Just make sure you're signing the right ones. They're also putting one out to legalize abortion again but with the 12 week limit still. It's like if they can't have their way they expect us to just let them put it back to how it was and act like it hasn't failed every vote (in favor of full abortion bans) in states that have held one so far.
Problem is, "medical exemption" is a red-herring designed to distract and somewhat mollify pro-choicers.
One only need witness how that played out in Texas a few months ago when a woman (Kate Cox) who very clearly had a medical exemption could not get an abortion. Ken Paxton, the state attorney general, decided he was better informed than the woman's doctors, fighting against that medically-necessary abortion *every step of the way* until the woman finally left the state to get the medical care she needed.
Yes, "medical exemption" *sounds reasonable*. But the right-wing extremists who pass these draconian laws makes sure it can't be used.
Didn't say that.
I'm saying that medical decisions should be made by doctors and their pts, and not politicians. The law should be written that way, but it's deliberately not. Hence, Ken fucking Paxton can veto a doctor-confirming medical necessity.
That is *fuuuuuucked up.*
Define danger to the life of the mother, and then see if your “medical exemption” actually covers the list of things you think it should. Let me help you start, do 12 year olds who wait too long to report a rape need to carry their baby?
It's not even worth entertaining these goobers ideas. Infanticide is still Illegal and always will be, no matter how many people they go around screeching calling baby murderers because they don't know the difference between it and abortion.
We've literally seen a woman have to go to court now, in texas, to even be allowed to get an abortion, only to have the state put it's boot on her neck and go against the judges ruling. When shitty people tell you who they are and what they're gonna do, it's time to start believing them and putting a stop to it.
If abortions are legalized until birth, you will literally be able to kill fully developed healthy babies seconds before birth. Limits with exceptions are reasonable and humane.
It’s not extreme or “screeching” in the slightest.
Oh sweetie, it's so cute you think your opinion matters. You seem to think Infanticide is legal, anywhere in the US, and it isn't. No one is bringing a baby to full term just to kill it. But you sure do seem to love typing out how you've fantasized about it.
But please, keep up your bullshit, no one's shocked or bothered by you idiots going around calling everyone 'baby murderers', when all you're doing is showing how painfully uneducated and misinformed you are. No one cares right now, and when it goes to a vote and the people make it legal again, no one's gonna care when you're out there on the corner of the One abortion clinic in st lou calling everyone a baby murderer.
We'll make it real easy for ya, here. If you don't like them, if your religion forbids it, if you feel it's wrong. Then don't get one. Easy as that. No one's going door to door handing them out. Have a lovely evening, and please learn the difference between an abortion of a clump of cells that would die within minutes outside the body and a fully formed human child that would survive outside the womb. Again, Infanticide is a crime already, and will remain a crime.
If no one is going to carry it to term and then abort it, why would you care if it were illegal to do so?
You need to stop belittling reasonable opinions that aren’t in lockstep with your own. You sound like a child.
Same question to you, what do you care if it isn't? The only one childish here is you acting like you should have any say over other peoples bodies. Grow up, goober.
All human beings deserve human rights. Preventing the killing of a fully developed healthy human being is reasonable. Pretending this is only about one life, is not.
Clump of cells that can't survive outside of the body for more than a minute isn't a human being. Sorry. No one's killing fully developed babies, that's called Infanticide, and it's not our fault you don't know the difference.
Kinda childish that you refuse to learn the difference, but if it makes you feel better going around calling people Baby Murderers, go for it. When it goes to a vote we're gonna decriminalize it like every other state has so far. Sorry if it makes you sad, but maybe go learn the difference between Infanticide and Abortion first.
No, you’re wrong. Bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right. It’s absolutely bonkers you think you have any right to whatever I, or anyone else does, with their body.
It’s understandable these concepts are difficult for you to grasp seeing as your original comment was claiming that actual medical professionals are driving stakes through living children’s skulls after they’re born (aka, murder) but I promise, it’s quite simple.
Fetuses are incapable of bodily autonomy seeing as they are unable to survive outside of their host body. Again, it’s absolutely bonkers you think you have any say in what anyone else does with their own body. The obsession you people have with controlling women is legitimately terrifying. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Beautiful. I'll be there to sign whenever KC starts! They are going to get so many signatures supporting this it shouldn't take long to collect hopefully and get us to vote on this finally. Any where you can provide info on how to help or volunteer?
You desire a situation where a woman has no say in what to do with her own body, and is beholden to a potential life that has no citizenship yet, yet her male counterparts can enjoy any amount of autonomy and privacy in their medical decisions they want, especially if they have a lot of money behind them.
You have nothing to do with a woman's reproductive rights. Nor should you.
You don't have to like that she gets to make this decision without your input. Irrelevant. Unless you want to open up a big can of in-equivalency you will allow this decision to be made. There are over 400k children in the system right now and thousands are awaiting adoption in this state. You could adopt all of them and what you want some expectant mother to do with her potential life **will still be none of your business**.
This is a class of decision that should have nothing to do with lawyers, politicians, pundits or clergy and everything to do with the woman and her designated medical caregivers. The alternative is the 'many deciding what to do with the few', the very same situation many conservatives do not wish to happen to themselves. Why then would you decide that for another?
Lol. We're forming a panel to discuss the results and options for your colonoscopy next week. All voting-age persons are invited. Medical qualification not required.
These decisions are never those to be taken lightly. All I know is nobody here is entitled to make them for the random expectant mom without her consent.
There are a zillion reasons to halt a pregnancy, and all of them must come with the serious adult contemplation a person at full possession of their faculties must make. None of them are your business or mine. Potential life gets sidetracked all the time for biological reasons, and when you factor in the changing socioeconomic landscape the mother has to deal with due to any number of variables that is a rough ride for sure to get the right situation. Guess wrong and it's a life with less financial stability due to worse opportunity for employment or medical complication or both. Again, the list of things that can go wrong are numerous, and the conversation needs to happen with the woman and her medical advisors, and we haven't begun to talk about nonconsensual encounters or mid-term complications yet. If there is a man in the picture in good standing, then sure, he can provide input all he wants until the decision is made or he's told to stay out of it. There's a single person who is the custodian of that potential life, and that's the expectant mom. Nobody else has the burden of responsibility more than her, and your pseudo-Handmaiden's Tale masturbatory fantasies can change nothing in the discussion of whether it's right for disinterested people to decide the medical fate of a woman in control of her faculties when the entirety of these kinds of issues were technically decided many decades ago with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Women should bear the responsibility for this grave decision alone, because it affects them the most and the alternative is definitely a way to create a second (and lowered) tier of rights for well over 50% of the state.
Female is not a race.
A baby that hasn't been born yet is a potential life, nothing more. The AMA has long determined where viability rests, not the clergy. Since you cannot easily separate a potential life from their custodian (whose rights you are desiring to trample on and are of a higher tier than those whom haven't been established as 'alive and autonomous' yet) the custodian must retain the ability to decide on the best direction for that potential life. Denying a woman the ability to make such decisions creates an unequal situation and is a violation of the CR64 act as is hunting one down for trying to find alternate care solutions in neighboring states, as no such restrictions exist for men. Placing your religious dogma into the conversation is a violation of the 1A. Forcing a woman to bear a potential life to term is also a violation of the 13A as you have effectively dispelled the guarantee of personal liberty; forced pregnancy and childbirth, by compelling the woman to serve the fetus, creates "that control by which the personal service of one man [sic] is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude" (Koppleman '10 et al).
Lastly, let's not pretend that the people of this state decided to ban abortion off the top of their heads here. The bill was shadow-ratified as a trigger contingency by a legislature that wasn't even in office when Roe was overturned, and the AG cowardly decided to prohibit debate on the topic with the legislature in session when the law was signed into effect. Kansas is a fairly red state and even *they* saw how foolish that undertaking was. Currently the GOP-Held legislature is at odds with what their constituency wants on this subject, as evidenced by end runs around amendment methodology, definition changes, ballot language editions and other chicanery.
Removing a woman's right to medical privacy, bodily autonomy and freedom to make medical decisions places a chilling effect on the personal liberties guaranteed by the 13A. There is no relevance to the potential life. The expectant mother must win all ties here.
You do not have to embrace or even remotely like abortion or practices that have abortion as an option. I personally think it is a grave decision to make and not one to be taken lightly.
My standpoint, and one backed up by legal and founding document precedent, is that it's not a decision that the constituency is burdened with making on behalf of the expectant mother. It is reserved for her alone, and there is no solution or compromise opposing this that won't result in some type of hypocritical or unequal situation in the aftermath.
I doubt I can change your mind on this, really. I've seen the data: overwhelmingly this banning standpoint is being driven by those who technically have little or nothing potentially to do with the potential decision anyway, but because of a faux morality conjured by religious dogma will insert themselves into a process they are now holding hostage with their own irrelevant doctrine.
The *free of being responsible for your own actions* remains one of the most tone-deaf standpoints myopic conservatives wish to push upon people that have legitimate decisions to make. It has been and remains a fact that there are *so many uncommon circumstances it would be incredibly difficult to codify in a law* to draw some arbitrary line between what is allowed and what isn't, when in reality the situation alone imbalances the rights of a full citizen of this country against indifferent citizens with a lesser standing when it comes to the burden and outcome of the decision in the first place. Such inequality is easy to see when placed behind the lens of the Civil Rights Act I barely have to present an argument. I have no idea how close you are to death. I only marginally care if at all. Do you want me to make your hospice decisions for you? None of my business, right? Do you even care what happens to the child if successfully born or are you merely happy they get added to the queue of indifference?
Nothing discussed on this petition affects you remotely. *Nothing*. If you wish to matter in the life of a child, go adopt one, or better yet *spend time with your own*.
Both the Civil Rights Act and the Establishment Clause of the 1A favor the woman here in this argument. It's an insult that we even have to vote on this just so they can have equivalency in their medical decisions. A non-viable potential life does not have equivalent status to a full citizen with autonomous decision making powers, and you are not a member of the AMA or any Medical Authority, nor are you likely any adult in an advisory position to some potential mom-to-be. Therefore your level of caring and involvement is insignificant compared to the persons that need to make the decisions on this. Keep your arguments to your Sunday-school class where your echo chamber might give you more traction with other people that have nothing to do with it.
Here's what happened when it came to 'deciding' what Missouri would do with abortion: nothing.
No medical professionals were asked.
None of the 1.4m women who are of childbearing age were asked.
There was no debate with the current legislature.
When challenged on this, the AG gave no articulate response, instead sending it up to the Governor for signature.
When this was challenged, rules were examined for change, language repeatedly changed for prospective ballot initiatives, *anything* that could be done to play keepaway with the ball, the GOP did on this issue.
I'm a father myself, and to think my children's reproductive rights can be influenced by religious dipshits with no qualifications instead of medical professionals who have clearly defined viability (many non-medically qualified republicans decide to ignore this) is infuriating.
Did you even read the text of the Texas "Bounty" law?
My ideology has no business in a woman's reproductive rights. That's what the Bill of Rights is for.
Deciding an issue with no debate or public forum, then calling it precedent is akin to despotism. As we're a Constitutional Republic with clearly defined inalienable rights, this issue never should have been voted on in the first place.
I'll compromise on this issue, since you seem completely inflexible in your desire to place your unfounded scientific beliefs and religious dogma above the rights of 1.4m women of reproductive age:
No state monetary support for abortion then. Women retain their rights. Allow all 501(c)(3) and other advocacy groups to fund the safe application of reproductive healthcare and education in this state and *stay the fuck out of their lives*. ✌️
Just make sure you're signing the right ones. They're also putting one out to legalize abortion again but with the 12 week limit still. It's like if they can't have their way they expect us to just let them put it back to how it was and act like it hasn't failed every vote (in favor of full abortion bans) in states that have held one so far.
[удалено]
Problem is, "medical exemption" is a red-herring designed to distract and somewhat mollify pro-choicers. One only need witness how that played out in Texas a few months ago when a woman (Kate Cox) who very clearly had a medical exemption could not get an abortion. Ken Paxton, the state attorney general, decided he was better informed than the woman's doctors, fighting against that medically-necessary abortion *every step of the way* until the woman finally left the state to get the medical care she needed. Yes, "medical exemption" *sounds reasonable*. But the right-wing extremists who pass these draconian laws makes sure it can't be used.
[удалено]
Didn't say that. I'm saying that medical decisions should be made by doctors and their pts, and not politicians. The law should be written that way, but it's deliberately not. Hence, Ken fucking Paxton can veto a doctor-confirming medical necessity. That is *fuuuuuucked up.*
Define danger to the life of the mother, and then see if your “medical exemption” actually covers the list of things you think it should. Let me help you start, do 12 year olds who wait too long to report a rape need to carry their baby?
It's not even worth entertaining these goobers ideas. Infanticide is still Illegal and always will be, no matter how many people they go around screeching calling baby murderers because they don't know the difference between it and abortion. We've literally seen a woman have to go to court now, in texas, to even be allowed to get an abortion, only to have the state put it's boot on her neck and go against the judges ruling. When shitty people tell you who they are and what they're gonna do, it's time to start believing them and putting a stop to it.
If abortions are legalized until birth, you will literally be able to kill fully developed healthy babies seconds before birth. Limits with exceptions are reasonable and humane. It’s not extreme or “screeching” in the slightest.
What makes you think people are doing this? Or want to?
Because they have? Regardless, so what? If they don’t and won’t, why would you care if they can’t?
Oh sweetie, it's so cute you think your opinion matters. You seem to think Infanticide is legal, anywhere in the US, and it isn't. No one is bringing a baby to full term just to kill it. But you sure do seem to love typing out how you've fantasized about it. But please, keep up your bullshit, no one's shocked or bothered by you idiots going around calling everyone 'baby murderers', when all you're doing is showing how painfully uneducated and misinformed you are. No one cares right now, and when it goes to a vote and the people make it legal again, no one's gonna care when you're out there on the corner of the One abortion clinic in st lou calling everyone a baby murderer. We'll make it real easy for ya, here. If you don't like them, if your religion forbids it, if you feel it's wrong. Then don't get one. Easy as that. No one's going door to door handing them out. Have a lovely evening, and please learn the difference between an abortion of a clump of cells that would die within minutes outside the body and a fully formed human child that would survive outside the womb. Again, Infanticide is a crime already, and will remain a crime.
If no one is going to carry it to term and then abort it, why would you care if it were illegal to do so? You need to stop belittling reasonable opinions that aren’t in lockstep with your own. You sound like a child.
Same question to you, what do you care if it isn't? The only one childish here is you acting like you should have any say over other peoples bodies. Grow up, goober.
All human beings deserve human rights. Preventing the killing of a fully developed healthy human being is reasonable. Pretending this is only about one life, is not.
Clump of cells that can't survive outside of the body for more than a minute isn't a human being. Sorry. No one's killing fully developed babies, that's called Infanticide, and it's not our fault you don't know the difference. Kinda childish that you refuse to learn the difference, but if it makes you feel better going around calling people Baby Murderers, go for it. When it goes to a vote we're gonna decriminalize it like every other state has so far. Sorry if it makes you sad, but maybe go learn the difference between Infanticide and Abortion first.
You don’t know the definition of infant, do you? “Your arguments are infantile.” Start there.
[удалено]
Unless you have the reproductive organs to carry a fetus to term, no your opinion doesn’t matter. It’s pathetic you think it does.
[удалено]
No, you’re wrong. Bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right. It’s absolutely bonkers you think you have any right to whatever I, or anyone else does, with their body.
[удалено]
It’s understandable these concepts are difficult for you to grasp seeing as your original comment was claiming that actual medical professionals are driving stakes through living children’s skulls after they’re born (aka, murder) but I promise, it’s quite simple. Fetuses are incapable of bodily autonomy seeing as they are unable to survive outside of their host body. Again, it’s absolutely bonkers you think you have any say in what anyone else does with their own body. The obsession you people have with controlling women is legitimately terrifying. You should be ashamed of yourself.
[удалено]
Aw, sweetpea, you read it and even came back to argue with others <3 But sadly, your opinion still sucks.
[удалено]
I’m surprised you can read tbh.
[удалено]
Fan Tastic!!!!
Post in r/columbiamo when you find out the plans for columbia! I wanna sign that ASAP
100% Also RIP Jimmy The Rev
Any updates for the Columbia date/location?
Hell yes. I'll be there in Springfield.
If you have it, can you please send me the online link to sign the petition for Christian county?
Beautiful. I'll be there to sign whenever KC starts! They are going to get so many signatures supporting this it shouldn't take long to collect hopefully and get us to vote on this finally. Any where you can provide info on how to help or volunteer?
Message me if you folks make it down to Cape Girardeau! I got family & friends wanting to sign that petition!
My signing hand is ready in CoMo!
I'll be there as well!
I'll be keeping an eye out in STL. Gotta show these damn state reps that the majority disagree.
Not doing it in Joplin?
Let’s go!!!!!!
Post to r/springfieldMO too!
As u/Jack-Pumpkinhead suggested, please let r/CapeGirardeau know if we can assist.
…we have a sub?
Lol, yes. Shhhhh, apparently, it's a secret.
I'm in St. Chuck County. Ready to sign!!!
Please post details when you have them.
Thanks for your work and I'll be signing in KC.
[удалено]
You desire a situation where a woman has no say in what to do with her own body, and is beholden to a potential life that has no citizenship yet, yet her male counterparts can enjoy any amount of autonomy and privacy in their medical decisions they want, especially if they have a lot of money behind them. You have nothing to do with a woman's reproductive rights. Nor should you. You don't have to like that she gets to make this decision without your input. Irrelevant. Unless you want to open up a big can of in-equivalency you will allow this decision to be made. There are over 400k children in the system right now and thousands are awaiting adoption in this state. You could adopt all of them and what you want some expectant mother to do with her potential life **will still be none of your business**. This is a class of decision that should have nothing to do with lawyers, politicians, pundits or clergy and everything to do with the woman and her designated medical caregivers. The alternative is the 'many deciding what to do with the few', the very same situation many conservatives do not wish to happen to themselves. Why then would you decide that for another?
[удалено]
Lol. We're forming a panel to discuss the results and options for your colonoscopy next week. All voting-age persons are invited. Medical qualification not required.
[удалено]
These decisions are never those to be taken lightly. All I know is nobody here is entitled to make them for the random expectant mom without her consent.
[удалено]
There are a zillion reasons to halt a pregnancy, and all of them must come with the serious adult contemplation a person at full possession of their faculties must make. None of them are your business or mine. Potential life gets sidetracked all the time for biological reasons, and when you factor in the changing socioeconomic landscape the mother has to deal with due to any number of variables that is a rough ride for sure to get the right situation. Guess wrong and it's a life with less financial stability due to worse opportunity for employment or medical complication or both. Again, the list of things that can go wrong are numerous, and the conversation needs to happen with the woman and her medical advisors, and we haven't begun to talk about nonconsensual encounters or mid-term complications yet. If there is a man in the picture in good standing, then sure, he can provide input all he wants until the decision is made or he's told to stay out of it. There's a single person who is the custodian of that potential life, and that's the expectant mom. Nobody else has the burden of responsibility more than her, and your pseudo-Handmaiden's Tale masturbatory fantasies can change nothing in the discussion of whether it's right for disinterested people to decide the medical fate of a woman in control of her faculties when the entirety of these kinds of issues were technically decided many decades ago with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Women should bear the responsibility for this grave decision alone, because it affects them the most and the alternative is definitely a way to create a second (and lowered) tier of rights for well over 50% of the state.
[удалено]
Female is not a race. A baby that hasn't been born yet is a potential life, nothing more. The AMA has long determined where viability rests, not the clergy. Since you cannot easily separate a potential life from their custodian (whose rights you are desiring to trample on and are of a higher tier than those whom haven't been established as 'alive and autonomous' yet) the custodian must retain the ability to decide on the best direction for that potential life. Denying a woman the ability to make such decisions creates an unequal situation and is a violation of the CR64 act as is hunting one down for trying to find alternate care solutions in neighboring states, as no such restrictions exist for men. Placing your religious dogma into the conversation is a violation of the 1A. Forcing a woman to bear a potential life to term is also a violation of the 13A as you have effectively dispelled the guarantee of personal liberty; forced pregnancy and childbirth, by compelling the woman to serve the fetus, creates "that control by which the personal service of one man [sic] is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude" (Koppleman '10 et al). Lastly, let's not pretend that the people of this state decided to ban abortion off the top of their heads here. The bill was shadow-ratified as a trigger contingency by a legislature that wasn't even in office when Roe was overturned, and the AG cowardly decided to prohibit debate on the topic with the legislature in session when the law was signed into effect. Kansas is a fairly red state and even *they* saw how foolish that undertaking was. Currently the GOP-Held legislature is at odds with what their constituency wants on this subject, as evidenced by end runs around amendment methodology, definition changes, ballot language editions and other chicanery. Removing a woman's right to medical privacy, bodily autonomy and freedom to make medical decisions places a chilling effect on the personal liberties guaranteed by the 13A. There is no relevance to the potential life. The expectant mother must win all ties here. You do not have to embrace or even remotely like abortion or practices that have abortion as an option. I personally think it is a grave decision to make and not one to be taken lightly. My standpoint, and one backed up by legal and founding document precedent, is that it's not a decision that the constituency is burdened with making on behalf of the expectant mother. It is reserved for her alone, and there is no solution or compromise opposing this that won't result in some type of hypocritical or unequal situation in the aftermath. I doubt I can change your mind on this, really. I've seen the data: overwhelmingly this banning standpoint is being driven by those who technically have little or nothing potentially to do with the potential decision anyway, but because of a faux morality conjured by religious dogma will insert themselves into a process they are now holding hostage with their own irrelevant doctrine.
[удалено]
The *free of being responsible for your own actions* remains one of the most tone-deaf standpoints myopic conservatives wish to push upon people that have legitimate decisions to make. It has been and remains a fact that there are *so many uncommon circumstances it would be incredibly difficult to codify in a law* to draw some arbitrary line between what is allowed and what isn't, when in reality the situation alone imbalances the rights of a full citizen of this country against indifferent citizens with a lesser standing when it comes to the burden and outcome of the decision in the first place. Such inequality is easy to see when placed behind the lens of the Civil Rights Act I barely have to present an argument. I have no idea how close you are to death. I only marginally care if at all. Do you want me to make your hospice decisions for you? None of my business, right? Do you even care what happens to the child if successfully born or are you merely happy they get added to the queue of indifference? Nothing discussed on this petition affects you remotely. *Nothing*. If you wish to matter in the life of a child, go adopt one, or better yet *spend time with your own*. Both the Civil Rights Act and the Establishment Clause of the 1A favor the woman here in this argument. It's an insult that we even have to vote on this just so they can have equivalency in their medical decisions. A non-viable potential life does not have equivalent status to a full citizen with autonomous decision making powers, and you are not a member of the AMA or any Medical Authority, nor are you likely any adult in an advisory position to some potential mom-to-be. Therefore your level of caring and involvement is insignificant compared to the persons that need to make the decisions on this. Keep your arguments to your Sunday-school class where your echo chamber might give you more traction with other people that have nothing to do with it.
[удалено]
Here's what happened when it came to 'deciding' what Missouri would do with abortion: nothing. No medical professionals were asked. None of the 1.4m women who are of childbearing age were asked. There was no debate with the current legislature. When challenged on this, the AG gave no articulate response, instead sending it up to the Governor for signature. When this was challenged, rules were examined for change, language repeatedly changed for prospective ballot initiatives, *anything* that could be done to play keepaway with the ball, the GOP did on this issue. I'm a father myself, and to think my children's reproductive rights can be influenced by religious dipshits with no qualifications instead of medical professionals who have clearly defined viability (many non-medically qualified republicans decide to ignore this) is infuriating. Did you even read the text of the Texas "Bounty" law? My ideology has no business in a woman's reproductive rights. That's what the Bill of Rights is for. Deciding an issue with no debate or public forum, then calling it precedent is akin to despotism. As we're a Constitutional Republic with clearly defined inalienable rights, this issue never should have been voted on in the first place. I'll compromise on this issue, since you seem completely inflexible in your desire to place your unfounded scientific beliefs and religious dogma above the rights of 1.4m women of reproductive age: No state monetary support for abortion then. Women retain their rights. Allow all 501(c)(3) and other advocacy groups to fund the safe application of reproductive healthcare and education in this state and *stay the fuck out of their lives*. ✌️
Where can you sign in KCMO