Funny, if you look at actual polling and look at how people feel around certain issues, there isn't that big of a divide between Republicans and Democrats.
It's moreso media corporations like TheGuardian, the NY Times, Fox News, CNN, etc. who are profiting off baiting their preferred side and increasing the hatred of their side for the other (and these companies make a great profit doing it!)
The Perception Gap (same link as above) found that the more news people consumed, the larger their perception gap (the more they overestimated the amount of extremist views in the other political party)
I last had that thought when we had the discussion a out a "divided public opinion on the COVID response" in Germany. Polls suggested roughly 80% were supportive of the measures.
If a political party would win with an 80:20 majority everybody would call it an absolute domination of the minority vote, yet somehow when it comes to vocal minorities we let them trample on us like this.
There is very real and consequential disconnect between actual policy and polling, however. A fringe minority is setting policy for the majority, and will for the foreseeable future. If only more people were voting, the outcome would match the polling. Most Americans don't vote, and there are consequences for them and everyone else too.
Lincoln established in his 1st inaugural address that the judiciary did not have a monopoly on constitutional interpretation. if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
Second, Lincoln asserts the importance of majority rule. The majority is the only true sovereign of the people. Unanimity is impossible, therefore either the majority or minority must acquiesce in a dispute, or the government ceases, he said. And it is untenable long term for the majority to acquiesce to the minority in anything approximating a representative democracy. Yet this has happened twice in a decade, two presidents elected by a minority (not even a plurality), with consequences that directly results in the three justices on the Court today completely out of touch with either 20th or 21st century women's rights, calling back to the 19th century by their repugnant reference to Sir Matthew Hale and self evidently misogynist founders.
Third, Lincoln asserted the federal government is the sovereign of the nation and of the national people, that the Union cannot be dissolved for it would be a government terminating itself. And in effect it was turtles all the way down if a precedent is set that minorities can cause the termination of a country.
Well, I thought every survey said a majority of the us favoured abortion. Fat lot of good that did, as the supremes are now driving the conservative wedge rather than being non political.
Typically a woman will miss a period and take a pregnancy test. Because menstruation cycles are variable, it may be up to a week after her usual time when she tests and finds out she's pregnant. Healthcare professionals typically count weeks of pregnancy by your last period. The first day of the last period marks the beginning of the first week of pregnancy. By the very first day of a missed period, a woman is already considered 4 weeks pregnant.[1] So, five weeks or more.
Depending on age health genetics fitness diet etc, periods may be more or less regular, more or less frequent, more or less obvious in various ways.
Similarly absence of period may or may not be noticed, and may or may not in itself be various degree of normal.
Person may it may not have access money and ability to use a pregnancy test.
Pregnancy test may have certain range of confidence and accuracy.
Person may need any amount of time to make a decision and set up logistics.
(That is assuming we are even contemplating ordering a woman to sacrifice her own body and health for somebody else, which I am not. But figured you should have specific answer to your specific question :)
That's best case, in fact. For states that have (or had) a so-called "heartbeat"[1] abortion restriction, which outlaws terminating the pregnancy after six weeks, a woman may only have days to decide and act. And that's if everything works perfectly.
The six-week ban is a de facto complete ban because so few women even know they are pregnant before six weeks.
Abortions must be allowed right through to the last days of pregnancy, because something can always go wrong. If you care enough to learn more about pregnancy, you’ll easily enough find stories about dead late-term fetuses and women who have died because the thing went septic and anti-abortion laws prevented doctors from removing the rot.
By the way, Canada has literally no laws regarding abortion, other than that it’s legal. Surprise, surprise, it isn’t a problem because (a) women aren’t typically psychopaths who rejoice in killing their late-term fetus and (b) doctors aren’t psychopaths who willy-nilly hack out late-term fetuses just for kicks.
Abortions don't happen in typical pregancies, they mostly happen in unusual ones. Different kinds of unusual pregnancies. You could look at the most common clusters and ask the question of those, and the answer varies, a lot.
But if you look at those cluster, I don't think you'd be eager to set limits specific to any of them. There's one, for example, where the pregnancy is nearly always discovered very quickly: Couples who want children, try to conceive and eventually get some sort of medical help. Those pregnancies are discovered reliably and early. But then, when the treatment works if often works so well that there are twins or even triplets, and the reasons that made conception difficult in the first place often affect carrying triplets to a successful birth.
Aborting one of the three would improve the chances for the other two, and the mother. Would you set a time limit at all?
Remember: Any constraint you put on that is going to lead to couples not getting the help they want, because the clinic's going to tell some couples that the risk of needing an abortion is too high to even start fertility treatment.
And this is a type of abortion where setting a limit is fairly simple — the pregnancies are discovered early and there's medical supervision from day 0. Other common types of abortions are more difficult.
Clearly it will be struck down as unconstitutional by this Court as a violation of the 10th amendment. The Court already asserted the power rests with states, not the Congress.
One side is actively and enthusiastically and loudly planning working preparing and acting to destroy the other. Through any and all means necessary. Openly and proudly.
Articles like this are attempt to be a wake up call to the happily ignorantly sleeping.
I think this is the moment after witch constitutional hardball becomes the norm. McConnel preventing Obama from nominating anyone into the SCOTUS already an important violation.
32 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 80.2 ms ] threadPerception Gap made an awesome quiz that you can use to see this -> https://perceptiongap.us/
It's moreso media corporations like TheGuardian, the NY Times, Fox News, CNN, etc. who are profiting off baiting their preferred side and increasing the hatred of their side for the other (and these companies make a great profit doing it!)
The Perception Gap (same link as above) found that the more news people consumed, the larger their perception gap (the more they overestimated the amount of extremist views in the other political party)
If a political party would win with an 80:20 majority everybody would call it an absolute domination of the minority vote, yet somehow when it comes to vocal minorities we let them trample on us like this.
Lincoln established in his 1st inaugural address that the judiciary did not have a monopoly on constitutional interpretation. if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
Second, Lincoln asserts the importance of majority rule. The majority is the only true sovereign of the people. Unanimity is impossible, therefore either the majority or minority must acquiesce in a dispute, or the government ceases, he said. And it is untenable long term for the majority to acquiesce to the minority in anything approximating a representative democracy. Yet this has happened twice in a decade, two presidents elected by a minority (not even a plurality), with consequences that directly results in the three justices on the Court today completely out of touch with either 20th or 21st century women's rights, calling back to the 19th century by their repugnant reference to Sir Matthew Hale and self evidently misogynist founders.
Third, Lincoln asserted the federal government is the sovereign of the nation and of the national people, that the Union cannot be dissolved for it would be a government terminating itself. And in effect it was turtles all the way down if a precedent is set that minorities can cause the termination of a country.
Why do you ask?
1 https://www.healthline.com/health/healthy-sex/how-to-tell-if...
Depending on age health genetics fitness diet etc, periods may be more or less regular, more or less frequent, more or less obvious in various ways.
Similarly absence of period may or may not be noticed, and may or may not in itself be various degree of normal.
Person may it may not have access money and ability to use a pregnancy test.
Pregnancy test may have certain range of confidence and accuracy.
Person may need any amount of time to make a decision and set up logistics.
(That is assuming we are even contemplating ordering a woman to sacrifice her own body and health for somebody else, which I am not. But figured you should have specific answer to your specific question :)
That's best case, in fact. For states that have (or had) a so-called "heartbeat"[1] abortion restriction, which outlaws terminating the pregnancy after six weeks, a woman may only have days to decide and act. And that's if everything works perfectly.
The six-week ban is a de facto complete ban because so few women even know they are pregnant before six weeks.
1 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/07/abortion-the-g...
By the way, Canada has literally no laws regarding abortion, other than that it’s legal. Surprise, surprise, it isn’t a problem because (a) women aren’t typically psychopaths who rejoice in killing their late-term fetus and (b) doctors aren’t psychopaths who willy-nilly hack out late-term fetuses just for kicks.
But if you look at those cluster, I don't think you'd be eager to set limits specific to any of them. There's one, for example, where the pregnancy is nearly always discovered very quickly: Couples who want children, try to conceive and eventually get some sort of medical help. Those pregnancies are discovered reliably and early. But then, when the treatment works if often works so well that there are twins or even triplets, and the reasons that made conception difficult in the first place often affect carrying triplets to a successful birth.
Aborting one of the three would improve the chances for the other two, and the mother. Would you set a time limit at all?
Remember: Any constraint you put on that is going to lead to couples not getting the help they want, because the clinic's going to tell some couples that the risk of needing an abortion is too high to even start fertility treatment.
And this is a type of abortion where setting a limit is fairly simple — the pregnancies are discovered early and there's medical supervision from day 0. Other common types of abortions are more difficult.
That's likely one of the steps on the road to civil war, followed by the law being struck down for absence of Constitutional authority.
So it's not really an an “or”.
We are all neighbors at the end of the day.
Everywhere in the world people live in countries where things happen they disagree with. Policies and opinions change over time.
These are not reasons for Americans to destroy one another.
Articles like this are attempt to be a wake up call to the happily ignorantly sleeping.
It was a comment against the prospect of civil war and violence against Americans.
Is this what the mods consider against HN terms?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_hardball
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Democracies_Die