Americans won't actually fall for this 15-week ban, will they?

[EnergizedLib]

I've heard from their side of the aisle this should be left to the states to decide (which the states shouldn't be deciding to begin with), then state legislatures are refusing to empower their own citizens after Kansas and Democrats were winning elections with midterms less than two months away.

At the start of the year, Republicans were going to kill us in November. Then Dobbs happened, and now there's pushback on what would have otherwise been a cakewalk for their side.

So now, they're trying to save face. They're trying implement a 15-week ban (what about the rights of the states who have beyond 15 weeks?) I admit, this is better than an outright abortion ban many states have enacted, but this is more of a political move to seem reasonable. Not many are going to run on openly endorsing Dobbs in what is a Pro-Roe year.

You watch, you just watch. Republicans take Congress in November, and especially if they control all three come January 20, 2025, they'll withdraw 15 weeks and enact a total federal ban on abortion, and if we're lucky, they'll include exceptions.

Republicans can call this whatever they'd like. I for one call it an IQ test for voters.

[Wounded Bear]

1. 15 weeks, just on its own, is not much worse than Roe v Wade (first trimester)...

It's the other restrictions that threaten women. Having no exemptions for rape, incest, or health of the mother are simply not acceptable for any sane person. In a pro-choice environment, I figure that most women have made the decision to end or prolong the pregnancy by then anyway, barring medical situations that will inevitably come up in some pregnancies.

Frankly, I'm pro-choice all the way. repub politicians are out of step with the majority of people, and proposing national total bans on abortion should lead to trouble for them electorally. These are questions best handled by women and their doctors, not politicians.

Vote Blue, no matter who!

[EnergizedLib]

4. And we know

That Republicans in Congress would like to enact a total abortion ban, but not even they are stupid enough to poke that bear.

[Wounded Bear]

7. Some are that stupid, apparently...

I was about to step back into this thread and acknowledge that this proposal, such as it is, is very likely a step in the direction of a full nationwide ban on abortion to be enacted later, if they do take over the 3 branches.

There are apparently proposed legislation in both the House and Senate by repubs for a national abortion ban. Won't happen now, of course, but it certainly shows their hand going forward. Americans can't let that happen.

[EnergizedLib]

10. I see it as

Then trying to win midterms and taking this off the table and proposing a full abortion ban should they have power.

It’s up to us to deny them said power.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. More than 90 percent of abortions take place in the first trimester, the first 13 weeks.

[EnergizedLib]

8. As I said in my first post

It’s better than what a lot of states have right now.

But my concerns are for those who are raped/have ectopic pregnancies, many Republicans have shown they couldn’t care less, and they don’t want their constituents to vote on this.

Their proposal is about as believable as the Nigerian Prince phone call. They’re only acting in good faith since there’s about to be a backlash against Dobbs.

[Nevilledog]

19. This proposed ban would only affect states without current restrictions worse than proposed.

States with stricter bans would not be forced to change it to 15 weeks.

[Mad_Machine76]

32. Then what's the point then?

If restrictions would still be up to the discretion of some states, then there is no incentive (to the extent there can be) for any state with less restrictions to support this.

[Nevilledog]

33. It's not about getting a state's support

This is a Blue State Abortion Ban bill.

Red states already have their draconian bans. This is a way to impose them federally on blue states.

[Nevilledog]

20. More

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

Acyn
@Acyn
·
Follow
Murray: Red state, blue state, doesn't matter. Did you vote against an abortion ban in your state like the people of Kansas? Do you live in a state lake like Washington that has strong protection to the right for abortion? Doesn't matter. This bill would rip away those rights.

[exboyfil]

17. You are right - It looks like 99% are within the first 20 weeks

I am sure that the vast majority of the remaining 1% are either severe deformity or the life of the mother.


I am not a woman so I am reluctant to give an opinion, but it seems 20 weeks with deformity or life of the mother exceptions that is national and extends that right to every woman irrespective of state could be a compromise that is acceptable. Could it be codified in the Constitution?



https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/24/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-u-s-2/
When during pregnancy do most abortions occur?
The vast majority of abortions – around nine-in-ten – occur during the first trimester of a pregnancy. In 2019, 93% of abortions occurred during the first trimester – that is, at or before 13 weeks of gestation, according to the CDC. An additional 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation. These CDC figures include data from 42 states and New York City (but not the rest of New York).

[WhiskeyGrinder]

18. .

but it seems 20 weeks with deformity or life of the mother exceptions that is national and extends that right to every woman irrespective of state could be a compromise that is acceptable.

Why compromise or make a law about something that happens so rarely it's difficult to record?

[KPN]

21. Compromising with Republicans is the cause for nearly all of the big problems this nation deals with

today. So, a big FUCK NO. There is no reason to compromise whatsoever -- especially when compromise is probably just incrementalism in a negative direction and we have the upper hand. Geesh!!!!

BTW, statistics are impersonal. For the women that make up the 6% of abortions that occur between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy and 1% at 21 weeks or more might take that "compromise" pretty personal don't you think?

[thucythucy]

22. What about exceptions for rape and incest?

The European laws, which Republicans are touting as their model for this, also allow for exemptions based on economic hardship and the mental health of the woman.

And what about minors? Should a thirteen year old be forced to give birth? There are instances where young girls--often denied any sex education--simply don't know what's happening to their bodies until it becomes so obvious as to be undeniable.

Whether or not to have an abortion should be an issue between a woman or girl and her physician.

Everybody else needs to butt out.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

16. Roe was based on viability, which is a lot later than 15 weeks.

[hamsterjill]

2. No restrictions!

It’s a medical decision between a woman and her health care provider. Full stop. End of story.

[Bev54]

11. Agreed, it should be de-criminalized period. It is a medical procedure.

Never to be heard from a politicians mouth ever again. Do not fall for "exceptions" or "numbers" of weeks.

[TheRealNorth]

6. I see this as an attempt to divide and conquer

Give the media something to talk about other than Republicans against abortion.

Lenningrad Lindsey wins just by getting the media to shift its attention and for Republicans in vulnerable districts to get behind.

[Freddie]

9. 15 weeks is not going to help

The woman with medical issues later in pregnancy
The woman whose doctor discovers abnormalities in the standard 20-week ultrasound

[EnergizedLib]

12. You'd hope that

Exceptions could be included this proposed 15-week ban.

I know I see right through then, everybody on here does. Does the average American see through them, though?

[Freddie]

28. The "exceptions" will be just as vague as they are now

And doctors will let women suffer and die so they don’t lose their livelihoods. Not blaming doctors, blaming these politicians who think they know better than doctors.

[Bettie]

13. The court will likely be ending any rights women have

to control their own reproductive lives once they rule on the fetal personhood case working its way through the courts.

https://www.courthousenews.com/with-roe-out-the-door-the-next-big-abortion-battle-is-already-on-the-supreme-court-steps/

This is the next battleground in the anti-abortion movement: the recognition of fetal personhood. If fetuses are granted personhood status, then they are entitled to constitutional rights. The court’s recognition of fetal personhood rights would prevent even abortion-friendly states from protecting reproductive rights.

“It is not surprising that anti-abortion advocates would argue that the Dobbs decision be stretched to recognize the idea of ‘fetal personhood,’” said Katherine Franke, professor of law and director of the Center for Gender & Sexuality Law at Columbia University. “Overruling Roe v. Wade was never the end game for many of these advocates, so it was just a matter of time before a case making this argument made its way to the Supreme Court.”

The petition from Catholics for Life and the two pregnant people stems from a Rhode Island law — the Reproductive Privacy Act — that codified Roe into law. The Rhode Island Supreme Court dismissed their challenge to the law for lack of standing, finding that fetuses do not have the right to bring a case before the court.

After Dobbs, however, the challengers now see an opportunity to advance their case.



It isn't there yet, but it's coming and who really thinks these ultra-religious 'justices' won't take rights from every woman in the country as they rule that even a fertilized egg has more rights than a woman or young girl. It would also end access to most birth control.

Is this alarmist? Maybe, but people said they'd never overturn Roe and look what happened. I suspect that this will be carefully shepherded through the courts for the purpose of ensuring that women never get 'uppity' thinking they have rights again.

[EnergizedLib]

14. That's scary

If we thought women were tortured, in pain, lives at risk before, that will be even worse than what already have now.

[Bettie]

15. From another source

https://jezebel.com/anti-abortion-activists-formally-ask-supreme-court-to-c-1849505290

It’s been two-and-a-half months since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade—sending the issue of abortion back to the states, as Republicans claimed was their end goal—and the anti-abortion activists are, of course, now trying to push it further. Catholics for Life, along with two pregnant people on behalf of their fetuses, formally asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to consider the legality of fetal personhood.

The filing comes out of a Rhode Island Supreme Court case in which the state’s highest court held that fetuses are not people and therefore are not entitled to constitutional protections. (The law originally being challenged was the state’s Reproductive Privacy Act, which codified Roe v. Wade into state law.) Because fetuses are not people, the Rhode Island Supreme Court said the original lawsuit lacked standing to be filed. In short: A fetus (known in the filing as Baby Roe) cannot file a lawsuit because it doesn’t have any rights. I’d make the obvious chicken-egg joke if I didn’t have to be so fucking serious about this shit all the time.

While there is no way to know if the court will take the case (grant cert for the nerds reading this), it’s not impossible: Only four of the nine need to agree to put a case on the highest court’s docket. The court has shown complete contempt for pregnancy, pregnant patients, and the people who wish to never be pregnant, let alone parent. While this suit might feel unlikely, I worry it’s only the first draft.

[KPN]

23. Amazing how a male Senator has the gall to propose a national abortion prohibition that he, and

likely others of his sex and ilk, see as a compromise solution to the "abortion issue". It should not be an public issue at all ... especially for a male who has and will presumably never be married or procreate/have kids.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

24. Lindsey Graham just made the midterms 💯 about abortion, which means Roevember is coming.

Link to tweet

[forthemiddle]

25. 9 out of 10 abortions are in the first trimester

We would be fools to not accept this compromise.
Call their bluff, they won’t go through it in the end, and even if they do, we got 90% of what we want.

[Mad_Machine76]

27. No

It would be better than what we currently have in most red states but worse in blue states that have few or no restrictions.

[TheRealNorth]

29. This is why I expressed my concern about this being a ploy to divide us.

[Mad_Machine76]

31. I can see how they might be able to try something like this

but nobody in a blue state will stand for a law like this and nobody in a red state, at least in terms of lawmakers, will support loosening their more draconian restrictions. In short, this is not likely to get support from pretty much anybody. It's a sham. A sham of a yam. A yam sham.

[andym]

26. Wonder if they tested this on focus groups

especially Independent and Republican women. They almost certainly did, as they only care about the winning the election, not the issue itself.

[TheRealNorth]

30. I am sure it was tested

538 had some polling data, and while there is greater than 50% support for allowing abortion up to 15 weeks and for cases of rape/incest, it drops below 50% (to around 45% I recall) for support through the 2nd trimester. So they are trying to peel off that group of voters who don't support abortion through the 2nd trimester.