Roe v Wade

gimmesometruth27

abortion is outlawed in missouri right now. i would not be angry and would admire the band if they chose to cancel the st louis show and refund my money.

Cropduster-80

pjhawks said:

cutz said:

Patrick_Sea3 said:

It will be interesting which bands will even play in states that made abortion illegal….

Yes it will

They cancelled Raleigh at the las second over the "Bathroom Law" so you'd have to think they will(should?) cancel shows in those States that made abortion legal?

fuck that. they've had my money for 2.5 years now for Nashville show. they cancel i'm gonna be one pissed off guy. hold people's money for that long and cancel would be a complete dick move.

I totally get that.

I also get the fact pro choice has been their thing since literally day 1. from their perspective they may just say this is our issue and were not playing here, propping up the local economy and giving the state a ton of tax revenue

sucks if you have tickets but I would understand. Politics has consequences and there is collateral damage. Both in them boycotting and in the fact women have no choices anymore.

what’s more important? That’s going to come down to the individual.  To me it’s a concert, vs women literally dying as that’s absolutely going to happen 

pretending everything is normal and “the show must go on” rings a bit hollow to me.  Being angry a show is cancelled is nothing compared to the anger a woman must be feeling in that state. Anger isn’t bad, directing that anger at the correct entity is also important. PJ wouldn’t have done anything, the state did 

RoleModelsinBlood31

Don’t blame RBG.  She deserves better.  Spent her entire career fighting for women’s rights.  If anything we should be focusing our blame game on the media, who sold an entire nation that Hillary was a guarantee.  She was a shoe in.  It was all set in stone and the election was just a formality.  All the polls showed her winning, article after article the same.  RGB believed it as well, as did our govt, so why would she step down during Obama’s tenure when she could get a few more years in and step down under Hillary?  Not fair to blame rgb.

I wish I didn’t live in Texas right now.

brianlux

Regarding PJ playing states that have or are about to ban abortions, one thing to consider, one question:

-Thing to consider:  Red states are not 100% far right.  Even a deep red state like Alabama is over 1/3 Democrat.  Texas is 38%, just 3 points below Republican.  There are many progressive and Pearl Jam fans in all states.

-Question:  Does boycotting a state give Pearl Jam a better opportunity to make a statement about their feelings on abortion or does playing those states where Ed might make the following statement give them better opportunity?  "I think if you're a girl or woman out there, and the guy you're starting to go out with — who you're thinking about maybe going all the way with — I think if that guy is not pro-choice, then he shouldn't be allowed to fuck you."  https://loudwire.com/pearl-jam-eddie-vedder-pro-choice-remark-mike-mccready-womens-march/

mickeyrat

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

Don’t blame RBG.  She deserves better.  Spent her entire career fighting for women’s rights.  If anything we should be focusing our blame game on the media, who sold an entire nation that Hillary was a guarantee.  She was a shoe in.  It was all set in stone and the election was just a formality.  All the polls showed her winning, article after article the same.  RGB believed it as well, as did our govt, so why would she step down during Obama’s tenure when she could get a few more years in and step down under Hillary?  Not fair to blame rgb.

I wish I didn’t live in Texas right now.

Mitch held Garland hearings much less a vote for the seat Scalia departed from. There was never a guarantee Mitch was going to approve any of Obamas picks, look to his stonewalling lesser court appointments......

Cropduster-80

brianlux said:

Regarding PJ playing states that have or are about to ban abortions, one thing to consider, one question:

-Thing to consider:  Red states are not 100% far right.  Even a deep red state like Alabama is over 1/3 Democrat.  Texas is 38%, just 3 points below Republican.  There are many progressive and Pearl Jam fans in all states.

-Question:  Does boycotting a state give Pearl Jam a better opportunity to make a statement about their feelings on abortion or does playing those states where Ed might make the following statement give them better opportunity?  "I think if you're a girl or woman out there, and the guy you're starting to go out with — who you're thinking about maybe going all the way with — I think if that guy is not pro-choice, then he shouldn't be allowed to fuck you."  https://loudwire.com/pearl-jam-eddie-vedder-pro-choice-remark-mike-mccready-womens-march/

Yeah that true. Maybe it’s better to make the residents feel the pain then? Those states are close enough, every time they can’t see a show they just might think their state legislature did that.  The Abortion issue is abstract unless it directly affects you for a lot of people.  You can be pro choice and also not care all that much about what happened. It’s easy to be indifferent. Once it affects your vacation plans, it’s real. 

I live in Texas (unfortunately) I am acutely aware my blue city still funds the red state anytime I buy something.  I try to support the state as little as possible. Paying thousands to travel to a state (like Texas) to see a concert is an easy pass for me.

brianlux

Cropduster-80 said:

brianlux said:

Regarding PJ playing states that have or are about to ban abortions, one thing to consider, one question:

-Thing to consider:  Red states are not 100% far right.  Even a deep red state like Alabama is over 1/3 Democrat.  Texas is 38%, just 3 points below Republican.  There are many progressive and Pearl Jam fans in all states.

-Question:  Does boycotting a state give Pearl Jam a better opportunity to make a statement about their feelings on abortion or does playing those states where Ed might make the following statement give them better opportunity?  "I think if you're a girl or woman out there, and the guy you're starting to go out with — who you're thinking about maybe going all the way with — I think if that guy is not pro-choice, then he shouldn't be allowed to fuck you."  https://loudwire.com/pearl-jam-eddie-vedder-pro-choice-remark-mike-mccready-womens-march/

Yeah that true. Maybe it’s better to make the residents feel the pain then? Those states are close enough, every time they can’t see a show they just might think their state legislature did that.  The Abortion issue is abstract unless it directly affects you. It’s easy to be indifferent. Once it affects your vacation plans, it’s real. 

I live in Texas (unfortunately) I am acutely aware my blue city still funds the red state anytime I buy something.  I try to support the state as little as possible. Paying thousands to travel to a state to see a concert is an easy pass for me.

Thanks for replying!

I'm just not sure about this.  On the one hand, I'm in favor of the notion of boycotts and sanctions and the like.  Refusing to play a state might be useful.  On the other hand (and I recognize Pearl Jam is a band and not a political entity, so they owe no one this), a more effective stance might be do do a tour promoting pro-women's rights, playing red states, and donating a generous percentage of the proceeds to organizations like Planned Parenthood.

And (this is not directed at you Cropduster): I'm just throwing out some ideas.  Please, others, no more personal attacks. I'm asking nicely. 

Cropduster-80

brianlux said:

Cropduster-80 said:

brianlux said:

Regarding PJ playing states that have or are about to ban abortions, one thing to consider, one question:

-Thing to consider:  Red states are not 100% far right.  Even a deep red state like Alabama is over 1/3 Democrat.  Texas is 38%, just 3 points below Republican.  There are many progressive and Pearl Jam fans in all states.

-Question:  Does boycotting a state give Pearl Jam a better opportunity to make a statement about their feelings on abortion or does playing those states where Ed might make the following statement give them better opportunity?  "I think if you're a girl or woman out there, and the guy you're starting to go out with — who you're thinking about maybe going all the way with — I think if that guy is not pro-choice, then he shouldn't be allowed to fuck you."  https://loudwire.com/pearl-jam-eddie-vedder-pro-choice-remark-mike-mccready-womens-march/

Yeah that true. Maybe it’s better to make the residents feel the pain then? Those states are close enough, every time they can’t see a show they just might think their state legislature did that.  The Abortion issue is abstract unless it directly affects you. It’s easy to be indifferent. Once it affects your vacation plans, it’s real. 

I live in Texas (unfortunately) I am acutely aware my blue city still funds the red state anytime I buy something.  I try to support the state as little as possible. Paying thousands to travel to a state to see a concert is an easy pass for me.

Thanks for replying!

I'm just not sure about this.  On the one hand, I'm in favor of the notion of boycotts and sanctions and the like.  Refusing to play a state might be useful.  On the other hand (and I recognize Pearl Jam is a band and not a political entity, so they owe no one this), a more effective stance might be do do a tour promoting pro-women's rights, playing red states, and donating a generous percentage of the proceeds to organizations like Planned Parenthood.

And (this is not directed at you Cropduster): I'm just throwing out some ideas.  Please, others, no more personal attacks. I'm asking nicely. 

I tend to think the status quo prevails unless a state’s economy suffers. Can PJ alone do that, no, but a lot of these states have a lot of their economy based on tourism. 

If it gets painful, the voters will have to either respond with their vote or accept the new normal of less jobs and financial pain 

you cannot make a state suffer without also creating financial hardships for the residents though, so it’s a tough spot.

if Florida had 60% less tourism dollars all of a sudden, would DeSantis get re-elected? That’s conservatively the percentage of Americans who are pro choice and statistically is probably the same percentage of pro choice people who travel to Florida for vacation. The fact is there are too many pro choice people who would rather go on vacation to Florida  even if it makes a politicians economy good and indirectly aids his re-election.  Money spent in Miami funds communities in the panhandle 

the economy trumps everything 

on a side note
I took my kids to see the buzz lightyear movie today. Totally great movie. The one getting boycotted by the far right for containing a totally age appropriate and boringly normal gay character.  They are fine with everyone at Disney losing their job over it 

brianlux

Cropduster-80 said:

brianlux said:

Cropduster-80 said:

brianlux said:

Regarding PJ playing states that have or are about to ban abortions, one thing to consider, one question:

-Thing to consider:  Red states are not 100% far right.  Even a deep red state like Alabama is over 1/3 Democrat.  Texas is 38%, just 3 points below Republican.  There are many progressive and Pearl Jam fans in all states.

-Question:  Does boycotting a state give Pearl Jam a better opportunity to make a statement about their feelings on abortion or does playing those states where Ed might make the following statement give them better opportunity?  "I think if you're a girl or woman out there, and the guy you're starting to go out with — who you're thinking about maybe going all the way with — I think if that guy is not pro-choice, then he shouldn't be allowed to fuck you."  https://loudwire.com/pearl-jam-eddie-vedder-pro-choice-remark-mike-mccready-womens-march/

Yeah that true. Maybe it’s better to make the residents feel the pain then? Those states are close enough, every time they can’t see a show they just might think their state legislature did that.  The Abortion issue is abstract unless it directly affects you. It’s easy to be indifferent. Once it affects your vacation plans, it’s real. 

I live in Texas (unfortunately) I am acutely aware my blue city still funds the red state anytime I buy something.  I try to support the state as little as possible. Paying thousands to travel to a state to see a concert is an easy pass for me.

Thanks for replying!

I'm just not sure about this.  On the one hand, I'm in favor of the notion of boycotts and sanctions and the like.  Refusing to play a state might be useful.  On the other hand (and I recognize Pearl Jam is a band and not a political entity, so they owe no one this), a more effective stance might be do do a tour promoting pro-women's rights, playing red states, and donating a generous percentage of the proceeds to organizations like Planned Parenthood.

And (this is not directed at you Cropduster): I'm just throwing out some ideas.  Please, others, no more personal attacks. I'm asking nicely. 

I tend to think the status quo prevails unless a state’s economy suffers. Can PJ alone do that, no, but a lot of these states have a lot of their economy based on tourism. 

If it gets painful, the voters will have to either respond with their vote or accept the new normal of less jobs and financial pain 

you cannot make a state suffer without also creating financial hardships for the residents though, so it’s a tough spot.

if Florida had 60% less tourism dollars all of a sudden, would DeSantis get re-elected? That’s the percentage of Americans who are pro choice and statistically is probably the same percentage of pro choice people who travel to Florida for vacation. The fact is there are too many pro choice people who would rather go on vacation to Florida  even if it makes a politicians economy good and indirectly aids his re-election 

the economy trumps everything 

on a side note
I took my kids to see the buzz lightyear movie today. Totally great movie. The one getting boycotted by the far right for containing a totally age appropriate and boringly normal gay character.  They are fine with everyone at Disney losing their job over it 

Some good points there, CD.

On the other hand (again, just throwing out thoughts), if a state that is already rife with poverty, will hurting them (to any degree) economically necessarily create change?  For example, look at Mississippi.

-Ranked 51st in country for highest poverty rate (most of whom are people of color). 

https://talkpoverty.org/state-year-report/mississippi-2018-report/

I don't now.  I just don't think there is an easy answer this way.  I admit I could be wrong.  Just looking for answers.

P.S.  Kudos for taking the kids to see Buzz Lightyear! 

Cropduster-80

brianlux said:

Cropduster-80 said:

brianlux said:

Cropduster-80 said:

brianlux said:

Regarding PJ playing states that have or are about to ban abortions, one thing to consider, one question:

-Thing to consider:  Red states are not 100% far right.  Even a deep red state like Alabama is over 1/3 Democrat.  Texas is 38%, just 3 points below Republican.  There are many progressive and Pearl Jam fans in all states.

-Question:  Does boycotting a state give Pearl Jam a better opportunity to make a statement about their feelings on abortion or does playing those states where Ed might make the following statement give them better opportunity?  "I think if you're a girl or woman out there, and the guy you're starting to go out with — who you're thinking about maybe going all the way with — I think if that guy is not pro-choice, then he shouldn't be allowed to fuck you."  https://loudwire.com/pearl-jam-eddie-vedder-pro-choice-remark-mike-mccready-womens-march/

Yeah that true. Maybe it’s better to make the residents feel the pain then? Those states are close enough, every time they can’t see a show they just might think their state legislature did that.  The Abortion issue is abstract unless it directly affects you. It’s easy to be indifferent. Once it affects your vacation plans, it’s real. 

I live in Texas (unfortunately) I am acutely aware my blue city still funds the red state anytime I buy something.  I try to support the state as little as possible. Paying thousands to travel to a state to see a concert is an easy pass for me.

Thanks for replying!

I'm just not sure about this.  On the one hand, I'm in favor of the notion of boycotts and sanctions and the like.  Refusing to play a state might be useful.  On the other hand (and I recognize Pearl Jam is a band and not a political entity, so they owe no one this), a more effective stance might be do do a tour promoting pro-women's rights, playing red states, and donating a generous percentage of the proceeds to organizations like Planned Parenthood.

And (this is not directed at you Cropduster): I'm just throwing out some ideas.  Please, others, no more personal attacks. I'm asking nicely. 

I tend to think the status quo prevails unless a state’s economy suffers. Can PJ alone do that, no, but a lot of these states have a lot of their economy based on tourism. 

If it gets painful, the voters will have to either respond with their vote or accept the new normal of less jobs and financial pain 

you cannot make a state suffer without also creating financial hardships for the residents though, so it’s a tough spot.

if Florida had 60% less tourism dollars all of a sudden, would DeSantis get re-elected? That’s the percentage of Americans who are pro choice and statistically is probably the same percentage of pro choice people who travel to Florida for vacation. The fact is there are too many pro choice people who would rather go on vacation to Florida  even if it makes a politicians economy good and indirectly aids his re-election 

the economy trumps everything 

on a side note
I took my kids to see the buzz lightyear movie today. Totally great movie. The one getting boycotted by the far right for containing a totally age appropriate and boringly normal gay character.  They are fine with everyone at Disney losing their job over it 

Some good points there, CD.

On the other hand (again, just throwing out thoughts), if a state that is already rife with poverty, will hurting them (to any degree) economically necessarily create change?  For example, look at Mississippi.

-Ranked 51st in country for highest poverty rate (most of whom are people of color). 

https://talkpoverty.org/state-year-report/mississippi-2018-report/

I don't now.  I just don't think there is an easy answer this way.  I admit I could be wrong.  Just looking for answers.

P.S.  Kudos for taking the kids to see Buzz Lightyear! 

Economic warfare is messy. No doubt.

buzz lightyear was the compromise I made with my wife. I was going to wear a pro choice shirt to church. She decided she didn’t want me thrown out so suggested we help the box office results of that movie instead.  I’m still  pissed the sales tax revenue went to the state though.  

hedonist

Cropduster-80 said:

pjhawks said:

cutz said:

Patrick_Sea3 said:

It will be interesting which bands will even play in states that made abortion illegal….

Yes it will

They cancelled Raleigh at the las second over the "Bathroom Law" so you'd have to think they will(should?) cancel shows in those States that made abortion legal?

fuck that. they've had my money for 2.5 years now for Nashville show. they cancel i'm gonna be one pissed off guy. hold people's money for that long and cancel would be a complete dick move.

I totally get that.

I also get the fact pro choice has been their thing since literally day 1. from their perspective they may just say this is our issue and were not playing here, propping up the local economy and giving the state a ton of tax revenue

sucks if you have tickets but I would understand. Politics has consequences and there is collateral damage. Both in them boycotting and in the fact women have no choices anymore.

what’s more important? That’s going to come down to the individual.  To me it’s a concert, vs women literally dying as that’s absolutely going to happen 

pretending everything is normal and “the show must go on” rings a bit hollow to me.  Being angry a show is cancelled is nothing compared to the anger a woman must be feeling in that state. Anger isn’t bad, directing that anger at the correct entity is also important. PJ wouldn’t have done anything, the state did 

From bolded to bolded, YES. Not to mention desperation. 

cincybearcat

Been thinking about this for a while. 

I have fallen into a few different buckets during my life in regards to abortion. I had considered it basically murder for a long time and still have trouble thinking about it as anything different. However my view point has changed somewhat over time. And I had come to my own personal opinion that this was an issue that was already decided. It was an issue that a higher % of people are for leaving the government out of. So - for me, it stopped being much of an issue that I considered when voting, that it was already settled.

That said I’ve never voted for a democrat based on this issue either.

Going to be a very crazy time.  Oh - and if Pearl Jam cancels shows that are currently scheduled, while I understand the sentiment, just like the Raleigh show I think it’s the wrong decision. 

hedonist

My young(ish) cousin sent this to me earlier. So powerful; parts of it gave me tears.

***************

I'm not pro-murdering babies.

I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20-week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.

I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.

I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.

I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11-year-old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.

I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.

I'm pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.

I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE number of fetuses.

I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child.

I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.

I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.

I'm pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.

You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:

I'm pro-life.

Their lives.

Women's lives.

You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted. It's not about which stories you don't agree with. It's about fighting for the women in the stories that you do agree with and the CHOICE that was made.

Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!

Overturning Roe does not stop abortions, it stops SAFE abortions! 

Abortion is healthcare.

cblock4life

These are powerful words and completely true.  Thanks for posting.  I’ve got some friends I need to share this with

HughFreakingDillon

I still think cancelling a show in any state because of a government or court decision is the wrong move; Raleigh included. They should have gone on a media blitz stating their opposition to it, and if they were positioned to lose money on the cancellation anyway, then play the show and send that portion of your profit margin to a useful organization. Live stream it for free; use your platform to advocate for good. Taking your ball and going home does nothing. 

Halifax2TheMax

HughFreakingDillon said:

I still think cancelling a show in any state because of a government or court decision is the wrong move; Raleigh included. They should have gone on a media blitz stating their opposition to it, and if they were positioned to lose money on the cancellation anyway, then play the show and send that portion of your profit margin to a useful organization. Live stream it for free; use your platform to advocate for good. Taking your ball and going home does nothing. 

So, if everyone received their return with interest for two plus years, and the band cancelled, it’d be okay? Seems it’s just about money and investments, right?

Women, and the men that support women, on this issue, should strike. Sick outs. Not show up for work. Stop spending dollars at all level of events. Yo, NFL, MLB, tourism, etc.

Boycott 

Divest

Sanction

Let them build walls like other countries have. Stop your dollars from supporting your own oppression. PJ should only play states and venues that protect a woman’s right to CHOOSE.

It sucks when there’s consequences for bullying, right?

Halifax2TheMax

And, the band should personally sign every refund check with a letter of explanation as to why they canceled, POOTWH style.

You want to see the band? Travel to a state and venue that respects women and considers them as humans. If not, tough shit, listen to your collection of whatever media you’ve got.

nicknyr15

HughFreakingDillon said:

I still think cancelling a show in any state because of a government or court decision is the wrong move; Raleigh included. They should have gone on a media blitz stating their opposition to it, and if they were positioned to lose money on the cancellation anyway, then play the show and send that portion of your profit margin to a useful organization. Live stream it for free; use your platform to advocate for good. Taking your ball and going home does nothing. 

It’s definitely the wrong decision. You’re probably more likely to lose people on your side then gain people that aren’t. 

pjhawks

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I still think cancelling a show in any state because of a government or court decision is the wrong move; Raleigh included. They should have gone on a media blitz stating their opposition to it, and if they were positioned to lose money on the cancellation anyway, then play the show and send that portion of your profit margin to a useful organization. Live stream it for free; use your platform to advocate for good. Taking your ball and going home does nothing. 

So, if everyone received their return with interest for two plus years, and the band cancelled, it’d be okay? Seems it’s just about money and investments, right?

Women, and the men that support women, on this issue, should strike. Sick outs. Not show up for work. Stop spending dollars at all level of events. Yo, NFL, MLB, tourism, etc.

Boycott 

Divest

Sanction

Let them build walls like other countries have. Stop your dollars from supporting your own oppression. PJ should only play states and venues that protect a woman’s right to CHOOSE.

It sucks when there’s consequences for bullying, right?

Do you really think Mitch McConnell and SCOTUS give a shit if people boycott the NFL, MBL and tourism? they don't.  they clearly don't care about the will of the people. We are not a representative democracy anymore.  the only way to change it is to Vote Dems.  If the GOP cleans up in the mid-terms and in 2024 we are all completely fucked for decades to come.

PP193448

hedonist said:

My young(ish) cousin sent this to me earlier. So powerful; parts of it gave me tears.

***************

I'm not pro-murdering babies.

I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20-week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.

I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.

I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.

I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11-year-old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.

I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.

I'm pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.

I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE number of fetuses.

I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child.

I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.

I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.

I'm pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.

You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:

I'm pro-life.

Their lives.

Women's lives.

You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted. It's not about which stories you don't agree with. It's about fighting for the women in the stories that you do agree with and the CHOICE that was made.

Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!

Overturning Roe does not stop abortions, it stops SAFE abortions! 

Abortion is healthcare.

The only scenario above that could not be decided before third trimester would be the placental abruption… which in the 3rd trimester would require an emergency C-section to save the mother and possibly the baby.  Otherwise the rest I would agree with, and could be performed prior to 24 weeks.  So please tell me why the extreme liberals want unrestricted abortions, even during term delivery????  And please tell my why extreme conservatives want absolutely no abortions scenarios permitted?  I am pro-choice prior to 24 weeks, after that it should be restricted to emergencies only deemed per doctor.  And you forgot the scenario where the person has had multiple abortions because they choose not to be responsible for their own pregnancies and refuse to protect against contraception.  This is the problem where compromise needs to happen.  It’s ridiculous to say all or none.  And blame Congress for not making it a law.  It’s up to the states, and should be voted on ballots by everyone who is a citizen of this country, not left for politicians own personal beliefs.