Topic: Arizona Supreme Court rules state can use 1864 law to ban nearly ALL abortions (Read 245 times)

Then you do not have any idea what you are talking about.  The anti abortion movement in congress today is made up exclusively of Republicans.  

It wasn't always that way.  In the 60s the movement was driven pretty much exclusively by Catholic Democrats.  California had the same law on abortion in the 60s that Arizona has today (only to save life of mother), which prompted the republican governor of California (Ronald Reagan)  to sign the first ever bill that legalized abortion.

Devout Catholic numbers began dropping fast in the 70s (and hasn't stopped since) and in the 80s the Republicans started viewing Evangelical Christian wackos as possible long term Republican voters so Reagan and the Republican party decided it would be the most beneficial politically to be anti abortion and they haven't switched sides since.

Reminds me of the anti vax movement.  Used to be mostly liberal home school your kid moms that knew everyones zodiac sign, but during the pandemic the center of the anti vax movement shifted to right wing conspiratards.  


PS - Trump isn't a Republican.  He doesn't make decisions based on political beliefs or even personal beliefs.  It's about whatever is best for Trump.

It wasn't that long ago Don Bill and Hillary were laughing it up at Trumps third wedding.  Such a happier time....sigh


Pretty impressive to have the Secratary of State and a former President at your wedding don't ya think?

Um, Trump has done all kinds of things in his personal life. Nobody, including Trump himself, cares about that.

As I said (several times) above, the "leave it to the states" thing has run out of gas for the Republicans. The only way abortion in the USA will be curtailed the way those wanting it to be made illegal want it curtailed is for there to be Federal laws against it. The current pending case against the abortion pill is just one example: all Trump would need to do is stop fighting that, and abortion will be effectively illegal across the country--and that's just one of many examples.

The the Federal government, per the constitution (and for obvious practical reasons), must get involved with interstate commerce, which means with allowing or disallowing abortion pills and/or people leaving their states to have an abortion.

No matter how desperately (some*) Republicans are trying to dodge this issue, there's simply no getting out of it. And in this context, Americans aren't going to believe the party who has spent 40 years calling the procedure "murder" when they say they don't want to make it illegal.

(* And it's notable that many Republican voices out there are not dodging this at all, and are clearly calling for 50 state bans because they actually mean what they say they mean when they say they are opposed to abortion).


LOL. The 1980s called and are asking for the GOP back . Today's Republican party has nothing to do with that anymore. Today the party is Trump, Trump and Trump.

States cannot dictate on women's bodies any more that they can dictate on a forced prescription of a brain surgery.

You are talking about costs? Then let me educate you on what happens when you ban abortion: twenty years ago Steve Levitt, a well known economist, looked at a bunch of data and put forward the idea that allowing abortion may have cause a decrease in criminality. The link between unwanted babies and adult criminals was established and obviously very criticized.

However Levitt was given the rare opportunity of checking his theory 20 years later ... so quite recently. And it perfectly matches the data: ban on abortion results in higher criminality when unwanted childs reach adult age.

https://journalistsresource.org/economics/abortion-crime-research-donohue-levitt/

So if you are against spending money, you should be thinking this through before taking a stance.

BTW, Trump is not going to "remove the deep state", he is going to "replace the deep state" with his deep Trumpstate:

https://www.thenationalnews.com/opinion/comment/2023/09/04/if-trump-returns-he-might-replace-thousands-of-federal-staff-with-his-supporters/


or what did you think?? That Trump is trying to get to power to then dismantle the machinery that makes that power effective?? You are very good at fooling yourselves into believing shit.

Then you do not have any idea what you are talking about.  I thought Trump was grabbing girls by the pussy and having his way with them.  If that's true, you really think he hasn't paid for his fair share of abortions in his life?  You really think that's something he's focused on?  Not to mention, if you know anything about Republicans you would know we support the states having their own rights.  It's the Democrats who are dead set on trying to force their mental illness on everyone federally by any means necessary.  All Republicans want is the constitution to be respected and laws upheld with less government spending.

If we are going to speak about legends and fantasies, I would rather speak of the Big Rock Candy Mountains, you know...

Oh, then here's my contribution: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiBgOK3sMeFAxX10wIHHSW5CyMQwqsBegQIERAF&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dfc6yPWv5nOc&usg=AOvVaw3CiEmv8_AbBhrSMCm-7WXt&opi=89978449


To me this makes more sense that simplifying the administration of a complex country full of politics and commercial interests calling it "deep state" a blabering a cheap 5 cent philosophy about "rights" that are created in the vacuum (dude, I would rather read St Thomas of Aquino, at least it properly though) and messiah that go "grabbing by them the Pussy" ^TM and paying hush money (and the Playboy stripper is not the only case at all).

But let's be honest, it is inflation what may influence this election and not stupid assertions by dumBAss, but now...well... we have women's rights into the equation. Congrats Republicans.

I think every woman has the right to make her own decision regarding child birth. Sure make a cut off on the age of gestation that abortion is permitted but you can’t make abortion illegal, it would be a disaster.

Trump didn't remove the "Deep State" in his first term, and instead expanded it. What makes you think he will remove it in his second term?

And why especially do you care about the abortion issue if all you really care about is the "Deep State"?

And abortion laws are very divisive. If you are for peace, why are you in favor of abortion laws?

Problem is those against the deep state aren't educated enough to remove the deep state.

And those that decide to educate themselves realize they were acting like an idiot and end up joining the deep state.

There's a reason they don't go by the shallow state.

I don't have problems like that with you. Why not? Because I DO know what you are for. And I understand why you don't really know what I am for. So, let me say it plainly.

I'm for peace. And being for peace means to be for anything that removes the Deep State. And since you seem to like the evil of the Deep State so much, it's easy to see what you are for.

Trump is the best general chance we have for peace and to remove the Deep State. The fact that Trump wants to leave it up to the individual States regarding their stance on abortion, shows that he wants to take that power from the Deep State in D.C.

But you don't like Trump for that very reason. You want to support the Deep State and their warmongering, murdering activities. And it seems that you want to do this "with every fiber of your being, right?"

How do we know that about you? Because you are so against Trump, the best chance we have to get rid of the warmongering and murdering that the present regime is doing right now.

So if Trump vowed to pass a law overriding the states, guaranteeing a woman's right to an abortion, you'd still support him with every fiber of your being as you demonstrate all of the time here, right?

If Trump vowed to start a war with some country (say Mexico for instance) if he were elected,  you'd still support him with every fiber of your being, right?

My problem with understanding what you are for is that it seems to change weekly at the same time Trump changes his own mind about things. The only constant I see in your views is that that they line up with whatever Trump says on a day to day basis.

I understand being in favor of Trump because you want certain policies enacted that he supports. But when Trump contradicts himself, y'all seem to just change your own mind at the suspiciously exact same moment.

You forgot the part where I said:


Or did you simply ignore it so that you might have something to blab about.

As for prioritizing Trump...

Trump is the best chance we have for world peace. Don't tell me you like the Biden Team warmongers who caused the deaths of at least hundreds of thousands if not millions. I know, I know. Being labeled as a warmonger, yourself, might not allow you to be popular in some arenas. You aren't the only one, of course. You simply side with them.


19 Retired Generals, Admirals File Supreme Court Brief Against Trump Immunity Bid

---

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/19-retired-generals-admirals-file-supreme-court-brief-against-trump-immunity-bid
It comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on the former president's assertions that he should enjoy immunity from prosecution for activity that he carried out while he was president. The former president invoked that argument after he was accused by federal prosecutors of attempting to illegally overturn the 2020 election results.

The amicus brief's signatories include former CIA Director Michael Hayden, retired Admiral Thad Allen, retired Gen. George Casey, retired Gen. Charles Krulak, and more.

They claimed that granting President Trump immunity against criminal claims could lead to activity that put U.S. national security at risk.

"The notion of such immunity, both as a general matter, and also specifically in the context of the potential negation of election results, threatens to jeopardize our nation's security and international leadership," their brief stated. "Particularly in times like the present, when anti-democratic, authoritarian regimes are on the rise worldwide, such a threat is intolerable and dangerous."

The arguments submitted by President Trump will "risk jeopardizing America's standing as a guardian of democracy in the world and further feeding the spread of authoritarianism, thereby threatening the national security of the United States and democracies around the world," the group added.

The former secretary of Defense under President Trump, Mark Esper, was critical of their submission to the Supreme Court, arguing during a CNN interview that he "would prefer to see retired admirals and generals not get involved."

But President Trump's lawyers have contended that the president's office cannot function without immunity from the threat of prosecution because it could "incapacitate every future president with de facto blackmail and extortion while in office and condemn him to years of post-office trauma at the hands of political opponents," arguing that such a phenomenon is playing out right now after the former president was indicted multiple times last year.
...

---

---

---

If you did a little research, you might be able to answer your own questions... maybe... of course, maybe not.

That is what I love about little dumBAss, he is probably the best marketing that democrats could have in every post that he makes. This utter confusion about nearly all aspects of life, diplomacy and science combined with a flat ignorance of facts that are freely substituted with 5 cent philosophy as required by his deranged mind. It is the perfect case study of Trump voter.

This is the type of people who are going to govern women's uterus in the name of they self-assigned moral superiority and light from a "superior being". This is the moment in which religious extremists are revealed for what they are: parasites of the democracy in which they do not really believe - why would they when they can just listen to their local sect evangelist leader instead of thinking?


The government... nah, the extremist churchgoers which are not a majority but are certainly needed by Trump. So women will be Trumped have no doubt - from the famous "grab them by the pussy", he has gone deeper to grab them by the uterus. Could anything else be expected from someone for whom women are like Kleenex?

If a blob of goo in a womans (or girls) vagina is controlled by the government how long will it take before the blob of goo in your skull is controlled by the government?

How is it a politicians job to decide what happens to a blob of goo in a teenagers vagina who was just raped by her uncle or the brain dead fetus with no chance of survival of a woman who wants to have children but may not be able to after being forced to give birth to a dead baby?

And why do the same politicians keep bringing up abortion at 9 months or "post birth" when that literally isn't a thing and even if it were, could be solved with a 8 month ban?

You know quite well that the US is not going to cancel Social Security, Medicare, income taxes, and basically the entire US government as it is today. You know quite well that Trump surely would never do that, and he will in fact expand the federal government's powers in ways that other presidents haven't, as he already did while he was in office before.

And yet you are effectively saying that abortion--the thing you keep calling "murder"--should be illegal (presumably, punishable as murder)--in all 50 states.

What this tells me is that what you really want is for Trump to win the election, and you are willing to say anything, on any given day, in order for that to happen.

In other words, once again, you seem willing to forgo everything you purport to believe in exchange for Trump being elected, which seems to be an end in itself for you.

So I'll ask this question of you once again, as I have several times here with no answer so far: what could Trump actually do in order for him not to get your vote in November? Is there any line he cannot cross?

That you can't answer this tells us the whole story: there is no answer. You prioritize Trump over all other values.

But you don't seem to understand what my exact views are. Part of my views are freedom, but stop the murder. If the people of a State want more murder in their State, it will be their choice, and that is good. Here's why:

Amendment X to the US Constitution:
There are only a few - really only two - things that the Federal Government has been authorized to do with the States, according to the Constitution. They lie in the realms of border control, and money and banking. Anything else is arbitrary, and falls under the Contract Clause... how the States contract with the Federal. But such contracting does not in any way affect the individual people, except when the individual people individually agree to it.

The point is that the States should rule in everything except what is strictly allowed in the Constitution. Making this to happen would take a lot of power away from the Deep State. So, Trump is right on when he talks about leaving it up to the States themselves.

You are making my point for me. If Trump wins in November, people with your exact views will be running the country. That's why it's likely abortion will be made illegal--or effectively so--in all 50 states if Trump wins.

If abortion murder is not outlawed effectively, how long will it take before ANY murder is legal? In Canada, they have legalized assisted suicide... euthanasia. But who follows all the assisted suicides to see when they are assisted in the right way... with full understanding of the person who is murdering himself? and who they are assisting to do their own murder?

The point is that people are executed by government right now, and government people get away with it. Do a simple search on "police brutality" to find thousands of sites that show how cops often kill people and get away with it, when they easily could have handled the situation some other way.

The reason why abortion is legal here and there is because it is a rather easy 'foot in the door' for government to murder anybody and get away with it. If someone wants to murder through abortion, forget the abortion part, suicide themselves, and go to the grave right along with the fetus they murdered at the same time.

The way I explain it to people is that if Trump is elected, there will be a 50/50 chance that abortion will be outlawed in all 50 states in 2025.

If you want to be sure abortion is legal in 2025, your only choice is voting Democrat.

As long as a state doesn't try and make AK47s illegal.

Point is moot though.  Trump doesn't give a shit if abortion is illegal or not.  His political instincts are correct that the more the election becomes about abortion, the worse republicans will do in november.  If he is elected though, then it's a totally different story.  He doesn't need people to vote for him anymore and it's a near certainty that Republicans will control the House and the Senate, so when the federal abortion ban hits his desk he will no longer need to convince pro choice republicans and women with husbands that have joined his cult to vote for him.  He can either risk having the crazy  vagina-goo obsessed evangelicals turn on him or pwn the libs....hmm what a tough choice for him.

"States decision" is a fallacy, they know the laws are likely to end in the supreme court, where Trump has made sure there is a conservative majority. Regarding the pills, the problem is that these will now be sold illegally, with all the trouble that it carries about getting false remedies, overpayment,... Some states are now moving to make it illegal to get the pill by mail or the like, so it will effectively create new "pill mafias".

This just isn't practical. Most abortions these days are done using the pill, and that can easily be transported across state lines. And people can transport themselves the other direction. Since the Republicans overturned Roe, abortions have actually increased even though individual states made it illegal.

And the ruling on the FDA action on the abortion pill shows just how easily Trump could effectively ban all abortions in the USA without an act of Congress.

Republicans are trying to "states rights" this issue away, but it won't work. And probably two thirds of their voters don't want it to work anyhow as they want an abortion ban that actually works instead of this "return it to the states" nonsense.

I think that states cannot interfere with individual rights of women. For example, the state of Texas, where the dumBAss of the world spawn from their churches an a racist educational system, cannot decide that it is ok to rob black people on sight, because black people & anyone in general have the right not to be robbed. That is the fallacy of all this "decision by the state" that goes against a well stablished jurisprudential precedent.

But as said, this may be the call to action that women from Georgia and Arizona need to understand that if they ignore Trump, they will be Trumped.

I think regardless of your stance on abortion you should be able to respect that states have rights and are choosing to have different abortion policies. This is how the United States of America is supposed to work. If you don’t like the laws in your state, relocate to a state that appeases you. That’s the freedom America offers. Take advantage.

Here is where you are wrong about trusts. And maybe it doesn't apply to you much, in your situation in life.

Any person walking down the sidewalk and passing other people going the opposite direction, has formed a simple trust with these people. How? They all trust each other that they are not going to be harmed by them, etc.-whatever, in their sidewalk walking activities, with that simple relationship to each other.

The point? We all have trusts going on every day, with or without formally written terms to back them up.

If the trust between a man, woman, and the new life didn't include the new life, it would totally be a different kind of trust. But when the new life is included, the new life must be consulted in the dissolution of the trust. If the new life isn't consulted, it is breaking of trust law... at least natural trust law.

Natural trust law? Essentially all the animals in nature give warning before they attack. The warning might be the rattle of the rattle snake. Or it might be the roar of the lion. Animals recognize natural trust law between all living things, instinctively. It's only people that ignore it.

badecker.. its not..

you have been listening to the silly idiots of the freeman/sovereign cult of the 1990's that have been getting things wrong and debunked soo many times. you have no clue

setting up a trust is more complicated then getting married

if you wanna put a baby in it and have a contract... put a ring on it (marry it)
your religion knows this

if you want a contract involving the childs welfare and future without marriage you will have to wait until its born and ASK to be put on the birth certificate.. (you cant demand it, and its not default your power or control at conception) its the mothers power and control and decision

sex is not a formation of a trust of a baby
sex consent is different to cenceiving a baby consent..

Remember to consider that it is a trust situation, and trust laws rule.

Grantor = the man.
Trustee = the woman.
Beneficiary = the new life.
Property in trust = the body being built in the woman's tummy.

Since there isn't any Trust Protector (or is there?) the new life should be consulted about the destruction of the property being held for it in trust. Of course, to do this, the new life has to be allowed to live and grow up, at least to the age of majority.

So, since the woman accepted the position of trustee, she made her choice before the pregnancy. If she breaks her trust, she is a murderer.

Of course, there are extenuating circumstances in some cases.

For info regarding where the government (US) should stand in this all, see: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63927834.

you do know that a gestating foetus is on life support for approximately the first 24-26 weeks.. unable to survive on its own without the life support(womb)
so do you atleast consider the rights and choices of that foetus lay with the women that is incharge of the life support(her own womb)

next thing is who is to say of the condition of the foetus or its life prospects.. not every foetus is the same and not always going to have a productive life
what about foetuses with genetic or congenital diseases whereby it will be born impaired if carried to full term

what do you feel of the scenarios of foetuses under 24weeks with impairments?
should there be a "no womens choice" about the life support system being taken away to give peace

are you categorically still thinking "if you have sex the woman should be forced to carry all foetuses to term and take responsibility"

are you aware that if "rape" is the only clause to allow abortion.. then every consensual act of sex that accidentally ends in pregnancy due to slippage or failure of birth control. may end up with women having to make claims of rape due to not wanting pregnancy but ended up pregnant thus not giving consent to the pregnancy. as a form of validation to get an abortion. thus rape claims will sky rocket to get the treatment they need

and keep in mind
sex is not just for procreation
sexual precautions, protection, birth control are not 100%
having consensual sex is not the same as pregnancy consent

you may want to look into people that have consensual sex, but the male knowingly has an STD and doesnt inform the woman that his intentions is to pass her an STD. which when she finds out he passed her something she did not consent to which affects her life. that is a sexual crime

whereby the same scenario of the woman initial consent to sex is not consent to STD or pregnancy. so then becoming pregnant/infected due to intentions/accidents caused by the man.. then mean she can claim a sex crime occurred

what about the silly illogical non medical but judicial decision of the rape clause not using the common sense biological limit of 24 weeks but instead the limited scope of just days to a few weeks being the barrier of abortion

A family member that is in life support or has a medical condition where they're suffering excruciating pains between life and death, I think that the family members should be strong and see the patient through their last moment, I can only imagine the pains that the family members will be in, but they can sincerely wish the person to die and have peace, than taking an innocent life. Frankly talk is cheap and I don't know if I can sincerely watch my loved one to continue to suffer when it has been proven that there's 99.9% chances of not surviving, I don't wish to be in such a situation to make that kind of decision.

Although considering to end the life of a person that is in a critical life and death situation is different from ending a life that is developing in their mother's womb, and there's no complications to warrant ending it or in simple term "aborting it" to save the mother's life, the motives are different, one is to end suffering and the other is to be free of responsibilities. If a woman will have a consensual sex with her partner without protection, then it's only fair that they should accept the responsibilities of their choice.

if you are not conscious to realise you are alive. you dont have rights. the next-of-kin has medical proxy.
i think women should have more power than men. and state should not over power the woman when there is a life support system in place that IS THE WOMAN

however abortions should be the womans decisions before the fetus has its own independent survival ability (usually above 24 weeks)
before this period the woman decides.. as she is the life support machine

..
a question for you:
what is your opinion on decisions of elderly/disabled relatives on medical life support with no consciousness?
should families never have the choice in removing the life support?

I personally don't support abortion because I see it as terminating the life of an innocent being, because it's the right of every unborn child to be born, so couples should be responsible for their actions, if they must have unprotected sex then let them face the consequences.

Where I'll make exceptions and support abortion is in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of a mother if abortion is an option, other than these reasons, abortion remains an immoral act, as far as I'm concerned. People in the US are politicizing this matter in Arizona, probably because of the coming election, but the fact is that abortion is wrong, except for the reasons that are mentioned above, Arizona state should understand this..

why is it that the virgin incels(people like badecker) think they have a right to decide on female choices

put it this way when a family member is not conscious, on life support. the law and ethics is that the closest family member gets medical proxy on medical decisions and most courts, hospitals and doctors honour that

so in regards to pregnancy
the woman is both the medical proxy and the biological life support machine. her decision means more then anyone elses

....
as for the "contract" a certain incel talks about

his religion should tell him. 'if you want to put a baby in it, put a ring on it', THEN the guy has a contract with the woman(via marriage)
(the whole marriage before procreation thing)
yep marriage forms a contract between a male and female

..
as for the topic creator (virgin incel that wants to control womens consent)
when he gets excited about thinking he has gained controlling rights over a womans decisions in cases of rape and incest.. that says more about what sexual activity he prefers to dream of having one day

having sex with a woman does not give a man a contract to control that woman

as for his silly misunderstanding of legalese(law speak) of trusts, bonds and guardianships

the contract begin with marriage. which is a 2 party consent to unite and form a family bond into a contract of trust of any conception, progeny after the marriage

..
as for his assertions over a mans sperm grant contractual rights over the future use or new creations when the sperm is given out to someone else

contract law does not give things like panasonic(that provide batteries to elon musk) the right to decide how elon musk can use the batteries for tesla cars
panasonic do not then own tesla company, nor have decision power over tesla manufacturing process, nor own a unfinished tesla car whilst in the factory..nor after it leaves the factory..

once a car leaves the factory the registration documentation may then indicate a partnership with tesla and panasonic. for whomever becomes the family that keeps the car. in regards to whom has warrenty, repair, recall, disposal control over the car.. but that is still written up and decided by tesla. not panasonic

by elon receiving panasonic batteries it then becomes elons product, which he as tesla car manufacturer decides on how the batteries should be used for the product he creates in his factory. even state law cant stop elon for calling/deciding to do a recall, repair, disposal of his product whilst in his factory. elon(tesla) decide what happens in their factory

replace elon(tesla) for woman and panasonic for man, and sperm for batteries, car manufacturer for females pregnancy, registration for birth certificate, factory for womb

That's because most Americans want higher taxes on people other than themselves--and most agree that "rich people" aren't themselves.

Republicans used to run principally on tax cuts for the rich, but that is super-duper unpopular, and that kept making them lose elections, so they dropped that (and so many of their other old policies like reforming SS and healthcare), and now they just talk about relatively meaningless social issues like bathrooms and beer commercials.

I have not said that 50% of the population will vote for Biden because of this, I am saying that Trump has alienated many women that feel that they are the ones who should have the decision to keep a fetus or pass. Those who have been brainwashed by the Christian Integrists of any flavour were anyway going to vote Trump, but many of the others who may have abstained or be indifferent to the election have now a good reason to vote.

As things are now, the swing in some states may be a question of a few thousand votes, so again "congratulations" for this "victory".

BTW Trump knows this, but he has to balance the support of Evangelist and other extremists versus what he know is the majoritarian opinion in the US. This is the problem of dividing instead of uniting - your shit eventually is uncovered.

I understand the point of view you have on the possible reaction people of the United States could have because of this ruling, you talk about about half of the population turning away from Donald Trump and the Republican party in general because of this political happening, but I would also like to point out there are women out there who (because whenever reason) they have developed very restrictive views about this topic. So, the percentage of people turning away from Trump because of this would not be fifty percent exactly.
I would take us to see the statistics on many many women have grown up in very religious households or how many of them are part of the Mormon religion or how many of them are amish. As far as I know, those are very conservative groups which are likely to still follow the conservative ideology they harbor.

The difference between women and stupids like you is that they have spent centuries refraining themselves from cross=face bitch-slap monks, popes, imans and dumBAss like you pretending to tell them that they know more than them about what is to be a mother and whose decision is to become one.

Trump has chosen: between all the women in the US (more than 50% of the population) and the Evangelists and other miscarriages of religion he has chosen Christian integrists. Honestly, Biden could not hope for something that will take more people to vote against him than this.

Please, make sure that every young women out there in Arizona, Georgia and other swing states knows that thanks to Trump she may go to jail for not wanting to bear the child of a rapist, a stupid boyfriend or for that matter a dumBAss. Again, congrats and keep on shouting about it and mumbling about knowing a lot about something that does not exist.


Have you seen any debate lately about actual issues? Because all the arguments I hear are name-calling or even calls to direct harm- e.g. singling out the daughter of a judge to make sure all those crazy nut-heads that support Trump think is OK to kill her, like the one that attacked the Pelosi at their home.

Perhaps it is because I am not from the United States and perhaps it is also because I don't have much of a good memory for politics from other countries, but I don't recall the right to abortion to have been much of a big issue back in the 2000s and the 2010s in the United States.
I believe both the Republican and the Democrat party were debiting other topics which were very different from what we see today daily on Television. I wonder what changed and what happen the what we should have called "normal" politics.

It would be good if someone the the USA give us their opinion on the change of political discussions and the evolution of the mainstream politics in their country, to me it seems the disorder and the entropy of all these topics are far from being normal.

I barely see a normal debate on taxes on Television these days. 

The difference with women and their bodies is the contract.

When a man and a woman get together, it's a trust situation. The man is the grantor. The woman is the trustee. The beneficiary is the new life in the woman's tummy. The property being held in Trust is the body being made inside the woman. It's a contract between all three parties, and God is included because He is the only One Who can make a person's body and soul happen.

The Contract Clause in the US Constitution is this, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1:
Adjudication of Contract Law extends it to people of the States in addition to the States themselves. This means that breaking of the 'pregnancy' trust - a contract - is illegal until all the parties sign off regarding it, including the Beneficiary. But for the Beneficiary to sign off, he/she has to be allowed to be born, learn about his/her rights, learn to read and write, and then sign off on it. The process is called 'growing up'.

Isn't it about time that you grew up rather than constantly showing your ignorance?

Perfect. If there is something that will eventually turn nearly every woman in the US against Trump and most men too, to be honest is this. Now everyone who was reluctant to go to vote for Biden (let's be honest, he is a weak candidate), has perfectly understood what means to have Trump in power.

This is going to be an electoral main point to many people dumBAss, so please keep shouting about it.

Anyway and to the detail, this is enforcing a law that is more than 100 years old and it is not a done thing, as there will probably be a vote and later on can be changed or challenged.

BTW is not "Pro-abortion" it is "pro-choice". You are too used to think that you can tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies dumBAss and they are going to show you the finger in the next elections and tell you what you can do with your own finger.

A gift to the unborn people of Arizona. Note that Arizona didn't become a State until 1912.

Let's watch Arizona cause its own downfall by repealing this law with regard to itself.


Arizona Supreme Court rules state can use 1864 law to ban nearly ALL abortions

---

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13289415/Arizona-Supreme-Court-rules-state-use-1864-law-ban-nearly-abortions.html
This makes Arizona one of the states with the most strict abortion laws in the country after federal abortion protections were stripped with the ruling overturning Roe v. Wade in June 2022.

Pro-abortion critics dubbed it a 'dark day for Arizona' and President Joe Biden immediately responded to the 'cruel' ruling with a statement claiming it will subject Arizonans to an 'extreme and dangerous ban.'

The 4-2 decision could influence other states looking to restrict abortion after the Dobbs ruling two years ago and could have wide-reaching and long-standing impacts going into the 2024 election where women's health rights remains at the front of voters' minds.

The 1864 law provides no exceptions for abortion in the case of rape or incest, but allows a mother to seek termination of their pregnancy if their life is put in danger should they carry the fetus to term.

Even pro-life Republicans are speaking out against the radical ruling.

U.S. Senate candidate for Arizona Kari Lake wrote in a statement: 'I oppose today's ruling, and I am calling on Katie Hobbs and the State Legislature to come up with an immediate common sense solution that Arizonans can support.'

Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.) called Tuesday's ruling a 'disaster for women and providers' and slammed the law as 'archaic.'
...

---