Lindsey Graham to propose new national abortion restrictions bill

[j brown's body]

But it is not a compromise. It still allows states to have more restrictive laws. This bill just adds restrictions to other states.

He may hope no one thinks much past the initial commnet. Certainly the bill is not going anywhere.

 

[basionok]

Can Lindsey Graham become pregnant and have abortion?​

 

[fmw]

The fetus IS INSIDE ANOTHER PERSON.

Correct

The business and decisions reside with the owner of the uterus that the fetus is in.

The fetus has a right to life just like that of the mother.

Or do you oppose a woman’s bodily autonomy?

I do if it means engaging in homicide.

 

[Deuce]

And this is why we are so divided as a country today. Throughout this discussion I have sought to discuss the issues and comparative logic based upon information that I have cited in numerous occasions.

Your answer is to make an ad hominem attack of all Republicans. It is this approach that truly is the danger to our democracy—where one side simply invalidates, not the ideas of the other side—but that the other side should even exist.

We can't come together and have reasonable discussions with a party that to this day will not publicly acknowledge that Trump lost the 2020 election. They have openly rejected democracy and the rule of law. I'm not going to pretend there's a reasonable discussion to have with them.

Yes, I absolutely reject the idea that an insurrectionist organization should be treated as just a difference of opinions.

 

[fmw]

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.

Thanks but that doesn't explain those that will be born. The founders hadn't imagined that there would be a dispute. They were wrong. Thanks but I have read the constitution many times.

 

[fmw]

So why did the nominees say it was settled law during the hearings?

Because it was. Things changed.

 

[Cardinal]

Because it was.

Clearly not. So why did he say it?

Things changed.

 

[fmw]

We can't come together and have reasonable discussions with a party that to this day will not publicly acknowledge that Trump lost the 2020 election. They have openly rejected democracy and the rule of law. I'm not going to pretend there's a reasonable discussion to have with them.

Yes, I absolutely reject the idea that an insurrectionist organization should be treated as just a difference of opinions.

I think the political divide is a good thing as well. It reduces the federal government's ease in passing laws. Passing laws should always be difficult and should never be partisan. The ideal is a deeper divide and congressional grid lock.

 

[fmw]

Clearly not. So why did he say it?

Why do you say that? It had been the law for half a century. It was pretty settled. Being settled doesn't mean it is settled forever. Laws change all the time.

 

[Cardinal]

Why do you say that? It had been the law for half a century. It was pretty settled. Being settled doesn't mean it is settled forever.

No one said it was, so why did he say it?

Since we know laws and precedent change, what message was he trying to communicate by calling it settled precedent?

Laws change all the time.

 

[Deuce]

I think the political divide is a good thing as well. It reduces the federal government's ease in passing laws. Passing laws should always be difficult and should never be partisan. The ideal is a deeper divide and congressional grid lock.

That's dumb.

 

[jakiejakester]

No law is forcing women to get pregnant. If they do not like the abortion laws, don't have sex for recreational purposes.

How embarrassing for you to post such a misogynistic and hate-filled post. This is a perfect example of angry white men who are unable to face reality. How about government issued chastity belts? It's the same lunacy as what you wrote. How embarrassing that you would write such crap.

 

[JasperL]

the idea is to get national coverage for a more 'moderate' pro life bill, that recognises exceptions to sell voters that the GOP is not so radicalized as these state GOP laws in the deep red south are suggesting that are getting horrible press. Try to repaint the GOP position are more of a partial ban compromise there is no intention that this bill even makes it through either body.

The relevant fact is this is a radical anti-abortion bill. It would leave in place any state law that is more restrictive, so those state laws with near outright bans starting at conception will be undisturbed. However his bill will effectively overturn every state law that is less restrictive.

Seen correctly, this bill will cement the idea that the GOP is as radicalized as feared. There is no compromise in this bill. It does absolutely NOTHING to increase the choices available to women in any state, and can only reduce those choices in states with laws that would, for example, allow for abortions in cases where pregnancy threatens the life and/or health of the woman. Graham's bill says, "No, you cannot consider the health of the woman!! If she's not likely to die, but might be likely to suffer irreparable harm, she must carry the pregnancy to term!" Etc..

 

[Lursa]

So when I looked down on my daughters who were born at 25 weeks—one weighing 1lb 11oz and the other other at 1lb13oz—am I to assume that they were not human?

What a dumb statement. I did mention that all unborn (inside women) have human DNA. That makes them Homo sapiens, does it not?

I wrote that elsewhere.

I assume (my apologies for being presumptuous in doing so) that your answer will be something regarding the fact that they were no longer in my wife’s body. If that is your answer, then isn’t that simply a bit of denial of life? If you don’t see it is no longer a problem it certainly alleviates any of the complexity of the issue that abortion really represents. But it’s really like putting your head under the covers so you don’t see what scares you in the night.

See above

So basically you snipped much of my post and yours is entirely non-responsive.

OK, most pro-life oriented arguments end up that way when they run out of answers. I realize most of it ends up in a (factual, legal, practical) place that most pro-life supporters choose not to address.

 

[jakiejakester]

Exceptions can be made, and should be.
You're bringing up something that accounts for less than 1% of all abortions, though.

Versus Republicans ALWAYS claiming that Dems are for abortion on demand even up the actual birth, aka late term abortions? Late term abortions happen even less than the exception you're citing and are literally only performed to protect the life of the mother or if the fetus isn't viable yet the GOP constantly talk about it as if it happens all the time...

If you or anyone else is against abortion don't have one but it's incredible that you would try to tell a pregnant woman what she can or cannot do with her life and her body.

 

[CaughtInThe]

WOW

total beatdown of Lindsey Graham and Republicans/maga...

 

[CaughtInThe]

"PELOSI on abortion: Some republicans think life begins at the candlelight dinner."

 

[Lycanthrope]

Grahams an idiot. Anybody that supports a federal law of any kind for abortion is an idiot.
Memo to congress, please keep the feds out of state issues.
SCOTUS correctly decided they have no business in the abortion issue. Let the states debate it, and decide what’s for them.

Hypothetical - Congress somehow passes a law banning abortion. Would Trump's SCOTUS uphold it or overturn it after they struck down Roe?

 

[Lursa]

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.

How so? Homicide laws protect a person's right to life. The unborn have no such right. (Unless you can quote law where they do? And btw, fetal homicide laws protect the woman/state's interests, not the unborn's. They address the loss/damages of the woman or her family. In all cases every one of those laws explicitly states it doesnt include abortion...so that should prove there's no fetal right to life.)

And there are no negative effects of abortion on society...unless you can list some?

(I dont think anyone denies the unborn have human DNA...but biology is objective and doesnt recognize rights for any species. Rights are a man-made concept.)

 

[Lursa]

Yes, I do. I have seen Secretary Clinton do so since 2016.

What party is she leading? What political office does she hold?

 

[Lursa]

But it is not a compromise. It still allows states to have more restrictive laws. This bill just adds restrictions to other states.

How much proof do you need that many people arent all that bright? See: The Donald as president. See: still believing The Donald won a 2nd term. See: believing every word out of his mouth.

 

[Lursa]

The fetus has a right to life just like that of the mother.

Where did you find that confirmed? Source?

 

[fmw]

Where did you find that confirmed? Source?

Common sense.

 

[fmw]

The unborn have no such right.

It is not a matter of law. It is a matter of common sense. I do not share your opinion.

 

[fmw]

That's dumb.

You haven't thought it through. You can't see past where government is now to where it could be.