Ohio abortions

[Jazzy]

"At least two more minors made pregnant by sexual assault were forced to leave Ohio to avoid having their rapists’ babies, according to sworn affidavits filed by abortion providers. The affidavits were filed in Cincinnati as part of a lawsuit aimed at stopping the enforcement of Ohio’s strict new abortion law.

The affidavits show that a 10-year-old from Columbus was not the only child or teen rape victim forced to leave the state. They also describe more than two dozen other instances in which the abortion law put women under extreme duress. The descriptions include those of three women who threatened suicide. They also include two women with cancer who couldn’t terminate their pregnancies and also couldn’t get cancer treatment while they were pregnant.

Another three examples were of women whose fetuses had severe abnormalities or other conditions that made a successful pregnancy impossible. Even so, they couldn’t get abortions in Ohio. "

Continue reading article

---

Thoughts about these examples of women who were denied abortions?

 

[Nazareth]

I forget the state named, but in a recent reporting a woman who's baby had no skull in utero had to travel extensively to have an abortion and save her own life.

 

[Josiah]

@Jazzy


This video is nearly 4 minutes long, but I invite you to view and consider it.

Does Rape Justify Abortion? - What Would You Say

You’re in a conversation about abortion and someone says “abortion should be legal because a woman should never be forced to carry the child of her rapist.” What would you say? Let’s be clear. Rape is awful. Rape is evil. Those who commit rape deserve to be punished. Victims of rape deserve...

whatwouldyousay.org

1. We can discuss EXTREMELY RARE cases only when they are accepted as (at most) very rare exceptions. This is just logic. The exception does not justify the generality. IF you accept that abortions are (in general) wrong, then we could discuss the 1% or so that are because of rape and ask if that 1% might be an exception to the rule. But it's false logic to insist that the exception sets the general rule. Hitler was a baptized Catholic... and did horrible things, does it then follow that all baptized Catholics do horrible things? If the drunk driver should have his license taken away, does that prove all drivers should have their license taken away?


2. No one denies that rape is horrible, evil, disgusting, sinful and illegal. To the extreme. No one is defending rape. Or rapists. But here's where the pro-abortion "logic" falls (horribly) .... why punish one who had nothing to do with it? If your next door neighbor kills his wife, what is moral, just and logical about YOU be killed for this? The evil was not done by the child, it was done by the rapist. So why does the pro-abortion crowd insist the child be punished but don't even so much as mention the rapist? If you argued, "The RAPIST should be castrated or punished with death" then I think you'd have a case, but what did the baby do to deserve capitol punishment? Or to apply this logic to the mother, why kill the mother because she was raped? She's not the evil one here, she didn't commit any crime or sin. Side note: Those defending killing the child because some evil man raped her mother are the very ones often opposed to capitol punishment for extreme criminals - so murderers should not be killed because they did horrible, evil things.... but a baby should be killed for doing, well, nothing wrong. Go figure.


3. Pro-abortion proponents INSIST that either ALL abortions be welcomed... or NONE. I'll admit there are pro-life folks who do that too but it's usually the pro-abortion crowd. Their mantra is CHOICE. Reasons are not discussed, just this overwhelming, absolute RULE that applies to nothing else - CHOICE. All women (but no man or child) are to have absolute, complete, unmitigated, unregulated CHOICE. Reason (any reason) is entirely circumvented and rendered irrelevant. YET they keep bringing up the extremely rare reasons, while insisting reasons are irrelevant. Go figure.







.

 

[tango]

I think the key trouble with most of the discussion about abortion is that so many people seem to think it's an all-or-nothing proposition.

On one hand you have the people who just say "no, never, not happening" regardless of circumstance and on the other hand you have the people insisting that a woman on her way to the maternity unit who changes her mind must be able to go to the abortion clinic instead.

Somewhere in the middle there seems to be a happy medium, where abortion is available for a limited period and/or limited circumstance but after a certain period it is no longer available. We don't even need to take a religious stance on the matter - we can look at secular guidelines for when life begins and when life ends and make sure they are appropriately consistent. I remember reading an article some time ago that looked at secular guidelines for when life ends based on things like brain activity, pulse etc and considered the implications of applying the exact same standards to the unborn. Naturally the result is the notion that life begins some time before birth, even if not as early as conception or implantation.

Personally I find myself uneasy at the thought of abortion. That said, especially in a country where giving birth can be a very expensive proposition even without considering the physiological stresses it places on the mother's body, especially when the mother is still a child herself, it seems that legally forcing someone to carry and give birth to a rapist's baby does little more than add insult to injury, and then issue a bill for the insult. Even with that in mind a rape victim will probably know early on in the pregnancy that she does not want to carry the child to term and so even a situation like rape doesn't warrant allowing late term abortions.

 

[Albion]

3. Pro-abortion proponents INSIST that either ALL abortions be welcomed... or NONE. I'll admit there are pro-life folks who do that too but it's usually the pro-abortion crowd. Their mantra is CHOICE. Reasons are not discussed, just this overwhelming, absolute RULE that applies to nothing else - CHOICE.

That would be the crowd which firmly supported dismissing people from the naval academy and/or from military service, as well as from schools and employment...

when they declined to receive a Covid "vaccination" for religious or other grounds.

THEN "My body, my choice" was something they absolutely did not support.

No surprise there, huh?

 

[Nazareth]

For awhile now chatter in DC had it that Biden, a Catholic, favored not only post birth abortion but codifying abortion. I.E making it a federal law for all 50 states.

That SCOTUS chose to repeal Roe v.Wade during Biden's time in office,when such efforts were pursued for years prior, is suspect.

And quite possibly the first step to codifying Abortion. And under the auspices of issues like those in Ohio and other states, like Arizona.

1. Arizona judge lifts injunction on abortion law, AG Brnovich touts win for his office defending life
2. Arizona Teen Denied Lifesaving Medication Due to State's Abortion Ban

Does that mean a woman suffering an ectopic pregnancy in Arizona has to travel outside the state to save her life?

I think the plan is to let these type cases build so that the Federal government then steps in and codifies abortion. Citing abortion is a choice not compulsory.

Unlike the prerogative of individual states that can order prohibition that can vacate abortion in all cases. And leave women and girls with no choice. Even if that can cost them their life.

It will be for the public good that abortion will become a federal law. At least that's my prediction. And after Biden's reaction to that SCOTUS ruling, I think it's very likely. If not this session, certainly in 2023.

Looking toward his re-election bid in 2024, since he's announced his intention to run again, it would be a matter of planning to gain the support of women in his base.

 

[hedrick]

For awhile now chatter in DC had it that Biden, a Catholic, favored not only post birth abortion but codifying abortion. I.E making it a federal law for all 50 states.

That SCOTUS chose to repeal Roe v.Wade during Biden's time in office,when such efforts were pursued for years prior, is suspect.

And quite possibly the first step to codifying Abortion. And under the auspices of issues like those in Ohio and other states, like Arizona.

1. Arizona judge lifts injunction on abortion law, AG Brnovich touts win for his office defending life
2. Arizona Teen Denied Lifesaving Medication Due to State's Abortion Ban

Does that mean a woman suffering an ectopic pregnancy in Arizona has to travel outside the state to save her life?

I think the plan is to let these type cases build so that the Federal government then steps in and codifies abortion. Citing abortion is a choice not compulsory.

Unlike the prerogative of individual states that can order prohibition that can vacate abortion in all cases. And leave women and girls with no choice. Even if that can cost them their life.

It will be for the public good that abortion will become a federal law. At least that's my prediction. And after Biden's reaction to that SCOTUS ruling, I think it's very likely. If not this session, certainly in 2023.

Looking toward his re-election bid in 2024, since he's announced his intention to run again, it would be a matter of planning to gain the support of women in his base.

It would be easy to prevent this. Pass more reasonable laws. Do you really think the abortion foes behind these laws are part of some left wing conspiracy? I think they’re just drunk with power. They think they now have unlimited authority to deal with abortion, and aren’t thinking about what is likely to happen.

I also think you may be overly optimistic about the response. I believe the Supreme Court is going to allow state legislature to override votes. There is nothing in the US constitution guanteding that the president or Congress is elected by voters. It lets the state legislatures set the rules. They have been restrained by State constitutions. But the Court is about to rule that State constitutions dont restrict legislatures rights over elections. I think we’re going to see Republican administrations and Congress for a long time. Particularly if legislatures can ignore votes that would replace them.

 

[Josiah]

A Federal Law Enshrining Choice


I don't think the liberals can pull it off, they just don't have the votes. Every Republican in both houses will vote against it... and there just aren't enough pro-choice Democrats to pass it. They may TRY but I doubt even that.

And here's why: The CHOICE position is untenable and unpopular. Even among liberals. It's the position of North Korea. The concept is that a woman (but not any man) has ABSOLUTE CHOICE regarding an unborn baby - no matter what. Reasons don't matter. Timing doesn't matter. Nothing matters. At all. Except one thing - this absolute, unmitigated, power of CHOICE that a mother has. Wrong gender? Terminate! The Baby is already 90% out of the womb the feet being push back in - and then she says TERMINATE and yup, she has absolute choice. Americans like the idea of choice, but they rarely mean it in some absolute, unmitigated, unregulared, morality-doesn't-matter, no-other-person-matters way. If the Liberals introduce such a bill (echoing only North Korea), I think Americans would reject it. And it would be easy for the opponents to rebuke it since ANY senario would be legal and embraced.

Public Opinion on this varies a lot (often depending on how the question is formed) but I think the US falls generally in line with Europeans on this (indeed, nearly every country that has legal abortion). They are much more favorable to EARLY abortions (first 10-15 weeks) but generally against late term abortions and partial birth abortions. They are much more favorable to abortions for some "valid" reason (rape, incest, fetal deformity) than they are to "but my bbf doesn't like condoms" or "But I wanna boy" or 'shoot, girls just wanna have fun" ("reasons" that 'choice" welcomes). If the Democrats want a CHOICE bill (no morality, no reasons, no regulation) - the majority of Americans will not support it, and I think the Libs are smart enough to know that. It would fly in CA and NY but not nationally. Now, the Republicans MIGHT try the opposite - no abortion EVER, in any case, for any reason - and I think that too would not be supported by public opinion (well, in some places but not nationally). Something along the lines of what Mississippi has - a middle ground very much like the European policies - MIGHT have enough votes to get through both houses but would Biden sign that? No way, he's entirely beholding to the CHOICE radicals in his party; if he rejected the CHOICE view, he would be denied the nomination of his party and he cares a LOT more for his power and glory than he does 600,000 babies. That's obvious.




.

 

[Nazareth]

A Federal Law Enshrining Choice


I don't think the liberals can pull it off, they just don't have the votes. Every Republican in both houses will vote against it... and there just aren't enough pro-choice Democrats to pass it. They may TRY but I doubt even that.

And here's why: The CHOICE position is untenable and unpopular. Even among liberals. It's the position of North Korea. The concept is that a woman (but not any man) has ABSOLUTE CHOICE regarding an unborn baby - no matter what. Reasons don't matter. Timing doesn't matter. Nothing matters. At all. Except one thing - this absolute, unmitigated, power of CHOICE that a mother has. Wrong gender? Terminate! The Baby is already 90% out of the womb the feet being push back in - and then she says TERMINATE and yup, she has absolute choice. Americans like the idea of choice, but they rarely mean it in some absolute, unmitigated, unregulared, morality-doesn't-matter, no-other-person-matters way. If the Liberals introduce such a bill (echoing only North Korea), I think Americans would reject it. And it would be easy for the opponents to rebuke it since ANY senario would be legal and embraced.

Public Opinion on this varies a lot (often depending on how the question is formed) but I think the US falls generally in line with Europeans on this (indeed, nearly every country that has legal abortion). They are much more favorable to EARLY abortions (first 10-15 weeks) but generally against late term abortions and partial birth abortions. They are much more favorable to abortions for some "valid" reason (rape, incest, fetal deformity) than they are to "but my bbf doesn't like condoms" or "But I wanna boy" or 'shoot, girls just wanna have fun" ("reasons" that 'choice" welcomes). If the Democrats want a CHOICE bill (no morality, no reasons, no regulation) - the majority of Americans will not support it, and I think the Libs are smart enough to know that. It would fly in CA and NY but not nationally. Now, the Republicans MIGHT try the opposite - no abortion EVER, in any case, for any reason - and I think that too would not be supported by public opinion (well, in some places but not nationally). Something along the lines of what Mississippi has - a middle ground very much like the European policies - MIGHT have enough votes to get through both houses but would Biden sign that? No way, he's entirely beholding to the CHOICE radicals in his party; if he rejected the CHOICE view, he would be denied the nomination of his party and he cares a LOT more for his power and glory than he does 600,000 babies. That's obvious.




.

Friends say we're slowly being led to an authoritarian autocratic system of governance. Others foresee socialism or a straight shot to communism.

I don't trust GOP in Congress are not prone to some being RINO's. And the Dem's can not be trusted.

So for me it's a wait and see when SCOTUS even seems to think it has the power to make law rather than simply interpret what is already law.


This should be interesting:

Supreme Court eyes limits to Voting Rights Act in election map dispute

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday debated new limits on the Voting Rights Act and longstanding protections against race discrimination in the drawing of electoral maps.

abcnews.go.com

 

[tango]

Friends say we're slowly being led to an authoritarian autocratic system of governance. Others foresee socialism or a straight shot to communism.

Honestly, I see two parties so out of tune with each other and so unwilling to compromise that it's increasingly easy to see either of them looking to shut the other out of government completely and permanently. I fear the radical left more than the radical right, although don't believe for a minute that the radical right isn't ready and willing to do some seriously shady stuff if it helps them.

From what I gather something like 60% or more of the nation is more centrist than extreme on either side, it's just a question of shaking up the process so we don't end up with ever-more silly candidates appealing to little more than the extremes on their side.

I don't trust GOP in Congress are not prone to some being RINO's. And the Dem's can not be trusted.

So for me it's a wait and see when SCOTUS even seems to think it has the power to make law rather than simply interpret what is already law.

If only the two main parties could work together more perhaps fewer major issues would end up decided by 9 people.

 

[Nazareth]

Honestly, I see two parties so out of tune with each other and so unwilling to compromise that it's increasingly easy to see either of them looking to shut the other out of government completely and permanently. I fear the radical left more than the radical right, although don't believe for a minute that the radical right isn't ready and willing to do some seriously shady stuff if it helps them.

From what I gather something like 60% or more of the nation is more centrist than extreme on either side, it's just a question of shaking up the process so we don't end up with ever-more silly candidates appealing to little more than the extremes on their side.



If only the two main parties could work together more perhaps fewer major issues would end up decided by 9 people.

When America's government was first established there were no term limits on any of the executive branches. Presidency included.

George Washington pursued that effort because to not limit the highest office of leadership would make us no different than having a life long sovereign monarchy.

If only he'd have foreseen the trouble having no term limits on Congress or SCOTUS would have had, we would live in a different country today.

Now, for Congress to have term limits THEY have to choose to amend the Constitution to that effect by a 2/3rds majority.

I'm an eternal optimist and even I know that'll not happen in my lifetime.

Pelosi, during AOC's freshman term confirmed what many of us already knew.

We can write,call, till blue in the face regarding bills before the House and Senate.
Unless we have real currency $$$, we've not a chance.

AOC sought to start a bill for a congressional cost of living pay raise. A former bartender now making over 100G. per year.

After her news conference to that effect,Pelisi right there as chaperone of a woman whom she said,when asked about AOC winning that NY district election, a glass of water would have won had it ran for the same office, leaned in to AOC as they left the presser.
Unaware or unconcerned she was still hot-mic'd Pelosi scolded,''That's not how we make our money!'' Meaning their salary.

Shortly after AOC's bill was removed.


It's a game. Axis and Allies.Conservative vs. Liberal. Like pro-wrestling. It's real theater, and they are professional athletes making real moved in the ring, but in the end it's all choreographed. And they're all on the same side. Money & Power.

It's why they are career politicians. 2020 November proved we don't choose them.

They're seated by their buyers so to insure they continue to get their monies worth.


And we the people always will pay the price.

Because a national revolution isn't in us.

Yet.

 

[tango]

One key thing is that we already have term limits. We just call them "elections". It takes voters to decide it's high time their long-standing incumbent went and did something more useful and it will happen. It takes people who have always voted the same way to stand up and make it clear they will "cross the aisle" if the long-standing incumbent doesn't go and do something more useful, because it's time they weren't in Congress any more. That's the thing that's unlikely to happen - for all people bleat on about term limits they still faithfully turn out and vote the same tired candidates in again and again and again.

Once a few candidates previously considered safe lose their seats when they find out that the people were serious about it being time for them to go and do something else, perhaps term limits will be enacted nationwide. But even then it's only so much use if people are allowed to stand for state Congress for 8 years, then state Senate for 8 years, then state governor for 8 years, then national Congress for 8 years, then national Senate for 8 years, then maybe the vice-presidency for 8 years and the presidency for another 8 years - that's potentially still a total of 56 years as a politician. Many people's working lives are shorter than 56 years. Of course only very few candidates get the very top two jobs, and the chances are there are enough government agencies out there to soak up the career politicians who can't be elected to anything any more but still want to hold the levers of power.

What we need is much smaller government than we have now, with much less money on offer and far fewer perks.