BS: Roe v. Wade

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jul 22 - 04:56 PM

Intolerant rubbish. As ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Jul 22 - 04:40 PM

Rape is a hard one , but why should a baby pay for the transgression of the man . Pro abortion usually appeal to the hard cases , but usually they are pushing for abortion on demand . Some say a man shouldn’t have an opinion on a woman’s issue , but of course there’s other lives involved , and it’s hardly only men who speak out for the defenceless in the womb.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jul 22 - 08:11 AM

In this post Roe decision era, the rate of permanent sterilization has increased by over 200%.
I should have seen this contraception tubal ligation war coming.
This will make judge Clarence Thomas go ballistic in his push to make contraception a crime. Vasectomies are only up by 110%.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 22 - 03:09 PM

So you, as a man, think he delivered on a policy that shits on women but which you agree with, and that would have been enough for you to have voted for him. Never mind all the other very bad stuff that he did. Yes, that's democracy. Yes, that's the attitude that gives democracy a bad name.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Jul 22 - 01:11 PM

Why should a woman who has been raped be forced to have a child?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Jul 22 - 01:01 PM

I remember trump saying he had no sins to confess , and I concluded then that he wasn’t a Christian . I’ve no idea if that remained the case throughout his presidency , but he was certainly a bull in a china shop sort of man . Either way , Wether he was genuinely pro life or just seeing it as a political tool, that was a successful policy that attracted votes at the time . It seems he delivered on this policy even though not in office anymore ! If I was an American , I would have voted for him too , as the lesser evil . It’s called democracy I believe

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Helen
Date: 16 Jul 22 - 08:44 PM

Sometimes political strategies, as referred to in the article I mentioned, can jump up and bite the people in power on the behind.

It's a possibility that the women voters in the US might get as motivated as the Aussie women in our recent federal election. Our previous Prime Minister had a very strong vibe of denigrating and denying the issues relating to women (and climate change, indigenous rights, and lots of other issues but that's another story) and a strong proportion of women rose up and decided it was time to take action. A significant number of candidates in that election were women or men advocating women's rights and a good percentage of them were elected. Many of the candidates left the Liberal-National Coalition Party and were standing as independent candidates, so not only did the ex-PM lose voter credibility, but his political party did as well.

The Labor Party won the election and as our new PM has stated, the LP has a strong history of collaborating effectively with other political parties and candidates. Hope is in the air, and already some in-roads have begun in some areas of politics and society.

(Usual disclaimers, and even if I had been a long-time, staunch Liberal-National Party supporter, our ex-PM would have turned me off voting for them. Big time!)

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Helen
Date: 16 Jul 22 - 04:55 PM

Lighter, thanks for the specific information about Trump. From those snippets it appears like he wasn't very specific about his Christian beliefs, IMHO. Like he had been coached to say Christian-sounding comments but couldn't delve deeper into them when questioned.

At the time I had started watching ABC America news once a day and now the different Trump-related events have blurred together a bit in my memory. I do remember that the protesters were cleared from near the church to make room for his photo op, and they would have been Black Lives Matter protesters, I think.

Maggie, I agree with you succinct statement. Yes, end of story.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Lighter
Date: 16 Jul 22 - 03:52 PM

Now the Indiana Attorney-General has said he's going to investigate the doctor who did the operation.

He said she has a history of failing to report abortions.

CNN has looked into her public records and found all her paperwork in order.

The doctor's lawyer has written letter to the AG asking him to cease and desist from "smearing" her client.

There's really no bottom to this crap, is there?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Jul 22 - 03:30 PM

If a woman is not ready to have a child, she shouldn't have to have a child. If a child is carrying a child after she has been raped by a man, she shouldn't have to have a child. End. Of. Story. The most succinct version. The whole "people with uteruses" stuff makes it more complicated but they shouldn't have to have children if they don't want to either, whatever they call themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Lighter
Date: 16 Jul 22 - 11:35 AM

As I recall, the evangelicals were praying with him (assuming he was praying at all) and "laying on hands."

It was long before the bit with the bible, which happened after the George Floyd killing.

While the Antchrist (not a typo) was running in 2015, he was asked if he ever asked God for forgiveness. His answer was that he was a "good person" and didn't have to.

One of his first YouTube ads had him showing off his family bible, "given to me by my mother." He pointed to his name written with those of other Trump's on the flyleaf. "It means so much to me."

A little later he suggested that the IRS was auditing his tax returns "because I'm such a strong Christian."

Then he spoke at Liberty University and read one line from what he called "Two Corinthians."

When asked by CBN reporters whether he preferred the Old or New Testament, he thought about it and replied, "Probably equal." They asked if he had a favorite bible verse, and he said he didn't want to "get into specifics" because it was "very personal" and the bible was "incredible" and "very special."

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Helen
Date: 15 Jul 22 - 04:43 PM

I just realised that a situation filmed for a news item about Donald Trump, which never made much sense to me, has possibly been explained by that article.

When Trumpty-Dumpty was still the President he was filmed in the Oval Office (from memory) surrounded by evangelical Christians who were praying with (or over?) him. It seemed odd to me because I had never heard him refer to Christianity or religious beliefs in any of his speeches up to that time. It also just occurred to me that that may have been the day he took the photo opportunity, holding the Bible in front of a church.

The introductory paragraphs of the article are:

"There was a time in the United States when abortion wasn't so political, but one conservative Christian man believed it could be.

"To him, the reproductive rights of women presented an opportunity. He dreamed of building a coalition — a powerful voting bloc that would help pull the Republican Party to the right."

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Helen
Date: 15 Jul 22 - 03:47 PM

Interesting analytical article:

Why is America so divided on abortion? Because a key conservative player planned it that way

"The religious right was made in the battle over access to abortion rights, but now experts believe there is a much broader war being waged and other personal freedoms, as well as American democracy, are all on the line."

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jul 22 - 04:25 PM

You I understand. I was beginning to wonder about the usual suspects losing their marbles and 8 balls.

Abortion, guns and losing democracy are trending in the polls as never before. The predicted right wing glandslide may not happen afterall.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 13 Jul 22 - 10:18 AM

> A lifetime of service is not mandated by the constitution

Trouble is, a tradition left to dry for long enough sets harder than rock, and certainly harder than law. I can still remember the kerfuffle in the Church of England over replacing the Book of Common Prayer by Series Two ("we've done it this way since 1662"), and there's still grumbles half a century later.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jul 22 - 09:46 AM

A lifetime of service is not mandated by the constitution so it can be changed just like the number of judges. Making those changes won't be called a nuclear option, that already taken by a made up rule controversy called the filibuster. Its more like a wormhole option but no one has ever seen a wormhole so change is unlikely.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Jul 22 - 10:15 AM

There is a federal law on the books from 1986, the EMTALA act
(Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA))

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented.

The law includes shielding doctors from prosecution if they perform an abortion to save the life of the mother. Federal law trumps state law in every case.

TikTok video about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Jul 22 - 10:12 AM

Trump legacy? You bet.

He appointed three ultraconservative justices to replace three liberal to moderate justices, giving the right a 5-4 majority whenever they want to exercise it. It's unusual for three openings to appear in one four-year presidential term. Many Trumpies see this as divine intervention - like Trump's election against 50-1 odds when he declared his candidacy.

Supreme Court appointments are for life.

Factoid: Trump would have appointed three Stalinists if he had thought they'd increase his popularity among his mesmerized voters.

And probably his senatorial slaves would have confirmed them.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: gillymor
Date: 12 Jul 22 - 09:17 AM

Here's a link to a story regarding the pregnant lady in the HOV lane, one of many you didn't link to- CNN

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jul 22 - 09:01 AM

...something like taxes.

Google hands over word searchs and location data whenever law enforcement asks. For states that make abortion a crime, Google will become complicit in arrests and convictions. Until Congress can address this issue what is considered 'overly broad searchs' will be an unanswered question. Settling each different state law sounds like Infinity Wars;

If a fetus is a person can a single pregnant woman drive in the restricted HOV lane meant for 2 or more people only?

Can you arrest a pregnant woman if the 'other person is innocent'.

If a fetus is a person what is their income?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jul 22 - 08:01 AM

Next we will get a Bill for Rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Jul 22 - 03:24 AM

wqs this a trump legacy?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Jul 22 - 09:49 PM

The Court - well, some of it - wants us to believe that if a right isn't specifically spelled out in the Constitution, you don't have it if your state legislature or Congress doesn't say you do.

So rights have to be listed. Like crimes are now.

(Sarcasm alert.) That's what freedom is all about!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Jul 22 - 08:06 PM

This Court is imposing right wing Christian theosophy on all of America. Separation of church and state is not a myth as claimed by this cabal of christians. The court is not pushing us back to the 50's. They are pushing it back before 1776. I have a digital copy of a George Washington letter decrying the ardent push against separation of church and state by Christians that he called the trouble makers.
Today they call themselves 'White' Christian Nationalists.
Chief Justice Roberts has ruled in favor of these right wing christian nationalists 83% of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jul 22 - 07:07 PM

What's that, Maggie? The thread has been dormant for days... ?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Jul 22 - 01:30 PM

Bickering has been removed - both of you - ignore the stuff you don't like, don't pick it up as a personal challenge.

Biden is in a tough situation now. As long as Sinema and Manchin refuse to lift the fillibuster nothing can be done about anything. The voting rights bill needs to be passed to remove all of the hinky stuff going on in red states to disenfranchise voters. And they could make a federal law allowing abortion. Biden can't do any of that on his own.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Jul 22 - 12:56 PM

In four feet of water your decision to row versus wade is a no brainer.
Having to decide what to do with your own body should be a right and a freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Jul 22 - 06:45 PM

The quoted story
10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortion

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Jul 22 - 06:32 PM

The governor of South Dakota (where abortions are now allowed only to save the life the mother - relatively progressive) was asked about this today.

She said it was terrible. Things like this shouldn't happen. It's a nightmare for the girl and her family.

She hopes the girl will receive care and counseling. So sad.

She said once that she'd like to see DJT's face on Mount Rushmore. That hasn't changed.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jul 22 - 06:23 PM

"10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortion"

Guardian headline.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Jul 22 - 04:34 PM

It's time to stack the court.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Jul 22 - 12:02 PM

If God were really in charge of the Court, I believe he'd cut us a better deal than what we're getting.

Also, naked crazies are still crazies.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jul 22 - 10:47 AM

I posted this in the wrong thread, so here it is where it was intended. I apologise for my mistaken comment that Bonzo's post was deleted:

It's a shame that Bonzo's post about how doggedly human the Supreme Court judges are by referring (in his own sweet way, of course) to their likely shenanigans in their bathtubs, because it had exactly that grain of truth about how their loftiness is false. It reminded me, though admittedly tangentially only, of a piece written by Nicholas Humphrey in 1982, reflecting on Nye Bevan's remark about "not wanting to go naked into the conference chamber." Yertis (as we say in Pastyland):


In 1957 at the Labour Party's debate on disarmament, Aneurin Bevan declared that he was not prepared to 'go naked into the conference chamber'. It is a phrase which has been echoed by Tory and Labour defence spokesmen alike; something similar was said at the Liberal Party conference in September 1981. But what was it that Bevan had to hide? Bevan came into the world naked, and naked he left it. Why should he have been afraid to go naked into the conference chamber to discuss matters of global life and death ? What he had to hide, as much from himself as from his adversaries, was nothing less than his humanity. Of course, by the rules of the game he had to hide it. For no naked human being, conscious of his own essential ordinariness, the chairseat pressing against his buttocks, his toes wriggling beneath the conference table, his penis hanging limply a few feet from Mr Andropov's, could possibly play the game of international politics and barter like a god with the lives of millions of his fellow men. No naked human being could threaten to press the nuclear button. So I come to my proposal. Our leaders must be given no choice but to go naked into the conference chamber. At the United Nations General Assembly, at the Geneva disarmament negotiations, at the next summit in Moscow or in Washington, there shall be a notice pinned to the door: 'Reality gate. Human beings only beyond this point. NO CLOTHES.' And then, as the erstwhile iron maiden takes her place beside the erstwhile bionic commissar, it may dawn on them that neither she nor he is made of iron or steel, but rather of a warmer, softer and much more magical material, flesh and blood. Perhaps as Mr Andropov looks at his navel and realises that he, like the rest of us, was once joined from there to a proud and aching mother, as Mrs Thatcher feels the table-cloth tickling her belly, they will start to laugh at their pretensions to be superhuman rulers of the lives of others. If they do not actually make love they will, at least, barely be capable of making war.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 02 Jul 22 - 02:15 AM

Don't forget that all in supreme court play with their willies and fannies in the bath!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Jul 22 - 09:28 AM

The Supreme Court is reintroducing everything judge Scalia held dear such as God being in charge of Government.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jun 22 - 06:25 PM

Jane Fonda coincidentally was cast as the owner of Network News.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jun 22 - 04:41 PM

Stilly, the proper progressive term for white nationalists is the 'American' Taliban. :^\
Actually the term came from Aron Sorkin's 'Network News' in 2011 — the project/show, is set at a 24-hour cable news network.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: gillymor
Date: 29 Jun 22 - 04:31 PM

This from Jane Fonda-
"If a corporation can be defined as a person, why not redefine vaginas as AK47s, that way they'd be free of governmental restrictions by those who care about 'the sanctity of life.'"

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Lighter
Date: 29 Jun 22 - 03:50 PM

What Boebert actually said was slightly worse: "The Church is supposed to run the Government."

She also said she was "tired of this separation of church and state junk" and that it's not mentioned in the Constitution but only in somebody's "stinking letter."

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 Jun 22 - 12:20 PM

MaJoC the Filk I've been using that Taliban comparison for a long time. That's exactly the roll this zealots are occupying in American society. And yesterday one of the brain-dead GOP representatives from Colorado (Boebert) announced that she was "sick of this church and state stuff" already - that the "government is supposed to do what the church says, and not the other way round." She clearly missed the Civics and Government classes when she was in school.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Lighter
Date: 29 Jun 22 - 12:10 PM

Steve, speaking from deep in a "red state," I assure you there's nothing over the top in that clipping.

In Texas, where you can be awarded $10,000 for successfully suing anyone who's assisted a woman to get an abortion (including the taxi driver), they're talking very seriously about making it a crime to travel out of state to get one.

In Missouri, the police now have the right to search your home for evidence that a miscarriage was actually an abortion.

The only ray of light is that choice is still legal in half the states, including New York, California, and Illinois.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jun 22 - 11:31 AM

My Mrs was a trained counsellor, long retired, for the organisation 'Life' but always shied away from the militant 'SPUC' and the more militant factions within Life itself. Her view was that counselling (usualy young) women on the various options open to them if they found themselves pregnant in difficult circumstances was much better than letting them manage on their own. Knowing my Mrs, as I have for over 50 years, I know her advice would be completely impartial and non-judgmental. She is a genius at empathy and can relate to what people are going through without being patronising or pushy. I am more than sure all her ex clients made the right decision for their own individual circumstances and made it themselves with no interferance. She is absolutely disgusted at the ruling from across the pond.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jun 22 - 11:16 AM

I'm probably in breach of protocol by quoting across threads, but henryp dug this up from 2007, in the current thread up there about abortion songs.

"Vin Garbutt passionately opposes abortion. He writes songs, Little Innocents and The Secret being well known among them, driven by that position. I disagree fundamentally with him. But my support for women's rights on abortion is not quite so strong as my belief in free speech. Colin Randall July 23, 2007"

I heard Vin singing these songs in our folk club. I didn't like it, but he wasn't breaking the law. I do think that there are some facets of the exercise of "free speech" apropos of expressing anti-abortionist views that need closer examination. First, soi-disant "pro-lifers" are often/usually steeped in certainty. You are a murderer. You destroyed an innocent life. You will be judged by God. You must come back to Jesus. Innocent life, innocent life, innocent life. Destroy the clinics. Picket the abortion doctors and the women who go to the clinics. Abortion must be banned. ("must...")

Well all that comes under free speech. But all of it is predicated on opinion only. Expressed certainty predicated on opinion only is a very dangerous way to go. Every religious war, every punishment for heresy, every bit of misogyny, every justification of the slave trade put forward by organised religion is predicated on certainty which can't be justified. The upshots of that include 9-11, suicide bombers killing children at pop concerts, the mass repression of women, the Taliban and Islamic State. Boris Johnson and Trump lie, but it's OK because that's free speech. We say that free speech is good, hate speech is bad, but it seems to me that we can't draw the line between them in the right place. Mother Teresa, an evil woman if ever there was one, told a crowd that abortion was the greatest destroyer of world peace. Free speech? Wars are always started by men, but she attacks as the main destroyer of world peace strictly women only. It's not free speech. It's hate speech. If you're intimidating women and doctors outside clinics with your slogan-shouting and your placards, that is hate speech. You're expressing your opinion as your certainty and that can't be right, not outside those clinics. The lack of measured, moderate comment from militant anti-abortionists is rife. They can't just say, "I think you're wrong even though you think you're right, and this is why. You get on with your life the way you want to, I'll hold my nose and I'll put my arguments, I won't stop talking about this, but only because I recognise that neither of us can be certain who's right or wrong."

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jun 22 - 08:23 AM

Emporous old time religionists can remove half the population from competition by making women their foe and putting them in their place.
Barefoot and pregnant is not enough. Keeping them in the kitchen and bedroom is not enough. One has to make women criminally liable to oppress them at will. It is not insane, it is merely a means to an end.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Jun 22 - 08:08 AM

Just a handful if usaians, religious cranks and gold medal arseholes.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Jun 22 - 04:16 AM

I was told that some States are starting to withdraw cancer treatment for pre-menopausal women because they fear that damage to any fœtus which may be present could render them liable to prosecution.

Does anyone know if this is true? Has the US gone completely insane?

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Senoufou
Date: 29 Jun 22 - 03:38 AM

I have never in my life been pregnant, but I remember many years ago that 'backstreet abortions' caused no end of dangerous repercussions for women (sepsis, haemorrhage, irreparable damage to the reproductive organs etc). I fear this may all happen again if legal abortions are forbidden. Much better that these are undertaken with the correct medical procedure.
I also think that any woman has the right to decide what is done to her own body, not any government or man who has different ideas.
People are entitled to their religious tenets, but shouldn't impose them on others.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jun 22 - 03:14 AM

An extract from this morning's letter from the Guardian to its subscribers about possible ramifications arising from the Supreme Court's decision. I don't think it's over the top.

Dear Steve,

The news had been leaked, digested and lamented weeks ago - but it still came as a shock.

Friday’s decision by the US Supreme Court to remove a woman’s right to an abortion is perhaps the most stunning to emerge from the institution since the second world war.

It’s made for an extremely busy time for our US team, who have investigated the impact for maternal mortality, mapped ‘abortion deserts', explored the influence of Christian nationalists over the US courts, and informed readers how they can help.

“It’s really hard to overstate the significance of a decision like this and it’s really almost without parallel in terms of Supreme Court decisions,” the Guardian’s US health reporter Jessica Glenza told our daily podcast show Today in Focus. “Outside of prohibition it’s hard to think of another case where (so many) people’s rights have disappeared overnight.”

But the work for our journalists doesn’t stop here. In a sense, it’s only just begun, because the ramifications of Friday’s decision to strike down Roe v Wade run far and wide.

“In the coming weeks and months, we will seek to answer the many questions raised when the court scrapped nearly 50 years of settled law,” Jessica told me.

“How will women's physical, emotional and financial wellbeing fare in a nation with a maternal mortality crisis, sky-high health costs and a tattered social safety net? Will clinics in states that protect abortion see a surge of out-of-state patients? Will doctors flee states hostile to abortion, fearing prosecution?”

“Then, we will look at fights between states. Will anti-abortion politicians seek to ban patients from crossing state lines? Will calls from anti-abortion campaigners to prosecute women grow? Will friends and family members be branded "accomplices"? And will technology companies safeguard privacy when prosecutions loom? Finally, how will these seismic changes alter the upcoming US election?”

And it’s not just our US teams who are scrambling to cover all the angles. The decision is expected to ripple out globally because of the towering US influence over reproductive rights around the world. Guardian reporters from southeast Asia to east Africa are investigating the upshot for local attitudes and laws governing abortion. The short answer is: not good.

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Jun 22 - 01:44 AM

Surely Martha & The Vandellas!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Roe v. Wade
From: Neil D
Date: 28 Jun 22 - 07:23 PM

McGrath was right when he said: Wouldn’t it be better to accept that it's not a matter of constitutional rights, but of legislation, as in all other countries? Either at state or federal level.
Donuel was equally correct when he said we never had the votes.
This should be the Dems single unified message leading up to the midterms: Protest all you want, but if you give us enough votes we can codify legal abortion into law and do an end around on the Supremes.