Nailed it. Pretty disgusting that they have painted a picture of Dave that way. Not surprising though.

The abortion issue is always a quandary to me. About 70% or more americans are opposed to abortion in the third trimester, while the majority are in favor of allowing for the first trimester. I would guess most would be opposed to saying it should be legal up to the very moment of crowning. Around 10% say there should never be a legal right. So, then, it can be argued that the differences are how much to restrict, no whether to restrict. I find it strange that Trump or any other republican doesn't just admit that they are trying their best to find the best time restrictions, then ask their opponent if they really feel a woman in delivery should suddenly be able to decide for an abortion instead. If they are, I think most voters would find this disgusting. If they agree on some restrictions, then the argument is changed to who is right and why on the time period rather than on a woman's absolute freedom of choice.

During the Trump/Harris debate Trump didn't exactly say this but he did say "her vice presidential pick says abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine. He also says execution after birth..." before he was cut off and interrupted by the ABC moderator Linsey Davis fact checking it as false by stating "There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.” Then they moved on to more important things like Kamala Harris, who wears a $62,000 Tiffany & Co gold necklace, telling everyone how she grew up in a middle class family.

Just for the record, Minnesota, where Walz is the governor, has no restrictions on abortion based on gestational duration according to the Guttmacher Institute. Walz also signed this law himself in January 2023 removing the many restrictions on abortion in Minnesota, making it legal through all nine months of pregnancy. So like usual they focused on a minor detail like his execution after birth comment and ignored the main point he was making.

However Trump's execution comment wasn't in the narrow sense referring to killing a baby after it was born, he was using it in a broader sense talking about another law signed by Walz on May 2023 which repeals the requirement to preserve the life and health of babies born alive after botched abortions in Minnesota. The previous law which had been in place since 1976 required “responsible medical personnel” to use “all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice” to “preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.” The revised law, signed by Walz, replaced this requirement with a new standard of “care for the infant who is born alive.” This change effectively allowed babies born alive after botched abortions to die without medical intervention. So far 8 babies were born alive who had survived botched abortions in Minnesota and were given no medical treatment and left to die under this law signed by Walz. This is what Trump was referring to.

Anyway, the abortion issue on Trump is another red herring as Trump, Melania and JD Vance have all publicly come out in support of abortion and said any national abortion ban would be vetoed.

The abortion issue remains a deal breaker for me. I'm a man, never could get pregnant and never had to think about it. I think abortion should be the sole province of women. That is, no man should be allowed any say whatever on whether someone should or should not be allowed an abortion. I don't think there should be any local, state, or federal law affecting the issue of abortion. I see that decision as belonging to the woman and her doctor who may be considering it. Few abortions occur in the third trimester, and when they do, it is generally because of a health issue of the woman.

If there was justice in this world, every anti-abortion person would have to take one of these non-aborted babies home to raise for 18 years plus 4 years of college following. Sort of a "put their money where their mouth is" kind of action plan.

Technicality or not on Reichert's Congressional voting record, he has decidedly placed himself in the anti-abortion camp. He also came out against gay marriage at an event in Ellensburg last summer. So he's got that going for him as well.

Alternatively, since so many kids turn out bad, perhaps mothers should be allowed to abort them up until their 18 birthday . . . (joking, but I heard that somewhere a while back and thought it was funny).

True 1% or less of abortions are in the third trimester, according to the CDC. For the most part I agree here, however I have one caveat. Other than issues of the mother's health, rape and incest, after the quickening (the 20th week, viability) the baby has developed enough to now the primary consideration of whether to kill this innocent human being should be this human beings own point of view. Just like in euthanasia, the primary consideration of the abortion after week 20 outside the exceptions ought to be from the perspective of the one killed.

Also, you are asking for medical doctors who are in short supply and taxpayer dollars to pay for this. So now the taxpayer gets a say in how their money is spent.



You are not looking at the point of view of the one being killed here, in a just world if their life would be worth living anyway having survived then they ought to. In a just world every proabortion person should themselves have been aborted but no every single time somebody is proabortion they were never aborted yet they ignore the opinion of somebody who was. If abortions are so great why didn't your mother get one?



Partially true, partially false. What's true is that in February 2024, Reichert told a group of Pierce County Republicans that he believes "marriage is between a man and a woman." What is false is that he has since clarified that, if elected governor, he would not take any steps to restrict same-sex marriage, which is currently legal in Washington state. So believing it is wrong yet respecting the voters opinion on it isn't coming out against gay marriage. I don't believe in gay marriage which is why I voted against it but it passed anyway, so here we are. According to Seattle Times survey's in 2019, 75% of Democrats and independents who leaned Democrat supported same-sex marriage, while 44% of Republicans and independents who leaned Republican did. So he is in the majority of Republican and independent leaning republicans who don't support same sex marriage.

I'm with you on that Salmo. I might suggest that many who support abortion feel the same way about it as many who see that the Second allows for NO controls on weapons.

I would add another consideration for Dave to his consistent voting against the ACA. Not just the opposition, because that may actually have some good philosophical basis but the clear fact that even when in control of the White House, Senate, and House the GOP could not develop an alternative.

I've only been in WA for somewhat more than 50 years but it seems to me that while the GOP can, and has, put out good Governors that the party simply cannot actually rule when in control of the Leg. Of course, we are seeing the same inability to effectively govern at the city and county level for the Left, too.

Time to go kill something; deer, goose, turkey, something.....

OK but the constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Where does it say anything about abortion? I'll wait.



OK I can't find anything on this in his voting record. The only thing I can find is that in 2017 he advanced a repeal of the ACA bill out of committee then voted against the same bill on the floor of the house citing changes to the bill. When asked why he changed his mind, he said that the new bill "falls short on provisions for poor children and people with pre-existing medical conditions, and that it was rushed through without a proper vetting of costs." So other than advancing the bill to the floor for a vote where he then voted against the bill, when did he vote against the ACA?

Is this another made up vote like the banning abortion thing?

Funny, but I got a ticket a months bach for not wearing my seat belt. no other reason for stopping me. Soooo much I do not understand.

D,oh ! A quick profiling is performed, and it was quickly determined that you could afford/would likely pay the fine and contribute to the general funding.

Done deal...

Must have changed the law because for quite a while the WSP, at least, could not stop you just for no seat belt. Coworker found out that BC had different thresholds for stops..

Flatbrim,

If you believe you deserve a say in whether a woman may have an abortion, then a group of women deserve a say and can vote that you must have a vasectomy while you're young because they think you're to ugly to father children.

The idea here is about fundamental freedom. You want to decide when a woman has freedom, so being an even minded person you must be OK with others deciding what you can be free to do or not do. Aha, you say, but what about the freedom or rights of the unborn? The unborn is a fetus and is not a person or citizen with rights until born. I know, it gets messy as a fetus develops and progresses toward birth and personhood, but birth is the line in the sand legally. Calling a fetus an unborn person, child, or citizen is an artifact of semantics. BTW, I'm personally not so much in favor of abortion, but I am overwhelmingly in favor of personal freedom. I'd rather not have others imposing their will on me, so I in turn will mind my own damn business and not impose my will on them.

And I did not ask you for your tax dollars to fund abortions, but will remind you that we all pay taxes that often fund specific things that we'd rather not be paying for. That's how a pluralistic society works. You don't always get what you want.

And as for comparing the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms with abortion, I'll remind you that not every individual and personal right is enumerated individually in the Constitution, but abortion is rightly covered by the 4th and 9th Amendments, which a few disgraceful SCOTUS justices conveniently ignored in the Dobbs decision.

“ but abortion is rightly covered by the 4th and 9th Amendments, which a few disgraceful SCOTUS justices conveniently ignored in the Dobbs decision”

Ahhh, now we’re getting someplace.

Just can’t trust those dang lawyers to do what some of us constitutional law experts feel like they should have, liked, or wished for when asked to interpret rulings that some other lawyers have claimed to be the correct interpretation of law.

Where’s Avenatti when we need him?

I think leftists are just using the abortion topic as a scare tactic to keep the Dems in power. I'm a very centrist voter and often vote either party depending on the office and what is at issue. I'm for personal freedom and a woman's right to choose. Nothing I know about Reichert threatens that. Does anyone think it's healthy for the democrats to control this state's politics for over 40 years? Only long term government employees and leftists embrace that

It is not healthy for either party to control government for any long stretch of time. But the party out of power has to provide ideas that are acceptable to a majority of voters.

Bad analogy. I don't see the connection.



OK but I didn't call the fetus a person, a child or citizen. I called it a human being, which it is. You like the word fetus because it dehumanizes the innocent human being to make it easier for you to stomach their killing. But, it is also a fetus. But what kind of fetus? What animal might it be? Oh it's a human fetus and since it is unborn it's obviously innocent of wrongdoing, so a fetus is a type of innocent human being, there are other types of innocent human beings that have been born but there are some types of innocent human beings that are unborn fetuses. So when you kill any innocent human being which includes but is not limited to fetuses, then you should use that human's perspective as your primary guidance in the decision.

At 20 weeks the fetus is moving, it has a heartbeat, it has a nervous system, a brain capable of comprehending the 5 senses, its eyes are forming, it has it's own blood, it's own DNA and you can determine it's sex at this age. After 20 weeks it at least has grown enough rights that the decision to kill it outside the exceptions of rape, incest or health of the mother ought to be made from the perspective of the killed innocent human fetus. If we didn't do this as you suggest, then this would be the only time in our society that we kill an innocent human without that human's perspective being the primary consideration guiding the decision. The overwhelming majority (like 80%) would agree with me here or to ban abortion further than this. When you are living in a pluralistic society doing something that 80% of people are against with their tax dollars is undemocratic and questionable at best. I'm not saying a fetus has all the rights that adult humans have but they still have some rights, not zero as you imply. It's not black and white but shades of grey.



The 4th Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, primarily in the context of criminal investigations and law enforcement activities and does not mention abortion or even allude to it in the slightest. There is no explicit mention of abortion in the 9th Amendment itself, which is not unusual because the 9th Amendment does not explicitly guarantee any unenumerated rights and the 9th Amendment is rarely, if ever, used as the sole basis for a court decision.

If you were talking about Dobbs decision overturning Roe V Wade, in which the Supreme Court relied on the 9th Amendment, along with the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, to establish a constitutional right to privacy and, by extension, a woman’s right to abortion before fetal viability. Well you would be against Row V Wade because it only is before the fetal viability period that allows abortion. But anyway, lets just say you did a typo and meant to type 14th instead of 4th. I'm trying to steelman your argument here to make it as strong as possible before I debunk you.

The 14th amendment also does not explicitly mention abortion either and the Dobbs decision was correct in overturning Roe V Wade (which you are still against because it doesn't go far enough for you). Alito writes in the decision that the 14th amendment’s language, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” only guarantees procedural protections against state action, not substantive rights like abortion. Alito cited the historical context of the 14th amendment’s adoption in 1868, noting that most states prohibited abortion at the time. He also emphasized that the 14th amendment’s framers did not intend to create a broad right to privacy or personal autonomy, but rather to ensure due process and equal protection under the law.

So Roe V Wade (which you disagree with because it doesn't go far enough) was overturned because nothing in the 4th, 9th, 14th or any other part of the constitution guarantees you a right to an abortion so under the 10th amendment it's left to the States. Dobbs was rightfully decided by the majority (not a few) of the Supreme Court and this decision is supported by the vast majority of legal scholars on both sides of the political isle. Despite your opinion of them being disgraceful, well that is subjective and on the other hand there are many that consider them to be wise, just and reasonable jurists.

It isn’t a good analogy.

To elaborate, abortion relates to life and death. The vasectomy comparison relates to looks which is a more subjective matter. Plenty of women don’t mind being impregnated by a man most women don’t find attractive. Many posters here are prime examples of this. The laws of attraction would actually suggest that most women only find about 10% or less of men to be attractive. However, if this were to be the sole criteria for procreation, most men (and women) would never have sex as there wouldn’t be enough men perceived as attractive enough to go around.

Another critical piece to consider is that children in the womb can feel pain around 24 weeks. This is roughly the same time as a fetus is determined to be viable outside of the womb as defined by Roe vs Wade. If it is viable outside of the womb, without question at that point it is considered a human life, therefore has rights. The argument of before 20 weeks can be made, but the argument of after doesn’t hold water. Inflicting pain on a human life in the womb is battery. Intentional killing of a human life in the womb is murder. Democrats are okay with murdering humans in the womb and even after coming out of the womb during botched abortions.

Roe vs Wade established a minimum threshold based upon what is known to scientifically be true. Beyond that is more of a philosophical argument, but isn’t the role of the federal government to decide such things as this power belongs to the states.


Streamer

Why just the focus on abortion?
How about the covid sudden deaths increase? Some party mandated the mrna over the historically proven alternative method of making a vaccine.

Emergency use authorization expires when?

The tribal obligation is the only reason we still have fish to argue over IMHO.
How many tribal members have had complications from the new smallpox blankets?

I love this site on an election year. It susses the fruitcakes out into the open.

BTW I went fishing a few days back. I caught some, lost some, got a little drunk, and it was fun.

fb

Mr. Twister,

I think the Dems will use any issue whatever to keep Dems in power, just as Republicans do when they have that opportunity. I don't think an imbalance of power has done Washington much good. Unfortunately, the Republicans have consistently chosen gubernatorial candidates who oppose both abortion and gay rights, and that just isn't going to win in WA state. If Republicans nominated a more socially liberal and fiscally conservative candidate (like a so-call Dan Evan Republican), then I think he or she would have an excellent chance of winning.

Flatbrim posted: ". . . then you should use that human's perspective as your primary guidance in the decision."

Why? Says who? Unsurprisingly, it appears that we have a difference of opinion. It looks like we do agree that shades of grey do color the issue.

The point of my analogy was power over other people. The anti-abortion segment is totally OK about having the power of deciding what women can or cannot do with their bodies. As I posted above, I'm not so much in favor of abortion, but I am 100% in favor of personal freedom. You choose to remove that freedom from women. I don't. Looks like we've come to an impasse. Hence, I won't be voting for Reichert even though he has several other good leadership qualities. As I posted initially, candidates, or anyone, who just gotta' have power over women's bodies and gays is a deal breaker for me.

Streamer,

OK, my analogy wasn't so good. My point was about some people deciding they should have power over other people, and limit their personal freedom. I like my personal freedom and sure as hell don't want others deciding what I can or cannot do. In turn, I have no interest in deciding what another person, including women, can or cannot do. That's a Golden Rule kind of thing to me. The issues about the timing of viability of a fetus is not relevant to me because it is superseded by the woman's personal freedom. Period, end of story, and I look no further. So I don't think this power belongs to any government, state or federal.

Slabhunter,

Good question. Reichert as a candidate for governor came up early in this thread. I posted what I thought was negative baggage for Furgison and Reichert. In Reichert's case it's his anti-abortion and anti gay marriage positions that disqualify him from my vote.

Hey Salmo you been fishin?