Could be a lady, sometimes those hysters gotta be ectomied.

But do they have a vagina? I’ll need photos for reference.

I’ve always said that the best way to reduce abortion would be to treat the reasons behind why women get abortions.

Suppose some women get abortions as a form of birth control (as the right likes to claim). You might be able to reduce this with better sex education and better access to birth control. If abortion happens due to rape or incest, figure out programs to reduce the incidence of these. (I’ll admit that I’m not knowledgeable enough to come up with specific proposals, but I’m sure people who know more than I do could come up with something.)

Nothing is going to be 100% effective, though. Abortion would need to be available for the cases that slip through. This would reduce how many abortions are performed by supporting women more instead of by banning them and putting women’s lives in danger.

It doesn’t say reproductive rights are free speech, it says they are as important as free speech.

Alito: “Were we not fucking clear enough the first time?”

It would be hard for the current Supreme Court to actually rule the protection of abortion rights since they leave it up to the states. Interestingly, Alito basically wrote in a slant that was very pro-state’s rights to ban abortions specifically but it also does heavily imply to the point of being just shy of explicitly allowing the opposite but it must be what they meant or it doesn’t make actual sense.

It would take a lot of logical gymnastics to essentially unwind and rewrite an opinion otherwise that doesn’t go against their own majority opinion. Saying that, they did perform some Olympian gymnastics on not only Roe v. Wade but also Planned Parenthood v. Casey or in some instances, outright just say that they were plainly wrong.

They would essentially have to all but support a fundamentalist christo-fascist government (probably under the guise of what is in the best interest of the people, even against their own will) over even the Constitution itself and specifically the 10th Amendment and have a serious risk of impeachment unless he would opine that that it is the Congress’ business to supersede that (Article VI), because that would also run counter to his written opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (that it is the state’s prerogative to regulate abortion and not the federal government’s), unless it was specific that he meant it all narrowed specifically to the 14 Amendment and further would run counter to his own weaker federal government stance.

It would be far more likely for the SC to find that a state and its people have the right to regulate abortion as they see fit if they were even to decide to hear such a case.

TLDR; it’d be extremely risky and difficult to essentially give the state’s the right to regulate abortion but take away unless those laws are only to ban them.

I don’t live in Ohio, but I’m right on the state border. So many “vote no on issue 1” signs around here. I was worried that it would fail. Glad to see otherwise.

That’s a hell of a margin!

deleted by creator

Greene’s takeaway was literally "we’re losing because we’re not extreme enough on abortion.’

I guess that means Republicans will start proposing that any woman who even thinks of getting an abortion should be thrown in prison and any woman who suffers a miscarriage should be tried for murder.

Then, they’ll wonder why they are losing even worse!

“You don’t want that. You think you do, but you don’t.”

deleted by creator

It won by such a large margin clearly abortion was supported by some Republican voters too. It won’t be reversed.

Here in California my local smoke shop sells psilocybin infused chocolates under the table, but everyone knows about it and they’re all branded and clean looking

It’s legit a dream come true to pop by on the way home Friday for a trip on the weekend, and the idea that it’s illegal disgusts me

In some ways, I don’t really see mushrooms easily fitting into the dispensary model that we have here already.

In Massachusetts the dispensaries are giving out mushroom chocolates as “gifts” since they are decriminalized but not yet legal to “sell”

So at least in some states they are already being integrated into the dispensary market ahead of legalization.

From what I’ve seen you really need to eat the whole bar to get a legit trip but at least they are available to the general public. I suspect that given a little time (and actual legalization) there will be a wider variety of stronger products available.

They are likely playing it safe to avoid any mishaps that could damage their PR or their grey market psilocybin business

I think psychedelics are interesting because their non-addictive nature doesn’t cause competition for other drug companies.

There simply isn’t a way to make egregious profits with them. Mushrooms are cheap and easy to grow. LSD, while being exceptionally hard to make, is effective in such small dosages it ends up being significantly cheaper than mushrooms.

I guess the biggest fear would be psychedelics causing people to ‘wake up’ to what they’ve been ignorant of. There’s also the “I don’t do it and so neither should anyone else crowd,” but I don’t think they’re plentiful in Colorado.

They are talking about an earlier, even more out of cycle ohio constitutional amendment that would have made it much, much harder to pass any amendments. They force marched it into its own election as soon as the abortion and weed amendments hit the necessary thresholds to be on the upcoming November ballot. It would have gone into affect immediately. It was a very transparent attempt to derail abortion rights by the state GOP.

It had its own special election, after they banned the exact type of election a year earlier. It shifted the burden of “yes” from 50% +1 vote to 60%, and most nefariously, shifted the requirments to get an amendment on the ballot form "X voters in half of all districts (44 of 88) to “X voters in all 88 districts,” i.e even the tiny 1k ones that lean 90% Republican. They tried to basically give veto power over all future constitutional amendments to tiny, very, very conservative counties.

Voters rejected it 57% to 43%, which ironically would not have passed it under its own requirements, but would have under the current requirements if the numbers were inverted. If they had a legit bone in their body, they would have imposed a one time “60%” threshold for it as that’s what they were forcing all future votes to, but we all know their bulllshit.

I got it backwards as regards this election for some reason. Fixed, thank you.

For at least a couple more years we will. It took us a bit to set up our system. Probably will take you a couple as well. Takes time to build a distribution network too, since you can’t really import it from growers in other states, so for a while ours will probably be cheaper.

But it’s still a huge win and it’s better for us all to have more states legalize it. And in the meantime we can just both suck Indiana dry of marijuana money.

Well you still have a legislature that has to put the laws into place and setup the system. I bet they do everything they can to slow it down.

I live in a swing state, in a purple county, which has recently flipped back to blue. Last week polls were saying it was likely to go red.

I get multiple texts and phone calls from pollsters and have never answered any of them. I doubt anyone in my age group ot demographic are doing differently.

I truly believe that, like the economy, polling on paper is so divorced from the reality on the ground that it is useless.

To get a poll representative of a population, you need an SRS – simple random sample. The people you poll are chosen completely at random from an unbiased list.

That’s incredibly difficult to do when the person chosen can decline. And as far as getting an unbiased list, good luck. Landlines are lol. Texting doesn’t work either.

I think when everyone had landlines it was probably less biased. But with the state of technology today and the country becoming more diverse? It might be falling apart. They need a new methodology.

polling is a scoursge. it doesn’t benefit society. notice how everything went well with broken polls. voting itself is the only poll that matters.

And they probably know that their opinions are unpopular and are too scared to post unless one of the paid rabble rousers post first to loan them the courage to do so.

I only internet for 30-60min per day, can I get an explanation on what /\ 2 / 101 means

unwanted kids aren’t a good thing, but dead mothers who aren’t treated for ectopic pregnancies and other medical emergencies are even worse. there is no “future kid” there aren’t “potential people” deprived of anything. there are living people and that is who votes and who counts. people as a concept in some dude’s head aren’t real.

You do realize not all pro choice folks would choose to do it themselves most of the time right?

Just because I think someone should be able to get gender affirming care doesn’t mean I only want it so I can get 10 gallon bag mommy milkers.

It’s called being able to empathize beyond your own horizons.

Begone, anti fact kook

Eat shit.

I just had a son 2 months ago, i love him dearly, and enjoy spending every day with him.

I completely respect my wifes autonomy over her body, and she could have chosen to abort the clump of cells which became my son. Its her body.

If we detect a debilitating birth defect in the third trimester that meant they’d only live for a few hours in pain? Yes. I’m not subjecting my children to torment like that. It’s inhumane and child abuse.

🤡

Do you really believe that? That future children exist? Why do corn producers not care about all their dead children (seeds) and only care about the corn fields? Did they “abort” those “children”?

Why worry about a future child? One less to fondle once you got them locked in at the indoctrination camp? (church)

funny enough anti trans crusades are just as big of a voter loser as anti choice crusades are.

Can someone who isn’t rabidly pro life win a Republican primary at this point? I don’t think so. And until they can win, the party is going to be incapable of moderating its position on abortion.

Every time they go for new leadership, they pick more and more extreme people. They can’t win without the bigots at this point, and so they let bigots set the policies.

If Republicans were a healthy political party, they’d drop abortion and the LGBTQ stuff. They’d focus on “we need to be fiscally responsible” and “protect people’s rights.” They might get more traction with this.

But they aren’t a healthy political party. Instead of changing to suit the voters. They’ll demand that the voters change to suit the Republican party.

Well, nearly half are. You still need a shit load of people to vote Republican, just simply declaring “it’s gerrymandered” isn’t enough. They still need the votes, and they get a lot in Ohio.

It also features both some well populated cities (which trend left), but also a large rural population (which trends right). Between that and the gerrymandering, makes sense it’s often a bit “confused”.

It’s also not a coincidence that recreational marijuana passed with nearly identical support. I think Issue 2 helped bring out another demographic that was already likely to support abortion access.

Ohio native here. You can’t have met many Ohioans.

are you floyd from 30 rock?