Issue 1 in Ohio

[Weatherman2020]

Giving the people the power over politicians is a good thing.

So if I won yesterday’s $1.6B lotto, you’re cool with me going to Ohio to get their Constitution changed.

 

[pknopp]

So if I won yesterday’s $1.6B lotto, you’re cool with me going to Ohio to get their Constitution changed.

Pretty sure it doesn't work that way but whatever you think.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Pretty sure it doesn't work that way but whatever you think.

You think all of Soros’s DA’s won because of their personalities?

 

[pknopp]

You think all of Soros’s DA’s won because of their personalities?

Soros had absolutely nothing to do with the shellacking Issue one took last night.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Soros had absolutely nothing to do with the shellacking Issue one took last night.

Statement was about how easy it is to buy elections, and you know it.

 

[pknopp]

Statement was about how easy it is to buy elections, and you know it.

Sadly people think that the only way they lose elections is if someone bought the people off. There is no truth to that.

There is one reason Republicans lost last night. People had no desire to see their rights lost to politicians.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Sadly people think that the only way they lose elections is if someone bought the people off. There is no truth to that.

There is one reason Republicans lost last night. People had no desire to see their rights lost to politicians.

You go run for President then. Dip into your savings even.

 

[pknopp]

You go run for President then. Dip into your savings even.

Why? It's not about me. While I am from Ohio and live in a neighboring state, it's not about me.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Why? It's not about me. While I am from Ohio and live in a neighboring state, it's not about me.

Money doesn’t influence elections. Your statement.
Run for POTUS. Fix America the way you think it should be.
Lifetime 6 figure annual pension and healthcare too.

 

[pknopp]

Money doesn’t influence elections. Your statement.
Run for POTUS. Fix America the way you think it should be.
Lifetime 6 figure annual pension and healthcare too.

Tell me, how much money did you make from your votes?

 

[The5thHorseman]

Yes on Issue 1

The mission of Ohio Right to Life is to promote and defend the right to life of all innocent human beings, from the time of fertilization until natural death.

www.ohiolife.org

Since Roe vs Wade has been overturned, the Left has begun an all-out assault to recodify abortion back into the law of states that opted out, like Ohio. In Ohio, they are now trying to add abortion to the state Constitution via a direct vote to circumvent lawmakers who restrict abortion. Voting no on issue one would allow a simple majority to add abortion to the Ohio Constitution. But as we all know, the Left will not be honest about advertising it, since they own the media. They will sell it as a return to Roe vs. Wade, but that would be a lie. The proposed amendment would do much more than that as I will explain later. However, voting yes would require more than just a simple majority to change the Constitution.

The Amendment has already been written and will not only allow abortion on demand, but it does away with the Roe vs Wade mandate that abortions not occur on viable infants. That means abortions up to the partial birth abortion. Anything goes now.

But it does not end there. It would also allow children to have abortions without their parents' consent.

But it doesn't even end there. It would also allow children to begin to transition into another sex without their parents' notification or approval.

Imagine your child making the most difficult decisions of their lives that will alter their lives forever, without they help of their parents.

Parental rights would become nonexistent with the proposed Constitutional amendment, but again, it is not being advertised this way.

In fact, why even have parents since the state can only be trusted with the welfare of children and not the parents? After all, we see what a swell job the state does with children in foster care.

No, parents need to be targeted because they cannot be trusted. America really is that bad, all of them.

Isn't that right democrats?

Voting is on August 8th.

Isn't Democracy fabulous?


STATES' RIGHTS!

 

[The5thHorseman]

These are cleverly worded to give the impression of reasonable restrictions, but they actually enshrine abortion on demand. All the abortionist has to say is that it is necessary for the patient's health. This is no different from getting a note from a marijuana dispensary.

And, dammit, you have a right to meddle in both.

 

[forkup]

Yes on Issue 1

The mission of Ohio Right to Life is to promote and defend the right to life of all innocent human beings, from the time of fertilization until natural death.

www.ohiolife.org

Since Roe vs Wade has been overturned, the Left has begun an all-out assault to recodify abortion back into the law of states that opted out, like Ohio. In Ohio, they are now trying to add abortion to the state Constitution via a direct vote to circumvent lawmakers who restrict abortion. Voting no on issue one would allow a simple majority to add abortion to the Ohio Constitution. But as we all know, the Left will not be honest about advertising it, since they own the media. They will sell it as a return to Roe vs. Wade, but that would be a lie. The proposed amendment would do much more than that as I will explain later. However, voting yes would require more than just a simple majority to change the Constitution.

The Amendment has already been written and will not only allow abortion on demand, but it does away with the Roe vs Wade mandate that abortions not occur on viable infants. That means abortions up to the partial birth abortion. Anything goes now.

But it does not end there. It would also allow children to have abortions without their parents' consent.

But it doesn't even end there. It would also allow children to begin to transition into another sex without their parents' notification or approval.

Imagine your child making the most difficult decisions of their lives that will alter their lives forever, without they help of their parents.

Parental rights would become nonexistent with the proposed Constitutional amendment, but again, it is not being advertised this way.

In fact, why even have parents since the state can only be trusted with the welfare of children and not the parents? After all, we see what a swell job the state does with children in foster care.

No, parents need to be targeted because they cannot be trusted. America really is that bad, all of them.

Isn't that right democrats?

Voting is on August 8th.

Ohio Issue 1, Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative (2023)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

It would ban the state from "directly or indirectly" interfering with the exercise of that right except for "widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care" until fetal viability, which is the point in a pregnancy when physicians say a fetus can survive with reasonable measures.

This is what's in the amendment. Not abortion up until birth. So that's the first thing. If you have to lie about the content on a proposed bill in order to get people to vote for another bill that simply allows people to propose amendments. Chances are the position you're holding is not shared by the majority of the people.

Second, for decades I've seen Republicans giving the line that the issue should be decided at State level. That was even the SCOTUS position. Now when this is happening and what is decided by the states isn't what you want all of a sudden the rules have to be changed.

 

[Votto]

Ohio Issue 1, Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative (2023)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

It would ban the state from "directly or indirectly" interfering with the exercise of that right except for "widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care" until fetal viability, which is the point in a pregnancy when physicians say a fetus can survive with reasonable measures.

This is what's in the amendment. Not abortion up until birth. So that's the first thing. If you have to lie about the content on a proposed bill in order to get people to vote for another bill that simply allows people to propose amendments. Chances are the position you're holding is not shared by the majority of the people.

Second, for decades I've seen Republicans giving the line that the issue should be decided at State level. That was even the SCOTUS position. Now when this is happening and what is decided by the states isn't what you want all of a sudden the rules have to be changed.

It also says AND when it comes to the health and well being of the mother, giving doctors the option to abort a viable infant if the mother is depressed, for example.

But if what you say is correct, you will have zero problems with an amendment that plainly lays out the limitations when it comes to gestation, right?

But also, there is parental notification that needs to be in there as well.

 

[The5thHorseman]

It also says AND when it comes to the health and well being of the mother, giving doctors the option to abort a viable infant if the mother is depressed, for example.

But if what you say is correct, you will have zero problems with an amendment that plainly lays out the limitations when it comes to gestation, right?

But also, there is parental notification that needs to be in there as well.

That really should be left to you....this woman/her doctor jive won't hunt.

 

[forkup]

It also says AND when it comes to the health and well being of the mother, giving doctors the option to abort a viable infant if the mother is depressed, for example.

But if what you say is correct, you will have zero problems with an amendment that plainly lays out the limitations when it comes to gestation, right?

But also, there is parental notification that needs to be in there as well.

I've got no problem with the proposing of any amendment. Since any such amendment then has to be voted on.

What I have a problem with is legal advocacy groups like the one you linked flat out lying about the content of a bill.

I have my personal view on abortion. It is complicated just like the issue is in my opinion. Because there is a conflict of fundamental rights. You have the rights of a mother to make decisions regarding her body and future, which you have to weigh against the rights and future of an unborn human being. Who's rights has priority? I lean towards the mother since she already has a place in society. But I don't think that right is absolute. Nor do I believe I'm wise enough to state with certainty that I'm right. In my view anybody who claims he does hasn't thought the full implications through.

What I absolutely detest though is using dishonesty in order to get your viewpoint to prevail. I don't care who does it. The issue is fraught and tragic enough. It doesn't need the demonization of people who has a different view then you.

So stop lying. Stop using loaded language like murder, and look at the issue with the respect something like this deserves.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

"Fetus" is no different from "infant", "adolescent", "pubescent", or "adult".

Most Americans agree that once there's a heartbeat and brain activity, we should leave it alone,

I'd support allowing abortion up to the 8th week - as a compromise. That's when brain activity starts.

Kansas and Ohio have proven beyond a shadow of public opinion doubt based on special election voters that both your arguments above are a complete and utter failure. To start with your arguments contradict themselves anyway.

FIrst you state

"Fetus" is no different from "infant",

Then you state

Most Americans agree that once there's a heartbeat and brain activity, we should leave it alone,

Ohio and Kansas are red states currently and they both morally accept RvW being good law requiring 24 weeks gestation after which a state may have an interest in arbitrarily protecting the life of an unborn child.

Note to St Seymour: Science says competent brain development coincides with fetal viability at 24 weeks not 8 weeks

All the above also means that most Kansans and Ohioans who vote their opinions on a woman’s right to control her own body and life do not agree with your absurd argunent that a Fetus" is no different from "infant.

A fetus without a physical brain is significantly different than an infant that had one and was successfully separated from being part of its mother’s neurological system.


Please grab some bench - Your team is losing the voters two to one.

hvdvt.23.08.07 420
hvdvt.22.06.28 #53
symrflps.23.05.17 #61
nf.23.08.09 #501

 

[hadit]

Kansas and Ohio have proven beyond a shadow of public opinion doubt based on special election voters that both your arguments above are a complete and utter failure. To start with your arguments contradict themselves anyway.

FIrst you state

Then you state


Ohio and Kansas are red states currently and they both morally accept RvW being good law requiring 24 weeks gestation after which a state may have an interest in arbitrarily protecting the life of an unborn child.

Note to St Seymour: Science says competent brain development coincides with fetal viability at 24 weeks not 8 weeks

All the above also means that most Kansans and Ohioans who vote their opinions on a woman’s right to control her own body and life do not agree with your absurd argunent that a Fetus" is no different from "infant.

A fetus without a physical brain is significantly different than an infant that had one and was successfully separated from being part of its mother’s neurological system.


Please grab some bench - Your team is losing the voters two to one.

hvdvt.23.08.07 420
hvdvt.22.06.28 #53
symrflps.23.05.17 #61

No conflict. One statement is biological and thus not vulnerable to opinion, the other is opinion. You do see the difference, right?

 

[Frankenstein]

Ohio said "mind your own business".

No Ohio said thank you for all the special interest money, spent to make sure parents have no rights.

 

[Frankenstein]

Kansas and Ohio have proven beyond a shadow of public opinion doubt based on special election voters that both your arguments above are a complete and utter failure. To start with your arguments contradict themselves anyway.

FIrst you state

Then you state


Ohio and Kansas are red states currently and they both morally accept RvW being good law requiring 24 weeks gestation after which a state may have an interest in arbitrarily protecting the life of an unborn child.

Note to St Seymour: Science says competent brain development coincides with fetal viability at 24 weeks not 8 weeks

All the above also means that most Kansans and Ohioans who vote their opinions on a woman’s right to control her own body and life do not agree with your absurd argunent that a Fetus" is no different from "infant.

A fetus without a physical brain is significantly different than an infant that had one and was successfully separated from being part of its mother’s neurological system.


Please grab some bench - Your team is losing the voters two to one.

hvdvt.23.08.07 420
hvdvt.22.06.28 #53
symrflps.23.05.17 #61

Listen Idiot, she had the right to not have sex, and now she gets a special right nowhere stated in the constitution to kill her child because ooops! You who support abortion, support child predators, becuase if you can kill a child, why can't you abuse them, they are nothing special and should be used how they see fit as they have no special meaning! So go support your local NAMBLA organization I mean you do already but they would love a check!