Is Congress that subservient?

 

I saw part of a speech by Kamala Harris, talking about abortion. According to the VP, if Donald Trump is elected, Congress will pass a bill outlawing abortion coast-to-coast, which Trump will sign. But if Harris is elected, Congress will pass a law mandating abortion access in all 50 states, which she will sign. Does she really think that Congress passes whatever legislation the president wants?

I can see a Congress pushing or not pushing a piece of legislation, depending on who the president is.  For instance, let us say that the majority of Congress wants to shut down all oil drilling in Alaska.  If Trump is the president, they would be wasting their time, as he would surely veto it.  If Biden or Harris is president, a presidential signature is likely, so the members would try to pass it if they had the votes to get it past a Senate filibuster.  But the same Congress that would vote for a nationwide abortion ban if they thought they would get the president’s signature, would not pass a bill that does the opposite, just because the president would sign that one.  Everyone on this website already knows this, but any voters who were hoping they would hear less ridiculous BS from Harris than they have heard from Biden or Trump is in for disappointment.

Published in Abortion
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 148 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):
    Oh, goodness gracias. Why is it always the atheists who think abortion is great?

    It’s not as black-and-white as that. I’m not going to name names, but I know multiple Ricochet members who are atheists or agnostics who oppose abortion. And outside of Ricochet, I know people who are church-goers who think abortion should be legal.

    I’m an agnostic who opposes abortion (though not fully 100%). Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden are supposedly practicing Catholics and fully support abortion up to birth, and possibly thereafter.

    They are emphatically not “practicing Catholics,” regardless of how they choose to self-identify. A practicing Catholic accepts the teaching of the Catholic Church – the acceptance of that is part of being a practicing Catholic, and her teaching is accepted because we believe the Church was founded and given her authority by Christ.

    I know of atheists who oppose abortion. The pro-abortion types like to dismiss opposition to abortion as merely a religious curiosity, but that’s certainly not the case.

    Good point. One doesn’t have to be religious to recognize killing babies is bad..

    • #61
  2. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Jim Kearney (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Jim Kearney (View Comment):
    The Trump campaign’s narratives outside that one issue are strong. By her former statements on many issues, Harris is the most radical left wing major party candidate to ever run for President. Trump will try to expose that, and suppress talk about what his SCOTUS picks did to take half-century old abortion rights away from poor women in red states.

    Why should he suppress it? The Court sent it back to the states where it belongs. Maybe in the future the court will have a majority that can hallucinate about emanations of penumbras (or was it penumbras of emanations?) long enough to scribble out sufficient legal twaddle to reverse the reversal, but in the meantime Trump will not sign legislation for a national ban.

    Now that I’ve fed, watered, and curried your hobbyhorse, do you feel better?

    Trump continues to change the topic off abortion because he knows Dobbs is his weakest point. That’s why his GOP platform purged 40 years of anti-abortion rhetoric. His political radar is strong enough to see that social conservatism could destroy the GOP.

    People use the arcane language of Roe to discredit and obscure the central finding: privacy rights are unenumerated rights protected by the 9th Amendment. The present court excluded abortion rights by 6-3 but there’s no way that lasts half as long as the Roe/Casey. The strong underlying foundation of the 9th Amendment remains (with contraceptive rights still protected in Griswold remaining so, probably unanimously as soon as the Court’s oldest members retire.) Future justices will also consider women’s reproductive rights implicit in the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

    Don’t even think about a national abortion ban. I hope and predict the voters will eventually have their say and pass federal legislation re-establishing the rights until viability per Roe/Casey. Congress will weigh in on numerating rights. I expect the filibuster will be suspended, just as it was suspended to add that anti-Roe justices to the court. If such a national abortion rights bill is signed into law by a Republican President, the anti-abortion movement will reach its effective end point.

    At that point private persuasion, support for adoption services, and perhaps pre-natal gene therapies will become the focus of “pro-life” advocates as the subject moves out of the legal realm entirely.

     

    It is amazing to me that the top leadership on the pro-life side of things is not looking into the tremendous damage done to reproductive health of  women across the board once the COVID mRNA vaccines were pushed on them by medical personnel.

    Jonas Salk, who actually understood a great deal about a human’s immune system — as well as how a baby carries immunity forward from its mom that the babe acquired in the mom’s womb — he was adamant that no pregnant woman should ever be vaccinated. The vaxxes given to a woman while pregnant knock out the natural immunity of the baby that used to guarantee full health for the infant’s first nine months.

    Now the statistics regarding how many women are no longer able to conceive, or who have a miscarriage even after the 5 month mark, or a still born baby at a full 8 or 9 months are record shattering.

    On top of that, since babies born in hospitals on day one are injected with one of the more toxic vaccines ever produced, the hep b vaccine, then they are liable to suffer from a failure to thrive.

    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/switzerland-miscarriages-stillbirths-covid-shots/

    The  article above was basing its research on data collected by the Swiss government:

    From the article itself:

    “COVID shots led to ‘the baby gap’”

    “Switzerland saw a historic drop in the rate of live births in 2022. Every month that year, there were fewer births than there had been on average over the previous six years, for an overall reduction of 8.5% in the national birth rate, according to Beck’s analysis. In some places, the drop was even more significant — Zurich had a 16.5 % drop in its birth rate.

    “The last comparable drop in births, 13%, Beck said, was during the 1914 mobilization of the Swiss Army at the start of World War I, when most young men went off to fight the war. The 2022 plummet in birth rates came on the heels of a small “Corona baby boom” — a 3% spike in birth rates in 2021, that had followed the pandemic lockdown.”

     

    An article from early on in the COV mRNA vax program, April 2022:

    https://expose-news.com/2022/04/30/study-covid-vaccines-increase-risk-miscarriage-1517percent/

    Vaccines for COV affect miscarriage rate increase

    “So according to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), between December 2020 and 11th Feb 22, there were a total of 1,179 spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) reported as adverse reactions to all of the available Covid-19 injections in the USA.

    “The problem with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System is that it doesn’t tell the whole story, because studies have shown for years that just 1 to 10% of adverse reactions are actually reported to the system. Therefore the true number of miscarriages to the Covid-19 injections could be as high as 117,900, if not more.”

    Full article at link above.

    We are at the beginning of a cluster buck of epic proportions. Little human  fertility going forward. The loss of pregnancies to miscarriage at extremely high rates for women who do conceive.

    Babies who do survive going on to have numerous health problems.

    And we will not know for 20 years the effect of our beloved CDC imposing the idea that doctors and nurses at clinics can jab up 6 month old babies with mRNA vaxxes.

    This will dwarf the effect of the number of babies currently  lost due to the mom and dads taking the overnight pill and aborting a zygote, or choosing to have an abortion thru aspiration or D&C.

     

     

     

    • #62
  3. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Jim Kearney (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Jim Kearney (View Comment):
    The Trump campaign’s narratives outside that one issue are strong. By her former statements on many issues, Harris is the most radical left wing major party candidate to ever run for President. Trump will try to expose that, and suppress talk about what his SCOTUS picks did to take half-century old abortion rights away from poor women in red states.

    Why should he suppress it? The Court sent it back to the states where it belongs. Maybe in the future the court will have a majority that can hallucinate about emanations of penumbras (or was it penumbras of emanations?) long enough to scribble out sufficient legal twaddle to reverse the reversal, but in the meantime Trump will not sign legislation for a national ban.

    Now that I’ve fed, watered, and curried your hobbyhorse, do you feel better?

    Trump continues to change the topic off abortion because he knows Dobbs is his weakest point. That’s why his GOP platform purged 40 years of anti-abortion rhetoric. His political radar is strong enough to see that social conservatism could destroy the GOP.

    People use the arcane language of Roe to discredit and obscure the central finding: privacy rights are unenumerated rights protected by the 9th Amendment. The present court excluded abortion rights by 6-3 but there’s no way that lasts half as long as the Roe/Casey. The strong underlying foundation of the 9th Amendment remains (with contraceptive rights still protected in Griswold remaining so, probably unanimously as soon as the Court’s oldest members retire.) Future justices will also consider women’s reproductive rights implicit in the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

    Don’t even think about a national abortion ban. I hope and predict the voters will eventually have their say and pass federal legislation re-establishing the rights until viability per Roe/Casey. Congress will weigh in on numerating rights. I expect the filibuster will be suspended, just as it was suspended to add that anti-Roe justices to the court. If such a national abortion rights bill is signed into law by a Republican President, the anti-abortion movement will reach its effective end point.

    At that point private persuasion, support for adoption services, and perhaps pre-natal gene therapies will become the focus of “pro-life” advocates as the subject moves out of the legal realm entirely.

     

    It is amazing to me that the top leadership on the pro-life side of things is not looking into the tremendous damage done to reproductive health of women across the board once the COVID mRNA vaccines were pushed on them by medical personnel.

    Jonas Salk, who actually understood a great deal about a human’s immune system — as well as how a baby carries immunity forward from its mom that the babe acquired in the mom’s womb — he was adamant that no pregnant woman should ever be vaccinated. The vaxxes given to a woman while pregnant knock out the natural immunity of the baby that used to guarantee full health for the infant’s first nine months.

    Now the statistics regarding how many women are no longer able to conceive, or who have a miscarriage even after the 5 month mark, or a still born baby at a full 8 or 9 months are record shattering.

    On top of that, since babies born in hospitals on day one are injected with one of the more toxic vaccines ever produced, the hep b vaccine, then they are liable to suffer from a failure to thrive.

    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/switzerland-miscarriages-stillbirths-covid-shots/

    The article above was basing its research on data collected by the Swiss government:

    From the article itself:

    “COVID shots led to ‘the baby gap’”

    “Switzerland saw a historic drop in the rate of live births in 2022. Every month that year, there were fewer births than there had been on average over the previous six years, for an overall reduction of 8.5% in the national birth rate, according to Beck’s analysis. In some places, the drop was even more significant — Zurich had a 16.5 % drop in its birth rate.

    “The last comparable drop in births, 13%, Beck said, was during the 1914 mobilization of the Swiss Army at the start of World War I, when most young men went off to fight the war. The 2022 plummet in birth rates came on the heels of a small “Corona baby boom” — a 3% spike in birth rates in 2021, that had followed the pandemic lockdown.”

     

    An article from early on in the COV mRNA vax program, April 2022:

    https://expose-news.com/2022/04/30/study-covid-vaccines-increase-risk-miscarriage-1517percent/

    Vaccines for COV affect miscarriage rate increase

    “So according to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), between December 2020 and 11th Feb 22, there were a total of 1,179 spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) reported as adverse reactions to all of the available Covid-19 injections in the USA.

    “The problem with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System is that it doesn’t tell the whole story, because studies have shown for years that just 1 to 10% of adverse reactions are actually reported to the system. Therefore the true number of miscarriages to the Covid-19 injections could be as high as 117,900, if not more.”

    Full article at link above.

    We are at the beginning of a cluster buck of epic proportions. Little human fertility going forward. The loss of pregnancies to miscarriage at extremely high rates for women who do conceive.

    Babies who do survive going on to have numerous health problems.

    And we will not know for 20 years the effect of our beloved CDC imposing the idea that doctors and nurses at clinics can jab up 6 month old babies with mRNA vaxxes.

    This will dwarf the effect of the number of babies currently lost due to the mom and dads taking the overnight pill and aborting a zygote, or choosing to have an abortion thru aspiration or D&C.

    Carol, this doesn’t have a thing to do with the topic at hand.  Please stop using any tangential topic you can think of to squeeze in your pet theories about Covid vaccines.

    • #63
  4. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Abortions aren’t healthcare but birth control, and a horrendous form of birth control at that.

    Jim Kearney is into that leftist game of making up pleasant sounding names for things they support that are disgusting to the average person. That’s why they call killing babies “reproductive health care” and “a right to choose.” Even using the original word “abortion” is a cowardly ploy meant to obfuscate the fact that it is taking an innocent human life.

    He also clarified that a “fetus” is not a baby, as if anybody in the English speaking world has ever asked a pregnant woman about her “fetus.”

    I just assume guys love abortion because it absolves them of responsibility for what their behavior causes.

    Certainly has been my assumption for many years that men love easy availability of abortion because it helps them promote “consequence free sex.” Provides justification for either:

    “Of course you should have sex with me. If you happen to get pregnant, you can just abort it.” or 

    “Of course I have no obligation to help raise this baby, nor to pay child support. You could have aborted it.”

    • #64
  5. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    I just assume guys love abortion because it absolves them of responsibility for what their behavior causes.

    I’ve always kind of figured what you wrote was the case because it seemed pretty common sense, but polls have mostly shown the attitudes on abortion are relatively evenly split between men and women, with men perhaps getting a slight edge in the pro-life category.   Since 2020 however, women’s support for abortion has soared and far outpaced men’s support, being pro-death at a 2 to 1 ratio.  Could it be that women now want to be absolved of responsibility?

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx

    This may be the trend Kamala Harris is trying to piggyback onto since she has nothing else.

    • #65
  6. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    I just assume guys love abortion because it absolves them of responsibility for what their behavior causes.

    I’ve always kind of figured what you wrote was the case because it seemed pretty common sense, but polls have mostly shown the attitudes on abortion are relatively evenly split between men and women, with men perhaps getting a slight edge in the pro-life category. Since 2020 however, women’s support for abortion has soared and far outpaced men’s support, being pro-death at a 2 to 1 ratio. Could it be that women now want to be absolved of responsibility?

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx

    This may be the trend Kamala Harris is trying to piggyback onto since she has nothing else.

    A few years ago I remember seeing a survey that women were slightly more likely to be pro-life than men.

    • #66
  7. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    I just assume guys love abortion because it absolves them of responsibility for what their behavior causes.

    I’ve always kind of figured what you wrote was the case because it seemed pretty common sense, but polls have mostly shown the attitudes on abortion are relatively evenly split between men and women, with men perhaps getting a slight edge in the pro-life category. Since 2020 however, women’s support for abortion has soared and far outpaced men’s support, being pro-death at a 2 to 1 ratio. Could it be that women now want to be absolved of responsibility?

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx

    This may be the trend Kamala Harris is trying to piggyback onto since she has nothing else.

    A piece of the puzzle is all the pro-abortion female role models (teachers, professors, etc.) that women in their 20s and 30s have had.  

    • #67
  8. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Abortions aren’t healthcare but birth control, and a horrendous form of birth control at that.

    Jim Kearney is into that leftist game of making up pleasant sounding names for things they support that are disgusting to the average person. That’s why they call killing babies “reproductive health care” and “a right to choose.” Even using the original word “abortion” is a cowardly ploy meant to obfuscate the fact that it is taking an innocent human life.

    He also clarified that a “fetus” is not a baby, as if anybody in the English speaking world has ever asked a pregnant woman about her “fetus.”

    I just assume guys love abortion because it absolves them of responsibility for what their behavior causes.

    Certainly has been my assumption for many years that men love easy availability of abortion because it helps them promote “consequence free sex.” Provides justification for either:

    “Of course you should have sex with me. If you happen to get pregnant, you can just abort it.” or

    “Of course I have no obligation to help raise this baby, nor to pay child support. You could have aborted it.”

    The ugly truth is many are pressured by the boy friends to get abortions or are just dumped by them.  As a female leader it was my duty to sit down with the young female airmen before deployments and give them the talk – the temptations to have sex while we were camping out in the woods on deployments. They would roll their eyes and look at me like I was some sort of old fuddy duddy. A few weeks later, one would come to my office, visibly upset and tell me she was pregnant and was considering an abortion. They asked me what they should do. I told them I do not give advice on that subject, to call their moms. Abortions don’t always go well. One ended up hospitalized. Another I knew for years in the AF married but was never able to have kids. None married the person who got them pregnant. I never had that problem with my kids. I always had Dr Laura on the radio when my teenager and I were in the car in the afternoon.  (Lessons learned through other’s mistakes)

    • #68
  9. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    I just assume guys love abortion because it absolves them of responsibility for what their behavior causes.

    I’ve always kind of figured what you wrote was the case because it seemed pretty common sense, but polls have mostly shown the attitudes on abortion are relatively evenly split between men and women, with men perhaps getting a slight edge in the pro-life category. Since 2020 however, women’s support for abortion has soared and far outpaced men’s support, being pro-death at a 2 to 1 ratio. Could it be that women now want to be absolved of responsibility?

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx

    This may be the trend Kamala Harris is trying to piggyback onto since she has nothing else.

    A few years ago I remember seeing a survey that women were slightly more likely to be pro-life than men.

    Women have the advantage of motherly instincts and the experience of creating a new life. 

    • #69
  10. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    I just assume guys love abortion because it absolves them of responsibility for what their behavior causes.

    I’ve always kind of figured what you wrote was the case because it seemed pretty common sense, but polls have mostly shown the attitudes on abortion are relatively evenly split between men and women, with men perhaps getting a slight edge in the pro-life category. Since 2020 however, women’s support for abortion has soared and far outpaced men’s support, being pro-death at a 2 to 1 ratio. Could it be that women now want to be absolved of responsibility?

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx

    This may be the trend Kamala Harris is trying to piggyback onto since she has nothing else.

    Some who support it do so for moral preening.  It is sold as something beneficial and empowering without the aspect of a human life snuffed out. Certain people need that do-gooder feeling for self-esteem and moral superiority. 

    • #70
  11. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Abortions aren’t healthcare but birth control, and a horrendous form of birth control at that.

    Jim Kearney is into that leftist game of making up pleasant sounding names for things they support that are disgusting to the average person. That’s why they call killing babies “reproductive health care” and “a right to choose.” Even using the original word “abortion” is a cowardly ploy meant to obfuscate the fact that it is taking an innocent human life.

    He also clarified that a “fetus” is not a baby, as if anybody in the English speaking world has ever asked a pregnant woman about her “fetus.”

    I just assume guys love abortion because it absolves them of responsibility for what their behavior causes.

    Certainly has been my assumption for many years that men love easy availability of abortion because it helps them promote “consequence free sex.” Provides justification for either:

    “Of course you should have sex with me. If you happen to get pregnant, you can just abort it.” or

    “Of course I have no obligation to help raise this baby, nor to pay child support. You could have aborted it.”

    The ugly truth is many are pressured by the boy friends to get abortions or are just dumped by them. As a female leader it was my duty to sit down with the young female airmen before deployments and give them the talk – the temptations to have sex while we were camping out in the woods on deployments. They would roll their eyes and look at me like I was some sort of old fuddy duddy. A few weeks later, one would come to my office, visibly upset and tell me she was pregnant and was considering an abortion. They asked me what they should do. I told them I do not give advice on that subject, to call their moms. Abortions don’t always go well. One ended up hospitalized. Another I knew for years in the AF married but was never able to have kids. None married the person who got them pregnant. I never had that problem with my kids. I always had Dr Laura on the radio when my teenager and I were in the car in the afternoon. (Lessons learned through other’s mistakes)

    My mom was a big fan of Dr. Laura. She listened all the time. Not for advice, but to make sure that Dr. Laura was still right.

    • #71
  12. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    I just assume guys love abortion because it absolves them of responsibility for what their behavior causes.

    I’ve always kind of figured what you wrote was the case because it seemed pretty common sense, but polls have mostly shown the attitudes on abortion are relatively evenly split between men and women, with men perhaps getting a slight edge in the pro-life category. Since 2020 however, women’s support for abortion has soared and far outpaced men’s support, being pro-death at a 2 to 1 ratio. Could it be that women now want to be absolved of responsibility?

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx

    This may be the trend Kamala Harris is trying to piggyback onto since she has nothing else.

    A few years ago I remember seeing a survey that women were slightly more likely to be pro-life than men.

    Well, according to the Gallup data, women and men both hovered around the 50% mark from 1995 – 2020, with fluctuations no greater than 10%.  I suppose women could have been measured to be more pro life than men at a number of points on the chart.  Current data shows women to be 14 points more pro-abortion than men (63% vs. 49%) with only 33% of women being pro-life.

    • #72
  13. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    I just assume guys love abortion because it absolves them of responsibility for what their behavior causes.

    I’ve always kind of figured what you wrote was the case because it seemed pretty common sense, but polls have mostly shown the attitudes on abortion are relatively evenly split between men and women, with men perhaps getting a slight edge in the pro-life category. Since 2020 however, women’s support for abortion has soared and far outpaced men’s support, being pro-death at a 2 to 1 ratio. Could it be that women now want to be absolved of responsibility?

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx

    This may be the trend Kamala Harris is trying to piggyback onto since she has nothing else.

    A few years ago I remember seeing a survey that women were slightly more likely to be pro-life than men.

    Well, according to the Gallup data, women and men both hovered around the 50% mark from 1995 – 2020, with fluctuations no greater than 10%. I suppose women could have been measured to be more pro life than men at a number of points on the chart. Current data shows women to be 14 points more pro-abortion than men (63% vs. 49%) with only 33% of women being pro-life.

    Doesn’t surprise me. Women are suckers for the feel-good lies about empowering women.

    • #73
  14. OmegaPaladin Coolidge
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    Jim Kearney (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    I understand that you despise those filthy religious nutjobs who make up most of your party.

    If you’d take the trouble to read my profile you’ll see that I am not a member of the Republican Party.

    I’ve had it with the exclusionary attitude of the GOP towards pro-choice voters. Trump didn’t have one pro-choice contender for the VP job, and Vance was as intolerant and uncompromising a pick as there was out there. It was one thing to form broad voting coalitions before Dobbs. Now, all bets are off. All donations, too. And I’m not the only one who feels this way. Others just don’t bother keeping Ricochet up to date on thinking outside its increasingly inconsequential little bubble.

    Society is telling social conservatives to go back into your box. Cease and desist trying to impose your values on others by force of law and public insults. Even most of the major organized religions aren’t listening to the fundamentalists anymore.

    Okay, Jim, let’s read your profile:

    Before retiring in 2016, Jim Kearney worked as a television executive, consultant, writer, scoreboard director, and educator. He is remembered in the TV industry for his weekly half-hour public radio interviews of leading writer-producers and executives throughout the 1990’s. Noteworthy guests also visited the university classes where Jim taught a generation of students about creative technique and the effects of media. A former student of Professor Marshall McLuhan, Jim also published media reviews in The Hollywood Reporter, TVCriticism.com, PJ Media, and Ricochet. A native New Yorker, Jim is married and has lived in Los Angeles since 1982.

    You grew up in New Yorker, and currently live in California.  You are a former TV executive who regularly appears on NPR.   You are one to lecture us about being in a bubble, Mr. Kearney.    

    He supports equal rights for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals as well as federal privacy rights applied to all reproductive freedoms including birth control, IVF, and abortion rights for any woman so inclined. He finds messaging against women’s reproductive rights to be largely based on the intent of some religious groups to impose their views upon others and thus in fundamental conflict with the intent of the First Amendment. If this or any conversation website permits members to refer to abortion as “murder” or mischaracterize a fetus as a “baby”, Mr. Kearney disassociates himself from those claims, condemns that verbiage, and considers any such website to be condoning uncivil discourse.

    You also have zero credibility demanding that we must respect pro-choice people while sneering at those who follow a religion.   Perhaps you could support civil discourse by being slightly civil to religious people.  Quite bluntly, your statements toward fundamentalist would sound awfully bigoted if they were referring to LGBT people.   You talk about us like Jerry Giordano talks about gays and Jews.

    Moreover, if you’d take the trouble to  read past one sentence of my post, you’d see I was making an entirely non-religious argument against abortion after the fetus shows vital signs.  This is the same kind of argument one could use to argue that people should not be terminated for being inconvenient to others – it is wrong to take life without valid cause.  I guess you can’t handle the scientific facts that justify restrictions on abortion. 

    • #74
  15. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Jim Kearney (View Comment):

    [from Ricochet profile]

    If this or any conversation website permits members to refer to abortion as “murder” or mischaracterize a fetus as a “baby”, Mr. Kearney disassociates himself from those claims, condemns that verbiage, and considers any such website to be condoning uncivil discourse.

    You also have zero credibility demanding that we must respect pro-choice people while sneering at those who follow a religion. Perhaps you could support civil discourse by being slightly civil to religious people.

    Apparently Mr. Kearney has followed his own dictum and left the conversation because several of us have referred to a fetus as a “baby,”  which he characterizes as “uncivil discourse.”  If he wants to drop out of the conversation because of this, there is not much point for him to be in a conversation in the first place.

    • #75
  16. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Moderator Note:

    You had already been warned by the post author against trying to steer threads around to your pet topic.

    [comment redacted by moderator]

    • #76
  17. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Jim Kearney (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Jim Kearney (View Comment):
    The Trump campaign’s narratives outside that one issue are strong. By her former statements on many issues, Harris is the most radical left wing major party candidate to ever run for President. Trump will try to expose that, and suppress talk about what his SCOTUS picks did to take half-century old abortion rights away from poor women in red states.

    Why should he suppress it? The Court sent it back to the states where it belongs. Maybe in the future the court will have a majority that can hallucinate about emanations of penumbras (or was it penumbras of emanations?) long enough to scribble out sufficient legal twaddle to reverse the reversal, but in the meantime Trump will not sign legislation for a national ban.

    Now that I’ve fed, watered, and curried your hobbyhorse, do you feel better?

    Trump continues to change the topic off abortion because he knows Dobbs is his weakest point. That’s why his GOP platform purged 40 years of anti-abortion rhetoric. His political radar is strong enough to see that social conservatism could destroy the GOP.

    People use the arcane language of Roe to discredit and obscure the central finding: privacy rights are unenumerated rights protected by the 9th Amendment. The present court excluded abortion rights by 6-3 but there’s no way that lasts half as long as the Roe/Casey. The strong underlying foundation of the 9th Amendment remains (with contraceptive rights still protected in Griswold remaining so, probably unanimously as soon as the Court’s oldest members retire.) Future justices will also consider women’s reproductive rights implicit in the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

    Don’t even think about a national abortion ban. I hope and predict the voters will eventually have their say and pass federal legislation re-establishing the rights until viability per Roe/Casey. Congress will weigh in on numerating rights. I expect the filibuster will be suspended, just as it was suspended to add that anti-Roe justices to the court. If such a national abortion rights bill is signed into law by a Republican President, the anti-abortion movement will reach its effective end point.

    At that point private persuasion, support for adoption services, and perhaps pre-natal gene therapies will become the focus of “pro-life” advocates as the subject moves out of the legal realm entirely.

    If the country caters to the baby killers over the pro life folks and passes a law legalizing abortion, it deserves to decay away. I would hope Bible Belt states would sever ties with Gomorrah.

    There is no intelligent public policy to get the birth rate up.

    If is a cultural problem

    This is the problem. They start Social Security, and Medicare at gunpoint. Etc.  Then the birth rate goes down. They can make it go up at gunpoint. I think the solution is something like no taxes on people that are willing to have four or more genuine FICA slaves.

    It’s too late, of course.

    • #77
  18. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Jim Kearney (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    I understand that you despise those filthy religious nutjobs who make up most of your party.

    If you’d take the trouble to read my profile you’ll see that I am not a member of the Republican Party.

    I’ve had it with the exclusionary attitude of the GOP towards pro-choice voters. Trump didn’t have one pro-choice contender for the VP job, and Vance was as intolerant and uncompromising a pick as there was out there. It was one thing to form broad voting coalitions before Dobbs. Now, all bets are off. All donations, too. And I’m not the only one who feels this way. Others just don’t bother keeping Ricochet up to date on thinking outside its increasingly inconsequential little bubble.

    Society is telling social conservatives to go back into your box. Cease and desist trying to impose your values on others by force of law and public insults. Even most of the major organized religions aren’t listening to the fundamentalists anymore.

    Okay, Jim, let’s read your profile:

    Before retiring in 2016, Jim Kearney worked as a television executive, consultant, writer, scoreboard director, and educator. He is remembered in the TV industry for his weekly half-hour public radio interviews of leading writer-producers and executives throughout the 1990’s. Noteworthy guests also visited the university classes where Jim taught a generation of students about creative technique and the effects of media. A former student of Professor Marshall McLuhan, Jim also published media reviews in The Hollywood Reporter, TVCriticism.com, PJ Media, and Ricochet. A native New Yorker, Jim is married and has lived in Los Angeles since 1982.

    You grew up in New Yorker, and currently live in California. You are a former TV executive who regularly appears on NPR. You are one to lecture us about being in a bubble, Mr. Kearney.

    He supports equal rights for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals as well as federal privacy rights applied to all reproductive freedoms including birth control, IVF, and abortion rights for any woman so inclined. He finds messaging against women’s reproductive rights to be largely based on the intent of some religious groups to impose their views upon others and thus in fundamental conflict with the intent of the First Amendment. If this or any conversation website permits members to refer to abortion as “murder” or mischaracterize a fetus as a “baby”, Mr. Kearney disassociates himself from those claims, condemns that verbiage, and considers any such website to be condoning uncivil discourse.

    You also have zero credibility demanding that we must respect pro-choice people while sneering at those who follow a religion. Perhaps you could support civil discourse by being slightly civil to religious people. Quite bluntly, your statements toward fundamentalist would sound awfully bigoted if they were referring to LGBT people. You talk about us like Jerry Giordano talks about gays and Jews.

    Moreover, if you’d take the trouble to read past one sentence of my post, you’d see I was making an entirely non-religious argument against abortion after the fetus shows vital signs. This is the same kind of argument one could use to argue that people should not be terminated for being inconvenient to others – it is wrong to take life without valid cause. I guess you can’t handle the scientific facts that justify restrictions on abortion.

    Now I am confused. Is pro-life embraced by atheists, also, as some say, or as he says, is a religious view and an example of people imposing their religion on others.

    • #78
  19. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    Red Herring (View Comment):
    Now I am confused. Is pro-life embraced by atheists, also, as some say, or as he says, is a religious view and an example of people imposing their religion on others.

    Nobody claims that atheists are universally pro-life.  Omega is just disputing the assertion that atheists are universally pro-choice.

    • #79
  20. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):
    Now I am confused. Is pro-life embraced by atheists, also, as some say, or as he says, is a religious view and an example of people imposing their religion on others.

    Nobody claims that atheists are universally pro-life. Omega is just disputing the assertion that atheists are universally pro-choice.

    I am disputing the assertion that pro-life is a religious effort to force religion on others. It goes hand in hand with pro life is supported by both atheists and believers. 

    • #80
  21. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):
    Now I am confused. Is pro-life embraced by atheists, also, as some say, or as he says, is a religious view and an example of people imposing their religion on others.

    Nobody claims that atheists are universally pro-life. Omega is just disputing the assertion that atheists are universally pro-choice.

    I am disputing the assertion that pro-life is a religious effort to force religion on others. It goes hand in hand with pro life is supported by both atheists and believers.

    There are completely non-religious reasons to oppose abortion. Just as there are non-religious reasons to oppose slavery and to oppose killing the not-useful (very elderly, severely handicapped, etc.) or even murder of another human.

    The most conspicuous is that a human embryo or a human slave or a severely handicapped human is a creature with unique human DNA different from that of the host mother or slave owner or human care provider for a handicapped human. And even if an atheist can’t articulate the reason, an atheist may recognize that somehow a human is categorically different from animals like cows, chickens, dogs, horses, etc. 

    • #81
  22. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Can the government force a decent level of prenatal care? I’m skeptical. You can’t force the mother to not eat Doritos and beer. You can’t force the mother to not hate the baby or be anxious about it which is a known issue for later psychological problems. *(There is a word for this, but I always forget it. It’s very difficult to overcome with psychotherapy. They warn parents that adopt children about it.)

    The whole argument about the mother’s health is too complicated. Set it at 10 weeks and just drop it for four presidential election cycles.

    *attachment disorder

    • #82
  23. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    I just assume guys love abortion because it absolves them of responsibility for what their behavior causes.

    I’ve always kind of figured what you wrote was the case because it seemed pretty common sense, but polls have mostly shown the attitudes on abortion are relatively evenly split between men and women, with men perhaps getting a slight edge in the pro-life category. Since 2020 however, women’s support for abortion has soared and far outpaced men’s support, being pro-death at a 2 to 1 ratio. Could it be that women now want to be absolved of responsibility?

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx

    This may be the trend Kamala Harris is trying to piggyback onto since she has nothing else.

    A few years ago I remember seeing a survey that women were slightly more likely to be pro-life than men.

    Well, according to the Gallup data, women and men both hovered around the 50% mark from 1995 – 2020, with fluctuations no greater than 10%. I suppose women could have been measured to be more pro life than men at a number of points on the chart. Current data shows women to be 14 points more pro-abortion than men (63% vs. 49%) with only 33% of women being pro-life.

    The problem with polling is that it cannot discover what experiences, attitudes, assumptions etc lie behind the numbers representing how people being polled think and feel.

    Many women remember horror stories of women who died because although they were miscarrying. the doctors at ER were  under strict protocols issued by their hospitals that since if massive bleeding was involved then these medical emergencies  “had to be the result of an attempted self abortion.”

    I am hearing that now since most hospitals have the ability to do some type of C scan or whatever to determine what is going on, then this won’t happen any more.

    But living in a rural area, where the equipment seems to be wonkier than even the wonky equipment available back when I lived in a metro area, I just don’t know.

    If a poll is constructed to include the info that women who could actually die from miscarrying need a D&C stat, the numbers of women being pro-life might swing upward. (However I really don’t know as after all, the Left has gone so overboard on this issue that it is hard to tell.)

     

    • #83
  24. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    referencing #82 

    *attachment disorder 

    • #84
  25. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    You can’t force the mother to not eat Doritos and beer. You can’t force the mother to not hate the baby or be anxious about it which is a known issue for later psychological problems.

    You can’t? 

    The administrative state says, “Hold my beer.”  

    • #85
  26. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    You can’t force the mother to not eat Doritos and beer. You can’t force the mother to not hate the baby or be anxious about it which is a known issue for later psychological problems.

    You can’t?

    The administrative state says, “Hold my beer.”

    They aren’t going to do that. The kid is all screwed up and is a big problem and requires tens of thousands of psychotherapy. They aren’t going to solve it. they aren’t going to blame the parents, and you can’t blame the parents. They don’t have control over their emotions like that. 

    Furthermore (and just to be clear, I don’t know much about this) you can’t force any level of decent prenatal care. They can eat Doritos and beer AT A MINIMUM etc. etc. as much as they want and you can’t control their attitude about it. You can make them adopt but you can’t make it turn out to be a good situation.

    • #86
  27. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    You can’t force the mother to not eat Doritos and beer. You can’t force the mother to not hate the baby or be anxious about it which is a known issue for later psychological problems.

    You can’t?

    The administrative state says, “Hold my beer.”

    They aren’t going to do that. The kid is all screwed up and is a big problem and requires tens of thousands of psychotherapy. They aren’t going to solve it. they aren’t going to blame the parents, and you can’t blame the parents. They don’t have control over their emotions like that.

    Furthermore (and just to be clear, I don’t know much about this) you can’t force any level of decent prenatal care. They can eat Doritos and beer AT A MINIMUM etc. etc. as much as they want and you can’t control their attitude about it. You can make them adopt but you can’t make it turn out to be a good situation.

    Since when has lack of success ever stopped them?

    • #87
  28. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    You can’t force the mother to not eat Doritos and beer. You can’t force the mother to not hate the baby or be anxious about it which is a known issue for later psychological problems.

    You can’t?

    The administrative state says, “Hold my beer.”

    They aren’t going to do that. The kid is all screwed up and is a big problem and requires tens of thousands of psychotherapy. They aren’t going to solve it. they aren’t going to blame the parents, and you can’t blame the parents. They don’t have control over their emotions like that.

    Furthermore (and just to be clear, I don’t know much about this) you can’t force any level of decent prenatal care. They can eat Doritos and beer AT A MINIMUM etc. etc. as much as they want and you can’t control their attitude about it. You can make them adopt but you can’t make it turn out to be a good situation.

    Since when has lack of success ever stopped them?

    Really? The pro-abortion Democrat administrative state is going to track the adopted kids that are screwed up?

    Set it at 10 weeks and just drop it. Have you ever heard the Democrat  campaign rhetoric about abortion? It makes no sense and it gets the single suburban women all worked up out of their minds.

    Furthermore, and this is just my amateur opinion, you can’t control any level of decent prenatal care. I have never once heard anybody explain how this would actually work. Doritos. Beer. Coffee. Partying. Hate the kid. Be anxious about the pregnancy. Is the government actually going to step in on any of this? You are talking about force, and what you can control.

    I get that people shouldn’t fornicate, but that is why the government *should *give  every single fertile woman a Plan B pill at all times. It’s not abortion. It’s the pill.

    • #88
  29. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    From another angle, remember that a few years ago (during the Obama administration), leading members of Congress were begging then-president Obama to issues executive orders so that they wouldn’t have to prepare and to pass legislation (I don’t remember the specific subject, and the internet seems to be trying to memory-hole the event).

    Back at the time the United States Constitution was adopted (late 1700s) the Federalist Papers tell us that the authors expected the politicians in the different branches of government (particularly the executive and legislative branches) would jealously and jealously guard their respective powers, and expected that the primary issue would be that each branch would try to take power from the other. Yet today the legislative branch tries to give away its power to the executive branch.  

    Legislators make it sound as though the legislators want the executive branch to exercise power because the legislators don’t want to be held accountable for actually taking a position on a policy position. 

    • #89
  30. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    From another angle, remember that a few years ago (during the Obama administration), leading members of Congress were begging then-president Obama to issues executive orders so that they wouldn’t have to prepare and to pass legislation (I don’t remember the specific subject, and the internet seems to be trying to memory-hole the event).

    Back at the time the United States Constitution was adopted (late 1700s) the Federalist Papers tell us that the authors expected the politicians in the different branches of government (particularly the executive and legislative branches) would jealously and jealously guard their respective powers, and expected that the primary issue would be that each branch would try to take power from the other. Yet today the legislative branch tries to give away its power to the executive branch.

    Legislators make it sound as though the legislators want the executive branch to exercise power because the legislators don’t want to be held accountable for actually taking a position on a policy position.

    I don’t know what point you are making, but I will explain my point. 

    Just drop it. Set it at 10 weeks and don’t go back to it until we go through for presidential election cycles. You can’t make anybody provide a decent level of prenatal care. You can force them to not have an abortion, but you can’t make them take care of the baby. 

    People like to fornicate.  You can’t control the level of prenatal care. What are you going to do? Make sure every fertile woman has Plan B pills at home. It’s not an abortion. 

    Abortions went up 15% after Roe versus Wade went away. People think there is control when there isn’t. 

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.