Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

Parksy · May 2022

Regarding this debate as well...

I have this picture in my mind about those who are opposed to abortion and the folks who protest it etc. etc.

Last year I was driving through central Ontario and we drove past an anti-abortion protest and I would describe the crowd as old, white, sad looking. What I would LOVE to know on this day... is how many of those people and the people who protest, the Pro-Life activists.. do something, anything beyond protesting.

If the majority of a population in a democratic society ultimately decides the laws.. and in this case (for Canada at least) we are Pro-Choice.... if you're in the minority and you just care so much about life... I would want to know if these people along with protesting are actively taking in fosters. Are actively adopting children. Are actively helping PEOPLE, LIVE PEOPLE in a community. To me, that must be a part of any Pro-Life effort. They obviously care so much about OTHER PEOPLE that they dedicate a large portion of their time and money to OTHER PEOPLE... right? They follow the example of Jesus (socialist) SO MUCH that they keep very little for themselves... they house and feed the needy... right? I mean.. that's obvious if their Pro-Life.... right?

And I'm guessing... just guessing here.. that they do not. Most of them. And I'm guessing it's because doing the actual work of helping and raising a child is FUCKING DIFFICULT and remarkably inconvenient.

As for the politicians who support Pro-Life... show me the one who most exemplifies the teachings and examples of Jesus. They're so Pro-Life that they support social programs, health care, education, phys-ed, mental health.... right? They're concerned about the hungry and the homeless... right? I mean... obviously... they're pro-life. Makes perfect sense.

The logic of most Pro-Life people, especially the politicians is so remarkably flawed. Save the lives of unborn fetuses at all costs because I guess that's what the bible says? That's what morality says? Once their born... fuck em, they're on their own. Yet THAT is somehow ok according to the bible? According to morals?

mrussel1 · May 2022

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next.
Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?

The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.

the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.

you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.

some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.

I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.

What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.

These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that.
No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.

60% of the country supports gay marriage. 60% of the country supports a woman's right to choose. These are averages but there isn't a huge statistical difference between them. I think you are being overly glib about the possibilities.

Now gay marriage and interracial marriage rely on the Equal Protection Clause rather than the more esoteric 'privacy' right that is not specifically enumerated. So it's a more difficult legal challenge. However, Alito's draft opinion makes clear that he believes the only rights protected are the ones that are specifically enumerated or follow a long historical precedent. Gay marriage does not meet either of those. I would argue interracial marriage has a longer tradition, but still only mid century.

Cropduster-80 · May 2022

Yep They are pro life until the baby is born then you are on your own. No continuing interest in protecting or developing that life to adulthood

Health care, supplemental nutrition assistance, universal pre k etc. nope we don’t care about that.

Preventable childhood illnesses kill a lot of kids who are already here. Your care is tied to your ability to pay for it not to your “right to life”

Parksy · May 2022

static111 said:

Parksy said:

This might be an unpopular opinion... but the time has come for USA to start talking peaceful separation before another civil war breaks out.

And sure, sounds alarmist. But the population is so remarkably broken and on opposite sides on so many issues... just get the ball rolling for two separate countries and be done with it.

So are cities and counties supposed to secede from states or do you see this happening as a mass migration with certain states forming a country etc. In my home state of michigan alone the UP would be in the conservative camp as well as most rural areas of lower MI outside of major cities. I'm pretty sure that whatever peoples political leanings are that they would rather go to war than be forced to relocate from their chosen home. Sounds like a lot of costs to bear for the people that would have to be displaced.

Logistical nightmare... to be sure.

I suppose my point is... what other options are there? It's no different than a shitty marriage. Continue hating each other for another 30 years because you can't afford to split? Or bite the bullet and start fresh?

Interestingly.... and I honestly believe this to be sure. Just start talking about it.

Have the two parties begin the process. Create a commission. Have a referendum. Do stuff. Start talking about where the lines are going to be... just start talking. And get them and the public to realize that resolving issues is the better option than splitting the country up.

Sounds awesome.. but when I look at things.. I think people have gone well beyond the possibility of reconciliation. But maybe that could change when people start actually looking at the real possibility or desire to separate.

Cropduster-80 · May 2022

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next.
Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?

The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.

the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.

you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.

some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.

I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.

What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.

These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that.
No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.

60% of the country supports gay marriage. 60% of the country supports a woman's right to choose. These are averages but there isn't a huge statistical difference between them. I think you are being overly glib about the possibilities.

Now gay marriage and interracial marriage rely on the Equal Protection Clause rather than the more esoteric 'privacy' right that is not specifically enumerated. So it's a more difficult legal challenge. However, Alito's draft opinion makes clear that he believes the only rights protected are the ones that are specifically enumerated or follow a long historical precedent. Gay marriage does not meet either of those. I would argue interracial marriage has a longer tradition, but still only mid century.

The important thing to remember is there have been something like 32 or 33 different judges on the Supreme Court since 1973. Abortion issues come up every single year in one form or another.

now you have 5 judges saying the court was wrong for 50 years, that’s multiple different configurations of the Supreme Court over a long period of time.

The hubris that requires to be so sure they are now right is not only stunning but dangerous. In reality, no one can predict how this ends because quite frankly this is pretty unprecedented as these 5 judges are elevating themselves above everyone who came before them and the court itself. Legal precedent is as core to our system of justice as anything and probably more so

Lerxst1992 · May 2022

Cropduster-80 said:

mrussel1 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mrussel1 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next.
Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?

The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.

the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.

you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.

some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.

Yes, you’re right across the board. However this could be a bit of the dog catching the car. These issues are settled as a national, moral consensus, including abortion. The Christian Right has its victory, but as these issues get waged locally now, every single delegate and governor race will be about abortion, gay marriage, all of these privacy issues. I actually do not think this is a winner for them long term. The country is not getting less pro choice, less gay marriage or less pro contraception.

Politically speaking it’s the only thing that may prevent the democrats being wiped out in the midterms. At a minimum it will probably put a cap on the losses. The left and independents now have an issue. Pro choice was always less of a single issue voter issue than pro life simply because the right to an abortion was already the status quo. Now that it’s not a lot of pro choice independents and republicans may have no choice other than to jump ship. I hope so at least

the ultimate irony is overturning Roe the opinion states that this issue needs to be returned to the states to decide. However if the Republicans take the house and senate on day 1 a federal law banning abortion in all states will be introduced taking that right away from individual states. Biden would veto so that’s safe for at least 2 years.

It will be interesting to see if the senate tries to do something, with help on the filibuster from Murkowski and Collins. They both came out and called two justices liars yesterday. That’s pretty unprecedented. It’s also naive and we all knew it.

To me there is a huge risk if an electoral rebuke doesn’t happen. It’s going to embolden all kinds of hard right policies. Ending the filibuster could happen with 49 democrats and either Collins or Murkowski to pass a federal law guaranteeing the right to an abortion but the republicans could just overturn it down the road. Making them pay politically and they just may back off

Too many people vote for the right wing politicians because they agree with them on fiscal issues but not social issues. The

American public at large isn’t with the right on nearly any culture war/social issue but finances are real, and social issues are abstract unless it directly affects you. Getting social issues to have equal weight is the key if it doesn’t get equal weight who knows what happens

2016 election was huge, and everyone at the time knew there was an empty court seat and that a liberal judge was over 80 with various illnesses. It was plainly obvious the balance of the court was at stake. Blaming Hilary is missing the point. She tried to talk about the court but all everyone wanted to do on the left was make that election about how evil and unqualified trump was. The Dem voters were not energized about scotus at that time, and white women even voted for Trump by a net of two points (not a fan of race politics but black women tend to vote D regardless ). I think we all would be surprised how many casual Republican voters are 100% in line with overturning Roe and many other culture war issues. I know my R friends/family are.

Democrats have never been able to rally voters on SCOTUS related issues and I see no reason that’s about to change. The left tends to cry and whine about almost irrelevant power/control things when in power (think BBB and crying about Manchin for example) and never plays the long game like R voters do every time. They show up, especially in the off year elections, when state level power is decided and that’s where SCOTUS seems to be handing the culture war power.

.

mrussel1 · May 2022

Cropduster-80 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next.
Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?

The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.

the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.

you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.

some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.

I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.

What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.

These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that.
No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.

60% of the country supports gay marriage. 60% of the country supports a woman's right to choose. These are averages but there isn't a huge statistical difference between them. I think you are being overly glib about the possibilities.

Now gay marriage and interracial marriage rely on the Equal Protection Clause rather than the more esoteric 'privacy' right that is not specifically enumerated. So it's a more difficult legal challenge. However, Alito's draft opinion makes clear that he believes the only rights protected are the ones that are specifically enumerated or follow a long historical precedent. Gay marriage does not meet either of those. I would argue interracial marriage has a longer tradition, but still only mid century.

The important thing to remember is there have been something like 32 or 33 different judges on the Supreme Court since 1973. Abortion issues come up every single year in one form or another.

now you have 5 judges saying the court was wrong for 50 years, that’s multiple different configurations of the Supreme Court over a long period of time.

The hubris that requires to be so sure they are now right is not only stunning but dangerous. In reality, no one can predict how this ends because quite frankly this is pretty unprecedented as these 5 judges are elevating themselves above everyone who came before them and the court itself. Legal precedent is as core to our system of justice as anything and probably more so

They point to Plessy as how the court could be wrong for so many years. And it was in that case.

Cropduster-80 · May 2022

mrussel1 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next.
Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?

The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.

the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.

you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.

some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.

I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.

What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.

These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that.
No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.

60% of the country supports gay marriage. 60% of the country supports a woman's right to choose. These are averages but there isn't a huge statistical difference between them. I think you are being overly glib about the possibilities.

Now gay marriage and interracial marriage rely on the Equal Protection Clause rather than the more esoteric 'privacy' right that is not specifically enumerated. So it's a more difficult legal challenge. However, Alito's draft opinion makes clear that he believes the only rights protected are the ones that are specifically enumerated or follow a long historical precedent. Gay marriage does not meet either of those. I would argue interracial marriage has a longer tradition, but still only mid century.

The important thing to remember is there have been something like 32 or 33 different judges on the Supreme Court since 1973. Abortion issues come up every single year in one form or another.

now you have 5 judges saying the court was wrong for 50 years, that’s multiple different configurations of the Supreme Court over a long period of time.

The hubris that requires to be so sure they are now right is not only stunning but dangerous. In reality, no one can predict how this ends because quite frankly this is pretty unprecedented as these 5 judges are elevating themselves above everyone who came before them and the court itself. Legal precedent is as core to our system of justice as anything and probably more so

They point to Plessy as how the court could be wrong for so many years. And it was in that case.

Yes. Separate but equal. I just don’t see gutting the 14th amendment as anywhere near the level of mistake as segregation

plus the court has always (to my knowledge) reversed decisions of this type within the framework of moving forward and evolving in a society. Addition of rights not subtracting them. When it’s a revision in the negative in terms of protection that should give everyone pause, reguardless of the issue at hand

brianlux · May 2022

Parksy said:

static111 said:

Parksy said:

This might be an unpopular opinion... but the time has come for USA to start talking peaceful separation before another civil war breaks out.

And sure, sounds alarmist. But the population is so remarkably broken and on opposite sides on so many issues... just get the ball rolling for two separate countries and be done with it.

So are cities and counties supposed to secede from states or do you see this happening as a mass migration with certain states forming a country etc. In my home state of michigan alone the UP would be in the conservative camp as well as most rural areas of lower MI outside of major cities. I'm pretty sure that whatever peoples political leanings are that they would rather go to war than be forced to relocate from their chosen home. Sounds like a lot of costs to bear for the people that would have to be displaced.

Logistical nightmare... to be sure.

I suppose my point is... what other options are there? It's no different than a shitty marriage. Continue hating each other for another 30 years because you can't afford to split? Or bite the bullet and start fresh?

Interestingly.... and I honestly believe this to be sure. Just start talking about it.

Have the two parties begin the process. Create a commission. Have a referendum. Do stuff. Start talking about where the lines are going to be... just start talking. And get them and the public to realize that resolving issues is the better option than splitting the country up.

Sounds awesome.. but when I look at things.. I think people have gone well beyond the possibility of reconciliation. But maybe that could change when people start actually looking at the real possibility or desire to separate.

Interestingly.... and I honestly believe this to be sure. Just start talking about it.

Interestingly enough, there are a few politicians who would like to see that happen. One in particular that I know of (and this is confirmed by a former mayor in Alaska I know) is Santa Claus.

And this is for real, not a spoof or a joke:

https://www.santaclausforalaska.com/

About Santa Claus:

Santa Claus

Santa Claus is a candidate for the Special Election to complete Alaska Congressman Don Young’s current term, ending in January of 2023, in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Santa is a two-term Councilman and current Mayor Pro Tem of the City of North Pole, Alaska. Santa Claus is an independent, progressive, democratic socialist, and shares many of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders’s positions. He is a long-time advocate for child health, safety, and welfare. Santa believes ALL Members of Congress must find common ground, work together to represent their diverse constituencies, and move our nation forward in a productive manner that ensures happiness, peace, good health, and prosperity for everyone living in the United States, including Alaska.

Alaska is uniquely positioned to address many issues: energy, defense, climate, education, Arctic nations collaboration, infrastructure, especially broadband, indigenous and women’s rights, health, immigration, justice, medical debt, etc. and capitalize on Alaska’s myriad resources in ways that do not harm anyone. He has been a union member for a half-century and supports Medicare for All and the Congressional Cannabis Caucus.

Santa is a former: Member of the Alaska Public Broadcasting Commission, President of the North Pole Community Chamber of Commerce, and Senior Ranger for the Fairbanks North Star Borough’s Chena Lake Recreation Area (North Pole).

Years ago, he completed his successful church-sponsored national Santa’s Bless the Children Tour, visiting every Governor’s staff and most U.S. Senators’ staffs throughout the United States, discussing the plight of vulnerable children. He received numerous Governors’ awards for his advocacy, even an international Peace Prize from the Santa Claus Peace Council in Turkey, and was well-received in Washington, D.C., where he was born, by Members of Congress and their staffs — many of whom remarked that their visit from Santa was engaging and a memorable highlight. As funny as it may seem to some, his name, Santa Claus, afforded him ready access to and a friendly reception from the Members of Congress and staffs he visited, regardless of party affiliation.

Before his legal name change to Santa Claus in 2005, Santa served as Special Assistant to the Deputy Police Commissioner of New York City, Member of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Defense Executive Reserve, while Director of the Terrorism Research and Communication Center, and Chief Safety and Security Officer of the U.S. Virgin Islands Port Authority. He earned his bachelors and masters degrees at New York University, where he completed his doctoral coursework in educational communication and technology and graduated from two seminaries.

Santa supports government policies that protect (1) child health, safety, and welfare, (2) our Creator’s environment, and (3) the weak, poor, and underprivileged, as well as policies (1) that recognize that science, education, and religion can co-exist, (2) that unite, rather than separate, (3) that promote peace, not war, (4) that favor natural remedies, not pharmaceutical sales, and (5) that demonstrate compassion. He believes that love, not fear, is the greatest power on Earth.

Please note that Santa Claus does not solicit or accept campaign contributions.
He encourages your interest, engagement, and, most importantly, your VOTE on or before June 11th. He will be Tweeting and posting videos on YouTube throughout his campaign.

Santa's Twitter account:

Twitter.com/SantaClausforAK

Santa's YouTube account:

YouTube.com/user/GenuineSantaClaus

For those who may be interested, his name, Santa Claus, is derived from the Dutch expression for Saint Nicholas: Sinterklaas. Nicholas was the Christian Bishop of Myra who lived in Asia Minor, where Turkey is now, during the fourth century.

PLEASE NOTE:

Santa Claus for Alaska

does not solicit or accept

campaign contributions.

This website is paid for by:

Santa Claus for Alaska

PO Box 55122

North Pole, AK 99705

Email:

Campaign-SantaClausforAlaska@USA.net

OnWis97 · May 2022

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next.
Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?

The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.

the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.

you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.

some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.

I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.

What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.

These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that.
No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.

One wild card here could be how far we move into theocracy. Right now, the conditions don't exist to outlaw contraception. But 10 years from now, who knows? We might have only one viable party and if so, that party might be doing everything it can to make "we're a Christian nation" more official. Do you know what my opinion was on gay marriage in 1995? I didn't have one; the idea hadn't even occurred to me. Ten years later, the conditions were there for consideration. Ten years from now? Who knows? But we're in a cultural war and it's pretty obvious who's going to win that war.

mace1229 · May 2022

OnWis97 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next.
Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?

The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.

the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.

you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.

some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.

I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.

What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.

These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that.
No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.

One wild card here could be how far we move into theocracy. Right now, the conditions don't exist to outlaw contraception. But 10 years from now, who knows? We might have only one viable party and if so, that party might be doing everything it can to make "we're a Christian nation" more official. Do you know what my opinion was on gay marriage in 1995? I didn't have one; the idea hadn't even occurred to me. Ten years later, the conditions were there for consideration. Ten years from now? Who knows? But we're in a cultural war and it's pretty obvious who's going to win that war.

The majority of Christian’s are for, and do use, contraceptives. And many who don’t, don’t care that you do. There just isn’t this big push to ban it, almost no one wants to.

It’s taken 50 years to not ban abortion, but to potentially reverse a ruling that would leave it up to the states. Why would something no one wants be banned in 10 years? It just doesn’t make sense to me that this is a logical fear.
Going from reversing R vs W to they are going to ban contraceptives is an illogical leap in my mind.
Seems like a fear tactic when people like Swalwell tweet that out. And must be working if people think that is actually happening next.

Cropduster-80 · May 2022

mace1229 said:

OnWis97 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next.
Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?

The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.

the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.

you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.

some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.

I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.

What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.

These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that.
No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.

One wild card here could be how far we move into theocracy. Right now, the conditions don't exist to outlaw contraception. But 10 years from now, who knows? We might have only one viable party and if so, that party might be doing everything it can to make "we're a Christian nation" more official. Do you know what my opinion was on gay marriage in 1995? I didn't have one; the idea hadn't even occurred to me. Ten years later, the conditions were there for consideration. Ten years from now? Who knows? But we're in a cultural war and it's pretty obvious who's going to win that war.

The majority of Christian’s are for, and do use, contraceptives. And many who don’t, don’t care that you do. There just isn’t this big push to ban it, almost no one wants to.
It’s taken 50 years to not ban abortion, but to potentially reverse a ruling that would leave it up to the states. Why would something no one wants be banned in 10 years? It just doesn’t make sense to me that this is a logical fear.
Going from reversing R vs W to they are going to ban contraceptives is an illogical leap in my mind.

1/2 of all pregnancies are unplanned. My hometown has 2 pharmacies and one won’t fill legal prescriptions for birth control. For a while there wasn’t a 2nd pharmacy. It’s been like that since I was a kid. It’s a big assumption to make that it’s easy to go somewhere else, not everyone can.

Access and affordability of contraception are issues even today. My wife has a cousin in New Jersey and she and her husband are both pharmacists and neither fills birth control. Obviously also not the morning after pill or other medications of that type.

I always said I was going to go to pharmacy school get a job as a pharmacist in a one pharmacy town and say “I’m a Christian scientist” all medications are against my religion so I can’t morally fill them for my customers. The only medication I believe in is prayer.

Something tells me I wouldn’t get away with not filling heart medication because of my religious views, but I could absolutely get away with it for birth control. Double standard? Absolutely. The entire concept that you have to morally agree with handing out a pill that a doctor prescribed is absurd. Your only job is handing out pills, not judging what pills you are ok with

banning something or further restring something that already has a history of being restricted in many ways isn’t an illogical leap to make especially because that’s already the reality in a lot of places today.

Parksy · May 2022

brianlux said:

Parksy said:

static111 said:

Parksy said:

This might be an unpopular opinion... but the time has come for USA to start talking peaceful separation before another civil war breaks out.

And sure, sounds alarmist. But the population is so remarkably broken and on opposite sides on so many issues... just get the ball rolling for two separate countries and be done with it.

So are cities and counties supposed to secede from states or do you see this happening as a mass migration with certain states forming a country etc. In my home state of michigan alone the UP would be in the conservative camp as well as most rural areas of lower MI outside of major cities. I'm pretty sure that whatever peoples political leanings are that they would rather go to war than be forced to relocate from their chosen home. Sounds like a lot of costs to bear for the people that would have to be displaced.

Logistical nightmare... to be sure.

I suppose my point is... what other options are there? It's no different than a shitty marriage. Continue hating each other for another 30 years because you can't afford to split? Or bite the bullet and start fresh?

Interestingly.... and I honestly believe this to be sure. Just start talking about it.

Have the two parties begin the process. Create a commission. Have a referendum. Do stuff. Start talking about where the lines are going to be... just start talking. And get them and the public to realize that resolving issues is the better option than splitting the country up.

Sounds awesome.. but when I look at things.. I think people have gone well beyond the possibility of reconciliation. But maybe that could change when people start actually looking at the real possibility or desire to separate.

Interestingly.... and I honestly believe this to be sure. Just start talking about it.

Interestingly enough, there are a few politicians who would like to see that happen. One in particular that I know of (and this is confirmed by a former mayor in Alaska I know) is Santa Claus.
And this is for real, not a spoof or a joke:
https://www.santaclausforalaska.com/
About Santa Claus:
Santa Claus
Santa Claus is a candidate for the Special Election to complete Alaska Congressman Don Young’s current term, ending in January of 2023, in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Santa is a two-term Councilman and current Mayor Pro Tem of the City of North Pole, Alaska. Santa Claus is an independent, progressive, democratic socialist, and shares many of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders’s positions. He is a long-time advocate for child health, safety, and welfare. Santa believes ALL Members of Congress must find common ground, work together to represent their diverse constituencies, and move our nation forward in a productive manner that ensures happiness, peace, good health, and prosperity for everyone living in the United States, including Alaska.

Alaska is uniquely positioned to address many issues: energy, defense, climate, education, Arctic nations collaboration, infrastructure, especially broadband, indigenous and women’s rights, health, immigration, justice, medical debt, etc. and capitalize on Alaska’s myriad resources in ways that do not harm anyone. He has been a union member for a half-century and supports Medicare for All and the Congressional Cannabis Caucus.

Santa is a former: Member of the Alaska Public Broadcasting Commission, President of the North Pole Community Chamber of Commerce, and Senior Ranger for the Fairbanks North Star Borough’s Chena Lake Recreation Area (North Pole).
Years ago, he completed his successful church-sponsored national Santa’s Bless the Children Tour, visiting every Governor’s staff and most U.S. Senators’ staffs throughout the United States, discussing the plight of vulnerable children. He received numerous Governors’ awards for his advocacy, even an international Peace Prize from the Santa Claus Peace Council in Turkey, and was well-received in Washington, D.C., where he was born, by Members of Congress and their staffs — many of whom remarked that their visit from Santa was engaging and a memorable highlight. As funny as it may seem to some, his name, Santa Claus, afforded him ready access to and a friendly reception from the Members of Congress and staffs he visited, regardless of party affiliation.
Before his legal name change to Santa Claus in 2005, Santa served as Special Assistant to the Deputy Police Commissioner of New York City, Member of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Defense Executive Reserve, while Director of the Terrorism Research and Communication Center, and Chief Safety and Security Officer of the U.S. Virgin Islands Port Authority. He earned his bachelors and masters degrees at New York University, where he completed his doctoral coursework in educational communication and technology and graduated from two seminaries.

Santa supports government policies that protect (1) child health, safety, and welfare, (2) our Creator’s environment, and (3) the weak, poor, and underprivileged, as well as policies (1) that recognize that science, education, and religion can co-exist, (2) that unite, rather than separate, (3) that promote peace, not war, (4) that favor natural remedies, not pharmaceutical sales, and (5) that demonstrate compassion. He believes that love, not fear, is the greatest power on Earth.

Please note that Santa Claus does not solicit or accept campaign contributions.
He encourages your interest, engagement, and, most importantly, your VOTE on or before June 11th. He will be Tweeting and posting videos on YouTube throughout his campaign.

Santa's Twitter account:

Twitter.com/SantaClausforAK

Santa's YouTube account:

YouTube.com/user/GenuineSantaClaus

For those who may be interested, his name, Santa Claus, is derived from the Dutch expression for Saint Nicholas: Sinterklaas. Nicholas was the Christian Bishop of Myra who lived in Asia Minor, where Turkey is now, during the fourth century.

PLEASE NOTE:

Santa Claus for Alaska

does not solicit or accept

campaign contributions.

This website is paid for by:

Santa Claus for Alaska

PO Box 55122

North Pole, AK 99705

Email:

Campaign-SantaClausforAlaska@USA.net

He'd have my vote

cblock4life · May 2022

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next.
Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?

The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.

the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.

you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.

some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.

I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.

What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.

These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that.
No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.

60% of the country supports gay marriage. 60% of the country supports a woman's right to choose. These are averages but there isn't a huge statistical difference between them. I think you are being overly glib about the possibilities.

Now gay marriage and interracial marriage rely on the Equal Protection Clause rather than the more esoteric 'privacy' right that is not specifically enumerated. So it's a more difficult legal challenge. However, Alito's draft opinion makes clear that he believes the only rights protected are the ones that are specifically enumerated or follow a long historical precedent. Gay marriage does not meet either of those. I would argue interracial marriage has a longer tradition, but still only mid century.

Thank you for responding so reasonably (I would not have) because you saved me from for sure punishment.

I’m not sure those who keep thinking other entitlements are safe understand that in some states felatio is still considered illegal, and they don’t mean between two men. I imagine if we go back to when it was illegal in the entire country that not many men would be happy about that restriction being reinstated. Taking away a woman’s right to choose is as stupid as my previous sentence sounded. My body, my choice.

mace1229 · May 2022

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

OnWis97 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next.
Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?

The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.

the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.

you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.

some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.

I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.

What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.

These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that.
No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.

One wild card here could be how far we move into theocracy. Right now, the conditions don't exist to outlaw contraception. But 10 years from now, who knows? We might have only one viable party and if so, that party might be doing everything it can to make "we're a Christian nation" more official. Do you know what my opinion was on gay marriage in 1995? I didn't have one; the idea hadn't even occurred to me. Ten years later, the conditions were there for consideration. Ten years from now? Who knows? But we're in a cultural war and it's pretty obvious who's going to win that war.

The majority of Christian’s are for, and do use, contraceptives. And many who don’t, don’t care that you do. There just isn’t this big push to ban it, almost no one wants to.
It’s taken 50 years to not ban abortion, but to potentially reverse a ruling that would leave it up to the states. Why would something no one wants be banned in 10 years? It just doesn’t make sense to me that this is a logical fear.
Going from reversing R vs W to they are going to ban contraceptives is an illogical leap in my mind.

1/2 of all pregnancies are unplanned. My hometown has 2 pharmacies and one won’t fill legal prescriptions for birth control. For a while there wasn’t a 2nd pharmacy. It’s been like that since I was a kid. It’s a big assumption to make that it’s easy to go somewhere else, not everyone can.

Access and affordability of contraception are issues even today. My wife has a cousins in New Jersey and she and her husband are both pharmacists and neither fills birth control. Obviously also not the morning after pill or other medications of that type.

I always said I was going to go to pharmacy school get a job as a pharmacist in a one pharmacy town and say “I’m a Christian scientist” all medications are against my religion so I can’t morally fill them for my customers. The only medication I believe in is prayer.

Something tells me I wouldn’t get away with not filling heart medication because of my religious views, but I could absolutely get away with it for birth control. Double standard? Absolutely

I’ve heard stories like that before, but believe they are uncommon or rare. I disagree with a pharmacist not filling medication for birth control. But that is also not the same as banning it. When people are saying a ban on contraceptives is next, I take that to mean all forms and will not be allowed to be sold. That is just never going to happen. That’s different than a pharmacist not filling a prescription. Laws protecting pharmacists from filling prescriptions they don’t want to does seem plausible, a full on ban does not.
I’m also surprised there aren’t other means to get them, mail orders or anything. Not saying that makes it right. But if there were laws protecting pharmacists it would probably become easier to fill meds online too.

Cropduster-80 · May 2022

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

OnWis97 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

I’ve been hearing things like interracial marriage, contraceptives, segregation are all next.
Abortion has been a big topic of nearly every election for as long as I can remember. I can’t recall a single person wanting to ban contraceptives. I can’t think of anyone I can name saying interracial marriage should end. But yet I’m seeing and hearing these claims all over social media and the news today. Where are people getting these ideas? Who wants to end contraceptives?

The rationale for Roe is the same rationale for contraception, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, consensual sexual acts between consenting adults within the confines of their home.

the concept that personal decisions residing with the individual not the state and a right to privacy is the same principle in all of those cases. If you eliminate that fundamental principle it opens the door to pass laws banning interracial marriages again if a state was so inclined. At it’s core Roe is more about a constitutional right to privacy than it is about abortion.

you will absolutely see things reguarding the gay community tested again because of this. Marriage, sex etc . Gay sex used to be illegal. It could be again. Look at all the anti LGBTQ laws passed just in the last 12 months.

some in the religious right are just as against contraception as they are about abortion. For the last 50 years, the logical conclusion to reduce abortions is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. However they do their best to also limit contraception and education on contraception. It’s entirely plausible that they go after availability of contraception as they have already been fighting contraception being covered on health insurance for the last decade.

I disagree 100%. There has never been a movement to ban contraceptives or interracial marriage in my lifetime. I can’t name a single person who is for those things. There has always been a movement to ban abortion. A pretty big movement actually. I saw stats used the last couple days. They vary pretty drastically depending on guidelines or exceptions included. But it isn’t too far from a 50/50 split when you factor in exceptions for rape, incest, Heath reasons, etc. So Just because the door is opened for abortion doesnt mean every other issue will be next when no one is seeking those things.

What's the difference from a legal standpoint? If there is no constitutional right to privacy and no long held history, what stops a state from prohibiting gay marriage, interracial marriage or anything that the religious right from passing a law? There's literally nothing preventing a state from doing so.

These arguments remind me of the far right 15 years ago when gay marriage was becoming a thing. I remember hearing “What’s next? Legalizing beastiality or incest?” That didn’t happen because no one was wanting that.
No one is for banning interracial marriage, reintroducing segregation, or banning contraceptives. (Almost) No one wants it. It’s not going to happen.

One wild card here could be how far we move into theocracy. Right now, the conditions don't exist to outlaw contraception. But 10 years from now, who knows? We might have only one viable party and if so, that party might be doing everything it can to make "we're a Christian nation" more official. Do you know what my opinion was on gay marriage in 1995? I didn't have one; the idea hadn't even occurred to me. Ten years later, the conditions were there for consideration. Ten years from now? Who knows? But we're in a cultural war and it's pretty obvious who's going to win that war.

The majority of Christian’s are for, and do use, contraceptives. And many who don’t, don’t care that you do. There just isn’t this big push to ban it, almost no one wants to.
It’s taken 50 years to not ban abortion, but to potentially reverse a ruling that would leave it up to the states. Why would something no one wants be banned in 10 years? It just doesn’t make sense to me that this is a logical fear.
Going from reversing R vs W to they are going to ban contraceptives is an illogical leap in my mind.

1/2 of all pregnancies are unplanned. My hometown has 2 pharmacies and one won’t fill legal prescriptions for birth control. For a while there wasn’t a 2nd pharmacy. It’s been like that since I was a kid. It’s a big assumption to make that it’s easy to go somewhere else, not everyone can.

Access and affordability of contraception are issues even today. My wife has a cousins in New Jersey and she and her husband are both pharmacists and neither fills birth control. Obviously also not the morning after pill or other medications of that type.

I always said I was going to go to pharmacy school get a job as a pharmacist in a one pharmacy town and say “I’m a Christian scientist” all medications are against my religion so I can’t morally fill them for my customers. The only medication I believe in is prayer.

Something tells me I wouldn’t get away with not filling heart medication because of my religious views, but I could absolutely get away with it for birth control. Double standard? Absolutely

I’ve heard stories like that before, but believe they are uncommon or rare. I disagree with a pharmacist not filling medication for birth control. But that is also not the same as banning it. When people are saying a ban on contraceptives is next, I take that to mean all forms and will not be allowed to be sold. That is just never going to happen. That’s different than a pharmacist not filling a prescription. Laws protecting pharmacists from filling prescriptions they don’t want to does seem plausible, a full on ban does not.
I’m also surprised there aren’t other means to get them, mail orders or anything. Not saying that makes it right. But if there were laws protecting pharmacists it would probably become easier to fill meds online too.

Here is an entirely plausible law.

Texas already has a law that refers parents who give their minor children access to gender affirmation care for possible prosecution for child abuse.

What’s stopping them from saying any girl under 18 years old can’t get birth control and any doctor or parent who seeks out the medication are guilty of abuse. most girls start the pill at 16. That’s a logical birth control target.

Some states could make birth control only available to married women. Why wouldn’t they? It goes along with basically everything else they have been saying and that’s how it use to be as unmarried women shouldn’t be having sex to begin with.

“In 1965 the Supreme Court ruled on a case concerning a Connecticut law that criminalized the use of birth control. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut marked the beginning of an era of change for sexual and reproductive rights in the United States. Ruling that the states had no right to ban contraception for married couples, the landmark decision in the Griswold v. Connecticutcase established — for the first time — a constitutional right to privacy regarding reproductive decisions that paved the way for the legalization of birth control for unmarried couples, and ultimately, Roe v Wade and safe and legal abortion.”

That right to privacy IS the basis for Roe v Wade as well as many other court cases including birth control, a right that no longer exists

Make no mistake reproductive issues are more about controlling women than they are about pregnancy. As soon as women entered the workforce post WWII in large numbers men lost a lot of control,and they have been trying to get it back ever since. Women are more educated than men on the whole and it’s only a matter of time until they out earn men too. Keeping them taking care kids and making decisions about their bodies for them is about control. It’s 100 percent true that if men got pregnant we wouldn’t even be having this conversation

The Juggler · May 2022

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5021252/uploads/editor/dv/0l32mpwcxasn.png

mrussel1 · May 2022

The Juggler said:

This is good.

Here's the other interesting thing that can work in the favor of D's. Remember this was a draft opinion from Feb. It may have been toned down already and who knows what the final will say. Perhaps it will only significantly reduce the right, who knows? The point is the D's get to campaign on the harshest language out there between now and election day. This gives a window into what Alito really thinks, regardless of the final opinion.

drakeheuer14 · May 2022

To be honest I have come a long way in my views on this. I guess you could say I am even pro-choice now at the end of the day.

Just a few thoughts that still circle in my mind on the topic though…

To the famous “My body, my choice” phrase, there has been and always will be governance over personal autonomy. Does the same sentiment follow suit with things like assisted suicide or decriminalizing all drugs for most people here? Or just pick and choose based on topic?

Also I still struggle with the idea that a man should have no say in any of this. Before you come for my head here, I get that the mother carries the burden in so many more ways for either deciding to carry or not, but in the end it took two consenting people in most cases, it just happens that biologically the female carries more of the burden. If both parties agreed that a condom was sufficient and you get unlucky, the man in the equation may want the child or may not and the response to that is who cares? I still can’t get to that point. Is it a slippery slope when it comes to instances of rape and the likes? Certainly. But I hope there can be a balance that takes the man into account especially if both parties decided going into it they were both prepared for the consequences of their actions and found any preparation they took sufficient.

And finally, the argument that I always found kind of silly is “well why don’t you care about the kids after they are born? Why don’t you support helping the mom more in xyz way? Why not force the father to in xyz way be more supportive? Why not adopt 5 kids and prove it” …To that I say, I DO support that and I do wish our government was more progressive in support. Now I know I am just one person and government figure heads / extremists may suck and wont take action in that way, but to say it’s mutually exclusive that people only support the unborn child and don’t give a shit after they are born is ridiculous.

To be transparent, I don’t think I will ever get over the belief that new life is created at conception. New life wouldn’t ever exist if not for starting somewhere. It’s not viable outside of the womb, sure, but a newborn baby would die too if not for being fed by the mother and taken care of after birth either. Anyways, a complete ban on abortions is not smart and can lead to scary situations and I have seen the light in that sense.

Thanks, and sorry for the long post. Not here to fight, but that’s what was on my mind when I decided to come back to this thread…

mrussel1 · May 2022

drakeheuer14 said:

To be honest I have come a long way in my views on this. I guess you could say I am even pro-choice now at the end of the day.

Just a few thoughts that still circle in my mind on the topic though…

To the famous “My body, my choice” phrase, there has been and always will be governance over personal autonomy. Does the same sentiment follow suit with things like assisted suicide or decriminalizing all drugs for most people here? Or just pick and choose based on topic?

Also I still struggle with the idea that a man should have no say in any of this. Before you come for my head here, I get that the mother carries the burden in so many more ways for either deciding to carry or not, but in the end it took two consenting people in most cases, it just happens that biologically the female carries more of the burden. If both parties agreed that a condom was sufficient and you get unlucky, the man in the equation may want the child or may not and the response to that is who cares? I still can’t get to that point. Is it a slippery slope when it comes to instances of rape and the likes? Certainly. But I hope there can be a balance that takes the man into account especially if both parties decided going into it they were both prepared for the consequences of their actions and found any preparation they took sufficient.

And finally, the argument that I always found kind of silly is “well why don’t you care about the kids after they are born? Why don’t you support helping the mom more in xyz way? Why not force the father to in xyz way be more supportive? Why not adopt 5 kids and prove it” …To that I say, I DO support that and I do wish our government was more progressive in support. Now I know I am just one person and government figure heads / extremists may suck and wont take action in that way, but to say it’s mutually exclusive that people only support the unborn child and don’t give a shit after they are born is ridiculous.

To be transparent, I don’t think I will ever get over the belief that new life is created at conception. New life wouldn’t ever exist if not for starting somewhere. It’s not viable outside of the womb, sure, but a newborn baby would die too if not for being fed by the mother and taken care of after birth either. Anyways, a complete ban on abortions is not smart and can lead to scary situations and I have seen the light in that sense.

Thanks, and sorry for the long post. Not here to fight, but that’s what was on my mind when I decided to come back to this thread…

I can say that I absolutely believe assisted suicide should be legal. Second, using drugs is not illegal in most, if any states. Addiction isn't illegal anywhere. It's possession and distribution that is illegal.

Regarding the welfare state, for several years in my youth, my manager was the archbishop of the local LDS community. They are adamantly pro life, based on the fundamental doctrine of their Church. And that was always a bone with me, forcing women to bear children and then they're on their own. I give the LDS community a lot of credit as they have tremendous support networks for their tribe. The rest of the pro life community comes nowhere near them.

Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

Comments

Categories