Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, December 05, 2021

Claire Cain Miller and Margot Sanger-Katz: Legal abortions would fall, particularly among poor women in the South and Midwest, and out-of-state travel and abortion pills would play a bigger role.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Good thing Hillary wasn't elected."

- Jill Stein voters / Bernie Bros who decided to stay home five years ago

#1 | Posted by censored at 2021-12-05 10:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

The liberal writer/commentator EJ Dionne had a recent newspaper column where he posed the question on my mind, i.e., how can the SCOTUS be pro-life on abortion and pro-death on guns?

Questions with similar validity for those on the right include 'Beside protecting the unborn, do you support programs for pre-natal care, early childhood development, nutritional services and public education of low-income children, who might otherwise not be born if abortion services were available?' 'Do you honor the needy poor with the same zeal in which you honor the unborn?' 'What are you doing to restrict access to firearms, especially in situations where they are brought into schools, churches, or other places where children gather?'

My observation is that those on the right who are anti-abortion offer not two cents of care for poor and needy children in this country, nor do they offer support for mothers who carry their babies to term, and struggle as parents after birth...

#2 | Posted by catdog at 2021-12-06 09:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

This article is B.S.

If anything, the abortion pill would take off and probably be available in any pharmacy. And you cant BAN abortion out right. The left is lying about that.

And I think most of America knows this, which is why no one is really listening to Liberals this time.

#3 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-06 09:06 AM | Reply | Funny: 4

do you support programs for pre-natal care, early childhood development, nutritional services and public education of low-income children, who might otherwise not be born if abortion services were available?'

Will the women close their legs so they dont get pregnant in the first place? Will they practice moral and ethical practices to not get pregnant in the first place? Will they wait until marriage or committed partnership to start a family?

'Do you honor the needy poor with the same zeal in which you honor the unborn?'

Will the poor do the things needed to not be poor? LIke not having kids before marriage?

My observation is that those on the right who are anti-abortion offer not two cents of care for poor and needy children in this country, nor do they offer support for mothers who carry their babies to term, and struggle as parents after birth...

Why should they? They didnt have the kid. My observation is that those on the left who have kids willy nilly dont use self restraint when having pre marital sex nor do they practice what "planned parenthood" supposedly teaches to prevent pregnancy.

#4 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-06 09:11 AM | Reply | Funny: 3

-My observation is that those on the right who are anti-abortion offer not two cents of care for poor and needy children in this country, nor do they offer support for mothers who carry their babies to term, and struggle as parents after birth...

Maybe you aren't observing very well.

I see many who offer more than 2 cents towards all of those efforts in addition to their support for the unborn. I realize there are way too many out there who fit your description but I believe there are a lot who aren't hypocrites.

Now....if you introduce guns and now requiring someone to also be anti-gun to be pro-life? That's a game changer.

#5 | Posted by eberly at 2021-12-06 09:19 AM | Reply

4

Come on Boaz....you're being a 100% evangelical with a hypocritical position about what Pro-life truly means.

#6 | Posted by eberly at 2021-12-06 09:22 AM | Reply

And you cant BAN abortion out right.

#3 | POSTED BY BOAZ

And yet that's the goal.

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2021-12-06 09:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

the abortion pill would take off and probably be available in any pharmacy.

#3 | POSTED BY BOAZ

The goal is to get rid of that, too. Although I'm sure abortion pills will be available on the black market. Real ones, along with the fakes that kill women.

#8 | Posted by Zed at 2021-12-06 09:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

This will lead to the downfall of conservatives. Poor minorities being born aren't going to vote for rich white republicans. Most minorities aren't brainwashed like Boaz.

#9 | Posted by byrdman at 2021-12-06 09:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Pro-life" has helped destroy conservatism. It gave it practice in manipulation, dissembling, and outright lies. Worse, it proved how effective such behaviors can be in achieving political goals.

#10 | Posted by Zed at 2021-12-06 09:31 AM | Reply

The fact is that conservatism does not really like women. They use women, but they don't like them.

#11 | Posted by Zed at 2021-12-06 09:46 AM | Reply

As someone who has a hesitant libertarian bent, I don't understand the new breed of right-wingers. They claim to be small-government conservatives yet clamor for government interference in a woman's fundamental choice about whether to allow a separate organism to grow inside her body. They love self-defense, reacting with joy when someone kills a burglar who is looking to steal some stuff to fund their opiate habit, but they don't recognize a woman's right to bodily integrity. Even if she gets pregnant intentionally, choosing later to terminate the pregnancy, isn't that akin to inviting your brother to stay with you and then evicting him in the winter, condemning him to homelessness and possibly death? Let's just assume for the sake of argument that the choice to evict your brother is immoral. Fine. Believe what you want about morality, but how can a right-winger justify laws restricting a person's right to bodily integrity? If you're truly a small-government conservative or libertarian, why do you think the law should enforce morality on citizens? What if, 100 years down the road, the US is a majority Muslim country? Do you support the government making and enforcing laws requiring "moral" behavior in the eyes of the Muslim majority? (Keep in mind that only a minority of US citizens believe abortion should be illegal.)

Although not relevant to this particular topic, I have another bone to pick with Trump-cons. Why do so many of you fly a blue line flag AND NOT an American flag? You're flying a flag celebrating government! Or did you fail to realize that police are government? Not only are they government, but they're the form of government with the most power to interfere in our lives. They can steal your property, kill you, and make your life a living hell without consequences. How dumb can a group of people be?

#12 | Posted by Unisphere at 2021-12-06 10:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Come on Boaz....you're being a 100% evangelical with a hypocritical position about what Pro-life truly means.

"Truly means" is up for debate and you know that.

And it doesnt mean having to pay for a liberal's bad decisions.

#13 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-06 10:43 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

But I do understand your point Eberly,

And you arent wrong.

#14 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-06 10:44 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

If you're truly a small-government conservative or libertarian, why do you think the law should enforce morality on citizens? [...]#12 | Posted by Unisphere

Because ginning up the religious rubes was the only path to power the Repubs had left after Dems stopped being the party of racists in the 60s.

The Repubs care only about making rich people richer. Everything else is just window-dressing to get the Repub idiot-base to vote against their own interests.

#15 | Posted by censored at 2021-12-06 10:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Will the women close their legs so they dont get pregnant in the first place?"

Will men keep it in their pants, or is that too much to ask?

Here's an idea: if it's too much to ask men, it's too much to ask women.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-06 11:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"And you cant BAN abortion out right. The left is lying about that."

It was banned for a century. No reason we can't ban it again.
Many Southern states have laws in place that will automatically ban abortion the moment Roe gets overturned.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-06 11:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"And you cant BAN abortion out right. The left is lying about that."

An amazing statement, really. They'll ban abortion and then very likely imprison women who get them anyway.

But they aren't Nazis.

#18 | Posted by Zed at 2021-12-06 11:46 AM | Reply

Boaz always blames the woman Never the man. Male chavenist to the max.

#19 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2021-12-06 12:59 PM | Reply

If anything, the abortion pill would take off and probably be available in any pharmacy. And you cant BAN abortion out right. The left is lying about that.
And I think most of America knows this, which is why no one is really listening to Liberals this time.

#3 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Once again Boaz demonstrates his astonishing ability to completely ignore reality. The "abortion pill" is not available at "any pharmacy". The Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that women must go in person to a medical facility to receive mifepristone even if they have already consulted with a doctor remotely. No one is walking into a walmart pharmacy and walking out with an abortion pill.

Boaz also ignores triggers laws that at least 12 states already have on the books. For instance, the one that Texas has would go into effect automatically in 30 days if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned. That law could result in $100K+ fines and potentially up to life in prison for anyone who performs an abortion. Or there's Idaho's trigger law which has an exception for cases of rape of ------ proving that the anti-choice movement is not really about the life of the potential child but is actually about controlling women.
www.insider.com

Since Idaho is one of the 12 states that has a marital rape exemption law, a husband could impregnate a wife against their will and she would not be able to abort because the state would not recognize it as rape thus taking away any control that a woman has over her reproductive choices.
www.governing.com

#20 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2021-12-06 01:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Have any of you ever been personally present to watch a young woman die of a botched abortion attempted at their home? I have. It was in South America many decades ago. If we succeed in severely limiting abortions here in the USA, you are lying to yourself if you do not believe it will happen here.

#21 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-12-06 01:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And you cant BAN abortion out right. The left is lying about that.
And I think most of America knows this, which is why no one is really listening to Liberals this time.
#3 | Posted by boaz

Why can't you ban it outright? There is no constitutional amendment protecting it and it has been banned outright here. Even if there were a constitutional amendment the dishonesty on the right would seek to restrict it to the point of being banned. Which is fact in many red states at the moment.

Yet these same people cry when we try to legislate sanity around guns. If you need a recent example of why, just look at Oxford High School.

#22 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2021-12-06 04:29 PM | Reply

This article is B.S.

If anything, the abortion pill would take off and probably be available in any pharmacy. And you cant BAN abortion out right. The left is lying about that.

And I think most of America knows this, which is why no one is really listening to Liberals this time.

#3 | Posted by boaz

If you think your cult is going to let women in your fascist theocratic states have abortion pills whenever they need them, you should have your membership revoked.

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-12-06 05:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I have another bone to pick with Trump-cons. Why do so many of you fly a blue line flag AND NOT an American flag? You're flying a flag celebrating government! Or did you fail to realize that police are government? Not only are they government, but they're the form of government with the most power to interfere in our lives. They can steal your property, kill you, and make your life a living hell without consequences. How dumb can a group of people be?

#12 | Posted by Unisphere

And to top it all off, police departments, along with fire departments and the Pentagon, they're all, by definition, 'socialist' organizations. I mean, as previously pointed out, these are all organizations funded by and reporting to governments, be they local, state or federal. And when you need the services of one or more of these organizations, you don't have a choice, they all operate as government-owned monopolies.

OCU

#24 | Posted by OCUser at 2021-12-06 08:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There would be other changes as well. Bush would probably not have been elected by the razor thin margin he won by. People tend to vote as their parents did. At the time or R v W, most people getting abortions were liberals. Had they not gotten abortions, there would have been more Democratic voters in 2000 and 2004. It could not have taken many (a few hundred) have swung Florida.

Actions have consequences. But R v W went as it should have.

#25 | Posted by jakester at 2021-12-06 10:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Jill Stein voters / Bernie Bros who decided to stay home five years ago

#1 | POSTED BY CENSORED AT 2021-12-05 10:28 PM | REPLY | NEWSWORTHY 3

Do shut up. I told you don't foist Hillary on us that you wouldn't like it. What did you do. You foisted Hillary on us and you didn't like it. OOPSIE DAISY

#26 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2021-12-06 10:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 2

The tens of millions of Americans who refuse to do something simple to save lives - like wearing a mask indoors or getting vaccines that work - can NEVER call themselves "pro-life" again.

Putting aside the multiple efforts to strip health insurance from millions which saves lives, now those tens of millions of Republicans refuse to do anything to save other's lives in the middle of a pandemic.

COVID cases yesterday:

197,000

COVID deaths yesterday:

1,351

And those numbers are rising. The curve is headed up, not down.

Thanks "pro-life" Republicans for proving how empty their claims actually are.

#27 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2021-12-07 05:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I told you don't foist Hillary on us that you wouldn't like it. What did you do. You foisted Hillary on us and you didn't like it. OOPSIE DAISY #26 | Posted by LauraMohr

Well, you sure taught us a lesson!

Curious, do Jill "Lefty-Palin" Stein voters sharpen their knives before cutting off their noses? Japanese or German steel? Serrated? Inquiring faces want to know.

#28 | Posted by censored at 2021-12-07 08:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Pretty much any political map of the USA looks like a map of the Civil War.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-07 10:52 AM | Reply

Even if there were a constitutional amendment the dishonesty on the right would seek to restrict it to the point of being banned.

Sort of like what liberals are trying to do with the 2nd amendment?

#30 | Posted by boaz at 2021-12-07 02:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Sort of like what liberals are trying to do with the 2nd amendment?"

I haven't heard of such a thing in a long time. Last one I remember was from the 90s where some town tried to ban bullets. But I'm sure as a Minuteman you have a hotlist each morning of how the Second Amendment is under threat from liberals (which is kinda funny when you think about your attitude towards liberals, they're weak yet you fear them) so if you have more information feel free to share.
The Second Amendment doesn't have a problem with a permit, a waiting period, a background check, or a list of gun owners.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-07 02:35 PM | Reply

Sort of like what liberals are trying to do with the 2nd amendment?
#30 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2021-12-07 02:25 PM

Bastardizing the 2nd Amendment is entirely a Republican operation. You and your FedSoc judges have deleted the first 13 words of the Amendment without the consent of the requisite number of Americans.

Go read a ------- book you absolute dunce.

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2021-12-07 03:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Go read a ------- book you absolute dunce.

Yeah, one that explains the legal concept of a preamble.

#33 | Posted by et_al at 2021-12-07 03:50 PM | Reply

ET AL....my daughter has applied to many law schools....the acceptances and scholarships are coming in now.

Any advice??

#34 | Posted by eberly at 2021-12-07 04:23 PM | Reply

#33 The century+ of jurisprudence unanimously giving some weight to the preamble is at odds with your politically motivated desire to delete it entirely.

#35 | Posted by JOE at 2021-12-07 04:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

While you're brushing up on the legal effect of a preamble refresh your memory on the meaning of dicta.

Neither of those terms of art are political.

#36 | Posted by et_al at 2021-12-07 05:03 PM | Reply

You can keep denying over a century of unanimous jurisprudence, but case after case after case with the exact same explicit holding is not all just "dicta" and your politically motivated ignorance is embarrassing.

#37 | Posted by JOE at 2021-12-07 05:11 PM | Reply

-your politically motivated ignorance is embarrassing.

for who?

#38 | Posted by eberly at 2021-12-07 05:24 PM | Reply

To claim that the dozens, if not hundreds, of authoritative cases spanning over a century which uniformly held that a weapon must have some nexus to a well-regulated militia are all just "dicta" is to make yourself a liar. Several of those cases examined the Second Amendment and its history in considerable depth and all arrived at that conclusion. The manner in which Republican judges decided to interpret this Amendment only changed in the last 20 years. Any claim to the contrary is ignorant or a lie. Your choice, etal.

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2021-12-07 05:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

#40 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-12-07 06:02 PM | Reply

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

#40 | Posted by BellRinger

Translation - I think that the founders wanted proven murderers and lunatics to have unfettered access to rocket launchers and nuclear missiles.

Anything else is an infringement against the right to bear arms.

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-12-07 06:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

You can keep denying over a century of unanimous jurisprudence ...

I've denied nothing. That century of jurisprudence is made up of three SC cases of any significance. Two in the mid 19th century and one in the mid 20th. None of which gave serious consideration to the meaning of the Second Amendment i.e. whether the right belongs to the people or the militia.

If and when a case arises that points to an ambiguity in the phrase "the right of the people ... shall not be infringed" then by all means use the preamble to resolve the issue. You know, like the other centuries of interpretational jurisprudence doing just that.

#42 | Posted by et_al at 2021-12-07 07:08 PM | Reply

#42

There seem to be a lot of persons out there who think that the term "the people" as referenced in the second amendment actually refers to "the well regulated militia" with regards to the right to keep and bear arms.

So, "people"="well regulated militia."

And it would follow that, when the term "the people" was mentioned in any other amendment, it would also refer to "a well regulated militia"

Which would mean that only the group of people granted the right to keep and bear arms in the second amendment would be the same granted the rights of religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition (1st Amendment), The right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure (4th amendment), or rights not explicitly addressed in the constitution (9th amendment). In other words, members of the group designated as "a well regulated militia."

Do you know if this has ever come up in a court case?

#43 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-12-07 08:03 PM | Reply

"Translation - I think that the founders wanted proven murderers and lunatics to have unfettered access to rocket launchers and nuclear missiles."

You would need to consider the founder's frames of reference.

For instance, if at the time of the drafting, an individual could legally purchase a ship or war, or a cannon, or build a fort, you could logically conclude that the founders believed that the people had the right to possess any sort of armament. Which in a modern context would mean access to nukes and aircraft carriers. If a court were to determine that to be the case, then congress or state legislators would need to propose an amendment to the constitution limiting access to weapons that would have been allowed under the second amendment as originally written.

#44 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-12-07 08:07 PM | Reply

From my vantage point though, you can't "bear" an aircraft carrier or F-22. They "bear" you.

#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-12-07 08:08 PM | Reply

#44 Merchant ships were pretty heavily armed at the time of our founding for obvious reasons.

#46 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-12-07 08:10 PM | Reply

"#44 Merchant ships were pretty heavily armed at the time of our founding for obvious reasons."

In WWII as well. What I don't know is if the shipping line owned and operated the weapons, or if it was done by civilian merchant seamen.

#47 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-12-07 08:20 PM | Reply

While you're brushing up on the legal effect of a preamble refresh your memory on the meaning of dicta.
Neither of those terms of art are political.
#36 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Speaking of the preamble,
The preamble is political as hell. And false as hell too.
A well-regulated militia simply isn't necessary for the security of a free state.
But, that's the mythology that gun lovers embrace. That guns are some sort of backstop on their personal liberty, which isn't even the same thing as a free state.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-07 10:17 PM | Reply

ET AL....my daughter has applied to many law schools....the acceptances and scholarships are coming in now.
Any advice??
#34 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Gap Year.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-07 10:25 PM | Reply

"A well-regulated militia simply isn't necessary for the security of a free state."

Fair enough. In which case, there is a mechanism to change it.

#50 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-12-07 10:44 PM | Reply

Amending the Second Amendment to remove the Preamble wouldn't really change anything about the way the Second Amendment is interpreted...

It's not the preamble that needs to change. It's people's understanding of the role guns play in society.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-07 10:46 PM | Reply

To be fair, I'd say most people understand, as demonstrated by not owning guns.

And, some people who do own guns understand it well enough too, by being responsible with them.

That's most gun owners. But it only takes one bad apple to spoil the barrel. Get it, barrel?

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-07 10:51 PM | Reply

But it only takes one bad apple to spoil the barrel.

Like the idiot dispatcher who killed his cousin while playing with his gun?

#53 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-12-07 11:15 PM | Reply

Oops.

#54 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-12-07 11:16 PM | Reply

Two in the mid 19th century and one in the mid 20th.

Yeah, god forbid we look to interpretations of the Second Amendment by courts more temporally adjacent to its enactment. That might lead to an actual "originalist" decision instead of the faux-originalism we get from modern-day Republican activist judges.

None of which gave serious consideration to the meaning of the Second Amendment

That's just a lie, but in any case, it still doesn't address the dozens of appellate court cases uniformly holding the same, several of which examined the meaning of the Amendment in depth, and whose historical citations you cannot and will not rebut.

#55 | Posted by JOE at 2021-12-08 05:38 AM | Reply

Discarding the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment simply ignores how language works.

If i said the following:

"The ability to access to my home, being necessary when i lose my keys, the right of my neighbor to keep a spare key, shall not be infringed"
Does that mean i want my neighbor to use the key whenever he wants and just wander into my house at all times? Of course not. But gun fetishists will turn language on its head or just literally ignore entire phrases to get their way. It's an embarrassment to the legal community and a danger to society.

#56 | Posted by JOE at 2021-12-08 05:44 AM | Reply

Joe,

The gun ban you are fetishizing over is never going to happen.

#57 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-12-08 10:44 AM | Reply

I didn't propose a gun ban, moron. I said the current-day interpretation of the 2A is a bastardization of the english language with very little historic merit. I don't dispute that the NRA and Federalist Society have successfully co-opted the American judiciary and that any reasonable reading of the 2A is no longer a possibility.

#58 | Posted by JOE at 2021-12-08 11:21 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort