Democrats move toward greater abortion acceptance

[lpetrich]

I recently thought of "abortion acceptance" as a name for the pro-choice - pro-life spectrum. Over the last year, Democrats have been moving toward greater abortion acceptance.

The Root: 'Hyde's Days Are Numbered:' Reps. Ayanna Pressley, Barbara Lee, and AOC Vow to Repeal Law That Restricts Abortions for Low-Income Women | Representative Ayanna Pressley
noting
Reps. Ayanna Pressley, Barbara Lee, AOC Speak Out Against Hyde Amendment
- also
Reps. Ayanna Pressley, Barbara Lee and AOC Speak Out Against the Hyde Amendment - YouTube

That repeal was introduced a year ago:

H.R.1692 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH Woman) Act of 2019 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress - Barbara Lee (D-CA-13), cosponsors: 181, original: 92

S.758 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH Woman) Act of 2019 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress - Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), cosponsors: 24, original: 10

The Hyde Amendment forbids Federal funds from financing abortions. It has been the Missouri Compromise of the abortion culture war of the last 40 - 45 years.

 

[Trausti]

“Infanticide” works, too.

 

[lpetrich]

Advancing a year from the introduction of this bill, we find Marie Newman successfully primarying Dan Lipinski, one of the last antiabortion Democrats in Congress. She is likely to win in the main election.

Democratic candidates are getting more progressive on abortion, and it could help them win.

A recent New York Times survey of the Democratic field—taken before Michael Bloomberg and Deval Patrick entered the race—showed little variation in the presidential candidates’ support for abortion rights. Every candidate wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal Medicaid dollars from covering abortion care. They all said they’d use Roe v. Wade as a litmus test when selecting Supreme Court justices. Only Joe Sestak and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard were willing to outright state that they support restrictions on third-trimester abortions. (Sen. Amy Klobuchar, though, has previously called third-trimester restrictions “very important.”)

A big contrast from earlier years, when candidates would often endorse the Hyde Amendament, and when they would propose that abortion be "safe, legal, and rare."

... Not only are Democrats becoming more motivated on the issue, the American electorate at large is reporting greater support for abortion rights than it has in decades. Nearly every poll on abortion this year has found support for Roe v. Wade and legal abortion “in all or most cases” at record or near-record highs. An ABC News/Washington Post poll recorded 60 percent of respondents favoring “all or most cases” legal abortion, the highest proportion since 1995, and 5 points higher than the 32-poll average over the period. The poll also reported that support for making abortion illegal “in all or most cases” has dropped nearly 10 percentage points, from 45 percent to 36 percent, since 2010. Reuters reports that Democrats “are the most passionate about the issue” of abortion, in that they’re far more united than Republicans: A Reuters/Ipsos poll from May found that 81 percent of Democrats favor totally or mostly legal abortion, while just 55 percent of Republicans favor totally or mostly illegal abortion.

Part of the shift is demographics, but that does not explain why rejection of abortion tends to be weaker than acceptance of abortion.

Trump has already put two anti-abortion justices on the Supreme Court, and they’ll rule on their first major abortion case in March. Republicans enjoy a structural advantage provided by the Electoral College, the makeup of the courts, and the gerrymandering that’s allowed states like Ohio to enact abortion laws far more restrictive than the electorate favors. All of this makes it fair to wonder what difference it’ll make if abortion rights do galvanize Democratic voters next November—will they be able to make any real progress? But the steady leftward movement of Democratic voters and leaders on abortion, alongside record-high support for legal abortion among the entire American public, hints at the possibility of a more lasting change in the consciousness of the American voter.

Given their new Supreme Court appointments and their control over statehouses and governorships, Republicans have finally taken the extremist abortion rhetoric they’ve been hawking for decades to its logical conclusion. In doing so, they’ve given voters the opportunity to imagine two Americas: one governed by the abortion bans of the far right, the other by the protections of Roe v. Wade. The polls are clear on which set of policies they prefer. Voters might even be motivated enough to do something to save the abortion rights they’ve increasingly come to support: Translate those preferences into votes.

If the Democrats win big this year, they will have to stop apologizing to the Republicans and not be afraid to displease them if that is what it will take.

 

[lpetrich]

Democrat pro-lifers becoming extinct with latest loss

An Illinois political race clearly demonstrates that there is no room in the Democratic Party for pro-life advocates.

For the last 15 years, pro-life Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) has served as a United States representative for the 3rd Congressional District in Illinois, but he was ousted in the primary this week by extremely liberal pro-abortion candidate, Marie Newman.

Complete with complaining about all the funding that MN got.

“Dan Lipinski faced funding from NARAL [Pro-choice America], Planned Parenthood Action, Emily's List – a real and powerful and well-funded cohort of abortion supporters,” Hamrick explained. “They do not want to see pro-life Democrats – especially at the national level.

Farewell to the Pro-Life Democrats

... Based on ratings from anti-abortion groups, Lipinski was the last remaining stalwart pro-lifer among Democratic politicians in Congress.

It is a symbolic end to an era that really ended a long time ago, a time when Democratic politicians could vote against taxpayer-funded abortion and in favor of abortion restrictions without being ousted from their seats, and when the party’s leadership acknowledged and welcomed pro-life voters whose views on other issues aligned them with the party.

With Lipinski’s loss, there is no longer even the slightest bit of room for Democrats to give themselves cover on this issue, and they appear not to mind. ...

In effect, the Democrats won't even have some token opponents of abortion. Then complaining that "The Democratic Party is, at the national level, filled with politicians who support abortion on demand, at any stage of pregnancy, for any reason, funded by the U.S. taxpayer." Then claiming that many Americans favor restrictions on late abortion.

 

[ZiprHead]

“Infanticide” works, too.

Strange. I've never heard of the murder of an infant being called an abortion. Do you have an example?

 

[Elixir]

“Infanticide” works, too.

Strange. I've never heard of the murder of an infant being called an abortion. Do you have an example?

Well... there's what happened to Jason in this thread...

 

[Half-Life]

Abortion is murder. Period. Calling it "abortion acceptance" is just a way to make it sound more PC. Maybe we should rename a serial killer's murders to "murder acceptance" or "extremely late term abortion."

Would that make it any less than murder?

 

[ZiprHead]

Abortion is murder. Period. Calling it "abortion acceptance" is just a way to make it sound more PC. Maybe we should rename a serial killer's murders to "murder acceptance" or "extremely late term abortion."

Would that make it any less than murder?

Murder is a legal term. It means illegal homicide. Since abortion is legal it cannot be murder.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Abortion is murder. Period. Calling it "abortion acceptance" is just a way to make it sound more PC. Maybe we should rename a serial killer's murders to "murder acceptance" or "extremely late term abortion."

Would that make it any less than murder?

Negative Kimosabe! It's about body sovereignty. If you need my kidney to survive, you aren't entitled to it unless I agree. Secondly, we shouldn't require a woman to keep another person alive against her will unless she agrees.

 

[Elixir]

Would that make it any less than murder?

The fact that it doesn't involve killing an autonomous living organism.
Even a conservotard should be able to grok that.

 

[Half-Life]

Abortion is murder. Period. Calling it "abortion acceptance" is just a way to make it sound more PC. Maybe we should rename a serial killer's murders to "murder acceptance" or "extremely late term abortion."

Would that make it any less than murder?

Negative Kimosabe! It's about body sovereignty. If you need my kidney to survive, you aren't entitled to it unless I agree. Secondly, we shouldn't require a woman to keep another person alive against her will unless she agrees.

Huh? Anytime people have sex they are acknowledging the possibility of a pregnancy. Your statement makes no sense.

 

[Half-Life]

Abortion is murder. Period. Calling it "abortion acceptance" is just a way to make it sound more PC. Maybe we should rename a serial killer's murders to "murder acceptance" or "extremely late term abortion."

Would that make it any less than murder?

Murder is a legal term. It means illegal homicide. Since abortion is legal it cannot be murder.

Ah, but it is murder. Try kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach and see if the courts don't charge you for murder.

We can also see that when women are pregnant they say, "I'm pregnant with my baby!" They don't say, "I'm pregnant with a hunk of cells that means nothing right now"

 

[Harry Bosch]

Abortion is murder. Period. Calling it "abortion acceptance" is just a way to make it sound more PC. Maybe we should rename a serial killer's murders to "murder acceptance" or "extremely late term abortion."

Would that make it any less than murder?

Negative Kimosabe! It's about body sovereignty. If you need my kidney to survive, you aren't entitled to it unless I agree. Secondly, we shouldn't require a woman to keep another person alive against her will unless she agrees.

Huh? Anytime people have sex they are acknowledging the possibility of a pregnancy. Your statement makes no sense.

You don't understand body sovereignty? Do you think that you should be forced to donate a kidney against your will? Simple question.

Secondly, where in the law does it state that sex "acknowledges the possibility of pregnancy"? Have you ever heard of the pill?

 

[Half-Life]

Huh? Anytime people have sex they are acknowledging the possibility of a pregnancy. Your statement makes no sense.

You don't understand body sovereignty? Do you think that you should be forced to donate a kidney against your will? Simple question.

Secondly, where in the law does it state that sex "acknowledges the possibility of pregnancy"? Have you ever heard of the pill?

Nothing is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. There is always a chance.

Imagine you get into a car accident and tell your insurance company, "I didn't plan on getting into an accident today. I didn't acknowledge the possibility." Will the insurance company let you off the hook? Of course not. They will tell you, "Anytime you get behind the wheel, you are acknowledging an accident is possible. The only way to prevent an accident is to not drive."

 

[Patooka]

I wonder what pro-lifers think about fertility clinics. Are they murder factories as well?

 

[Trausti]

Huh? Anytime people have sex they are acknowledging the possibility of a pregnancy. Your statement makes no sense.

You don't understand body sovereignty? Do you think that you should be forced to donate a kidney against your will? Simple question.

Secondly, where in the law does it state that sex "acknowledges the possibility of pregnancy"? Have you ever heard of the pill?

You can rationalize anything. But the act itself is the ending of a human life. Child sacrifice was practiced in Carthage and Sparta. All rationalized. It's rather macabre that Democrats have moved from abortion: safe, legal, and rare to abortion: whoot! I got rid of that parasite so I can party! Celebrate!

 

[J842P]

Huh? Anytime people have sex they are acknowledging the possibility of a pregnancy. Your statement makes no sense.

You don't understand body sovereignty? Do you think that you should be forced to donate a kidney against your will? Simple question.

Secondly, where in the law does it state that sex "acknowledges the possibility of pregnancy"? Have you ever heard of the pill?

You can rationalize anything. But the act itself is the ending of a human life. Child sacrifice was practiced in Carthage and Sparta. All rationalized. It's rather macabre that Democrats have moved from abortion: safe, legal, and rare to abortion: whoot! I got rid of that parasite so I can party! Celebrate!

Yes, it is quite stupid. Most real people aren't like that. Hell, almost half of women are pro-life never-mind being like the extremists on the pro-choice side.

 

[Bomb#20]

Abortion is murder. Period. Calling it "abortion acceptance" is just a way to make it sound more PC. Maybe we should rename a serial killer's murders to "murder acceptance" or "extremely late term abortion."

Would that make it any less than murder?

Negative Kimosabe! It's about body sovereignty. If you need my kidney to survive, you aren't entitled to it unless I agree. Secondly, we shouldn't require a woman to keep another person alive against her will unless she agrees.

Huh? Anytime people have sex they are acknowledging the possibility of a pregnancy. Your statement makes no sense.

Huh? I acknowledge the possibility that you might need my kidney to survive. Do you think that means you're entitled to it if I don't agree? Your argument makes no sense.

Murder is a legal term. It means illegal homicide. Since abortion is legal it cannot be murder.

Ah, but it is murder. Try kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach and see if the courts don't charge you for murder.

I don't know what state you live in, but in my state, yes, that's murder, because the legislature explicitly defined "murder" to mean "deliberate unlawful killing of a person or fetus." That vote of some legislators didn't magically make a fetus a person. Your argument makes no sense.

We can also see that when women are pregnant they say, "I'm pregnant with my baby!" They don't say, "I'm pregnant with a hunk of cells that means nothing right now"

So you can tell what a thing is by checking what women call it? When Alice calls her fetus "my baby" it's a person and when Betty calls her fetus "a hunk of cells" it's not a person? Your argument makes no sense.

Secondly, where in the law does it state that sex "acknowledges the possibility of pregnancy"? Have you ever heard of the pill?

Nothing is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. There is always a chance.

Imagine you get into a car accident and tell your insurance company, "I didn't plan on getting into an accident today. I didn't acknowledge the possibility." Will the insurance company let you off the hook? Of course not. They will tell you, "Anytime you get behind the wheel, you are acknowledging an accident is possible. The only way to prevent an accident is to not drive."

Huh? They will not tell you, "Anytime you get behind the wheel, you are acknowledging an accident is possible. The only way to prevent an accident is to not drive." They will tell you, "Here's the settlement for your accident." They will let you off the hook. They're an insurance company. Their entire reason for existence is to let you off the hook. If they weren't going to let you off the hook then you'd have been an idiot to have been paying them premiums in return for letting you off the hook. Your argument makes no sense.

 

[Bomb#20]

Huh? Anytime people have sex they are acknowledging the possibility of a pregnancy. Your statement makes no sense.

You don't understand body sovereignty? Do you think that you should be forced to donate a kidney against your will? Simple question.

Secondly, where in the law does it state that sex "acknowledges the possibility of pregnancy"? Have you ever heard of the pill?

You can rationalize anything. But the act itself is the ending of a human life.

So is abstinence. Every pre-menopausal nun ends a human life once a month. (Well, nearly every.)

So is ejaculation. Every man who masturbates, or has gay sex, or abstains to the point of wet dreams, or has sex with a woman who ovulates fewer than a hundred million ova, is ending a hundred million human lives. And sing...

Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate​

Child sacrifice was practiced in Carthage and Sparta. All rationalized.

And Christians roasted cats alive for entertainment in the Middle Ages, all rationalized, so now it should be illegal for us to spay cats.

It's rather macabre that Democrats have moved from abortion: safe, legal, and rare to abortion: whoot! I got rid of that parasite so I can party! Celebrate!

Pregnancy should be safe, legal and rare. Half the problems of the human race, from global warming to disease outbreaks getting covered up by communists, are traceable to people breeding like rabbits. And yet Republicans and Democrats alike party and celebrate when babies are born. A plague on both your houses.

Oops. Sorry. Too soon?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Abortion is murder. Period. Calling it "abortion acceptance" is just a way to make it sound more PC. Maybe we should rename a serial killer's murders to "murder acceptance" or "extremely late term abortion."

Would that make it any less than murder?

Except the vast majority of supposedly "pro-life" people do not actually take this position.

They scream that abortion is murder--but then tolerate it in case of rape or incest. Sorry, neither rape nor incest carries the death penalty and you certainly shouldn't have a greater harm to a bystander than to the perpetrator.

It's all about making non-reproductive sex dangerous, it's not about the fetus.