Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception
-
https://timcast.com/news/oklahoma-governor-signs-law-banning-abortion-from-moment-of-conception/
The law, House Bill 4327, went into effect immediately upon signing and bans abortions unless the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother or is the result of rape, sexual assault or incest that has been reported to law enforcement. Removing a miscarried fetus or ectopic pregnancy will not be considered “abortion.”The law will not prohibit Plan B, morning-after pills, or any other type of contraception or emergency contraception.What I find comical, is that during the "gay marriage" (I call it "marriage equality") argument, liberals where all about states' rights, but now they want a federal law.
-
I believe the governor will also make abortion a felony.
Although I don't like the idea of authoritarian liberals multiplying -
@raphjd And you don't see a problem about taking other people's rights? The courts should protect people's rights and not taking them away.
And the GOP has stated that if the Supreme Court removes women's rights to abortion, then they will go after other rights that the Supreme Court has given. And don't think that they will not take "Marriage equality" away, now they have the chance.
Furthermore they want to remove the right to contraceptions, if they can that.
It is not only women's rights they will take away, they will go after all those who are different. That means gay rights too.
And the argument about state or federal laws that is only gaslighting to conseal conceal the fact, that they want remove people's rights all over. -
It's funny how liberals flip-flop on whether it's states' rights or federal rights and then call it "gaslighting" when someone points it out.
I don't know many people (there than liberals) that want to take rights away from anyone.
This law does not ban birth control or the mother's health, incest, and rape.
"My body, my choice" doesn't apply to male infant dicks in the west. Likewise, no penis, no say (paraphrasing the women's argument) doesn't apply either. As discussed in a previous thread, 84% of male infant circumcisions in the US are ordered by the mother.
-
@serenity "And you don't see a problem about taking other people's rights? The courts should protect people's rights and not taking them away." - True words, except you really don't know what they mean.
The fundamental right, from which all other rights flow, is the right to life. So, courts should protect life.
Every abortion ends in a death.
Every abortion terminates a life.
Every abortion is unsafe.
Remember when libs used to cautiously say "Abortion should be safe, legal and RARE"? I remember.
-
@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:
"My body, my choice" doesn't apply
... to vaccination, if you're a liberal. When it comes to the covid Deathvaxx / clotshot injections, libs are all for removing the woman's right to choose.
-
@blablarg18 I do understand the words that I wrote, you just don't agree with them.
If the right want to protect life, then they should be against weapons in the US and executions, they are not.
The right only loves children, before they are born. After that they don't care.
Btw I am not a liberal. -
@raphjd I call it gaslighting, because you write about all other things instead of issue of abortion.
-
Clearly, you need to reread the thread.
I only mentioned abortion, to which you replied about other rights.
The argument about liberals flip-flopping on whether it's states' rights or federal rights, is important when we discuss these conversations. It shows the blatant dishonesty of the left.
How is gay equality a states' rights issue, but abortion is a federal issue? Clearly the left believe that women deserve more protection than the LGBT community.
Let's not forget that it has been the Democrats, since 1971, who promised us ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) and it's 5 other names and even when they had total control of the federal government, they never gave it to us.
It was the Democrats under Clinton that created the most homophobic laws the US ever had; DADT, DOMA and RFRA. RFRA is the reason we can be denied service. We can thank Schumer for that.
-
@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:
What I find comical, is that during the "gay marriage" (I call it "marriage equality") argument, liberals where all about states' rights, but now they want a federal law.
What was the "states' rights" argument made by the advocates of marriage equality? I only recall marriage equality advocates attacking the federal Defense of Marriage Act on 14th/5th Amendments due process and equal protection grounds (i.e., definitely not states' rights arguments). And the marriage equality advocates leading up to the Obergefell were explicitly working against state-passed bans on same-sex marriage.
So, please remind me of the predominate states' rights arguments that you think the marriage equality movement was based on.
-
Where were you during this time, that you don't know about this?
When individual states where starting to give marriage equality and civil unions to us, the right argued that it was not legal under federal law, but the left argued that it was states' rights.
Let me guess, you think that the marriage equality movement started during Obama.
-
@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:
When individual states where starting to give marriage equality and civil unions to us, the right argued that it was not legal under federal law, but the left argued that it was states' rights.
Pretty sure that they were predominantly arguing that the federal DOMA act was a violation of Equal Protection, and that states and the federal government allowing some states to refuse recognition of marriages performed in other states as a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution (again, not a states' rights argument).
You'll have to do better than that.
-
DOMA erased the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but only for marriage equality and by extension all gay equality.
The argument was, if states enact marriage equality or civil partnerships, then it must be accepted by everyone else (other states and the federal government) under FF&C.
It was a states' rights argument in that each state was allowed to decide who could get married and due to the FF&C everyone else had to accept it.
It was not a federal government issue.
-
@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:
It was a states' rights argument in that each state was allowed to decide who could get married and due to the FF&C everyone else had to accept it.
Oh, I get why you think that's a states' rights argument....you're stupid.
The federal government, specifically Congress, only has specific enumerated areas within which it can legislate. Marriage is not one of those enumerated areas. Marriage laws are, by the federalist design of our country, controlled by the individual states. That's not an argument that the marriage equality advocates were making; that's just plain fucking facts. Even after the Obergefell decision established that the right to same-sex marriage as a fundamental right, marriage is still controlled by the states. Post-Obergefell, it's just that a state cannot pass a schema for marriage that discriminates without that statutory schema being unconstitutional.
In the days of DOMA and the Same-Sex Marriage bans, marriage equality advocates were definitely making arguments based on the US Constitution. The "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the US Constitution cannot be erased by federal statute (e.g., DOMA). The argument marriage equality advocates were making was specifically that Alabama, as a state, does not have the right to pass a state law that refuses to recognize a marriage contract issued by the State of Hawaii. In other words, the anti-gay marriage states didn't have the Right as a State to choose not to follow the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution.
That's not a states' rights argument, despite you trying to pretzel it into one.
-
Name-calling, nice.
DOMA, as enacted by your beloved Democrats, did in fact erase FF&C when it came to marriage equality, until SCOTUS overturned it, more than a decade later.
DOMA allowed the federal government and other states to reject gay marriages.
While statutes can not technically "erase" parts of the constitution, they can effectively erase them until the SCOTUS overturns the statute, as they did in DOMA and DADT. This almost always take more than a decade.
Abortion is not enumerated, but the left wants a federal law to make it legal. Of course, you can't see the similarities because you are blinded by your agenda and hatred of anyone who disagrees.
-
@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:
While statutes can not technically "erase" parts of the constitution, they can effectively erase them until the SCOTUS overturns the statute, as they did in DOMA and DADT. This almost always take more than a decade.
I agree; unconstitutional laws can be passed by Congress. However, our dispute here is that you think trying to overturn such an unconstitutional law passed by Congress means you're de facto arguing for states' rights. In other words, you're trying to create the false dichotomy of (1) fighting for states' rights by opposing a federal law; and (2) fighting for a federal law by opposing states' rights.
Marriage equality advocates were arguing against a federal statute AND the states who thought they had the right to pass Same-Sex Marriage bans.
-
If the Democrats weren't so hostile to gay equality, the people fighting for marriage equality would have fought for a federal law making it the law of the US.
This is what we are seeing in the abortion argument.
Because you have Congress and the WH on your side, you want a federal law, despite abortion not being enumerated, therefore a states' rights issue.
-
@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:
If the Democrats weren't so hostile to gay equality, the people fighting for marriage equality would have fought for a federal law making it the law of the US.
This is what we are seeing in the abortion argument.
Because you have Congress and the WH on your side, you want a federal law, despite abortion not being enumerated, therefore a states' rights issue.So I can presume by the above non-sequitur, red herring tangent that you've discovered that your "marriage equality liberals were arguing for states' rights" BS was indefensible, and you're trying to sidetrack the discussion or distract from it now. Good, that means I won.
-
Nope.
You won't admit that if the DNC under Bill Clinton wasn't so hostile to gay equality, you would have gone the federal law route to make it the law of the land.
It's the same thing we see with abortion.
-
@raphjd said in Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Abortion From Moment of Conception:
You won't admit that if the DNC under Bill Clinton wasn't so hostile to gay equality, you would have gone the federal law route to make it the law of the land.
It's the same thing we see with abortion.Just repeating your non-sequitur, red herring distraction. Yeah, I won. We're done here.
