Women’s rights, to be sure, but I haven’t yet seen anyone — certainly not in the media — noting that forced birth is also a burden on men… 21 years of financial support for an unplanned child. Child-rearing responsibility, too, if the couple stays together.
But the financial is still there even if there’s a divorce (or lack of marriage), since the same states with legislatures that oppose abortion also tend to be those whose judges always hold the father financially responsible through alimony and child support.
opspecial, ultra ammosexual, sammy snyder, kat and alfred brown, what do you think about this matter, and yes I do care about your opinion; I think it’s very wrong, but I do care about it.
The position on abortion of a majority of Hoosiers probably mirrors that of a majority of Kansans.
In Indiana, however, it’s the legislature which will be voting on the issue — not the electorate. In Indiana, the legislature has GOP super-majorities. The Indiana senate recently passed a bill which is close to the Kansas referendum. While the Indiana house still has to deal with the bill, it’s likely that it will pass it, although there may be some changes and a reconciliation process.
The GOP position is inconsistent on this issue with any and all other “right to life” issues, of course. For instance, there will be no penalty for women who have abortions, unlike the homicide charges which would be brought against them if they killed a newborn. Again, the senators who voted in favor of this bill (in concert with many, if not a large majority of GOP pols) cynically refuse to confer the other entitlements on unborn children which they opine accrue to newborns — except when it’s convenient for them to so do.
So the “original sin” aspects of the right to life issue remains, marking both political parties: The GOP will do whatever it can to see that you “get here” and then says, “You’re on your own now.” While the Democrats favor abortion, and then show enough concern for newborns and families to provide some support for them.
White Nationalist Justice Sam ‘Torquemada’ Alito and his fellow members of the christian Taliban will be looking forward (pun intended) to plenty of special rulings for the church and country starting October 3rd.
Indiana is a little different sometimes. There is a lot of right wing, former guy, full on nutty nonsense. But there is a strong strain of catering to business interests. Back in 2015, Mikey Pence and the ‘pubs stepped in the doo-doo with their RIFRA law. Business interests such as "Angie’s List" objected strongly that the law would sanction discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, threatening to pull investment from the state. Further legislation, “clarifying” the law was quickly passed to mollify business interests.
It is my understanding that something similar may be happening now. The initial impulse to ban abortions more or less completely has run up against concerns that businesses and investors may balk at too much restriction, for the sake of their employees. I guess we’ll see.
RAGs almost 2 years ago
“Women’s rights today, everyone’s rights tomorrow.”
Concretionist almost 2 years ago
I sure do wish the Supreme Christian Court (not) of US hadn’t ruled that way. Because they’ve done a whole LOT of harm to women and the nation.
gammaguy almost 2 years ago
Women’s rights, to be sure, but I haven’t yet seen anyone — certainly not in the media — noting that forced birth is also a burden on men… 21 years of financial support for an unplanned child. Child-rearing responsibility, too, if the couple stays together.
But the financial is still there even if there’s a divorce (or lack of marriage), since the same states with legislatures that oppose abortion also tend to be those whose judges always hold the father financially responsible through alimony and child support.
rossevrymn almost 2 years ago
opspecial, ultra ammosexual, sammy snyder, kat and alfred brown, what do you think about this matter, and yes I do care about your opinion; I think it’s very wrong, but I do care about it.
A# 466 almost 2 years ago
The position on abortion of a majority of Hoosiers probably mirrors that of a majority of Kansans.
In Indiana, however, it’s the legislature which will be voting on the issue — not the electorate. In Indiana, the legislature has GOP super-majorities. The Indiana senate recently passed a bill which is close to the Kansas referendum. While the Indiana house still has to deal with the bill, it’s likely that it will pass it, although there may be some changes and a reconciliation process.
The GOP position is inconsistent on this issue with any and all other “right to life” issues, of course. For instance, there will be no penalty for women who have abortions, unlike the homicide charges which would be brought against them if they killed a newborn. Again, the senators who voted in favor of this bill (in concert with many, if not a large majority of GOP pols) cynically refuse to confer the other entitlements on unborn children which they opine accrue to newborns — except when it’s convenient for them to so do.
So the “original sin” aspects of the right to life issue remains, marking both political parties: The GOP will do whatever it can to see that you “get here” and then says, “You’re on your own now.” While the Democrats favor abortion, and then show enough concern for newborns and families to provide some support for them.
Stephen Runnels Premium Member almost 2 years ago
White Nationalist Justice Sam ‘Torquemada’ Alito and his fellow members of the christian Taliban will be looking forward (pun intended) to plenty of special rulings for the church and country starting October 3rd.
rlaker22j almost 2 years ago
and now they’ve caught the Mormons abusing their children which religion hasn’t
Zebrastripes almost 2 years ago
Narcissistic bullies, are in fact, COWARDS!
MuddyUSA Premium Member almost 2 years ago
State rights!
fritzoid Premium Member almost 2 years ago
I struggled for some minutes to figure out what this had to do with Rep. Walorski’s death…
charliekane over 1 year ago
A little local perspective:
Indiana is a little different sometimes. There is a lot of right wing, former guy, full on nutty nonsense. But there is a strong strain of catering to business interests. Back in 2015, Mikey Pence and the ‘pubs stepped in the doo-doo with their RIFRA law. Business interests such as "Angie’s List" objected strongly that the law would sanction discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, threatening to pull investment from the state. Further legislation, “clarifying” the law was quickly passed to mollify business interests.
It is my understanding that something similar may be happening now. The initial impulse to ban abortions more or less completely has run up against concerns that businesses and investors may balk at too much restriction, for the sake of their employees. I guess we’ll see.
dnie1951 over 1 year ago
Right to LIFE is in the Constitution; ‘right’ to abort babies is not.
Radish the wordsmith over 1 year ago
Sexist Republiguns make women 2nd class.