Trump: States rights, except Arizona!

Jarod said:
But not a dead fetus that can be delivered.
Click to expand...

You're lying, and we all know it - especially you. The prohibition against D&C is for LIVING babies.

This is just you Stalinists melting down because Trump took away the club you wanted to beat him with.
 
Jarod said:
Then why wont Arizona fix it?

It could happen in two hours if the legislature wanted to do it. Instead, the Republicans refuse so far.
Click to expand...

Legislatures are never fast at doing things. They work by compromise and committee. The Arizona legislature likely will fix this issue, and most likely will put in place a 15 week abortion allowance with some restrictions on that. The Left (you) won't agree because they want an unlimited abortion on demand bill instead, that virtually nobody else will agree to.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Wrong. Read the fucking law and the decision by the court. If the mother is faced with serious harm from continuing the pregnancy, she can have an abortion in Arizona. In any case, there are states within a few hours drive in virtually every direction that allow abortions in any case. I don't see where you can claim that's some sort of serious inconvenience to anyone when you likely would have to drive an hour or more within the state to find an abortion clinic if it were widely legal.
Click to expand...

You are not responding directly to what Jarod said. In 1864, there was no way to know when the fetus was dead, so they did not see a point to including anything about what to do if the fetus is dead. The only thing that matters is if there is an "extreme danger" to the woman. "Extreme danger" is defined by case law to be a greater than 20% chance of death.

So if there is a 100% chance the fetus is dead, and a 15% chance that the woman will die immediately, then abortion is illegal.

Of course you can always drive to California, and get an abortion. So if a woman is hemorrhage blood, with a 15% chance of dying, she can simply get into her car and drive a few hours, and...
 
Trump does not use protection and has had sex with many women whether he was married or not. I would think he had to add abortion costs to his monthly expenses.
 
Walt said:
You are not responding directly to what Jarod said. In 1864, there was no way to know when the fetus was dead, so they did not see a point to including anything about what to do if the fetus is dead. The only thing that matters is if there is an "extreme danger" to the woman. "Extreme danger" is defined by case law to be a greater than 20% chance of death.

So if there is a 100% chance the fetus is dead, and a 15% chance that the woman will die immediately, then abortion is illegal.

Of course you can always drive to California, and get an abortion. So if a woman is hemorrhage blood, with a 15% chance of dying, she can simply get into her car and drive a few hours, and...
Click to expand...

The court interpreted the law which had an exception for what amounted to health of the mother. So, that case is covered.

As for your second case, if she lives in say, Ajo, Hayden, or maybe Alpine, or the like, she's going to have to do that anyway. Most of Arizona, in terms of land area, is very rural and hours from any sort of larger town or city. Towns like the three I listed (of many, many similar ones) are lucky if there's a local doctor and clinic for people to go to for the most basic of healthcare.
 
Walt said:
You are not responding directly to what Jarod said. In 1864, there was no way to know when the fetus was dead, so they did not see a point to including anything about what to do if the fetus is dead. The only thing that matters is if there is an "extreme danger" to the woman. "Extreme danger" is defined by case law to be a greater than 20% chance of death.

So if there is a 100% chance the fetus is dead, and a 15% chance that the woman will die immediately, then abortion is illegal.

Of course you can always drive to California, and get an abortion. So if a woman is hemorrhage blood, with a 15% chance of dying, she can simply get into her car and drive a few hours, and...
Click to expand...

Apropos to what you just said:

 
ZenMode said:
I think you can believe that states should be allowed to set their own policy on abortion AND have an opinion on what is/isn't a reasonable policy.

Now, excuse me while I go take a shower after defending Trump.
Click to expand...

Here's the $64 question; up to what point? If state law is sacrosanct and immune from federal law, then why not bring back Jim Crow Laws? Ban women from voting? Don't scoff, because 40 years ago no one would believe this nonsense would come to pass.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Apropos to what you just said:

Click to expand...

When Republicans started calling the ACA "Obamacare", Obama embraced that. He was proud that it improved things, and was willing to take credit.

It is becoming a campaign line among Democrats that "trump did that[overturned Roe v. Wade]". For some reason he is running from responsibility.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Here's the $64 question; up to what point? If state law is sacrosanct and immune from federal law, then why not bring back Jim Crow Laws? Ban women from voting? Don't scoff, because 40 years ago no one would believe this nonsense would come to pass.
Click to expand...

As it relates to Jim Crow and women voting, I think discrimination of that type is clearly unconstitutional. Both parties agree on that.

On the question of abortion..... If a state every truly pushed the limits allowing convenience abortion, I think there would have to be a SCOTUS ruling, again, on when life begins, though I think viability is the already existing line for convenience abortions and no states have pushed that envelope.
 
zymurgy said:
they will. but you shit stains are trying to convince the citizens of a state that they need federal protection
Click to expand...

Why haven't they fixed it? The Republicans tabled a motion to fix it, wouldn't even allow debate.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Legislatures are never fast at doing things. They work by compromise and committee. The Arizona legislature likely will fix this issue, and most likely will put in place a 15 week abortion allowance with some restrictions on that. The Left (you) won't agree because they want an unlimited abortion on demand bill instead, that virtually nobody else will agree to.
Click to expand...

It should be a no brainer, but the Republicans cant disappoint their radical base so I wonder if that will happen or not.
 
Nordberg said:
Trump does not use protection and has had sex with many women whether he was married or not. I would think he had to add abortion costs to his monthly expenses.
Click to expand...

In his contract with women trump has paid for sex (let that sink in for a moment), trump demands that they either get an abortion, or pay him money.

trump is the first president ever to contractually require abortions.
 
Jarod said:
It should be a no brainer, but the Republicans cant disappoint their radical base so I wonder if that will happen or not.
Click to expand...

It'll likely happen. The big hold up is that there are radical Leftists among the Democrat side of the Legislature and some total abortion ban members among Republicans that are screwing everything up. Both want the impossible at the two extremes and are holding their side hostage by refusing to vote for a compromise. The result is deadlock rather than movement.

The Republicans don't have a big enough advantage in votes to overcome it--that is, they can't ignore their extremists because they need the votes, and the Democrats won't help because they're afraid of the radicals in their base kicking them to the curb for compromising.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It'll likely happen. The big hold up is that there are radical Leftists among the Democrat side of the Legislature and some total abortion ban members among Republicans that are screwing everything up. Both want the impossible at the two extremes and are holding their side hostage by refusing to vote for a compromise. The result is deadlock rather than movement.

The Republicans don't have a big enough advantage in votes to overcome it--that is, they can't ignore their extremists because they need the votes, and the Democrats won't help because they're afraid of the radicals in their base kicking them to the curb for compromising.
Click to expand...

What Dem radicals? Biden and the Dens are governing as previous governments did. They are not changing anything. Trump wants to do exactly that including a dictatorship. The Reds are fighting among themselves in the house and it has never been like that before. They made the old Do Nothing Congress look like it was accomplished. They made the Speaker a temp job. You cannot compare this house to any Dem house.. Why are you not telling the truth?
 
Nordberg said:
What Dem radicals? Biden and the Dens are governing as previous governments did. They are not changing anything. Trump wants to do exactly that including a dictatorship. The Reds are fighting among themselves in the house and it has never been like that before. They made the old Do Nothing Congress look like it was accomplished. They made the Speaker a temp job. You cannot compare this house to any Dem house.. Why are you not telling the truth?
Click to expand...

No, they're not. Biden on student loan forgiveness is openly defying the Supreme Court, even daring them to do something about it. Biden has completely ignored immigration law and opened our borders. That's an observable fact, regardless of what he and his administration say. The FBI is being used to both intimidate and cower people for their postings online on social media now. He tried to institute what amounted to a censorship 'czar' and create a department of 'disinformation' for purposes of squashing free speech. He's adamantinely against right-to-work and for forced union membership.
Early on he tried to institute mask and vaccine mandates with draconian consequences for those that refused. Then there's the whole push towards 'green' that he's making. He's allowed regulations on the basis of nothing to essentially outlaw whole industries, like coal, or regulate out of existence ICE vehicles. He's also using government both with things like loan forgiveness, and massive subsidies (handouts) to attempt to buy votes. This, punish those that resist, award those that keep him in power.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
He's adamantly against right-to-work and for forced union membership.
Click to expand...

Every civilized human being worthy of sharing the planet's oxygen supply is adamantly against right-to-work laws.
Except for a number billionaire oligarchs, only catamite-like scabs favor right-to-work laws.

As for the tenth amendment and states' rights,
states that want radically different things DON'T BELONG IN THE SAME REPUBLIC!!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top