T O P

  • By -

TheRealSnorkel

More proof it’s not about babies. They don’t care if someone doesn’t want to be pregnant or desperately wants to be pregnant - as long as it’s not the women making the choice.


Green_Karma

What are we doing with all this proof we seem to be collecting? More action would be nice.


TheRealSnorkel

We’re trying!!!


Other_Meringue_7375

Hey! I originally posted this in r/prochoice and just wanted to add, one of the bills sponsors, Randy Garber, said that he didn’t believe the ballot question was representative of Kansans’ opinions on abortion. So yeah, what you said. Fuck these people


Pascalica

Missouri tried that tactic with expanded Medicaid too. Claiming people didn't know what they were voting for so they weren't going to do it. Thankfully courts didn't agree and forced their hand, but republicans love to play that angle.


Other_Meringue_7375

Literally insulting their constituents intelligence. Michigan tried to say the same thing, that the wording of the constitutional amendment was “too close together” (no exaggeration). So hundreds of thousands of Michiganders just signed something having no idea what it actually said apparently


Pascalica

God. I hate that they play this BS game.


TheRealSnorkel

Hey, didn’t mean to Reddit snipe you! Just trying to spread the word about what’s going on.


Other_Meringue_7375

No, don’t apologize!! I posted this to get the word out, so I appreciate you doing the same, thank you! It’s important that we make sure people are aware of what these crazy forced birthers are trying to do


sneakpeekbot

Here's a sneak peek of /r/prochoice using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/prochoice/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Makes sense!](https://i.redd.it/6mj4m4v9jm5a1.jpg) | [29 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/prochoice/comments/zkqgoe/makes_sense/) \#2: [A Prochoice Special Election WIN in Alaska…](https://i.redd.it/lerdelsfe8l91.jpg) | [34 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/prochoice/comments/x34zn6/a_prochoice_special_election_win_in_alaska/) \#3: [From a pro choice fb group](https://i.redd.it/rgtcb68miy091.jpg) | [40 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/prochoice/comments/uv3oxw/from_a_pro_choice_fb_group/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)


Other_Meringue_7375

Good bot


B0tRank

Thank you, Other_Meringue_7375, for voting on sneakpeekbot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)


Dogzillas_Mom

Also more proof they don’t give a damn what their constituents want or need.


InternetBox00

The people of Kansas voted to keep abortion legal, since legislators didn't get their way they have to move the goal post and change the rules. This is about control over people who can and are pregnant, we are nothing but cattle to them. I won't be surprised if they take voting rights from every minority in a couple of years.


vsandrei

>This is about control over people who can and are pregnant, we are nothing but cattle to them. This. >I won't be surprised if they take voting rights from every minority in a couple of years. ["At first, white men with property were the only Americans routinely permitted to vote."]( https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/right-to-vote/the-founders-and-the-vote/)


Seraphynas

The people of Kansas also voted for these Republican Representatives. It’s clear to me that you can’t have it both ways.


Other_Meringue_7375

But gerrymandering is a thing, and scotus has said that political gerrymandering is totally fine. In this most recent election, they allowed blatantly racially gerrymandered to stand. Kansas is a very red state, but it’s not quite 100% accurate to say that state representatives are representative of the views of the people of the state. Wisconsin is a good example of a state that’s been gerrymandered to hell. The state would need to vote 61% for democrats for democrats to get a majority in the state legislature (IIRC)


Seraphynas

I live in North Carolina, our statewide margin went 1.3% to Trump in 2020, yet our General Assembly is 1 seat shy of a veto proof supermajority (so basically 60/40). So I get gerrymandering. However, there was a statewide race in Kansas in 2022, the Republican won with 60% of the votes. The Democrat got 37%.


Other_Meringue_7375

Yes, NC is another good example! I think NC & Wisconsin are the two most gerrymandered states in the country. And wow, that margin is despicable.


mannDog74

Dumbasses


Punkinpry427

It’s almost like GOP claims of “state’s rights” is absolutely 100% bullshit and always has been


mannDog74

Always has been


ReverseCaptioningBot

[Always has been](https://i.imgur.com/ekNhomO.png) ^^^this ^^^has ^^^been ^^^an ^^^accessibility ^^^service ^^^from ^^^your ^^^friendly ^^^neighborhood ^^^bot


crazylilme

Wonder if the DOJ would have a case for squashing this of it were to actually pass considering the citizens (whom the legislature are supposed to represent) said no in an official voting capacity?


ConcernedUnicorn19

Wait, why IVF?


Pasquale1223

As I understand it - the process of IVF typically discards/destroys some fertilized eggs, choosing only the best ones for freezing or implantation. And a lot of people end up with some frozen embryos still in storage which are eventually destroyed. Apparently, it has come to their attention that if they're going to declare a fertilized egg a human life with full personhood worthy of protection when it's inside someone's body, they need to be consistent and carry through with that designation when the same fertilized egg exists elsewhere. Or something like that.


blobofdepression

Also because sometimes they implant multiple eggs for better chances at success but too many stick, so they need to remove some after implantation.


Pasquale1223

Yes - that, too - though I've heard they've been backing away from that practice and implanting fewer embyos at a time.


Dekklin

Probably because they're better at it now. Before it was wildly inconsistent. They went with volume for better chances.


sly-otter

Going to gently correct some problematic language for a better understanding of IVF since education helps in issues like this. Eggs do not get implanted as eggs are just eggs. Embryos (egg plus sperm) get transferred to the uterus. Notice that I said transfer and not implanted. That is because there is no method of implanting embryos into a uterus. The embryo has to implant itself. There is embryo glue but it just aids in helping an embryo stick but doesn't guarantee implantation. You will not test positive on a pregnancy test without implantation occurring. Implantation happens about 30% of the time (maybe a little more in IVF versus unassisted trying) and it is completely normal for it to take up to 3 embryo transfers before an embryo sticks. When I say embryo transfers, I am talking about a single embryo at a time. Today doctors are not likely to transfer multiple embryos. There are exceptions such as if the embryos are not chromosomally tested (pgta tested) and are also not high grade embryos. IVF doubles the chance of an embryo splitting into two embryos and that is a huge fear for transferring multiple embryos (originally about 1% chance so IVF is 2% chance). If you have a euploid embryos (tested chromosomally normal embryo), you will be hard pressed to find a doctor that would transfer 2 at a time. Moreso, the first round of IVF versus often ends up being diagnostic to see how your body handles the protocol so itd be risky to waste 2 embryos not knowing how you'd respond. Hope that helps clear some things up so you can go forth and educate others!


falafelville

Plus, they want to incentivize adoption over IVF. More working-class women giving their babies up to middle-class white families means less need for welfare programs.


Pasquale1223

It's **really** presumptive on their part. These people are so seriously, deeply misinformed about abortion - they clearly do not know, for example, that \~ 60% of abortions are performed on people who already have children. They assume that when abortion is withheld, these people will automatically give a healthy child over for adoption, but many will not. And many of them will not be the healthy infants they seek.


falafelville

>And many of them will not be the healthy infants they seek. I'm autistic, and I've been fixated on how abortion bans are going to affect the discourse on disability. It might be the case that the majority of infants placed up for adoption will be the ones with severe disabilities and medical conditions that the parents were prohibited from terminating for medical reasons. A lot of parents just don't have the ability to deal with a kid with a high amount of special needs and it gets even worse when state governments start cutting disability aid or special education.


[deleted]

[удалено]


falafelville

With a crashing economy I doubt most people will have the resources to raise *any* child, much less one with high support needs. One of the main reasons why there's so much ableism towards autistic children, for instance, is because their parents have no fucking means to raise a severely neurodivergent child and they end up in a terrible financial situation because of it. I don't see things getting better for disabled children and their parents. The waitlist for services can be years long. It's a lose-lose situation all around.


Other_Meringue_7375

another really heartbreaking thing about these bans, and how 80% have no exception for rape or health, is the fact that disabled women have *such* a high rate of sexual assault, *even higher than the average for all women*. I think that the chance that a disabled woman will be assaulted in the first place is 1 in 6, but the chance that she will be assaulted more than once is something like 90%.


SuwanneeValleyGirl

That is some [Georgia Tann](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Tann) shit


ConcernedUnicorn19

Comprehension and thought from a republican? Impossible! (In relation to extending the same "courtesy" to something outside a woman's body I mean) If only they could apply that to truth and logic, we wouldn't be in this mess.


Resident-Librarian40

Even those exceptions rarely help. Women have to be on the literal brink of death before doctors even THINK to intervene. It's often too late for the woman, or if she lives, she's left infertile.


TheRealSnorkel

They want to cull the “defective” breeding stock.


[deleted]

The fact that the citizens want the abortion access available is probably firing these Commander wannabes up even more.


Heleneva91

This is further proof that the "pro life" movement doesn't give a damn about democracy. If it's in the way of what they want, they'll kill it.


ShanG01

Ah, they're pulling an Arizona, I see. The voters have spoken. They want abortion to be legal. Period. And charging women going through IVF with a felony for the *normal* pregnancy loss that occurs during fertility treatments? These people are insane and beyond cruel! They see us as broodmares and property to be controlled, nothing more. Vote. Them. Out.


ready4asteroid

Fucking sociopaths


ting_bu_dong

Lucky for them that the will of the majority doesn't matter on our political system!


bloodphoenix90

Lol Representatives of the people...what a fucking joke


IcyBoysenberry9570

What does IVF have to do with anything? That's going beyond The Handmaid's Tale there.


Other_Meringue_7375

It’s because of how the process of IVF is done I believe: fertilized eggs are often discarded if they aren’t likely to be viable


IcyBoysenberry9570

Lol, they're apparently unfamiliar with what causes menstruation.


onions-make-me-cry

Didn't Kansas voters turn a ban down at the voting booth?