Abortion

Talk about anything you like but keep it civil. This is a public forum, the views and opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the LGC.

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

Message
Author
User avatar
Bullitt68
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 442
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:39 pm
Location: So. AZ

Re: Abortion

#101 Post by Bullitt68 » Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:05 am

Prior to Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) the Catholic Church never talked about abortion.
We sit in the mud... and reach for the stars.
Ivan Turgenev

Prevent Suicides Call https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/t ... meone-now/

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13306
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#102 Post by highdesert » Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:17 am

Bullitt68 wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:05 am
Prior to Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) the Catholic Church never talked about abortion.
It was there, opposition hadn't developed into a movement until Roe v Wade.

Article gives the history.
This article traces the history of the abortion policy of the Roman Catholic Church. The introductory section notes that the Church has consistently opposed abortion as evidence of sexual sin but has not always regarded it as homicide because Church teaching has never been definitive about the nature of the fetus. In addition, the prohibition of abortion has never been declared an infallible teaching. The chronology starts with a sketch of events in the first six Christian centuries when Christians sought ways to distinguish themselves from pagans who accepted contraception and abortion. During this period, Christians also decided that sexual pleasure was evil. Early Church leaders began the debate about when a fetus acquired a rational soul, and St. Augustine declared that abortion is not homicide but was a sin if it was intended to conceal fornication or adultery. During the period of 600-1500, illicit intercourse was deemed by the Irish Canons to be a greater sin than abortion, Church leaders considered a woman's situation when judging abortion, and abortion was listed in Church canons as homicide only when the fetus was formed. St. Thomas Aquinas declared that a fetus first has a vegetative soul, then an animal soul, and finally a rational soul when the body was developed. The next period, 1500-1750, found anyone who resorted to contraception or abortion subject to excommunication (1588), saw these rules relaxed in 1591, and banned abortion even for those who would be murdered because of a pregnancy (1679). From 1750 to the present, excommunication was the punishment for all abortions (1869). This punishment was extended to medical personnel in 1917, but the penalty had exceptions if the woman was young, ignorant, or operating under duress or fear. In 1930, therapeutic abortions were condemned, and, in 1965, abortion was condemned as the taking of life rather than as a sexual sin. By 1974, the right to life argument had taken hold and became part of a theory of a "seamless garment" representing a consistent ethic of life. The current Pope recognizes that the moment of ensoulment is unknown but condemns abortion in all cases (except as the unintentional byproduct of another medical procedure).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12178868
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
Wino
Loquacious
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:04 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#103 Post by Wino » Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:22 pm

The CC was too busy hiding child molesters and murderer priest to worry about abortion!!!

Damn, I hate organized religions.
"Being Republican is more than a difference of opinion - it's a character flaw."
"The greatest threat facing the United States is its own president." David Rothkopf, WaPo

User avatar
YankeeTarheel
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 8215
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Location: The Jughandle State
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#104 Post by YankeeTarheel » Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:46 pm

Bullitt68 wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:05 am
Prior to Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) the Catholic Church never talked about abortion.
That's not true at all. Legalizing abortion was a HUGE topic of debate in the late '60's and early '70's and the RCC was totally, vehemently against it. I remember this because I was a teenager and NOW was forming with Freedom of Choice as a major issue. I even took the "Pro-Choice" side in a debate in my HS in 1971. The girl opposing me (a Catholic) had as her "secret weapon"..adoptions, which, as we know, have NOT been a big movement with more than a tiny percentage of the so-called "Pro-Life" side. (two parenthetical thoughts--those that DO adopt unwanted children, IMHO, are the only ones who can claim to be "Pro-Life" and not merely anti-abortion. And the other? One of my sons was an "unwanted" child that we adopted. I'm not a believer in fate, but I have to believe he was meant for us, and we for him. And I'm STILL totally Pro-Choice!)

The RCC's position was ironic because it was only fairly recently in its long history that it opposed it. I believe one pope in the 1500's was against it but that was reversed and it was only in the 19th Century that it was deemed a "sin".
If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." -- Mark Twain
My son says: "Don't argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!" -- YT

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13306
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#105 Post by highdesert » Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:58 am

New poll by NPR, PBS and Marist College.
Three-quarters of Americans say they want to keep in place the landmark Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade, that made abortion legal in the United States, but a strong majority would like to see restrictions on abortion rights, according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll.

What the survey found is a great deal of complexity — and sometimes contradiction among Americans — that goes well beyond the talking points of the loudest voices in the debate. In fact, there's a high level of dissatisfaction with abortion policy overall. Almost two-thirds of people said they were either somewhat or very dissatisfied, including 66% of those who self-identify as "pro-life" and 62% of those who self-identify as "pro-choice."

"What it speaks to is the fact that the debate is dominated by the extreme positions on both sides," said Barbara Carvalho, director of the Marist Poll, which conducted the survey. "People do see the issue as very complicated, very complex. Their positions don't fall along one side or the other. ... The debate is about the extremes, and that's not where the public is."

The poll comes as several states have pushed to limit abortions in hopes of getting the Supreme Court to reconsider the issue. Abortion-rights opponents hope the newly conservative court will either overturn Roe or effectively gut it by upholding severe restrictions. The survey finds that while most Americans favor limiting abortion, they don't want it to be illegal and don't want to go as far as states like Alabama, for example, which would ban it completely except if the woman's life is endangered or health is at risk.

A total of 77% say the Supreme Court should uphold Roe, but within that there's a lot of nuance — 26% say they would like to see it remain in place, but with more restrictions added; 21% want to see Roe expanded to establish the right to abortion under any circumstance; 16% want to keep it the way it is; and 14% want to see some of the restrictions allowed under Roe reduced. Just 13% overall say it should be overturned.

Even though Americans are solidly against overturning Roe, a majority would also like to see abortion restricted in various ways. In a separate question, respondents were asked which of six choices comes closest to their view of abortion policy.

In all, 61% said they were in favor of a combination of limitations that included allowing abortion in just the first three months of a pregnancy (23%); only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the woman (29%); or only to save the life of the woman (9%). Eighteen percent said abortion should be available to a woman any time she wants during her entire pregnancy. At the other end of the spectrum, 9% said it should never be permitted under any circumstance.

More than half (53%) of Americans say they would definitely not vote for a candidate who would appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would limit or overturn Roe.
The poll also notably found the highest percentage of people self-identifying as "pro-choice," those who generally support abortion rights, since a Gallup survey in December 2012. In this survey, 57% identified that way versus 35%, who called themselves "pro-life," those who are generally opposed to abortion rights. The percentage self-identifying as "pro-choice" is an increase since a Marist Poll in February, when the two sides split with 47% each. The pollsters attribute that shift to efforts in various states to severely restrict abortion.

"The public is very reactive to the arguments being put forth by the more committed advocates on both sides of the issue," Carvalho said, adding, "The danger for Republicans is that when you look at independents, independents are moving more toward Democrats on this issue. ... When the debate starts overstepping what public opinion believes to be common sense, we've seen independents moving in Democrats' corner."
The poll found that Americans are very much against requiring fines and/or prison time for doctors who perform abortions. There was also slim majority support for allowing abortions at any time during a pregnancy if there is no viability outside the womb and for requiring insurance companies to cover abortion procedures. A slim majority also opposed allowing pharmacists and health providers the ability to opt out of providing medicine or surgical procedures that result in abortion.

At the same time, two-thirds were in favor of a 24-hour waiting period from the time a woman meets with a health care professional until having the abortion procedure itself; two-thirds wanted doctors who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges; and a slim majority wanted the law to require women to be shown an ultrasound image at least 24 hours before an abortion procedure.
"What's most interesting here," Carvalho said, is that "the extremes are really outliers. When they advocate for their positions and change the debate toward the most extreme position on the issue, they actually do the opposite. They move public opinion away from them."

The more vocal advocates on either side, however, have had the ability to shift the debate and public opinion to their point of view. Consider that many of the specific items above, at one point or another, have been hotly debated.
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/73018353 ... strictions

Very detailed poll. As I mentioned earlier with Gallup historical polls, many of us here are for no restrictions on abortion, but we are a minority. The term "pro-choice" has become a broad term like we encounter with liberal, all liberals don't fit into a tidy little box.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
Bullitt68
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 442
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:39 pm
Location: So. AZ

Re: Abortion

#106 Post by Bullitt68 » Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:26 am

Well I never heard mention of it from my Church prior too. Maybe I was too focused on getting the hell outa there.

"Before the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that opened the door to the legalization of abortion, the right-to-life movement in the U.S. consisted of lawyers, politicians, and doctors, almost all of whom were Catholic.[citation needed] The only coordinated opposition to abortion during the early 1970s came from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Family Life Bureau, also a Catholic organization. Prior to Roe v. Wade decision, abortion was not a high priority for Catholic bishops in the United States.[3][4] Neither was abortion a prominent issue in American politics prior to Roe v. Wade. It was not a major platform plank for either party in the 1968 and 1972 elections.[5]"
We sit in the mud... and reach for the stars.
Ivan Turgenev

Prevent Suicides Call https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/t ... meone-now/

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13306
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#107 Post by highdesert » Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:00 pm

Bullitt68 wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:26 am
Well I never heard mention of it from my Church prior too. Maybe I was too focused on getting the hell outa there.

"Before the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that opened the door to the legalization of abortion, the right-to-life movement in the U.S. consisted of lawyers, politicians, and doctors, almost all of whom were Catholic.[citation needed] The only coordinated opposition to abortion during the early 1970s came from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Family Life Bureau, also a Catholic organization. Prior to Roe v. Wade decision, abortion was not a high priority for Catholic bishops in the United States.[3][4] Neither was abortion a prominent issue in American politics prior to Roe v. Wade. It was not a major platform plank for either party in the 1968 and 1972 elections.[5]"
It was always there in Church law "canon law" but abortion was against the law "civil law" in most countries so it was illegal and also sinful for Catholics to have an abortion. When it became legal (Roe vs Wade), then the opposition from Catholic bishops was that was against canon law. Still don't know when evangelical and conservative protestant denominations became "pro-life".
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
DavidMS
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:22 pm
Location: Virgina
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#108 Post by DavidMS » Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:44 pm

highdesert wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:00 pm
Bullitt68 wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:26 am
Well I never heard mention of it from my Church prior too. Maybe I was too focused on getting the hell outa there.

"Before the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that opened the door to the legalization of abortion, the right-to-life movement in the U.S. consisted of lawyers, politicians, and doctors, almost all of whom were Catholic.[citation needed] The only coordinated opposition to abortion during the early 1970s came from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Family Life Bureau, also a Catholic organization. Prior to Roe v. Wade decision, abortion was not a high priority for Catholic bishops in the United States.[3][4] Neither was abortion a prominent issue in American politics prior to Roe v. Wade. It was not a major platform plank for either party in the 1968 and 1972 elections.[5]"
It was always there in Church law "canon law" but abortion was against the law "civil law" in most countries so it was illegal and also sinful for Catholics to have an abortion. When it became legal (Roe vs Wade), then the opposition from Catholic bishops was that was against canon law. Still don't know when evangelical and conservative protestant denominations became "pro-life".
I believe it was part of their politicization that occurred in the 70s around private school desegregation and as cover for their efforts to maintain private school segregation: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... story.html and https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... ins-107133.

User avatar
YankeeTarheel
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 8215
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Location: The Jughandle State
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#109 Post by YankeeTarheel » Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:14 pm

highdesert wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:00 pm
Bullitt68 wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:26 am
Well I never heard mention of it from my Church prior too. Maybe I was too focused on getting the hell outa there.

"Before the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that opened the door to the legalization of abortion, the right-to-life movement in the U.S. consisted of lawyers, politicians, and doctors, almost all of whom were Catholic.[citation needed] The only coordinated opposition to abortion during the early 1970s came from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Family Life Bureau, also a Catholic organization. Prior to Roe v. Wade decision, abortion was not a high priority for Catholic bishops in the United States.[3][4] Neither was abortion a prominent issue in American politics prior to Roe v. Wade. It was not a major platform plank for either party in the 1968 and 1972 elections.[5]"
It was always there in Church law "canon law" but abortion was against the law "civil law" in most countries so it was illegal and also sinful for Catholics to have an abortion. When it became legal (Roe vs Wade), then the opposition from Catholic bishops was that was against canon law. Still don't know when evangelical and conservative protestant denominations became "pro-life".
I think it was Falwell and Robertson saw it as a "lib'rul" agenda to they went "anti" because, among other things, it meant it was easier for un-married couples and even just hook-ups to have sex. Thus it became a great rallying point for their fascism they called "Conservative", you know "Those wild, libertine lib'ruls are killin' innocent babies in the womb!", a real tear-jerking rabble-rousing "issue".
If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." -- Mark Twain
My son says: "Don't argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!" -- YT

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13306
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#110 Post by highdesert » Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:57 pm

Thanks guys. h/t David for the links
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 18865
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#111 Post by CDFingers » Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:25 am

Image

This party needs to go extinct.

CDFingers
ImageImage
Life may be sweeter for this, I don't know.
See how it feels in the end.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13306
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#112 Post by highdesert » Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:35 am

Planned Parenthood is building the stage for another possible fight over abortion in Alabama: a large women's clinic that's under construction despite the state's passage of a near-total ban on abortions. Located beside an interstate highway in downtown Birmingham, the 10,000-square-foot structure is now nothing but a steel frame and roof. Workers under the constant watch of security guards appear to be installing electrical wiring, plus heating and cooling units.

The new facility could be complete around November, which is the same time the new state law will take effect unless blocked by courts. Abortion critics vow to oppose the opening, but a spokeswoman for the women's health organization said neither the new law nor opponents were a factor in the project. "We are a doctor that Birmingham has counted on for decades, and we are committed to continuing to provide that care," said Barbara Ann Luttrell, a spokeswoman for the Atlanta-based Planned Parenthood Southeast.



Construction began in January and is continuing despite the Republican-controlled Legislature's passage of a law that would outlaw abortion in the state unless the mother's life is in peril. Lawmakers rejected exemptions for cases of rape and incest.

Groups including Planned Parenthood have sued to block the law, which supporters hope will become the vehicle that a conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court uses to gut the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

But no court hearing is set, so abortion opponents say they hope the opening will be blocked by some combination of the new law, public pressure and a state agency.

Regardless of the law, abortion opponents aim to convince the Alabama Department of Public Health to deny a license for the facility, and they've tried to convince construction contractors to refuse work on the building through phone calls and emails, said the Rev. Terry Gensemer of Metro Birmingham Life Forum.

"It was surprising when we found out that they were going to build this," said Gensemer. "My question is after the bill passage, why are they continuing to be so aggressive when the possibility exists that they won't be able to be in business?"
The only work delays so far may be linked to a rainy spring, she said, and Planned Parenthood is complying with all laws "so there should be no reason we would not be granted a license." The new clinic will be on a lot that records show the organization purchased last year for $430,600. It would replace the current Planned Parenthood clinic in Birmingham, where opponents say abortions haven't been performed regularly since 2017. Luttrell says the current clinic takes appointments for the procedure when it can find a doctor to perform abortions.

The nonprofit organization's clinic in Mobile is closed for renovations, Luttrell said. That leaves only three abortion clinics operating in the state, in Montgomery, Tuscaloosa, and Huntsville. None of those are operated by Planned Parenthood. Luttrell said Planned Parenthood hopes courts block the new law by the time the new clinic is ready to open. Aside from abortion, it will offer birth control, cancer testing, and screening for sexually transmitted diseases, she said. "It's going to be a big, state-of-the-art facility with several exam rooms, offices. It will just be a new, beautiful building," said Luttrell.

But an opponent of the project, the Rev. Harry Reeder of the influential Briarwood Presbyterian Church in suburban Birmingham, said the clinic is "designed to give false counsel" to women that abortion is the best way to handle an unwanted pregnancy. "We still stand and we will kneel in prayer that this facility will not be built," Reeder said during a news conference across the street from the construction site Thursday.
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-al ... story.html
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 18865
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#113 Post by CDFingers » Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:36 am

"I don't like it, so you can't do it" describes both pro lifers and anti gunners, idea snagged from another thread.

CDFingers
ImageImage
Life may be sweeter for this, I don't know.
See how it feels in the end.

pdxirishgoodbye
Helpful Contributor
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 12:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#114 Post by pdxirishgoodbye » Sun Jun 16, 2019 10:31 am

CDFingers wrote:"I don't like it, so you can't do it" describes both pro lifers and anti gunners, idea snagged from another thread.

CDFingers
You’re absolutely right. To paraphrase Lindy West’s appearance on the Daily Show, rich white women will always have access to safe abortions. It’s a way to keep the unprivileged down.....same argument as the 2A.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13306
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#115 Post by highdesert » Fri Jun 21, 2019 11:55 am

Missouri has denied Planned Parenthood a license to operate its St. Louis clinic. Missouri is now set to become the first state in the nation without an abortion clinic since Roe v. Wade.

The decision, handed down in a ruling by Judge Michael Stelzer during a Friday morning hearing in St. Louis, was announced after the state's last clinic said it was refusing to comply with a law on pelvic exams.

The St. Louis Planned Parenthood clinic, Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, sued Missouri's health department for refusing to renew its license, which was supposed to expire May 31.

A judge ordered the Department of Health and Senior Services to decide by today whether it would renew a license for the clinic. The clinic had been operating under a preliminary injunction as the licensing dispute worked its way through court.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/missou ... l?adkey=bn
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
Bullitt68
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 442
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:39 pm
Location: So. AZ

Re: Abortion

#116 Post by Bullitt68 » Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:00 pm

More money for veterinarians no doubt. There will be a black market for abortions again. Very sad.
We sit in the mud... and reach for the stars.
Ivan Turgenev

Prevent Suicides Call https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/t ... meone-now/

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13306
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#117 Post by highdesert » Sun Jun 23, 2019 10:26 am

Former Vice President Joe Biden said Saturday that he would work to enshrine into federal law the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision upholding abortion rights, as the Democratic presidential frontrunner seeks to mollify critics of his record on reproductive issues.

Biden, speaking at a Planned Parenthood forum two weeks after reversing his opposition to federal funding for most abortions — an early flashpoint in the 2020 presidential campaign — said he would support codifying Roe as defined by a later decision that affirmed the landmark case's central principles.

“It should be the law,” Biden said.

Democratic contenders Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand, among others, have called for similar legislation amid concerns, in the wake of state laws that drastically limited abortions, that the Supreme Court could overturn Roe.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/ ... 20-1376712

Clinton could have done it in his first term and Obama could have done it in his first term, they both had Democratic majorities in the House and Senate but they didn't do it. It wouldn't have made it immune to the tosses and turns of SCOTUS but it would have been on more solid ground.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13306
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#118 Post by highdesert » Sun Jun 23, 2019 11:19 am

Zombies lurk beyond the train tracks. They have been here for years, working under lights, swatting mosquitoes, bringing eerie charm to streets of gothic homes and magnolia. Tourists come from as far away as Japan to glimpse the set of “The Walking Dead,” which has become a neighbor in this town of Bible school classes and soft-serve ice cream.

The show, like many film and TV productions, was drawn to Georgia over the last decade by big tax breaks. Legislators were welcoming and the locals, including those in Senoia, adjusted to shooting schedules and the generally liberal inclinations of thousands of set designers, prop masters, actors, makeup artists and others who descended from California, New York and other film states.

J.D. Schwalm was one of them. He brought his family and most of his Los Angeles special effects company to Atlanta in 2016. Since then he has won an Academy Award, patented a car cannon and learned not to talk politics at barbecues. But threats of a Hollywood boycott over Georgia’s new anti-abortion law have upset genteel conversation and exposed the visceral divide between the entertainment industry and Southern conservatism.

“It’s a cultural struggle between faith and finance,” said Rev. John Talley, pastor of the First Senoia Baptist Church. “These movie companies were given generous financial breaks. We’re grateful for their economic stimulus. But as a Christian, I value the unborn child more than Hollywood.”

That kind of stark declaration has forced Schwalm, who is working on “Conjuring 3,” to a reckoning over differing opinions on abortion and fears by entertainment workers here that a boycott will take their jobs: “Is this issue enough for me to leave Georgia? My kids and wife love it here. There’s a lot of work. It hurts me that the state passed this bill. But leaving won’t change it. And you’re not going to change Georgia from Los Angeles. You have to stay and have dialogue.”

Kara Schaub has similar sentiments. She landed here from Los Angeles to be a set decorator. “I keep my crazy feminism at home. I don’t wear my Wonder Woman punching Donald Trump in the face T-shirt,” she said. “But little by little Georgia is becoming more of a purple state and the film industry is contributing to that. I never felt I could put down roots in L.A. I rent a four-bedroom house here for the same price as my old 400-square-foot apartment in North Hollywood.”
But a number of those in the entertainment industry here are conservative, including crew members who support Trump and a set worker who named his dog after the president. Trump won Georgia with 50.4 percent of the vote in 2016. Two years later, though, progressive TV and film transplants helped the state nearly elect Democrat Stacey Abrams as its first black female governor.

Liberals celebrated Abrams’ campaign as a sign that Old South attitudes were succumbing to younger generations in a state where film crews and production companies, including Tyler Perry Studios, are more diverse than in Hollywood. But liberals were whipsawed last month when newly elected Republican Gov. Brian Kemp rallied his conservative base by signing one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country.

Georgia’s film industry accounts for 92,000 jobs and generates about $3 billion in annual revenues for the state. Studios receive up to 30% back on their investments through tax credits and other incentives that brought Disney here for “Avengers: Endgame” and Marvel Studios for “Black Panther.” The state is also a hub for TV shows, including Netflix’s “Stranger Things” and “Ozark.”

Hollywood and the Republican right have clashed for years over the morals of the silver screen and the piety of the steeple. The entertainment industry and civil rights groups in recent years battled Georgia over proposed antigay legislation and North Carolina over a “bathroom bill” that critics said discriminated against transgender people. The furor around Georgia’s abortion law raises deeper questions over how Hollywood and conservatism can coexist in an age when Trump is hardening cultural lines and entertainment workers must balance their politics with their livelihoods.

“Georgia’s politics is rooted in white supremacy. It’s not going away overnight. We have to keep fighting against gerrymandering and voter suppression,” said Jaime Rosegren, an on-set dresser who moved to Atlanta from New York five years ago with her husband, Rob, a gang boss in set decoration. “The knee-jerk reaction of Alyssa Milano and others calling for a boycott doesn’t help. This industry employs a lot of women and we can help incrementally change the politics here.”

Rosegren sat the other day at an Atlanta cafe with Jared Fleury, a prop master who moved to Georgia 15 years ago. The state’s lower cost of living allowed them to buy bigger homes than they could have afforded in Los Angeles. Rosegren even hired dog walkers and landscapers. The quality of life is better, both said, even as they acknowledged that Atlanta is a “blue dot” in a red, rural sea.

“I left Hollywood to get out of the rat race,” said Fleury, who like Rosegren is a member of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. “I wanted a different lifestyle. The diversity here is amazing. The film industry in L.A. is largely white and male. Here it’s men, women and people of color. But the politics of Georgia definitely affects my thinking. Will I be able to work here? Will there be work?”

Politics is kept off film sets here, but differences between liberals and conservatives, many of whom are native Georgians, are palpable if mostly left unspoken over religion, Trump, gun rights and immigration.


“Just because we’re in a union doesn’t mean we’re all progressive,” said Rosegren, her shoulder tattooed with a scene from “The Jungle Book.” “A lot of guys in our union agree with the abortion bill. I’m 37 and some union men incessantly harp at me for not having children. They have traditional views. But this abortion law means women will die. Women will go to prison.”
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/m ... story.html
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13306
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#119 Post by highdesert » Tue Aug 27, 2019 3:17 pm

A US federal judge has temporarily blocked a new law banning nearly all abortions in the state of Missouri after eight weeks of pregnancy from going into effect. It was set to take effect on Wednesday. The legislation bans abortions after eight weeks except in cases of medical emergency. US District Judge Howard Sachs said it was not to be enforced, "pending litigation or further order of the court".

The ruling to delay the law's enforcement followed a legal challenge by Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union. They sued Missouri last month, arguing that the law was unconstitutional and went against the Supreme Court's landmark 1973 Roe v Wade ruling, which legalised abortion nationwide. "The legislation on its face conflicts with the Supreme Court ruling that neither legislative or judicial limits on abortion can be measured by specified weeks or development of a foetus; instead, 'viability' is the sole test for a state's authority to prohibit abortions where there is no maternal health issue," the judge wrote in an 11-page opinion. Similar laws have been struck down in other US states.

Attorneys for the state can now appeal against the judge's ruling. They say that "protecting foetal life" and protecting women is the state's goal, according to the Associated Press news agency. The law, dubbed Missouri Stands With The Unborn, would outlaw performing an abortion in nearly all cases. Exemptions would be made for medical emergencies, but not pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Doctors who performed abortions more than eight weeks into pregnancy would face five to 15 years in prison. A woman who had an abortion would not be held criminally liable.

Republican Governor Mike Parson said it would allow Missouri to become "one of the strongest pro-life states in the country". Abortion is one of the most divisive political issues in the US. Missouri already has some of the nation's most restrictive abortion regulations, with just one clinic in the state currently performing abortions. A judge in May temporarily blocked Missouri from becoming the first US state not to have an abortion clinic in nearly half a century.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49490344
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
K9s
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 5516
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Location: LGC Member: Georgia
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#120 Post by K9s » Tue Aug 27, 2019 3:46 pm

How white nationalists aligned themselves with the antiabortion movement

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... -movement/
Antiabortion activists in the United States have long attempted to invert the historical relationship between eugenics and reproductive rights, suggesting those who favor reproductive rights are the real eugenicists. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, recently called abortion “an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation,” despite the lack of evidence that women of color are being encouraged to have unwanted abortions, or that practices like sex selection are happening in the United States on a discernible scale. Meanwhile, a near-total abortion ban passed in Alabama in spring included language claiming that abortion was a larger-scale genocide than the Holocaust — a sinister tactic in the antiabortion arsenal that simultaneously links these unrelated phenomena and plays down the horrors of the Shoah.

In reality, sterilization — not abortion — has always been the technology of choice for governments seeking to keep populations down, for the obvious reason that it can be administered en masse and that its effects are permanent. Millions of third-world women were sterilized during the Cold War under U.S.-backed global health programs, as delusions of race suicide gave way to anxieties about a “population bomb,” as the best-selling popular science writer Paul Ehrlich put it, set off by overly fertile women in the global south. In the United States, sterilizations peaked during the 1970s, overwhelmingly administered to women of color, often poor or in prison; women seeking aid from the welfare system were often pressured to undergo the procedure as a condition for receiving benefits. In an especially perverse twist, the same population of women undergoing forced sterilization was effectively barred from abortion care after the passage of the Hyde amendment in 1976, which prohibits Medicaid from covering the cost of abortions for low-income women. (An entirely different system applied to middle-class white women, who were deterred from voluntary sterilization even when they sought it out.)
Homeland Maternity: US Security Culture and the New Reproductive Regime

https://books.google.com/books?id=KOuRD ... nt&f=false

Image
The border between civilization and savagery is porous and patrolled by opportunists. Resist fascism. Vote like your democracy depends on it.

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 18865
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#121 Post by CDFingers » Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:08 am

White Nationalism is all about control for white men. The 14th Amendment is about persons. Therefore, the White Nationalist stance is unconstitutional. Arrest them and imprison them.

Their only argument that holds water is that they don't like abortions. Well, I don't like them either. Because I don't like them, should I work to make them illegal? In their world, that's valid. In my world they are invalid. I cordially invite them to visit the theological place of eternal punishment. >bpth<

CDFingers
ImageImage
Life may be sweeter for this, I don't know.
See how it feels in the end.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13306
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#122 Post by highdesert » Wed Aug 28, 2019 10:55 am

CDFingers wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:08 am
White Nationalism is all about control for white men. The 14th Amendment is about persons. Therefore, the White Nationalist stance is unconstitutional. Arrest them and imprison them.

Their only argument that holds water is that they don't like abortions. Well, I don't like them either. Because I don't like them, should I work to make them illegal? In their world, that's valid. In my world they are invalid. I cordially invite them to visit the theological place of eternal punishment. >bpth<

CDFingers
I don't like abortions either, wish we had more and better methods of contraception for women and men. Alas the pill isn't the answer for every woman, had a sister in law who couldn't take them, it made her stranger than she already was.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

SaneConservative
Helpful Contributor
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 4:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#123 Post by SaneConservative » Thu Aug 29, 2019 10:02 am

This topic is always fascinating. Way more insanity on the right thanks to religion. If religion is used to back arguments I stop listening.

Some questions: If a man is in a relationship with a woman and the two have unprotected sex without consideration of having a pregnancy (come on people are this stupid and you know it) does the man have a say because he is contributing to a new life? If both parties partake in something with a risky outcome, shouldn’t both have a say?

Outside of this scenario I support a woman if she wants to have one. People love controlling others. The time and money spent arguing this topic is insane.

Folks on the right need to consider this: Do you really think whatever made a potential mother not want that life isn’t already confused? It’s in our genetics to protect our young. Mothers intensely have this quality. Maybe instead of bashing women seeking abortion, people should ask more questions about the circumstances and offer to help the person in question.

One big reason I’m on this site: I’m fucking tired of republicans viewing the world in black and white; In absolutes. Life can be complicated and conflicting.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 13306
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#124 Post by highdesert » Thu Aug 29, 2019 10:21 am

My opinion is that it's ultimately up to the woman, pregnancy takes place in her body. But state laws vary across the US as to how much say the man has. Republicans feel more comfortable with black and white, for the religious ones that's what they get in church. It's easier to control their followers.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
K9s
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 5516
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Location: LGC Member: Georgia
Contact:

Re: Abortion

#125 Post by K9s » Thu Aug 29, 2019 5:49 pm

SaneConservative wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 10:02 am
This topic is always fascinating. Way more insanity on the right thanks to religion. If religion is used to back arguments I stop listening.

Some questions: If a man is in a relationship with a woman and the two have unprotected sex without consideration of having a pregnancy (come on people are this stupid and you know it) does the man have a say because he is contributing to a new life? If both parties partake in something with a risky outcome, shouldn’t both have a say?

Outside of this scenario I support a woman if she wants to have one. People love controlling others. The time and money spent arguing this topic is insane.

Folks on the right need to consider this: Do you really think whatever made a potential mother not want that life isn’t already confused? It’s in our genetics to protect our young. Mothers intensely have this quality. Maybe instead of bashing women seeking abortion, people should ask more questions about the circumstances and offer to help the person in question.

One big reason I’m on this site: I’m fucking tired of republicans viewing the world in black and white; In absolutes. Life can be complicated and conflicting.
If a woman has to ask the man (or government) to sign off on an abortion, the man (and the legislators who espouse this view) should provide for that child and woman if the man declines permission. Not bare necessities... actually provide decent food, housing, and care. The man would have to stay home with the child if the woman wants to work, for example.

In many states, a poor woman can be provided health insurance if she is pregnant. Not before or after. The child might be provided healthcare and, maybe, some food and diapers. Childcare? Housing? Good luck with that!
The border between civilization and savagery is porous and patrolled by opportunists. Resist fascism. Vote like your democracy depends on it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests