Absolutely awful, so much unnecessary suffering will be caused by this.
It’s hard to believe MN and IA are neighbor states.
Like New Mexico and Texas.
It wasn’t enough when they resoundingly voted ‘No’ in a statewide referendum, R’s just do it by other means. Anything to hurt someone who isn’t a white conservative dude.
Isn’t that last sentence the GOP platform?
Anything to hurt someone
This is the crucial point, because the policies Republicans support are observably flawed and don’t work. The country with the lowest abortion rate in the world is The Netherlands, where there’s universal health care, sex education (and not the kind where people get to lie to you), and abortion is legal.
The cruelty of it is the point.
But that still leaves a major question: What’s the point of the cruelty? ~Strawberry
Hurting people gets their dicks hard. Republicans are sadists who experience pleasure from causing harm to people and our society. The cruelty is an end in and of itself. Why does the rapist rape, why does the serial killer drag people into alleys to slash their throats? It’s all the same answer: they find pleasure in tormenting innocent people.
Eventually? Kinder kirche küche.
Kinder kirche küche.
I feel like that just leads to more questions about why they want that and prioritize that over all else… ~Strawberry
Life is a series of questions leading to more questions. Wouldn’t go down this particular rabbit hole though. There are answers, and they are not pretty.
Vote for me, ignore the fact that I’m funneling the whole budget to my campaign contributors and I’ll let you hurt that guy that I convinced you to be afraid of
Some further flavor to reinforce this: as I understand it, abortion is legal in the Netherlands until the fetus is viable, which was estimated to be 24 weeks but due to better care for premies IIUC it’s moving toward 22. After this time it is only legal in the case of serious medical problems: eg a risk to the life of the would-be mother, or because the fetus isn’t viable due to a defect. Until this year there was also a 5-day waiting period for abortions; I think that’s no longer legally mandated but the doctor still has input. I believe they also require more medical scrutiny after the first trimester.
IMHO these are common-sense restrictions, though you could argue about the exact details. Abortion is accessible if you need it, but after a certain point a fetus is close enough to a person that its interests must also be taken into account.
The official abortion rate in NL is slightly over 1/3 of that in the US. It may or may not actually be the lowest in the world: it’s hard to collect statistics in some places, especially where abortion is discouraged or illegal, or even in places where you would get one with no medical supervision (by pills taken at home).
The Netherlands also has a low maternal mortality rate, around 1/5th of the US, and also one of the lowest in the world (says CIA world factbook), though I’m not sure how consistent these measurements are across countries.
The US could achieve these things too, and likely have a lower abortion rate than it can achieve even through draconian restrictions. But it would require proper education and medical care, and that’s not what certain states want… they want the crueler option.
I know other states have had referendums, but I don’t remember hearing about Iowa and I can’t find anything about one on the web. Do you have a link or a date or anything?
6 weeks is effectively a ban. That’s not even enough time to know you’re pregnant.
Like I can comprehend their being upper limits to abortion if the mother’s life isnt at risk when the fetus is viable. There dont seem to be many people protesting states with a 24+ week to third trimester abortion bans that do exist in a lot of northern states. This is so far and away from that.
6 weeks is hardly even pregnant. The fetus is the size of a lentil, and with aid of a microscope you can see it resembles a what you’d see inside of a fish egg more than a human. That’s barely enough time to really know a person is late for their first period especially if there is spotting from the placenta attaching or a hematoma
6 weeks is effectively a ban. That’s not even enough time to know you’re pregnant.
I know that’s their intent, but I don’t understand why they aren’t just going for an all-out ban. That would really rile up their rabid idiot supporters, and their strategy is clearly to motivate the base rather than to reach across the aisle. Why not go whole hog? They just got clearance from SCotUS to do it.
A primary strategy the right uses is to feign responsibility and pretending to be reasonable. It usually doesnt pass scrutiny but it allows them to seem reasonable, and responsible.
It’s like fiscal republicans talking about reducing inefficient government spending, and reducing the deficit to balance the books. On the surface this sounds responsible like a household balancing their own budget. In practice some deficit is useful, and they forget all about it when they are funding military spending and giving tax cuts to the wealthy.
It’s the same as this. They arent going to outright ban abortion(yet) its a free country! But they will give a “reasonable” time frame based on an old man’s limited knowledge of female anatomy. They can then pretend that if a woman needs or wants an abortion after the deadline it’s the woman’s fault for first not using protection, and then not knowing her own body.
Never mind that these same people also limit sex ed and healthcare that would provide birth control.
I know that’s their intent, but I don’t understand why they aren’t just going for an all-out ban.
because 6 week bans are already unpopular, and total bans even moreso. even most anti-abortion advocates are not in favor of a total ban.
if they were concerned about popularity it would make sense to sponsor popular bills. and let’s be honest, most anti-abortion advocates are in favor of abortion when they want one.
if they were concerned about popularity it would make sense to sponsor popular bills.
the difference between a 6 week ban and a total ban electorally is substantial enough that it’s not worth the optical tradeoff for them, particularly when a 6 week ban is functionally the same thing. keep in mind: Republicans have already suffered Roe backlash in 2022; they would basically guarantee a sustained backlash in pursuing total bans.
