Vigil for Roe Held at Santa Barbara County Courthouse

LCP - "Still have the right to have an abortion." Yes, in CA we do and that will not be affected. But, what about those women in TX, LA, OK, SD and KY? If they didn't vote for their current leaders, then they do NOT have a choice. Would you be fine just ignoring them?

Also, really what "hate" have you seen here? People are pissed. Millions of our fellow American's have/will have the right to choose what they do with their own body outlawed and taken away from them. Should we not be upset?

Sac. The decision been passed down to the State level. We still all the right to vote against the proposals at the state level. Still have the right to have an abortion. It is maddening indeed. But the hatred spewed on this forum towards republicans is truly disturbing.

When it comes to taking away women's right to their own bodies, then yes, we ARE intolerant. This is not something anyone should stand for in a "free" country.

VOICE at 1:06 - ugh....doing the whole "incognito" thing again, really?

"gives that power to the people to make their choice" - What "people?" The women of Texas, LA, SD, KY and OK?

Again, please explain how you're "pro choice" while at the same time "pro-State's right to outlaw and ban abortions, whether the woman CHOOSES or not."

The intolerance of the current progressive movement is astounding. Have you ever seen any of the moderate or right leaning posters here write such hate towards others?

"when an un-elected panel of judges takes away power from the government and gives that power to the people to make their choice". - fixed it.

LCP - where's the hate? Some people get pretty defensive and riled up when an un-elected panel of judges take away their right to chose what to do with their own bodies.

VOICE - word salad.

So you do NOT support the states being able to determine their own abortion laws? Which is it? Do you support state's making their own decisions and being able to completely ban/outlaw abortions (including for rape and incest) or not?

I never said, and am not, "pro-states banning abortion for everyone in that state..." - you've called me a LIAR (in all caps no less) for less than that FYI, but I'm used to your double standards and 'rules for me but not for thee'. You continue to misstate what I've said and put words to my comments that aren't there, while simultaneously being unable to separate your emotion from the facts of how our government, its three branches, the constitution, and the states operate. You fail to see how you need to twist the clear words of the 2A to push gun control, while simultaneously being so sure abortion is a constitutional right without even a mention of abortion in the constitution. Again, this could all be easily addressed with some reasonable, bipartisan legislation if there was actually a will to do so by our elected officials. We'll see if they actual legislate anything about it or just use it to fundraise and try to stop the bloodbath is coming in November.

VOICE - it's not about "viewpoints and opinions." You say you are pro-choice, but you are also pro-states banning abortion for everyone in that state regardless of who they "chose" by voting. Therefore, you are NOT "pro-choice."

Because I'm tolerant of others viewpoints and confident the people in those other states will make the right decision for them and elect their politicians accordingly. Because I can separate my personal beliefs and emotions from the reality of how our government is structured and operates and laws we have in place. I've said time and time again the 'how' something is accomplished is just as important as 'what' is trying to be accomplished. Too many people these days erroneously feel the ends justify whatever means it take to get there.

VOICE - if you "personally [are] pro-choice," how is it that you support other States being able to ban and outlaw the choice you claim to be pro about? How do you reconcile your own comments?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with you and voiced her concern for decades the legal shakiness of the ground RvW stood on, a concern reflected by many constitutional and legal scholars independent of their personal feelings on abortion, a concern that fell on deaf ears by pro-life legislators, a concern that the more aggressive posters herecan’t see or appreciate when theyre blinded by their emotion and desire to ‘fight’ those who provided rationale on opposing views for how and why we got here (i.e. me , even though personally am pro-choice as well).

"so its relegated to the states to decided for themselves." - and that is the problem. Because it allowed the states to decide, millions of women have NO CHOICE. It was taken from them. So, again.... if you support states' rights to legislate abortion, then you are NOT "pro-choice."

Chip, that just means the constitution neither prohibits nor allows abortion so its relegated to the states to decided for themselves. If a Federal law was put in place guaranteeing this right before X many weeks, it would preempt any state law trying to reduce this right. This is something which should have been done decades - go check out Obama's false promises that this was a "Day 1" issue, subsequently shelved for 8 years including the nearly 6 month period where Dems had a supermajority and could have passed any legislation they wanted. Another benefit would be that it would give judges actual legislation to point to and hang their hat on in deciding future related cases, vs. the grasping at straws done in RvW.

I’m not sure how much can be done at the federal level to regulate abortion. The Supreme Court ruling says “the constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion.

Spot on Edney and worth repeating: If the Senate and House had courage, they'd pass a law that for example would say Abortion is legal in the entire USA up to XYZ weeks with no restrictions and also spell out exceptions for later term abortions. But that would take hard work and they are too fearful and lazy -----except I wouldn't say it's being lazy, just that they prefer their power and wouldn't dare jeopardize, their next election, or support of their party's elite by doing right by their constituents and placing them higher than their party.

That is a fund raiser of an issue that is going nowhere.
The justices in question can simply say that at the time of the questions in the Senate hearings, they had not seen the facts presented in the the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
In 2018, the state of Mississippi enacted a law that bans abortion after 15 weeks, with few exceptions — and not for cases involving rape or incest.
The Jackson clinic and one of its doctors sued Mississippi officials in federal court, saying the state's law was unconstitutional.
A federal district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the clinic, blocking Mississippi's law. But the state appealed to the Supreme Court, which put the case on its docket.
Absent a Federal Law defining, enumerating, abortion rights even under Roe v. Wade, the issue was kicked down to the states. with nearly every state having different laws.
The simplest remedy would be for the President to lead the House and Senate to find the courage to pass a Federal abortion standard. If the Senate and House had courage, they'd pass a law that for example would say Abortion is legal in the entire USA up to XYZ weeks with no restrictions and also spell out exceptions for later term abortions. But that would take hard work and they are too fearful and lazy

What if I WANT them to waste their time tracking me? I'm peri-menopausal and my cycle is all over the map. Have at it!

https://www.the-sun.com/news/2586953/cop-raped-woman-first-date-viagra-for-erectile-dysfunction/

So, lemme get this straight: Since the advent of Viagra, the incidence of sexual assault has exploded exponentially?!

I see.

"something that will further strengthen abortion rights in the future." - Tell that to the women of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Kentucky and South Dakota.

You really call yourself pro-life while being totally OK with outright bans?

VOR, LOL, man, that's exactly what the Taliban did; took the power from the government and gave it to the people, i.e., the people who had the power to then strip the rights of others.

Anyway, I think this is all just a brilliant plan for Thomas to nullify his illegal inter-racial marriage.

DOULIE: "Marcelk - It was known many years ago this is how the abortion issue should have been settled, legally. Now everyone can vote their conscience on this issue for the state and not just nine people for all states."

Um, what the what?? No. Everyone can vote their conscience? To control someone else's body. So, you are fine with other people in your state voting that your 10 yo daughter rape victim has to stay pregnant? Or how about, you are fine with other people in your state deciding that you have to donate one of your kidneys to someone else. How about letting everyone vote that premarital sex is illegal? What about alcohol? Interracial marriage? Let's go ALL OUT.

SBO - pretty harsh, even against VOICE, but you're right - I DO need to stop with falling for his bait, but it's so hard for me to just ignore blatant misrepresentations such as the WHPA "allows abortions up until birth for any reason" or the Parental Rights Act "does not discriminate."

@3:08 how about we read the content of the proposition before committing to vote on it? Unlike nearly every legislator that no longer reads the very bills they vote on.

Facts Doulie. This decision, while unpopular in the immediate result, actually took power away from the government and gave it to the people, normally a good thing, and something that will further strengthen abortion rights in the future. If more could sperate their emotions from facts and logic, they would realize this.

Marcelk - It was known many years ago this is how the abortion issue should have been settled, legally. Now everyone can vote their conscience on this issue for the state and not just nine people for all states.

Marcelk - It was known many years ago this is how the abortion issue should have been settled, legally. Now everyone can vote their conscience on this issue for the state and not just nine people for all states.

Thanks for proving my points. LOL. But hey, its your life, you're free to be as dumb as you choose. You are also free to spend hours of every single day of your life (1000's of comments over years and years...) arguing with randoms on the internet. That's truly the work of the righteous! You're doing Republican Jesus proud!

Now that is a world salad, even brought Trump into it SBO! Of course way off base and separated from the reality of what I’ve posted, maybe read specifically what I’ve written again and ignore the constant dribble of protest from others who find it rational to call me a liar, someone who even agrees with them on this issue, for pointing out the rationale of those that opposed WHPA and would it would take for it to pass. I mean seriously, they’re calling the opinions of others a lie, like that’s even a thing, and if they use LIAR in all caps and repeat it over and over again it makes it true.

Sac, he's dishonest and not very bright. Yet you are here everyday giving him what he wants, attention. Remember, his fundamental problem is that his entire world view/life view is based on lies. He will never admit to the facts or even approach with reason, because it breaks apart everything he believes as true. And we all know, his faith is a fable and his life is ruled by liars and charlatans. This is why religious people are infinitely more likely to fall for scams, cons, lies, falsehoods and fascists like Trump. They are simply not capable of objective reasoning. They are not capable of being honest. Ignore him... Like everyone else in his pathetic life does. You will be infinitely better off without him in your thoughts or your day.

It was explained why the vagueness of the bill and broadness in language doesn’t
adequately appease concerns about overuse of post-viability abortions, which is why the bill didn’t even garner full democratic support let alone bipartisan support required to pass., not sure why you feel the need to argue with me over the rightful opinions of others. This was intentional for reasons stated previously and could easily be rectified if they actually wanted to pass the bill and codify RvW at a federal level. The points presented are not false or a lie as you claim but the actual reasons why it failed, if you stepped out of your privileged bubble / echo chamber and appreciated the points of view of others you’d better understand this and facilitate a solution - to often you take the ‘my way or the highway approach’ which is the opposite of the compromise and understanding needed to find common ground in a country as large and diverse as ours.

There will be a proposition on the November ballot to add the right to an abortion to the CA constitution ... please vote for it.

"Post-viability abortions would be allowed (under WHPA) nationwide without meaningful limitation. "

You're lying.

“good-faith”

A concept completely beyond you.

"The point is" that you lie incessantly.

"abortion up until birth for any reason"

That's a lie.