America doesn't want a return to the back alleys. Neither does it support abortion anytime for just about any reason.
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/opinion/to-win-again-democrats-must-stop-being-the-abortion-party.html?_r=0
I think the article misunderstands why Trump won and Clinton lost.
SCOTUS on that issue. Especially, in states like PA.
(no message)
If people believe humans are entitled to human rights at conception who are you to castigate them? Can you prove they are wrong? Can you prove the people who think people should not have human rights until they are five years old are correct?
Where do you stand on the continuum? After birth abortion I suspect?
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html
(no message)
Don't misunderstand me, I think Gorsuch is a great pick and the best Trump could have put forth. He should receive bipartisan support. But to tar him with your "he is pro abortion" meme evidences your blind bias and total misunderstanding of his judicial philosophy.
Gorsuch: I accept Roe v. Wade as ‘the law of the land’
I accept he will not try to legislate from the bench, as you liberals want your left wing judges to do.
And of course Trump couldn't ask him to do it before nominating him.
On the other hand, Trump's promise to appoint conservative, anti abortion justices was very effective in getting him elected.
I like him. But he is the most liberal Republican on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. And I reiterate, Trump is not pro-life regardless of his campaign rhetoric.
Justices also some times tend to suprise. He could well be in the Anthony Kennedy mode as opposed to Scalia.
I also firmly agree that the Orangetan is not personally pro life.
However, he did a great job in the General in picking off conservative voters by repeatedly promising to appoint anti abortion, conservative judges.
The pro-choice people are just as intransigent on this as the pro-life people.
Compromise on this - "safe, legal and rare" - is essentially impossible.
(no message)
(no message)
The D's also will never be the the anti abortion party. I get that.
However, the strident embrace of abortion on demand at anytime as a woman's absolute right hurts the party. Some recognition of, look there is another side to this that isn't just anti women would prolly help them.
of one when it became an amendment. I agree with 94 -
The search for an answer as to why Trumpism caught fire and downed HRC will be what many will right about but it simply was, HRC's use of Deplorables as a label against Trump supporters - not going after the vote in States considered D enclaves - the use of misinformation of HRC and her issue with gov't v private email server (a total non-issue) Comey twice indicating there might be criminal activity with her email and just an enormous campaign of inventing HRC as a "liar", and "incapable".
"Where, in the performance of its judicial duties, the Court decides a case in such a way as to resolve the sort of intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe and those rare, comparable cases, its decision has a dimension that the resolution of the normal case does not carry. It is the dimension present whenever the Court's interpretation of the Constitution calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution."
The Court failed in Casey to will the Nation "to end their national division." There was no consensus in 1973, in 1992, and and there is none in 2017. It is still an issue, Jimbo.
and the anti abortion playing a significant role in Trump being elected.
(no message)
I don't disagree there are zealots like you out there fomenting anti-abortion mobs, even today.
The R's have worked tirelessly for eons to get anti-abortion legislation through State houses and Federal houses People Like the moron Pence, Kasich and on and on and it has never been the big issue people vote on other than people like Neddie. I assume you as well.
However, none of this was the reason why HRC lost the election. Attacks on Women's issues were not the reason HRC lost and the D's don't need to become the anti-abortion party because some NYTimes op-ed piece writer found a few stats that showed more Catholics didn't vote for HRC therefore it must be the abortion issue. That's just a fact looking for a conclusion. Did Women's issues play a role in Clinton's demise - only for men and their Taliban women. The attack on planned parenthood didn't result in Catholics changing their minds (of course some maybe).
(no message)
It's not a grey issue. There isn't this uniquely middle area on privacy and women's rights. It is or it isn't - you are either for the rights of all citizens to be the same or you're not -
Get gov't and you out of my (wife's -girlfriend's) vagina and our privacy. Stick your nose in your own business and get off my lawn.
ordinary circumstances, i.e. Mothers life.
I bet if you polled it that's where the majority would be.
(no message)
If I could save some of the later term children from infanticide I would do it.
To anti-abortionists its all about "No abortion"
But yes, there are places we should be able to talk about on this issue.
In the roll backs of Roe v Wade it has been to make abortion illegal and we've seen this in States where R's are in control (especially these last 8 years) where law has been enacted to stop, manipulate and drive abortion providers and doctors from those States. On a federal level there have been no fewer than many dozens of attempts. All in using laws to stop providers, hospitals and doctors from providing services and coverage.
We've seen the attacks from the Hill just on Birth-control - personal attacks against women who use BC calling them Whores and Sluts and so on - By Republicans - Trump himself called for severe penalties for a women who has an abortion. So a middle ground? I don't see it. You do, but I don't. Can there be an agreement as to when an abortion can't happen (per time)? - But that is the only discussion - otherwise really, there is no middle ground.
I'm am one who is not in favor of abortion as a method of birth-control but I will never step in a woman's way to stop her from making her choice for her.
view is going to prevail. So the middle ground is the timing issue. There some accommodation may be possible.
The polling consensus seems to be allowance in the early stage and a ban for the later stages. I'm not saying that is morally correct but few compromises are.
past election built on the magnification of falsehoods and Catholics were voting not on HRC's Roe v Wade thoughts but on her being mischaracterized as evil where anti-abortion legislation sentiment was being used in part but not as the fulcrum.
I do believe Catholic bishops use their pulpit on governance policies by framing issues they don't like (or want to influence) as a religious ideology - therefore keeping their status and economic status intact.
The D's aren't the abortion party. But they are the party who believes in less governance by religion or religious dogma.