(Politic) Alabama passes bill to ban abortion completely

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Aside from "if there is a serious health risk" republicans are going straight for what everyone knew they had in their sights. Further control and punishment of women's sexuality under the guise of religious 'purity.' No exemptions for incest or rape either.

Link

There are no kind words, am restraining myself from adding further opinion. How likely is this to succeed?

I'd say let them suffer the consequences they refuse to see.

Good guy Alabama looking out for those without a voice. /s

As long as the supreme court verdict remains, the bill won't actually ban anything. However, it does embolden pro-lifers across the country.

edit: I will technically disagree on an abortion ban being against women's sexuality, because contraceptives are still available normally (r-right, Alabama?). edit2: If the "state approved" contraceptive is abstinence then I won't disagree at all.

McElroy:
Good guy Alabama looking out for those without a voice. /s

As long as the supreme court verdict remains, the bill won't actually ban anything. However, it does embolden pro-lifers across the country.

Well to play devil's advocate, mabye this will now give people incentive to basically "Keep it in their pants"

Samtemdo8:

McElroy:
Good guy Alabama looking out for those without a voice. /s

As long as the supreme court verdict remains, the bill won't actually ban anything. However, it does embolden pro-lifers across the country.

Well to play devil's advocate, mabye this will now give people incentive to basically "Keep it in their pants"

No it won't. No it will goddamn not.

Samtemdo8:

McElroy:
Good guy Alabama looking out for those without a voice. /s

As long as the supreme court verdict remains, the bill won't actually ban anything. However, it does embolden pro-lifers across the country.

Well to play devil's advocate, mabye this will now give people incentive to basically "Keep it in their pants"

It gives an incentive for doctors to flee the state and abortions to get done by back alley "Dr. Nick".

Goodbye licenced physician, hello coathanger.

image

McElroy:
Good guy Alabama looking out for those without a voice. /s

As long as the supreme court verdict remains, the bill won't actually ban anything. However, it does embolden pro-lifers across the country.

edit: I will technically disagree on an abortion ban being against women's sexuality, because contraceptives are still available normally (r-right, Alabama?).

Here we have another example of men deciding what women should do with their own bodies. Only 3 women voted on the bill.

Only 3 women had a voice in Alabama Senate as 25 men passed abortion ban

Amid the debate on the Alabama Senate floor over America?s most restrictive abortion law, state Sen. Linda Coleman-Madison (D) appeared to be losing patience.

She was one of just three women to vote Tuesday on HB 314, which would outlaw abortions even in cases of rape and incest

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-typical-male-answer-only-3-women-had-a-voice-in-alabama-senate-as-25-men-passed-abortion-ban/ar-AABowec?ocid=spartanntp

It is against women as there are no laws telling men what they can and cannot do with their own body. With women's maternal mortality still extremely high and rising in parts of the US, and women facing lifelong health issues from pregnancy and childbirth this, for some women can be a death sentence. Especially in a state like Alabama that offers very little in regards to health services and living assistance to women.

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/severematernalmorbidity.html

Neurotic Void Melody:
Aside from "if there is a serious health risk" republicans are going straight for what everyone knew they had in their sights. Further control and punishment of women's sexuality under the guise of religious 'purity.' No exemptions for incest or rape either.

Link

There are no kind words, am restraining myself from adding further opinion. How likely is this to succeed?

Most pregnancy complications are not known to be severe in advance, they usually do not know the severity until it is already to that point with the exceptions of diseases such as cancer. In most maternal mortality cases though, they would have no way of knowing how severe it was going to be in advance to be able to qualify for a "serious high risk" exemption under the criteria required here. This will definitely increase maternal mortality further when it has already been increasing in the US as it is.

Samtemdo8:

Well to play devil's advocate, mabye this will now give people incentive to basically "Keep it in their pants"

The best way to get people to have healthier, safer sex is to provide them with good sex ed and easy access to contraceptives. Going the Alabama route of making abortion's illegal and not providing any sex ed at all is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand and hoping your kids will be too afraid of sex (like, are teenagers ever?) to try it. If you want to keep teenagers and young adults from having unsafe sex, the best thing you can do is tell them the risks involved with sex and give them the means to mitigate the worsts risks, like pregnancy and STDs. But that would also involve adult people having to face their own prudeness and shame and speak to teenagers and young adults like people who can actually weigh risks in a responsible manner, which is not something that neo-con Christians are all that into.

The Republican Party opposes women's rights. This is a fact based on the policies they support and endorse. I know this site doesn't like when I call out Republican political views, but this bill was literally put in place solely by Republicans.

Samtemdo8:

McElroy:
Good guy Alabama looking out for those without a voice. /s

As long as the supreme court verdict remains, the bill won't actually ban anything. However, it does embolden pro-lifers across the country.

Well to play devil's advocate, mabye this will now give people incentive to basically "Keep it in their pants"

No one works like that. The only way that would possibly happen is if they really bumped up sex education and female empowerment and even then its really iffy.

Alabama is taking all of the Ls. Your college slogan is a synonym for incest, your football team lost to Sunshie from remember the titans and now this abortion is all kinds dipshit. Like how are you going to charge someone getting a abortion out of state. Like jurisdictions are a thing. This pretty much comedy too bad its real.

Jarrito3001:
Alabama is taking all of the Ls. Your college slogan is a synonym for incest, your football team lost to Sunshie from remember the titans and now this abortion is all kinds dipshit. Like how are you going to charge someone getting a abortion out of state. Like jurisdictions are a thing. This pretty much comedy too bad its real.

They are hoping that now that Trump and McConnell have stacked the courts that the new conservative Supreme court will overturn Roe v. Wade and make it illegal all over the US.

Alabama House Rep. Terri Collins, who sponsored the bill, told NBC News Tuesday evening that legislators wanted to keep the bill's text as clean as possible, specifically to address the language in Roe v. Wade, which talked about a baby being "in utero."
"This bill's purpose is to hopefully get to the Supreme Court and have them revisit the actual decision, which was, is the baby in a womb a person?" Collins said. "And we believe technology and science shows that it is. You can see that baby tissue develop all the way through now."
Georgia's Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, recently signed legislation banning abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected.
"Heartbeat abortion" bans have also been signed into law in Mississippi, Kentucky and Ohio this year. Lawmakers in Tennessee, Missouri, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Louisiana and West Virginia are considering similar proposals.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/alabama-state-senate-passes-near-total-abortion-ban-direct-challenge-n1005556

Samtemdo8:
Well to play devil's advocate, mabye this will now give people incentive to basically "Keep it in their pants"

No. That's factually wrong, condemning people for having a sex life is morally wrong, and the phrase "devil's advocate" doesn't make it better.

Neurotic Void Melody:
It goes further than any other state has to restrict abortion.

Does it? My state's old pre-Roe v Wade abortion ban is still technically on the books (though found in violation of the state constitution and additionally unenforceable due to Roe v Wade), and we passed an amendment to the state constitution last year that explicitly said that nothing in the state constitution shall be construed as giving a right to abortion or to expenditure of state funds on abortion. So if Roe is overturned we automatically ban abortion, because the old ban would come back into effect.

Neurotic Void Melody:
She introduced amendments that would require the state to expand Medicaid, force legislators who vote for the measure to pay the state?s legal bills, or make it a crime for men to get vasectomies. All failed.

All for the first two of those, especially the second. It's literally a law specifically intended to get challenged and shot down repeatedly in the courts - an amendment that makes the politicians pushing it financially responsible for fighting for it in the courts is a beautiful thing, sad it didn't stick.

Neurotic Void Melody:
There are no kind words, am restraining myself from adding further opinion. How likely is this to succeed?

How likely is it to succeed? Not very. The whole point is for it to get overturned and go up the courts in the hopes that SCOTUS will see the case and with a more conservative balance of justices than in the past overturn Roe v Wade.

Since Roe v Wade is based on medical privacy, not on some kind of specific right to abortion, that opens all kinds of cans of worms if it's overturned.

Neurotic Void Melody:
There are no kind words, am restraining myself from adding further opinion. How likely is this to succeed?

It won't. At least not for a while.

The intent is to throw as much anti-abortion legislation at the books as possible, and get as many to SCOTUS in the hope it either cans or puts significant holes in Roe v. Wade.

It is probably unlikely that the SCOTUS, as currently constituted, will undo Roe v. Wade completely. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were probably appointed with the specific intent of favouring overturning it, I believe Thomas would overturn it, Alito is on record stating opposition. Chief Justice Roberts, however, said in confirmation hearings he was not interested in overturning Roe v. Wade's precedent. Maybe he just said that to get the job, but he seems to me to be upright and disinterested in controversy. However, they might be prepared to seek ways around it that facilitate abortion restrictions - a gradual slicing away, rather than toppling it in one fell swoop.

Agema:

Neurotic Void Melody:
There are no kind words, am restraining myself from adding further opinion. How likely is this to succeed?

It won't. At least not for a while.

The intent is to throw as much anti-abortion legislation at the books as possible, and get as many to SCOTUS in the hope it either cans or puts significant holes in Roe v. Wade.

It is probably unlikely that the SCOTUS, as currently constituted, will undo Roe v. Wade completely. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were probably appointed with the specific intent of favouring overturning it, I believe Thomas would overturn it, Alito is on record stating opposition. Chief Justice Roberts, however, said in confirmation hearings he was not interested in overturning Roe v. Wade's precedent. Maybe he just said that to get the job, but he seems to me to be upright and disinterested in controversy. However, they might be prepared to seek ways around it that facilitate abortion restrictions - a gradual slicing away, rather than toppling it in one fell swoop.

I really don't get why so many rapists are anti-abortion. (Such as Kavanaugh)

Schadrach:

Neurotic Void Melody:
It goes further than any other state has to restrict abortion.

Does it?

Yeah, it takes like 3 minutes to look this stuff up.

Basically, it moves up the legal abortion date from 20, to 6 weeks (around the same time women even realize they're pregnant if they aren't repetitively looking for it and burning up pregnancy tests)

And there is no exemption for rape or incest

and doctors who perform abortions are charged with a class A felony and up to 99 years in prison

erttheking:

Samtemdo8:

McElroy:
Good guy Alabama looking out for those without a voice. /s

As long as the supreme court verdict remains, the bill won't actually ban anything. However, it does embolden pro-lifers across the country.

Well to play devil's advocate, mabye this will now give people incentive to basically "Keep it in their pants"

No it won't. No it will goddamn not.

I agree with erttheking. It didn't give it before safe abortions were available; it won't give it now.

CaitSeith:

erttheking:

Samtemdo8:

Well to play devil's advocate, mabye this will now give people incentive to basically "Keep it in their pants"

No it won't. No it will goddamn not.

I agree with erttheking. It didn't give it before safe abortions were available; it won't give it now.

Some people are stupid.
Some people are unlucky.
Some people are sex offenders.
There's always going to be unwanted pregnancies, and for all their talk of being pro-life the Republicans really don't give a damn what happens as long as there's no abortion.

Thaluikhain:

Samtemdo8:
Well to play devil's advocate, mabye this will now give people incentive to basically "Keep it in their pants"

No. That's factually wrong, condemning people for having a sex life is morally wrong, and the phrase "devil's advocate" doesn't make it better.

erttheking:

Samtemdo8:

McElroy:
Good guy Alabama looking out for those without a voice. /s

As long as the supreme court verdict remains, the bill won't actually ban anything. However, it does embolden pro-lifers across the country.

Well to play devil's advocate, mabye this will now give people incentive to basically "Keep it in their pants"

No it won't. No it will goddamn not.

Gethsemani:

Samtemdo8:

Well to play devil's advocate, mabye this will now give people incentive to basically "Keep it in their pants"

The best way to get people to have healthier, safer sex is to provide them with good sex ed and easy access to contraceptives. Going the Alabama route of making abortion's illegal and not providing any sex ed at all is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand and hoping your kids will be too afraid of sex (like, are teenagers ever?) to try it. If you want to keep teenagers and young adults from having unsafe sex, the best thing you can do is tell them the risks involved with sex and give them the means to mitigate the worsts risks, like pregnancy and STDs. But that would also involve adult people having to face their own prudeness and shame and speak to teenagers and young adults like people who can actually weigh risks in a responsible manner, which is not something that neo-con Christians are all that into.

Worgen:

Samtemdo8:

McElroy:
Good guy Alabama looking out for those without a voice. /s

As long as the supreme court verdict remains, the bill won't actually ban anything. However, it does embolden pro-lifers across the country.

Well to play devil's advocate, mabye this will now give people incentive to basically "Keep it in their pants"

No one works like that. The only way that would possibly happen is if they really bumped up sex education and female empowerment and even then its really iffy.

Yeesh, I leave home for half the day with my dad on a trip and look at all these reponses...

Just letting everyone know 2 things about me regarding this:

1. My knowledge on the larger scope that is this whole Abortion Politics are slim at worst but.

2. I am in favor of abortion and especially it being Pro-Choice. I know of the issues when you outlaw abortion. I was just looking at some kind of bright side that people would be more responsible with their sex life. But your responses indicate to me that there is no bright side in this. So I am expecting a lot of Bastards and Orphans in Alabama.

So this'll be struck down like immediately. Federal Law trumps State law every time.

Silentpony:
So this'll be struck down like immediately. Federal Law trumps State law every time.

Abortion as an option is legal under US Federal Law?

undeadsuitor:

Yeah, it takes like 3 minutes to look this stuff up.

Basically, it moves up the legal abortion date from 20, to 6 weeks (around the same time women even realize they're pregnant if they aren't repetitively looking for it and burning up pregnancy tests)

And there is no exemption for rape or incest

and doctors who perform abortions are charged with a class A felony and up to 99 years in prison

The currently unconstitutional one in my state (that was found in violation of the state constitution and also Roe v Wade, though the state constitution was amended last year to specifically not protect abortion whatsoever) bans it outright (the only exception being if it is done in good faith to save the life of the mother) and is a felony, but the maximum penalty is only 10 years. It also specifies that if the mother dies from the procedure that they are also guilty of murder. So if Roe v Wade falls, then a simple legal challenge to bring it back into enforcement (which just has to point out that the reasons it was not lawful are no longer valid) is all it would take.

Samtemdo8:

Silentpony:
So this'll be struck down like immediately. Federal Law trumps State law every time.

Abortion as an option is legal under US Federal Law?

Yes. Since 1973, the Supreme Court ruled abortion legal through the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Now the justice department can choose not to challenge Alabama, like they don't challenge pot laws in states, but they will and a judge will strike down that new law immediately.

Samtemdo8:

Thaluikhain:

Samtemdo8:
Well to play devil's advocate, mabye this will now give people incentive to basically "Keep it in their pants"

No. That's factually wrong, condemning people for having a sex life is morally wrong, and the phrase "devil's advocate" doesn't make it better.

erttheking:

Samtemdo8:

Well to play devil's advocate, mabye this will now give people incentive to basically "Keep it in their pants"

No it won't. No it will goddamn not.

Gethsemani:

Samtemdo8:

Well to play devil's advocate, mabye this will now give people incentive to basically "Keep it in their pants"

The best way to get people to have healthier, safer sex is to provide them with good sex ed and easy access to contraceptives. Going the Alabama route of making abortion's illegal and not providing any sex ed at all is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand and hoping your kids will be too afraid of sex (like, are teenagers ever?) to try it. If you want to keep teenagers and young adults from having unsafe sex, the best thing you can do is tell them the risks involved with sex and give them the means to mitigate the worsts risks, like pregnancy and STDs. But that would also involve adult people having to face their own prudeness and shame and speak to teenagers and young adults like people who can actually weigh risks in a responsible manner, which is not something that neo-con Christians are all that into.

Worgen:

Samtemdo8:

Well to play devil's advocate, mabye this will now give people incentive to basically "Keep it in their pants"

No one works like that. The only way that would possibly happen is if they really bumped up sex education and female empowerment and even then its really iffy.

Yeesh, I leave home for half the day with my dad on a trip and look at all these reponses...

Just letting everyone know 2 things about me regarding this:

1. My knowledge on the larger scope that is this whole Abortion Politics are slim at worst but.

2. I am in favor of abortion and especially it being Pro-Choice. I know of the issues when you outlaw abortion. I was just looking at some kind of bright side that people would be more responsible with their sex life. But your responses indicate to me that there is no bright side in this. So I am expecting a lot of Bastards and Orphans in Alabama.

I'm actually expecting an uptick in crime. Rich people will always find a way, but poor people will be stuck with unwanted children and they will be treated as such which tends to create criminals.

Silentpony:
So this'll be struck down like immediately. Federal Law trumps State law every time.

The reason they are doing this is because currently the courts are conservative with possibly no swing vote. Kennedy was the swing vote on abortion before but now that we have two trump appointees, there is a good chance that they will vote to overturn the federal abortion law. This is why they are pulling this, because they are sure the court will side with them and abortion will be outlawed nationwide.

Worgen:

Silentpony:
So this'll be struck down like immediately. Federal Law trumps State law every time.

The reason they are doing this is because currently the courts are conservative with possibly no swing vote. Kennedy was the swing vote on abortion before but now that we have two trump appointees, there is a good chance that they will vote to overturn the federal abortion law. This is why they are pulling this, because they are sure the court will side with them and abortion will be outlawed nationwide.

Oh I know. And they'll give it their best shot. But the blowback if it does succeed will be monstrous for Republicans. Like losing the 2020 election, and Congress and having all of Trump's supreme court nominees impeached(which yes you can impeach them) and having a Dem president throw on new judges and a new law passed, challenged and affirmed by the courts with 6 months.

Silentpony:

Worgen:

Silentpony:
So this'll be struck down like immediately. Federal Law trumps State law every time.

The reason they are doing this is because currently the courts are conservative with possibly no swing vote. Kennedy was the swing vote on abortion before but now that we have two trump appointees, there is a good chance that they will vote to overturn the federal abortion law. This is why they are pulling this, because they are sure the court will side with them and abortion will be outlawed nationwide.

Oh I know. And they'll give it their best shot. But the blowback if it does succeed will be monstrous for Republicans. Like losing the 2020 election, and Congress and having all of Trump's supreme court nominees impeached(which yes you can impeach them) and having a Dem president throw on new judges and a new law passed, challenged and affirmed by the courts with 6 months.

I really doubt that would happen. The american public would need to be more out for blood before we would impeach a judge or there would have to be hard evidence of a crime committed by one of them. It would be bad for republicans, but potentially not as bad as you would think, their base is almost single issue about abortion and they can make enough sounds so people think they will do something about other things. I mean look at how many "fiscally conservative" people vote republican despite the fact they always balloon the debt and will never lessen military spending. Plus, democrats tend to like to play by the rules so while a minority would be down for trying to impeach, the majority probably wouldn't be.

Worgen:

Silentpony:

Worgen:

The reason they are doing this is because currently the courts are conservative with possibly no swing vote. Kennedy was the swing vote on abortion before but now that we have two trump appointees, there is a good chance that they will vote to overturn the federal abortion law. This is why they are pulling this, because they are sure the court will side with them and abortion will be outlawed nationwide.

Oh I know. And they'll give it their best shot. But the blowback if it does succeed will be monstrous for Republicans. Like losing the 2020 election, and Congress and having all of Trump's supreme court nominees impeached(which yes you can impeach them) and having a Dem president throw on new judges and a new law passed, challenged and affirmed by the courts with 6 months.

I really doubt that would happen. The american public would need to be more out for blood before we would impeach a judge or there would have to be hard evidence of a crime committed by one of them. It would be bad for republicans, but potentially not as bad as you would think, their base is almost single issue about abortion and they can make enough sounds so people think they will do something about other things. I mean look at how many "fiscally conservative" people vote republican despite the fact they always balloon the debt and will never lessen military spending. Plus, democrats tend to like to play by the rules so while a minority would be down for trying to impeach, the majority probably wouldn't be.

that is one thing dems do that's starting to piss me off. We live in a post-rules world right now. People are openly ignoring subpoenas, and Nancy Pelosi is out there thinking she might hold them in contempt of congress. No girl, that shit is straight up illegal! You can't ignore a subpoena! Get the DC police to go arrest them and jail them until they agree to adhere to the summons.

Silentpony:
Yes. Since 1973, the Supreme Court ruled abortion legal through the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Now the justice department can choose not to challenge Alabama, like they don't challenge pot laws in states, but they will and a judge will strike down that new law immediately.

The problem is that Republicans are using these laws as a setup to challenge Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court and right now they have their best shot at actually succeeding. But at this point the current system is too broken to even throw any serious consequences on the Republicans if they win. Not only would we have to oust the Republicans, but we'd have to oust all the Establishment Democrats like Pelosi who are too busy playing "Civility politics" to even do anything more than wag their fingers and look disappointed. There will likely be blowback on a more localized scale, Republican voters suddenly finding out "But I'm getting hurt, too! You're supposed to hurt them not me!!!" (See: people who regret voting for Trump during this latest tax season) But we don't actually have a strong enough opposition party to put any major consequences on the Republicans.

Silentpony:

Worgen:

Silentpony:
Oh I know. And they'll give it their best shot. But the blowback if it does succeed will be monstrous for Republicans. Like losing the 2020 election, and Congress and having all of Trump's supreme court nominees impeached(which yes you can impeach them) and having a Dem president throw on new judges and a new law passed, challenged and affirmed by the courts with 6 months.

I really doubt that would happen. The american public would need to be more out for blood before we would impeach a judge or there would have to be hard evidence of a crime committed by one of them. It would be bad for republicans, but potentially not as bad as you would think, their base is almost single issue about abortion and they can make enough sounds so people think they will do something about other things. I mean look at how many "fiscally conservative" people vote republican despite the fact they always balloon the debt and will never lessen military spending. Plus, democrats tend to like to play by the rules so while a minority would be down for trying to impeach, the majority probably wouldn't be.

that is one thing dems do that's starting to piss me off. We live in a post-rules world right now. People are openly ignoring subpoenas, and Nancy Pelosi is out there thinking she might hold them in contempt of congress. No girl, that shit is straight up illegal! You can't ignore a subpoena! Get the DC police to go arrest them and jail them until they agree to adhere to the summons.

One probable reason she is hesitant is because this will push things to the breaking point, its entirely possible that while the law is on congresses side, they don't have any method to actually enforce it. Like the Justice Department is trumps, no ifs ands or buts, so they can't be relied upon to do anything congress wants and the republicans are also trumps. I'm not sure what he could do to get them to turn on him and the supreme court is... well not trumps but certainly conservative and would probably back him. The worry is that congress will push as hard as they can and we will find out just how broken our system is if they are actually incapable of doing anything. I think that actually might be the full downfall of the US government.

Well, the Evangelicals who had record turnout for trump voted seemingly only for this issue so I guess this is show of democracy in action, as worrying as it is.

But yeah, I understand if someone really thinks the baby is alive that they'd wanna advocate for this, I just don't think they understand that they're not really gonna have their desired effect. There will always be irresponsible and promiscuous people out there and you can't legislate that away.

Also, this has a pro-corporate side to this, cause now wise women will just make sure to take a pregnancy test every 6 weeks or less to be on the safe side, so the companies that make those will see more profit.

Finally, lots of women also voted for those people in government, so it's them too trying to control other women's bodies based on their morality. It's not a sex issue, it's a forcing your values down people's throats issue. I guess this is how the conservatives felt when gay marriage was legalized or something.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here