US Politics - 2020 Presidential Election - GOP v Dem cage fight (ENTER AT YOUR PERIL)

[-Deborah-]

Oh no, danger!!

I'm disqualifying your opinion only because you mention specifics that aren't in the proposal. But I admit that I hope for more concrete language around what is and is not permitted.

I think outlawing abortion in all cases is worse than allowing it and restricting it in extreme cases. I also think that there's some strange perception out there that women are getting pregnant and carrying the pregnancy for months then saying "Fuck it, bye!" and having what is a very difficult procedure to terminate the pregnancy late-term. My knowledge, albeit anecdotal, is quite the opposite. It's a harrowing experience that most would avoid at all costs. Yet there are valid reasons why it might need to be done in rare cases.

[CGVT]

Yes. The right tries to sell late term abortions as abortions of convenience. That is not the case, but it plays well with the anti-abortion crowd.

As far as agreeing with the court's take on abortion being left to the states-the bottom line is that is what they have ruled, so you have to play by the rules that are established. If your state's population feels that abortion should be legal, as the majority of the population in this country believes, you better get it into law in your state.

Good job, Michigan. You took care of business

[-Deborah-]

Michigan voters approved abortion rights amendment. Here's what happens next.

Clara Hendrickson
Detroit Free Press

Michigan voters adopted a constitutional amendment on the ballot this fall to enshrine abortion rights in the state Constitution. While advocates called it a historic victory for abortion rights and celebrated the passage of Proposal 3, opponents warned an onslaught of legal challenges is imminent.

Proposal 3 — which unofficial results show received 60% of the vote in the Nov. 8 election — will be inserted into the state constitution before Christmas Eve.

"It will become part of the Constitution 45 days after the election on December 23, 2022, rendering the 1931 criminal abortion ban unenforceable," said Nicole Wells Stallworth, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan, during a news briefing Wednesday.

A Michigan judge has already temporarily suspended enforcement of the 1931 state law criminalizing most abortions in the 13 counties with abortion clinics. In theory, the Michigan Supreme Court could weigh in on legal challenges arguing that the Michigan Constitution already protects the right to an abortion. But by adding an explicit right to seek abortions in the Michigan Constitution, Proposal 3's passage essentially renders those cases moot.

Proposal 3 leaves open the door for state lawmakers to enact legislation to implement the constitutional amendment. For instance, Proposal 3 allows lawmakers to regulate abortions after fetal viability so long as abortions deemed medically necessary are not prohibited. It is unclear what role the organizations behind Proposal 3 — Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan and the nonprofit Michigan Voices — might play working with the incoming Democratic-controlled state Legislature to craft policy in concert with the establishment of the new right to reproductive freedom guaranteed by the amendment.

It is also unclear what role those groups might play in future legal battles on the horizon over the amendment.

When asked about next steps in anticipation of court challenges, a spokesperson for Reproductive Freedom for All, which sponsored the amendment, declined to comment. "What's next is we're going to celebrate that we have restored reproductive rights in Michigan and enshrined it in our constitution," said spokesperson Darci McConnell during a news briefing Wednesday. She said there will be time to delve into those matters in the future, but the campaign was focused on celebrating its victory. Get the Elections newsletter in your inbox.

Meanwhile, Citizens for MI Children & Women, a coalition of abortion rights opponents that fought Proposal 3, vowed to hold the sponsors of the constitutional amendment accountable for claims they made that the law amendment simply restores what was lost when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade which had guaranteed a national right to abortion for nearly half a century.

Citizens for MI Children & Women, which claimed that Proposal 3 would repeal Michigan's parental consent law for minors seeking abortions, said in a statement in response to the amendment's passage that they look forward to seeing its sponsors defend the state law and others on the book related to abortion care.

"We will hold the sponsors of this proposal accountable for the claims they made, that no law beyond the 1931 law would be invalidated," said Citizens for MI Children & Women spokesperson Christen Pollo in a statement. "We expect the authors of this proposal to respond to the inevitable flood of litigation that will come with this amendment by insisting that laws like parental consent be upheld, as they promised the people of Michigan."

In heralding Proposal 3's passage as a victory for reproductive rights, sponsors of the amendment suggested they're ready to look beyond Michigan in the fight for abortion rights, calling Michigan a model for other states that could pass ballot measures to preserve abortion access.

Clara Hendrickson fact-checks Michigan issues and politics as a corps member with Report for America, an initiative of The GroundTruth Project. Make a tax-deductible contribution to support her work at bit.ly/freepRFA. Contact her at chendrickson@freepress.com or 313-296-5743. Follow her on Twitter @clarajanehen.

[froot loops]

CVGT brings up a good point, the red hats wanted to put it back in the hands of the states. I don't think Nick lives in Michigan, I couldn't begin to tell you about any of his state's ballot initiatives.

[Nick Pappageorgio]

Oh no, danger!!

I'm disqualifying your opinion only because you mention specifics that aren't in the proposal. But I admit that I hope for more concrete language around what is and is not permitted.

I think outlawing abortion in all cases is worse than allowing it and restricting it in extreme cases. I also think that there's some strange perception out there that women are getting pregnant and carrying the pregnancy for months then saying "Fuck it, bye!" and having what is a very difficult procedure to terminate the pregnancy late-term. My knowledge, albeit anecdotal, is quite the opposite. It's a harrowing experience that most would avoid at all costs. Yet there are valid reasons why it might need to be done in rare cases.

Holy shit….you’re disqualifying my opinion because I “mention specifics not on the proposal”?

While I understand your willingness to bury your head in the sand here…..the fine print most definitely matters.

In case you all haven’t been paying attention…I don’t trust politicians or any large power structures. Politicians say one thing and the put something different on paper. Look at that vague proposal you voted on…it means what they say it means, not what they told you or what you think it stands for. And the Democratic Party has always been against any limit on abortion…the proposal you voted for is indicative of that. Which is abortions up to 24 weeks and exceptions up to 8.5 months.

FTR I believe in abortion rights up to 15 weeks (with very few exceptions). The funny thing is…it sounds like most of you agree with 12-15 week moratorium (as the majority of republicans do)….but the parties have so convinced you that the other side is some sort of monster (extremist was a favorite term this election cycle) that no one really listens to the other side. It’s almost like our elected officials don’t want us to communicate or compromise.

There was a compromise to be found…. and like 75-80% of people on both sides of the aisle would have been happy. What Froot said about this being a factor for 50 more years is right (we’ll make a cynic of him yet)….this whole thing is a side show, play on your emotions with the right hand so you don’t see what they’re doing with the left.

[-Deborah-]

Maybe you're right. My perception is that the conservatives want abortion outlawed entirely or they want to make it so difficult that hardly any woman would qualify.

[Nick Pappageorgio]

And Fox News is telling people that they’re executing babies fresh from the womb.

recent polls suggest that republican voters accept abortion rights (with limits) at an almost 75% clip. Nobody (politicians I mean) argues for a reasonable middle ground anymore.

There are portions of the country that want no abortions and there are portions of the country that want to be more lose with restrictions….maybe letting local values/referendums try and solve it is a better plan than a federal one-size plan.

what does need to be protected is a person’s (woman’s) right to freely travel to a place that she can have the procedure, if she lives in a place that does not. IMO…these are the protections they should be working on.

[Futureshock]

Now THIS is too confusing, TOO extreme... Won't be going there

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/slavery-ballot-states-voted-rid/story?id=92795012

Slavery was on midterm ballots in several states, not all voted to get rid of it

[Mainevent]

Polling suggest that Nick's take on the Republican view of abortion, which really hasn't changed much for Republicans, is not accurate. Here's a Pew study that says 60% believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/

And in any case, the politicians the Republicans are electing or promoting are far more hardline. Abortion's been outlawed outright in Louisiana and Arkansas, 5 states have 6 week bans which is a point when many women don't even know they are pregnant, and many other states have enacted incredibly strict requirements or made it almost impossible for women to access the care. And don't even get started on the Texas law allowing random people to sue others for supporting abortion. There are even states trying to find ways to punish people for going out of state for the abortion care that they need.

[Nick Pappageorgio]

You mean we saw different polls that said different things? This is truly shocking

[Mainevent]

So we can argue about which poll presents the right view or actually look at what Republican policy is and what the leaders are pushing for and enacting across the country.

[Nick Pappageorgio]

Polls are generally bullshit and the data is skewed based on various polling bias.

my guess is the number is not as high as either of out polls.

[chemiclord]

CVGT brings up a good point, the red hats wanted to put it back in the hands of the states. I don't think Nick lives in Michigan, I couldn't begin to tell you about any of his state's ballot initiatives.

Well, more accurately, the red hats want to abolish it entirely, but even in their deluded state knows the public support isn't there, and they don't have the federal levers of power to force the country to kneel to their whims. So, they took what they could get.

[chemiclord]

Holy shit….you’re disqualifying my opinion because I “mention specifics not on the proposal”?

While I understand your willingness to bury your head in the sand here…..the fine print most definitely matters.

In case you all haven’t been paying attention…I don’t trust politicians or any large power structures. Politicians say one thing and the put something different on paper. Look at that vague proposal you voted on…it means what they say it means, not what they told you or what you think it stands for. And the Democratic Party has always been against any limit on abortion…the proposal you voted for is indicative of that. Which is abortions up to 24 weeks and exceptions up to 8.5 months.

FTR I believe in abortion rights up to 15 weeks (with very few exceptions). The funny thing is…it sounds like most of you agree with 12-15 week moratorium (as the majority of republicans do)….but the parties have so convinced you that the other side is some sort of monster (extremist was a favorite term this election cycle) that no one really listens to the other side. It’s almost like our elected officials don’t want us to communicate or compromise.

There was a compromise to be found…. and like 75-80% of people on both sides of the aisle would have been happy. What Froot said about this being a factor for 50 more years is right (we’ll make a cynic of him yet)….this whole thing is a side show, play on your emotions with the right hand so you don’t see what they’re doing with the left.

The compromise was already there. The thing you're describing is the very thing that the Supreme Court already fed in to the shredder. So no, the "compromise" wasn't good enough for Republicans. You can stop blaming Democrats for "forcing" the Republicans' hand any time. They did this completely on their own because they want to abolish it entirely with no exceptions.

[froot loops]

The polls were pretty good this year on the aggregate.

If a poll says 60-70 percent of GOP voters say they want any type of abortion rights eliminated that rings true. Roe has generally polled in the US around 60 percent and so far any of the initiatives since Dobbs have came in around 60 percent in a general election. So that means there is a sizable of minority of the GOP electorate that agreed with Roe. It's probably like 20-25 percent but that's enough to push it to that 60 percent number in a general.

Most people are perfectly fine with some sort of restrictions. But the true believers are the ones animating this issue. It makes Lindsay Graham say one day it should be left up to the states and then the next week introduce that would outlaw it at minimum at 15 weeks and let the states ban it further.