So, the abortion issue is now back in the limelight...

[89Hen]

I'm guessing 95% of men who are involved in dog fighting think it's fine too.

[JoltinJoe]

Five years after having an abortion, over 95 percent of the women in a landmark UC San Francisco study said it was the right decision for them.

The findings, published Sunday, Jan. 12, 2020, in Social Science & Medicine, come as many states are requiring waiting periods and counseling for women seeking abortions, based on the assumption that they may regret having them.

But the researchers at UCSF’s Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) found no evidence that women began to regret their decisions as years passed. On the contrary, the women reported that both their positive and negative feelings about the abortion diminished over time. At five years, the overwhelming majority (84 percent) had either positive feelings, or none at all.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/41642 ... sion-study

Here's the study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub

A UC-San Fran study has a LOT of credibility on an issue like this.

[89Hen]

Trump first POTUS to attend March for Life. Good for him, shame on Bush. I wouldn't expect Obama to have done it.

[SunCoastBlueHen]

Yes, Trump is very good at pandering to those who will help him get re-elected.

[GannonFan]

Yes, Trump is very good at pandering to those who will help him get re-elected.

Uh, isn't that what politicians do? Since like, forever??

[SunCoastBlueHen]

Yes, Trump is very good at pandering to those who will help him get re-elected.

Uh, isn't that what politicians do? Since like, forever??

Yes. Making it hardly noteworthy.

[GannonFan]

Uh, isn't that what politicians do? Since like, forever??

Yes. Making it hardly noteworthy.

I don't know, it is noteworthy that he's there - first President to address it ever is a big deal. They've been marching for decades now and this is the first time a President is there. When Trump is no longer in office and a President attends the women's march I'm sure that will get press too.

[SunCoastBlueHen]

Yes. Making it hardly noteworthy.

I don't know, it is noteworthy that he's there - first President to address it ever is a big deal. They've been marching for decades now and this is the first time a President is there. When Trump is no longer in office and a President attends the women's march I'm sure that will get press too.

I suppose you're right. Maybe I just can't stand politicians. 89 is smart and I'm sure he knows that Trump is there much more to collect votes than he is there for some deep rooted pro-life feelings.

There are quite a few one issue voters out there, afterall.

[89Hen]

I don't know, it is noteworthy that he's there - first President to address it ever is a big deal. They've been marching for decades now and this is the first time a President is there. When Trump is no longer in office and a President attends the women's march I'm sure that will get press too.

I suppose you're right. Maybe I just can't stand politicians. 89 is smart and I'm sure he knows that Trump is there much more to collect votes than he is there for some deep rooted pro-life feelings.

There are quite a few one issue voters out there, afterall.

Correct, but as Ganny pointed out, this thing has been been going on since 1974 and no other R POTUS has done it. I'm sure because they didn't want to upset the other half of folks who are pro-abortion.

[SunCoastBlueHen]

I suppose you're right. Maybe I just can't stand politicians. 89 is smart and I'm sure he knows that Trump is there much more to collect votes than he is there for some deep rooted pro-life feelings.

There are quite a few one issue voters out there, afterall.

Correct, but as Ganny pointed out, this thing has been been going on since 1974 and no other R POTUS has done it. I'm sure because they didn't want to upset the other half of folks who are pro-abortion.

Well, politics have changed quite a bit since the last time we had a republican President. Everything is polarized and catering to some middle ground doesn't really get you very far. Trump isn't dumb and he knows that if he keeps the pro-life and gun people happy (and if the economy stays strong), he'll waltz into a second term.

BTW, an entirely different discussion, but pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion.

[89Hen]

BTW, an entirely different discussion, but pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion.

Sure it does.

[SunCoastBlueHen]

BTW, an entirely different discussion, but pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion.

Sure it does.

Well, this one has been beaten over the head enough on this board. I respectfully disagree.

[UNI88]

BTW, an entirely different discussion, but pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion.

Sure it does just like pro-life equals pro-women's slavery.

You might have a point.

[89Hen]

Sure it does just like pro-life equals pro-women's slavery.

You might have a point.

Nice try Adam.

[UNI88]

You might have a point.

Nice try Adam.

You have a wonderful ability to only see things from your perspective.

[89Hen]

Nice try Adam.

You have a wonderful ability to only see things from your perspective.

Not true at all. However, I do believe strongly in my perspective on many issues and this happens to be in probably the top three for me. Somebody who is not convinced of their own beliefs is not worth the discussion unless they're in it looking for answers.

[kalm]

You have a wonderful ability to only see things from your perspective.

Not true at all. However, I do believe strongly in my perspective on many issues and this happens to be in probably the top three for me. Somebody who is not convinced of their own beliefs is not worth the discussion unless they're in it looking for answers.

The ones who think they have the answers are the least worthy of listening to.

[89Hen]

Not true at all. However, I do believe strongly in my perspective on many issues and this happens to be in probably the top three for me. Somebody who is not convinced of their own beliefs is not worth the discussion unless they're in it looking for answers.

The ones who think they have the answers are the least worthy of listening to.

Wait, what?

[Pwns]

SCOTUS refuses to issue emergency judgement on Texas 6-week abortion ban.

[Winterborn]

SCOTUS refuses to issue emergency judgement on Texas 6-week abortion ban.

The Texas bill has some interesting portions drafted into it. Almost like somebody was paying attention to what California did with Prop 65 here recently.

[Ibanez]

SCOTUS refuses to issue emergency judgement on Texas 6-week abortion ban.

The Texas bill has some interesting portions drafted into it. Almost like somebody was paying attention to what California did with Prop 65 here recently.

Are you referring to the portion where it allows citizens to bring suit against anyone suspected of getting an abortion? The legislators have deputized and given monetary incentive to the population to enforce the law and in turn distancing themselves from an enforcement responsibility. What sort of toothless garbage is that? That's some Big Government nonsense there.

Not to mention, they want to regulate what you can do to your body and then these same people get all bitchy and violent about vaccines. The hypocrisy is astounding.

And before I get labeled as something - i'm pro-life and that includes anti-death penalty

[kalm]

The Texas bill has some interesting portions drafted into it. Almost like somebody was paying attention to what California did with Prop 65 here recently.

Are you referring to the portion where it allows citizens to bring suit against anyone suspected of getting an abortion? The legislators have deputized and given monetary incentive to the population to enforce the law and in turn distancing themselves from an enforcement responsibility. What sort of toothless garbage is that? That's some Big Government nonsense there.

Not to mention, they want to regulate what you can do to your body and then these same people get all bitchy and violent about vaccines. The hypocrisy is astounding.

And before I get labeled as something - i'm pro-life and that includes anti-death penalty

This bill just solidifies the conk base. The movers and shakers can always secretly fly their daughters and mistresses somewhere else to take care of their mistakes.

Like Cleets once said…if men could get pregnant abortion clinics would be like Starbucks.

[Ibanez]

Are you referring to the portion where it allows citizens to bring suit against anyone suspected of getting an abortion? The legislators have deputized and given monetary incentive to the population to enforce the law and in turn distancing themselves from an enforcement responsibility. What sort of toothless garbage is that? That's some Big Government nonsense there.

Not to mention, they want to regulate what you can do to your body and then these same people get all bitchy and violent about vaccines. The hypocrisy is astounding.

And before I get labeled as something - i'm pro-life and that includes anti-death penalty

This bill just solidifies the conk base. The movers and shakers can always secretly fly their daughters and mistresses somewhere else to take care of their mistakes.

Like Cleets once said…if men could get pregnant abortion clinics would be like Starbucks.

Texas Republicans are perfectly ok with a random person bring a lawsuit against a woman because she did something legal to her body (Roe v. Wade is still on the books). AND if there's a conviction, that random person gets $10,000. What a farce and dangerous precedent. Democrats somewhere now have legal precedent to enact something equally stupid.


Preservation of life is one thing....but how about working to teach accountability and responsibility so that women don't have to get abolitions (unless it's medically necessary to save a life). To paraphrase President Matt Santos

Abortion is a tragedy... it should be legal, it should be safe; it should be a lot rarer than it is now.

[Winterborn]

The Texas bill has some interesting portions drafted into it. Almost like somebody was paying attention to what California did with Prop 65 here recently.

Are you referring to the portion where it allows citizens to bring suit against anyone suspected of getting an abortion? The legislators have deputized and given monetary incentive to the population to enforce the law and in turn distancing themselves from an enforcement responsibility. What sort of toothless garbage is that? That's some Big Government nonsense there.

Not to mention, they want to regulate what you can do to your body and then these same people get all bitchy and violent about vaccines. The hypocrisy is astounding.

And before I get labeled as something - i'm pro-life and that includes anti-death penalty

Yes I am. California farmed out the enforcement of Prop 65 to individuals and legal firms by saying there is a fine for non-compliance but we do not have the time or manpower to go after companies that break it so they just take a hefty cut of the fine and the rest goes to the person/firm that reported the non-compliance.

Ingenious little scheme if I do say so myself.


As for the rest of the bill, my guess it was crafted so that it will go directly to the Supreme Court and my suspicions are that is why the Supreme Court did not issue an injunction. They are interested in taking up the case once more.

I do not fully agree with your second paragraph because it depends on when you consider a person alive. Technically they are saying that since both voices cannot be heard, neither gets power over the other.

As for how they are going about it, I do not know enough about Texas law (really anything) to say one way or another. I do not like that they farmed it out, but then again I didn't like when California farmed out their Prop 65 stupidity either. My opinion is that it sets a dangerous precedent of absolving governments from enforcing their own rules.

[Winterborn]

Texas Republicans are perfectly ok with a random person bring a lawsuit against a woman because she did something legal to her body (Roe v. Wade is still on the books). AND if there's a conviction, that random person gets $10,000. What a farce and dangerous precedent. Democrats somewhere now have legal precedent to enact something equally stupid.


Preservation of life is one thing....but how about working to teach accountability and responsibility so that women don't have to get abolitions (unless it's medically necessary to save a life). To paraphrase President Matt Santos

Abortion is a tragedy... it should be legal, it should be safe; it should be a lot rarer than it is now.

They already did. See my post above.