(Politic) Alabama passes bill to ban abortion completely

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Poor Dreiko getting taken to the back of the woodshed. Moral of the story is you can't central position everything

He did make a point and that is overlooked in most of the response I have seen to this. Woman did write this bill and passed this bill are also celebrating this bill. Now the rich white man dictating woman bodies is a strong narrative but there are plenty of woman who they are married also pushing this agenda and because the man told them. These woman want to impose their view of "being a woman" just as strong as male counterparts and they get the privilege to go unnoticed and pull their snake ways in the shadows. That saying behind every "great" man and all that.

Now I have straddled I used to be pro life but I and strongly pro choice I understand that many think the life starts at embryo but with so much funding cut in assisting these children when they are born and leaving to the wolves essentially I changed position and life is complicated so which ever plays out I would ride pro choice. I hope other states can buck this trend I know Ohio is more draconian than Alabama and Georgia not far behind. Also I pray Roe V Wade is not overturned because of this nonsense though it will be a strong chance this is the endgame.

Of course Indoctrination is a strong tool for conformity, that is why they go to these extremes they do to indoctrinate people as children, it isn't like I was the first child they tied to a chair and made to read the bible aloud. The sheer amount of peer pressure from religious groups in my school made it difficult for many kids not to feel excluded if they did not participate. That is the whole point, it isn't like they only indoctrinated males into this as children, there were plenty of females who were indoctrinated as well, HOWEVER, only white men voted on this legislation to have it passed, the only three women who voted on it voted against it although a female governor did not veto it and she should be ashamed.

Yes, women can and do police other women's bodies, but this is a policing of women's bodies none the less. When you research their beliefs however, chances are they were indoctrinated into them as children and were never given time to form an opinion of their own. Where I come from, indoctrination is condemned, and children are not allowed to be inducted into religious societies, as that is reserved only for adults and the decision has to be entirely their own. Instead of indoctrination, people are encouraged to learn about the world and all the religions before making any sort of decision or commitment to a set of beliefs. It is seen as unethical to indoctrinate anyone and not give them an educated choice.

I know this policing woman's bodies no matter where it comes from. I know it comes from lesson they learned from childhood this is true for the men and woman. I can understand it but I am holding all parties accountable for this cause it is starting to affect and be enforced on other people. I am aware the only white men voted on it and plenty of white woman put them in that position.

I still hope something comes up that can balance out this news.

It has always been affecting and enforced upon other people, it is the preventing them from being able to do so that is newer. When the Europeans came to these shores, the lands were not empty. They affected the millions of people here and enforced their will upon them as well. This has never ceased. We have already seen what will happen if this behavior is allowed to continue, it is just history repeating itself at this point because people refuse to learn from it.

Poor Dreiko getting taken to the back of the woodshed. Moral of the story is you can't central position everything

He did make a point and that is overlooked in most of the response I have seen to this. Woman did write this bill and passed this bill are also celebrating this bill. Now the rich white man dictating woman bodies is a strong narrative but there are plenty of woman who they are married also pushing this agenda and because the man told them. These woman want to impose their view of "being a woman" just as strong as male counterparts and they get the privilege to go unnoticed and pull their snake ways in the shadows. That saying behind every "great" man and all that.

Now I have straddled I used to be pro life but I and strongly pro choice I understand that many think the life starts at embryo but with so much funding cut in assisting these children when they are born and leaving to the wolves essentially I changed position and life is complicated so which ever plays out I would ride pro choice. I hope other states can buck this trend I know Ohio is more draconian than Alabama and Georgia not far behind. Also I pray Roe V Wade is not overturned because of this nonsense though it will be a strong chance this is the endgame.

Hell, I'm not even centrist, I'm just actually explaining the other side in terms that someone from it would use in order to have a real discussion and not everyone stating the obvious about these laws being proposed that doesn't even really need to be stated cause everyone's already thinking it.


Thankfully, I'm not particularly affected by disagreement so I don't mind, though it'd be useful if people didn't reach for the ad-hominems as quickly as they do. If I'm moderate with my pro-socialism positions and tolerance of literally everything ever just because I'm not as passionate on cultural issues then that's saying that only cultural issues matter, which is absurd.

I understand their terms all too well, both the ones they use in public and those they use in private and none of them excuse their behavior and no, we cannot compromise on this. We already know where this leads, it isn't like this is the first time this has happened. I fully understand their motives and why they think they have to act and that is part of the problem that needs to be addressed, not condoned or allowed to continue.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If you refuse to make a rational compromise, you lose the right to expect them to care about one either, so then this becomes a battle over power and over who oppresses whom, where in some cases you will have abortion getting banned like we see here, which is no good.

It becomes a battle over power, yes. It doesn't become about who oppresses who, but about whether or not people are oppressed, because only one side wants to oppress people.

There isn't a rational compromise to be had.

 

[Saelune]

that is one thing dems do that's starting to piss me off. We live in a post-rules world right now. People are openly ignoring subpoenas, and Nancy Pelosi is out there thinking she might hold them in contempt of congress. No girl, that shit is straight up illegal! You can't ignore a subpoena! Get the DC police to go arrest them and jail them until they agree to adhere to the summons.

Aside from DC police being the wrong law enforcement body (that falls to the Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives for cases of contempt of Congress), you're dead on. That and that if held in contempt of congress they have to hold them in the House's jail, which might possibly cause logistical issues depending on how many ignored subpoenas there end up being.

This is a different tune than what you were singing about Kavanaugh and Ford.

How so?

It is literally the job of the Sergeant at Arms to arrest people who ignore Congressional subpoenas and place them in the House's jail until the issue of contempt is resolved (which generally means complying with the subpoena). Regular judges have that same authority. The only real defense is if the House is issuing subpoenas outside their authority (that is if they were demanding people appear before them for reasons unrelated to the proper business of the legislature). Which you'll notice the White House has been actively suggesting even though it's probably a losing battle. It's an obvious stalling tactic in the hopes of being able to drag the fight out for political reasons, so Trump can sell it as Democrats being irrationally after his presidency even after "NO COLLUSION! NO OBSTRUCTION!".

It is not in the authority of the FBI to investigate state level crimes, and it is not in the authority of the Montgomery County, MD police to start investigations based on media statements or statements made to Congress about events over three decades old. Literally, if Ford actually wanted an investigation into her accusation, she just has to file a complaint with the Montgomery County, MD police, as I've pointed out time and again. She could have done so at any time in the past 30-odd years, and she could do so even now. Kavanaugh is not immune to the law, especially not state law.

You keep going on about rule of law, suddenly its ok to ignore it? You keep defending Kavanaugh cause 'Innocent until proven guilty', but not here? Be consistent.

 

[Schadrach]

You keep going on about rule of law, suddenly its ok to ignore it?

When did I say it was OK to ignore it? I actually agreed with the person I replied to that if they ignore a Congressional subpoena they should be arrested for contempt, just that it's not the job of district police to enforce that - there is literally a congressional office to fill the direct law enforcement needs of Congress (the Sergeant at Arms) and a special jail for such people.

You keep defending Kavanaugh cause 'Innocent until proven guilty', but not here? Be consistent.

The difference is evidence - in Kavanaugh's case all there is against him is testimony regarding events 30-odd years ago that is contradicted by other testimony (given by people she thought would corroborate her story, no less). Presuming that she wasn't lying as a political maneuver (read: presuming her innocence as well), it's fairly likely that she's either misidentified Kavanaugh (which happens shockingly often - see the Innocence Project again, where most of those exonerated were charged with sex crimes, and most of them were misidentified) or that she's mixed up the events around it in such a way that it's impossible to prove.

In this case you have a subpoena produced by Congress, served by an officer, compelling a person to appear before Congress and give testimony. You also have them not appearing before Congress as requested. It's nice and neat and obvious. You can point to the subpoena, the people who drafted it, the entire chain of hands it went through from being drafted to being served, and the entire fucking House is witness to someone not appearing before the House in accordance with a subpoena.

 

[Schadrach]

The people pushing this also want to strip the right to vote from people who have committed a felony.

Abortion will be a felony

Miscarriage will be treated as abortion - a felony.

They want birth control to be treated as an abortion - a felony.

Oh look if they get what they want, it becomes awfully easy for a woman having sex to have committed a felony and to have lost her right to vote.

Gee, I wonder why they'd want that to happen?

Weird, if the point of this abortion law was to strip women of their right to vote by making them felons for having sex, why doesn't it criminalize having an abortion? It criminalizes *performing* an abortion except in fairly narrow specific cases, but "Section 5. No woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted to be performed shall be criminally or civilly liable. Furthermore, no physician confirming the serious health risk to the child's mother shall be criminally or civilly liable for those actions."

That second sentence is because "Section 4. ... (b) An abortion shall be permitted if an attending physician licensed in Alabama determines that an abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother. Except in the case of a medical emergency as defined herein, the physician's determination shall be confirmed in writing by a second physician licensed in Alabama. The confirmation shall occur within 180 days after the abortion is completed and shall be prima facie evidence for a permitted abortion." So, in theory, one could get around this law by finding a friendly doctor who's licensed in Alabama and willing to crank out abortion approval letters for another doctor licensed in Alabama willing to perform the abortions. *Every* pregnancy carries serious health risks, after all.

 

[Saelune]

You keep going on about rule of law, suddenly its ok to ignore it?

When did I say it was OK to ignore it? I actually agreed with the person I replied to that if they ignore a Congressional subpoena they should be arrested for contempt, just that it's not the job of district police to enforce that - there is literally a congressional office to fill the direct law enforcement needs of Congress (the Sergeant at Arms) and a special jail for such people.

You keep defending Kavanaugh cause 'Innocent until proven guilty', but not here? Be consistent.

The difference is evidence - in Kavanaugh's case all there is against him is testimony regarding events 30-odd years ago that is contradicted by other testimony (given by people she thought would corroborate her story, no less). Presuming that she wasn't lying as a political maneuver (read: presuming her innocence as well), it's fairly likely that she's either misidentified Kavanaugh (which happens shockingly often - see the Innocence Project again, where most of those exonerated were charged with sex crimes, and most of them were misidentified) or that she's mixed up the events around it in such a way that it's impossible to prove.

In this case you have a subpoena produced by Congress, served by an officer, compelling a person to appear before Congress and give testimony. You also have them not appearing before Congress as requested. It's nice and neat and obvious. You can point to the subpoena, the people who drafted it, the entire chain of hands it went through from being drafted to being served, and the entire fucking House is witness to someone not appearing before the House in accordance with a subpoena.

If you're going to use 'They could have lied' as an excuse, you need to apply it evenly, and you wont.

 

[Worgen]

So this'll be struck down like immediately. Federal Law trumps State law every time.

The reason they are doing this is because currently the courts are conservative with possibly no swing vote. Kennedy was the swing vote on abortion before but now that we have two trump appointees, there is a good chance that they will vote to overturn the federal abortion law. This is why they are pulling this, because they are sure the court will side with them and abortion will be outlawed nationwide.

Oh I know. And they'll give it their best shot. But the blowback if it does succeed will be monstrous for Republicans. Like losing the 2020 election, and Congress and having all of Trump's supreme court nominees impeached(which yes you can impeach them) and having a Dem president throw on new judges and a new law passed, challenged and affirmed by the courts with 6 months.

I really doubt that would happen. The american public would need to be more out for blood before we would impeach a judge or there would have to be hard evidence of a crime committed by one of them. It would be bad for republicans, but potentially not as bad as you would think, their base is almost single issue about abortion and they can make enough sounds so people think they will do something about other things. I mean look at how many "fiscally conservative" people vote republican despite the fact they always balloon the debt and will never lessen military spending. Plus, democrats tend to like to play by the rules so while a minority would be down for trying to impeach, the majority probably wouldn't be.

that is one thing dems do that's starting to piss me off. We live in a post-rules world right now. People are openly ignoring subpoenas, and Nancy Pelosi is out there thinking she might hold them in contempt of congress. No girl, that shit is straight up illegal! You can't ignore a subpoena! Get the DC police to go arrest them and jail them until they agree to adhere to the summons.

One probable reason she is hesitant is because this will push things to the breaking point, its entirely possible that while the law is on congresses side, they don't have any method to actually enforce it. Like the Justice Department is trumps, no ifs ands or buts, so they can't be relied upon to do anything congress wants and the republicans are also trumps. I'm not sure what he could do to get them to turn on him and the supreme court is... well not trumps but certainly conservative and would probably back him. The worry is that congress will push as hard as they can and we will find out just how broken our system is if they are actually incapable of doing anything. I think that actually might be the full downfall of the US government.

To quote Sulu, "Fly her apart then!"
What use do we have in people to protect the constitution when they ignore attacks on the constitution because it might endanger the constitution?
Trump Jr ignores Subpoenas and we let it slide. Trump sr ignores the electoral college and we let it slide.
Pelosi needs to take a hint from Picard and say 'This far, no further' force a supreme court decision. Have judges on record saying a president can ignore an impeachment, can ignore an arrest warrant, can nuke LA without consequences.
Push Trump supporters to their absolute edge. Lets see how far is too far. Lets see if Alabama is willing to sacrifice Congress for Abortion, or risk war with Illinois for abortion law.
Play chicken with them, see how far their conviction goes when Congress dismantles the Alabama national guard and closes all borders.

The problem with that attitude is that right now it seems like conservatives are all about the 'ends justifies the means.' If they can get one or two things they want, they will destroy the world.

 

[Worgen]

You keep going on about rule of law, suddenly its ok to ignore it?

When did I say it was OK to ignore it? I actually agreed with the person I replied to that if they ignore a Congressional subpoena they should be arrested for contempt, just that it's not the job of district police to enforce that - there is literally a congressional office to fill the direct law enforcement needs of Congress (the Sergeant at Arms) and a special jail for such people.

You keep defending Kavanaugh cause 'Innocent until proven guilty', but not here? Be consistent.

The difference is evidence - in Kavanaugh's case all there is against him is testimony regarding events 30-odd years ago that is contradicted by other testimony (given by people she thought would corroborate her story, no less). Presuming that she wasn't lying as a political maneuver (read: presuming her innocence as well), it's fairly likely that she's either misidentified Kavanaugh (which happens shockingly often - see the Innocence Project again, where most of those exonerated were charged with sex crimes, and most of them were misidentified) or that she's mixed up the events around it in such a way that it's impossible to prove.

In this case you have a subpoena produced by Congress, served by an officer, compelling a person to appear before Congress and give testimony. You also have them not appearing before Congress as requested. It's nice and neat and obvious. You can point to the subpoena, the people who drafted it, the entire chain of hands it went through from being drafted to being served, and the entire fucking House is witness to someone not appearing before the House in accordance with a subpoena.

While there might not have been enough evidence to bring charges against him, there was enough to indicate he probably doesn't have the best judgement or temperament for the job he was interviewing for. I mean if someone went off like he did during a job interview at Mc Donalds then I doubt that person is getting a call back.

 

[Kwak]

More American Winning.

State Senator Linda Coleman-Madison proposed an amendment to the bill that would require the state to provide free prenatal and medical care for mothers who had been denied an abortion by the new law. Her amendment was struck down by a vote of 23-6.

?The sin to me is bringing a child into this world and not taking care of them,? Coleman-Madison said. "The sin for me is that this state does not provide adequate care. We don?t provide education. And then when the child is born and we know that mother is indigent and she cannot take care of that child, we don?t provide any support systems for that mother.?

State Senator Vivian Davis Figures proposed three amendments to the bill, one which would require a Medicaid expansion to provide funding for mothers and their young children, another that would require those who voted for the bill to pay for the legal costs of defending it in court and a third to make it illegal for a man to get a vasectomy. All of the amendments were voted down.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

More American Winning.

State Senator Linda Coleman-Madison proposed an amendment to the bill that would require the state to provide free prenatal and medical care for mothers who had been denied an abortion by the new law. Her amendment was struck down by a vote of 23-6.

?The sin to me is bringing a child into this world and not taking care of them,? Coleman-Madison said. "The sin for me is that this state does not provide adequate care. We don?t provide education. And then when the child is born and we know that mother is indigent and she cannot take care of that child, we don?t provide any support systems for that mother.?

State Senator Vivian Davis Figures proposed three amendments to the bill, one which would require a Medicaid expansion to provide funding for mothers and their young children, another that would require those who voted for the bill to pay for the legal costs of defending it in court and a third to make it illegal for a man to get a vasectomy. All of the amendments were voted down.

As if more proof were needed that so-called "Pro-Life" individuals don't actually give a damn about the children they claim to stand for

 

[CrazyGirl17]

So when it comes to newborns, people care more about making sure they're born than what happens to them after.

...I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

 

[Dr. Thrax]

As if more proof were needed that so-called "Pro-Life" individuals don't actually give a damn about the children they claim to stand for

This is why I refer to these people as "pro-birth". They don't give a damn about what happens after birth, they only want to make sure birth takes place.

 

[Silvanus]

If you refuse to make a rational compromise, you lose the right to expect them to care about one either [...]

My question was, "what rational compromise can there be in this situation?"

One side in this debate wishes to prevent the other from having access to the same rights, such as marriage, workplace protection, visitation privileges, or adoption. The other side wants... equal access to the same rights.

What's the compromise, here? Should we just give up some basic rights, because the former group feels strongly enough? What exactly is your suggestion?

[...] so then this becomes a battle over power and over who oppresses whom, where in some cases you will have abortion getting banned like we see here, which is no good. Just because we disagree that this thing is oppression to them it doesn't mean that they don't feel like they are indeed oppressed by it.

If people feel they are being "oppressed" by other people having access to the same rights, then they're morons, frankly. We don't just allow policy to be influenced by whatever dogshit people come out with: they need to provide a rational basis.

Ultimately, my point here is highlighting that treating people who claim to be oppressed as inherently moral in whatever action they take is the problem, since then you will make a system come into place where being oppressed in your mind gives you carte blanche to do whatever you want and feel justified.

But... you're the one here arguing that we have to treat these two claims of oppression equally.

Nobody is assuming anybody else is "inherently moral". There's a well-supported and rational basis for considering implementation of equal rights to be a moral and just position. There's no reason on earth that this would somehow translate into "carte blanche", and nobody here has said anything that would suggest otherwise.

 

[Worgen]

More American Winning.

State Senator Linda Coleman-Madison proposed an amendment to the bill that would require the state to provide free prenatal and medical care for mothers who had been denied an abortion by the new law. Her amendment was struck down by a vote of 23-6.

?The sin to me is bringing a child into this world and not taking care of them,? Coleman-Madison said. "The sin for me is that this state does not provide adequate care. We don?t provide education. And then when the child is born and we know that mother is indigent and she cannot take care of that child, we don?t provide any support systems for that mother.?

State Senator Vivian Davis Figures proposed three amendments to the bill, one which would require a Medicaid expansion to provide funding for mothers and their young children, another that would require those who voted for the bill to pay for the legal costs of defending it in court and a third to make it illegal for a man to get a vasectomy. All of the amendments were voted down.

As if more proof were needed that so-called "Pro-Life" individuals don't actually give a damn about the children they claim to stand for

The most cynical motivation I can think of for them is that they are only "pro-life" and don't care about the baby after its born so that the child will become a criminal and then end up in the for profit prison system which they have stock in.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

As if more proof were needed that so-called "Pro-Life" individuals don't actually give a damn about the children they claim to stand for

The most cynical motivation I can think of for them is that they are only "pro-life" and don't care about the baby after its born so that the child will become a criminal and then end up in the for profit prison system which they have stock in.

Or they're just trying to create an uneducated generation (remind me how low Alabama ranks in education?) who will thoughtlessly vote Republican

 

[Rangaman]

The most cynical motivation I can think of for them is that they are only "pro-life" and don't care about the baby after its born so that the child will become a criminal and then end up in the for profit prison system which they have stock in.

Maybe, but that would actually require foresight beyond the next six months. More likely than not, this is just the religious right getting drunk on their own power while making a pitch to voters before the next election.

 

[Saelune]

If you refuse to make a rational compromise, you lose the right to expect them to care about one either [...]

My question was, "what rational compromise can there be in this situation?"

One side in this debate wishes to prevent the other from having access to the same rights, such as marriage, workplace protection, visitation privileges, or adoption. The other side wants... equal access to the same rights.

What's the compromise, here? Should we just give up some basic rights, because the former group feels strongly enough? What exactly is your suggestion?

[...] so then this becomes a battle over power and over who oppresses whom, where in some cases you will have abortion getting banned like we see here, which is no good. Just because we disagree that this thing is oppression to them it doesn't mean that they don't feel like they are indeed oppressed by it.

If people feel they are being "oppressed" by other people having access to the same rights, then they're morons, frankly. We don't just allow policy to be influenced by whatever dogshit people come out with: they need to provide a rational basis.

Ultimately, my point here is highlighting that treating people who claim to be oppressed as inherently moral in whatever action they take is the problem, since then you will make a system come into place where being oppressed in your mind gives you carte blanche to do whatever you want and feel justified.

But... you're the one here arguing that we have to treat these two claims of oppression equally.

Nobody is assuming anybody else is "inherently moral". There's a well-supported and rational basis for considering implementation of equal rights to be a moral and just position. There's no reason on earth that this would somehow translate into "carte blanche", and nobody here has said anything that would suggest otherwise.

We have been trying to rationally compromise with Republicans atleast since 2008. They always resort to holding America hostage and then calling my side 'uncivil' when we actually stand up to our right-wing bullies.

 

[Gergar12_v1legacy]

What do they even make in Alabama???

It's hard to boycott them when you don't know what they make.

(Googling)

Great, they make agriculture goods that don't tell you where they are from.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Here we have another example of men deciding what women should do with their own bodies. Only 3 women voted on the bill.

Would it actually be any better if it were women deciding what other women should do with their bodies? I know there are pro-life women out there.

Some people are stupid.
Some people are unlucky.
Some people are sex offenders.

Everyone is different. No two people are not on fire.

 

[Schadrach]

HOWEVER, only white men voted on this legislation to have it passed,

That is incorrect. The idea that the author and the sponsor of the bill didn't vote for it sounded odd to me so I looked up the vote. Like the federal legislature, the Alabama state legislature is bicameral, it has two houses. Your statement is true for the Alabama Senate (and is also true for any party-line vote whatsoever, as all current female Alabama State Senators are Democrats), but not for the Alabama House.

Rep. Collins, Terri [R], Rep. Nordgren, Becky [R], Rep. Rowe, Connie Cooner [R], Rep. Shaver, Ginny [R], Rep. Weaver, April [R], Rep. Wilcox, Margie [R], Rep. Wood, Debbie Hamby [R] all voted for it in the Alabama House. The only woman to vote against it in the Alabama House was Rep. Moore, Mary [D], with the other women in the Alabama House being recorded as absent.