Should all states allow their voters to decide on abortion?

[independentusa]

The GOP in Kansas had not choice but to allow a vote on abortion as their state constitution made abortion the law of the land. We know in many of the GO controlled states including mine that gerrymandering makes it almost impossible for those who wish to have a Roe like law passed impossible in those states and yet, we do not know how a majority of voters feel about this issue. Also, many GOP voters would/could not vote for a Dem even though they agree with keeping abortion legal if not in all situations, in some. A majority of voters in every poll shows us that is true and the total bans are especially dislike as we now see by the vote in very Red Kansas. So why not put it to a vote in every state including those who presently allow abortions? It would make a national abortion ban or legalization unnecessary as the people in each state would have spoken..

 

[Risky Thicket]

Good question.

It's my opinion that many, if not most, red state politicians would much prefer that citizens not have the ability to exercise a direct vote on most issues. It is too democratic and such power in the hands of the people would be a nightmare for the powers that be.

Should citizens in each state decide their state abortion law? Yes. Will that come to pass? No, it will not.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The GOP in Kansas had not choice but to allow a vote on abortion as their state constitution made abortion the law of the land. We know in many of the GO controlled states including mine that gerrymandering makes it almost impossible for those who wish to have a Roe like law passed impossible in those states and yet, we do not know how a majority of voters feel about this issue. Also, many GOP voters would/could not vote for a Dem even though they agree with keeping abortion legal if not in all situations, in some. A majority of voters in every poll shows us that is true and the total bans are especially dislike as we now see by the vote in very Red Kansas. So why not put it to a vote in every state including those who presently allow abortions? It would make a national abortion ban or legalization unnecessary as the people in each state would have spoken..

I strongly believe that the issue of a woman’s right to choose is much too important to leave to the political whims of individual states, and should be codified into law, or better yet, a Constitutional amendment, in order to prevent against an activist SCOTUS.

Having said that, the least every state can do is allow a referendum vote to determine the true will of their citizens.

 

[Callen]

If it is to be left to the States it absolutely should be a referendum not the wishes of old men.

 

[Port & Starboard]

The GOP in Kansas had not choice but to allow a vote on abortion as their state constitution made abortion the law of the land. We know in many of the GO controlled states including mine that gerrymandering makes it almost impossible for those who wish to have a Roe like law passed impossible in those states and yet, we do not know how a majority of voters feel about this issue. Also, many GOP voters would/could not vote for a Dem even though they agree with keeping abortion legal if not in all situations, in some. A majority of voters in every poll shows us that is true and the total bans are especially dislike as we now see by the vote in very Red Kansas. So why not put it to a vote in every state including those who presently allow abortions? It would make a national abortion ban or legalization unnecessary as the people in each state would have spoken..

Stop the BS with the gerrymandering............................. But hell yes on abortion being by the popular vote.

A few elected state legislature representatives are not the way to go on the issue........ever!

This should be a popular vote state by state and let the American voters decide in unison within their states.

To be honest...... I would rather congress and a convention of states to make it a amendment.

 

[Mycroft]

Should all states allow their voters to decide on abortion?​

Sure...if they want to, but they don't have to. The state legislatures and governors can make that decision, too.

 

[HIP56948]

I'm aboard.

 

[Lursa]

Good question.

It's my opinion that many, if not most, red state politicians would much prefer that citizens not have the ability to exercise a direct vote on most issues. It is too democratic and such power in the hands of the people would be a nightmare for the powers that be.

Should citizens in each state decide their state abortion law? Yes. Will that come to pass? No, it will not.

LOL Esp. after the KS vote.

In all national polls I'm aware of (not including religiously-based ones) the majority supported elective abortion. There were different breakdowns on some details, but it was clear the majority supported elective abortion (meaning not due to mother/fetal health, rape, incest, etc.)

 

[AGENT J]

Should all states allow their voters to decide on abortion?​

no, in theory, a right to choose and treat women as lessers should not be left up to the masses

BUT it is better than some people in a room treating women as lessers

regardless though in the end IMO this will all make womans rights stronger and one again america will match the majority of first-world countries with a government based on rights and freedoms and have prochoice laws

 

[bongsaway]

Should all states allow their voters to decide on abortion?​

Sure...if they want to, but they don't have to. The state legislatures and governors can make that decision, too.

Ok, but why shouldn't the people of the state make that decision instead of the politicians? I'll tell ya' why, because too many red states don't want to know what their base wants on this particular issue. Can you imagine the supreme court kills roe and each state keeps it alive because the majority of people had already told the supreme court, do not overturn RvW.

 

[Mycroft]

Ok, but why shouldn't the people of the state make that decision instead of the politicians? I'll tell ya' why, because too many red states don't want to know what their base wants on this particular issue. Can you imagine the supreme court kills roe and each state keeps it alive because the majority of people had already told the supreme court, do not overturn RvW.

First of all, it doesn't matter what "people" tell the Supremes. Supreme Court rulings are not dependent upon public opinion.

Now, I didn't say that people in any state shouldn't make their decision. People can...and should...tell their representatives about their opinions. But it still doesn't matter if the people vote on the issue or if they tell their representatives how to vote on the issue. It gets done at the state level either way.

 

[Felis Leo]

The GOP in Kansas had not choice but to allow a vote on abortion as their state constitution made abortion the law of the land. We know in many of the GO controlled states including mine that gerrymandering makes it almost impossible for those who wish to have a Roe like law passed impossible in those states and yet, we do not know how a majority of voters feel about this issue. Also, many GOP voters would/could not vote for a Dem even though they agree with keeping abortion legal if not in all situations, in some. A majority of voters in every poll shows us that is true and the total bans are especially dislike as we now see by the vote in very Red Kansas. So why not put it to a vote in every state including those who presently allow abortions? It would make a national abortion ban or legalization unnecessary as the people in each state would have spoken..

Absolutely.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[bongsaway]

First of all, it doesn't matter what "people" tell the Supremes. Supreme Court rulings are not dependent upon public opinion.

Now, I didn't say that people in any state shouldn't make their decision. People can...and should...tell their representatives about their opinions. But it still doesn't matter if the people vote on the issue or if they tell their representatives how to vote on the issue. It gets done at the state level either way.

If it didn't matter the issue would not have been on the ballot last night in kansas. Tell their representatives? Who do you think is trying to ban abortion everywhere, the people or the politicians?

 

[Mycroft]

If it didn't matter the issue would not have been on the ballot last night in kansas.

Jesus...what part of "it doesn't matter what "people" tell the Supremes" do you not understand. I didn't say that the issue doesn't matter to citizens of a state.

Tell their representatives? Who do you think is trying to ban abortion everywhere, the people or the politicians?

Yes. Tell their representatives. And if their representatives don't do what the people want, then the people can send their representatives packing and vote in new ones.

That's what "representative government" is all about, you know.

 

[bongsaway]

Jesus...what part of "it doesn't matter what "people" tell the Supremes" do you not understand. I didn't say that the issue doesn't matter to citizens of a state.


Yes. Tell their representatives. And if their representatives don't do what the people want, then the people can send their representatives packing and vote in new ones.

That's what "representative government" is all about, you know.

So after sandy hook when over ninety percent of americans wanted something/anything done with gun control our representatives said what in response? Better yet, what did they do when over ninety percent of americans wanted something done? Correct, not a damn thing. Why should we the people have to boot them when they know our wishes yet refuse to listen to us? I do not call that representing the public.

 

[Mycroft]

So after sandy hook when over ninety percent of americans wanted something/anything done with gun control our representatives said what in response? Better yet, what did they do when over ninety percent of americans wanted something done? Correct, not a damn thing. Why should we the people have to boot them when they know our wishes yet refuse to listen to us? I do not call that representing the public.

???

Sandy Hook? Gun Control?

Dude...did you just see a squirrel?

You are dismissed.

 

[Ginger Ale]

It's sickening it even has to be. It's a human right to make these choices, and that's why Roe stood for so long. Everyone, right or left had the common sense to know this.

This was a political favor played by the Supreme Court, which in itself should make you sick. They handed it to states to give them rights to "play like their own country."

In Kansas where it was on the voting block, they had the largest turnout of women ever. They had more registrations to vote from women ever. Of course they would, what woman wants their rights taken? There answer was none.

If Republicans want their own country, they should have the balls to go through the proper channels. It's not going to work otherwise. You can't have rights in one state, and not in another. Gays in one state, none in another, women's advanced reproductive rights in one, and women being treated to sub par care like it's the 1800's in another. It just won't work.

I'm sick of Republicans trying to take the "united" out of our country and replace it with "holy" as well. Just stop already, nobody wants this shit.

Besides my rant, I think we really need to do something to fix our Supreme Court, because it's not so Supreme anymore. They can't seem to rise above their parties politics. It's unsettling and it's not what the court was intended to do.

 

[gbg3]

I like the idea but I'm not sure how the question would best be posed. It's almost as if a multiple choice question would be needed - and I've never seen a vote like that. For example: no abortion, abortion until 6 weeks, until 10 weeks, until 15 weeks.........until birth.
So, I like the idea but I don't have a solution as to how to go about it, without the legislature first "choosing" the option offered - which sort of defeats the purpose of the voters tailoring the law to meet the majority views of the state.

 

[Ginger Ale]

I like the idea but I'm not sure how the question would best be posed. It's almost as if a multiple choice question would be needed - and I've never seen a vote like that. For example: no abortion, abortion until 6 weeks, until 10 weeks, until 15 weeks.........until birth.
So, I like the idea but I don't have a solution as to how to go about it, without the legislature first "choosing" the option offered - which sort of defeats the purpose of the voters tailoring the law to meet the majority views of the state.

Yeah, it would be odd wouldn't it. Can a women have some rights? A little more? Maybe, not so much? What does everyone think a woman deserves? Can she suffer through a miscarriage? Is the pain that bad without intervention? What about handling the rapists child? Should we trust her to still like it after all that mental ****ery? I mean, that's how it sounds to most women.

It's almost as strange as the states government deciding we need next to nothing, over night, like criminals snatching half the states freedom.

It's been quite the ride.

 

[gbg3]

Yeah, it would be odd wouldn't it. Can a women have some rights? A little more? Maybe, not so much? What does everyone think a woman deserves? Can she suffer through a miscarriage? Is the pain that bad without intervention? What about handling the rapists child? Should we trust her to still like it after all that mental ****ery? I mean, that's how it sounds to most women.

It's almost as strange as the states government deciding we need next to nothing, over night, like criminals snatching half the states freedom.

It's been quite the ride.

Is it your opinion that there should be no restrictions on abortion at all, all the way until birth?
If that is your opinion, do you think the majority of Americans share that view?

 

[Lursa]

Is it your opinion that there should be no restrictions on abortion at all, all the way until birth?
If that is your opinion, do you think the majority of Americans share that view?

What restrictions do you think there should be and why? Please include your characterization/status of the unborn in your explanation.

 

[gbg3]

What restrictions do you think there should be and why? Please include your characterization/status of the unborn in your explanation.

Well, I'll give you a short answer. I'm pro-choice - up to about the 10 week point. But, for example, if I were forced to decide between that point being 6 weeks or 15 weeks, I'd go with 6 weeks.
I have no interest in discussing part 2 of your question or important exclusions - as I think my short answer is sufficient in expressing my personal opinion.
What's your view on the topic?

 

[Lursa]

Well, I'll give you a short answer. I'm pro-choice - up to about the 10 week point. But, for example, if I were forced to decide between that point being 6 weeks or 15 weeks, I'd go with 6 weeks.
I have no interest in discussing part 2 of your question or important exclusions - as I think my short answer is sufficient in expressing my personal opinion.

Thanks for that very honest admission. You cannot justify your position. You dont have the facts to make an informed decision and so, IMO, just fall back on indoctrinated dogma.

LMAO, your personal opinion has been obvious all along...but not any rational reasoning for it. Pretty sure you dont have that figured out.

What's your view on the topic?

No further restrictions on abortion are needed, I happily accept the current partial-birth abortion ban.

Aside from that, no additional restrictions, since no elective abortions of healthy viable fetuses happen...even in the several states where it's legal...I see no reason for useless, feel-good legislation. If you disagree, please provide the data to show I'm wrong.

 

[independentusa]

Is it your opinion that there should be no restrictions on abortion at all, all the way until birth?
If that is your opinion, do you think the majority of Americans share that view?

You have to remember, though few do, that Roe allowed abortions up to the viability of the fetus. Many in the pro-birth people make it sound like Roe gave the right up to the birth.

 

[btthegreat]

yes! Some issues are ideally suited for referendum/initiative, and some issues are terribly ill suited for referendum/initiative. Social/ cultural issues are usually the best because they do not involve a lot of mathematics, intricate economic concepts, legal jargon, and don't involve multiple areas of the existing legal code. They will morally complex, but they are not legally complicated to understand. That makes it hard for special interests to muddy the waters with false claims in advertising etc.

Abortion, like capital punishment, legalizing pot, physician assisted suicide, term limits, or allowing casino gambling are a 'gut' issues. You go with how you feel about it, and political ad campaigns designed to deceive you, tend not to be as effective.