Connecticut becomes the first state to pass transgender/abortion safe haven laws

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Ah, sh**t. I don't want to have to move to Connecticut when North Carolina tries to sew my dick back on.

You have at least until 2025

Inshallah. In any case, I don't trust the people of North Carolina not to vote in a veto-proof Republican majority this year, which would force my hand as early as January.

Assuming the NCGOP needs a supermajority to override Cooper's vetoes, you should be fine. They'd need 80 seats in the House - which would mean flipping 11 seats. In the Senate, they'd need 33 seats, or flipping 5 seats (out of 50 total). I doubt it happens even in 2022 unless it's a massive tsunami and everything goes right for the NCGOP.

Three-fifths majority is required to override, actually, which means 72 and 30 (flipping 3 and 2 seats) in the House and Senate, respectively.

[Ferguson97]

"abortion refugees" lmao

Do you deny that red states will seek to ban abortions and prosecute women to get them?

Someone going to another state to kill their offspring isn't a refugee by any meaningful definition.

Abortion isn't killing anything, it's a medical procedure.

Denying the scientific fact that the human being in the womb is living isn't the flex you think it is.

It is not a scientific fact no matter how many times you claim this.

Haven't you said that you think life begins at conception? You are in no position to talk about "science".

[Schiff for Senate]

Ah, sh**t. I don't want to have to move to Connecticut when North Carolina tries to sew my dick back on.

You have at least until 2025

Inshallah. In any case, I don't trust the people of North Carolina not to vote in a veto-proof Republican majority this year, which would force my hand as early as January.

Assuming the NCGOP needs a supermajority to override Cooper's vetoes, you should be fine. They'd need 80 seats in the House - which would mean flipping 11 seats. In the Senate, they'd need 33 seats, or flipping 5 seats (out of 50 total). I doubt it happens even in 2022 unless it's a massive tsunami and everything goes right for the NCGOP.

Three-fifths majority is required to override, actually, which means 72 and 30 (flipping 3 and 2 seats) in the House and Senate, respectively.

Yeah Ifromnj explained that. I am curious though - was this another measure the legislature implemented to curtail the governor's powers after Cooper won in 2016?

[Badger]

"abortion refugees" lmao

Do you deny that red states will seek to ban abortions and prosecute women to get them?

Someone going to another state to kill their offspring isn't a refugee by any meaningful definition.

By definition, not their offspring for what semantics are worth.

[Person Man]

"abortion refugees" lmao

Do you deny that red states will seek to ban abortions and prosecute women to get them?

Someone going to another state to kill their offspring isn't a refugee by any meaningful definition.

Abortion isn't killing anything, it's a medical procedure.

Denying the scientific fact that the human being in the womb is living isn't the flex you think it is.

It is not a scientific fact no matter how many times you claim this.

Haven't you said that you think life begins at conception? You are in no position to talk about "science".

I guess identical siblings are not "humans" because the union of One Egg and One Sperm did not immediately result in them being a discrete entity. That's why I don't take this situation seriously until we have an actual pregnancy.

[fhtagn]

"abortion refugees" lmao

Do you deny that red states will seek to ban abortions and prosecute women to get them?

Someone going to another state to kill their offspring isn't a refugee by any meaningful definition.

Abortion isn't killing anything, it's a medical procedure.

Denying the scientific fact that the human being in the womb is living isn't the flex you think it is.

It is not a scientific fact no matter how many times you claim this.

Haven't you said that you think life begins at conception? You are in no position to talk about "science".

Please explain how the being in the womb is not alive. Please explain how it is not human. Literally any medical professional would laugh in your face based on the arguments you've provided so far.

[Person Man]

"abortion refugees" lmao

Do you deny that red states will seek to ban abortions and prosecute women to get them?

Someone going to another state to kill their offspring isn't a refugee by any meaningful definition.

Abortion isn't killing anything, it's a medical procedure.

Denying the scientific fact that the human being in the womb is living isn't the flex you think it is.

It is not a scientific fact no matter how many times you claim this.

Haven't you said that you think life begins at conception? You are in no position to talk about "science".

Please explain how the being in the womb is not alive. Please explain how it is not human. Literally any medical professional would laugh in your face based on the arguments you've provided so far.

Identical siblings before they bud off of each other. There needs to be some sort of open-closed principle for something like a person.

[Badger]

"abortion refugees" lmao

Do you deny that red states will seek to ban abortions and prosecute women to get them?

Someone going to another state to kill their offspring isn't a refugee by any meaningful definition.

Abortion isn't killing anything, it's a medical procedure.

Denying the scientific fact that the human being in the womb is living isn't the flex you think it is.

It is not a scientific fact no matter how many times you claim this.

Haven't you said that you think life begins at conception? You are in no position to talk about "science".

Please explain how the being in the womb is not alive. Please explain how it is not human. Literally any medical professional would laugh in your face based on the arguments you've provided so far.

The issue isn't whether a fetus is "alive".  By that standard so are sperm cells and un-fertilized eggs. Determining that it is entitled to the legal protection of a born citizen as anti-abortion advocates demand is nowhere near so clear cut.

[Person Man]

"abortion refugees" lmao

Do you deny that red states will seek to ban abortions and prosecute women to get them?

Someone going to another state to kill their offspring isn't a refugee by any meaningful definition.

Abortion isn't killing anything, it's a medical procedure.

Denying the scientific fact that the human being in the womb is living isn't the flex you think it is.

It is not a scientific fact no matter how many times you claim this.

Haven't you said that you think life begins at conception? You are in no position to talk about "science".

Please explain how the being in the womb is not alive. Please explain how it is not human. Literally any medical professional would laugh in your face based on the arguments you've provided so far.

The issue isn't whether a fetus is "alive".  By that standard so are sperm cells and un-fertilized eggs. Determining that it is entitled to the legal protection of a born citizen as anti-abortion advocates demand is nowhere near so clear cut.

The ultimate question, of course, is whether it is just our DNA that makes us people.

[fhtagn]

"abortion refugees" lmao

Do you deny that red states will seek to ban abortions and prosecute women to get them?

Someone going to another state to kill their offspring isn't a refugee by any meaningful definition.

Abortion isn't killing anything, it's a medical procedure.

Denying the scientific fact that the human being in the womb is living isn't the flex you think it is.

It is not a scientific fact no matter how many times you claim this.

Haven't you said that you think life begins at conception? You are in no position to talk about "science".

Please explain how the being in the womb is not alive. Please explain how it is not human. Literally any medical professional would laugh in your face based on the arguments you've provided so far.

The issue isn't whether a fetus is "alive".  By that standard so are sperm cells and un-fertilized eggs. Determining that it is entitled to the legal protection of a born citizen as anti-abortion advocates demand is nowhere near so clear cut.

That's definitely not the argument he is making lmao

[Badger]

"abortion refugees" lmao

Do you deny that red states will seek to ban abortions and prosecute women to get them?

Someone going to another state to kill their offspring isn't a refugee by any meaningful definition.

Abortion isn't killing anything, it's a medical procedure.

Denying the scientific fact that the human being in the womb is living isn't the flex you think it is.

It is not a scientific fact no matter how many times you claim this.

Haven't you said that you think life begins at conception? You are in no position to talk about "science".

Please explain how the being in the womb is not alive. Please explain how it is not human. Literally any medical professional would laugh in your face based on the arguments you've provided so far.

The issue isn't whether a fetus is "alive".  By that standard so are sperm cells and un-fertilized eggs. Determining that it is entitled to the legal protection of a born citizen as anti-abortion advocates demand is nowhere near so clear cut.

That's definitely not the argument he is making lmao

Well, it's the argument I'm making. Care to respond?

[fhtagn]

"abortion refugees" lmao

Do you deny that red states will seek to ban abortions and prosecute women to get them?

Someone going to another state to kill their offspring isn't a refugee by any meaningful definition.

Abortion isn't killing anything, it's a medical procedure.

Denying the scientific fact that the human being in the womb is living isn't the flex you think it is.

It is not a scientific fact no matter how many times you claim this.

Haven't you said that you think life begins at conception? You are in no position to talk about "science".

Please explain how the being in the womb is not alive. Please explain how it is not human. Literally any medical professional would laugh in your face based on the arguments you've provided so far.

The issue isn't whether a fetus is "alive".  By that standard so are sperm cells and un-fertilized eggs. Determining that it is entitled to the legal protection of a born citizen as anti-abortion advocates demand is nowhere near so clear cut.

That's definitely not the argument he is making lmao

Well, it's the argument I'm making. Care to respond?

There's a massive difference between sperm cells and undfertilized eggs and a child in the womb. It is a scientific fact that from the moment we are conceived, we are our own separate human being. Whether or not flawed laws consider us a "person" with legal protections or not doesn't take away the fact that we are still living human beings prior to birth. Claiming we are not alive or aren't human is simply anti-science and anti-natalist. I would hope as a father you never once saw your children as less than human while they were in your wife's womb, otherwise that would be extremely concerning.

[Badger]

"abortion refugees" lmao

Do you deny that red states will seek to ban abortions and prosecute women to get them?

Someone going to another state to kill their offspring isn't a refugee by any meaningful definition.

Abortion isn't killing anything, it's a medical procedure.

Denying the scientific fact that the human being in the womb is living isn't the flex you think it is.

It is not a scientific fact no matter how many times you claim this.

Haven't you said that you think life begins at conception? You are in no position to talk about "science".

Please explain how the being in the womb is not alive. Please explain how it is not human. Literally any medical professional would laugh in your face based on the arguments you've provided so far.

The issue isn't whether a fetus is "alive".  By that standard so are sperm cells and un-fertilized eggs. Determining that it is entitled to the legal protection of a born citizen as anti-abortion advocates demand is nowhere near so clear cut.

That's definitely not the argument he is making lmao

Well, it's the argument I'm making. Care to respond?

There's a massive difference between sperm cells and undfertilized eggs and a child in the womb. It is a scientific fact that from the moment we are conceived, we are our own separate human being. Whether or not flawed laws consider us a "person" with legal protections or not doesn't take away the fact that we are still living human beings prior to birth. Claiming we are not alive or aren't human is simply anti-science and anti-natalist. I would hope as a father you never once saw your children as less than human while they were in your wife's womb, otherwise that would be extremely concerning.

You misspelled theological as "scientific". Again, sperm cells and blood cells are also "alive" by this definition

[Person Man]

"abortion refugees" lmao

Do you deny that red states will seek to ban abortions and prosecute women to get them?

Someone going to another state to kill their offspring isn't a refugee by any meaningful definition.

Abortion isn't killing anything, it's a medical procedure.

Denying the scientific fact that the human being in the womb is living isn't the flex you think it is.

It is not a scientific fact no matter how many times you claim this.

Haven't you said that you think life begins at conception? You are in no position to talk about "science".

Please explain how the being in the womb is not alive. Please explain how it is not human. Literally any medical professional would laugh in your face based on the arguments you've provided so far.

The issue isn't whether a fetus is "alive".  By that standard so are sperm cells and un-fertilized eggs. Determining that it is entitled to the legal protection of a born citizen as anti-abortion advocates demand is nowhere near so clear cut.

That's definitely not the argument he is making lmao

Well, it's the argument I'm making. Care to respond?

There's a massive difference between sperm cells and undfertilized eggs and a child in the womb. It is a scientific fact that from the moment we are conceived, we are our own separate human being. Whether or not flawed laws consider us a "person" with legal protections or not doesn't take away the fact that we are still living human beings prior to birth. Claiming we are not alive or aren't human is simply anti-science and anti-natalist. I would hope as a father you never once saw your children as less than human while they were in your wife's womb, otherwise that would be extremely concerning.

You misspelled theological as "scientific". Again, sperm cells and blood cells are also "alive" by this definition

Edgy take: Would you shoot a guy who broke into your house who is unarmed, perhaps mentally ill, And trying to take your TV?

We all need to grow up and realize this issue isn’t about personal autonomy or about basic human rights. It’s about cultural imperialism and colonization. I believe it is the role of society to protect me from me from itself.

[fhtagn]

"abortion refugees" lmao

Do you deny that red states will seek to ban abortions and prosecute women to get them?

Someone going to another state to kill their offspring isn't a refugee by any meaningful definition.

Abortion isn't killing anything, it's a medical procedure.

Denying the scientific fact that the human being in the womb is living isn't the flex you think it is.

It is not a scientific fact no matter how many times you claim this.

Haven't you said that you think life begins at conception? You are in no position to talk about "science".

Please explain how the being in the womb is not alive. Please explain how it is not human. Literally any medical professional would laugh in your face based on the arguments you've provided so far.

The issue isn't whether a fetus is "alive".  By that standard so are sperm cells and un-fertilized eggs. Determining that it is entitled to the legal protection of a born citizen as anti-abortion advocates demand is nowhere near so clear cut.

That's definitely not the argument he is making lmao

Well, it's the argument I'm making. Care to respond?

There's a massive difference between sperm cells and undfertilized eggs and a child in the womb. It is a scientific fact that from the moment we are conceived, we are our own separate human being. Whether or not flawed laws consider us a "person" with legal protections or not doesn't take away the fact that we are still living human beings prior to birth. Claiming we are not alive or aren't human is simply anti-science and anti-natalist. I would hope as a father you never once saw your children as less than human while they were in your wife's womb, otherwise that would be extremely concerning.

You misspelled theological as "scientific". Again, sperm cells and blood cells are also "alive" by this definition

Sure they're living cells, but they are not a separate human by any meaningful definition.


I'm also not arguing theology, I'm arguing scientific facts. Sperm cells and blood cells are complete DNA matches to the person it belongs to. Every cell of the human in the womb does is not have exact same DNA as the mother, which makes them a completely different human being. You can tell by their DNA that they are related, but at no point since they began to exist will you ever find they are the same person or that they are simply a part of the woman's body.

[Person Man]

"abortion refugees" lmao

Do you deny that red states will seek to ban abortions and prosecute women to get them?

Someone going to another state to kill their offspring isn't a refugee by any meaningful definition.

Abortion isn't killing anything, it's a medical procedure.

Denying the scientific fact that the human being in the womb is living isn't the flex you think it is.

It is not a scientific fact no matter how many times you claim this.

Haven't you said that you think life begins at conception? You are in no position to talk about "science".

Please explain how the being in the womb is not alive. Please explain how it is not human. Literally any medical professional would laugh in your face based on the arguments you've provided so far.

The issue isn't whether a fetus is "alive".  By that standard so are sperm cells and un-fertilized eggs. Determining that it is entitled to the legal protection of a born citizen as anti-abortion advocates demand is nowhere near so clear cut.

That's definitely not the argument he is making lmao

Well, it's the argument I'm making. Care to respond?

There's a massive difference between sperm cells and undfertilized eggs and a child in the womb. It is a scientific fact that from the moment we are conceived, we are our own separate human being. Whether or not flawed laws consider us a "person" with legal protections or not doesn't take away the fact that we are still living human beings prior to birth. Claiming we are not alive or aren't human is simply anti-science and anti-natalist. I would hope as a father you never once saw your children as less than human while they were in your wife's womb, otherwise that would be extremely concerning.

You misspelled theological as "scientific". Again, sperm cells and blood cells are also "alive" by this definition

Sure they're living cells, but they are not a separate human by any meaningful definition.


I'm also not arguing theology, I'm arguing scientific facts. Sperm cells and blood cells are complete DNA matches to the person it belongs to. Every cell of the human in the womb does is not have exact same DNA as the mother, which makes them a completely different human being. You can tell by their DNA that they are related, but at no point since they began to exist will you ever find they are the same person or that they are simply a part of the woman's body.

And that is important because….

[Badger]

"abortion refugees" lmao

Do you deny that red states will seek to ban abortions and prosecute women to get them?

Someone going to another state to kill their offspring isn't a refugee by any meaningful definition.

Abortion isn't killing anything, it's a medical procedure.

Denying the scientific fact that the human being in the womb is living isn't the flex you think it is.

It is not a scientific fact no matter how many times you claim this.

Haven't you said that you think life begins at conception? You are in no position to talk about "science".

Please explain how the being in the womb is not alive. Please explain how it is not human. Literally any medical professional would laugh in your face based on the arguments you've provided so far.

The issue isn't whether a fetus is "alive".  By that standard so are sperm cells and un-fertilized eggs. Determining that it is entitled to the legal protection of a born citizen as anti-abortion advocates demand is nowhere near so clear cut.

That's definitely not the argument he is making lmao

Well, it's the argument I'm making. Care to respond?

There's a massive difference between sperm cells and undfertilized eggs and a child in the womb. It is a scientific fact that from the moment we are conceived, we are our own separate human being. Whether or not flawed laws consider us a "person" with legal protections or not doesn't take away the fact that we are still living human beings prior to birth. Claiming we are not alive or aren't human is simply anti-science and anti-natalist. I would hope as a father you never once saw your children as less than human while they were in your wife's womb, otherwise that would be extremely concerning.

You misspelled theological as "scientific". Again, sperm cells and blood cells are also "alive" by this definition

Sure they're living cells, but they are not a separate human by any meaningful definition.


I'm also not arguing theology, I'm arguing scientific facts. Sperm cells and blood cells are complete DNA matches to the person it belongs to. Every cell of the human in the womb does is not have exact same DNA as the mother, which makes them a completely different human being. You can tell by their DNA that they are related, but at no point since they began to exist will you ever find they are the same person or that they are simply a part of the woman's body.

And that is important because….

This. Now the argument has shifted from a fetus being " scientifically alive" to " uniquely different from sperm or blood cells because it chairs two people's DNA". While that may be true, now we're talkin about why that commingling of DNA is worthy of the legal projection of citizenship to require any pregnant woman from being able to terminate a pregnancy, which again what is a fundamental personal theological or philosophical opinion that is it related to any particular scientific truth.

[DaleCooper]

Oh my god, does every single thread on this have to turn into the "You're killing babies!" argument? We get it!

[Hermit For Peace]

"abortion refugees" lmao

Do you deny that red states will seek to ban abortions and prosecute women to get them?

Someone going to another state to kill their offspring isn't a refugee by any meaningful definition.

Abortion isn't killing anything, it's a medical procedure.

A fetus is a living being, you may not have to believe it is a living human being but it very much is a living being .

I think Democrats embracing this type of dumb college kid language on abortion is a big part of why they lost ground on the issue. Every sane pro-choice person thinks of abortion as an uncomfortable reality and a difficult decision that nevertheless needs to be protected as a right for women, within reason of course.

Liberals have used the argument that ending Roe is somehow "Anti Democracy" which shows how much the Trump years rotted a lot of minds.

It's outrageous especially considering how literally anti-democracy Trump actually is and how many bigger actual threats to democracy than overturning Roe exist right now. In other words - given that there are very serious threats to democracy thanks to Trump, it's especially dumb to throw around phrases like 'threat to democracy' or 'anti democracy.' Anti-democracy isn't a ruling on abortion, it's when one party's supporters try an insurrection at the national Capitol to install a dictator. THAT'S anti-democracy.

But isn't anti freedom, anti Democracy? It happens on a large and small scale.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This bill, while excluding the unborn from personhood, explicitly grants it to corporations as beneficiaries of these protections.  What could that mean in practice?

[Person Man]

This bill, while excluding the unborn from personhood, explicitly grants it to corporations as beneficiaries of these protections.  What could that mean in practice?

That a corporation can’t marry a fetus?

[T'Chenka]

Oh my god, does every single thread on this have to turn into the "You're killing babies!" argument? We get it!

With certain posters, yes.

[T'Chenka]

This bill, while excluding the unborn from personhood, explicitly grants it to corporations as beneficiaries of these protections.  What could that mean in practice?

A corporation seeking gender-affirming care or an abortion can recieve it in Connecticut and avoid persecution sue to it in Connecticut.