Legally, no.
But practically, if you can afford to go to a private hospital, you are probably much more likely to be able to get that D and C.
My ex wife had her abortion in her Ob/gyn’s office. I assume he’d continue to perform abortions even if (highly unlikely) they were prohibited in Washington.
This is because, deep down, everyone knows what men and women are. It’s too fundamental a basic reality of life to deny or ignore.
No matter how much people like Ketanji Jackson shuffle their feet and hem and haw about, well, I don’t know the true definition of a woman - at some point the jig is up. When the chips are down, everyone recognizes fundamental reality. Just like how people who say “I don’t see color” definitely do see color when race becomes a serious situation for them.
for people in the northern US Canada has already said they welcome US women for abortions
Moderating:
All, as was accurately noted, the discussion about pregnant women/pregnant people is a hijack to this thread. Please drop it here. Feel free to start a new thread discussing this issue if you like.
Thanks.
Moderating:
This is deliberate misgendering. It’s not allowed on this forum. Don’t do this again, please.
Not a warning.
Sorry, no–that is not how the law works in Kansas. You are simply not correct. Kansas law may allow for drinking in a private club, but that has nothing to do with abortion law. They are not related legislatively or by statute, the operation of a private liquor club is not a statutory grant to perform private abortions when the state otherwise criminalizes them.
It would be possible, but since Florida would make such a thing specifically illegal, that would not occur.
I mean people with lots of money will have ways to get illegal abortions, yes. What you’re suggesting is that red states that have already drafted laws to criminalize abortion, would allow “private hospitals” or “rich people” hospitals to offer them. There is simply no evidence to support that claim based on the laws that have been proposed and passed to this point. Likely many Republicans know that wealthy women will travel or have other options for getting an abortion, but they won’t create the sort of private hospital carve out you are speculating on, that is entirely inconsistent with any laws they have passed in the last 30 years.
Thank you for the laugh on a grim day.
Perhaps so. But. I believe the liquor example indicates otherwise. Consider the Disney “carve out” they just rescinded. Of course these are not identical. but they show what has been done. Nothing illegal, just business.
Somewhere in a Kansas restaurant, there is a half empty bottle of Chardonnay that awaits my return. If I could find my membership card.
Yeah, nope. What you’re saying is out of line with the reality of the law and politics. You’re certainly entitled to believe it, and I’m entitled to say it’s unrealistic and naive to assume two unrelated things have any bearing on each other. If anything, the rescinding of Reedy Creek Improvement District (i.e. the Disney thing you allude to) undermines your thesis–that “business concerns” will be paramount, that obviously is not the case or the Florida Governor wouldn’t be attacking a private business over a political dispute.
I don’t find the talk of membership cards in Kansas etc particularly interesting or salient. In most of the South and Midwest it isn’t 50 years ago, you can get a drink at a bar.
I agree. That’s why I take polls about how “the majority of voters are pro-choice” with a large grain of salt. They may be pro-choice, but that support is a mile wide and an inch deep other than at the far left. Reality has proven that a few feet wide but a mile deep beats that every time.
I think it was mainly this segment that cost the Democrats that election. Most of the voters who had backed Sanders in the primaries must have switched to HRC in the general election, ir she wouldn’t have done as well as she did.
I don’t want to hijack too much more but the 2016 election was done to death–the reality is that election was such a narrow loss by Hillary in a few key States that you can plausibly blame almost anything for it, the overall problem was she just didn’t get enough votes in the key States and that was because of turnout issues with several key Democratic demographics. You certainly can choose to blame BernieBros, and I personally am as opposed to Bernie as it gets, but the reality is HRC’s campaign just needed more votes across the board in the core Democratic constituencies of 2016.
The biggest thing I blame Bernie for is using the “rigged system” rhetoric to describe Hillary’s winning the nomination. Firstly, it was simply a lie. Hillary and her team broke zero rules in the primary. Secondly, the moment it was obvious Bernie was not going to win in non-pledged delegates, he started making specious pitches for the superdelegates to switch to him–essentially trying to engineer the very thing that his supporters had claimed Hillary was doing by locking up superdelegates early. I think the way that many Bernie supporters and ancillary political groups kept pounding the rhetoric about her “stealing” the primary, did lasting harm to her candidacy. Beyond just the question of whether Bernie primary voters went and voted for her or not, I think that rhetoric may have suppressed her turnout across the board particularly with lower information voters who weren’t going to be able to sift through the legitimacy of the “rigged election” claims.
The Florida Governor is promoting his own propaganda. I believe eliminating RvW will open new and novel business opportunities. I too doubt they will match my naive speculation. I look forward to being amazed by their creativity.
And I think you are wrong and basically totally out in left field if you really think the red states are going to get cozy with your silly “business idea” proposals. It’s not happening.
Not ‘some red states’ - one opportunistic red state with an opportunistic governor and a Senator who was skilled at Medicare fraud. Some potential there.
Based on my own experience, private clubs in general technically don’t sell individual food items or drinks. A member writes down their number when they sign the chit for the drinks, and is charged on their next monthly bill. If you’re visiting the club as a guest, you write in the number of the member who invited you. But it’s impossible to walk ip to the bar in a private club and buy a drink with money or a CC. Club bars and dining rooms aren’t even equpped to handle money.
That’s not been my experience, most country clubs I have visited (I’m not a golfer which I think is the main draw of them, but I have many friends who are, so I’ve never belonged to one but have visited several), typically charge a regular bill when you go there to dine or etc, and I think a bit different from an open to the public establishment they often charge an “auto-gratuity” as well.
It depended on the state. Some places had turnout issues. Others there was enthusiasm for Trump. Still others had a lot of votes go to the third party candidates. There was no one factor.
I use the Kansas situation to illustrate how states are willing to circumvent the law where convenient for pelf.
The emotion and reach of the Kansas liquor law is very similar. It was based on religion and for a time it reached even into the air above the state, requiring that commercial aircraft flying over a dry county had to collect all open drinks and liquor. But, at the same time you could, in a motel restaurant, in the same county, order liquor by enrolling in a private club. The waitress gave you a form which you filled out then ordered your liquor. The club was just virtual.
Abortion is no greater than the we/dry issue in some red states. However, the law can always be molded to fit monetary interests. Overturn of RvW creates an expanded market.