Abortion legislation - goal of a Trump Presidency

[?Impact]

As we all know, this is an election year in the United States and one of the candidates was very explicit on his stance on abortion. What makes this critical is that the makeup of the Supreme Court can change dramatically during this Presidency. Not only are there expected retirements over the next few years, but Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have been blocking Obama's nominations for the past year and say they will continue to block them until the new Presidency. 

“The Supreme Court – it’s what it’s all about. Our country is so, just so imperative that we have the right justices, I feel that the justices that I am going to appoint– and I’ve named 20 of them. The justices that I’m going to appoint will be pro-life. They will have a conservative bent.“ - Donald Trump

As you can see, Donald Trump intends to appoint pro-life justices and we can logically assume try to overturn the Roe vs. Wade legislation and will have the tools to likely succeed. Roe vs. Wade has been the landmark decision that has provided a woman's right to choose for over 40 years, and moved abortions out of the back alley and into competent professional hands. Many states have anti-abortion laws on the books, and once Roe vs. Wade is overturned, women in those states will lose their right to choose regardless how early on in their pregnancy, regardless if their lives are endangered, and regardless of the health of the fetus. Women will be forced to give birth to babies that will suffer terrible deaths after a few short days even though they were diagnosed early on in the pregnancy with severe defects.

This important decision is being kept in the shadows over all the hype of voter fraud, e-mails, etc. This deserves to be a major issue of this campaign. 

Edited October 31, 2016 by ?Impact

[Guest]

It's an important issue, to be sure, but I just think that, generally speaking, DT supporters are going to be pro life while HC supporters are going to be pro choice. There's probably not much to be gained for either candidate by making it an issue for their stump speeches. 

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It's an important issue, to be sure, but I just think that, generally speaking, DT supporters are going to be pro life while HC supporters are going to be pro choice. There's probably not much to be gained for either candidate by making it an issue for their stump speeches. 

 

Agreed...the status quo at the federal level has been to preserve so called "abortion rights" but deny federal payments for unrestricted "baby killing".

The practical/tactical battle over abortions and abortion access is waged at the state and local level. 

[overthere]

5 hours ago, bcsapper said:

It's an important issue, to be sure, but I just think that, generally speaking, DT supporters are going to be pro life while HC supporters are going to be pro choice. There's probably not much to be gained for either candidate by making it an issue for their stump speeches. 

Both made their positions very clear at the second debate.

Once again, I am so very pleased at the way Canada has handled womens reproductive rights for nearly 30 years now.

 

Roe vs Wade may be a landmark case, but is at the same time a wholesale  cluster****.  Because it is a court ruling, it is a constant and continual target for challenge after challenge by so called pro lifers.  Roe vs Wade serves to keep the issue continually in the US courts at many levels.  It and never will be resolved, and put to bed legally.  It is an industry unto itself.

 

By contrast, Canada treats abortion not as legal issue but as a medical issue, between (women) patients and their doctor.  There is no law really, which means there is little to challenge in court, no rulings to appeal and so on.  That alone is a massive source of frustration for 'pro lifers'.   They have no public venue to visibly  complain.

Edited October 31, 2016 by overthere

[betsy]

6 hours ago, ?Impact said:

As we all know, this is an election year in the United States and one of the candidates was very explicit on his stance on abortion. What makes this critical is that the makeup of the Supreme Court can change dramatically during this Presidency. Not only are there expected retirements over the next few years, but Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have been blocking Obama's nominations for the past year and say they will continue to block them until the new Presidency. 

“The Supreme Court – it’s what it’s all about. Our country is so, just so imperative that we have the right justices, I feel that the justices that I am going to appoint– and I’ve named 20 of them. The justices that I’m going to appoint will be pro-life. They will have a conservative bent.“ - Donald Trump

 

And he does not hide his intentions either!  He said it out loud!  At the debate!

That's one of the major reasons I support Trump!  You go, Trump!  Wooooo-hooooo!

[kimmy]

9 hours ago, bcsapper said:

It's an important issue, to be sure, but I just think that, generally speaking, DT supporters are going to be pro life while HC supporters are going to be pro choice. There's probably not much to be gained for either candidate by making it an issue for their stump speeches. 

Being pro-life is the litmus test for anyone who wants to contend for the Republican nomination, and the opposite is probably true for the Dems as well-- at least I can't recall any Democrat contenders ever claiming to be pro-life. If you're a one-issue voter, your vote was decided long before the parties selected their nominees. And there's no point in either side campaigning on that issue because it's preaching to the converted, and only runs the risk of scaring off independents and others who aren't one-issue voters.

 -k

[Argus]

5 hours ago, overthere said:

Once again, I am so very pleased at the way Canada has handled womens reproductive rights for nearly 30 years now.

By running away from it? We have no laws because our politicians are gutless. I might be pro-choice, but I question why every other western nation feels the need to have some laws, even the most enlightened like Sweden and Switzerland, but Canada has nothing whatever.

[?Impact]

23 minutes ago, Argus said:

By running away from it? We have no laws because our politicians are gutless. I might be pro-choice, but I question why every other western nation feels the need to have some laws, even the most enlightened like Sweden and Switzerland, but Canada has nothing whatever.

 

The criminal code of Canada:

When child becomes human being

223 (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.

 

Edited October 31, 2016 by ?Impact

[betsy]

18 hours ago, ?Impact said:

 

The criminal code of Canada:

When child becomes human being

223 (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.

 

 

Imagine that a baby isn't considered a human being even when it's nine months old.  That's not how the fetus was regarded in the 50's.  In fact, the fetus has had the same rights of a born child - deserving of protection even in his unborn state.

Now, you can kill a nine month old baby - on the very day that he's being born - as long as you see to it that he does not make it alive in the process.  And that's okay.

 

It's a scary society when laws can be changed to strip anyone of their humanity, depending on the mood of the times. 

It's evil.

Edited November 1, 2016 by betsy

[The_Squid]

4 hours ago, betsy said:

 

Now, you can kill a nine month old baby - on the very day that he's being born - as long as you see to it that he does not make it alive in the process.  And that's okay.

 

 

The day before a baby is born....  that's a lie and a bunch of stupid nonsense.  

[?Impact]

7 hours ago, betsy said:

Now, you can kill a nine month old baby - on the very day that he's being born - as long as you see to it that he does not make it alive in the process.  And that's okay.

 

Where has that ever happened?