My personal feelings aren't that the GOP will push for a bill banning abortion, it's that this SCOTUS will take a case regarding the Comstock Act which will codify into the present that existent law indeed bans the interstate sales and transfer of any and all things which can be used to perform abortions - which in practice makes it illegal even in states where abortion is enshrined in their constitutions.

That's the big flex the anti-abortion faction is counting on, not Congressional action because it's highly unlikely any anti-abortion bill would pass cloture in the Senate.

Do they have a defense for the current status of abortion rights?

Absolutely not, and it only cements the fact that the GOP is not the party of life at all, they're the party wanting to control other people's lives, period.

And a larger truth surrounding abortion is the absolute fact Joe Biden has never been comfortable championing a pro choice message because deep down it opposes his Catholic faith that he holds so dear. He could talk about the overturning of Roe but he never tried to personalize the abortion bans like Harris has been able to.

And again, Danforth was right from the beginning. Many men who back Trump don't hear the cries of women affected by the loss of their bodily autonomy, but I believe their voices are undeniable as well as growing louder as election day nears. And the hardest burdens have been placed upon women and girls who don't have the resources to travel out of state to receive the healthcare services and post-miscarriage care so many need and can no longer receive in their own local hospitals and clinics solely based on where they live and what predominantly older men have now enshrined into law.

It's been said repeatedly - and Sen. Harris so bluntly forced Justice Kavanaugh to admit in his committee testimony - that there are no laws restricting healthcare services for men, and I can't envision even anyone of seriousness considering trying to regulate male emissions. And sperm are actually alive and mobile as anyone can observe under a microscope, yet their "life" and the potentiality of them combining with ovum and then gestating isn't regulated at all and no one has ever posited they should be.

Regardless, for women, this really is a matter of life and death and one aspect of abortion bans that lead to the death of mothers is that her children already living have their lives negatively impacted should that mother die or suffer injury because the law places the rights of "possible life" over the lives of children already born and living.

Walz signed a bill to allow abortion up to the minute of live birth. No restrictions on term.

Just another out of context, ignorant remark showing no realization of life's complexities that really has nothing to do with selective abortion. The law is to protect healthcare providers grappling with fetuses with known maladies incompatible with life. IE., these children cannot survive long because their bodies are incompatible with ex-vitro life.

youre a liar, visitor.

Not on this he isn't, but I explained the context in #15. The reason there is no restriction whatsoever on abortion is because the law codifies that the mother's own life is superior to that of the fetus', unlike current GOP abortion laws already on the books.

No doctor is going to perform a selective abortion on an otherwise viable fetus at full-term gestation. This is the implication imbeciles and tools like Visitor make for those ignorant of what the law really means.

What this moron keeps referring to is the law protecting doctors and nurses from being charged for crimes if a wanted fetus - which cannot and will not survive due to physical issues - survives any doctor-ordered late term abortion due to concerns for the mother's own life, and said fetus isn't given life extending care and is allowed to expire naturally.

This process is criminalized in many states and Walz and the legislature made certain that it wouldn't be in Minnesota.

Sometimes fetus' abnormalities aren't discovered before the point of viability and the mothers are forced to carry these children to term, knowing that shortly after birth they will die because their bodies are incompatible with life. Even rarer, some fetuses might threaten their mother's own safety and doctors recommend late term abortions solely to save or protect these mothers with full knowledge that the fetus is non-viable and will expire due to its deformities or lack or malfunctioning of critical organs.

She wants no restrictions based on term. None.

And it's been explained to you over and over. Why keep implying the same wrong insinuation over and over without ever saying WHY they support no restrictions?

Again, no one supports selective abortions up to the moment of birth. Current anti-abortion laws make no distinctions, simply banning the procedure regardless of either the fetus' ex vitro viability or the lack of nor the mother's health.

Americans aren't as dumb as you Visitor. If they really thought the Democratic ticket was for selective abortion up to birth, no one would support them.

There were restrictions under Roe v Wade.

I think this is getting confusing. Visitor stated that the Minnesota law does not contain any restrictions up to the point of birth. I believe that is correct. This law is post-Roe's overturning.

But candidly, I don't know whether the restrictions under Roe are also a part of the MN law. I've read that the "no restrictions up to birth" language was based on not restricting doctors, nurses, and service providers from doing any and all things necessary to protect and save the woman's life if threatened by the pregnancy, no matter at what point.

I hope that makes more sense. I've continued to say no one is advocating selective abortions up to the point of natural birth, only procedures doctors deem necessary to protect the mother's life, health and future fertility, if possible.

#28

I stand corrected in regards to Kamala and her support of Roe.

Visitor was indeed lying, as usual.