• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lindsey Graham to propose new national abortion restrictions bill

First off Lyndsey is a Republican but he isn't a conservative. Secondly it's not the whole Republican party supporting a national law

That being said you do have a point that those who do support a federal ban who argued it should be left to the states to decide are being hypocrites.
What is a "conservative" these days? Not the same thing as when I was growing up, certainly. Most of the people who calls themselves "conservative" on this site are currently populist nationalists.
 
It is up to States to decide on abortion, not the federal government. Lindsey is wrong on this and it will never pass.
 
Are Democrats not pulling the same bullshit by trying to use congress to pass a bill to protect abortions?

Cry me of river with all your fake moral preening and stark hypocrisy.


Democrats were not saying Roe should be overturned and the decision of abortion should be left to the states. So not the same.



"... I have been consistent. I think states should decide the issue of marriage and states should decide the issue of abortion." - Lindsey Graham, CNN, August 7th

 
And when a woman is brutally raped, then what?
Republicans have used the "Oh well" response.
Exceptions can be made, and should be.
You're bringing up something that accounts for less than 1% of all abortions, though.
 
Lindsey Graham again with something that neither side wants to hear.

Any Republican with two braincells to rub together, wants to wait and see what happens in the States. There will be a price, but the deep-red states can bear a few percent. The national Republican party absolutely cannot take that risk.
Doesn’t matter. They have their activists on the court. The Republican Party will just tell them how to rule
 
First off Lyndsey is a Republican but he isn't a conservative.

He's not a moderate either. He's a "loose cannon" who hopes that one day his crazy voting record might give him McCain "maverick" status.

Note that I give McCain enormous respect. He had negative coat-tails from Bush, he was trying to win a third term for the same party, and he fought fair when he could have attacked Obama as inexperienced and out of touch. In some ways he deserved to win, but when he lost he accepted it like a gentleman.

McCain went against his party when it really mattered. This piece of shit Graham does it to attract attention. He's like an older and weirder-looking version of Kysten Sinema.

Secondly it's not the whole Republican party supporting a national law

That being said you do have a point that those who do support a federal ban who argued it should be left to the states to decide are being hypocrites.

Wouldn't it be nice if liberalism in State law flowed upwards, so the Federal government would not ban under-16 voting if any state made it law, and the Federal government would not ban abortion after 20 weeks if any state government didn't. And the Feds would not try to regulate illegal drugs that were legal in even one state. Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have overlapping jurisdictions ... imagine if there was some app on your phone which told you the ONE jurisdiction you were subject to, and the ONE exact law you were living under at one time?

But no. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Tyranny, your face is a tome.
 
I've been saying this for a long time, and I lean pro-life. But I also understand the point of view of the women out there so I stand with them. Why can't the US have something like a standard national law allowing abortion up to 20 weeks?

Congress would rather use it as a political hammer than actually make a law.

If you look at the national interactive abortion laws map you will see that they could go with a convention of states. They are 6 states short of the 38 needed to pass a amendment. I say that they use a few EU countries as a model and come up with a standard national abortion policy.


We would also need a good national campaign to pressure each "ban state" into letting the voters within their state to decide
Killing that baby at 20 weeks is OK? But 21 is Not?
 
So much for the folks who deny that the gop wants to ban abortion nationwide.

At this stage it's just Lindsey Graham leaking something from his office.

At best, it's a roll-call of Anti-Abortionist states. But remember Republicans are defending more states this year, than Democrats are. Missouri, Wisconsin, North Carolina. ****ing Florida even. None of those Republicans want to be forced to vote for or against.
 
No spine Lindsey huh? Poll numbers not to his liking?
 

And like clockwork the right pushes for a federal restriction ban on abortions.

All you guys who said state rights...oh well..try not to lie for 30 years and maybe people would believe you.
It's targetting late term abortions which are pretty much always due to health concerns of the mother. They'll lie and sell it as prevention to infanticide which they always do. After what we've seen since the Roe overturn ruling, on one hand I can't believe they are doubling down on it, on the other hand, this is the GOP and doubling down is all they have in their playbook.

 
Women. Rise up.

I wrote a long post to that effect, but then my right hand bumped the CTRL while ... oh never mind.

I'm a male adult, and not ashamed of it. I never got to choose my gender or my age. But I can barely begin to imagine the horror of having an unwanted child growing inside me.

There is something spiritual implicit in the "rape or incest" exception. Perhaps the male's "spirit" combines with the female's? Yes, it's crazy shit, the vastness of "spirit" being encapsulated in one set of genes ... but those who believe their own spirit is immortal do tend to believe crazy shit.

It is amazing, and not a bit daunting, what women are born to face. Being fertile! It's fundamentally different from being a fertilizer. And then considering what nature will put them through, during pregnancy and afterwards.

How could any man with a wife, or daughters, or even close female friends, put women through ordeals to get an abortion? Where's the consideration, where's the respect? How can they vote for anything but the most liberal of abortion laws?

Abortion is an absolutely fundamental human right. But only women can exercise it. Deal with it, guys!
 
Abortion is not a right and even if it were, rights are not absolute.
Remember that the next time you Righties go on and on about your gun rights.
The abortion laws apply equally to both men and women.
Ideally yes, but we know the makeup of legislatures that are so eager to ban abortions, don't we?
No law is forcing women to get pregnant.
THAT is such a monumental stupid comment I am loathe to respond to it. But will anyway: incest? rape? AND what - the man has NO part in getting her pregnant? She just got pregnant by osmosis?
THAT is the kind of statement we normal humans keep hearing from misogynists. It is rather vile.
 
Are Democrats not pulling the same bullshit by trying to use congress to pass a bill to protect abortions?

Cry me of river with all your fake moral preening and stark hypocrisy.

But most democrats never claimed it's a state issue as most anti abortion Republicans did.
 

And like clockwork the right pushes for a federal restriction ban on abortions.

All you guys who said state rights...oh well..try not to lie for 30 years and maybe people would believe you.
Give the talibornagains an inch, and they want to take a mile.

They have no idea how much this will hurt their party.
 
Remember that the next time you Righties go on and on about your gun rights.
That's an interesting discussion for another thread. Most people would agree with you that the 2nd A is not without restrictions despite the language they used when they wrote that right.
Ideally yes, but we know the makeup of legislatures that are so eager to ban abortions, don't we?

THAT is such a monumental stupid comment I am loathe to respond to it. But will anyway: incest? rape? AND what - the man has NO part in getting her pregnant? She just got pregnant by osmosis?
THAT is the kind of statement we normal humans keep hearing from misogynists. It is rather vile.

It's funny that you find the position loathsome. When I bring up the notion of men being given the ability to terminate their fatherhood, the response I get from prochoice progressives are similarly vile.

It's not misogynistic to treat women the same as men are treated.
 
That's an interesting discussion for another thread. Most people would agree with you that the 2nd A is not without restrictions despite the language they used when they wrote that right.


It's funny that you find the position loathsome. When I bring up the notion of men being given the ability to terminate their fatherhood, the response I get from prochoice progressives are similarly vile.

It's not misogynistic to treat women the same as men are treated.
Show your work.
 
Back
Top Bottom