230 GOP told SCOTUS to overturn Roe v. Wade

[Spartan]

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) on Sunday said she will ban telemedicine appointments with abortion care providers who prescribe pills online in the GOP-controlled state in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
Noem told host Margaret Brennan on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that she brought a bill forward in her state to ban the telemedicine appointments in order to block women from being prescription abortion pills online and receiving them through the mail.

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-...cribed-online/

I wonder how this will be enforced. Does she plan to outlaw ulcer medication? What about those with a legitimate need?

[tOSUfanboi2]

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-...cribed-online/

I wonder how this will be enforced. Does she plan to outlaw ulcer medication? What about those with a legitimate need?

Exceptions can be made over time as appropriate. Not a pressing issue by any stretch of the imagination compared to the hundreds of thousands of babies that are going to be saved.

[Spartan]

Exceptions can be made over time as appropriate. Not a pressing issue by any stretch of the imagination compared to the hundreds of thousands of babies that are going to be saved.

Inverse Blackstone aside, it's still impossible to enforce unless misoprostol is banned federally. Unless state officials plan to start inspecting mail at the border, I guess.

[tOSUfanboi2]

Inverse Blackstone aside, it's still impossible to enforce unless misoprostol is banned federally. Unless state officials plan to start inspecting mail at the border, I guess.

It's impossible to keep people from obtaining illegal weapons to go on shooting sprees in the hood, but we still have laws against that. The law isn't about preventing crimes from being committed 100% of the time, it's about punishing people who commit those crimes to deter others and remove dangerous people from society. The same is true for exceptions to laws, which exist to protect people from punishment if the governing authority deems their behavior acceptable. Examples of this include use of lethal force in self-defense, legal restrictions on access to certain drugs and medical treatments, and many other things. My belief is that in time, laws will be passed across the country that account for the various circumstances that could lead to someone having a "justified" abortion, and far fewer people will be wrongfully punished than killed by elective abortions.

[tOSUfanboi2]

baddoctor.jpg

I might need to make a salt thread.

[sctrojan]

Imagine posting shit like this and expecting sympathy. Every single one of these people are monsters and should have been put in prison. Thankfully, there's a close to 100% chance that this person is full of shit and the world isn't filled with that many psychopathic women. God I hope not, anyway.

Life is cheap when we got 7 billion people on this planet.

[Spartan]

It's impossible to keep people from obtaining illegal weapons to go on shooting sprees in the hood, but we still have laws against that. The law isn't about preventing crimes from being committed 100% of the time, it's about punishing people who commit those crimes to deter others and remove dangerous people from society. The same is true for exceptions to laws, which exist to protect people from punishment if the governing authority deems their behavior acceptable. Examples of this include use of lethal force in self-defense, legal restrictions on access to certain drugs and medical treatments, and many other things. My belief is that in time, laws will be passed across the country that account for the various circumstances that could lead to someone having a "justified" abortion, and far fewer people will be wrongfully punished than killed by elective abortions.

Hard disagree. Unenforceable laws are the hallmark of authoritarian overreach. More often than not, they're an excuse to persecute the marginalized rather than promoting social good. I understand that abortion is important to you, but that's blinding you to a clear case of government overreach here.

[tOSUfanboi2]

Hard disagree. Unenforceable laws are the hallmark of authoritarian overreach. More often than not, they're an excuse to persecute the marginalized rather than promoting social good. I understand that abortion is important to you, but that's blinding you to a clear case of government overreach here.

Do you not believe that the state has a vested interest in protecting the lives of its people? I understand that you probably don't view an unborn child as a life, but I do, and I don't think anyone has the right to take anyone else's life unless it's in self-defense. That basic principle trumps everything else to me, including the convenience of enforcing a particular law or the potential pitfalls that might come along the way.

My assumption is you're operating from some sort of bodily autonomy position, which I respect in every other circumstance except this one on the grounds that it's the one situation where you're not talking about one body. I will never budge on my belief that an unborn child is a human being that is entitled to the same protection and consideration as any other. Similarly, I doubt I will ever believe that I have the right to tell people that I'll never meet in a place hundreds or even thousands of miles away how to govern their communities. At the present time, the states reserve the right to ban or permit abortion as they see fit, and those laws are subject to change depending on the beliefs of their constituents. If you want abortion to be legal coast to coast, you're going to have to convince people the old-fashioned way and either amend the constitution or pass some sort of law.

[Spartan]

Do you not believe that the state has a vested interest in protecting the lives of its people? I understand that you probably don't view an unborn child as a life, but I do, and I don't think anyone has the right to take anyone else's life unless it's in self-defense. That basic principle trumps everything else to me, including the convenience of enforcing a particular law or the potential pitfalls that might come along the way.

My assumption is you're operating from some sort of bodily autonomy position, which I respect in every other circumstance except this one on the grounds that it's the one situation where you're not talking about one body. I will never budge on my belief that an unborn child is a human being that is entitled to the same protection and consideration as any other. Similarly, I doubt I will ever believe that I have the right to tell people that I'll never meet in a place hundreds or even thousands of miles away how to govern their communities. At the present time, the states reserve the right to ban or permit abortion as they see fit, and those laws are subject to change depending on the beliefs of their constituents. If you want abortion to be legal coast to coast, you're going to have to convince people the old-fashioned way and either amend the constitution or pass some sort of law.

In a perfect world with perfect contraceptives I'd agree with you. But that's not what I'm talking about here. The issue I'm looking at are where medications that do legitimate good for people are banned because they could possibly be used for abortions. Why should people have to suffer treatable diseases on the off chance that somebody might misuse the medication? Wouldn't a far more effective strategy be to publicly subsidize contraceptives making them free for anyone who wants them along with scrapping abstinence only sex ed? Or, barring that assuming people are uncomfortable with subsidizing the sex lives of others, providing free pre- and neo-natal healthcare and massively increasing funding for foster care and social services? All I see is a bad faith effort to do the bare minimum to improve the lives of children and punish anyone even tangentially related to that.

[tOSUfanboi2]

In a perfect world with perfect contraceptives I'd agree with you. But that's not what I'm talking about here. The issue I'm looking at are where medications that do legitimate good for people are banned because they could possibly be used for abortions. Why should people have to suffer treatable diseases on the off chance that somebody might misuse the medication? Wouldn't a far more effective strategy be to publicly subsidize contraceptives making them free for anyone who wants them along with scrapping abstinence only sex ed? Or, barring that assuming people are uncomfortable with subsidizing the sex lives of others, providing free pre- and neo-natal healthcare and massively increasing funding for foster care and social services? All I see is a bad faith effort to do the bare minimum to improve the lives of children and punish anyone even tangentially related to that.

I don't support outright bans on any medication that might be misused, that doesn't make any sense to me. As far as subsidizing contraceptives, we already do a whole lot of that. If you don't have access to contraceptives in any form at this point in time, you're either mentally handicapped or simply don't give a shit. Every drug store has like 10 options, and there's even more available through your OB thats mandated to be covered at 100% by every ACA compliant policy. What that means is, unless you're in some sort of union plan or a grandfathered policy (see: old fucks, people with even better coverage), it's covered at 100%. I don't care about sex ed, that stopped being worth discussing when high speed internet came around. I want significantly boosted funding for foster care and social services, because the way children are treated is horrific and unfair.

[daCat]

I don't support outright bans on any medication that might be misused, that doesn't make any sense to me. As far as subsidizing contraceptives, we already do a whole lot of that. If you don't have access to contraceptives in any form at this point in time, you're either mentally handicapped or simply don't give a shit. Every drug store has like 10 options, and there's even more available through your OB thats mandated to be covered at 100% by every ACA compliant policy. What that means is, unless you're in some sort of union plan or a grandfathered policy (see: old fucks, people with even better coverage), it's covered at 100%. I don't care about sex ed, that stopped being worth discussing when high speed internet came around. I want significantly boosted funding for foster care and social services, because the way children are treated is horrific and unfair.

With how our government works, increased funding is announced in a newsletter to hoards of grifters to tap into and make sure very little of it actually makes it where it's needed.

[sctrojan]

I don't support outright bans on any medication that might be misused, that doesn't make any sense to me. As far as subsidizing contraceptives, we already do a whole lot of that. If you don't have access to contraceptives in any form at this point in time, you're either mentally handicapped or simply don't give a shit. Every drug store has like 10 options, and there's even more available through your OB thats mandated to be covered at 100% by every ACA compliant policy. What that means is, unless you're in some sort of union plan or a grandfathered policy (see: old fucks, people with even better coverage), it's covered at 100%. I don't care about sex ed, that stopped being worth discussing when high speed internet came around. I want significantly boosted funding for foster care and social services, because the way children are treated is horrific and unfair.

The foster child care system is the biggest sink for govt money. The foster care system is rife with pedophiles and here you have the repubs saying lets ban abortions and let mothers give up their kids to pedophiles and govt money grifters.


Fuck this shit - aborted fetuses don't put a burden on tax payers, on our legal system, on the earth's resources. we have 7 billion unhappy people on this planet - we don't need any more

[tOSUfanboi2]

It’s no surprise that most of the men on this board that support abortion are exactly the kind of selfish children I would expect to pressure women into having one. I remember a coworker years ago told me that if she didn’t have an abortion when she was a teenager that her father said he’d kill her. I wasn’t sure if I believed her before, but after reading some of the shit people posted over the last few days, I absolutely do now.

[Deschet]

It’s no surprise that most of the men on this board that support abortion are exactly the kind of selfish children I would expect to pressure women into having one. I remember a coworker years ago told me that if she didn’t have an abortion when she was a teenager that her father said he’d kill her. I wasn’t sure if I believed her before, but after reading some of the shit people posted over the last few days, I absolutely do now.

You’re functioning on a nearly Trojan-level of logic here, dude. Conflating being pro-choice to being a rapist is a pretty absurd leap of logic



The two things aren’t even casually-related. I know you have a very narrow viewpoint on this but your argument presupposes that everyone who is pro-choice is pro-abortion. You can be anti-abortion and pro-choice. Which makes sense, I guess, if you maintain a binary perspective. It’s just that the majority of Americans don’t believe this is a zero sum game. Many are conflicted, and happen to fall on one side or the other, yet still allow for others to choose their own path. Again, I get that this isn’t you.

To your last point, I’m fairly sure we can find examples of women being pressured by both sides of the divide. I guess that my point is, they shouldn’t be pressured by either side.

I wish I could say that everyone who is pro-choice has pure motives. Some are doubtless going to be selfish. For the most part, this is the group you hate, and who’s views are often projected onto the movement as a whole. Most people look down on those people. It’s not just you and yours.

On the other hand, not everyone on team pro-life pure of motive. Some — and I’m not saying you — are the misogynistic, patriarchal dickwads people accuse you of being. They never got over women getting the right to suffering. They want their jobs back. They want to be king of their household. They’re striking back at a society they feel has emasculated them. Again, I’m not saying you. But there are just as many of them as there are actual pro-abortion types in the left. And the left, likewise, has to do a better job of differentiating and from projecting this onto the pro-life moment.

[tOSUfanboi2]

You’re functioning on a nearly Trojan-level of logic here, dude. Conflating being pro-choice to being a rapist is a pretty absurd leap of logic



The two things aren’t even casually-related. I know you have a very narrow viewpoint on this but your argument presupposes that everyone who is pro-choice is pro-abortion. You can be anti-abortion and pro-choice. Which makes sense, I guess, if you maintain a binary perspective. It’s just that the majority of Americans don’t believe this is a zero sum game. Many are conflicted, and happen to fall on one side or the other, yet still allow for others to choose their own path. Again, I get that this isn’t you.

To your last point, I’m fairly sure we can find examples of women being pressured by both sides of the divide. I guess that my point is, they shouldn’t be pressured by either side.

I wish I could say that everyone who is pro-choice has pure motives. Some are doubtless going to be selfish. For the most part, this is the group you hate, and who’s views are often projected onto the movement as a whole. Most people look down on those people. It’s not just you and yours.

On the other hand, not everyone on team pro-life pure of motive. Some — and I’m not saying you — are the misogynistic, patriarchal dickwads people accuse you of being. They never got over women getting the right to suffering. They want their jobs back. They want to be king of their household. They’re striking back at a society they feel has emasculated them. Again, I’m not saying you. But there are just as many of them as there are actual pro-abortion types in the left. And the left, likewise, has to do a better job of differentiating and from projecting this onto the pro-life moment.

That’s a lot of words to tell me you pressured a girl into getting an abortion and feel bad about it. What was her name and how old were you two?

I could keep trolling you endlessly, but I think I might’ve lost my taste for it. I’ve read so many “people” talking gleefully about murdering babies over the last few days that I can’t really find humor in it anymore. Good luck with your moral relativism.