Categories
Moves against abortion could help the Dems in the midterms – politicalbetting.com
Moves against abortion could help the Dems in the midterms – politicalbetting.com
By far the biggest political development in the United States in the last few days has been the leak of an opinion by one of the justices of the Supreme Court which looks as though US abortion lights laid down more than half a century ago in the case of Roe v Wade could be limited.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Agree. This could be a driver of turnout.
It always has been of course. But it may drive it in the opposite direction to usual.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15p_DZ1ltk9XStlEQHy-V3SaLCOWU_6j17jZ8sMvgRl4/edit#gid=590771643
Yes a drugs company that damages foetuses should be held to account too. There is no reason why they shouldn't be - drug companies that harm flora or fauna can be held to account so why not foetuses?
Intellectually if you accept the foetus is a child, then abortion should be banned. If you don't, then it shouldn't be. I don't, that is intellectually consistent. Saying a "compromise" of 22 weeks "except for circumstances" where its suddenly allowed again is far more intellectually murky to me. If its a child there which is alive, why do the circumstances matter?
What we have now is trying to please people by reaching a muddy compromise that most people are happy-ish with, so long as you don't think too deeply about it, not being intellectually consistent.
For whatever reason - media, campaign finance, incompetence, voter suppression, etc - the Republicans simply seem to be better at electoral politics.
There are six months to election day. Leaking the draft judgment helps to normalize it and reduce its impact by the time we get to polling day, particularly if it's revised modestly.
I wouldn't change my assessment of the relative likelihood of Republican gains as a result of this.
Realistically the latter are the only ones which would see serious abortion restrictions even if Roe v Wade was overturned
The legal and philosophical position is that an unborn child is a life in being, which has rights, even if not the full rights of an adult. In the same way, a living child does not possess full adult rights.
https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1522130462239563776?s=20&t=dPqpaEYAmSwleWYkldWSNQ
Just because something is the law, does not make it reasonable. We are all perfectly entitled, morally and intellectually, to reach opinions contrary to the law or else there would never be any changes to the law.
Congratulations to your daughter.
There's also a risk that the Dems obsess about this to the exclusion of other issues, but those for whom it's a big motivator are probably going to vote Dem (or GOP, on the other side of the argument) anyway.
They are truly shameless.
BoE failing in their most basic duty.
They show live an armed coup attempt and then the next week (and every week after) they have on their Sunday shows politicians who encouraged the coup and don't even challenge them about it. The American media is dedicated to "the horse race" presentation of politics and simply cannot bring themselves to say one side is anti-democracy. So when the GOP do aomething outrageously terrible it is framed as "Problem for Democrats" rather than "GOP eat live beating heart on TV"
There is a stunning level of (brace yourself) Normalcy Bias going on. "The coup failed, thus there can never be a coup" seems to be the thinking.
Women who lose children before birth grieve for them. They view them as lives in being.
Neither viewpoint is irrational.
The biology of this is complicated, and the legal definitions are often shaky at best from a scientific point of view.
Anyway, if you want to make your life more complicated I'd recommend reading this.
No woman is going to lightheartedly ask for an abortion 40 weeks into a pregnancy without very good reason anyway, so I think its an utterly silly and moot point to debate which is rather disrespectful to women to suggest that they might just abort because they're having a bad day or otherwise rather than taking it seriously.
tlg86 - my view is fairly simple: it is the woman's body, that should be respected, it should be her choice.
Compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term that she doesn't want to carry is absolutely abhorrent and wrong. Respect women, let them decide, that is my view.
If Trump is POTUS in 2025 he will be there for rest of his life.
It is a clear and present danger but you get no sense that anyone seems that bothered other than NY Times leader writers.
Fortunately we mortgage-paid oldies all vote Tory so no harm done.
Ten years ago, their candidates could lose important Senate races by talking about "legitimate rape" etc. I don't think that would happen now.
Mississippi could execute women who seek abortions, and Alabama could reintroduce anti-miscegenation laws, and the Republicans would still win Statewide.
(Edit: seems appropriate that my 1776th post is on US politics!)
The American electorate seems remarkably relaxed about Trump's assault on democracy in the country so I am not sure a change in abortion laws is going to disturb it that much.
The stagflation from hell.
10% inflation in Q4
Zero economic growth in 2023 (or possible recession).
Yes, I do regard democracy in the US as fragile and weak.
If the Tories do not do extremely badly there is a greater chance of the car crash known as Boris Johnson continue his disastrous premiership through to the GE which will lead to Labour being in power for a generation.
Just as you did in 2020, when you were wrong.
And the Trump haters' hyperbole has done nothing to convince me.
The unborn child has no rights because all women are sensible and even if, 1 minute before birth, they did elect for an abortion “they must have had good reasons” so it’s ok.
One of the legitimate roles of the state is to protect those who cannot speak for themselves. This is a good example of that.
Maybe Johnson really will make a dash for it this year before the storm really hits.
However the attempted coup wasn't just that and its concerning that the violent thugs are paid attention to but the far more concerning thugs in suits are not.
A substantial proportion of GOP people in power thought it acceptable to throw out the election results and to overturn them. In the past few years, even more people have been put into positions of power in states with that attitude.
The US Constitution is not a democratic one, it put power in the hands of the politicians rather than the voters. Democracy has evolved but the GOP are turning their backs on it.
The biggest danger is that a key state votes one way, but that legislators (or others) refuse to sign off on the vote and override it with their partisan preferences. If that happens, democracy dies in America.
I differ from BR in no finding it not acceptable, for example, to abort (as in, kill) a healthy 37 week foetus. That is an independent human entirely viable outside of the womb. I'd be fine with offering pre-term c-section or induction with no obligations on the mother after delivery at that point (that's easy to say at 37 weeks of course, at e.g. 30 weeks and certainly at 25 weeks, the question of whether c-section or induction is actively killing the foetus and/or increasing risks of life-long problems for the foetus is less clear-cut). Somewhere between 12 and 37 weeks, there's a blurry, poorly defined line. I tend to see the 20 current week limit as not a bad place for the line, but that's partly due to the fact that it's there already. I'd probably be just as happy with an 18 or 22 week limit.
(As an aside, we ended up having ultrasounds, after bleeding, for our two children at around 6-7 weeks, just after the heartbeat can be detected. But you can see the pulsing of life on the ultrasound, very clearly, though nothing else. No way I could have personally countenanced abortion for either of them after seeing that. But that doesn't change my general view, I'm against the US laws on no abortion after heartbeat).
*We also have two children and another due in the next 3-4 weeks. We are very lucky, overall.
But it is isn't at the moment. One of the two major parties of state, GOP, does not believe in democratic elections and their result. Vast numbers of them believe that the last election was fraudulent, despite there being zero evidence, and they are prepared to put a candidate back in the WH who has no interest in democratic norms or fair and free elections. It's not just a few cranks on the fringes - it is the vast majority and very heart of modern GOP.
Look at how the party is treating Chenney, because she had did not agree that the election result should be overturned because one man doesn't like losing.
It’s a very unusual set of circumstances, last seen in the 1970s. It will eventually sort itself out (assuming we don’t get WWIII), so from the government’s point of view the time for an election is going to be 2024, when we should see falling oil prices.
I just don't see it. A close election (hanging chad anyone?) maybe decided in this way. But Trump came nowhere near 'winning' in 2020.
This is a f8cking nightmare for the tories. Total and complete nightmare.
If at 21 weeks a woman wants an abortion, and is denied it because the foetus is "viable", then she should be entitled to have a delivery of that foetus that can be born as a child and so she is no longer carrying it.
However 21 week foetuses may be theoretically viable, but in reality it could be a very different matter. So would you be comfortable having delivery instead of abortion offered to the woman?
At the moment it seems to be price rises due to a war they think will be over soon.
Then back to normality.
A foetus does not.
In recent Ohio primary the voters had a full slate of republicans of all shades to vote for ina free and fair election, including a well-fundedrepublican never-trumper.
The Trump backed candidates won in every case. Republican primary voter numbers were double those of the Democrat primary.
IF anybody has 'destroyed' the Republican party, its their own voters.
Let us not be distracted by slight differences in opinion over the UK law when we are faced with the possible mass criminalisation of all abortion in the US.
At the moment we have inflation caused by an external commodity price shock and anemic growth driven by supply chain collapses (not due to Brexit - I was talking g today to someone who found it was easier to get plastic bottles for their Iowa plant from NZ than from the US… and even then he is ordering 15m ahead vs 3 months)
It only becomes stagflation if we internalise it through wage increases that are not matched by productivity
I’d just left the polling station after casting my vote - for the Labour bloke. I know him vaguely, local worthy, seen him in the pubs for years - and I had some big headphones on (classic 90s d’n’b, since you ask) so I didn’t say anything just smiled and nodded. Wish I’d said something encouraging to her now. Never mind.
Stagflation is something different to this.
They think it will hit 10%.
Therefore, a rise of .25% is blatantly inadequate.
So. They are wilfully not doing their only job.
Of course, they might not need to - Trump might well win fairly. I'm not sure whether that is more or less scary than him 'winning' by his henchmen fixing the results in key states.
Stagflation is more than just inflation. Its also marked by high unemployment as seen in the seventies to early eighties.
When we have full employment and companies seeking to hire we may have inflation, but the word for that is simply inflation not stagflation.
The collaboration they secretly undertook to achieve a nefarious aim. If only there was a word for that.
They forecast that it will go up sharply, but then come back down sharply, so therefore will be back within target within their forecast period.
That is their job. They're not supposed to overreact to every movement.
At 20 weeks (which is about the edge of viability) there is a high right of mental and physical disabilities, but this very rapidly declines week on week. A woman insisting of delivery at that point is harming the child severely. However there is a point (as @Selebian noted) when early delivery dies become a reasonable option - I don’t know exactly when that is.
But the idea of balancing the rights of a mother and a child by asking her - for example - to support the child for an additional 8 weeks, say, doesn’t seem unreasonable. (This is for cases were there is not a risk of undue mental or physical harm to the woman where the calculus may be different)
He could have said so much and no more. After point X you are on your own selling gilts on the open markets. He didn't,
Despite his bleating, he is partly the author of his own downfall.