It’s good of Gorrell to even notice this. Though I suspect he’s carefully tip-toeing along the Q-party line, because he really isn’t ALLOWED to talk about women’s rights as such.
Once again: The point of banning abortions is NOT to reduce their number. Contraceptives, sex education, access to health care and other efforts, would accomplish that.
That is NOT the objective.
The objective is to PUNISH SINNERS, women sinners, and especially poor women sinners. (of course, being poor shows that they are not in God’s graces and are therefore sinners anyway)
Woke Gorrell strikes again, the GOP doesn’t really care about life other than using it as a wedge issue to keep the religious extremists in their base happy.
My wife and I are both pro-choice and agree on women’s rights, but we are somewhat baffled by the number of abortions when the morning-after pill is 95% effective, available to anyone, costs less than $3 and free to many. It seems reasonable to use the m-a pill first and only undergo the trauma of an abortion for extreme cases. What are we missing here?
I’d like to know the answer to that one myself, Retrac, good comment. There is also something weird going on with regard to this that I wish someone could explain. There are states acting against abortion that are not touching morning-after pills. More weirdly, there are a few states (based on maps on news outlets) that do allow abortion, that are moving to ban the pills, Washington being an example, apparently. This I understand not at all.
Time to make a mandatory free prenatal health care, child birth, and minimum child support payments for single women, subsidized by the government to make up for men who can’t afford to pay enough to actually support those children. Free state school for those women as well. Women should not be forced into poverty to have children, before they are mentally ready and financially secure enough to raise them. If women are going to be forced to have children by their government, the government (and tax payers that vote for those that would take away women’s rights) owes it to support those women and children.
Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird that stopped states from being able to ban birth control are based on the same right to privacy that Roe v Wade is; Roe used these cases as precedent. Several Repubs, including Marsha Blackburn and all of the Repub candidates for AG in Michigan have already said they want to overturn these as well. Birth control is the best way to reduce the need for abortions, the Repubs are only interested in control.
Before Roe v Wade, sisters of two of my classmates died from “appendix complications”. Even though I was only about 11, I heard the whispers that these were botched abortions. Banning abortions won’t stop them, it will just make them more dangerous for women who can’t afford to travel or pay their doctor to give them a “D&C”.
Democrats have had 50 years to codify Roe. It’s laughable that they’re talking about it now knowing they can’t get past the filibuster. Both sides have used the issue to fund raise. Republicans wouldn’t have dared unless they’re confident in their control of the courts AND their control of the coming elections.
Concretionist almost 2 years ago
It’s good of Gorrell to even notice this. Though I suspect he’s carefully tip-toeing along the Q-party line, because he really isn’t ALLOWED to talk about women’s rights as such.
braindead Premium Member almost 2 years ago
Once again: The point of banning abortions is NOT to reduce their number. Contraceptives, sex education, access to health care and other efforts, would accomplish that.
That is NOT the objective.
The objective is to PUNISH SINNERS, women sinners, and especially poor women sinners. (of course, being poor shows that they are not in God’s graces and are therefore sinners anyway)
Patjade almost 2 years ago
The GQP treat women as property. Goofy Gorrell misinterprets as a political wedge issue instead of a women’s’ health issue that it actually is.
baroden Premium Member almost 2 years ago
That’s because the GOP has always treated them like second class citizens
hoot1 almost 2 years ago
Gorrell, good toon today. Spot on.
FrankErnesto almost 2 years ago
It’s Progressives vs. the Regressives, and the Regressives have the upper hand.
GradingGorrell almost 2 years ago
2/49
Gorrell copy/pasted the pregnant woman from
https://www.gocomics.com/bobgorrell/2019/01/30
and changed the arm and the eyelids
Woke Gorrell strikes again, the GOP doesn’t really care about life other than using it as a wedge issue to keep the religious extremists in their base happy.
Alberta Oil Premium Member almost 2 years ago
What should be a medical concern has instead morphed into political/religious rallying nonsense.
MartinPerry1 almost 2 years ago
If this ruling goes through, I wonder if Gorrell realizes that the Republicans will lose their biggest wedge issue.
Retrac Premium Member almost 2 years ago
My wife and I are both pro-choice and agree on women’s rights, but we are somewhat baffled by the number of abortions when the morning-after pill is 95% effective, available to anyone, costs less than $3 and free to many. It seems reasonable to use the m-a pill first and only undergo the trauma of an abortion for extreme cases. What are we missing here?
tatra1233 almost 2 years ago
I’d like to know the answer to that one myself, Retrac, good comment. There is also something weird going on with regard to this that I wish someone could explain. There are states acting against abortion that are not touching morning-after pills. More weirdly, there are a few states (based on maps on news outlets) that do allow abortion, that are moving to ban the pills, Washington being an example, apparently. This I understand not at all.
smartgrr almost 2 years ago
Why would Washington ban the morning after pill? I live here. I’ll have to look that up.
GiantShetlandPony almost 2 years ago
Time to make a mandatory free prenatal health care, child birth, and minimum child support payments for single women, subsidized by the government to make up for men who can’t afford to pay enough to actually support those children. Free state school for those women as well. Women should not be forced into poverty to have children, before they are mentally ready and financially secure enough to raise them. If women are going to be forced to have children by their government, the government (and tax payers that vote for those that would take away women’s rights) owes it to support those women and children.
Nantucket Premium Member almost 2 years ago
Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird that stopped states from being able to ban birth control are based on the same right to privacy that Roe v Wade is; Roe used these cases as precedent. Several Repubs, including Marsha Blackburn and all of the Repub candidates for AG in Michigan have already said they want to overturn these as well. Birth control is the best way to reduce the need for abortions, the Repubs are only interested in control.
Nantucket Premium Member almost 2 years ago
Before Roe v Wade, sisters of two of my classmates died from “appendix complications”. Even though I was only about 11, I heard the whispers that these were botched abortions. Banning abortions won’t stop them, it will just make them more dangerous for women who can’t afford to travel or pay their doctor to give them a “D&C”.
wildthing almost 2 years ago
Democrats have had 50 years to codify Roe. It’s laughable that they’re talking about it now knowing they can’t get past the filibuster. Both sides have used the issue to fund raise. Republicans wouldn’t have dared unless they’re confident in their control of the courts AND their control of the coming elections.