Let's not forget the real reason amendment 3 is on the ballot again. When Bailey was our AG he argued against the abortion pill mifepristone because it makes it easier for teen girls to have abortions. More teen girls having abortions means less political representation for the Republican party.
*Missouri’s attorney general has renewed a push to restrict access to the abortion pill mifepristone, arguing in a lawsuit filed this month that its availability hurt the state by decreasing teenage pregnancy.
The revised lawsuit was filed by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, alongside GOP attorneys general in Kansas and Idaho. It asks a judge in Texas to order the Federal Drug Administration to reinstate restrictions on mifepristone, one of two medications prescribed to induce chemical abortions.
The trio of attorneys general were forced to refile the litigation after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the original lawsuit after concluding the original plaintiffs — a group of anti-abortion doctors and medical organizations — did not have standing to sue because they couldn’t show they had been harmed.
In making the case that the states have standing this time, the attorneys general contend access to mifepristone has lowered “birth rates for teenaged mothers,” arguing it contributes to causing a population loss for the states along with “diminishment of political representation and loss of federal funds.”
“Younger women are more likely to navigate online abortion finders or websites ordering mail-order medication to self-manage abortions,” the filing argues.
Missouri’s teen pregnancy birth rate has steadily declined over the past several years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, though it still remains among the highest in the country.*
And ironically, they want Christian Sharia Law. This is how women (and everyone else) start to lose rights. Don't be fooled, these people are being malicious. Dropping teen pregnancy rates is a good thing. These same people most likely would groom these teenagers.
Ecactly. Pay attention to Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey reasoning on how it is HURTING the state..by LOWERING TEEN pregnancy.
Not womens pregnancy rates (which is a whole other argument- we are not fkn walking incubators for religious zionist nut jobs)...but Teens, he is focusing on fkn kids.
It's already illegal for Trans kids to have surgery in Missouri and What in the HELL does Trans Kids and Abortion have to do with one another????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Missouri Republicans are AWFUL!!! Let's put something everyone hates together to get the OUTCOME we FINALLY want!
As a former Missouri teen mom, the disconnect these people have to think that those who are forced to carry a pregnancy, lose educational opportunities, get stuck with abusive partners, and struggle to raise the child because of the policies these people put in place would then automatically vote to continue such abuses.
Are none of these people concerned with the wrath of the fathers of these girls/women whose lives could be lost due to the overstepping of politicians? There are a whole lot of men with daughters voting this shit down every-single-time. Republican or Democrat doesn’t matter. We know what we’re voting for…our daughters.
So, with the fact that they've repealed things and sued in court saying "Voters didn't understand what they were voting for", wouldn't we have that same right under the fact that Amendment 3, on the ballot, is 90% about abortion, whereas the Ads, Flyers, Commercials, etc going around don't say anything at all about abortion, and very clearly state only "Stop sex change surgery on minors"?
Billboards in Fenton, Ellisville, Chesterfield, old normal ones and the new electric ones, have in bright bold letters "Yes on 3" and the only information it gives is "Stop gender-reassignment surgery on Minors", whereas the flyers in the mail toe the line a little more, simply saying "Stop transition of minors in our schools and hospitals" without saying it's surgery, their little defamation loop hole as they argue it's only pronouns they're talking about in court. With all of that being besides the point that surgeries on minors aren't allowed anyways, and the only thing related to that expiring in 2027 is the puberty blockers ban.
If the statehouse can go to court with a straight face and say "Well, they just didn't understand what they were voting for, what the petition they were signing was for" etc, how can that not just be thrown back in their faces when the majority of the Ads and Billboards don't even mention Abortion and are treating this like Surgery on Minors is out of control in our state or something? If anything maybe we should be documenting all these ads that don't say a word about abortion.
If you're tired of politicians using trying to trick us into undoing what we've already voted on, be sure to spread the word about voting YES ON 6!
Amendment 6 will:
* Make it harder for politicians to change or undo what the people have already voted on.
* Preserve our century-old constitutional freedom to petition.
* Require ballot summaries to be clear, unbiased, fair, accurate, and easy to understand.
Thank you for commenting. There are a lot of people on nextdoor talking down A6, namely some politicians that have a vested interest in it failing. They say the 80% threshold is akin to mob rule and people are agreeing with them, not seeing the irony of the supermajority they hold in our state and why that percentage is necessary.
Genuine answer - the Missouri Supreme Court. They determine whether legislation is compatible with the state constitution, if the legislature or gov officials are playing by the rules, etc. They're the umpires. That's why Hoskins ran away with his tail between his legs, and Kehoe is restricted to tweet-bitching rather than ignoring the law, the will of the people, or the courts. And that's why the treasonous state gop was floating the idea of impeaching the justices, it's the only mechanism built in to our state constitution that is holding the wall against totalitarian rule right now.
Um, that didn't answer my question. Obviously vote yes on 6 but what prevents the legislature from just doing whatever they want regardless like they always do?
I think six is what decides that the legislature can't just go and say "Well, the voters didn't understand what they petitioned / voted for, so we're just going to fix that for them and ignore them"
I'd assume it gives us some kind of accountability if we, say, vote to ban puppy mills but the GOP decide to flip us the bird and announce animal cruelty is good agriculture, or if we decide we should expand medicare to vulnerable parties and the GOP say tough shit we don't want that no. Or if people want worker protections like sick leave, the lobbyists paying kickbacks bribes to the GOP aren't the ones who decide that the voters are wrong.
I only think it might be a problem if 3 and 6 both get passed the finish line. Because it's been fine for them to make us vote to recriminalize abortion when they lose, but they'll argue six means they have to respect the will of the voters if they manage to recriminalize it this time through the blatant trans panic / ads that only say "Yes on 3, Put a stop to Sex Change surgeries for Minors" with zero mention of the abortion issue.
I think the intention is good but I think they'll find a way around it. I'm voting for but just kind of have little faith right now. I think feeling less than optimistic in MO is sort of reasonable.
Absolutely reasonable, they've been in power here for Decades at this point, since before I even moved here, and still somehow always blame Democrats for all the states problems. Don't dems get like only 40% of the votes here now and only hold 20% of the statehouse? But don't worry, the party in charge will save us from the damage the other party somehow did.
They literally tried to block 6 from the ballot saying that protecting the initiative process and keeping the legislature from overturning the result of the initiative process were separate things and violated the single principle statue. They did that WHILE putting 3 on there with this trans minor ballot candy bullshit.
I'd bet they even try to overturn the result that keeps them from overturning results because "rules for thee and not for me".
So yeah we could maybe find someone to sue and watch it get tied up by assholes at the state level and eventually go to the supreme court just like the gerrymandered map. And then probably watch them try to weasel out of the supreme court decision. And during all those months women would be harmed.
So really, I don't think they care. Pushing their policy is more important to them than laws or the will of the voters. It's not like they'll face legal consequences for their illegal behavior. They won't even face political consequences because they people that voted for them before will keep voting for them.
As between the baby and the mother, I care much more about the baby and less about the mother. Because the baby is defenseless and did nothing to put itself in this position. I sympathize with the mother but never more so than the child.
Great! Support legislation to build the social safety nets those children need; in general you can do this by voting Democrat but specifics will vary case by case. However that is not part of this conversation as there are no babies involved in an abortion.
I think the number of people who "support abortion" are vanishingly rare. That's like saying some does or does not support coronary artery bypass grafts. Abortions are just one of many technical tools used by doctors to treat a condition. They are rarely if ever, anyone's first choice and when they must be deployed no one is happy about it. That said, just like heart surgery, they are a necessary tool.
No, abortion is not necessary. It’s overwhelmingly an elective procedure, not covered by insurance, chosen for convenience. If its use were reserved only to necessary situations, there’d less opposition to it.
"Abortion is not necessary" - factually inaccurate. Some examples when abortions are necessary to save a patient's life: severe preeclampsia, sepsis, non-viable pregnancies, or premature rupture of membranes.
"overwhelmingly an elective procedure" - incredibly misleading. "Elective" in the medical sense means they are planned rather than immediate emergency interventions. Similar to heart surgery. You are implying they are just being chosen out of convenience or some vague immorality.
"Not covered by insurance" - also inaccurate. Medicaid limits federal funding, but many state Medicaid programs cover it and most private health insurance plans cover it by default.
If opposition was reserved only to factual situations, there'd be a lot less of it.
It's a zygote, then embryo, then fetus. It's not scientifically a baby until birth. It cannot survive outside the womb until viability which is between 22-24 weeks, which supports the current abortion law. 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage before the first 12 weeks which is why many woman wait to share the news. A woman's mortality rate is 16-20% higher when she is pregnant. I have a really good friend who suffered a miscarriage because she was kicked in the stomach and she stayed with him and had more babies because she was an immigrant and didn't have any family here. Pregnancy can be a trap.
Why would you want to force a teen girl or woman to have a baby she doesn't want or can't afford? Do you know the rate of medicaid births are higher in states with abortion bans?
Incest and rape exceptions are only until 12 weeks, so if a child doesn't understand she is pregnant or if a woman doesn't know, she is forced to give birth. And if a woman is raped and seeks care before 12 weeks, don't you think they'll make her prove she was raped? And then in the case of life of the mother exceptions, the hospital has to consult their legal team while a woman's life hangs in the balance.
You are not going to monetarily support the baby unless that baby is on medicaid. You have absolutely nothing to do with it. Pro-life is just anti-choice.
That’s quite the theory but I’m pretty sure it’s just because a sizable portion of the state doesn’t want people aborting babies. I don’t think it’s much more nefarious than that.
Missouri state legislature doesn’t care about maternal or infant mortality. They are actually arguing that fewer teen pregnancies hurts the state. This is BEYOND effed up. We can’t even agree that teen pregnancies are bad. We can’t even agree that we want all woman safe and healthy.
Call them whatever you want—potato salad if you want. Some people aren’t ok with aborting “potato salad”—it’s ok, no big deal, they get to have an opinion on it too.
So don't get an abortion then. A person should get a say on whether or not to keep something that is using their body in a parasitic way, especially since it also has significant impacts on health of the person.
I know for myself, if I got pregnant, that would be case-study level of odds, since salpingectomies are nearly 100% effective, excluding a couple instances of failure. Am I just never ever supposed to have sex because I don't want children? Like a sexless marriage kinda sucks and can even negatively impact the mental health of people. It's a fun activity that also brings about a feeling of emotional connectedness with the partner. I would 100% get an abortion because the idea of being pregnant is very dysphoric for me. My morals and values and personal autonomy matter as well. Forcing me to go through something unwanted like pregnancy is also immoral. It's picking something that is not conscious over someone that is.
Not trying to dictate your health. Trying to dictate the abortion of babies. Unfortunately in exactly this circumstance, the woman wanting the abortion and the baby have conflicting interests. In balancing those interests, Some people choose the side of the baby. Some don’t.
It's not a baby, it's a fetus. We aren't talking about babies that can breathe on their own, we are discussing what amounts to a parasite that can do long term irreversible damage to the woman. Things like loss of bladder control, permanent bodily pain from nerve damage, heart disease, and death.
Men shouldn't even get a say since they can't he pregnant but since you all insist on telling women what to do with our bodies and our lives and our sense of self maybe you can actually learn about and understand literally anything about our bodies.
We are full people, I know that's hard for your ilk to understand, and can't be forced to donate blood or organs, even in death, to save the life of another person. Why do you think women, exclusively, should be forced to act as living life support when no one can even be compelled to donate blood? Why does a corpse have more control over what happens to their body than a woman does?
Not a life if it hasn't lived. Not alive if it can't breathe on its own. Amazing how you can't address anything that has to do with the actual person carrying it nor can you address literally any other aspect.
Even the Bible said you're not alive until first breath
"Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Genesis 2:7
There are instructions for abortion written into ancient society, and the only thing you dispose of by outlawing abortion is SAFE abortion.
And what totally non-religious reason do you have for deciding what someone else does with their body? I'm sure it's based in science and reality and not super pathetic.
Who me? Oh I dont think we should really be killing people. Not criminals, not murderers, not bad people, not good people, and particularly not the unborn. Call me crazy.
Well, you aren't crazy for being against the death penalty, that's for sure. Honestly refreshing seeing an anti-choice person who actually feels that way, usually they only care about the potential lives of fetuses, not actual human lives.
Unborn means it isn't alive yet. You aren't killing anything.
Still waiting for your justification and reasons for being against abortion specifically that are completely non-religious and science-based, btw.
Already gave it. Saying you aren’t killing anything doesn’t make it true. Nor say the favorite “it’s a fetus but a baby.” There is a thing with a heart beat and running blood and lungs and it’s shaped like a human and has a developing brain. Then you take an action to terminate it.
No, that's just more religious propaganda. Try again.
Most abortions happen early enough on that it's truly just a cluster of cells, completely unrecognizable as a mammal, much less a human. The tiny fraction that happen after the fetus becomes anything remotely resembling a human are done because of a fatal defect to the fetus or a threat to the mother's life. No one is aborting a developed fetus because they just want to, it's because something has gone terribly, tragically, terrifyingly wrong.
All you're telling me is that you soak up religious propaganda like a sponge. It's like being lectured on the dangers of marijuana by someone whose entire worldview comes from DARE classes. Are any of your beliefs informed by or based on credible information from a medical professional or even a biologist, or just sunday school?
What reasons do you believe an unborn fetus that cannot survive outside the womb is a person? Why do you believe that potential life (and I do mean potential, because most pregnancies blip out of existence before the mother ever even knows she was pregnant) is remotely as important as the full developed adult human life that is carrying it? Where did you hear the comically ridiculous nonsense about human gestation you cling so tightly to?
So YOU want to decide what OTHER PEOPLE do with their lives? I'd hate to look in your basement or internet history. What do you think gives you the right to interfere with others' lives? You do realize how ludicrous that sounds...right?
Basic human rights and bodily autonomy shouldn’t change state to state nor should be up for debate. Unfortunately we’re stuck in the past being led by Christian terrorists
An anti abortion person might agree and explain that the basic human right of a defenseless, alive fetus to remain alive should in fact not change state to state.
True but we already had the vote and said abortion is fine. How many times are we going to keep voting on the same shit? Especially gross when the amendment has all this stupid "no transgendered kids surgeries" crap on it and the abortion part is intentionally downplayed
Forcing the rest of the state to endure and follow your bronze-age superstitions because your backwards sharia-lite cult demands oppressing women/others with different views or beliefs is not an "opinion".
Besides being the opposite of small government, personal responsibility, and the other things republicans pretend to value, threatening criminal punishment for performing or accessing healthcare is a cruel anti-science obsession with removing human rights and autonomy that only American Christians (TM) and their Supply-Side Jesus (TM) could possibly approve of.
It is a cult. It is a cancer. It is un-American. It must be defeated.
Hey man hurl all the insults you can think of. The funniest part of the abortion debate is how everyone pretends to be so smart on Reddit but somehow no one can figure out how anyone could be against abortion. Like c’mon. No one here can think of any reasonable reason a person might not want this?
Those aren't insults, those are just observable, objective facts.
And I'm happy to answer your question - there isn't. There is no reasonable reason to be against abortion. Every single argument against abortion is based in religious nonsense. Every. Single. One. There is a reason the knuckle-dragging protestors outside abortion clinic are all evangelical rubes and Christian fanatics and not pediatricians or oncologists.
And there's a reason anti-choice people try to appeal to folks with fake, scientific-sounding but very unscientific arguments like fetuses have a face or a heartbeat at 2 weeks. They know medical science doesn't support any of their bullshit, so they just make stuff up, lie to people, and play pretend with our rights and freedoms.
There isn't even a good reason for it within the childish fairytale framework of religion. What, is sky daddy too weak to enforce his own rules? If we make it legal here, does he have to let sinners into heaven, like a reciprocity agreement with the justice department? And wouldn't it be better for all sin to be legal, so he can see which of us are following his rules and who is just avoiding legal punishment? But I ramble - you can't find or force logic into religion, they are incompatible.
I welcome any rationale to be against abortion that is not based in religion. You will not find any. And there is no reason to base any governmental policy, much less a healthcare policy, around one particular group of excitable morons' millenia-old superstition rather than science. That is unacceptable, un-American, and frankly, an insult to god and his fan club.
So smart on reddit...you know you can be against abortion and not have one and mind your own damn business otherwise. You shouldn't get to force your opinion on to everyone else.
I dont think I would have an abortion but I sure as shit don't care what another grown adult decides to do with their own body.
Let me guess you're a man, probably the type of man that asks what a woman was wearing if she's assaulted or blames her for being drunk. Probably that type of man that thinks if the baby lives child birth it's ok for the mother to die. Probably the type of man that wouldn't wear a mask during covid because no one should tell you what to do with your body. Probably the type of man that voted against universal healthcare and free school lunches and complains about your tax dollars going to find public education.
But why does anyone get a say besides the women in those situations?
I’m not pro abortion but I’m definitely not anti abortion, either. It’s a situation between that woman and her doctor. If you want to throw God into the situation, still doesn’t involve anyone else and especially not the government.
They are not a person at this point. If you're trying to conflate it with a later term abortion, then it still isn't anyone else's business. Later term abortion is almost always medically necessary for a number of reasons. No one willingly carries a baby for 7-9 months just to nope out at the end. If they did, there's something more going on that likely would need something more than an abortion.
Just to make it clear, pregnant women do not got to a pediatrician. They go to an obstetrician. Pediatricians treat young people, obstetricians treat parts of people.
Call it whatever you want. Person, baby, fetus, basketball. Doesn’t change what it is—taking a life and terminating it. That’s the one, single reason half the country is against it.
Once again, you can use whatever descriptor you’d like to describe the thing whose life is ended during an abortion. But using your descriptor of choice doesn’t change what it is.
89
u/Ok-Assistant-8876 4d ago
I’m so sick of republicans pushing their big government agenda and trying to control people’s lives. Evangelicalism is like the American Taliban.