The Abortion Thread

[MDlaxfan76]

I was at dinner last night with a whole bunch of very wealthy folks (BD retreat of a family business BD my wife sits on as an outsider); the whole lot of them are lifelong R's...Sitting next to a nice gal in her early 60's who had been a stay at home mom talking about all sorts of subjects...somehow there was a discussion of the politics of Florida where my son is temporarily working and this gal is and knows people...talking about the potential life mates for him being in short supply, I mentioned that, while his mom and I are lifelong R's, he'd turned D while in college and took some economics courses that exposed him to libertarian logic...I said something about him being attracted to smart, well educated, go getter women and that most such his age are Dems so that at least ups the possibilities of being on the same page...she said she too was a lifelong R but wasn't comfortable right now...she was clearly not a MAGA type of R...

We vibed on this, I said something about how I think women should manage their own lives and choices not government and she then described herself as "extremely pro-Life"; I probed.... and she clarified as to how appalled she was by what is happening in Texas. I shared that my wife and I would have never chosen an abortion even if she'd become pregnant while we were still in college and unmarried, but that I didn't think government should have any say in that decision and that Texas' law would have prevented the two procedures she'd had when we lost two badly wanted pregnancies. We agreed that our Republicans/conservatism was really libertarianism when it comes to social issues, not the government's business who we love, etc.

She said she agreed that abortion should not be a federal matter, agreeing with Dobbs, but I asked, 'doesn't that just trade a federal protection against the government telling women what they can do for states who do tell them?...it was apparently an eye-opening thought for her that "government" was actually more involved now. She's opposed to that whether state or federal. Just hadn't heard it put that way (my hunch is Fox is on at her house).

So...the "extremely pro-Life", lifelong Republican woman is unhappy about the current Republican position...she also said that the 6 week ban in Florida was awful...

This is going to be a big deal in 2024 anywhere its on the ballot or the candidates focus on it...

[PizzaSnake]

I was at dinner last night with a whole bunch of very wealthy folks (BD retreat of a family business BD my wife sits on as an outsider); the whole lot of them are lifelong R's...Sitting next to a nice gal in her early 60's who had been a stay at home mom talking about all sorts of subjects...somehow there was a discussion of the politics of Florida where my son is temporarily working and this gal is and knows people...talking about the potential life mates for him being in short supply, I mentioned that, while his mom and I are lifelong R's, he'd turned D while in college and took some economics courses that exposed him to libertarian logic...I said something about him being attracted to smart, well educated, go getter women and that most such his age are Dems so that at least ups the possibilities of being on the same page...she said she too was a lifelong R but wasn't comfortable right now...she was clearly not a MAGA type of R...

We vibed on this, I said something about how I think women should manage their own lives and choices not government and she then described herself as "extremely pro-Life"; I probed.... and she clarified as to how appalled she was by what is happening in Texas. I shared that my wife and I would have never chosen an abortion even if she'd become pregnant while we were still in college and unmarried, but that I didn't think government should have any say in that decision and that Texas' law would have prevented the two procedures she'd had when we lost two badly wanted pregnancies. We agreed that our Republicans/conservatism was really libertarianism when it comes to social issues, not the government's business who we love, etc.

She said she agreed that abortion should not be a federal matter, agreeing with Dobbs, but I asked, 'doesn't that just trade a federal protection against the government telling women what they can do for states who do tell them?...it was apparently an eye-opening thought for her that "government" was actually more involved now. She's opposed to that whether state or federal. Just hadn't heard it put that way (my hunch is Fox is on at her house).

So...the "extremely pro-Life", lifelong Republican woman is unhappy about the current Republican position...she also said that the 6 week ban in Florida was awful...

This is going to be a big deal in 2024 anywhere its on the ballot or the candidates focus on it...

Early 60s? So, unable or unwilling to think her positions through?

I understand the argument that a “conservative” position guards against potentially sudden, disastrous shifts in policy, but her demonstrated inability to apply her beliefs to the post-Dobbs reality doesn’t bode well for social cohesion.

Not being female, I can’t say how important the issue of reproductive autonomy is, but I can imagine for some it will be paramount, impacting decisions on marriage, child-bearing, employment and residence. I think this is evidenced in the puling plaints in various editorials about “liberal” females declining dating and marriage to “conservative” men. And, in terms of the likelihood of restrictions on their personal liberty, who can blame them?

[PizzaSnake]

Great. Going to criminalize a huge swath of the population. Won’t do much except erode the rule of law, which is based on cooperation — “consent of the governed.”

Let’s see what the brain-stem trust does here…

“The Supreme Court announced on Wednesday that it would decide on the availability of a commonly used abortion pill, the first major case involving abortion on its docket since it overturned the constitutional right to the procedure more than a year ago.

The move sets up a high-stakes fight over the drug, mifepristone, that could sharply curtail access to medication that is used in more than half of all pregnancy terminations in the United States. It could also have implications for the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration, which approved the pill more than two decades ago.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/13/us/s ... -pill.html

[Kismet]

Great. Going to criminalize a huge swath of the population. Won’t do much except erode the rule of law, which is based on cooperation — “consent of the governed.”

Let’s see what the brain-stem trust does here…

“The Supreme Court announced on Wednesday that it would decide on the availability of a commonly used abortion pill, the first major case involving abortion on its docket since it overturned the constitutional right to the procedure more than a year ago.

The move sets up a high-stakes fight over the drug, mifepristone, that could sharply curtail access to medication that is used in more than half of all pregnancy terminations in the United States. It could also have implications for the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration, which approved the pill more than two decades ago.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/13/us/s ... -pill.html

I thought SCOTUS was going to leave it to the states per Dobbs decision.

[cradleandshoot]

Great. Going to criminalize a huge swath of the population. Won’t do much except erode the rule of law, which is based on cooperation — “consent of the governed.”

Let’s see what the brain-stem trust does here…

“The Supreme Court announced on Wednesday that it would decide on the availability of a commonly used abortion pill, the first major case involving abortion on its docket since it overturned the constitutional right to the procedure more than a year ago.

The move sets up a high-stakes fight over the drug, mifepristone, that could sharply curtail access to medication that is used in more than half of all pregnancy terminations in the United States. It could also have implications for the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration, which approved the pill more than two decades ago.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/13/us/s ... -pill.html

I thought SCOTUS was going to leave it to the states per Dobbs decision.

Funny how correct Justice Rehnquist was in his dissent to Roe v Wade. He said the SCOTUS decision was flawed because it should have been a states right issue. I guess what has been learned here is that states aren't qualified to decide these issues. Only the federal government is responsible for such important decisions. In Texas it doesn't matter if the mom's life is at stake. In NYS it doesn't matter if momma bear is not happy with the sex of her baby. Nobody in the mainstream media is ever going to address that hot potato.

[DMac]

That hot potato was touched a long time ago and a reasonable decision was made. Then the evangelicals and born agains who have a direct line to God got involved and fukt everything up. This decision should be made by the woman who is pregnant and that woman alone (the father should have some say but ultimately the woman has the last word), it's no one else's decision to make. Spare me the sanctimonious judges who damn her, they can all go phuk themselves.

[cradleandshoot]

That hot potato was touched a long time ago and a reasonable decision was made. Then the evangelicals and born agains who have a direct line to God got involved and fukt everything up. This decision should be made by the woman who is pregnant and that woman alone (the father should have some say but ultimately the woman has the last word), it's no one else's decision to make. Spare me the sanctimonious judges who damn her, they can all go phuk themselves.

Then that goes back to WWJD. Two different set of circumstances. One requires an abortion to save the moms ability to have another baby. The other is a mom aborting a healthy baby because it's the wrong gender. One is understandable the other is not. Any of you folks out there think that aborting a healthy baby because it was the wrong gender is a good thing?? If you are a Christian how would you defend your decision to Jesus face to face? Jesus wouldn't let the angry mob stone the adulteress to death. I wonder how he would feel about aborting a healthy baby?? How many of you Christians out there would feel comfortable debating your position face to face with Jesus? What exactly would you tell Jesus to his face??? Love the sinner but hate the sin.

[PizzaSnake]

That hot potato was touched a long time ago and a reasonable decision was made. Then the evangelicals and born agains who have a direct line to God got involved and fukt everything up. This decision should be made by the woman who is pregnant and that woman alone (the father should have some say but ultimately the woman has the last word), it's no one else's decision to make. Spare me the sanctimonious judges who damn her, they can all go phuk themselves.

Then that goes back to WWJD. Two different set of circumstances. One requires an abortion to save the moms ability to have another baby. The other is a mom aborting a healthy baby because it's the wrong gender. One is understandable the other is not. Any of you folks out there think that aborting a healthy baby because it was the wrong gender is a good thing?? If you are a Christian how would you defend your decision to Jesus face to face? Jesus wouldn't let the angry mob stone the adulteress to death. I wonder how he would feel about aborting a healthy baby?? How many of you Christians out there would feel comfortable debating your position face to face with Jesus? What exactly would you tell Jesus to his face??? Love the sinner but hate the sin.

I think my fellow humans make a lot of choices re their bodily autonomy that I wouldn't make. What is different is that those are THEIR decisions, not mine.

Should I have the right to stop someone from smoking a cigarette because it is detrimental to their health, and, ultimately, me as their welfare complements my liberty?

We draw interesting lines…

[cradleandshoot]

That hot potato was touched a long time ago and a reasonable decision was made. Then the evangelicals and born agains who have a direct line to God got involved and fukt everything up. This decision should be made by the woman who is pregnant and that woman alone (the father should have some say but ultimately the woman has the last word), it's no one else's decision to make. Spare me the sanctimonious judges who damn her, they can all go phuk themselves.

Then that goes back to WWJD. Two different set of circumstances. One requires an abortion to save the moms ability to have another baby. The other is a mom aborting a healthy baby because it's the wrong gender. One is understandable the other is not. Any of you folks out there think that aborting a healthy baby because it was the wrong gender is a good thing?? If you are a Christian how would you defend your decision to Jesus face to face? Jesus wouldn't let the angry mob stone the adulteress to death. I wonder how he would feel about aborting a healthy baby?? How many of you Christians out there would feel comfortable debating your position face to face with Jesus? What exactly would you tell Jesus to his face??? Love the sinner but hate the sin.

I think my fellow humans make a lot of choices re their bodily autonomy that I wouldn't make. What is different is that those are THEIR decisions, not mine.

Should I have the right to stop someone from smoking a cigarette because it is detrimental to their health, and, ultimately, me as their welfare complements my liberty?

We draw interesting lines…

I agree with you, my question remains the same....WWJD? At the end of the day you have to justify your decisions in your life to your creator. That might be why the Catholic Church invented confession. You can make all the bad decisions you like as long as you go to confession once a month. Way back when I was in Catholic HS in the mid 1970s there was no greater abomination in the eyes of the Catholic Church than abortion. Of course to be fair they were not all that crazy about birth control either.

[DMac]

That hot potato was touched a long time ago and a reasonable decision was made. Then the evangelicals and born agains who have a direct line to God got involved and fukt everything up. This decision should be made by the woman who is pregnant and that woman alone (the father should have some say but ultimately the woman has the last word), it's no one else's decision to make. Spare me the sanctimonious judges who damn her, they can all go phuk themselves.

Then that goes back to WWJD. Two different set of circumstances. One requires an abortion to save the moms ability to have another baby. The other is a mom aborting a healthy baby because it's the wrong gender. One is understandable the other is not. Any of you folks out there think that aborting a healthy baby because it was the wrong gender is a good thing?? If you are a Christian how would you defend your decision to Jesus face to face? Jesus wouldn't let the angry mob stone the adulteress to death. I wonder how he would feel about aborting a healthy baby?? How many of you Christians out there would feel comfortable debating your position face to face with Jesus? What exactly would you tell Jesus to his face??? Love the sinner but hate the sin.

This is the woman's decision, period. Where does the agnostic and atheist fit in here? They don't buy the Christians and Jesus stuff, they're not afraid to face him (uh oh, could Jesus be a she?) after making their decision. They still have to go by your moral high ground? Is abortion about God or murder (in some people's eyes)? Frankly, if I'm a 16 year old pregnant girl I don't much give a schidt what anybody thinks of my decision, I'm going to do what I think is best and I'll live with that.
(More atheists in younger generations, that crowd is growing.)

[jhu72]

Speaking of Texas, researchers looked at college enrollments for the top 100 US colleges in the years up to and including 2022. They found that red state colleges saw freshman enrolments down 1% in 2022. Reading this as an early signal that red states were going to have a problem. The scrotus bags of sh*t only ruled against Roe 2 months before the 2022 school year began. The researchers are real interested in seeing the Rice University 2023 numbers. Rice won't release them as of this date. They are a relatively highly ranked college in Texas where 25% of their annual freshman enrollment comes from blue states. Only 40% from Texas and 35% from red states beside Texas and international students.

High school guidance councilors and for profit placement consultants are reporting there is a lot of push back among students and parents in even considering a college located in a red state. This is signaled in many cases by mothers of the female student being very frank with the councilor or consultant, making statements like "no red state colleges" when initially asked about college choices.

This from a recent Newsweek report.

I would suggest you provide a link to the article so those that are interested could read what was stated more accurately than what you posted. Where you generalize by saying freshman enrolments were down 1%, the article states that there was nearly a 1% decrease in the share of female applicants. Regarding Rice, they are not not just a highly ranked college in Texas. Rice is the #1 ranked university in the state and if you accept U.S. News and World Report rankings it's rated the #17 national university. Maybe I missed it but I didn't read anything you're suggesting that the researchers are real interested in Rice's numbers when the only mention in the article is that they have been contacted for comment via email.

I do agree with you that some schools in abortion states may have problems. As the author mentions, it remains to be seen.

... I read the article a few hours before posting and didn't have access to the link at the time I posted. I figured stating it was a recent Newsweek article gave anyone interested enough (like yourself) sufficient information to find it online. Obviously you did.

Rice has been a rising institution the past few years. They are a clear bell weather institution for the expected, obvious to predict effect. Rice has not commented on the article. I don't recall any other institution was mentioned by name. My guess is that the article's authors have spoken with Rice admission personnel (in confidence) and have a good idea of what has already taken place in 2023, the predicted effect has been seen, waiting on a follow up article with Rice input.

[PizzaSnake]

That hot potato was touched a long time ago and a reasonable decision was made. Then the evangelicals and born agains who have a direct line to God got involved and fukt everything up. This decision should be made by the woman who is pregnant and that woman alone (the father should have some say but ultimately the woman has the last word), it's no one else's decision to make. Spare me the sanctimonious judges who damn her, they can all go phuk themselves.

Then that goes back to WWJD. Two different set of circumstances. One requires an abortion to save the moms ability to have another baby. The other is a mom aborting a healthy baby because it's the wrong gender. One is understandable the other is not. Any of you folks out there think that aborting a healthy baby because it was the wrong gender is a good thing?? If you are a Christian how would you defend your decision to Jesus face to face? Jesus wouldn't let the angry mob stone the adulteress to death. I wonder how he would feel about aborting a healthy baby?? How many of you Christians out there would feel comfortable debating your position face to face with Jesus? What exactly would you tell Jesus to his face??? Love the sinner but hate the sin.

This is the woman's decision, period. Where does the agnostic and atheist fit in here? They don't buy the Christians and Jesus stuff, they're not afraid to face him (uh oh, could Jesus be a she?) after making their decision. They still have to go by your moral high ground? Is abortion about God or murder (in some people's eyes)? Frankly, if I'm a 16 year old pregnant girl I don't much give a schidt what anybody thinks of my decision, I'm going to do what I think is best and I'll live with that.
(More atheists in younger generations, that crowd is growing.)

Exactly.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”

So, that addresses the federal gov’t. Did the founding fuds intend that each state WOULD have a right to establish a religion? Well, nice “union” while we had it.

Wow did the band of Dominionists on the SC create quite a little problem.

[jhu72]

That hot potato was touched a long time ago and a reasonable decision was made. Then the evangelicals and born agains who have a direct line to God got involved and fukt everything up. This decision should be made by the woman who is pregnant and that woman alone (the father should have some say but ultimately the woman has the last word), it's no one else's decision to make. Spare me the sanctimonious judges who damn her, they can all go phuk themselves.

Then that goes back to WWJD. Two different set of circumstances. One requires an abortion to save the moms ability to have another baby. The other is a mom aborting a healthy baby because it's the wrong gender. One is understandable the other is not. Any of you folks out there think that aborting a healthy baby because it was the wrong gender is a good thing?? If you are a Christian how would you defend your decision to Jesus face to face? Jesus wouldn't let the angry mob stone the adulteress to death. I wonder how he would feel about aborting a healthy baby?? How many of you Christians out there would feel comfortable debating your position face to face with Jesus? What exactly would you tell Jesus to his face??? Love the sinner but hate the sin.

This is the woman's decision, period. Where does the agnostic and atheist fit in here? They don't buy the Christians and Jesus stuff, they're not afraid to face him (uh oh, could Jesus be a she?) after making their decision. They still have to go by your moral high ground? Is abortion about God or murder (in some people's eyes)? Frankly, if I'm a 16 year old pregnant girl I don't much give a schidt what anybody thinks of my decision, I'm going to do what I think is best and I'll live with that.
(More atheists in younger generations, that crowd is growing.)

... yup. Trying to ban abortion is like trying to ban alcohol or drugs. Jesus is irrelevant to the majority of Americans as far as this issue goes, even in Kansas!

[MDlaxfan76]

I was at dinner last night with a whole bunch of very wealthy folks (BD retreat of a family business BD my wife sits on as an outsider); the whole lot of them are lifelong R's...Sitting next to a nice gal in her early 60's who had been a stay at home mom talking about all sorts of subjects...somehow there was a discussion of the politics of Florida where my son is temporarily working and this gal is and knows people...talking about the potential life mates for him being in short supply, I mentioned that, while his mom and I are lifelong R's, he'd turned D while in college and took some economics courses that exposed him to libertarian logic...I said something about him being attracted to smart, well educated, go getter women and that most such his age are Dems so that at least ups the possibilities of being on the same page...she said she too was a lifelong R but wasn't comfortable right now...she was clearly not a MAGA type of R...

We vibed on this, I said something about how I think women should manage their own lives and choices not government and she then described herself as "extremely pro-Life"; I probed.... and she clarified as to how appalled she was by what is happening in Texas. I shared that my wife and I would have never chosen an abortion even if she'd become pregnant while we were still in college and unmarried, but that I didn't think government should have any say in that decision and that Texas' law would have prevented the two procedures she'd had when we lost two badly wanted pregnancies. We agreed that our Republicans/conservatism was really libertarianism when it comes to social issues, not the government's business who we love, etc.

She said she agreed that abortion should not be a federal matter, agreeing with Dobbs, but I asked, 'doesn't that just trade a federal protection against the government telling women what they can do for states who do tell them?...it was apparently an eye-opening thought for her that "government" was actually more involved now. She's opposed to that whether state or federal. Just hadn't heard it put that way (my hunch is Fox is on at her house).

So...the "extremely pro-Life", lifelong Republican woman is unhappy about the current Republican position...she also said that the 6 week ban in Florida was awful...

This is going to be a big deal in 2024 anywhere its on the ballot or the candidates focus on it...

Early 60s? So, unable or unwilling to think her positions through?

I understand the argument that a “conservative” position guards against potentially sudden, disastrous shifts in policy, but her demonstrated inability to apply her beliefs to the post-Dobbs reality doesn’t bode well for social cohesion.

Not being female, I can’t say how important the issue of reproductive autonomy is, but I can imagine for some it will be paramount, impacting decisions on marriage, child-bearing, employment and residence. I think this is evidenced in the puling plaints in various editorials about “liberal” females declining dating and marriage to “conservative” men. And, in terms of the likelihood of restrictions on their personal liberty, who can blame them?

Actually, I think my point is that a conservative woman of my generation who had been voting Republican for nearly all of her life, and whose background, religious and otherwise, had afforded her a pretty safe place from which to be "extremely pro-Life", had moved considerably as this all is playing out in reality. Thinking that it 'should be left up to the states' was fine until the rubber hit the road and it's become apparent how draconian the right wing fanatics actually are...She's not going to be pulling the lever for Trump in 2024 and it felt to me like she's re-thinking a lot of her views.

Still needs some nudging as living within that Fox bubble doesn't exactly challenge the typical viewer. But realities are percolating through...

But even a pro-lifer is moving to the left on this.

[jhu72]

I was at dinner last night with a whole bunch of very wealthy folks (BD retreat of a family business BD my wife sits on as an outsider); the whole lot of them are lifelong R's...Sitting next to a nice gal in her early 60's who had been a stay at home mom talking about all sorts of subjects...somehow there was a discussion of the politics of Florida where my son is temporarily working and this gal is and knows people...talking about the potential life mates for him being in short supply, I mentioned that, while his mom and I are lifelong R's, he'd turned D while in college and took some economics courses that exposed him to libertarian logic...I said something about him being attracted to smart, well educated, go getter women and that most such his age are Dems so that at least ups the possibilities of being on the same page...she said she too was a lifelong R but wasn't comfortable right now...she was clearly not a MAGA type of R...

We vibed on this, I said something about how I think women should manage their own lives and choices not government and she then described herself as "extremely pro-Life"; I probed.... and she clarified as to how appalled she was by what is happening in Texas. I shared that my wife and I would have never chosen an abortion even if she'd become pregnant while we were still in college and unmarried, but that I didn't think government should have any say in that decision and that Texas' law would have prevented the two procedures she'd had when we lost two badly wanted pregnancies. We agreed that our Republicans/conservatism was really libertarianism when it comes to social issues, not the government's business who we love, etc.

She said she agreed that abortion should not be a federal matter, agreeing with Dobbs, but I asked, 'doesn't that just trade a federal protection against the government telling women what they can do for states who do tell them?...it was apparently an eye-opening thought for her that "government" was actually more involved now. She's opposed to that whether state or federal. Just hadn't heard it put that way (my hunch is Fox is on at her house).

So...the "extremely pro-Life", lifelong Republican woman is unhappy about the current Republican position...she also said that the 6 week ban in Florida was awful...

This is going to be a big deal in 2024 anywhere its on the ballot or the candidates focus on it...

Early 60s? So, unable or unwilling to think her positions through?

I understand the argument that a “conservative” position guards against potentially sudden, disastrous shifts in policy, but her demonstrated inability to apply her beliefs to the post-Dobbs reality doesn’t bode well for social cohesion.

Not being female, I can’t say how important the issue of reproductive autonomy is, but I can imagine for some it will be paramount, impacting decisions on marriage, child-bearing, employment and residence. I think this is evidenced in the puling plaints in various editorials about “liberal” females declining dating and marriage to “conservative” men. And, in terms of the likelihood of restrictions on their personal liberty, who can blame them?

Actually, I think my point is that a conservative woman of my generation who had been voting Republican for nearly all of her life, and whose background, religious and otherwise, had afforded her a pretty safe place from which to be "extremely pro-Life", had moved considerably as this all is playing out in reality. Thinking that it 'should be left up to the states' was fine until the rubber hit the road and it's become apparent how draconian the right wing fanatics actually are...She's not going to be pulling the lever for Trump in 2024 and it felt to me like she's re-thinking a lot of her views.

Still needs some nudging as living within that Fox bubble doesn't exactly challenge the typical viewer. But realities are percolating through...

But even a pro-lifer is moving to the left on this.

... I think a lot already have! If you give even a little credence to the tracking polls.

[DMac]

I was at dinner last night with a whole bunch of very wealthy folks (BD retreat of a family business BD my wife sits on as an outsider); the whole lot of them are lifelong R's...Sitting next to a nice gal in her early 60's who had been a stay at home mom talking about all sorts of subjects...somehow there was a discussion of the politics of Florida where my son is temporarily working and this gal is and knows people...talking about the potential life mates for him being in short supply, I mentioned that, while his mom and I are lifelong R's, he'd turned D while in college and took some economics courses that exposed him to libertarian logic...I said something about him being attracted to smart, well educated, go getter women and that most such his age are Dems so that at least ups the possibilities of being on the same page...she said she too was a lifelong R but wasn't comfortable right now...she was clearly not a MAGA type of R...

We vibed on this, I said something about how I think women should manage their own lives and choices not government and she then described herself as "extremely pro-Life"; I probed.... and she clarified as to how appalled she was by what is happening in Texas. I shared that my wife and I would have never chosen an abortion even if she'd become pregnant while we were still in college and unmarried, but that I didn't think government should have any say in that decision and that Texas' law would have prevented the two procedures she'd had when we lost two badly wanted pregnancies. We agreed that our Republicans/conservatism was really libertarianism when it comes to social issues, not the government's business who we love, etc.

She said she agreed that abortion should not be a federal matter, agreeing with Dobbs, but I asked, 'doesn't that just trade a federal protection against the government telling women what they can do for states who do tell them?...it was apparently an eye-opening thought for her that "government" was actually more involved now. She's opposed to that whether state or federal. Just hadn't heard it put that way (my hunch is Fox is on at her house).

So...the "extremely pro-Life", lifelong Republican woman is unhappy about the current Republican position...she also said that the 6 week ban in Florida was awful...

This is going to be a big deal in 2024 anywhere its on the ballot or the candidates focus on it...

Early 60s? So, unable or unwilling to think her positions through?

I understand the argument that a “conservative” position guards against potentially sudden, disastrous shifts in policy, but her demonstrated inability to apply her beliefs to the post-Dobbs reality doesn’t bode well for social cohesion.

Not being female, I can’t say how important the issue of reproductive autonomy is, but I can imagine for some it will be paramount, impacting decisions on marriage, child-bearing, employment and residence. I think this is evidenced in the puling plaints in various editorials about “liberal” females declining dating and marriage to “conservative” men. And, in terms of the likelihood of restrictions on their personal liberty, who can blame them?

Actually, I think my point is that a conservative woman of my generation who had been voting Republican for nearly all of her life, and whose background, religious and otherwise, had afforded her a pretty safe place from which to be "extremely pro-Life", had moved considerably as this all is playing out in reality. Thinking that it 'should be left up to the states' was fine until the rubber hit the road and it's become apparent how draconian the right wing fanatics actually are...She's not going to be pulling the lever for Trump in 2024 and it felt to me like she's re-thinking a lot of her views.

Still needs some nudging as living within that Fox bubble doesn't exactly challenge the typical viewer. But realities are percolating through...

But even a pro-lifer is moving to the left on this.

Maybe she's doing some edibles and lightening up a little bit?
https://www.aarp.org/health/drugs-suppl ... niors.html

[jhu72]

DeSantis appointee comes out as an activist on the abortion issue. She lead a successful petition fight to oppose DeSantis 6 week ban. The petition requires the law to go back basically to Roe - 24 weeks!

[NattyBohChamps04]

So few people realize Roe was the compromise.

Made a supermajority of of the nation happy.

Dog caught the car as is said here and in Batman.

[jhu72]

Report on full Florida abortion amendment petition. 1.45 million signatures expected by the end of the year. Only 891,523 are needed, which have already been attained. Once on the ballot, 60% of voters must vote to pass the amendment. The voter coalition responsible for the petition claims 70% of Florida voters support the proposed amendment.

[PizzaSnake]

Report on full Florida abortion amendment petition. 1.45 million signatures expected by the end of the year. Only 891,523 are needed, which have already been attained. Once on the ballot, 60% of voters must vote to pass the amendment. ]b] The voter coalition responsible for the petition claims 70% of Florida voters support the proposed amendment.[/b]

Unfortunately, it’s the counting that matters, not the voting.