International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

Susheel 26th June 2023 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 14103600)
I've never understood this argument...

Maybe because being wilfully obtuse helps kneejerk contrarianism...

Segnosaur 26th June 2023 01:09 AM

Looks like most of the republican Candidates are sticking to anti-Abortion policies...

- Pence: Wants a national ban, preferably before 15 weeks
- Ramaswamy: Didn't give an exact policy but stated "unborn life is life"
- Hutchinson: Said he would sign a federal abortion ban
- Scott: talked about a 15 week ban
- Suarez: Did not give specifics but talked about how his parents met at an anti-abortion rally
- Meatball Ron: Hasn't talked much about abortion in the campaign, but did sign a 6 week ban in Florida

Polls show most people support abortion rights, and being anti-choice will cause a candidate to lose votes. So republicans are either hoping 1) people are lying when they say they will vote against candidates who will restrict abortion rights, or 2) they can ignore the issue once the primaries are done and nobody will ever bring it up in a general election

Parsman 26th June 2023 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 14103600)
I've never understood this "argument". It's perfectly consistent to be against the murder of innocents, and for the lawful execution of convicted murderers.

What advantage do you gain from ignoring context and pretending to be stupid?

Your pro life party has promoted an atmosphere that has seen doctors murdered for providing a medical service.

Gulliver Foyle 26th June 2023 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 14104279)
Looks like most of the republican Candidates are sticking to anti-Abortion policies...

- Pence: Wants a national ban, preferably before 15 weeks
- Ramaswamy: Didn't give an exact policy but stated "unborn life is life"
- Hutchinson: Said he would sign a federal abortion ban
- Scott: talked about a 15 week ban
- Suarez: Did not give specifics but talked about how his parents met at an anti-abortion rally
- Meatball Ron: Hasn't talked much about abortion in the campaign, but did sign a 6 week ban in Florida

Polls show most people support abortion rights, and being anti-choice will cause a candidate to lose votes. So republicans are either hoping 1) people are lying when they say they will vote against candidates who will restrict abortion rights, or 2) they can ignore the issue once the primaries are done and nobody will ever bring it up in a general election

Or 3) are pretty certain that they can prevent enough people who won't vote for them from voting. That's the party's go to election strategy, except in states with fewer people than livestock.

Upchurch 26th June 2023 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle (Post 14104086)
If you're only making a token effort, you're better off for all concerned by walking away. If your attaching strings to your offer of help, you're not helping but forcing the other person to do your bidding.

You aren’t wrong.

Segnosaur 26th June 2023 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle (Post 14104329)
Quote:

Looks like most of the republican Candidates are sticking to anti-Abortion policies...
...
Polls show most people support abortion rights, and being anti-choice will cause a candidate to lose votes. So republicans are either hoping 1) people are lying when they say they will vote against candidates who will restrict abortion rights, or 2) they can ignore the issue once the primaries are done and nobody will ever bring it up in a general election
Or 3) are pretty certain that they can prevent enough people who won't vote for them from voting. That's the party's go to election strategy, except in states with fewer people than livestock.

Yeah but they need voter suppression just to make up for all the other problems the republicans face (racism, poor slate of candidates, etc.)

Elections over the past couple of decades have been very tight. Neither side can afford to "give up" votes when elections are decided by a handful of votes in a couple of swing states.

IF people's claims that that "abortion restrictions will make me change my vote" is true, the republicans might be in real trouble. Republican candidates are stuck trying to appeal to both the hardcore religious nuts they need to win over in the primaries and the more moderate voters in the general election. (It was easier prior to the Dobbs decision, since a lot of voters viewed abortion rights as rather stable. i.e. "Even though they are talking anti-abortion I can still vote republican because there is no way Roe will be overturned". Now, that's not the case.)

The Great Zaganza 26th June 2023 07:12 AM

I have yet to find a Republican willing admit that their Part was born with an entire sliver cutlery set in their mouth when it comes to election advantage.

Gulliver Foyle 26th June 2023 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 14104446)
Yeah but they need voter suppression just to make up for all the other problems the republicans face (racism, poor slate of candidates, etc.)

Elections over the past couple of decades have been very tight. Neither side can afford to "give up" votes when elections are decided by a handful of votes in a couple of swing states.

IF people's claims that that "abortion restrictions will make me change my vote" is true, the republicans might be in real trouble. Republican candidates are stuck trying to appeal to both the hardcore religious nuts they need to win over in the primaries and the more moderate voters in the general election. (It was easier prior to the Dobbs decision, since a lot of voters viewed abortion rights as rather stable. i.e. "Even though they are talking anti-abortion I can still vote republican because there is no way Roe will be overturned". Now, that's not the case.)

The republican party has pretty much known since the regime of Shrub I that they can't win a free and fair election at a national level and since the Shrub II regime they've known they can't even win the populous "red" states in free and fair elections. My guess is that every election since 2000, if run on western European norms, would result in a Democratic party landslide (despite their best efforts, I might add).

Segnosaur 26th June 2023 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle (Post 14104557)
The republican party has pretty much known since the regime of Shrub I that they can't win a free and fair election at a national level and since the Shrub II regime they've known they can't even win the populous "red" states in free and fair elections. My guess is that every election since 2000, if run on western European norms, would result in a Democratic party landslide (despite their best efforts, I might add).

I know all that.

My point is, the Republicans are doubling down on the stupidity that got them to this point in the first place.

The "best" path to republican success is to tell the evangelicals "you got your anti-abortion court ruling, now shut up so we can stay in power". And then try to focus on the economy or national defense, stay silent as possible on abortion, and hope the electorate either has a short memory, or that people in swing states will think "It won't happen here".

But by pushing for more and more restrictions on abortion, they are dragging their dirty laundry out into the sunlight. "Remember this horrible thing we did? We will do more of it! Vote for us!" They are making it less likely they will win elections in the future.

Stacyhs 26th June 2023 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle (Post 14104329)
Or 3) are pretty certain that they can prevent enough people who won't vote for them from voting. That's the party's go to election strategy, except in states with fewer people than livestock.

Louisiana is among the latest red states to have its black voter suppression gerrymandered districts sued. Today, the Supreme Court ordered the state to redraw its congressional maps and add another majority 'minority' district. Alabama was also successfully sued for minority voter suppression gerrymandering and was ordered last Thursday by the Supreme Court to add another Black majority district. Despite 27% of AL being Black, only one of its seven districts was Democrat controlled with a Black majority.


Quote:

The new order means that the lower court proceedings in the case, which were put on hold by the conservative majority in late June of last year, will restart. At the time, a merits panel of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals was preparing for an expedited review of a judge’s ruling that said that the 5-1 congressional plan likely violated the Voting Rights Act.

The judge, US District Judge Shelly Dick, had been considering a remedial congressional plan, after lawmakers in Louisiana refused to pass a plan with a second majority-Black district themselves.
Quote:

Louisiana state officials were sued last year for a congressional map – passed by the Republican legislature over Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards’ veto – that made only one of its six districts majority Black, despite the 2020 census showing that the state’s population is 33% Black.
Quote:

More than a year ago, Dick ordered the map redrawn to add a second Black-majority district to the congressional plan, finding that the map drawn by the Republicans likely violated the Voting Right Act’s prohibitions against racial discrimination in voting.

The judge wrote that “the evidence of Louisiana’s long and ongoing history of voting-related discrimination weighs heavily in favor of” the arguments put forward by the Louisiana State conference of the NAACP and the other challengers that brought the case.

The case, known as Robinson v. Ardoin, then went to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, a very conservative appeals court, and a three-judge appellate panel – which included two circuit judges that were Republican appointees – declined to put Dick’s order on hold. The appeals court expedited a fuller review of the case, but those proceedings were frozen last summer once the Louisiana officials successfully sought intervention from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in late June of last year, took up the case but put it on pause while it decided the challenge to the Alabama map.

The Great Zaganza 26th June 2023 10:25 AM

Republicans proving once again that the Voting Right Act is still necessary.

When it passed, I doubt that anyone thought that, nearly 60 years on, Republicans would still try to suppress the Black Vote.

gnome 26th June 2023 01:07 PM

I am actually startled that the current SCOTUS is actually acting on this. I was starting to expect they'd either rule explicitly or set a de facto standard that states can gerrymander all they want.

gnome 26th June 2023 01:22 PM

Duplicate

TurkeysGhost 10th July 2023 10:54 AM

Nebraska mother and daughter have both plead guilty for an illegal abortion:

Quote:

Nebraska mom pleads guilty to giving daughter pills for an abortion and helping bury the fetus
https://wgntv.com/news/nebraska-mom-...ury-the-fetus/

smartcooky 17th July 2023 10:57 PM

Does anyone still think it will be safe for a woman in misogynist states like Tennessee, Mississippi, Kentucky etc, to leave their state for an abortion without taking any security precautions?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Segnosaur 17th July 2023 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnome (Post 14104688)
I am actually startled that the current SCOTUS is actually acting on this. I was starting to expect they'd either rule explicitly or set a de facto standard that states can gerrymander all they want.

You do have to wonder what is going through the minds of the right-wing judges who acted to block voter suppression in this case.

My belief... they recognize how unpopular they are, so its a way to try to deflect attention from their scandals, with the knowledge that their ruling in this case might be very narrowly focused and won't affect the republicans much going forward. (Its not like they are reversing all their voter suppression rulings, its just a single "this map is wrong"... it likely won't affect republican's ability to cheat in other cases.)

"Ok, so we ruled that a 10 year old sexual assault victim can be forced to give birth to the baby of her attacker, Kavanaugh likely committed perjury during his confirmation, and several of our right wing judges seem to lack any sort of ethics. But we also said that this one electoral map was wrong, so you can now assume we are good people. No need to stack the court with more judges or bring in ethics rules, m'kay?"

Aridas 17th July 2023 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 14120712)
You do have to wonder what is going through the minds of the right-wing judges who acted to block voter suppression in this case.

My belief... they recognize how unpopular they are, so its a way to try to deflect attention from their scandals, with the knowledge that their ruling in this case might be very narrowly focused and won't affect the republicans much going forward. (Its not like they are reversing all their voter suppression rulings, its just a single "this map is wrong"... it likely won't affect republican's ability to cheat in other cases.)

"Ok, so we ruled that a 10 year old sexual assault victim can be forced to give birth to the baby of her attacker, Kavanaugh likely committed perjury during his confirmation, and several of our right wing judges seem to lack any sort of ethics. But we also said that this one electoral map was wrong, so you can now assume we are good people. No need to stack the court with more judges or bring in ethics rules, m'kay?"

Hey, according to FOX, the Supreme Court's rulings are 'balanced!' Balanced is a good thing, right? :rolleyes:

esquel 21st July 2023 03:06 PM

These are the same people whose twisted logic would say that KFC could give you a chicken egg and say you received a whole chicken.

ZiprHead 22nd July 2023 10:23 AM

Faux News Jesse Watters argues for Roe.

Twitter link.

ZiprHead 22nd July 2023 10:26 AM

Faux News Jesse Watters argues for Roe.

Twitter link.

Stacyhs 22nd July 2023 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZiprHead (Post 14124240)
Faux News Jesse Watters argues for Roe.

Twitter link.

I just love it when they do stupid crap like that!

smartcooky 22nd July 2023 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZiprHead (Post 14124243)
Faux News Jesse Watters argues for Roe.

Twitter link.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 14124325)
I just love it when they do stupid crap like that!

Sigmund would be thrilled!

AmyStrange 24th July 2023 05:22 PM

I'm too old to see what the end results from overturning Roe v Wade will be, but I've got a feeling that the resulting children (who are born through these new forced labor laws) will end up creating a whole hell of a lot more democrats than republicans, especially if it's true that one of the major reasons for getting one are mostly due to finances.

Republicans in red states might be inadvertently writing their own death sentences because poor people tend to vote Democratic, and these abortion restriction laws will force women to birth more of the very people they don't like.

How asinine is that?

Of course, I could be wrong and the reverse might happen instead, but unfortunately, I probably won't be around to see it.

It'll be interesting to see how red states will vote in the next Presidential Election. That might give us a clue as to what the future holds.

bruto 24th July 2023 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmyStrange (Post 14125791)
I'm too old to see what the end results from overturning Roe v Wade will be, but I've got a feeling that the resulting children (who are born through these new forced labor laws) will end up creating a whole hell of a lot more democrats than republicans, especially if it's true that one of the major reasons for getting one are mostly due to finances.

Republicans in red states might be inadvertently writing their own death sentences because poor people tend to vote Democratic, and these abortion restriction laws will force women to birth more of the very people they don't like.

How asinine is that?

Of course, I could be wrong and the reverse might happen instead, but unfortunately, I probably won't be around to see it.

It'll be interesting to see how red states will vote in the next Presidential Election. That might give us a clue as to what the future holds.

I suspect you're right, and hope you are, though I won't be around to see it. Maybe my kids or grandkids. I think the current Republican policy, when not outright delusional as it often seems, is mostly a delaying tactic by people brought up on the old adage that "he who dies with the most toys wins." What happens after is someone else's mess to sort out.

The Don 24th July 2023 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmyStrange (Post 14125791)
I'm too old to see what the end results from overturning Roe v Wade will be, but I've got a feeling that the resulting children (who are born through these new forced labor laws) will end up creating a whole hell of a lot more democrats than republicans, especially if it's true that one of the major reasons for getting one are mostly due to finances.

Republicans in red states might be inadvertently writing their own death sentences because poor people tend to vote Democratic, and these abortion restriction laws will force women to birth more of the very people they don't like.

How asinine is that?

Of course, I could be wrong and the reverse might happen instead, but unfortunately, I probably won't be around to see it.

It'll be interesting to see how red states will vote in the next Presidential Election. That might give us a clue as to what the future holds.

I think it unlikely that many of those kids will ever cast a vote.

Those that survive childhood (infant and child mortality is on the rise) will most likely grow up in poverty and increasingly are being disenfranchised in red states either because they won't have the right ID to vote, because any criminal record will disqualify them or because it's simply too difficult to cast their vote where they live. :(

Lothian 25th July 2023 12:19 AM

Seems to me the simplest way to overturn Roe Vs wade is for either a Muslim, Atheist or Satanist organisations to offer to bring up all America's unwanted children in a home where they will be indoctrinated in their faith / lack of.

thaiboxerken 30th July 2023 09:42 AM

That won't work. The Republicans will simply pass laws, where they can, to make it illegal for non-christian people to foster or adopt children.

gnome 30th July 2023 09:32 PM

Avoid the temptation of thinking that logic bombs work with the willfully obtuse.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

acbytesla 8th August 2023 08:15 PM

Good news in Ohio.

Republicans in a bid to consolidate power and prevent the right to freedom of choice becoming guaranteed by their State Constitution tried to make it impossible. They put on the ballot a bill to make law that any change in the State Constitution would need a 60 percent supermajority.

In addition any petition to do so would require a significant percentage of voter signatures specifically in each and every county. So let's say you normally need a million voter signatures throughout the state, you could get 3 million voter signatures but if you didnt get enough from one specific county you wouldn’t get your initiative on the ballot.

The pollsters said this Referendum was a tossup. But they were wrong. The citizens of Ohio voted no 71 percent to 29 percent.

There is now a very good chance the right to choose in Ohio will become guaranteed by the Ohio State Constitution.

Brainster 8th August 2023 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 14137272)
Good news in Ohio.

Republicans in a bid to consolidate power and prevent the right to freedom of choice becoming guaranteed by their State Constitution tried to make it impossible. They put on the ballot a bill to make law that any change in the State Constitution would need a 60 percent supermajority.

In addition any petition to do so would require a significant percentage of voter signatures specifically in each and every county. So let's say you normally need a million voter signatures throughout the state, you could get 3 million voter signatures but if you didnt get enough from one specific county you wouldn’t get your initiative on the ballot.

The pollsters said this Referendum was a tossup. But they were wrong. The citizens of Ohio voted no 71 percent to 29 percent.

There is now a very good chance the right to choose in Ohio will become guaranteed by the Ohio State Constitution.

As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. The Republicans wished for a repeal of Roe, and now they are going to be facing a slew of ballot propositions to legalize abortion that are guaranteed to turn out liberals disproportionately and that a lot of independents and moderate Republicans are going to support.

smartcooky 9th August 2023 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 14137272)
Good news in Ohio.

Republicans in a bid to consolidate power and prevent the right to freedom of choice becoming guaranteed by their State Constitution tried to make it impossible. They put on the ballot a bill to make law that any change in the State Constitution would need a 60 percent supermajority.

In addition any petition to do so would require a significant percentage of voter signatures specifically in each and every county. So let's say you normally need a million voter signatures throughout the state, you could get 3 million voter signatures but if you didnt get enough from one specific county you wouldn’t get your initiative on the ballot.

The pollsters said this Referendum was a tossup. But they were wrong. The citizens of Ohio voted no 71 percent to 29 percent.

There is now a very good chance the right to choose in Ohio will become guaranteed by the Ohio State Constitution.

Some might not actually understand what this Ohio GOP proposal was, and how they tried to fix the game.

There are 88 counties in Ohio

As it stands now (since 1912) you need a simple majority (more than 50%) of voters in at least 44 counties in Ohio in order to get an issue such as a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot.

What the Ohio GOP were trying to do with Issue 1 was to make it so that a super-majority of 60% would be required in each and every one of the 88 counties. So, if 87 counties each voted between, say, 60% and 90% in favor of a ballot initiative, and just one county was only 59% in favor, the whole ballot initiative would fail. This is a measure of just how crooked the GOP is.

Thankfully, the people of Ohio told them to ****-off!

TurkeysGhost 9th August 2023 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 14137295)
As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. The Republicans wished for a repeal of Roe, and now they are going to be facing a slew of ballot propositions to legalize abortion that are guaranteed to turn out liberals disproportionately and that a lot of independents and moderate Republicans are going to support.

If I were a canny Republican political operator dealing with the Roe reversal fallout, I'd consider having a ballot initiative deal with it directly a godsend. Having a one-time election write abortion rights into the state constitution directly makes this extremely live issue a bit less pressing. Instead of every state election being a new referendum on abortion rights, it becomes a matter of settled law that even a Republican legislature will have limited ability to reverse. You can imagine your hypothetical mostly conservative "swing voter" feeling better about voting R if they know that abortion rights are specifically guaranteed thanks to a constitutional amendment that resulted from a ballot initiative, rather than the normal legislative process.

Obviously this "abortion rights are a safe matter of settled law" didn't play out great for Roe, but who is to say the voting public won't fall for this again?

Like you say, Republicans have been promising to criminalize abortion for so long now, now that it's possible they don't have any neat way to back off the issue. A direct ballot initiative could well be the thing that puts the toothpaste back in the tube and solve a huge political problem for these freaks who otherwise are stuck in an irreconcilable conflict between their ravenous base and the general public.

johnny karate 9th August 2023 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost (Post 14137458)
If I were a canny Republican political operator dealing with the Roe reversal fallout, I'd consider having a ballot initiative deal with it directly a godsend. Having a one-time election write abortion rights into the state constitution directly makes this extremely live issue a bit less pressing. Instead of every state election being a new referendum on abortion rights, it becomes a matter of settled law that even a Republican legislature will have limited ability to reverse. You can imagine your hypothetical mostly conservative "swing voter" feeling better about voting R if they know that abortion rights are specifically guaranteed thanks to a constitutional amendment that resulted from a ballot initiative, rather than the normal legislative process.

Obviously this "abortion rights are a safe matter of settled law" didn't play out great for Roe, but who is to say the voting public won't fall for this again?

Like you say, Republicans have been promising to criminalize abortion for so long now, now that it's possible they don't have any neat way to back off the issue. A direct ballot initiative could well be the thing that puts the toothpaste back in the tube and solve a huge political problem for these freaks who otherwise are stuck in an irreconcilable conflict between their ravenous base and the general public.

I’ve seen some Republican political analysts making this same argument. Wild that a viable strategy for a political party trying to take away people’s rights is to have those rights placed just out of their reach and then convincing voters that they won’t try to take them away again. I weep for the American electorate.

Brainster 9th August 2023 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost (Post 14137458)
If I were a canny Republican political operator dealing with the Roe reversal fallout, I'd consider having a ballot initiative deal with it directly a godsend. Having a one-time election write abortion rights into the state constitution directly makes this extremely live issue a bit less pressing. Instead of every state election being a new referendum on abortion rights, it becomes a matter of settled law that even a Republican legislature will have limited ability to reverse. You can imagine your hypothetical mostly conservative "swing voter" feeling better about voting R if they know that abortion rights are specifically guaranteed thanks to a constitutional amendment that resulted from a ballot initiative, rather than the normal legislative process.

Obviously this "abortion rights are a safe matter of settled law" didn't play out great for Roe, but who is to say the voting public won't fall for this again?

Like you say, Republicans have been promising to criminalize abortion for so long now, now that it's possible they don't have any neat way to back off the issue. A direct ballot initiative could well be the thing that puts the toothpaste back in the tube and solve a huge political problem for these freaks who otherwise are stuck in an irreconcilable conflict between their ravenous base and the general public.

Wishful thinking at best (on the GOP operator's part). For starters, 24 states do not have initiative or referendum, including almost all of the east coast and a fair chunk of the midwest. Only 18 states allow their citizens to directly amend the state constitution; Ohio is an exception, not the rule.

acbytesla 9th August 2023 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost (Post 14137458)
If I were a canny Republican political operator dealing with the Roe reversal fallout, I'd consider having a ballot initiative deal with it directly a godsend. Having a one-time election write abortion rights into the state constitution directly makes this extremely live issue a bit less pressing. Instead of every state election being a new referendum on abortion rights, it becomes a matter of settled law that even a Republican legislature will have limited ability to reverse. You can imagine your hypothetical mostly conservative "swing voter" feeling better about voting R if they know that abortion rights are specifically guaranteed thanks to a constitutional amendment that resulted from a ballot initiative, rather than the normal legislative process.

Obviously this "abortion rights are a safe matter of settled law" didn't play out great for Roe, but who is to say the voting public won't fall for this again?

Like you say, Republicans have been promising to criminalize abortion for so long now, now that it's possible they don't have any neat way to back off the issue. A direct ballot initiative could well be the thing that puts the toothpaste back in the tube and solve a huge political problem for these freaks who otherwise are stuck in an irreconcilable conflict between their ravenous base and the general public.

Abortion is a much trickier issue for the GOP than it is for Democrats. The GOP is made up of coalitions held together with baling wire.

Segnosaur 9th August 2023 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 14137582)
Wishful thinking at best (on the GOP operator's part). For starters, 24 states do not have initiative or referendum, including almost all of the east coast and a fair chunk of the midwest. Only 18 states allow their citizens to directly amend the state constitution; Ohio is an exception, not the rule.

Ohio might be in the minority when it comes to allowing citizens to amend the state constitution.

But there are still probably ways around it. Even if citizens can't demand a referendum, the state government could probably still hold one. Do it in an off-election year, and make it a simple question... should we restrict abortion rights. It will give an air if finality to the issue, they could tell the evangelicals "see? We tried...", and the moderates/left-wing voters will no longer have the drive to vote because they will think "OK NOW the issue is settled.")

TurkeysGhost 9th August 2023 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 14137582)
Wishful thinking at best (on the GOP operator's part). For starters, 24 states do not have initiative or referendum, including almost all of the east coast and a fair chunk of the midwest. Only 18 states allow their citizens to directly amend the state constitution; Ohio is an exception, not the rule.

Indeed, at best this is a scenario for only a small number of states, though it they are swing states it could have larger national implications. Generally downticket races benefit from turnout from larger profile national offices, but if abortion could reverse this in some cases, where turnout driven by an interest in making sure local officials aren't anti-abortion results in a boost for national offices also on the ticket.

Ohio went for Trump in both 2016 and 2020 by a decent margin for what was recently considered a swing state, so maybe it'll have an impact in 2024.

Pacal 14th August 2023 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 14137441)
What the Ohio GOP were trying to do with Issue 1 was to make it so that a super-majority of 60% would be required in each and every one of the 88 counties. So, if 87 counties each voted between, say, 60% and 90% in favor of a ballot initiative, and just one county was only 59% in favor, the whole ballot initiative would fail. This is a measure of just how crooked the GOP is.

Thankfully, the people of Ohio told them to ****-off!

Wow! that is so much worst than changing it to needing 60% of the vote. And that is damn disgusting. It would make the overwhelming majority of Constitutional admendments via referrandum impossible!!

catsmate 15th August 2023 02:51 AM

Forced birth for children in USAia.

Stacyhs 15th August 2023 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 14141139)

We're going to see even more and more of these forced births.:mad:


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.