US Politics

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.

**NinthMusketeer**

ScarletRose wrote:
The State however, has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens, thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.

Maybe that's the legalese used for current standards, but 'compelling interest' isn't enough to override things like the 13th amendment. Which is essentially the argument - that women be compelled to arduous, unreimbursed work that puts their life at risk "becuz responsibility", because some people are uncomfortable with women having autonomy.

Notably the man is not compelled to provide anything.

**Disciple of Fate**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
ScarletRose wrote:
The State however, has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens, thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.

Maybe that's the legalese used for current standards, but 'compelling interest' isn't enough to override things like the 13th amendment. Which is essentially the argument - that women be compelled to arduous, unreimbursed work that puts their life at risk "becuz responsibility", because some people are uncomfortable with women having autonomy.
Notably the man is not compelled to provide anything.

Oh you have done it now, prepare for incoming "a man has no choice but has to pay for it anyway" comments.

**Frazzled**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
feeder wrote:
I am firmly in the "her body, her choice" camp. I don't think I should even get a vote in the matter. Not my body.

The State however, has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens, thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.

Pretty sure the state doesn't have an interest, hence law enforcement not being there to serve and protect...[/quote

You would be wrong. Please review the legal underpinning of Roe.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ScarletRose wrote:
The State however, has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens, thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.

Maybe that's the legalese used for current standards, but 'compelling interest' isn't enough to override things like the 13th amendment. Which is essentially the argument - that women be compelled to arduous, unreimbursed work that puts their life at risk "becuz responsibility", because some people are uncomfortable with women having autonomy.

Again , please review Roe.

**Tannhauser42**

Can we move on from abortion, please? Nobody's going to convince anybody of anything, and it'll just end up badly.

**Disciple of Fate**

Frazzled wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
feeder wrote:
I am firmly in the "her body, her choice" camp. I don't think I should even get a vote in the matter. Not my body.

The State however, has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens, thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.

Pretty sure the state doesn't have an interest, hence law enforcement not being there to serve and protect...

You would be wrong. Please review the legal underpinning of Roe.

Would I? Look at how healthcare is provided, look at how law enforcement is run, look at the prison system etc. Cherry picking one example of how the state has an interest when so many other factors show a lack of interest is not very convincing. Maybe you should have said the state has an interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens in very very specific circumstances.

**Ensis Ferrae**

The Trump/Daniels payment fiasco continutes:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/04/politics/kellyanne-conway-donald-trump-michael-cohen-stormy-daniels-payment/index.html

For the work blocked (or those who, for whatever reason hate CNN): Conway, who is known for her truthiness as well as anyone else in the camp, said that she did not know about any payments "and I was the campaign manager"

**feeder**

Frazzled wrote:
feeder wrote:
I am firmly in the "her body, her choice" camp. I don't think I should even get a vote in the matter. Not my body.

The State however, has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens

Good one.

thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.

We are in agreement here, I think.

**Lorek**

I was trying to find a way to cool down the conversation here (not targeting you, Frazzled! You're just the last post before I saw this stuff), but I couldn't find a way to do it without being condescending. So I'm just going to put a general thread warning here, and want to remind everyone that the US Politics thread is still in the "maybe we keep you, maybe we Lenny you" phase.

**Frazzled**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
feeder wrote:
I am firmly in the "her body, her choice" camp. I don't think I should even get a vote in the matter. Not my body.

The State however, has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens, thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.

Pretty sure the state doesn't have an interest, hence law enforcement not being there to serve and protect...

You would be wrong. Please review the legal underpinning of Roe.

Would I? Look at how healthcare is provided, look at how law enforcement is run, look at the prison system etc. Cherry picking one example of how the state has an interest when so many other factors show a lack of interest is not very convincing. Maybe you should have said the state has an interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens in very very specific circumstances.

Again, please review Roe. It's not like I am almost quoting them verbatim or anything because it was on the Bar...

**Disciple of Fate**

feeder wrote:
thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.

We are in agreement here, I think.

I wonder how this would look, if the future provides the medical option of sustaining the growth of life outside the womb and abortion is limited based on that you would need an enormousness societal overhaul.

**Frazzled**

Lorek wrote:
I was trying to find a way to cool down the conversation here (not targeting you, Frazzled! You're just the last post before I saw this stuff), but I couldn't find a way to do it without being condescending. So I'm just going to put a general thread warning here, and want to remind everyone that the US Politics thread is still in the "maybe we keep you, maybe we Lenny you" phase.

Yep. I am not being argument ative. I am on a cell phone or would quote the case directly.

**Disciple of Fate**

Frazzled wrote:
Again, please review Roe. It's not like I am almost quoting them verbatim or anything because it was on the Bar...

Again, Roe is on a very specific matter. The SCOTUS also ruled that police does not have the duty to serve and protect. How is that an interest in protecting the lives of its citizens? What about healthcare, how many deaths could be prevented by a different setup? How many lives could be saved by a more comprehensive social system to reduce crime? There are so many ways to 'protect' lives, but only one gets really championed. Why?

**Frazzled**

Disciple of Fate wrote:
feeder wrote:
thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.

We are in agreement here, I think.

I wonder how this would look, if the future provides the medical option of sustaining the growth of life outside the womb and abortion is limited based on that you would need an enormousness societal overhaul.

And here is the thing. Once that hits, then absent rulings I am not aware of, the State could take over.

As the immirtal bard said:"go back from when you came from. The future is not what it was."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Again, please review Roe. It's not like I am almost quoting them verbatim or anything because it was on the Bar...

Again, Roe is on a very specific matter. The SCOTUS also ruled that police does not have the duty to serve and protect. How is that an interest in protecting the lives of its citizens? What about healthcare, how many deaths could be prevented by a different setup? How many lives could be saved by a more comprehensive social system to reduce crime? There are so many ways to 'protect' lives, but only one gets really championed. Why?

I am only clarifying what the legal standard is, not the philosophy of it's lCk of use in other areas.

**Disciple of Fate**

Frazzled wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
feeder wrote:
thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.

We are in agreement here, I think.

I wonder how this would look, if the future provides the medical option of sustaining the growth of life outside the womb and abortion is limited based on that you would need an enormousness societal overhaul.

And here is the thing. Once that hits, then absent rulings I am not aware of, the State could take over.

As the immirtal bard said:"go back from when you came from. The future is not what it was."

Sure, but the state is already incapable to handle the current number of children in the system. You would need massive changes because else you're just dumping these children in conditions that almost guarantee a hard life.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Again, please review Roe. It's not like I am almost quoting them verbatim or anything because it was on the Bar...

Again, Roe is on a very specific matter. The SCOTUS also ruled that police does not have the duty to serve and protect. How is that an interest in protecting the lives of its citizens? What about healthcare, how many deaths could be prevented by a different setup? How many lives could be saved by a more comprehensive social system to reduce crime? There are so many ways to 'protect' lives, but only one gets really championed. Why?

I am only clarifying what the legal standard is, not the philosophy of it's lCk of use in other areas.

Fair enough, I'm just trying to look at it from a wider perspective. No offense intended.

**Frazzled**

Again, not arguing the morality, just what can happen when science advances.

Now you want to get weird, let's start talking about designer babies. Scary stuff.

Edit : daughter starts talking about CRISPR and the gak gets real man.

**daedalus**

Frazzled wrote:
feeder wrote:
I am firmly in the "her body, her choice" camp. I don't think I should even get a vote in the matter. Not my body.

The State however, has a compelling state interest in protecting the lives of it's citizens, thus the ability to limit abortion once medical viability occurs.

I disagree.

https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship

If you meet certain requirements, you may become a U.S. citizen either at birth or after birth.

To become a citizen at birth, you must:

Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR
had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements

To become a citizen after birth, you must:

Apply for “derived” or “acquired” citizenship through parents
Apply for naturalization

There is literally zero provision for an unborn child to be classified as a citizen of the United States prior to its birth.

**Disciple of Fate**

Frazzled wrote:
Again, not arguing the morality, just what can happen when science advances.

Now you want to get weird, let's start talking about designer babies. Scary stuff.

Edit : daughter starts talking about CRISPR and the gak gets real man.

I think to an extent being able to engineer out disease and such is a good thing. Designer babies is a line we shouldn't cross in my opinion, scary stuff indeed.

**Frazzled**

Again, please review Roe. It discussed when a fetus quickens and becomes a child.

Edit: sorry that's for the post above.

Yeah it's a fine line between Khan Noonian Singh and little Aryan UberMann.

**Vaktathi**

I'm always rather amused at how many people who are not anatomically equipped to even have an abortion procedure have such strong feelings against it. For my part, people can do what they want with their bodies, and its not like outlawing abortions ever stopped them, it just made them less safe and go underground.

From a more classical rights/property standpoint, the woman has ultimate authority over her body, not the child. Just as the state cannot compel you to give up blood or offer an organ for transplant for another, even in dire peril and where the state could absolutely be argued to have a compelling interest, why then do we try to mandate women must submit their bodies to the sustenance of another without recourse?

Given that it takes two to tango, it is interesting to note that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the costs land on the female, there's very little cost imposed on the male, with the sole exception of financial child support (which yes, can be substantial) but is hardly a guaranteed cost (lots of single mothers without child support out there) or in the same potential realm of magnitude as the female (medically speaking, career-wise, social stigma for single mothers, etc), not to mention there can be situations where the father is unknown or otherwise out of the picture.

Responsibility is nowhere near balanced in this situation, and, more to the point, bringing a child into the world as a "consequence" (punishment) for the mother's actions is juuuuuust about the worst possible reason to have one that I can imagine.

**whembly**

Ustrello wrote:
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well he's also saying you should have your rapist's baby, Idk how much of a realistic debate you're going to get out of this.

I have literally zero idea why I try and argue with whem and templar to be honest

I tried to answer honestly.... seems I've wasted my time.

**Spetulhu**

Vaktathi wrote:
Given that it takes two to tango, it is interesting to note that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the costs land on the female.

BTW, at least in my socialist country the employers of the parents have to fork out a bit of cash for parental leave. But true to form most of it is put on the woman's employer, meaning many companies looking at costs that have a choice would prefer to not employ women of childbearing age...

**whembly**

What in the world! o.O
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/04/politics/paul-manafort-hearing/index.html

A federal judge expressed deep skepticism Friday in the bank fraud case brought by special counsel Robert Mueller's office against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, at one point saying he believes that Mueller's motivation is to oust President Donald Trump from office.

Although Mueller's authority has been tested in court before, Friday's hearing was notable for District Judge T.S. Ellis' decision to wade into the divisive political debate around the investigation.

"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud," Ellis said to prosecutor Michael Dreeben, at times losing his temper. Ellis said prosecutors were interested in Manafort because of his potential to provide material that would lead to Trump's "prosecution or impeachment," Ellis said.

"That's what you're really interested in," said Ellis, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.

Ellis repeated his suspicion several times in the hour-long court hearing. He said he'll make a decision at a later date about whether Manafort's case can go forward.

"We don't want anyone in this country with unfettered power. It's unlikely you're going to persuade me the special prosecutor has power to do anything he or she wants," Ellis told Dreeben. "The American people feel pretty strongly that no one has unfettered power."

When Dreeben answered Ellis' question about how the investigation and its charges date back to before the Trump campaign formed, the judge shot back, "None of that information has to do with information related to Russian government coordination and the campaign of Donald Trump."

At one point, Ellis posed a hypothetical question, speaking as if he were the prosecutor, about why Mueller's office referred a criminal investigation about Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen to New York authorities and kept the Manafort case in Virginia.

They weren't interested in it because it didn't "further our core effort to get Trump," Ellis said, mimicking a prosecutor in the case.

Prosecutors to turn over Rosenstein memo

Mueller's prosecutors will have to turn over a full, unredacted version of the August 2 memo that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein used to describe the criminal allegations Mueller's team could investigate, Ellis ordered.

The judge said he would like to see the full memo, which prosecutors submitted to the court in Virginia and in Washington, DC, for another case against Manafort with more than a page of redactions.

The visible part of the memo says Mueller should investigate allegations about Manafort's financial relationship with former Ukrainian politicians, and that he may have assisted Russia with attempts to interfere in the presidential election. The redacted portion appears to outline several other legs of the ongoing Russia probe.

Ellis said prosecutors may present the full classified memo to him under seal -- without showing Manafort its additional details -- in two weeks.
Mueller's prosecutors have argued this memo gives them the authority to bring cases against Manafort related to his work in Ukraine reaching back more than a decade before he joined the Trump campaign.

Manafort lost civil suit on similar complaint

Manafort is charged in Virginia with financial violations related to his lobbying work in Ukraine prior to joining Trump's 2016 campaign. Dreeben said they had to "follow the money" and find Manafort's contacts with Russians through the Ukrainian work and his financial dealings as part of their investigation.

He lost a civil suit making similar complaints about the special counsel's investigation last week. Manafort had filed a lawsuit in Washington claiming Rosenstein and Mueller exceeded their authority in charging him with alleged crimes he said had nothing to do with the 2016 campaign.

DC District Judge Amy Berman Jackson dismissed that lawsuit, saying a civil case was "not the appropriate vehicle" for objecting to either past or future actions by a prosecutor.

Manafort faces five charges in the case brought by Mueller's prosecutors in DC federal court, including money laundering and foreign lobbying violations.

So... I guess the judge is questioning how can an authorization of power written in 2017 to investigate crimes that supposedly happened in 2016 reach all the way back to include 2005 crimes? How can 2005 crimes be said to have "arisen" out of the 2017-2018 investigation?

Like... is he subliminally arguing that Mueller's prosecutors should've handed off the Manafort case to the DOJ? Seems like he's questioning jurisdictional thingamabob here...

EDIT:
You know it's looking dark for Mueller's team when Vox has this headline:
Robert Mueller’s team just had a really rough day in court

**Vaktathi**

We'll see how it plays out. I dont think Manafort is going to get out of anything, and he's facing a court also in DC that raised similar concerns but who appears to be far more accomodating to Mueller. It will be interesting to see what happens after the judge sees the Rosenstein memo.

**infinite_array**

Oh, would that happen to be the same judge that threw out a lawsuit against Blackwater founder Erik Prince? Man, what a coincidence.

**d-usa**

This is my shocked face:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/04/politics/devin-nunes-electronic-communication/index.html

**Frazzled**

We don't cotton to no reading round these parts.

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:
We don't cotton to no reading round these parts.

**Disciple of Fate**

d-usa wrote:

Its funny cause its true!

**Prestor Jon**

Vaktathi wrote:
I'm always rather amused at how many people who are not anatomically equipped to even have an abortion procedure have such strong feelings against it. For my part, people can do what they want with their bodies, and its not like outlawing abortions ever stopped them, it just made them less safe and go underground.

From a more classical rights/property standpoint, the woman has ultimate authority over her body, not the child. Just as the state cannot compel you to give up blood or offer an organ for transplant for another, even in dire peril and where the state could absolutely be argued to have a compelling interest, why then do we try to mandate women must submit their bodies to the sustenance of another without recourse?

Given that it takes two to tango, it is interesting to note that the overwhelmingly vast majority of the costs land on the female, there's very little cost imposed on the male, with the sole exception of financial child support (which yes, can be substantial) but is hardly a guaranteed cost (lots of single mothers without child support out there) or in the same potential realm of magnitude as the female (medically speaking, career-wise, social stigma for single mothers, etc), not to mention there can be situations where the father is unknown or otherwise out of the picture.

Responsibility is nowhere near balanced in this situation, and, more to the point, bringing a child into the world as a "consequence" (punishment) for the mother's actions is juuuuuust about the worst possible reason to have one that I can imagine.

That's a false choice. Not having an abortion doesn't compel anyone to raise the child. A woman can give birth and then give the baby up for adoption. I've got family members who were adopted and friends who have spent years and tens of thousands of dollars to adopt children. The process you have to go through to adopt children in the US is insane considering that women who are biologicially capable of having babies can have as many babies as they want with whomever they want.

Nobody is ever punished with a baby because nobody is ever forced to raise one. A fetus is typically viable outside the womb around 24 weeks and that should be the cut off for abortions. You can abort a clump of cells within a five months of becoming pregnant but you shouldn't be able to kill a tiny human that can live independently from you simply because you think it's existence is inconvenient. Once a fetus gestates to the point of being a baby that can survive without the mother then it is no longer part of her body, the baby is it's own body and person so the woman loses the right to arbitrarily kill it. It's not like premature babies aren't humans, there's an entire ward full of them at your local hospital. If a baby is born prematurely it's a baby person and is treated as such so why would a baby that's still in the womb at that time not be considered a baby and we should condone killing it?

**Disciple of Fate**

I mean is there a country on Earth that allows abortion after 24 weeks? Afaik there isn't.