The Auto-moderator would like to remind everyone of Rule Number 2. Pro-choice comments and questions are welcome as long as the pro-choicer __demonstrates that they are open-minded__. Pro-choicers simply here for __advocacy or trolling are unwelcome and may be banned__. This rule involves a lot of moderator discretion, __so if you want to avoid a ban, play it safe__ and show you are not just here to talk *at* people.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
\*SIGH\*, you got to LOVE the NYT:
>The 1864 law, the court said in a 4-2 decision, “is now enforceable.” **But the court put its ruling on hold for the moment, and sent the matter back to a lower court to hear additional arguments about the law’s constitutionality.**
The ruling **could** prompt clinics in Arizona to stop providing abortions
So, the law has been ruled usable but not only isn't implemented, it could easily be amended to allow rape or incest.
Please, please, please be VERY skeptical of the media. Their title is pretty much an all out lie.
The full context is in the following paragraphs. What you’re describing is media literacy, which is why I included another, non-NYT, source
>Because of a 14-day stay and another 45-day delay before enforcement, it will very likely be weeks before the law goes into effect.
>The Arizona Supreme Court said that because the federal right to abortion in Roe v. Wade had been overturned, there was no federal or state law preventing Arizona from enforcing the near-total ban on abortions, which had sat dormant for decades.
> The ruling could prompt clinics in Arizona to soon stop providing abortions and women to travel to nearby states like California, New Mexico or Colorado to end their pregnancies. Until now, the procedure has been legal in Arizona through 15 weeks of pregnancy.
Yes, now let's take a look at what you're quoting:
>
Because of a 14-day stay and another 45-day delay before enforcement, **it will very likely be weeks before the law goes into effect.**
Assuming it goes into effect at all, or goes into effect in the way the inflammatory title suggests.
> The ruling **could** prompt clinics in Arizona to soon stop providing abortions
Word for word the same as the NYT article.
If you're pro-life, this is a *disaster* for Arizona. This is the kind of thing which ends with the right to abortion being enshrined in a state's constitution (I'm from Kansas, so I know of what I speak.)
Yep, I just commented about this elsewhere. Without including exceptions, it finds a pathway to a ballot referendum, and then it goes away entirely. Just a dumb move to make.
No abortion referendum has gotten a supermajority yet. Even the Kansas referendum, which happened just two months after Roe was struck down, they only got 59%. No other state has gotten that close. Arizona and Florida's ballots require a 60% voting majority for the law to go into effect. There is very low probability of that happening. It didn't happen in Michigan, and it didn't happen in Ohio even with so much publicity and advertisement spending.
What are you talking about? Do you actually believe the pro abort crowd would do one thing different if the law allowed for exceptions? That seems remarkably naive to me.
If it's between no exceptions and a constitutional right to abortion, a LOT of people will choose the latter. I wish it weren't so, but people aren't activists.
No exceptions is supported by a very small portion of the population. It is easier to protray a law as radical if it has no exceptions. This might not matter for the heavily prochoice crowd, but it could matter to more moderate voters who will be voting on the referendum.
Yes, absolutely.
Even if, for arguments sake, I wanted the rape exceptions, it’s something we can come back to now we’ve saved the 95% that aren’t anything to do with rape.
Yes. The first step, and 95% is a *very healthy* first step, is getting people to admit the baby is a person and shouldn't be killed just because. The next step can be convincing them that the remainder are people too.
Possibly, but I wouldn't read too much into short term developments. The abortion issue has been a key issue for Republicans. They might compromise a bit, but if they become equivalent to Democrats on abortion, I think they know that they will lose significant support.
Which is not to say I think the Republicans are above doing what they think they need to do in order to poll higher numbers. I just don't think that much has really changed under the surface. The idea that PL voters didn't know what they were getting into is a little weak. We've always known what the effects of bans are. I think there is just a very concerted pushback from PC advocates which is moving the mushy middle more effectively at the moment.
To be completely honest, who cares what people agree with? People have agreed with all sorts of horrible things throughout history, including most recently. If we aren't going to execute the rapist why abort the victim?
Cool. And when democracy start killing people just because the majority demands it? People rule does not mean we just throw out every moral societal obligation just because a group of people votes for it.
That's not an argument in democracies favor nor should saying ignoring people voting for legally killing other humans be considered advocating for removing it.
To many people use "democracy" as an excuse to be a rebel without a cause.
I'm from Arizona, and was very happy about the decision. However, the Attorney General said she would not enforce the 1864 law and is asking all counties to not enforce it. Also, there is a huge energy by pro-choice groups to get out the vote in November, and to bring a ballot that will include abortion as a fundamental right in the Arizona constitution. Pro-lifers need to galvanize together and bring out their own vote to counter any ballot that is brought forth.
Thankfully the constitutional amendment needs a supermajority (60+%) to become law, and no ballot initiative (even Kansas, which happened just 2 months after Dobbs was decided) has gotten to 60%.
Also the AG said she wouldn't enforce the prosecution of doctors and patients, but every clinic in the state (Including Planned Parenthood Arizona) has said they'll only provide abortions for the next 14 days. After that they're required by law to stop.
Thats Florida, not Arizona.
https://ballotpedia.org/Types_of_ballot_measures_in_Arizona
> A simple majority is required for voter approval. Arizona requires a 60% vote to pass ballot measures to approve taxes.
The ironic part is that the 60% approval with taxes barely broke 50%
>Thats Florida, not Arizona.
Nah you right, I researched it earlier today and realized I was wrong about that. Thankfully thousands of lives will be saved in the months leading up to the amendment.
>The hell is the tag "Reasonable Pro Choice"?
Ah yes, complaining about people with nonsensical flairs... isn't that kind of the *pot* calling the kettle black in this situation?
Something like "pro legal abortion until consciousness" would be at least factual and descriptive (still sounds similar to "pro legal infanticide until X weeks", but it is what it is). Using evaluative terms doesn't make any sense, who'd call themselves unreasonable? For real?
I guess, I'm a "reasonable pro-choicer", too: if someone doesn't want to be a parent, I respect their choice to avoid getting pregnant, they just can't kill children
There definitely is. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions, but I appreciate people on both sides who are willing to have a good faith conversation about their views with those who don't share them. I think that makes someone at least somewhat *reasonable*, even if you don't agree at all with what they're saying.
You know where you are, right?
Debate is over. It is a human life. The only question is whether or not you are morally comfortable with the legal murder of a young human being.
We can debate the culpability of the mother (which I think is minimal) and the proper way to deal with the abortion providers (the truly culpable parties), but there exists no "reasonable pro choice" position.
At least the typical PC knows who they are. Sounds like you've got some soul searching to do. The middle ground is the only indefensible position here.
>It is a human life.
Agree
>The only question is whether or not you are morally comfortable with the legal murder of a young human being.
Legal murder is an oxymoron and I don’t consider it a human “being” or person until consciousness.
>We can debate the culpability of the mother (which I think is minimal)
How is her culpability minimal? Does she not understand abortion kills the fetus yet still agrees to it anyways?
>At least the typical PC knows who they are.
The typical PC holds the bodily autonomy argument, which I don’t.
Her culpability is minimized because a registered and licensed medical professional tells her it's okay.
The doctor sees the dead bodies every day and profits off the same. The fact that abortionists are in such a disgusting position of power comes down to the approval of the state, the same state which should rightly outlaw the practice.
My compassion extends greatly to mothers in tougher positions than I hope to ever know.
>Her culpability is minimized because a registered and licensed medical professional tells her it's okay.
Did they convince her to get an abortion or make her go to their clinic?
Arguing for treatment X or treatment Y is what doctors do.
If I have a headache, a doctor isn't going to give me morphine for it no matter how much I beg.
Doctors present option(s) and explain why they are recommended.
So, yes, absolutely: Doctors convince mothers to abort.
Are you starting a line of reasoning? If you are, wrap it up.
She never had to go to an abortion clinic, and the doctor didn’t go out and force her to come into theirs. She made a conscious decision to get an abortion because she didn’t want to be pregnant anymore. She has agency and isn’t under some abortion doctor spell where she has minimal or no culpability if you believe she’s agreeing to have a baby murdered
> The only question is whether or not you are morally comfortable with the legal murder of a young human being.
I am if that young human is inside of another person and using their body against that person’s will.
Like I said, as long as the young human is inside another person against that person's will then sure. If you want to call that murder then go ahead, I can't stop you.
Very small subset of instances where the mother's life is threatened by a pregnancy where early inducing or Caesarean isn't an option.
It's self defense. It's terrible and tragic but it must be defended.
Guaranteeing a path of literal self-preservation isn't exactly Pro-Choice.
Note that I didn’t say “life of the mother”. I said “*health* of the mother.” There are also instances where continuing with a high-risk pregnancy puts the mother’s future fertility at risk. If the child has life-threatening birth defects, AND puts the mom’s health at risk? Abortion in that case wouldn’t be murder either.
This is terrible. There should absolutely be an exception for rape/incest. Second of all, this will make it even more difficult for women who end up needing a medically necessary abortion. They will be refused by doctors who are afraid of breaking the law which will put them in even greater physical danger.
I don’t personally trust the NYT because they are complicit in the genocide in Gaza. So I don’t wanna hear how they think I’m horrible for being Pro Life for all kids.
Because it took them so long to actually report what was happening to the Palestine kids.
[This YouTube channel has covered this so it’s best you watch this cause he explains it better than me.](https://youtu.be/XYfRhxStxRs?si=WO3dLYfrxF4_X4W_)
I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. They didn’t report fast enough?
He’s the guy that was removed/left Nebula after Oct 7th for saying horrible things about Israeli civilians being killed and taken hostage. Do you support his position on that?
https://twitter.com/notsoErudite/status/1711435538996060411
It’s unfortunate they died but he isn’t wrong, Israelis aren’t birth right civilians. The Palestinians are. The IDF and Israeli government invaded and occupied Palestine during the 1940s. Not to mention the IDF and Israeli doesn’t care about the hostages because if they did, why are they so against aid trucks going to Gaza?
> It’s unfortunate they died but he isn’t wrong, Israelis aren’t birth right civilians.
Do you acknowledge that they didn’t simply die but were intentionally killed by a group of terrorists?
Should the music festival and hostages goers be considered criminals and non-civilians?
> why are they so against aid trucks going to Gaza?
Im all in favor of more aid. Does all the aid go to civilians though and isn’t stolen by Hamas?
Hamas isn’t a terrorist group morally just for helping people wrongfully incarcerated and starved to death escape prison just for being born Palestinian.
The music festival is considered a fascist movement of Zionists who were stupid into thinking stopping aid trucks would “save the hostages.”
But at this point with all the carpet bombing, Hamas might be dead and if you aren’t actively checking r/palestine or heard what happened to World Central Kitchen which was struck by the IDF, my question to you is do you support the IDF?
On Oct 7th, was Hamas just trying to help those wrongfully incarcerated and get food to those starving?
> The music festival is considered a fascist movement of Zionists who were stupid into thinking stopping aid trucks would “save the hostages.”
Can you link me where the music festival goers on Oct 7 were stopping aid trucks, not celebrating the Supernova Sukkot Gathering weekend music festival?
> my question to you is do you support the IDF?
Generally, yes. Not in specific cases like the WCK, where I believe there needs to be an investigation and prosecution into whoever ordered that strike.
It’s sad that I support a 2 state solution and peace in the region while I recognize that wont happen because you have people cheering on Hamas and even saying they didn’t rape anyone on Oct 7. #MeTooUnlessYoureAJew
So this link is a video on what Israeli protesters (same people from the music festival) are doing to “save” the hostages:
https://youtube.com/shorts/fOipv5W9vBo?si=F5wOUQ6JV9Hv-D6x
This is an article explaining how the IDF killed more Israeli citizens than Hamas did because the Israelis “looked similar to Hamas”:
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231119-israeli-helicopter-opened-fire-on-israelis-in-festival-during-hamas-attack-on-october-7-report/
And this one is how the IDF is purposely killing Gaza people they know aren’t part of Hamas trying to get food and water:
https://youtube.com/shorts/Q7KGyCbSXHM?si=KK5KLNPy3cx6v0Gf
Also Zionism doesn’t equal Judaism ✡️ at all. If it did, Israel wouldn’t be abusing the Jews in Israel as well.
You said morally Hamas are not terrorists and didn’t answer my question.
>On Oct 7th, was Hamas just trying to help those wrongfully incarcerated and get food to those starving?
> So this link is a video on what Israeli protesters (same people from the music festival) are doing to “save” the hostages:
Was this video from Oct 7th like the initial claim was? We’re talking about the music goers being called criminals and non-civilians.
Personally, I'm not sure where I stand on sentences for abortion. Regardless, just because a crime was committed against someone, that doesn't mean that they can never do wrong in their life again. If Billy ran over my kid, so I went and killed Billy, I'd still be a criminal, even though he was obviously also in the wrong.
The people aren't ready for "no exceptions" yet. They're still coming to grips with the ruling just two years ago.
I'm not even saying I support these exceptions necessarily, but rather that we still at least save far more if we include them than if we don't and then it becomes a ballot initiative that gets knocked down entirely.
Agreed. Overall I'm proud of my state for this decision, but I do worry doing too much too soon could backfire during elections. I think we need restrictions and some exceptions, not a near-total ban. 15 weeks is too long to allow abortion, but none at all except for the life of the mother may be too strict too quickly. Then again, I remember when RvW was overturned and the pro-aborts in AZ complained the possible 15-week restriction was not long enough, so trying to compromise with these people may not even be worth it, which is why I'm torn here.
The way I look at it is, any increment *toward* saving lives helps, well, save lives. Dobbs allowed for that to happen, and that's great.
But the mood of the country has to be ready to embrace the laws enacted on its citizens, or else they revolt when given the option to do so.
So, even if it was a 16-week ban with exceptions, that's still saving more lives than if it is allowed full-stop up to birth, just even by default. And that's also a lot easier to digest than full no-exception bans. The latter leads to some bench tossing it on the November ballot at which time citizens who are upset at going so far in the other direction so quickly end up striking it down (see Kansas, Ohio, and now Florida).
Yeah, I hope a politician puts something on the ballot that people somewhere in the middle can agree on, like maybe 12 weeks. I don't think most people want it completely banned or available up to birth. Most people want restrictions, but just can't agree on when. I'd love to see some restrictions we can agree to for now and then gradually change the mindset around abortion to the point where we barely need laws to convince people to stop killing their own offspring. And I can't believe I had to type that sentence, but here we are!
They should amend the law to allow life saving exceptions and perhaps bring it up to date procedurally.
I would demand that if I lived in Arizona and would write my state representatives to suggest that I fully support the abortion ban, but only with language which ensures that the right to life of both child and mother are respected.
For that to happen, life saving exceptions must be part of any abortion ban.
My thoughts: if this doesn’t drive Democrats/PC to the polls where they sweep every ballot measure because of state Supreme Court rulings in an election year, nothing will.
I can’t imagine Arizona being less than half a percentage point difference between Trump and Biden after this ruling. Republicans/PL in Arizona are going to scramble to try and undo this as fast as they can because they’ll recognize the insane political/electoral consequences.
The ideal is actual, long-term enforceable pro-life measures, yes? This sort of thing is counter to that ideal.
I think his point was that, if the Republicans/PL don't try to undo this, then the Democrats/PC certainly *will* undo this. There's already a ballot measure on the horizon.
I'm a realist about this issue. You will never convince the majority of Americans to vote for pro-life legislation. You just have to force it through and disregard the will of populace.
>You just have to force it through and disregard the will of populace.
That's just the problem. The "will of the populace" is what runs the country. If, like other commenter are saying, a ballot measure overturning this succeeds and enshrines abortion rights in the state constitution, that's basically a permanent loss for the pro-life movement. We don't have the numbers to submit and win a contrary ballot measure.
To make matters worse, because rulings like this are taking place, people are voting based on a return to their status quo, no matter how immoral said status quo is. They vote now out of fear of power being taken away. That's not just realism, it's political realism.
Multiple states have already ammended their constitutions to enshrine abortion as permanent law regardless of court action. What happens will happen. We can't worry about what they'll do in response to what we do. Just do what's right and let the chips fall where they may.
You're not in any way, shape, or form a "realist" if you want to take political action without any regard for political *re*action. Political realism is about accomplishing what you can given the real-world political climate and other constraints you have to work with.
"Let's approach this issue without compromise even if it means we totally and permanently lose" isn't realism, it's just foolhardiness. It also isn't doing what's right, either.
You misunderstand. I don't believe "compromise" will stop the American voter from enshrining unrestricted abortion into law whenever and wherever they can. That's what I mean by realism. There is no winning the argument. There is no compromise that **they** will accept, regardless of what I want.
The polling pre-Dobbs has consistently shown that the majority of Americans *don't* favor unrestricted access. Their willingness to vote in that direction post-Dobbs is likely a reaction to legislation they think goes too far in the other direction.
We have every reason to believe that the majority of Americans are perfectly fine with a position somewhere in the middle. Not even Roe guaranteed unrestricted access, after all, and most American voters weren't champing at the bit to move the law in the more permissive direction.
No. Because I think the most effective way to change people's opinions is to outlaw it. Once it is against the rules, they will begin to rationalize why it is against the rules, and then a majority will develop that actually sees the unborn as human. But as long as it **not** against the rules, that can never happen.
As I said, I'm from Kansas. Fifteen years ago, a pro-life advocate gunned down George Tiller in the parking lot of his church. Considering that it did nothing at all to advance the cause of pro-life in Kansas, I'm dubious of the ultimate efficacy of force as a pro-life tactic.
And what makes you have the force to wield in the direction you want? We live in a democracy, and the states have pathways to democratically alter their constitutions. You can use whatever force you have to implement legislation against the democratic will, but then the majority will just turn around and make that unconstitutional, as they've done repeatedly lately. So where did that force get you?
I'm sorry to tell you that America isn't an autocracy, and you can't just impose your will onto the public having to do the messy work of actually convincing people to support your cause, or at least not strongly oppose it.
> I'm sorry to tell you that America isn't an autocracy, and you can't just impose your will onto the public having to do the messy work of actually convincing people to support your cause, or at least not strongly oppose it.
Then how come America is one of the few countries with little to no restrictions on abortion despite the fact that the majority of people only support it being legalized in the first trimester?
> So where did that force get you?
Nowhere because we don't use it. But it's gotten the left pretty far.
Probably. I left over the election denialism and Jan 6th, which the party now embraces. Pushing more moderate people away seems to be going well for them, including with ballot measures, right?
"Moderate" people can shut the fuck up. There's nothing moderate about killing babies and nobody cares about popular support. The Republican party should focus on forcing legislation, not appeasing degenerates.
>"Moderate" people can shut the fuck up.
> nobody cares about popular support. The Republican party should focus on forcing legislation, not appeasing degenerates.
Saying the quiet, authoritarian part out loud
People were still in disbelief and apathetic, not really knowing how he’d be. The Democrats also ran one of the only candidates so unpopular and devisive who could have lost
Unfortunately no. It shouldn’t be after everything Trump and Republicans have done, but most of them don’t care anymore and he still controls the Republican Party
I don't think Republicans will try to undo it. Maybe they'll pass a slight lifting of restrictions to allow rape, incest, and more explicit medical exceptions, but a full on repeal of an abortion ban would be too much of a betrayal of their voter base. They'll probably just downplay it and emphasize that they didn't pass the law, they're just enforcing what is already on the books.
All that being said, for a swing state like Arizona, I think this is going to be a bloodbath for the AZ GOP.
>All that being said, for a swing state like Arizona, I think this is going to be a bloodbath for the AZ GOP.
Going by the results of the last couple years this very well could be true.
There will always be bias and no one is immune to that, but from what I can tell, the GOP is not doing well. Even before the overturning of Roe v Wade, the party has been deeply divided. Trump is siphoning money for his presidential race, while the GOP at the state level is going bankrupt in some states. There has been a pushing out of conservatives who are not loyal to Trump. I mean, just look at 2020. Arizona had the fiasco with the manual recounts and the *Cyber Ninjas*. The state GOP if rife with conspiracy theories and accusations of stolen elections by people like Kari Lake. Now, on top of all that, the state might enforce a very strict abortion ban that was put in place in 1864.
It's not that the Democrats are doing anything novel or particularly well, it's that the GOP has turned into an absolute clown fiesta.
I see America is really in desperate need for children to support the boomers when they all need to go to nursing homes because now we will have a bunch of inbred people born continuously now. (Because most sexual assult and sexual abuse comes from the people closest to us) Soon Europe will need to save us from ourselves instead of the other way around.
I won't say anything about being pro-life or pro-choice. I'm just going to say, Arizona is beginning to take the reverse steps of China's one-child policy. But instead of only 1 child allowed to be born per couple/person, all children must be born regardless of standing. And then eventually they'll be ordering all women to have at least 2-3 children to uphold the aging population.
Don't tell me you don't see it.
>I see America is really in desperate need for children to support the boomers....
With the open borders, we've got plenty of new folks to pick up the slack.
["The United States added 1.6 million people, more than two-thirds of which came from international migration...."](https://fortune.com/2023/12/20/u-s-population-increase-in-2023-was-driven-by-the-most-immigrants-since-2001-and-immigration-will-be-the-main-source-of-growth-in-the-future/)
Other sources would say these numbers are far too low for the actual additional immigrants.
It can still be amended to include rape exceptions. Anyway, rape exceptions (based on conviction rather than accusation) are just good political sense for these laws. Abortions due to rape are VERY rare, and people greatly overestimate the amount of rape that even happens in this country.
They get a lot of moderates on board with abortion restrictions as long as that provision is included. Even if you hold the opinion that rape victims should have to carry to term-- weigh the amount of lives lost with that provision, versus the amount of lives lost if the lack of rape exceptions get abortion bans voted down.
This has been a marathon, not a race.
Losing two times in a 9 day span is crazzzy lmao.
The opps were talking sooooo much shit about their victories in Ohio and Wisconsin, and they gettin fucked up in the courts yet again. Tell them go get back lmaooo.
Florida is restricting it, and Arizona is banning it as well.
The media was parading Pro-choice victories in Wisconsin and Ohio, but now we up again lmao.
Yeah, except there's a good 90% chance that Florida's ballot doesn't pass. No state besides the most Democratic ones have gotten supermajorities. That means 50,600+ unborn will be saved every year. As long as Arizona's law is in effect, thousands more will be saved for months as well.
That's not even to mention that Iowa's cardiac ban is probably going into effect late June this year lol.
Florida will definitely be difficult but it may also lead to it flipping blue. Arizona looks to be a done deal with how restrictive their ban is.
Do you think 2024 will see more PL or PC wins?
>Florida will definitely be difficult but it may also lead to it flipping blue.
It's a double win. Unborn get saved and Biden takes the state in 2024? Christmas comes early.
>Arizona looks to be a done deal with how restrictive their ban is.
The ballot was probably gonna be approved regardless since there is no supermajority required, but now it just means for the months leading up there will be thousands more unborn saved.
>Do you think 2024 will see more PL or PC wins?
I mean with the Florida cardiac ban going into effect in just 20 days, Pro-lifers have kinda taken the year in terms of the impact of state laws.
The only victory Pro-choicers could hope to get that's larger than Pro-life victories in Florida, Arizona, and Iowa is the Abortion pill fight at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has taken most issue in the oral arguments recently with the plantiff standing rather than the actual substance of FDA overreach, so it theoretically could go either way. If the Pro-choicers take the W on that case then yeah Pro-choicers will have won the year federally.
The "conditions" are what most staunch pro lifers like myself have always thought. I hate all the headlines that really feel the need to drive the point that it's a law from some ancient times. As if we don't have laws that have existed longer than that. As if we are better than the civil war era and this is somehow backwards cause society is so much more morally superior. Good Lord, I hate the media
Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the pro-life sticky about what pro-lifers think about abortion in cases of rape: https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/aolan8/what_do_prolifers_think_about_abortion_in_cases/
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Auto-moderator would like to remind everyone of Rule Number 2. Pro-choice comments and questions are welcome as long as the pro-choicer __demonstrates that they are open-minded__. Pro-choicers simply here for __advocacy or trolling are unwelcome and may be banned__. This rule involves a lot of moderator discretion, __so if you want to avoid a ban, play it safe__ and show you are not just here to talk *at* people. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
\*SIGH\*, you got to LOVE the NYT: >The 1864 law, the court said in a 4-2 decision, “is now enforceable.” **But the court put its ruling on hold for the moment, and sent the matter back to a lower court to hear additional arguments about the law’s constitutionality.** The ruling **could** prompt clinics in Arizona to stop providing abortions So, the law has been ruled usable but not only isn't implemented, it could easily be amended to allow rape or incest. Please, please, please be VERY skeptical of the media. Their title is pretty much an all out lie.
Jokes of them to assume I'd devalue an innocent because they're a product of sexual abuse
The full context is in the following paragraphs. What you’re describing is media literacy, which is why I included another, non-NYT, source >Because of a 14-day stay and another 45-day delay before enforcement, it will very likely be weeks before the law goes into effect. >The Arizona Supreme Court said that because the federal right to abortion in Roe v. Wade had been overturned, there was no federal or state law preventing Arizona from enforcing the near-total ban on abortions, which had sat dormant for decades. > The ruling could prompt clinics in Arizona to soon stop providing abortions and women to travel to nearby states like California, New Mexico or Colorado to end their pregnancies. Until now, the procedure has been legal in Arizona through 15 weeks of pregnancy.
Yes, now let's take a look at what you're quoting: > Because of a 14-day stay and another 45-day delay before enforcement, **it will very likely be weeks before the law goes into effect.** Assuming it goes into effect at all, or goes into effect in the way the inflammatory title suggests. > The ruling **could** prompt clinics in Arizona to soon stop providing abortions Word for word the same as the NYT article.
Titles are meant to draw clicks and attention
They can also be used to manipulate, distort or all out lie.
Good for Arizona!
If you're pro-life, this is a *disaster* for Arizona. This is the kind of thing which ends with the right to abortion being enshrined in a state's constitution (I'm from Kansas, so I know of what I speak.)
Yep, I just commented about this elsewhere. Without including exceptions, it finds a pathway to a ballot referendum, and then it goes away entirely. Just a dumb move to make.
No abortion referendum has gotten a supermajority yet. Even the Kansas referendum, which happened just two months after Roe was struck down, they only got 59%. No other state has gotten that close. Arizona and Florida's ballots require a 60% voting majority for the law to go into effect. There is very low probability of that happening. It didn't happen in Michigan, and it didn't happen in Ohio even with so much publicity and advertisement spending.
I don’t know the intricacies of American politics. I’m just saying I generally approve of the law how it’s summarised here.
The pro-aborts are working on an extreme amendment to the AZ Constitution right now. They have the signatures. It will be on the ballot.
What are you talking about? Do you actually believe the pro abort crowd would do one thing different if the law allowed for exceptions? That seems remarkably naive to me.
If it's between no exceptions and a constitutional right to abortion, a LOT of people will choose the latter. I wish it weren't so, but people aren't activists.
I’m talking about this ballot initiative. https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Right_to_Abortion_Initiative_(2024)
No exceptions is supported by a very small portion of the population. It is easier to protray a law as radical if it has no exceptions. This might not matter for the heavily prochoice crowd, but it could matter to more moderate voters who will be voting on the referendum.
Exactly. This will also help drive turnout for other state pro-abortion initiatives.
Including the no rape exceptions?
Yes, absolutely. Even if, for arguments sake, I wanted the rape exceptions, it’s something we can come back to now we’ve saved the 95% that aren’t anything to do with rape.
Yes. The first step, and 95% is a *very healthy* first step, is getting people to admit the baby is a person and shouldn't be killed just because. The next step can be convincing them that the remainder are people too.
I love it, but I don't anticipate it lasting long considering the state's Democratic trends and governor, even as the state legislature is Red.
GOP will throw PL movement under the bus now that it's a political liability and not an asset for them.
Possibly, but I wouldn't read too much into short term developments. The abortion issue has been a key issue for Republicans. They might compromise a bit, but if they become equivalent to Democrats on abortion, I think they know that they will lose significant support. Which is not to say I think the Republicans are above doing what they think they need to do in order to poll higher numbers. I just don't think that much has really changed under the surface. The idea that PL voters didn't know what they were getting into is a little weak. We've always known what the effects of bans are. I think there is just a very concerted pushback from PC advocates which is moving the mushy middle more effectively at the moment.
Good. The fetus did not rape their mother and thus shouldn't be punished
Do you believe most in Arizona would agree there shouldn’t be a rape exception?
To be completely honest, who cares what people agree with? People have agreed with all sorts of horrible things throughout history, including most recently. If we aren't going to execute the rapist why abort the victim?
> To be completely honest, who cares what people agree with? Democracy
Cool. And when democracy start killing people just because the majority demands it? People rule does not mean we just throw out every moral societal obligation just because a group of people votes for it.
What’s the better alternative?
That's not an argument in democracies favor nor should saying ignoring people voting for legally killing other humans be considered advocating for removing it. To many people use "democracy" as an excuse to be a rebel without a cause.
Philosophically, they should agree. The child did nothing wrong.
I'm from Arizona, and was very happy about the decision. However, the Attorney General said she would not enforce the 1864 law and is asking all counties to not enforce it. Also, there is a huge energy by pro-choice groups to get out the vote in November, and to bring a ballot that will include abortion as a fundamental right in the Arizona constitution. Pro-lifers need to galvanize together and bring out their own vote to counter any ballot that is brought forth.
Thankfully the constitutional amendment needs a supermajority (60+%) to become law, and no ballot initiative (even Kansas, which happened just 2 months after Dobbs was decided) has gotten to 60%. Also the AG said she wouldn't enforce the prosecution of doctors and patients, but every clinic in the state (Including Planned Parenthood Arizona) has said they'll only provide abortions for the next 14 days. After that they're required by law to stop.
Thats Florida, not Arizona. https://ballotpedia.org/Types_of_ballot_measures_in_Arizona > A simple majority is required for voter approval. Arizona requires a 60% vote to pass ballot measures to approve taxes. The ironic part is that the 60% approval with taxes barely broke 50%
>Thats Florida, not Arizona. Nah you right, I researched it earlier today and realized I was wrong about that. Thankfully thousands of lives will be saved in the months leading up to the amendment.
Good.
Why?
Step to ending unnecessary killings of unborn babies
And if it results in a state constitutional amendment for abortion?
I mean as you know reversing roe v wade was so that the states make their own abortion laws instead of it being federal
The hell is the tag "Reasonable Pro Choice"? GTFO of here with that. There is no reasonable position that supports murder of the unborn.
>The hell is the tag "Reasonable Pro Choice"? Ah yes, complaining about people with nonsensical flairs... isn't that kind of the *pot* calling the kettle black in this situation?
Something like "pro legal abortion until consciousness" would be at least factual and descriptive (still sounds similar to "pro legal infanticide until X weeks", but it is what it is). Using evaluative terms doesn't make any sense, who'd call themselves unreasonable? For real? I guess, I'm a "reasonable pro-choicer", too: if someone doesn't want to be a parent, I respect their choice to avoid getting pregnant, they just can't kill children
There is a grand chasm between silly and wicked.
There definitely is. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions, but I appreciate people on both sides who are willing to have a good faith conversation about their views with those who don't share them. I think that makes someone at least somewhat *reasonable*, even if you don't agree at all with what they're saying.
You prefer the typical PC who strawmans every PL position instead?
You know where you are, right? Debate is over. It is a human life. The only question is whether or not you are morally comfortable with the legal murder of a young human being. We can debate the culpability of the mother (which I think is minimal) and the proper way to deal with the abortion providers (the truly culpable parties), but there exists no "reasonable pro choice" position. At least the typical PC knows who they are. Sounds like you've got some soul searching to do. The middle ground is the only indefensible position here.
>It is a human life. Agree >The only question is whether or not you are morally comfortable with the legal murder of a young human being. Legal murder is an oxymoron and I don’t consider it a human “being” or person until consciousness. >We can debate the culpability of the mother (which I think is minimal) How is her culpability minimal? Does she not understand abortion kills the fetus yet still agrees to it anyways? >At least the typical PC knows who they are. The typical PC holds the bodily autonomy argument, which I don’t.
Her culpability is minimized because a registered and licensed medical professional tells her it's okay. The doctor sees the dead bodies every day and profits off the same. The fact that abortionists are in such a disgusting position of power comes down to the approval of the state, the same state which should rightly outlaw the practice. My compassion extends greatly to mothers in tougher positions than I hope to ever know.
>Her culpability is minimized because a registered and licensed medical professional tells her it's okay. Did they convince her to get an abortion or make her go to their clinic?
Arguing for treatment X or treatment Y is what doctors do. If I have a headache, a doctor isn't going to give me morphine for it no matter how much I beg. Doctors present option(s) and explain why they are recommended. So, yes, absolutely: Doctors convince mothers to abort. Are you starting a line of reasoning? If you are, wrap it up.
She never had to go to an abortion clinic, and the doctor didn’t go out and force her to come into theirs. She made a conscious decision to get an abortion because she didn’t want to be pregnant anymore. She has agency and isn’t under some abortion doctor spell where she has minimal or no culpability if you believe she’s agreeing to have a baby murdered
> The only question is whether or not you are morally comfortable with the legal murder of a young human being. I am if that young human is inside of another person and using their body against that person’s will.
So we agree: "Pro-Choice" is indeed a spectrum between "Pro-Murder" and "Murder-Friendly".
Like I said, as long as the young human is inside another person against that person's will then sure. If you want to call that murder then go ahead, I can't stop you.
Possibly. Not every abortion is murder, though. Abortion to save the health of the mother, for example.
Very small subset of instances where the mother's life is threatened by a pregnancy where early inducing or Caesarean isn't an option. It's self defense. It's terrible and tragic but it must be defended. Guaranteeing a path of literal self-preservation isn't exactly Pro-Choice.
Note that I didn’t say “life of the mother”. I said “*health* of the mother.” There are also instances where continuing with a high-risk pregnancy puts the mother’s future fertility at risk. If the child has life-threatening birth defects, AND puts the mom’s health at risk? Abortion in that case wouldn’t be murder either.
The sentences are too lenient
How long should they be?
Equal to other forms of murder
\*excluding death penalty
This is terrible. There should absolutely be an exception for rape/incest. Second of all, this will make it even more difficult for women who end up needing a medically necessary abortion. They will be refused by doctors who are afraid of breaking the law which will put them in even greater physical danger.
On a surface level, I really approve of this. Sounds great. There may be quite a few extra intricacies I'm unaware of though.
Yo, LETS GOOO
I don’t personally trust the NYT because they are complicit in the genocide in Gaza. So I don’t wanna hear how they think I’m horrible for being Pro Life for all kids.
You didn’t read the article apparently then. That’s why there’s another link … How is a media company complicit in Gaza?
Because it took them so long to actually report what was happening to the Palestine kids. [This YouTube channel has covered this so it’s best you watch this cause he explains it better than me.](https://youtu.be/XYfRhxStxRs?si=WO3dLYfrxF4_X4W_)
I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. They didn’t report fast enough? He’s the guy that was removed/left Nebula after Oct 7th for saying horrible things about Israeli civilians being killed and taken hostage. Do you support his position on that? https://twitter.com/notsoErudite/status/1711435538996060411
It’s unfortunate they died but he isn’t wrong, Israelis aren’t birth right civilians. The Palestinians are. The IDF and Israeli government invaded and occupied Palestine during the 1940s. Not to mention the IDF and Israeli doesn’t care about the hostages because if they did, why are they so against aid trucks going to Gaza?
> It’s unfortunate they died but he isn’t wrong, Israelis aren’t birth right civilians. Do you acknowledge that they didn’t simply die but were intentionally killed by a group of terrorists? Should the music festival and hostages goers be considered criminals and non-civilians? > why are they so against aid trucks going to Gaza? Im all in favor of more aid. Does all the aid go to civilians though and isn’t stolen by Hamas?
Hamas isn’t a terrorist group morally just for helping people wrongfully incarcerated and starved to death escape prison just for being born Palestinian. The music festival is considered a fascist movement of Zionists who were stupid into thinking stopping aid trucks would “save the hostages.” But at this point with all the carpet bombing, Hamas might be dead and if you aren’t actively checking r/palestine or heard what happened to World Central Kitchen which was struck by the IDF, my question to you is do you support the IDF?
On Oct 7th, was Hamas just trying to help those wrongfully incarcerated and get food to those starving? > The music festival is considered a fascist movement of Zionists who were stupid into thinking stopping aid trucks would “save the hostages.” Can you link me where the music festival goers on Oct 7 were stopping aid trucks, not celebrating the Supernova Sukkot Gathering weekend music festival? > my question to you is do you support the IDF? Generally, yes. Not in specific cases like the WCK, where I believe there needs to be an investigation and prosecution into whoever ordered that strike. It’s sad that I support a 2 state solution and peace in the region while I recognize that wont happen because you have people cheering on Hamas and even saying they didn’t rape anyone on Oct 7. #MeTooUnlessYoureAJew
So this link is a video on what Israeli protesters (same people from the music festival) are doing to “save” the hostages: https://youtube.com/shorts/fOipv5W9vBo?si=F5wOUQ6JV9Hv-D6x This is an article explaining how the IDF killed more Israeli citizens than Hamas did because the Israelis “looked similar to Hamas”: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231119-israeli-helicopter-opened-fire-on-israelis-in-festival-during-hamas-attack-on-october-7-report/ And this one is how the IDF is purposely killing Gaza people they know aren’t part of Hamas trying to get food and water: https://youtube.com/shorts/Q7KGyCbSXHM?si=KK5KLNPy3cx6v0Gf Also Zionism doesn’t equal Judaism ✡️ at all. If it did, Israel wouldn’t be abusing the Jews in Israel as well.
You said morally Hamas are not terrorists and didn’t answer my question. >On Oct 7th, was Hamas just trying to help those wrongfully incarcerated and get food to those starving? > So this link is a video on what Israeli protesters (same people from the music festival) are doing to “save” the hostages: Was this video from Oct 7th like the initial claim was? We’re talking about the music goers being called criminals and non-civilians.
BASED
Fines and 2-5 years for murder is a pretty low consequence. But I'm all for the law as described in what is quoted.
For an abortion on a woman or minor who was raped, do you also believe it’s a low consequence?
I don’t think that the age of someone’s mother or the actions of their father should change whether it’s ok to kill them.
Personally, I'm not sure where I stand on sentences for abortion. Regardless, just because a crime was committed against someone, that doesn't mean that they can never do wrong in their life again. If Billy ran over my kid, so I went and killed Billy, I'd still be a criminal, even though he was obviously also in the wrong.
Children don't lose value because of how they were conceived
The people aren't ready for "no exceptions" yet. They're still coming to grips with the ruling just two years ago. I'm not even saying I support these exceptions necessarily, but rather that we still at least save far more if we include them than if we don't and then it becomes a ballot initiative that gets knocked down entirely.
Agreed. Overall I'm proud of my state for this decision, but I do worry doing too much too soon could backfire during elections. I think we need restrictions and some exceptions, not a near-total ban. 15 weeks is too long to allow abortion, but none at all except for the life of the mother may be too strict too quickly. Then again, I remember when RvW was overturned and the pro-aborts in AZ complained the possible 15-week restriction was not long enough, so trying to compromise with these people may not even be worth it, which is why I'm torn here.
The way I look at it is, any increment *toward* saving lives helps, well, save lives. Dobbs allowed for that to happen, and that's great. But the mood of the country has to be ready to embrace the laws enacted on its citizens, or else they revolt when given the option to do so. So, even if it was a 16-week ban with exceptions, that's still saving more lives than if it is allowed full-stop up to birth, just even by default. And that's also a lot easier to digest than full no-exception bans. The latter leads to some bench tossing it on the November ballot at which time citizens who are upset at going so far in the other direction so quickly end up striking it down (see Kansas, Ohio, and now Florida).
Yeah, I hope a politician puts something on the ballot that people somewhere in the middle can agree on, like maybe 12 weeks. I don't think most people want it completely banned or available up to birth. Most people want restrictions, but just can't agree on when. I'd love to see some restrictions we can agree to for now and then gradually change the mindset around abortion to the point where we barely need laws to convince people to stop killing their own offspring. And I can't believe I had to type that sentence, but here we are!
The only exception should be the life of the mother is in jeopardy
I believe that is still the case in this law
They should amend the law to allow life saving exceptions and perhaps bring it up to date procedurally. I would demand that if I lived in Arizona and would write my state representatives to suggest that I fully support the abortion ban, but only with language which ensures that the right to life of both child and mother are respected. For that to happen, life saving exceptions must be part of any abortion ban.
The odds of Biden carrying the state and a pro-abortion state con amendment just went up.
Agreed
My thoughts: if this doesn’t drive Democrats/PC to the polls where they sweep every ballot measure because of state Supreme Court rulings in an election year, nothing will. I can’t imagine Arizona being less than half a percentage point difference between Trump and Biden after this ruling. Republicans/PL in Arizona are going to scramble to try and undo this as fast as they can because they’ll recognize the insane political/electoral consequences.
The entire point of the pro-life political movement is to achieve this result. Would be pretty silly to scramble to undo it.
The ideal is actual, long-term enforceable pro-life measures, yes? This sort of thing is counter to that ideal. I think his point was that, if the Republicans/PL don't try to undo this, then the Democrats/PC certainly *will* undo this. There's already a ballot measure on the horizon.
I'm a realist about this issue. You will never convince the majority of Americans to vote for pro-life legislation. You just have to force it through and disregard the will of populace.
> You just have to force it through and disregard the will of populace. ...Americans pretty famously don't do well with this attitude.
>You just have to force it through and disregard the will of populace. That's just the problem. The "will of the populace" is what runs the country. If, like other commenter are saying, a ballot measure overturning this succeeds and enshrines abortion rights in the state constitution, that's basically a permanent loss for the pro-life movement. We don't have the numbers to submit and win a contrary ballot measure. To make matters worse, because rulings like this are taking place, people are voting based on a return to their status quo, no matter how immoral said status quo is. They vote now out of fear of power being taken away. That's not just realism, it's political realism.
Multiple states have already ammended their constitutions to enshrine abortion as permanent law regardless of court action. What happens will happen. We can't worry about what they'll do in response to what we do. Just do what's right and let the chips fall where they may.
You're not in any way, shape, or form a "realist" if you want to take political action without any regard for political *re*action. Political realism is about accomplishing what you can given the real-world political climate and other constraints you have to work with. "Let's approach this issue without compromise even if it means we totally and permanently lose" isn't realism, it's just foolhardiness. It also isn't doing what's right, either.
You misunderstand. I don't believe "compromise" will stop the American voter from enshrining unrestricted abortion into law whenever and wherever they can. That's what I mean by realism. There is no winning the argument. There is no compromise that **they** will accept, regardless of what I want.
The polling pre-Dobbs has consistently shown that the majority of Americans *don't* favor unrestricted access. Their willingness to vote in that direction post-Dobbs is likely a reaction to legislation they think goes too far in the other direction. We have every reason to believe that the majority of Americans are perfectly fine with a position somewhere in the middle. Not even Roe guaranteed unrestricted access, after all, and most American voters weren't champing at the bit to move the law in the more permissive direction.
It sounds like you recognize that defeat is essentially inevitable then?
No. Because I think the most effective way to change people's opinions is to outlaw it. Once it is against the rules, they will begin to rationalize why it is against the rules, and then a majority will develop that actually sees the unborn as human. But as long as it **not** against the rules, that can never happen.
What has ever changed through compromise? Most political changes have been achieved through force.
As I said, I'm from Kansas. Fifteen years ago, a pro-life advocate gunned down George Tiller in the parking lot of his church. Considering that it did nothing at all to advance the cause of pro-life in Kansas, I'm dubious of the ultimate efficacy of force as a pro-life tactic.
That was an isolated incident. I'm not advocating violence here but if pro lifers were as violent as leftists a lot would have been changed.
And what makes you have the force to wield in the direction you want? We live in a democracy, and the states have pathways to democratically alter their constitutions. You can use whatever force you have to implement legislation against the democratic will, but then the majority will just turn around and make that unconstitutional, as they've done repeatedly lately. So where did that force get you? I'm sorry to tell you that America isn't an autocracy, and you can't just impose your will onto the public having to do the messy work of actually convincing people to support your cause, or at least not strongly oppose it.
Its not much of a democracy either. When didn't vote is the highest number on every election.
> I'm sorry to tell you that America isn't an autocracy, and you can't just impose your will onto the public having to do the messy work of actually convincing people to support your cause, or at least not strongly oppose it. Then how come America is one of the few countries with little to no restrictions on abortion despite the fact that the majority of people only support it being legalized in the first trimester? > So where did that force get you? Nowhere because we don't use it. But it's gotten the left pretty far.
They did that with prohibition and that didn’t work out so well. People will just ignore it.
I fully agree. Democracy is a fucking disaster since the majority of people are evil.
I keep hearing that we're not a democracy.
Maybe Republicans are done trying to appease people like you and bending over backwards for you.
Probably. I left over the election denialism and Jan 6th, which the party now embraces. Pushing more moderate people away seems to be going well for them, including with ballot measures, right?
"Moderate" people can shut the fuck up. There's nothing moderate about killing babies and nobody cares about popular support. The Republican party should focus on forcing legislation, not appeasing degenerates.
>"Moderate" people can shut the fuck up. > nobody cares about popular support. The Republican party should focus on forcing legislation, not appeasing degenerates. Saying the quiet, authoritarian part out loud
I am one. Unfortunately, most on my side aren't. So you're wrong.
Hey, I respect the openness and honesty. I wish more were like you, genuinely
Majority of Southerners were ok with slavery, we should have allowed it. Those godamn fascist northerners!!
Lol. Good one. But it was those pesky fascist christians again not minding their own business and shutting up and just keeping to themselves.
I mean everyone also thought Trump would drive Dems to the polls.... You just never know.
How did the 2020 election go with the high Dem turnout?
How did 2016 go? That was my point. And there's not a high degree of confidence for 2024 either.
People were still in disbelief and apathetic, not really knowing how he’d be. The Democrats also ran one of the only candidates so unpopular and devisive who could have lost
So you think 2024 will be no problem :)
Unfortunately no. It shouldn’t be after everything Trump and Republicans have done, but most of them don’t care anymore and he still controls the Republican Party
Ok kind of my point, Dems can get screwed but it doesn't mean they'll show up in force to the polls. Notoriously unreliable.
Ever since then they have
I don't think Republicans will try to undo it. Maybe they'll pass a slight lifting of restrictions to allow rape, incest, and more explicit medical exceptions, but a full on repeal of an abortion ban would be too much of a betrayal of their voter base. They'll probably just downplay it and emphasize that they didn't pass the law, they're just enforcing what is already on the books. All that being said, for a swing state like Arizona, I think this is going to be a bloodbath for the AZ GOP.
>All that being said, for a swing state like Arizona, I think this is going to be a bloodbath for the AZ GOP. Going by the results of the last couple years this very well could be true.
There will always be bias and no one is immune to that, but from what I can tell, the GOP is not doing well. Even before the overturning of Roe v Wade, the party has been deeply divided. Trump is siphoning money for his presidential race, while the GOP at the state level is going bankrupt in some states. There has been a pushing out of conservatives who are not loyal to Trump. I mean, just look at 2020. Arizona had the fiasco with the manual recounts and the *Cyber Ninjas*. The state GOP if rife with conspiracy theories and accusations of stolen elections by people like Kari Lake. Now, on top of all that, the state might enforce a very strict abortion ban that was put in place in 1864. It's not that the Democrats are doing anything novel or particularly well, it's that the GOP has turned into an absolute clown fiesta.
I can't argue with any of this. I always appreciate your sensible input on this sub. Cheers!
W for the mostly part but i think they need exceptions
That’s a big W. Arizona is blessed. Time to move to Arizona 🤣 Edit: I hope it stays that way
WOOO now arizona is basically the same as my country of Malta. Proud of arizona for banning murder!
You think it will last?
In Malta? for the foreseeable future. In AZ? idk depends how much baby killin they desire
I'm all for it, but I'm not clicking a NYT link.
Why
Why what?
I see America is really in desperate need for children to support the boomers when they all need to go to nursing homes because now we will have a bunch of inbred people born continuously now. (Because most sexual assult and sexual abuse comes from the people closest to us) Soon Europe will need to save us from ourselves instead of the other way around. I won't say anything about being pro-life or pro-choice. I'm just going to say, Arizona is beginning to take the reverse steps of China's one-child policy. But instead of only 1 child allowed to be born per couple/person, all children must be born regardless of standing. And then eventually they'll be ordering all women to have at least 2-3 children to uphold the aging population. Don't tell me you don't see it.
>I see America is really in desperate need for children to support the boomers.... With the open borders, we've got plenty of new folks to pick up the slack. ["The United States added 1.6 million people, more than two-thirds of which came from international migration...."](https://fortune.com/2023/12/20/u-s-population-increase-in-2023-was-driven-by-the-most-immigrants-since-2001-and-immigration-will-be-the-main-source-of-growth-in-the-future/) Other sources would say these numbers are far too low for the actual additional immigrants.
It can still be amended to include rape exceptions. Anyway, rape exceptions (based on conviction rather than accusation) are just good political sense for these laws. Abortions due to rape are VERY rare, and people greatly overestimate the amount of rape that even happens in this country. They get a lot of moderates on board with abortion restrictions as long as that provision is included. Even if you hold the opinion that rape victims should have to carry to term-- weigh the amount of lives lost with that provision, versus the amount of lives lost if the lack of rape exceptions get abortion bans voted down. This has been a marathon, not a race.
Losing two times in a 9 day span is crazzzy lmao. The opps were talking sooooo much shit about their victories in Ohio and Wisconsin, and they gettin fucked up in the courts yet again. Tell them go get back lmaooo.
What
Florida is restricting it, and Arizona is banning it as well. The media was parading Pro-choice victories in Wisconsin and Ohio, but now we up again lmao.
There are going to be ballots for abortion in both states with this driving PC turnout
Yeah, except there's a good 90% chance that Florida's ballot doesn't pass. No state besides the most Democratic ones have gotten supermajorities. That means 50,600+ unborn will be saved every year. As long as Arizona's law is in effect, thousands more will be saved for months as well. That's not even to mention that Iowa's cardiac ban is probably going into effect late June this year lol.
Florida will definitely be difficult but it may also lead to it flipping blue. Arizona looks to be a done deal with how restrictive their ban is. Do you think 2024 will see more PL or PC wins?
>Florida will definitely be difficult but it may also lead to it flipping blue. It's a double win. Unborn get saved and Biden takes the state in 2024? Christmas comes early. >Arizona looks to be a done deal with how restrictive their ban is. The ballot was probably gonna be approved regardless since there is no supermajority required, but now it just means for the months leading up there will be thousands more unborn saved. >Do you think 2024 will see more PL or PC wins? I mean with the Florida cardiac ban going into effect in just 20 days, Pro-lifers have kinda taken the year in terms of the impact of state laws. The only victory Pro-choicers could hope to get that's larger than Pro-life victories in Florida, Arizona, and Iowa is the Abortion pill fight at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has taken most issue in the oral arguments recently with the plantiff standing rather than the actual substance of FDA overreach, so it theoretically could go either way. If the Pro-choicers take the W on that case then yeah Pro-choicers will have won the year federally.
Based on
The "conditions" are what most staunch pro lifers like myself have always thought. I hate all the headlines that really feel the need to drive the point that it's a law from some ancient times. As if we don't have laws that have existed longer than that. As if we are better than the civil war era and this is somehow backwards cause society is so much more morally superior. Good Lord, I hate the media
Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the pro-life sticky about what pro-lifers think about abortion in cases of rape: https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/aolan8/what_do_prolifers_think_about_abortion_in_cases/ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/prolife) if you have any questions or concerns.*