• 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

highroller said:
Thanks to a 50 year activist campaign to put judges on the Supreme Court who would ignore established precedent.
Click to expand...
...in order fix what activist justices called a national right.
 
fmw said:
...in order fix what activist justices called a national right.
Click to expand...
A personal right, a private matter that was none of society’s business.

Built on the backs of other precedents that are now threaten by an activist conservative court
 
reflechissez said:
Show your work.
Click to expand...
Sure...


www.congress.gov

S.4132 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022

Summary of S.4132 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022
www.congress.gov

"

Introduced in Senate (05/03/2022)​


Women's Health Protection Act of 2022


This bill prohibits governmental restrictions on the provision of, and access to, abortion services.


Specifically, governments may not limit a provider's ability to


  • prescribe certain drugs,
  • offer abortion services via telemedicine, or
  • immediately provide abortion services when the provider determines a delay risks the patient's health.

Furthermore, governments may not require a provider to


  • perform unnecessary medical procedures,
  • provide medically inaccurate information,
  • comply with credentialing or other conditions that do not apply to providers whose services are medically comparable to abortions, or
  • carry out all services connected to an abortion.

In addition, governments may not (1) require patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or disclose their reasons for obtaining such services, or (2) prohibit abortion services before fetal viability or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient's life or health.


The bill also prohibits other governmental measures that are similar to the bill's specified restrictions or that otherwise single out and impede access to abortion services, unless a government demonstrates that the measure significantly advances the safety of abortion services or health of patients and cannot be achieved through less restrictive means.


The Department of Justice, individuals, or providers may bring a lawsuit to enforce this bill, and states are not immune from suits for violations.


The bill applies to restrictions imposed both prior and subsequent to the bill's enactment."


"
• Young Women's Right to Choose: California's right to privacy guarantees
that young women do not have to secure parental or judicial consent in
order to obtain an abortion. This right protects the most vulnerable young
women, avoids unnecessary delay and keeps young women safe by
avoiding back-alley abortions.

• Right to Access: The right to choose should not depend on the ability to
pay. California recognizes this important principle by requiring that all state
regulated private health plans, including Covered California plans, provide
equal access to maternity and abortion services. Further, California uses
state funds to ensure that abortion services are available to low-income
women.
 
StillServing said:
What confuses me by this aspect of the debate is that the CDC estimates (from reporting but not all states need to submit data) 92.7% of abortions occur at or less than 13 weeks gestation. Although I do not have the data, I would imagine that a super-majority of those who have an abortion after 13 weeks do so due to medical necessity which is something the most vehement pro-lifers would agree to.

What largely we are arguing is the principle that the very rare percentage of women who do have a late term abortion due to choice puts the discussion in the realm of her right to choose and the right of the baby to survive. Mississippi's law reinforces this as well is consistent with the majority of European countries. But we are the extremists?
Click to expand...
Well put.

The pro-aborts in leadership will not cop to this.
 
Plasmaball said:
www.axios.com

Lindsey Graham proposes new national abortion restrictions bill

"If we adopted my bill, we would be in the mainstream of the rest of the world," Graham said.
www.axios.com www.axios.com

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.
Click to expand...
He's trying another deflective promotion of controversy, as if it will take away from the attentions of his 'election meddling actions and attempts"
 
highroller said:
A personal right, a private matter that was none of society’s business.

Built on the backs of other precedents that are now threaten by an activist conservative court
Click to expand...
Only if you fail to accept the humanity of a fetus. We have laws against homicide for a reason. So it is society's business.
 
RealityNow said:
He's trying another deflective promotion of controversy, as if it will take away from the attentions of his 'election meddling actions and attempts"
Click to expand...
I agree. He has always been long on talk and nowhere on action. So his first action that I can remember is unconstitutional. Not good.
 
fmw said:
Only if you fail to accept the humanity of a fetus. We have laws against homicide for a reason. So it is society's business.
Click to expand...
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

————————————————-

You’re adding interpretation into the constitution that is not there. You have to be born to be subject to the law.
 
Cardinal said:
So why did the nominees say it was settled law during the hearings?
Click to expand...
Because they were lying because they didn’t want to be refused confirmation like Robert Bork was. At least he was honest. We have dishonest justices sitting in seats of power
 
trouble13 said:
I wish I could get behind supporting exceptions in those circumstances but unfortunately the femi-nazi crowd prevents me from doing it. They don't get behind the rights of boys who have been raped by women.
Click to expand...
Well, sure, you don't get what you want so other people should suffer, because that's "fair."
 
Callen said:
The GOP really shot themselves in the foot on the abortion issue. They knew that the majority of Americans support abortion within certain parameters bu they made it a culture war, wedge issue anyway. This is biting them big in many Governor races. and as a result, I think we will see some Democratic Governor pick-ups out of the midterms.
Click to expand...
I do not think they realized the majority support abortion rights....some were really convinced their way was the popular one.
 
SuperDS77 said:
Sure...


www.congress.gov

S.4132 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022

Summary of S.4132 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022
www.congress.gov

"

Introduced in Senate (05/03/2022)​


Women's Health Protection Act of 2022


This bill prohibits governmental restrictions on the provision of, and access to, abortion services.


Specifically, governments may not limit a provider's ability to


  • prescribe certain drugs,
  • offer abortion services via telemedicine, or
  • immediately provide abortion services when the provider determines a delay risks the patient's health.

Furthermore, governments may not require a provider to


  • perform unnecessary medical procedures,
  • provide medically inaccurate information,
  • comply with credentialing or other conditions that do not apply to providers whose services are medically comparable to abortions, or
  • carry out all services connected to an abortion.

In addition, governments may not (1) require patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or disclose their reasons for obtaining such services, or (2) prohibit abortion services before fetal viability or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient's life or health.


The bill also prohibits other governmental measures that are similar to the bill's specified restrictions or that otherwise single out and impede access to abortion services, unless a government demonstrates that the measure significantly advances the safety of abortion services or health of patients and cannot be achieved through less restrictive means.


The Department of Justice, individuals, or providers may bring a lawsuit to enforce this bill, and states are not immune from suits for violations.


The bill applies to restrictions imposed both prior and subsequent to the bill's enactment."


"
• Young Women's Right to Choose: California's right to privacy guarantees
that young women do not have to secure parental or judicial consent in
order to obtain an abortion. This right protects the most vulnerable young
women, avoids unnecessary delay and keeps young women safe by
avoiding back-alley abortions.

• Right to Access: The right to choose should not depend on the ability to
pay. California recognizes this important principle by requiring that all state
regulated private health plans, including Covered California plans, provide
equal access to maternity and abortion services. Further, California uses
state funds to ensure that abortion services are available to low-income
women.
Click to expand...
How does your post explain this:
SuperDS77 said:
The thing is, most on the left will not even agree to the restrictions laid out in Roe,
Click to expand...
 
highroller said:
Which means they WILL blow up the filibuster to get this done. Write it down.

Republicans are too dangerous to ever have power again.
Click to expand...
Everything they hypocritically bitch about the dems doing or even thinking of doing they have either already done or are going to do. They are a disgraceful joke, and at this point, beyond a doubt criminal. Law and order!
 
j brown's body said:
You have to admit, when the leader of a political party is actively undermining the electoral process and the party itself allows it to go on, even aids and abets it, its got a serious problem.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. I have seen Secretary Clinton do so since 2016.
 
Cardinal said:
So why did the nominees say it was settled law during the hearings?
Click to expand...
Actually, what most of them said was that it was precedent which should be considered. But none of them said that precedent could not be overturned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom