You're a blue stater. You have abortion access. Why so pent up over red states' lack of access?

You're a blue stater. You live in California, Colorado, New York, Illinois, Maryland or New Jersey. You have abortion access.

Why are you stressing your body and moping around about red states' lack of access?

A lot of red state women don't even care or are antiabortion.

It is what it is. Let them deal with the consequences.

I think a lot of it, especially from armchair warriors and "non birthing persons," is just expressing solidarity for those in said states. Sympathy and empathy too.

Because people will unnecessarily die, and the well being of women will be in peril? Shouldn’t that be reason enough?

1:35

But women in red states should be more informed about their rights.. They should participate in elections, in local elections and stop watching Honey Boo Boo.

No disagreement there, applies across the isle.

Wherever someone lives, I think this is a decision that should be made by the woman and her doctor.

Also the fact Roe v Wade was based on the idea that the constitution grants us a right to privacy, and that right is now in flux.

"Why do you have empathy and give a shit about someone besides yourself?" idk man tough to say I guess I was just raised that way.

Not that this applies to me anyway since I'm in Ohio.

Not everyone is a sociopath only concerned with themselves.

Common right-wing attitude: "why be upset over something that doesn't have a direct impact on you?".

You might also think of it as concern for the greater good.

Pretty much this.

Seriously though, wtf is up with the "non-birthing person" bullshit?

You'll notice they did not answer your question, though 🤔

Not everyone is selfish would be my guess.

@mrbojangles25 said:

Not everyone is a sociopath only concerned with themselves.

Common right-wing attitude: "why be upset over something that doesn't have a direct impact on you?".

You might also think of it as concern for the greater good.

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

I think a lot of it, especially from armchair warriors and "non birthing persons," is just expressing solidarity for those in said states. Sympathy and empathy too.

Pretty much this.

Seriously though, wtf is up with the "non-birthing person" bullshit?

@MirkoS77 said:

@bass1994 said:

@MirkoS77 said:

Because people will unnecessarily die, and the well being of women will be in peril? Shouldn’t that be reason enough?

But women in red states should be more informed about their rights.. They should participate in elections, in local elections and stop watching Honey Boo Boo.

No disagreement there, applies across the isle.

You'll notice they did not answer your question, though 🤔

Eh, I think deep down they honestly know this, it's just not something they want to concede. Constitution doesn't support it, textualism is what matters, the spirit of the Constitution alongside woman's health be damned. Just because it adheres closely to the Constitution doesn't make it moral.

I cant wait for Colorado to go back red state, ever since it went blue its just turned to dog shat and its slowly turning into California 2.0

I am concerned for the well being of people in a lot of places in the world. That is called not being a sociopath. And everythign that happens across the world does indirectly affect me.

The better off people are in Mali, Indonesia or the USA, the better off things are for me as well.

I think it was initially used by some silly politicians.

Which then got picked up by people with anti-Trans sentiments. The actual Transgender community doesnt use it at all. Instead using Cisman/woman, or AFAB/AMAB.

Edit: I looked it further up. It seems to be a medical term.

...because states rights are bullshit when the decisions they make cause unnecessary death and hardship for the citizens of this country.

It is what it is: fucked up, and I'd rather continue to say so, and vote with that in mind, and urge others to do the same thing. So no, I will not just ignore it. This is a step backward for quality of life and family planning in my country, and I don't like it.

@mrbojangles25: It's gender neutral and more importantly, it's "inclusive". The Biden White House in their latest budget even utilized the term birthing people. lol Just Google search the term in quotes, you'll find *a lot* of usage. I'm not a biologist though.

Yeah, but the problem they have is that women in those states may not decide to run those states the same way they do. Which makes them uneducated, or subjective to misogynists. Because no educated person would ever come to a different conclusion about how their state should be ran compared to a blue state. And that is why Democracy is only valid until people pick the wrong answer.

Because when a red states has negative healthcare and mortality impacts, it gives USA negative impacts. Since they are part of this country.

Why would I want negative healthcare and mortality impacts for my country? Just because they are a red states doesn't make anti-science 3rd world bullshit okay.

Evidently the people in those red states would disagree with you that it is "anti science 3rd world bullshit." And that's what really triggers you people, the fact people in other parts of the country are going to get away without running their states how people like you demand they do.

These low IQ individuals thinking science is fake is irrelevant to my factually wanting less negative healthcare outcomes for them.

Reduced HDI/QOL from 3rd world anti-science lunacy triggers me, yes.

Those "low IQ individuals" vote, and have decided to support a different set of beliefs and ideals than you have, which is their right as Americans to do. It's funny how you much you people yell "muh democracy" up until the point somebody disagrees with you. Then you people show your full-blown hard-ons for something much more authoritarian.

That's fine. But their beliefs are wrong and will/have result in poor medical outcomes and reduced quality of life.

There are wrong and bad beliefs.

But you don't care when it's a forced beliefs on other States when it comes to things you personally like. Specifically things that are objectively bad.

More Guns, More Unintended Consequences: The Effects of Right-to-Carry on Criminal Behavior and Policing in US Cities | NBER

Pick and choose authoritarianism. Just like your pick and choose activism!

Yup. Democracy until someone doesn't vote the way they want. Then they have to be forced, coerced, or "educated" until they do. Just like China.

Those states actually signed onto the constitution, agreeing to follow the rules within it. Show me the constitutional amendment in relation to abortion and you'll have actually made a point.

We weren't having an originalist legal discussion, you were talking about different beliefs being forced on others and I was talking about science.

I stated the scientific facts for both "forced" beliefs, in line with my original post, and you ran to a subjective legal discussion when shown to clearly be a hypocrite.

How convenient.

No, you tried making the ridiculous comparison between abortion which has ZERO supporting rules or legislation anywhere in government, to one that has fucking mountains of it, including membership in the bill of rights. Showing how ridiculous your argument actually is... not that I expected anything else out of you anyway.

I agree...each state should decide based on their own needs. Different states have their own culture and beliefs, and thats fine.

We weren't having a subjective legal argument......

The OP asked me why I took issue with Red States abortion access. My response to the OP's question was entirely based off of science, not some far right legal opinion that changes on a whim like Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

Your fluid legal opinion of which SCOTUS Justices even flip-flop on has nothing to do with my statement or what any of us were even talking about.

There's no consistency on this from either side though. Those crying "muh State" want their crazy stuff forced on Blue states as well.

I miss the days when women meant women and men meant men, and didn't include trans genders as part of the meaning, which frankly just confuses everything up.

But whatever the case, birthing people sounds offensive. Are they saying women are born to be "birthing" people and thats how they should be defined. If they want to be non offensive, they should start calling it, biological women. I personally think this is the least offensive to all involved. We have BBWs, but we can start calling normal women, BWs for biological women, and transgender women, NBWs or non biological women.

@zaryia: its about compromise and negotiation. I think red states should take that and call it a win. If someone in their state wants to go out of state using their own money to get an abortion, then thats their choice. But it doesn't mean red states should stand by and watch companies offer "medical abortion travel expenses" either. Blue states should just go about their business, no need to advertise the abortion access in their state.

I think everyone should have the same rights but it seems women are being demeaned with this new inclusiveness. Birthing people is downright dehumanizing.

Because control over your own body would seem to be the most basic common denominator in any rights discussion.

Because the notion of rights supercedes whatever bullshit men, and only men, wrote 200 years ago.

Because God is supposed to be personal and separate from the political apparatus of the state.

But hey, American Taliban FTW!

I read this as: Why are you so bothered that the Republican party just ended a constitutional right because of their nonsense religious beliefs?

Americans did not vote to overturn Roe. Unelected, activist judges did.

@LJS9502_basic: yep, birthing person isn't the right word. They should stick with bio women

Called empathy

Because you would have to be the pinnacle of naive to believe the congresspeople elected by the red states won't be pushing for a nationwide ban as soon as it's politically feasible.

I'd say for me it's a mix of science and empathy.

Because I care about women and the encroachment on our rights from the American religious right. Nothing but a bunch of moron zealots.

the US does better when we all do better.

removing abortion access for women in red states means those states do worse, therefore we all do worse.

So? That's how democracy works. If enough citizens in enough states elect enough people to do it, then it'll be done.

Killing babies is all right according to you. No wonder we have so many mass shootings and killings in this country we have no respect for life.

And that's exactly why red states are so empty, because of backwards ass authoritarian laws that come from the magical puff of smoke in the sky instead of science and care that could be easily accessed.

Did you know that the USA's life expectancy declined in the years of 2019 to 2022?

https://www.vcuhealth.org/news/us-life-expectancy-continued-to-fall-in-2021#:~:text=U.S.%20life%20expectancy%20decreased%20from,not%20yet%20been%20peer%20reviewed.

It seems that other affluent countries don't have this problem, but the richest country in the world does. Interesting how that goes, eh?

Oh, and the best(worst) part of all of this is the electoral college becomes completely F'd up thanks to mass exodus from garbage red states, since now they have more voting power per person.

This country is fast becoming the shit-hole country that Trump was floundering on about. Quite ironic. Well, to be fair, it's been a shit hole for quite a while, even before Trump came into power.

@DragonfireXZ95: There are lots of non religious right and religious left. It's the economic policies that are the problem. Don't be a bigot.

This particular thread and overturn is based on religious affiliation. Access to and limiting access to abortion is not an economic policy, it's a social policy. Maybe learning the difference would help you.

Not all people who call themselves pro life do so for religious reasons nor are those for choice non religious. It's never wise to generalize.

You are somewhat right. There are right wing fascists that aren't religious that want to impose their lifestyle choices on others as well. They have one thing in common--they all love controlling women.

I cannot fathom why women support that party. Actually I can't fathom why anyone not extremely wealthy does. Voting against one self is a strange metric to me.

@eoten: So you agree that people in blue states are right to be worried despite the procedure being legal where they live (i.e., what this entire thread is about)?

Of course not, and abortion isn't killing babies. But please keep clutching those pearls as you condemn children to a life of poverty, so that you can teach the mother a lesson about promiscuity.