient for the men who don’t have to carry a child in their body for nine months and can just bounce.

Then use protection. And/or be more discerning about who you sleep with.

-14 ( +1 / -15 )

Then use protection. And/or be more discerning about who you sleep with.

I think you missed the point. Guys walk away all the time and leave the women to deal with the problem. Not only are a lot of men not going to use protection (or enquire if the woman is using the pill or has an IUD) but they aren't going to help raise any kids their coupling produces.

Like I said earlier, the whole thing is about social control. If you can control the lives of women, you have control of society. It has nothing to do with morals or anything else.

11 ( +13 / -2 )

Like I said earlier, the whole thing is about social control. If you can control the lives of women, you have control of society. It has nothing to do with morals or anything else.

This is partly true, but you're completely ignoring the agency of women to take responsibility for who they choose to sleep with. Outside extreme circumstances, they get to choose, and if they choose a loser/sleazebag/whatever to sleep with, that's on them. There are loads of people who would love to adopt a baby if the woman doesn't want to keep it, so why end that life unnecessarily and immorally for the sake of convenience stemming from a bad decision?

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

Funny how nobody ever lectures men (or holds them responsible) about their sexual behavior.

Party of individual liberty indeed.

I want to thank the GQP and the Christian Taliban that form their base for reminding women voters (and the men that actually care about them) just where they stand on gender equality.

Im sure they will have that in mind at the next election.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

One can always trust the Christian Taliban to be on the wrong side of an 80/20 issue.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The technology to allow biological men to carry a pregnancy to term via implantation of a female reproductive system will be here one day, if not already. Maybe this will be the eventual compromise? Any pregnancy unwanted by the woman, but wanted by the man, will be able to be 'transferred' for the man to carry to term, with the help of hormone treatments. This wouldn't be an option in most some cases (Rape, man can't be found, etc.), but the purported goals of both sides (no abortion, no forced pregnancies) could in theory be met.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

NemoToday  09:33 am JST

Funny how nobody ever lectures men (or holds them responsible) about their sexual behavior. 

Party of individual liberty indeed.

Loads of people hold men responsible for their sexual behaviour, including me. If you read my post with even the most cursory glance you'd see that. Good parenting should include instilling boys with this sense of responsibility for their own actions, but too many parents simply can't be bothered or have no idea what responsibility even means.

Here's a biology lesson, gratis: it takes both a male and female to make a baby. And from a moral standpoint both are equally responsible for either preventing conception from happening in the first place, or for raising a child if one results from a bit of action between the sheets.

Seems to me that a huge failing of feminism, for all the gains the movement has made for women, is the failure to instil a sense of responsibility for the power it has brought. Similarly, while men have plenty of power, far too many shirk their responsibilities. But because nature has given women the role of carrying children, they need to exercise some good judgment about who they sleep with. The cool but unemployed surfer might be good for a bit of fun, but what kind of father will he make? The businessman with the silver tongue and silver BMW might look and sound great, but will he be there to raise the kids, or will he be off chasing the next pretty face who gets his attention? Why do some people find that too much to ask?

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

Here's a biology lesson, gratis: it takes both a male and female to make a baby. And from a moral standpoint both are equally responsible for either preventing conception from happening in the first place, or for raising a child if one results from a bit of action between the sheets.

Sometimes the male is a rapist and the female is a minor.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

NemoToday  10:11 am JST

One can always trust the Christian Taliban to be on the wrong side of an 80/20 issue.

Funny how people who claim to be "pro-choice" are generally the most vociferous about mandating people to be injected with an experimental drug, or excluded from society if they don't. Makes a mockery of their pro-choice stance.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

GOP wasting more time. Yawn. They need to stop telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Any rules that protect anti-abortion "clinics" (what a joke), need to apply for family planning and abortion clinics and doctors as well. Equal protection under the law, right?

I don't want pregnant people being tricked.

It would be great if any new law included a mandate to post a representative number of abortions the doctor(s) in the facility have performed over the last 12 months. 0, 10-20, more than 20 would make it clear. Also, if there isn't a medical doctor at the facility, that needs to be posted outside, so people aren't tricked into going inside to hear how wonderful the unwanted child will be, then handed $100 in canned foods and diapers with claims of "support" that will never really happen.

I don't want pregnant people being tricked.

I am a little disappointed that last term the Dems didn't shore up Federal protections around abortions with laws.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

UChosePoorlyToday  10:18 am JST

Here's a biology lesson, gratis: it takes both a male and female to make a baby. And from a moral standpoint both are equally responsible for either preventing conception from happening in the first place, or for raising a child if one results from a bit of action between the sheets.

Sometimes the male is a rapist and the female is a minor.

I already covered this in an earlier post, under "extreme situations". I'm not a pro-life absolutist, so it might pay you to read for context.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

I already covered this in an earlier post, under "extreme situations". I'm not a pro-life absolutist, so it might pay you to read for context.

Sorry if I didn't read your earlier posts, but the ones I did read make it sound like you would force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

UChosePoorlyToday  10:55 am JST

I already covered this in an earlier post, under "extreme situations". I'm not a pro-life absolutist, so it might pay you to read for context.

Sorry if I didn't read your earlier posts, but the ones I did read make it sound like you would force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

No worries. What I'm arguing for is for both men and women to take responsibility for their actions and not take the easy way out, whether that be men abandoning pregnant women, and for women to put a bit of thought into who they sleep with. And if a pregnancy results, then for both parents to raise the child or give it up for adoption. If people create a life, then they have the responsibility to at least see that life through to birth and consider options after that, extreme cases notwithstanding.

Why does this seem to upset some people on this forum so much? It's not necessarily a faith-based position as much as an ethical one, although they align pretty closely.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Algernon - I don't think anyone here doesn't want people to accept responsibility for their behavior. I certainly wish more people would. And strong, happy, and productive families benefit us all. What I don't like is for the government to be getting involved in people's very personal decisions. A government that can force women to carry unwanted pregnancies can also force women to have abortions. I would rather the government just stay out of it altogether.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The Republic House is only a small majority and nothing will go any further. End of discussion on them.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Wallace, agreed, any bills that don't have the chance of getting through the Democratic-controlled Senate are DOA, so it's pretty apparent that these are of performative value only, really only helping those House R's who vote for them stave off 2024 primaries from the (further) right. In most Congressional districts, blue or red, the 'real' election is the primary. Republicans in ruby-districts aren't worried about a Dem taking their seat, they are worried about a Republican out-primarying them.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

ruby-red* districts

2 ( +3 / -1 )

For the next two years, the House will become nothing more than a uni debating society.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The definition of stupid; "Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results"...

Go for it Repubs - pass the legislation prohibiting abortions even in the case of rape or incest...

Show the American public, and women, you think they're nothing but second class citizens and baby warmers...

And show what hypocrites you are when you shout "My Body, My Choice" when it comes to the vaccine but suddenly clam up when that phrase is repeated back to you by the people that you stole it from...

4 ( +7 / -3 )

UChosePoorlyToday  11:37 am JST

Algernon - I don't think anyone here doesn't want people to accept responsibility for their behavior. I certainly wish more people would. And strong, happy, and productive families benefit us all. What I don't like is for the government to be getting involved in people's very personal decisions. A government that can force women to carry unwanted pregnancies can also force women to have abortions. I would rather the government just stay out of it altogether.

I see we have some common ground here, which is good. I'm a right-leaning libertarian, and part of my belief system is that people have a wide latitude to act and associate without causing harm, and part of that is not causing harm to an unborn baby by aborting it, which I think trumps someone's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy outside extreme circumstances. I'm no friend of government interference in people's lives either, but I think there needs to be carefully designed and exercised provisions in law to protect the unborn, as they can't choose for themselves.

But I do think there are some people here with rather distorted concepts of freedom of choice, agency, and responsibility, and would rather focus on victimhood for whatever reason.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

“Republicans are always going on about how they’re going to get government off your back, but big government being inside a woman’s uterus is A-OK.”

George Carlin

9 ( +9 / -0 )

stormcrowToday  12:02 pm JST

“Republicans are always going on about how they’re going to get government off your back, but big government being inside a woman’s uterus is A-OK.”

George Carlin

Carlin was usually brilliant, but misses the mark here because he conveniently ignores the relationship between personal choice and personal responsibility, making light of the death of millions of unborn babies to score a cheap political point.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

And show what hypocrites you are when you shout "My Body, My Choice" when it comes to the vaccine but suddenly clam up when that phrase is repeated back to you by the people that you stole it from...

A very poor argument, because you completely ignore the conceived but unborn baby's lack of choice. You're only here because your mother (and father, I assume maybe incorrectly) made the right decision to carry you to term. Even if she had decided in the other direction, you were a developing life but had no say whatsoever in that choice. Thank about that for a minute. Do you want to deny other unborn babies the right to enter the world?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

A very poor argument, because you completely ignore the conceived but unborn baby's lack of choice. You're only here because your mother (and father, I assume maybe incorrectly) made the right decision to carry you to term. Even if she had decided in the other direction, you were a developing life but had no say whatsoever in that choice. Thank about that for a minute. Do you want to deny other unborn babies the right to enter the world?

Weak. You need to be more extreme about abortion. That will ensure Republicans can win the next election and vote for more banning of abortions.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Do you want to deny other unborn babies the right to enter the world?

I want women to have agency over their bodies. I do not care about a cluster of cells a few weeks into development. If I had been aborted, I wouldn’t mind at all. Because I would have not developed enough to experience physical, mental or emotional sensations.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

This is partly true, but you're completely ignoring the agency of women to take responsibility for who they choose to sleep with. Outside extreme circumstances, they get to choose, and if they choose a loser/sleazebag/whatever to sleep with, that's on them.

Again, you claim to be for “both partners” to be responsible, but when faced with the obvious fact that some men are not going to step up, for any number of legitimate or illegitimate reasons, you just say “well it’s the woman’s fault for sleeping with him”.

What if the man dies and the mother doesn’t want to raise a child without its biological father, and she’s only been pregnant for two days? Is this an immoral abortion, in your view?

There are loads of people who would love to adopt a baby if the woman doesn't want to keep it, so why end that life unnecessarily and immorally for the sake of convenience stemming from a bad decision?

I see. It follows that if someone somewhere wants something for any reason that you should do or take that thing, whatever it is.

There are lots of people who would love to date me, but sadly they haven’t met me yet. Therefore, aren’t you being selfish by not dating me, when you could be?

I look forward to a bouquet in the morning as you commence your courtship.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Wallace, agreed, any bills that don't have the chance of getting through the Democratic-controlled Senate are DOA, so it's pretty apparent that these are of performative value only

Ding, ding, ding! Exactly.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I’ll ask also: do you think IVF clinics should be banned? They inseminate thousands upon thousands of human eggs per year… but not all of them are implanted. These are eggs which have been successfully merged with sperm, and are therefore conceived. But they might not attach to a uterus successfully. Or, they might be one of the many spares that are created.

Are you upset at this loss of life? If you had to choose between saving one toddler or 7,000 inseminated eggs from an IVF clinic, what would you choose?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

I want women to have agency over their bodies.

Yes! And I don't want the customs, restrictions or obligations of any religion forced upon me by my government. That is religious tyranny.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I want women to have agency over their bodies.

I agree, and that includes taking responsibility for the results of the decisions you make, which might include the life and wellbeing of an unborn child. And when it comes to a life you're carrying, it becomes more complex.

I do not care about a cluster of cells a few weeks into development. If I had been aborted, I wouldn’t mind at all. Because I would have not developed enough to experience physical, mental or emotional sensations.

I guess when someone places so little value on their own life, it's a stretch to expect them to place much on anyone else's.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

I guess when someone places so little value on their own life, it's a stretch to expect them to place much on anyone else's.

I actually value life highly. That’s why I’m opposed to the death penalty, as I’m sure you are.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Express sisterToday  01:27 pm JST

This is partly true, but you're completely ignoring the agency of women to take responsibility for who they choose to sleep with. Outside extreme circumstances, they get to choose, and if they choose a loser/sleazebag/whatever to sleep with, that's on them. 

Again, you claim to be for “both partners” to be responsible, but when faced with the obvious fact that some men are not going to step up, for any number of legitimate or illegitimate reasons, you just say “well it’s the woman’s fault for sleeping with him”. 

It's the responsibility for both partners to use some judgment to screen who they want to sleep with, because there's always the risk that pregnancy will result such as if contraception fails. What's wrong with that? When there's so much at stake, why not exercise some prudence? You say you want agency for women, but then go on to say that women are the victims of men who don't step up, but they don't have to sleep with those men. Give themselves some time to suss out the guys to see if they're for real.

What if the man dies and the mother doesn’t want to raise a child without its biological father, and she’s only been pregnant for two days? Is this an immoral abortion, in your view?

This is actually a good question, and something of an ethical challenge. But I think I would strongly encourage the woman to carry the child to term and then adopt it out. I'm open to considering extenuating circumstances though, but I would favour the woman carrying to term.

There are loads of people who would love to adopt a baby if the woman doesn't want to keep it, so why end that life unnecessarily and immorally for the sake of convenience stemming from a bad decision?

I see. It follows that if someone somewhere wants something for any reason that you should do or take that thing, whatever it is.

You're being pretty blase about this. I'm saying that there are loads of people who would love nothing more than to give a child a loving home if the child's natural mother/parents doesn't want or can't raise him or her. What's wrong with that? Give a child a chance at a future, or terminate the baby before it can experience life?

There are lots of people who would love to date me, but sadly they haven’t met me yet. Therefore, aren’t you being selfish by not dating me, when you could be? 

I look forward to a bouquet in the morning as you commence your courtship.

Maybe there are, maybe there aren't. In any case, I'm happily married with an adopted child so you're out of luck. Don't think we'd get along anyhow.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Express sisterToday  01:32 pm JST

I’ll ask also: do you think IVF clinics should be banned? They inseminate thousands upon thousands of human eggs per year… but not all of them are implanted. These are eggs which have been successfully merged with sperm, and are therefore conceived. But they might not attach to a uterus successfully. Or, they might be one of the many spares that are created.

Are you upset at this loss of life? If you had to choose between saving one toddler or 7,000 inseminated eggs from an IVF clinic, what would you choose?

Having been through IVF, why would I think it should be banned? Until you've gone through it, I don'T think you could even hope to understand. And given what you said in an earlier post, I don't think you're capable. There's a vast difference between zygotes that don't take and intentionally terminating them. As for the spares, we didn't have any left over. But for those who do, it must be a very difficult decision about what to do. Most are unviable and will never develop beyond a blastocyst. We had the option of donating to research, but the opportunity never eventuated.

In any case, we were blessed with a baby through adoption, because the parents made the right decision to give us a baby they could not raise themselves.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Express sisterToday  02:14 pm JST

I guess when someone places so little value on their own life, it's a stretch to expect them to place much on anyone else's.

I actually value life highly. That’s why I’m opposed to the death penalty, as I’m sure you are.

Then what about the life of an unborn baby? I don't think you care as much as you claim.

As for capital punishment, I oppose it. But there are some cases where it's a close call.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

The woman's right to choose.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I actually value life highly. That’s why I’m opposed to the death penalty, as I’m sure you are

Funny that you are willing to terminate the life of someone completely innocent, but prefer to keep a violent murderer alive. At least my position is consistent.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

So you do believe that the government should be able to decide whether or not someone should live or die. Weird position for a libertarian who doesn’t like the state having a say in matters of ending life, but okay.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

wallaceToday  02:50 pm JST

The woman's right to choose

Does it trump an unborn child's right to live?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Zygotes aren’t people, FYI. That’s why you would save a living toddler over 7,000 inseminated eggs. Because you know, really, that they’re not human.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Does it trump an unborn child's right to live?

Yes. And you agree. Or do you think that children born as a result of rape or incest are somehow less than human?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Algernon LaCroix

wallaceToday  02:50 pm JST

The woman's right to choose

Does it trump an unborn child's right to live?

Basically yes. A fetus is not a child until it is born and survives on its own organs.

"Your developing fetus has already gone through a few name changes in the first few weeks of pregnancy. Generally, it's called an embryo from conception until the eighth week of development. After the eighth week, it's called a fetus until it's born."

A fetus can not survive until after 24 weeks if born.

Terminations are acceptable for up to 20 weeks.

Termination should be a decision made by the mother and her doctor. Not by politicians and judges.

I have always supported the mother's right to choose.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Algernon LaCroix 

I actually value life highly. That’s why I’m opposed to the death penalty, as I’m sure you are

Funny that you are willing to terminate the life of someone completely innocent, but prefer to keep a violent murderer alive. At least my position is consistent.

That decision is made only by the woman and her doctors.

I also supported the right to terminate for 5 years the same length of time I have opposed capital punishment. I see no contradictions with that. A condemned person is also a human. A fetus does not become human until birth.

There are alternatives to capital punishment. There are not always alternatives to terminations. Some mothers will give birth and give up the child for adoption. But not all are adopted and many remain in childcare until they reach 18.

I think the majority of mothers do not make the decision to terminate lightly.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

typo in there.

I also supported the right to terminate for 5 years the same length of time I have opposed capital punishment. I see no contradictions with that. A condemned person is also a human. A fetus does not become human until birth.

I meant 50 years, not 5.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

This is the same crowd that feverently endorsed Hershel "2 Abortions" Walker because "he will be pro-life going forward."

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Anti-abortion laws do not prevent terminations. It drives them underground and into the back streets where more women will die from their desperate attempts in unhygienic conditions.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

That’s what the right want. They think that there are two acceptable things a woman can be:

Barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, and;

Dead
8 ( +10 / -2 )

One word: Kansas

Literally, the center of continental America

Remember how the people voted

8 ( +10 / -2 )

It's one of life's sad ironies that the people who are most anti-abortion are prime examples of the benefits of abortion.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

And they love Walker even though he never exhibited the judgment and responsibility that they tisk tisk to women about. 4 kids by 4 different women. Would have been 6 if he hadn't gotten his way.

Of course if he had fully gotten his way, there would be only 3 because he would be Hershel "3 abortions" Walker.

And of course the Christian Taliban still would have voted for him.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites