Ohio is scaring me. Who scares you? NJ edition.

mtierney said:

I think all your cut and pasting over the past few days  has affected tour thinking.

Sadly, it doesn't seem to be having any affect on yours.

PVW said:

As if she cares. Lies, truth, makes no difference to her.

After all, she is a primal conservative, her hierarchical lines are drawn in her little sandbox. 

mtierney said:

The righteousness of giving children the choice of their gender

You probably still think that sexual orientation is a choice, too.

mtierney said:

Irreversible surgical procedures on teens without parental support should be considered crimes! 

Minors continue to need parental consent for almost all healthcare and they absolutely do for surgical procedures such as gender confirmation surgery (unless they get court approval in the absence of parental consent).

I'm amazed that you continue to buy into this nonsense.

Back in my early career in a newsroom, big bottles of glue stood on desks,  which  a clerk refilled regularly. The glue pots had brushes. Sharp scissors were at the ready. The typing pool had their work cut out for them!

mtierney said:

Back in my early career in a newsroom, big bottles of glue stood on desks,  which  a clerk refilled regularly. The glue pots had brushes. Sharp scissors were at the ready. The typing pool had their work cut out for them!

I don’t think we’re allowed to huff glue at work anymore, but hearing that you did certainly explains a few things.

mtierney said:

Is it better to be born, into an uncertain future, or murdered in the womb? 

Or, perhaps, better yet, to be allowed to live and flourish in a loving home with parents who will thank God every day for having you in their lives?

Do you support any exceptions?

@Morgana…..To save the life of the mother is one exception everyone is on board with to my knowledge.

I say a prayer every day for the three young women who allowed my husband I to raise their babies as our own — the eldest is 61 years old now!

mtierney said:

@Morgana…..To save the life of the mother is one exception everyone is on board with to my knowledge.

I say a prayer every day for the three young women who allowed my husband I to raise their babies as our own — the eldest is 61 years old now!

Sounds like you did a wonderful thing. 

I've learned of health issues that will impact or threaten the life of the baby either in the womb or as soon as it is born. Apparently some that are discovered at later stages of the pregnancy. 

These are the kinds of issues that I believe could benefit from roundtable discussions. Representatives from different party affiliations could learn from each other.   

I was surprised years ago when I watched a discussion on the Senate floor, and health challenges that I knew little about were explained. I had no idea at which point in a pregnancy these issues would surface. I had never considered these time frames until now, when states are choosing limits based on the number of weeks.

I would attend such a roundtable.

I believe I heard Trump add to the life of the mother exception, a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. 

What are your thoughts?

Morganna said:

Sounds like you did a wonderful thing. 

I've learned of health issues that will impact or threaten the life of the baby either in the womb or as soon as it is born. Apparently some that are discovered at later stages of the pregnancy. 

These are the kinds of issues that I believe could benefit from roundtable discussions. Representatives from different party affiliations could learn from each other.   

I was surprised years ago when I watched a discussion on the Senate floor, and health challenges that I knew little about were explained. I had no idea at which point in a pregnancy these issues would surface. I had never considered these time frames until now, when states are choosing limits based on the number of weeks.

I would attend such a roundtable.

I believe I heard Trump add to the life of the mother exception, a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. 

What are your thoughts?

Abortions of babies resulting from rape or incest seems to me to be killing the child for a crime the baby did not commit. But I can appreciate how difficult it would be to carry a child to term under those circumstances. However, during the pregnancy there is the inevitable maternal bonding underway. A woman in this scenario needs care, counseling and help during and after the pregnancy. She should have the option to keep her baby, or allow adoption proceedings to proceed.

One would think the proliferation of birth control options, these 60 years later, would have resulted in less unwanted children? 

Possibly, the reluctance of couples to marry, and who choose living together instead,  is one explanation. Families — more extended than the man and woman — open up avenues of  vital care and support for a child under these circumstances. 

I don’t have all the answers, but killing innocent babies can’t  and should not be an appropriate solution to a problem. Men and women need to know their actions have consequences.

I believe that there are fewer unplanned pregnancies nowadays. Birth control works. Too bad some are working to make it less readily accessible. 

mtierney said:

@Morgana…..To save the life of the mother is one exception everyone is on board with to my knowledge.

You can increase your knowledge by googling abortion exception life of mother. You’ll find plenty of articles detailing efforts to remove or narrow this exception, and the disagreements over when the mother’s life is in danger.

mtierney said:

Abortions of babies resulting from rape or incest seems to me to be killing the child for a crime the baby did not commit. But I can appreciate how difficult it would be to carry a child to term under those circumstances. However, during the pregnancy there is the inevitable maternal bonding underway. A woman in this scenario needs care, counseling and help during and after the pregnancy. She should have the option to keep her baby, or allow adoption proceedings to proceed.

One would think the proliferation of birth control options, these 60 years later, would have resulted in less unwanted children? 

Possibly, the reluctance of couples to marry, and who choose living together instead,  is one explanation. Families — more extended than the man and woman — open up avenues of  vital care and support for a child under these circumstances. 

I don’t have all the answers, but killing innocent babies can’t  and should not be an appropriate solution to a problem. Men and women need to know their actions have consequences.

Any thoughts about the health issues? One of them is particularly painful, infantile Tay-Sachs disease. I can't imagine being able to watch a child suffer such an ailment. I've heard of others but that one comes to mind.

Understand that I was raised Catholic, even went to Catholic school, but I struggled with many aspects of the faith as young as 14, so I am aware of the Church's teachings.  I think we as voters need to educate ourselves in the area of fetal development to make very thoughtful and informed decisions if states are determined to set strict time limits. Of all the considerations, this one speaks loudest to me. And this leads one to believe that the choice should be between the mother and her doctor. 

As I understand your sympathy is strongest for the baby to be born, I'm wondering if this one issue could give you pause. My sympathy which is also strong for the baby, takes so much into consideration, that I am not comfortable making a decision which might force suffering in any manner on an innocent.

mtierney said:

@Morgana…..To save the life of the mother is one exception everyone is on board with to my knowledge.

I say a prayer every day for the three young women who allowed my husband I to raise their babies as our own — the eldest is 61 years old now!

There are at least 8 states that do NOT allow exceptions for mothers/patients with severe health risks.

Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee.

There are 3 states that do NOT allow exceptions to protect the mother/patient's life.

Idaho, North Dakota, Tennessee

There are several states that do have exceptions, but in practice women with severe health risks are routinely denied.

You should do some more research on who you believe is "on board."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/01/21/us/abortion-ban-exceptions.html

I have to say that I am shocked to see the woman who suggested Pervy Pell be made a saint now claiming that she cares about kids. 

Shocked, I tell you!

Just want to say I appreciate Mtierney and Morganna  discussing these matters so clearly a d politely.

joanne said:

Just want to say I appreciate Mtierney and Morganna  discussing these matters so clearly a d politely.

Thanks from me @joanne. Our voters are often seen verbally attacking each other in the media. Many in the media exacerbate the issues for a select audience but if we have the opportunity to discuss even emotional issues with courtesy, we may make some positive changes or at least slow our legislators down from making dangerous mistakes. 

I think once we remove the feeling that the other person hates us and replace it with the sense that we simply disagree and are looking for a compromise, progress can be achieved.

I have explained to friends who feel there is no compromise but, we are a big, divided country and neither side will get their way all of the time, so negotiation, even when the compromise goes against our deepest beliefs, is the only pragmatic solution as I see it.

I think there are challenges to civility when it comes to this issue. Observers from over seas may be unaware that for decades the anti choice movement has waged a on again off again terrorist campaign against abortion providers.  Bombings and shootings, naturally, have a chilling effect on civil discourse. 

Conservatives seem unable to understand the indignation that they provoke when they try to use religion to deprive huge percentage of the population of their basic human rights. I imagine they were similarly perplexed back in the days when they used similar arguments to defend slavery.

Without trying to distract from the theme of this thread, you might be surprised how familiar so many of these time-worn biases and historic (not-so historic) motifs resound in other places. (Look up blackbirding in northern Australia, for example, then realise that only ceased a couple of generations ago…  see what 1967 means to our First Nations people;learn who Vincent Lingari was…and this is my lifetime).

Then we have Glebe, Musgrave  Park.  And then we have women’s health rights. Universal themes.

You all are so much better than the people of Ohio. 

terp said:

You all are so much better than the people of Ohio. 

I am absolutely better than those people in Ohio who are trying to deprive women of their basic human rights. There’s no comparison. They are scumbags. 

As for the rest of the people of Ohio, I guess that would have to be determined on a case by case basis. 

terp said:

You all are so much better than the people of Ohio. 

Obviously not, since the people of Ohio voted to keep the right to pass the change to their Constitution.

I think this thread was intended to be about the government of Ohio, not its people. I would think any person who cares about government overreach would also be a little taken aback at some of the legislation that's passed in that state.

GoSlugs said:

I think there are challenges to civility when it comes to this issue. Observers from over seas may be unaware that for decades the anti choice movement has waged a on again off again terrorist campaign against abortion providers.  Bombings and shootings, naturally, have a chilling effect on civil discourse. 

I'm considering discussions since Roe has been overturned. Now legislators are arbitrarily picking time frames with no apparent consideration to the health ramifications to child or mother. One state like Florida choses 6 weeks as a limit to abortions access. I've heard people suggest 15 weeks, and states are either instating laws that were on the books or changing existing laws. The medical community should have televised discussions. I don't want to see these decisions made by politicians without the input of medical professionals who can discuss in depth any scientific developments that might shed light on the topic.

If we do not have discussions among voters, politicians, mostly men, will make choices based on religious beliefs, those borrowed from general considerations such as the "heartbeat" ruling or a misguided conception of what their voters want.

Please understand that when discussions go against my most heartfelt beliefs, civility does not come easy.

ml1 said:

I think this thread was intended to be about the government of Ohio, not its people. ...

as the thread originator, of course that's the case.

So, this November Ohio votes on whether to add abortion rights to the constitution. I haven't seen specific polling on the ballot measure, but previous polls indicate that abortion rights have generally strong support.

One thing that kind of worries me though is the lawn sign situation. Prior to the August vote on whether to make constitutional amendments harder to pass, lawn signs were overwhelmingly against the GOP backed measure. (at least in my neck of the woods) However I have yet to see even a single sign in support of the abortion rights measure, while I've seen tons of signs against it.

The kind of odd thing is that the signs for the two measures are almost exactly the same. They say "Vote NO on Issue 1". In August, that meant you were against making it harder to amend the constitution, but now it means vote against abortion rights. I wonder if some voters are confused by that.

My guess is yes, because I'm kind of confused by my own post. 

DB, I just read PVW’s post on the Rose Garden thread with various “whatifitisms” and it was totally confusing. Then I read yours.  

As my anti-abortion position is well known here, I do believe the political sign makers of Ohio are really hostile toward their voters. The same signage words used in two different elections which promote two different outcomes is nutty and self-defeating.

However, I am curious how Democrats will spin Menendez’s penchant for stuffing his jacket pockets and shoes with wads of cash, whilst also collecting bars of gold. A habit formed from  financial insecurity due to immigrant roots? Not buying it. I doubt any election signage message for voters could obfuscate the NJ senator’s disgrace. He needs to step down immediately.

On a personal note, hope you are feeling better health-wise, and settled-in your new home state!

Oh, how is the immigration crises affecting Ohio?

mtierney said:

However, I am curious how Democrats will spin Menendez’s penchant for stuffing his jacket pockets and shoes with wads of cash, whilst also collecting bars of gold. A habit formed from  financial insecurity due to immigrant roots? Not buying it. I doubt any election signage message for voters could obfuscate the NJ senator’s disgrace. He needs to step down immediately.

Have you been reading the news about what Democrats are saying about Menendez?

Just heard about this.

Doesn't seem good.