End of Roe - the fight continues

[neoplacebo]

Jesus.

The laws of unintended consequences rears it's ugly head.

Are the wingnuts happy now?

From your lips . . .

Could federal lands be a loophole for abortion access? Legal experts say it's complicated

Crafty idea. I wonder if it'll fly or if the issues just make it too complex to try.

Smokey says..."only you can prevent pregnancies"

They could probably set up abortion services on Indian reservations, too. They're sovereign entities that have their own laws and courts.....

[Vrede too]

They could probably set up abortion services on Indian reservations, too. They're sovereign entities that have their own laws and courts.....

That wouldn't even require federal involvement, though I'm not sure what current IHS policy is. I believe some tribes are considering it. However, it would be a big step going to war with the misogynist states in which they reside. The potential revenue may be an important factor. In "hater-locked" states like OK it could be huge.

[neoplacebo]

They could probably set up abortion services on Indian reservations, too. They're sovereign entities that have their own laws and courts.....

That wouldn't even require federal involvement, though I'm not sure what current IHS policy is. I believe some tribes are considering it. However, it would be a big step going to war with the misogynist states in which they reside. The potential revenue may be an important factor. In "hater-locked" states like OK it could be huge.

Opps! Maybe Indian reservations aren't what they used to be. Supreme Court strikes again.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-term- ... 16783.html

[Vrede too]

They could probably set up abortion services on Indian reservations, too. They're sovereign entities that have their own laws and courts.....

That wouldn't even require federal involvement, though I'm not sure what current IHS policy is. I believe some tribes are considering it. However, it would be a big step going to war with the misogynist states in which they reside. The potential revenue may be an important factor. In "hater-locked" states like OK it could be huge.

Opps! Maybe Indian reservations aren't what they used to be. Supreme Court strikes again.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-term- ... 16783.html

Not clear how that would affect abortion on the reservations, but it might not be good for women and providers. We'll see. We know the misogynists will seize every advantage they can.

[neoplacebo]

They could probably set up abortion services on Indian reservations, too. They're sovereign entities that have their own laws and courts.....

That wouldn't even require federal involvement, though I'm not sure what current IHS policy is. I believe some tribes are considering it. However, it would be a big step going to war with the misogynist states in which they reside. The potential revenue may be an important factor. In "hater-locked" states like OK it could be huge.

Opps! Maybe Indian reservations aren't what they used to be. Supreme Court strikes again.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-term- ... 16783.html

Not clear how that would affect abortion on the reservations, but it might not be good for women and providers. We'll see. We know the misogynists will seize every advantage they can.

I just see it as chipping away at the long time autonomy of Indian reservations. I didn't even know that murder on a reservation is prosecuted in federal court until I read it in the article. I always thought they were completely autonomous.

[O Really]

Surely the US would not violate honour any agreement, contracts, or treaties made with any indigenous tribes. Has it not always ever been honourable and trustworthy in all any Indian affairs?

Oh wait...fixed it. Must have been dreaming.

[neoplacebo]

Surely the US would not violate honour any agreement, contracts, or treaties made with any indigenous tribes. Has it not always ever been honourable and trustworthy in all any Indian affairs?

Oh wait...fixed it. Must have been dreaming.

It was the US Army's original "peace with honor" show. They killed just about everybody, claimed peace and victory, and went home. Papers that meant not much were signed by stragglers and throwbacks.

[Vrede too]

Surely the US would not violate honour any agreement, contracts, or treaties made with any indigenous tribes. Has it not always ever been honourable and trustworthy in all any Indian affairs?

Oh wait...fixed it. Must have been dreaming.

It was the US Army's original "peace with honor" show. They killed just about everybody, claimed peace and victory, and went home. Papers that meant not much were signed by stragglers and throwbacks.

Chattanooga:

'They're Just Going to Let Me Die?' One Woman's Abortion Odyssey

[Vrede too]

Kansas rejects weakening of abortion rights in ballot initiative

"... the no vote was winning by more than 20 points."

Haha, democracy-hating RW misogynists, you can:
Have Moscow Mitch's create an illegitimate SCOTUS;
Have TRE45ON stack SCOTUS with 3 chronic liars;
See SCOTUS issue an extreme, activist ruling that's bad for America;
Attempt to remove Kansans' rights;
Schedule a vote for the primary because turnout is lower and more con;

But when even Kansas voters get to decide, your sleazy machinations flop.

[Vrede too]

Georgia Abortion Law Says a Fetus Is Tax Deductible

Georgia’s abortion ban counts a fetus as a person. And now, so does its tax code.

The state’s Department of Revenue announced this week that “any unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat” can be claimed as dependent, providing a $3,000 tax exemption for each pregnancy within a household, months before the child is born. Georgia’s law bans most abortions after six weeks, which is usually around when doctors can begin to detect fetal cardiac activity.

The announcement marks a new frontier of anti-abortion policymaking in a post-Roe America, where conservative lawmakers have moved beyond banning abortion and are now trying to expand the legal rights and protections afforded to a fetus under “fetal personhood” laws. Georgia, Alabama and Arizona have passed abortion bans that include language broadly defining a fetus as a person....

So by this same logic--can someone in Georgia who is 20 years, 5 months old now legally drink alcohol? After all, their heartbeat was detectable more than 21 years prior.

What about voting? If election day is more than 17 years, 5 months after you were born, can you vote?

Good point. Will it really be underage porn if she's 17 years and 5 months old?

[O Really]

So if you take a tax deduction for a fetus, and then subsequently have a miscarriage, do you have to give the tax break back? If the tax return was for, say 2022 but the fetus didn't miscarry until into 2023, then I suppose it wouldn't be any different from any other dependent who died. But suppose you get pregnant in March, 2022 and miscarry in September. Do you pro-rate the deduction? And what date do you put on a birth certificate? There have already been a lot of unintended consequences from the abortion bans - this crap just wanders off into looney bin territory.

[Sometime Lefty]

IRS says a baby born alive on Jan 1 and dies on Jan 1 parents still get the exemption for the year. So a fetus that attains heartbeat then misscarries ... But it is jawja.

[O Really]

IRS says a baby born alive on Jan 1 and dies on Jan 1 parents still get the exemption for the year. So a fetus that attains heartbeat then misscarries ... But it is jawja.

Hey, Lefty - welcome back. Thanks, I didn't know that. But jawja is still screwing their own pooch since they're proposing to cover fetuses not born alive.

[billy.pilgrim]

IRS says a baby born alive on Jan 1 and dies on Jan 1 parents still get the exemption for the year. So a fetus that attains heartbeat then misscarries ... But it is jawja.

You do realize that Sometimes Lefties from 2012 are now considered to be full blown stinking liberals?

[Vrede too]

So if you take a tax deduction for a fetus, and then subsequently have a miscarriage, do you have to give the tax break back? If the tax return was for, say 2022 but the fetus didn't miscarry until into 2023, then I suppose it wouldn't be any different from any other dependent who died. But suppose you get pregnant in March, 2022 and miscarry in September. Do you pro-rate the deduction? And what date do you put on a birth certificate? There have already been a lot of unintended consequences from the abortion bans - this crap just wanders off into looney bin territory.

I assume they have some way of verifying pregnancies - MD note, ultrasound, etc. So, let's leave fake pregnancies aside. Still, what's to stop a woman from claiming a deduction at 6 weeks and one day, then going to another state and getting an abortion? She could do this once a year, or even more often if the law allows.

IRS says a baby born alive on Jan 1 and dies on Jan 1 parents still get the exemption for the year. So a fetus that attains heartbeat then miscarries ... But it is jawja.

Ditto, good to read you.

Hey, Lefty - welcome back. Thanks, I didn't know that. But jawja is still screwing their own pooch since they're proposing to cover fetuses not born alive.

That kinda makes sense. The hateful misogynists care a lot more about fetuses than they do living kids.

[Vrede too]

Here's How Conservatives Are Trying To Spin Their Kansas Abortion Loss

Wimps and liars.

[GoCubsGo]

Here's How Conservatives Are Trying To Spin Their Kansas Abortion Loss

Wimps and liars.

There's nothing they won't spin

Saw a report yesterday that the unemployment number "missed the forecast ".
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careers ... r-AA10mbJr

[Vrede too]

There's nothing they won't spin

Saw a report yesterday that the unemployment number "missed the forecast ".
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careers ... r-AA10mbJr

Even though the feds missed by less than Faux Noise.

A challenge for antiabortion states: Doctors reluctant to work there

... But amid a national shortage of reproductive health practitioners, the early evidence indicates that red states have, at minimum, put themselves at a disadvantage in the competition for crucial front-line providers, experts said....

In another example, a physician contacted by phone by an AMN Healthcare recruiter trying to fill a post in an antiabortion state "simply said, 'Roe versus Wade,' and hung up," Florence said.

Florence said the shift has especially serious implications for small, rural hospitals, which can afford just a small number of maternal specialists or, in some cases, only one....

Often the counties most likely to vote GQP, unless it's a Black ag county.

RepuQ hatred for women is made manifest in more ways than just the obvious. Shame on them.

[Vrede too]

Kansas rejects weakening of abortion rights in ballot initiative

"... the no vote was winning by more than 20 points."

Haha, democracy-hating RW misogynists, you can:
Have Moscow Mitch's create an illegitimate SCOTUS;
Have TRE45ON stack SCOTUS with 3 chronic liars;
See SCOTUS issue an extreme, activist ruling that's bad for America;
Attempt to remove Kansans' rights;
Schedule a vote for the primary because turnout is lower and more con;

But when even Kansas voters get to decide, your sleazy machinations flop.

Ballot Measures

Abortion
California: Proposition 1 - Guarantee constitutional right to abortion
Projected Winner Yes
Yes 65.0%
No 35.0%
Est. vote in: 47%

Kentucky: Amendment 2 - No constitutional right to abortion
Projected Winner No
No 52.5%
Yes 47.5%
Est. vote in: 96%
Kentucky! FU Moscow Mitch and Rand.

Michigan: Proposal 3 - Guarantee constitutional right to abortion
Projected Winner Yes
Yes 56.6%
No 43.4%
Est. vote in: 97%
And Gov Whitmer was reelected.

Montana: Legislative Referendum 131 - Requires medical care for infants born alive

This measure would adopt the “Born-Alive Infant Protection Act,” which provides that infants born alive, including infants born alive after an abortion, are legal persons and requires health care providers to take necessary actions to preserve the life of a born-alive infant. A “YES” vote supports adopting the act. A “NO” vote opposes the act.
No 52.4%
Yes 47.6%
Est. vote in: 86%

Vermont: Proposal 5 - Guarantee constitutional right to abortion
Projected Winner Yes
Yes 76.0%
No 24.0%
Est. vote in: 72%
Huge.

With Kansas that's:
Freedom 5
Fascism 0
Montana not called, but Freedom leading.

[Vrede too]

Montana: Legislative Referendum 131 - Requires medical care for infants born alive
Projected Winner (CNN) No
No 52.2%
Yes 47.8%
Est. vote in: 89%

With Kansas that's:
Freedom 6
Fascism 0


Gotta think the issue had a big impact on other races, too.