US Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade

What was the final number in 2016? 100,000 votes swung the swing states. Food for thought.The #2xIMPOTUS, your Orange Messiah, was probably one of the worst POTUS's in history. There were worse, but he's down there. Might still go to prison for his antics, one can only hope.

And you know the majority of Americans vote Democratic in the POTUS elections? And that number is growing, despite blatant disenfranchisement attempts by the GOP?

But please, this is the Roe v. Wade thread: not the POTUS election recap from 6 years ago.

Can you try and get back to reality and relate to us how Republicans are providing health care? Let me dumb this down for you - when have they ever been passed legislation to provide healthcare. Any form. They objected to Medicare in the '60s.

You know it's GOP states that refused to expand the Medicaid eligibility as part of the ppACA. How is that providing health care?

So, you withdraw the lie about Republicans providing health care?

What do you make of calls from the more religious elements of the Republican party who are calling for bans on IUDs and other contraceptives? I've seen one calling for a ban on contraception for the unmarried too. This ruling, on the assumption it's passed, opens a bit of a Pandora's Box of repercussions.

You are going on and on and on about "late term abortions" and "multiple abortions" on the thread in many posts like this one here without citing any links, statistics, stories or even cherry picked opinion pieces. Could you be more specific, with actual citations not opinion pieces, about what exactly you are talking about? Specifically:

1) Who exactly is having "multiple abortions per woman" and how "common" is it exactly? What does "multiple" even mean? Two? Two hundred? What does "common" mean? 1% of women? 50%? 100%?

2) What is a "Full term abortion" exactly, who does it, why do they do it, and exactly how do they do it? What is the actual procedure if a woman shows up in, say, week 30 demanding abortion services?

This rhetoric was tried, and miserably failed, to move the Irish population during our referendum. I am not sure why you feel pushing the same rhetoric here is going to fool anyone now.

The first glaring nonsense in your post is that contraception is not some magic bullet that always works. Thankfully the failure %s of contraception is small. But unfortunately a small % of a large number is still significant. And many many people have sex very very often. So you have a double fail in your post here in that A) many people seeking abortion actually did use contraception despite your claim to the contrary and b) contraception is not 100% effective.

The second glaring error in your post is the assumption that all abortions are the result of people not using contraception, or of not wanting a pregnancy. This is not always the case either. It is entirely possible to be trying for a pregnancy and then having become pregnant their circumstances change significantly and their pregnancy is no longer viable for them. They can lose a job, become homeless, lose their spouse/partner, have a life changing medical diagnosis in themselves or someone close, suffer a life trauma, and much much more. Any number of reasons why someone who actually INTENDED to get pregnant.... suddenly finds themselves in crisis.

It is anti choice campaigners like yourself who try to simplify the vast number of reasons for seeking an abortion down to one or two intentionally disparaging and willfully over simplified narratives like "just people too lazy". The reality outside your narrative, out here in the real world where we are and you are not, is much deeper and more diverse.

But at least we have common ground here. Both pro and anti choice people generally want to espouse better sexual health education, better contraception, and better incentives to allow pregnant women to proceed with their pregnancies. We share those ideals. What is interesting is that the institutions who have been most vocal against abortion like.... say... the catholic church.... have at times also been vocal AGAINST contraception and sexual education in children. One can wonder why that is and oppose their agendas.

I am not sure what images you are talking about to be honest. And I would question if the images are actually what your sources claimed they are too. When people resort to using pictures in lieu of actual arguments.... a lot of dishonesty can happen. And the less articulate and less intellectual of our species will gleefully grab on to any image they thing will further their cause without having to string a sentence together.

For example for reasons I can not fathom I have seen pro choice people use images of the early stage fetus of OTHER non human animals.

Similarly I have seen anti choice people use images that were not what was claimed. Over on the "peoples republic of cork" forum for example, during the referendum on abortion, I saw people post images of what they claimed was late term aborted fetus. It turns out they had willfully stolen the image of a still birth which the parents had intentionally released to the media to raise awareness about the medical issue that caused the still birth.

To say I am disgusted by both sets of people, on both sides, who move to such tactics is an understatement.

An image of a 30 week old fetus is going to be distressing to most human beings. Regardless of the cause. But if it allays your distress at all... the near totality of cases where we willfully terminate at that late stage are because of medical or other absolute necessity and not because women are suddenly, after 30 weeks of pregnancy.... deciding on a whim to chop their little darlings up into mince meat.

In fact the statistics on abortion are remarkably consistent. The near totality of ELECTIVE abortions.... where women chose for their own personal reasons to seek a termination.... happen in or before week 12. And this remains consistent across jurisdictions regardless of whether abortion within that jurisdiction is totally banned..... is allowed with a term limit like in the UK or Ireland..... or is relatively restriction free like in Canada. Which somewhat lends strength to people on the pro choice side telling us to "Trust women". I do, and they validate that trust.

So those that oppose abortion tend to fail to actually prevent them happening. Instead they just increase the stress and duress such women undergo as they travel to other jurisdictions at personal cost, and medical risk, to have them elsewhere.... or they do it themselves with all the risks and horrors that involves.

So what anti choice campaigners think they are actually achieving with their NIMBYism is still beyond me after nearly 30 years engaged with this topic.

I feel for your friends (assuming the anecdotes true) who felt regret. One wonders if they felt regret because they think they actually did anything wrong, or because the needless division over this issue has guilted them into thinking they have when in fact I have yet in 30 years to see a single coherent moral or ethical argument against elective abortion in the term limits it predominantly occurs in.

In that case Roe should be defended. States with laws like NY which you disagree with will keep them but states that don't have them will just get far, far more hardline with some at this point even discussing laws against contraceptive measures off of the back of this. Essentially no later term abortions will be stopped but those just doing the minimum from Roe vs Wade will go pretty heavily against your desire for early term abortions.

I thought the protestors were on a tour to view the SCOTUS judges' homes? We should ask Christine Blassey Forde about protestors, she has a lot of experience with them and the support she got from the POTUS at the time to ensure her safety.