Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
sebster wrote: This is the state of things in the White House right now, this really just happened in Thursday's press conference;
Sanders: “Comey was fired for being a liar and a leaker.”
Reporter: “Ok then...what did Comey lie about or leak before being fired?”
Sanders: “Ummm...the President doesn’t have to give a reason for firing the FBI Director. Next question.”
sebster wrote: This is the state of things in the White House right now, this really just happened in Thursday's press conference;
Sanders: “Comey was fired for being a liar and a leaker.”
Reporter: “Ok then...what did Comey lie about or leak before being fired?”
Sanders: “Ummm...the President doesn’t have to give a reason for firing the FBI Director. Next question.”
It's basically pantomime at this point.
To be fair... she's right.
To be fair, if she's going to give a reason for the firing, she ought to be able to back it up.
sebster wrote: This is the state of things in the White House right now, this really just happened in Thursday's press conference;
Sanders: “Comey was fired for being a liar and a leaker.”
Reporter: “Ok then...what did Comey lie about or leak before being fired?”
Sanders: “Ummm...the President doesn’t have to give a reason for firing the FBI Director. Next question.”
It's basically pantomime at this point.
To be fair... she's right.
To be fair, if she's going to give a reason for the firing, she ought to be able to back it up.
You're right, she should've lead of with "POTUS doesn't have to give a reason".
No, it's pathetic and you know it is. Trump doesn't have to give a reason, but when his press secretary gives half a reason and then refuses to give any substantiation of that reason, it becomes obvious it's a lie covering the real reason.
Husband: Sorry I'm home late but I went and saw a movie by myself and I smell of perfume because there was a lady next to me in the movie wearing lots of perfurme.
Wife: What movie did you go and see?
Husband: I don't have to tell you what movies I watch.
I mean, yeah, it is true that people don't have to tell their wives what movies they watch, but no person can sensibly claim that's what is happening in that little conversation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: You're right, she should've lead of with "POTUS doesn't have to give a reason".
No, she should have led with an actual explanation of why Trump decided to fire the FBI director less than half way through his tenure. This is how functioning human beings work - when asked why they took major decisions, they give explanations, because people don't want to be seen as crazy lunatics who do things for no good reason.
The only reason not to give that explanation is because the actual reason would demonstrate obstruction of justice.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/04 05:39:08
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Just as an aside, and nor sure I can find the picture again, but has anyone following US politics more closely seen propaganda against Stormy Daniel's lawyer Michael Avenatti?
I get Pinterest mails (my own fault for not blocking them) and amongst perfectly fine heaps of cat or dog pictures there might appear a single "motivational poster" with wildly exaggerated or totally false claims (US alt-right swill, usually) and one I saw recently presented the history of mr Avenatti so as to make it perfectly clear he's being funded by Obama, for some reason, to help persecute Trump. He did work for Democratic candidate campaigns while in law school, under Obama's future WH Chief of Staff, but the pic ofc presented it as him being employed as a full lawyer by the Dems...
Spetulhu wrote: Just as an aside, and nor sure I can find the picture again, but has anyone following US politics more closely seen propaganda against Stormy Daniel's lawyer Michael Avenatti?
I get Pinterest mails (my own fault for not blocking them) and amongst perfectly fine heaps of cat or dog pictures there might appear a single "motivational poster" with wildly exaggerated or totally false claims (US alt-right swill, usually) and one I saw recently presented the history of mr Avenatti so as to make it perfectly clear he's being funded by Obama, for some reason, to help persecute Trump. He did work for Democratic candidate campaigns while in law school, under Obama's future WH Chief of Staff, but the pic ofc presented it as him being employed as a full lawyer by the Dems...
There's a bunch of stories going around about Avenatti being funded by Democrats, yeah. Fraz half-repeated that crap here in this thread, maybe 10 or 20 pages back.
It kind of makes sense how the story started. I mean, Avenatti seems to be is working on this case not just out of a conviction to represent Daniels and bring her justice, he also seems to be pretty motivated by bringing Trump down. He isn't just pushing his own client's case, he's also commenting on Cohen's greater legal problems and whether he might flip on Trump, none of which helps Daniels' case. And I guess a lot of conservatives can't possibly fathom a reason Avenatti might want to do that, unless he was getting paid by Democrats. The idea of finding Trump to be a horrible president outside of any partisan conviction doesn't register with them. And of course, being what conservatives are in 2018, the idea that something might be true is enough to start claiming it, never mind any of the hassle of going and looking for evidence or anything like that.
Never mind that as well as having no evidence, the idea doesn't fit with what we know about Avenatti. Before he took the Daniels case, Avenatti was lead counsel in a medical fraud case that produced a $460m settlement. Avenatti doesn't need Democrat's money, Democrat's need Avenatti's money.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Who knew that Big porcelain money has such an affect on the American political system.
.. I'd totally watch a show entitled Swamp Captain Mitch Mcconnell however.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/04 07:02:01
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Who knew that Big porcelain money has such an affect on the American political system.
Blankenship is doing this really weird thing. He's clearly going after McConnell's wife because she's Asian, but he's trying to be clever about it, sort of, because Blankenship's own wife is Asian. So the point of distinction is McConnell's wife isn't just Asian, but was born in China. She left as a child, and now has a long history of service in Republican governments, but to Blankenship it still means she's a Chinese plant. It makes no damn sense of course, but to the right racist addled brain it might work well enough. So Blankenship has to tread a fine line where he attacks McConnell's wife's ethnicity, while differentiating it from his own wife's ethnicity. Blankenship's answer to this is to use 'China people' because this is the finest political mind of our time, apart from Donald Trump.
Also, this lunatic is freshly released from prison, where he served a year for his part in conspiring to ignore safety regs, which caused an accident that killed 29 people.
Anyone wondering where the modern GOP is today, then look no further than a man convicted of criminal breaches of safety regs that killed people, running on a campaign of gibberish and racism, picking up 20% of the Republican voters.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: Anyone wondering where the modern GOP is today, then look no further than a man convicted of criminal breaches of safety regs that killed people, running on a campaign of gibberish and racism, picking up 20% of the Republican voters.
It's not all bad. When he referred to Mcconnell's father in law as "a wealthy Chinaperson", at least he didn't assume a gender, right?
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ouze wrote: It's not all bad. When he referred to Mcconnell's father in law as "a wealthy Chinaperson", at least he didn't assume a gender, right?
Good pick up. That 20% of West Virginia Republicans who support Blankenship must be drawn to his lack of gendered pronouns. Here was me wrongly condemning a large minority of the GOP for falling in behind a racial demogogue who's criminal business practices killed people, but it turns out I just really underestimated the portion of conservatives who are really committed to ending gendered language. My sincerest apologies.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Who knew that Big porcelain money has such an affect on the American political system.
Blankenship is doing this really weird thing. He's clearly going after McConnell's wife because she's Asian, but he's trying to be clever about it, sort of, because Blankenship's own wife is Asian. So the point of distinction is McConnell's wife isn't just Asian, but was born in China. She left as a child, and now has a long history of service in Republican governments, but to Blankenship it still means she's a Chinese plant. It makes no damn sense of course, but to the right racist addled brain it might work well enough. So Blankenship has to tread a fine line where he attacks McConnell's wife's ethnicity, while differentiating it from his own wife's ethnicity. Blankenship's answer to this is to use 'China people' because this is the finest political mind of our time, apart from Donald Trump.
Also, this lunatic is freshly released from prison, where he served a year for his part in conspiring to ignore safety regs, which caused an accident that killed 29 people.
Anyone wondering where the modern GOP is today, then look no further than a man convicted of criminal breaches of safety regs that killed people, running on a campaign of gibberish and racism, picking up 20% of the Republican voters.
20% is actually a deceptively low number here, because that guy will be prone to low numbers to start because he just oozes charisma.
sebster wrote: Does everyone remember that stupid, stupid 'Jade Helm' nonsense? It was a military exercise across several states that conspiracy theorists believed was secretly some kind of plan to start nabbing political opponents, or something. It was dumb, but it got enough interest from the crazies that Texan Governor Greg Abbott threw threw them a bone and ended up ordering the the National Guard to monitor the parts of the operation that took place in Texas. Michael Hayden, former CIA director, says that idiocy wasn't just a product of far right conspiracy nutters, a large part of the conspiracy was driven by Russian bots, and getting that response out of Abbott convinced the Russians their operations could impact American politics.
Prestor Jon wrote: If Democrats really didn’t want Trump to win they should have shown up and voted for Clinton. If Democrats has turned out for Hillary the way they turned out for Obama in 2012 Trump wouldn’t be POTUS. With Obama’s legacy on the line and Trump as the opposing candidate Democrats chose not to vote for Hillary and lost states like Wisconsin and Ohio. Trump’ vote total was in line with McCain’s and Romney’s, the GOPs “maverick” and the governor of Massachusetts and proponent of Romneycare. That’s pretty clear evidence that Republican voters care a lot more about the (R) next to a candidates name than any degree of ideological purity or party platform adherence.
That's a hell of a lot of talk to try and avoid the reality that 62,984,828 people voted for Trump. Those 62,984,828 are responsible for Trump being president. Them. No-one else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lazzamore wrote: Oooo-kay, I have an extremely hesitant question, and to preface this I AM a trump voter. Granted not at first, but I was when it was versus Clinton, or the other democrats even.
All I hear about on the news these days, more than any other story, is the latest allegation and investigation against Trump. But frankly, I'm at the point of hearing this that I'm wondering: What should we be so afraid of? And that's a serious question, honestly. I want to know out of curiosity what his opposition knows that I don't; Suppose we drop the allegations and abandon the investigations, what will he do that I should be worried about?
You're question has everything all mixed up. Trump isn't being investigated because of what he might do as president. He's being investigated because there is a high probability that Trump and his associates broke the law.
The purpose of investigation and prosecution is the enforcement of the law.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: It's also worth nothing that the method Trump used to pay Cohen while obscuring the payments is potentially a criminal banking violation in and of itself - structuring. Oops, got beaten to this.
And that part is interesting because the initial payment to Daniels was made out of San Francisco. Which gives California jurisdiction to prosecute the money structuring component. Which means it is a state prosecution, and one that avoids the New York problem where state crimes can be pardoned by substitution.
All of which adds to the pressure on Cohen that he will face a prosecution that Trump can't save him from. Which significantly increases the chances that he'll flip.
I don't understand how Trump manages to continually find and harness people who are so relentlessly clownshoes, like Giuliani. I mean statistically you'd except to see a few more competent people, you know? Luck of the draw?
What's weird to me is Giuliani wasn't always an idiot. He was always a scumbag, but mostly a competent one. But a lot of his media work for Trump, even before now, has been a confused mess of random accusations and name calling. Now he comes out with this hot mess. It wasn't just the admission that Trump repaid Cohen, Giuliani also said Trump fired Comey because he wouldn't confirm Trump wasn't under suspicion. So he sunk Trump, twice.
Do people get dumber just for being around Trump?
Jade Helm was a real but very minor exercise. A couple if farmers had land leased etc. No biggie and the locals we're happy to make some money. The rest, including the governor:crazy.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
This is one of those “feelings” things because there isn’t really any actual evidence. But the Jade Helm thing brought it back to my mind, and it reminded me of all the stupid random ways Obama was going to become a dictator (he armed the Boy Scouts to create an Obamacare Youth, because people never heard of the explorer program).
Now Trump is surrounding himself with generals and admirals. I have a feeling that if Obama had the same number of high ranking cabinet members and advisors we would have heard claims that we are now run by a Junta.
sebster wrote: This is the state of things in the White House right now, this really just happened in Thursday's press conference;
Sanders: “Comey was fired for being a liar and a leaker.”
Reporter: “Ok then...what did Comey lie about or leak before being fired?”
Sanders: “Ummm...the President doesn’t have to give a reason for firing the FBI Director. Next question.”
It's basically pantomime at this point.
Spetulhu wrote: Trump thinks he's much smarter than he is (true of most people ofc) but also has a strong need to always be right, so anyone he recruits has to be a yes-man or at least very very diplomatic in how he presents something Trump doesn't want to be true. Just a guess, but maybe many of the competent people shy away because they'd like to actually show their competence instead of saying what the boss wants to hear?
Sort of. Trump has worked with and employed plenty of skilled people in the past. His original project management team were excellent. Then Trump saw an opportunity to build his name by fixing Wollman Rink, a project that had languished under government management for a long time. Trump not only saw an opportunity to take over a simple project that had been incredibly mismanaged but was now moving towards completion, he also saw a way to deliver the whole thing at a bargain basement price - he told his project management team and all the contractors to charge at below cost, because the free press from being the team to fix Wollman would be worth far more. Trump did bring the project in under budget, in time for Thanksgiving, but he took all the free press for himself. The people who actually did the work and took the financial hit didn't even get invited to the opening, they got burned and didn't work with Trump again.
Trump has burned a lot of skilled people that way. After decades of business like that, anyone with real talent learns to stay away, so it just leaves the grifters looking for a pay cheque.
I had heard something like that. Do you have more color?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.
The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.
Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.
But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.
Advertisement
“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”
Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”
You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.
The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.
If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.
The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out
Advertisement
Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.
“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.
Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.
The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.
State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.
But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.
“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”
Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.
Advertisement
“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”
Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.
In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.
Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”
In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.
That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Advertisement
The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.
Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.
With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.
”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.
Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Yeah, I do not see how that survives judicial review.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I trust that to counter the number of people who would now have to carry to term they will be instituting a comprehensive program of free contraception for the state, alongside comprehensive sex education which never gives a platform to abstinence only advocates.
No, of course they're not because reducing abortions isn't their goal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/04 12:50:19
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
In situations like that it’s less about legislation actually surviving anything. It’s all about simply being able to say “I voted to save lives” and painting the courts as liberal baby killers.
New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.
The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.
Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.
But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.
Advertisement
“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”
Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”
You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.
The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.
If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.
The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out
Advertisement
Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.
“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.
Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.
The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.
State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.
But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.
“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”
Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.
Advertisement
“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”
Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.
In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.
Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”
In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.
That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Advertisement
The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.
Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.
With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.
”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.
Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?
It says right in the article that the governor hasn’t signed it yet so it’s not a law yet. It also makes it clear that the Republicans in the state legislature passed the bill in the hope that it would improve their chances in the upcoming midterm elections so the governor probably won’t sign prior to the election in order to make it easier for legislators to run on it as a campaign issue. It also points out that Republicans for whatever reason believe that if states pass these kind of laws it will lead to SCOTUS hearing more abortion cases with the potential to revise or overturn Roe v Wade so that is their motivation.
I think it's hard to see it as anything other than virtue signaling at taxpayer expense via hopeless litigation, brought to you by self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives.
Ah well. I would like to say the governor won't sign it but she most definitely will.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/04 13:07:23
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
whembly wrote: You're right, she should've lead of with "POTUS doesn't have to give a reason".
No, she should have led with an actual explanation of why Trump decided to fire the FBI director less than half way through his tenure. This is how functioning human beings work - when asked why they took major decisions, they give explanations, because people don't want to be seen as crazy lunatics who do things for no good reason.
It's good politics to give informed, reasonable explanations. I'm not disputing that. But, in this case, all she had to say was the POTUS wanted to go a different direction with someone else.
The only reason not to give that explanation is because the actual reason would demonstrate obstruction of justice.
No, because all the Executive power is vested in the POTUS. ALL.OF.IT.
'Tis why it's a big deal to be POTUS.
As such a POTUS simply exercising the office's Article II power in hiring or firing political positions in Executive Branch by definition can't be obstruction of justice. A much stronger case for obstruction, is for Trump to asking people in his orbit to lie for him under oath of an ongoing investigation... and, let's be honest, there's a high likelihood of that happening, as I'm willing to be that he did that with Mike Flynn... and why Flynn is cooperating and only got ding'ed on process crime.
New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.
The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.
Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.
But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.
Advertisement
“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”
Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”
You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.
The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.
If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.
The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out
Advertisement
Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.
“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.
Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.
The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.
State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.
But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.
“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”
Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.
Advertisement
“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”
Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.
In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.
Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”
In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.
That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Advertisement
The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.
Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.
With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.
”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.
Good.
Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?
There's a belief that there's a chance that SCOTUS would uphold that.
d-usa wrote: Gotta put that new SCOTUS Justice to the test.
But...I thought conservatives didn't like "activist judges"?
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?
I used to think that Republicans were inconsistent on life, what with being anti-abortion and anti-healthcare but being pro-war and pro-death penalty, but I have another theory now: They actually love killing people, but they take a long minded method toward achieving this goal. The catharsis from killing someone is great, but the kill is delicate like wine. It must be aged and manufactured with care. It's why we maintain the situation in the middle east. It's why we turn criminals into even more desperate and violent people, rather than actually try to rehabilitate them.
New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.
The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.
Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.
But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.
Advertisement
“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”
Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”
You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.
The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.
If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.
The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out
Advertisement
Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.
“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.
Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.
The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.
State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.
But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.
“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”
Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.
Advertisement
“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”
Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.
In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.
Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”
In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.
That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Advertisement
The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.
Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.
With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.
”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.
Good.
Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?
There's a belief that there's a chance that SCOTUS would uphold that.
So much for the consistency of the party of small government
Da Boss wrote: I always thought the idea was to get government so small it could fit inside a woman?
Woman? Don't you mean a womb on legs
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.
The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.
Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.
But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.
Advertisement
“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”
Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”
You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.
The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.
If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.
The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out
Advertisement
Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.
“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.
Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.
The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.
State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.
But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.
“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”
Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.
Advertisement
“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”
Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.
In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.
Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”
In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.
That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Advertisement
The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.
Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.
With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.
”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.
Good.
Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?
There's a belief that there's a chance that SCOTUS would uphold that.
So much for the consistency of the party of small government
New York Times wrote:Six weeks into a woman’s pregnancy is the point at which doctors typically can detect the flicker of a fetal heartbeat on an ultrasound. It’s also the point after which Iowa lawmakers now intend to outlaw abortions.
The Iowa Legislature approved what would be the nation’s strictest abortion law in an early-morning vote on Wednesday. The move intended to pose an aggressive challenge to Roe v. Wade and reignite conservative energy before the midterm elections in November.
Other states, including North Dakota and Arkansas, have passed similarly prohibitive measures restricting abortion and have seen them swiftly voided by the courts as unconstitutional. Supreme Court decisions have given women a right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy, and some states have enacted bans of abortions after 20 weeks. Both proponents and critics of the Iowa bill said they are girding for another legal battle.
But the Republicans pressing the Iowa legislation are making a decisive turn away from the smaller, more incremental measures of the past that have, in their view, merely chipped away at abortion rights. They have a new, longer-term goal in their sights: reaching a Supreme Court that could shift in composition with a Republican president in the White House, potentially giving the anti-abortion movement a court more sympathetic to its goal of overturning Roe v. Wade than the current court is.
Advertisement
“We at the state legislatures, especially Republican-controlled legislatures, have a responsibility to kind of reload,” said State Senator Rick Bertrand, a Republican from Sioux City. “We need to create vehicles that will allow the Supreme Court possibly to reach back and take this case, and to take up an anti-abortion case.”
Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, a Republican, has not yet said whether she would sign the bill, though she reiterated through a spokeswoman that she is “100 percent pro-life and will never stop fighting for the unborn.”
You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
A decision from the governor on whether to sign the bill is expected within days.
The legislation does not specify a point in a woman’s pregnancy when abortion is no longer allowed, but would ban abortions if a fetal heartbeat is detected. Experts say such detection is possible at around six weeks of pregnancy.
If the bill becomes law, it could sharply curtail the number of abortions in Iowa, a state of 3.1 million people. According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, of 3,722 abortions performed in the state in 2016, 347 of them occurred before six weeks of pregnancy, the time when many women are newly learning that they are pregnant.
The Iowa bill, which includes exemptions for victims of rape and incest, quickly drew the condemnation of national abortion rights groups.
EDITORS’ PICKS
In a Revived Durham, Black Residents Ask: Is There Still Room for Us?
How One Interview Question Fuels the Gender Pay Gap
This Story Has Already Stressed Ryan Reynolds Out
Advertisement
Erin Davison-Rippey, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said that most abortions in Iowa would be illegal under the measure.
“This bill is dangerous, it is unconstitutional and it is just unconscionable,” said Ms. Davison-Rippey, who called on Ms. Reynolds to veto the bill. Planned Parenthood closed four of its 12 Iowa clinics after lawmakers cut funds to the organization last year.
Jennifer Price, co-director of the Emma Goldman Clinic, which provides abortions in Iowa City, said women often take time to meet with counselors and family members before deciding whether to obtain an abortion. A six-week cutoff, she said, would force an immediate decision.
The bill, she said, “just doesn’t provide the time or space” for those deliberations.
State Senator Janet Petersen, a Democrat, called the bill an attack on women’s rights and said she believed that Republicans, who control the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, might have acted in part for political reasons, as they work to maintain power in November’s elections.
But abortion opponents cheered the decision, and called on other state legislatures to follow suit. Some dismissed suggestions that the move was a legal maneuver or a political strategy.
“This legislation affirms the scientific fact that human life begins at conception,” the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group based in Mississippi, said in a statement. “Those of us who are against abortion have no hidden agenda. Our goal is plain and simple — to once and for all end the horrible practice of abortion and to create a society that values life from conception to natural death.”
Jake Chapman, a state senator in Iowa who supported the measure, said he hoped his fellow Republicans in other states would consider similar measures.
Advertisement
“States need to start pushing back and saying, ‘These are decisions that we ought to be able to make,’ ” Mr. Chapman said. “I think the fight for life is a fight worth fighting at every step of the way.”
Other states have tried, and failed, to bring a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by passing their own laws restricting abortion.
In 2013, North Dakota enacted a law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, but the law was struck down in the courts, and the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. In March, legislators in Ohio introduced a bill that would ban all abortions, with no exceptions.
Earlier this year, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality but not for cases of rape or incest. The Iowa bill also includes exceptions for medical emergencies, medically necessary abortions and instances when the fetus has an abnormality that is “incompatible with life.”
In its current composition, the Supreme Court is not seen as likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2016, the Court, in a 5-to-3 decision, struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply scaled back the number of abortion clinics in the state.
That law required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics, a restriction that the court ruled would place an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Advertisement
The legislative action in Iowa came after some conservatives in the State Senate threatened to hold up budget legislation until the House passed the abortion bill. The vote broke down largely along party lines; only six House Republicans voted against the bill.
Democrats have been shut out of power in Des Moines since the 2016 election, and have seen the state lurch to the right on issues such as gun rights and voter identification. But the Democrats see opportunities for gains in November, hoping to defeat Ms. Reynolds, gain ground in the Legislature and perhaps flip some of the state’s congressional districts.
With the legislative session drawing to a close, a vote on new restrictions for abortion was seen as a move that could help mobilize Republican voters ahead of the election and give state lawmakers seeking re-election an added talking point.
”Any time you vote on big-plank Republican issues, it motivates Republicans,” said Mr. Bertrand, the Republican from Sioux City.
Good.
Is there a point to wasting tax dollars on passing legislation they already know is going to get slapped down by SCOTUS, or is this just the usual Republican business of making sure their predictions of incompetent government come true by providing that incompetence themselves?
There's a belief that there's a chance that SCOTUS would uphold that.
So much for the consistency of the party of small government
Smallergovernment... not tiny.
I actually have a question for you whem. With you staunch anti abortion stance, have you ever once donated money or time for foster care? Have you fostered or adopted a child? Have you done anything beyond complain that abortion is morally wrong then abandon the women who did not want children and the children themselves? Because if you believe abortion is wrong you should be for a massive foster and adoption overhaul, teaching safe sex in schools (which is proven to lower unplanned pregnancies) but it seems like you do not support those things
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
