Republicans don’t value female life

[TexasTiger 13,137]

Unless they’re fetuses.

[homersapien 11,513]

Incomprehensible

[AUDynasty 585]

To the OP's title... since when? They're just looking to put women "in their place". 

Edited July 19, 2022 by AUDynasty

[CoffeeTiger 5,228]

They justified it by saying that pro-life lost the debate/public opinion on abortion for so long that now that roevwade is no more the pro-life movement needs to go all in on pro-life values with no exceptions made for abortion in order to stamp out abortion once and for all. 

Which is what pro-choice groups said Republicans would do if RoevWade was ever overturned.  

[homersapien 11,513]

No matter how you rationalize it, they would make women less than autonomous and thus less of a person.  A second class person.

Edited July 19, 2022 by homersapien

[jj3jordan 2,081]

They also reported this from the article.  For some reason the OP omitted it. 
 

He also said the oath a doctor takes to do no harm covers such situations, and if a doctor is treating a pregnant person and the unborn child, it is in line with standards of medical care to determine who can legitimately be saved. To add exceptions would be to give priority to one patient over the other, he said.

 

So they basically do have an exception determined by the doctor treating both the mother and the baby.   Nice try though.

Edited July 20, 2022 by jj3jordan

[AUDynasty 585]

47 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

They also reported this from the article.  For some reason the OP omitted it. 
 

He also said the oath a doctor takes to do no harm covers such situations, and if a doctor is treating a pregnant person and the unborn child, it is in line with standards of medical care to determine who can legitimately be saved. To add exceptions would be to give priority to one patient over the other, he said.

 

So they basically do have an exception determined by the doctor treating both the mother and the baby.   Nice try though.

You're wrong. They said NO EXCEPTIONS at all.

https://reason.com/2022/07/19/idaho-state-gop-says-abortion-should-be-illegal-even-when-used-to-save-a-womans-life/

Conservatives are terrorizing women's bodies.

-----------

The Idaho Republican Party on Saturday amended its platform to oppose abortion in all instances, including as a life-saving procedure for a pregnant woman. The party platform now supports more restrictions on abortion than currently exist in any state law and declares abortion to be "murder from the moment of fertilization," even when it is required to save a woman's life.

Scott Herndon, a Bonner County resident running unopposed for the Idaho Senate, sponsored the platform amendment. "For the last 49 years we have essentially lost the argument in the culture because we have focused on abortion as the termination of a pregnancy and not the termination of a living human being," Herndon said to fellow delegates, according to the Idaho Capital Sun. "We will never win this human rights issue, the greatest of our time, if we make allowances for the intentional killing of another human being."

According to the Idaho Capital Sun, the party did, however, approve an amendment clarifying that miscarriages should not be subject to criminal penalties. However, language regarding miscarriage does not appear in the finished platform. Reason reached out to the Idaho GOP for confirmation but has not received a reply at the time of publication.

Contrary to Herndon's position, the most strident pro-life activists have long argued that life-saving abortions are not actually abortions. "Abortion is not necessary to save a woman's life," reads an FAQ from the Life Institute. "Treatment for conditions arising in pregnancy, such as pre-eclampsia or sepsis, are NOT abortions, even if the life of the baby is lost, as the intention is not to harm the baby."

The Idaho GOP's platform throws this reasoning out with the bath water. According to the Idaho Reports Blog, an amendment to allow exceptions for "lethal danger" was proposed, with supporting delegates citing ectopic pregnancy concerns. That amendment was defeated 412–164. Herndon "vocally opposed adding the exemption" and "argued that both lives, meaning fetus and mother, are of equal value in that situation."

If the Idaho GOP can turn this platform position into law, Idaho women could be legally compelled to die from eclampsia, infections due to incomplete miscarriage (the treatment of which would constitute abortion to the Idaho GOP), and ectopic pregnancy, which is the leading cause of first-trimester maternal death, according to the University of California, Davis Health System. 

The new platform doesn't necessarily seem like a real attempt to court voters. A 2022 Pew Research survey found that only 8 percent of Americans support a total ban on abortion with no exceptions. Even among self-described Republican voters, only 16 percent support such stringent restrictions. According to Pew, pro-choice extremism is slightly more popular, with 19 percent supporting legal abortion with no exceptions, a number that rises to 30 percent among Democratic voters. 

Americans, it seems, are not broadly supportive of any extreme abortion policy. Time will tell if their elected representatives will listen to them. 

[jj3jordan 2,081]

8 hours ago, AUDynasty said:

You're wrong. They said NO EXCEPTIONS at all.

https://reason.com/2022/07/19/idaho-state-gop-says-abortion-should-be-illegal-even-when-used-to-save-a-womans-life/

Conservatives are terrorizing women's bodies.

-----------

The Idaho Republican Party on Saturday amended its platform to oppose abortion in all instances, including as a life-saving procedure for a pregnant woman. The party platform now supports more restrictions on abortion than currently exist in any state law and declares abortion to be "murder from the moment of fertilization," even when it is required to save a woman's life.

Scott Herndon, a Bonner County resident running unopposed for the Idaho Senate, sponsored the platform amendment. "For the last 49 years we have essentially lost the argument in the culture because we have focused on abortion as the termination of a pregnancy and not the termination of a living human being," Herndon said to fellow delegates, according to the Idaho Capital Sun. "We will never win this human rights issue, the greatest of our time, if we make allowances for the intentional killing of another human being."

According to the Idaho Capital Sun, the party did, however, approve an amendment clarifying that miscarriages should not be subject to criminal penalties. However, language regarding miscarriage does not appear in the finished platform. Reason reached out to the Idaho GOP for confirmation but has not received a reply at the time of publication.

Contrary to Herndon's position, the most strident pro-life activists have long argued that life-saving abortions are not actually abortions. "Abortion is not necessary to save a woman's life," reads an FAQ from the Life Institute. "Treatment for conditions arising in pregnancy, such as pre-eclampsia or sepsis, are NOT abortions, even if the life of the baby is lost, as the intention is not to harm the baby."

The Idaho GOP's platform throws this reasoning out with the bath water. According to the Idaho Reports Blog, an amendment to allow exceptions for "lethal danger" was proposed, with supporting delegates citing ectopic pregnancy concerns. That amendment was defeated 412–164. Herndon "vocally opposed adding the exemption" and "argued that both lives, meaning fetus and mother, are of equal value in that situation."

If the Idaho GOP can turn this platform position into law, Idaho women could be legally compelled to die from eclampsia, infections due to incomplete miscarriage (the treatment of which would constitute abortion to the Idaho GOP), and ectopic pregnancy, which is the leading cause of first-trimester maternal death, according to the University of California, Davis Health System. 

The new platform doesn't necessarily seem like a real attempt to court voters. A 2022 Pew Research survey found that only 8 percent of Americans support a total ban on abortion with no exceptions. Even among self-described Republican voters, only 16 percent support such stringent restrictions. According to Pew, pro-choice extremism is slightly more popular, with 19 percent supporting legal abortion with no exceptions, a number that rises to 30 percent among Democratic voters. 

Americans, it seems, are not broadly supportive of any extreme abortion policy. Time will tell if their elected representatives will listen to them. 

Sorry but you did not read the article correctly. Just like the paragraph on ectopic pregame's, eclampsia, miscarriage, etc. You are a raving moron.

[AUDynasty 585]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Sorry but you did not read the article correctly. Just like the paragraph on ectopic pregame's, eclampsia, miscarriage, etc. You are a raving moron.

You realize that the Idaho GOP has said: "The Idaho Republican Party on Saturday amended its platform to oppose abortion in all instances, including as a life-saving procedure for a pregnant woman."

The paragraph is from a pro-life organization saying that abortions should be allowed in life-saving situations for mothers, but Idaho GOP has rejected it.

The Idaho GOP's platform throws this reasoning out with the bath water. According to the Idaho Reports Blog, an amendment to allow exceptions for "lethal danger" was proposed, with supporting delegates citing ectopic pregnancy concerns. That amendment was defeated 412–164.

 

Again, you are WRONG. As you like to say... "Nice try, though." Grow up with name-calling.

Edited July 21, 2022 by AUDynasty

[jj3jordan 2,081]

5 minutes ago, AUDynasty said:

You realize that the Idaho GOP has said: "The Idaho Republican Party on Saturday amended its platform to oppose abortion in all instances, including as a life-saving procedure for a pregnant woman."

The paragraph is from a pro-life organization saying that abortions should be allowed in life-saving situations for mothers, but Idaho GOP has rejected it.

The Idaho GOP's platform throws this reasoning out with the bath water. According to the Idaho Reports Blog, an amendment to allow exceptions for "lethal danger" was proposed, with supporting delegates citing ectopic pregnancy concerns. That amendment was defeated 412–164.

 

Again, you are WRONG. As you like to say... "Nice try, though." Grow up with name-calling.

They said that there was no need to have a specified exception ( which they knew would be exploited by Godless heathens) because the doctor treating the mother and baby would be able to make that decision to terminate the pregnancy if necessary.  A specified exception would be abused by corrupt judges and amoral doctors to circumvent the law so they can murder the baby.  It is sad that this has to be explained to you but if you stay calm and re-read the platform it will eventually come to you. Until then be comforted that no babies will be harmed without your explicit approval.

[AUDynasty 585]

29 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

They said that there was no need to have a specified exception ( which they knew would be exploited by Godless heathens) because the doctor treating the mother and baby would be able to make that decision to terminate the pregnancy if necessary.  A specified exception would be abused by corrupt judges and amoral doctors to circumvent the law so they can murder the baby.  It is sad that this has to be explained to you but if you stay calm and re-read the platform it will eventually come to you. Until then be comforted that no babies will be harmed without your explicit approval.

If what’s going on in Indiana with Indiana AG threatening to throw the book at the doctor who performed an abortion for that 10-year old girl from Ohio is of any indication, this is a clear cut threat at all doctors considering providing abortion for women in need. 
 

Maybe you should step back and have some compassion for women who will see their lives changed forever just because the Bible says so, while conveniently ignoring that there is a verse on abortion there. Try keep an open mind and listen to their stories. I feel sorry for you.
 

Abortion is healthcare. Period.

[CoffeeTiger 5,228]

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The horror stories from state abortion bans are piling up: Women facing dangerous delays in care for miscarriages. Doctors violating their training and waiting until their patient is at death’s door before performing an abortion. Pharmacists struggling to understand whether filling prescriptions for drugs that are used both for abortions and for post-miscarriage treatment opens them up to criminal charges.

 

Episodes in which women are needlessly denied treatment will become commonplace. The Advocate reports this disturbing account from Louisiana:

A woman who was 16 weeks pregnant had her water break, and her doctor wanted to perform a dilation and evacuation, a type of abortion procedure, to take out the fetus, which was not viable. But the doctor consulted with an attorney, who advised against it. … [T]he woman preferred the abortion, but instead “was forced to go through a painful, hours-long labor to deliver a nonviable fetus, despite her wishes and best medical advice.”

Hospitals and their lawyers are being forced to interpret statutory terms that don’t correspond to medical practice and language. These laws often demand a degree of certainty doctors can’t provide. Katie McHugh, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Indiana, tells me doctors must now tell patients that a given procedure is “what she would medically recommend,” but then inform the patient she can’t receive that treatment in her state. In other words, doctors in some states are becoming travel agents for abortion services.

 

 

In many states, the substantial risk to mental health (e.g., depression, suicidal ideation) might not “count” as a valid exception to abortion bans. And are the risks associated with traveling long distances for women determined to seek an abortion factored into the calculation? Definitive answers are nonexistent.

Most egregiously, McHugh adds, these laws do not envision chronic conditions. A pregnant woman at risk of liver failure, for example, may face debilitating conditions or even death down the road if she gives birth. But if state law requires imminent risk of death to perform the procedure, she may have to carry the pregnancy to term against her wishes and doctor’s advice. This is barbaric.

Katie Watson, a lawyer and ethicist at Northwestern University, tells me that without an abortion ban, a doctor telling a patient to wait for treatment until she becomes really sick would qualify as malpractice. She also warns that state laws may be “criminalizing” miscarriages since medications used to clear the uterus after a miscarriage, such as mifepristone and misoprostol, are also used for an abortion. Miscarrying women — and their doctors — could face intense scrutiny.

One thing is certain, Watson says: “More babies will be born, and more women will die.” That’s just reality in a country with high maternal death rates. And that will fall disproportionately on Black women, who are more than twice as likely to die from pregnancy than White women.

Meanwhile, pregnant minors face larger risks to physical health (e.g., an increased need for a Caesarean section) and moral trauma above and beyond what an adult victim would face. This is especially true for rape victims.

In short, the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has thrown out the basic premise of medicine: to minimize health risks. The ruling generated chaos among doctors, lawyers and patients, who must now wrestle with incoherent restrictions or bans.

 

As Leah Litman, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Tuesday, the court’s disastrous jurisprudence creates “a kind of uncertainty that makes it difficult to advise people on what their rights are and to advise institutions on what they can do to secure those rights when courts take them away.”

She continued:

The resulting uncertainty is already having devastating consequences, as we hear from those who are unable to travel for care, the struggles of those trying to manage their care at home, and the nightmares faced by those who do travel for care, including the 10-year-old rape victim who was forced to obtain an abortion from an out-of-state provider. That is the world we are now living in. …

People are rightfully unsure about what their rights are on any given day; politicians and advocates are claiming broader and broader authority over individuals, and broadcasting plans to restrict other rights related to autonomy, personhood, family, and home that so many people rely on.

Decades of litigation have only just begun. Dobbs abolished federal constitutional protection for abortion, but state laws and constitutions may offer relief. The Post reports that multiple states will have measures on their ballots in November that could extend or protect abortion rights. This includes Michigan, where more than enough signatures were submitted to add a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would protect abortion rights.

 

Meanwhile, litigation in state courts in Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and West Virginia will test various legal theories to overturn abortion bans, including:

• Claiming that the laws are unconstitutionally vague, as is the basis for suits in Arizona, Louisiana and Oklahoma, where doctors or patients are unable to determine what’s legal and what’s not.
• Arguing that abortion bans would infringe upon a doctor’s religious beliefs if their religious views prioritize preventing harm to people’s health.
• Claiming that bans would deprive Black women’s equal protection, since forced-birth policies will burden them.
• Making the case that bans amount to a denial of all women’s equal protection, since they are uniquely being denied proper reproductive care, unlike any other patient category.
• Focusing on the arbitrary loss of life or liberty, in violation of due process.

Doctors, courts, patients and prosecutors are in uncharted waters. Indeed, mass confusion might be a feature, not a bug, for forced-birth advocates since uncertainty chills abortion care.

It’s no wonder the Supreme Court doesn’t leave any other fundamental rights to be decided at the state level. Imagine if, for example, protections from unreasonable search and seizure were in the hands of state lawmakers. Now, women must fend for themselves without constitutional armor to shield their cherished rights. That’s the essence of what it means to be a second-class citizen.

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

Have any of y’all actually read the 14 pages of their platform? If you had, you’d realize they support personal decisions for ALL medical decisions between the patient and provider. 
 

Good grief, some of y’all need to grow up and quit making $&#! up that republicans want women to die. Are y’all really that brainwashed? Even Texas and Ohio laws have exceptions for medical necessity. 

[jj3jordan 2,081]

5 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Have any of y’all actually read the 14 pages of their platform? If you had, you’d realize they support personal decisions for ALL medical decisions between the patient and provider. 
 

Good grief, some of y’all need to grow up and quit making $&#! up that republicans want women to die. Are y’all really that brainwashed? Even Texas and Ohio laws have exceptions for medical necessity. 

 I have.  No they haven’t apparently. You are right all they want to do is rile up the base. 60 million deaths is okay as long as the democrats can have power. And the majority are black babies. Their base. Who is the racist now?

[wdefromtx 3,159]

25 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

 I have.  No they haven’t apparently. You are right all they want to do is rile up the base. 60 million deaths is okay as long as the democrats can have power. And the majority are black babies. Their base. Who is the racist now?

I know you read it. Lol 

You are the only one here besides me that has or others just lack basic reasoning skills. 
 

Can’t let facts get in the way of an agenda. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,228]

On 7/20/2022 at 7:00 AM, jj3jordan said:

They also reported this from the article.  For some reason the OP omitted it. 
 

He also said the oath a doctor takes to do no harm covers such situations, and if a doctor is treating a pregnant person and the unborn child, it is in line with standards of medical care to determine who can legitimately be saved. To add exceptions would be to give priority to one patient over the other, he said.

 

So they basically do have an exception determined by the doctor treating both the mother and the baby.   Nice try though.

 

Yes, they are saying the mother and the unborn fetus are 100% equal in importance and that the mothers health and life can't be given any more precedence over the fetuses. 

If a mothers life or health is threatened by a pregnancy, but the baby itself is otherwise healthy and may be capable of being birthed then the GOP platform would dictate that the pregnancy must continue and if the mother dies then oh well... The doctor could not sacrifice the fetus or baby's health or life to save the life of the mother. 

 

We're not missing anything....

 

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

5 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Yes, they are saying the mother and the unborn fetus are 100% equal in importance and that the mothers health and life can't be given any more precedence over the fetuses. 

If a mothers life or health is threatened by a pregnancy, but the baby itself is otherwise healthy and may be capable of being birthed then the GOP platform would dictate that the pregnancy must continue and if the mother dies then oh well... The doctor could not sacrifice the fetus or baby's health or life to save the life of the mother. 

 

We're not missing anything....

 

 

If you read their 14 page platform you would realize you are wrong. I challenge you to show me in it where it says what you are claiming. 

They did not amend it, because it did not need to be amended. It already protects the mother.

Quit spreading lies and fearmongering. 

[AUDynasty 585]

I guarantee if an abortion happens in Idaho, you'll find Republican congresspeople / elected officials threatening retaliation (such as lawsuits, jail, etc) against a doctor who makes a decision to perform an abortion. Look no further than what is currently happening to that 10-year old girl in Ohio going to Indiana for help. People saying that private decisions between mothers and doctors will remain secret are kidding themselves. Bad-faith forced-birther republicans will break havoc on mothers and girls everywhere.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

Also, apparently y'all have not even read Idaho's statutes on abortion.

 

[CoffeeTiger 5,228]

38 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

If you read their 14 page platform you would realize you are wrong. I challenge you to show me in it where it says what you are claiming. 

They did not amend it, because it did not need to be amended. It already protects the mother.

Quit spreading lies and fearmongering. 

A. We affirm that abortion is murder from the moment of fertilization. All children should be protected regardless of the circumstances of conception, including persons conceived in rape and incest. The federal judiciary has played the tyrant in dozens of Supreme Court pro-abortion opinions since Roe v. Wade, and Idaho has the sovereign authority to defy the federal judiciary and to criminalize all murders by abortion within the state’s jurisdiction.

B. We strongly encourage adoption as an alternative to abortion and support legislation that expands opportunities and provides assistance to the adoptive process.

C. We reaffirm our support for the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, and for the rights of the unborn child. We oppose abortion based on sex selection, convenience, or as a method of birth control.

D. We oppose partial birth abortion and we support legislation to abolish this practice.

E. We oppose all abortion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This platfor does not allow any exception for the mothers health or life and when GOP party member and senate candidate Scott Herndon was asked why he and the party opposed adding language that allows abortion to save the mother he said:

Herndon argued the exception should not be included because over the past nearly 50 years since the U.S. Supreme Court made the original Roe v. Wade ruling, exceptions made in the law eroded progress for the anti-abortion movement.

“For the last 49 years we have essentially lost the argument in the culture because we have focused on abortion as the termination of a pregnancy and not the termination of a living human being,” Herdon told delegates.

He also said the oath a doctor takes to do no harm covers such situations, and if a doctor is treating a pregnant person and the unborn child, it is in line with standards of medical care to determine who can legitimately be saved. To add exceptions would be to give priority to one patient over the other, he said.

“We will never win this human rights issue, the greatest of our time, if we make allowances for the intentional killing of another human being,” Herndon said.

 

Read it dude, he's saying that the mother and the fetus/unborn child should have the same rights and importance, and that a doctor should not prioritize either the mother or the child in caring for them...IE if a healthy pregnancy is putting the mothers life or health in danger the doctors CANNOT end the pregnancy for the mothers well being because that would be placing her life and health above that of the fetus. 

 

I'm not making up or lying about anything. I'm repeating what the platform says and what the Idaho Republicans are actually saying out of their mouther. 

 

 

27 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Also, apparently y'all have not even read Idaho's statutes on abortion.

 

We're talking about the Idaho Republican Party's platform and views, not the laws that the more sane people of Idaho allow to be passed. 

 

5 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Have any of y’all actually read the 14 pages of their platform? If you had, you’d realize they support personal decisions for ALL medical decisions between the patient and provider. 
 

According to their own platform that is not true in the case of abortion. later on they say ALL abortion...without exception ..is murder from the point of conception.. day 1. 

Otherwise the section you quoted should allow unrestricted abortion because it's a medical decision between a patient and a doctor and is a medical choice. 

 

Yes, I fully acknowledge that in many different cases, Republican and conservative views are contradictory and don't align well with each other, but that's where we are. 

 

Edited July 21, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[wdefromtx 3,159]

Just now, CoffeeTiger said:

A. We affirm that abortion is murder from the moment of fertilization. All children should be protected regardless of the circumstances of conception, including persons conceived in rape and incest. The federal judiciary has played the tyrant in dozens of Supreme Court pro-abortion opinions since Roe v. Wade, and Idaho has the sovereign authority to defy the federal judiciary and to criminalize all murders by abortion within the state’s jurisdiction.

B. We strongly encourage adoption as an alternative to abortion and support legislation that expands opportunities and provides assistance to the adoptive process.

C. We reaffirm our support for the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, and for the rights of the unborn child. We oppose abortion based on sex selection, convenience, or as a method of birth control.

D. We oppose partial birth abortion and we support legislation to abolish this practice.

E. We oppose all abortion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This platfor does not allow any exception for the mothers health or life and when GOP party member and senate candixdate Scott Herndon was asked why he and the party opposed adding language that allows abortion to save the mother he said:

Herndon argued the exception should not be included because over the past nearly 50 years since the U.S. Supreme Court made the original Roe v. Wade ruling, exceptions made in the law eroded progress for the anti-abortion movement.

“For the last 49 years we have essentially lost the argument in the culture because we have focused on abortion as the termination of a pregnancy and not the termination of a living human being,” Herdon told delegates.

He also said the oath a doctor takes to do no harm covers such situations, and if a doctor is treating a pregnant person and the unborn child, it is in line with standards of medical care to determine who can legitimately be saved. To add exceptions would be to give priority to one patient over the other, he said.

“We will never win this human rights issue, the greatest of our time, if we make allowances for the intentional killing of another human being,” Herndon said.

 

Read it dude, he's saying that the mother and the fetus/unborn child should have the same rights and importance, and that a doctor should not prioritize either the mother or the child in caring for them...IE if a healthy pregnancy is putting the mothers life or health in danger the doctors CANNOT end the pregnancy for the mothers well being because that would be placing her life and health above that of the fetus. 

 

I'm not making up or lying about anything. I'm repeating what the platform says and what the Idaho Republicans are actually saying out of their mouther. 

 

 

We're talking about the Idaho Republican Party's platform and views, not the laws that the more sane people of Idaho allow to be passed. 

 

According to their own platform that is not true in the case of abortion. later on they say ALL abortion...without exception ..is murder from the point of conception.. day 1. 

Otherwise the section you quoted should allow unrestricted abortion because it's a medical decision between a patient and a doctor and is a medical choice. 

 

Yes, I fully acknowedge that in many different cases, Republican and conservative views are contradictory and don't align well with each other, but that's where we are. 

 

They allow for it under the medical section. No need to specify it there. 

D. We believe the primary responsibility for the health and welfare of our citizens resides with the individual and their families.

E. We support freedom of choice and personal responsibility in all medical decisions, including providers and treatments. Medicine should have a “level playing field” for all treatment and branches of medicine.

Not only that, this is consistent with the actual law in Idaho. You are whining and fear mongering over language of a stupid 14 page platform of their beliefs. The left has lost their s**t over this and try to make it seem like every republican hates women or every republican state is going to ban abortion in it's entirety.

Does not surprise me though that liberals are confused about this. I mean most don't even know what a female is or can't define a woman anyways. 

I have looked at several of the state laws that just came into effect once RvW was overturned that these articles state and so far all of them have provisions for medical reasons. Some such as Idaho still allow abortion for all reason up until 24 weeks. I find it hilarious how you try to call out the right wing media and folks for lying when you and other's do it just as bad. Either you are doing it intentionally, are that dumb, just towing the party line without fact checking it. My guess is 1 and 3 just like every other blue kool-aid drinker. 

And people wonder why the two sides can't ever find a common ground to stand on. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,228]

9 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

They allow for it under the medical section. No need to specify it there. 

D. We believe the primary responsibility for the health and welfare of our citizens resides with the individual and their families.

E. We support freedom of choice and personal responsibility in all medical decisions, including providers and treatments. Medicine should have a “level playing field” for all treatment and branches of medicine.

 

 

except, if that was really true as written then they are saying that abortion should be completely legal if a doctor and patient deem it necessary or appropriate 
 

that is obviously not the intention of the Idaho GOP and not what they believe. 

when you say that section covers abortion for the life of the mother, you are reading into it words and meanings that are not that and that are directly contradicted below it when it gets to the section on “abortion” 

you’re literally making up an interpretation of the platform and then crying that we are all ‘misreading’ and not comprehending it when we are only going off of what is actually written and that the Idaho GOP leaders are actually saying out of their mouths. 

9 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Not only that, this is consistent with the actual law in Idaho. You are whining and fear mongering over language of a stupid 14 page platform of their beliefs. The left has lost their s**t over this and try to make it seem like every republican hates women or every republican state is going to ban abortion in it's entirety.

Does not surprise me though that liberals are confused about this. I mean most don't even know what a female is or can't define a woman anyways. 

I have looked at several of the state laws that just came into effect once RvW was overturned that these articles state and so far all of them have provisions for medical reasons. Some such as Idaho still allow abortion for all reason up until 24 weeks. I find it hilarious how you try to call out the right wing media and folks for lying when you and other's do it just as bad. Either you are doing it intentionally, are that dumb, just towing the party line without fact checking it. My guess is 1 and 3 just like every other blue kool-aid drinker. 

And people wonder why the two sides can't ever find a common ground to stand on. 

 

Nope sorry, when the GOP platform is literally about taking rights away and harming people you don’t get to wave it away as ‘fear mongering’ 

maybe spend more time trying to get your fellow conservatives to have more common sense and compassionate policies instead of getting mad at the liberals for calling out conservatives on what they do and say. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

2 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

except, if that was really true as written then they are saying that abortion should be completely legal if a doctor and patient deem it necessary or appropriate 
 

that is obviously not the intention of the Idaho GOP and not what they believe. 

when you say that section covers abortion for the life of the mother, you are reading into it words and meanings that are not that and that are directly contradicted below it when it gets to the section on “abortion” 

you’re literally making up an interpretation of the platform and then crying that we are all ‘misreading’ and not comprehending it when we are only going off of what is actually written and that the Idaho GOP leaders are actually saying out of their mouths. 

 

Nope sorry, when the GOP platform is literally about taking rights away and harming people you don’t get to wave it away as ‘fear mongering’ 

maybe spend more time trying to get your fellow conservatives to have more common sense and compassionate policies instead of getting mad at the liberals for calling out conservatives on what they do and say. 

You interpret it the way you want so you can spread fear. That’s the liberal way. 
 

You realize in Idaho it is completely legal? The same GOP you are referring enacted laws that went into effect but still allows for abortion. How’s that possible? Seems more in line with a more reasonable interpretation of their platform than yours. 
 

 

 

[CoffeeTiger 5,228]

15 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

You interpret it the way you want so you can spread fear. That’s the liberal way. 

 

 

I interpret it the way it's written and how the Idaho GOP senate candidate himself interprets it.  I acknowledge that you don't think that the Idaho GOP believes what it says it believers, but I don't agree with you. 

 

15 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

 

 

You realize in Idaho it is completely legal? The same GOP you are referring enacted laws that went into effect but still allows for abortion. How’s that possible? Seems more in line with a more reasonable interpretation of their platform than yours. 
 

 

 

That's incorrect. 

The Idaho GOP enacted a trigger law in 2020 that will take effect likely in late August to ban abortion and make it a felony. 

https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/06/24/idahos-trigger-law-will-abolish-abortions-30-days-after-scotus-ruling-overturning-roe-v-wade/

 

The law does allow exceptions for rape, incest, and health of mother, but the GOP platform itself explicitly states it's aim is to eliminate exemptions for abortion. You need to view the platform for what it is, which is a "wish list" of things the Idaho GOP believes and would like to put into effect if it is able to gain complete power and control over the government without having to compromise. 

 

 

It's not fear mongering...it's reality.

Edited July 22, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[wdefromtx 3,159]

28 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

I interpret it the way it's written and how the Idaho GOP senate candidate himself interprets it.  I acknowledge that you don't think that the Idaho GOP believes what it says it believers, but I don't agree with you. 

 

That's incorrect. 

The Idaho GOP enacted a trigger law in 2020 that will take effect likely in late August to ban abortion and make it a felony. 

https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/06/24/idahos-trigger-law-will-abolish-abortions-30-days-after-scotus-ruling-overturning-roe-v-wade/

 

The law does allow exceptions for rape, incest, and health of mother, but the GOP platform itself explicitly states it's aim is to eliminate exemptions for abortion. You need to view the platform for what it is, which is a "wish list" of things the Idaho GOP believes and would like to put into effect if it is able to gain complete power and control over the government without having to compromise. 

 

 

It's not fear mongering...it's reality.

Yet the trigger law sponsored by the GOP allows for these exceptions. I’m pretty sure that a state like Idaho could have passed a more stringent law outright banning all abortion. But they didn’t….do you not see the issue with your boogeyman GOP outcry? 
 

If the Idaho GOP is as bad as you think and their platform was a wishlist this trigger law would be much different than it is.