The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(09-09-2022 03:50 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  You are inventing things to get mad at and the courts will not see it your way

Offer is still open btw I will bet literally any amount of money on this

The same courts that just invented a right to abortion in Michigan's Constitution—where none exists? They are going to go above and beyond to do the prolifers a solid and rule against the abortion supporters and against what the language plainly says? I don't gamble and I don't need your money.

Doing who a solid? You think pro-choice people want rape and incest and backalley abortions legal? Lmao

(09-09-2022 03:58 PM)RunningGame Wrote:  The same courts that just invented a right to abortion in Michigan's Constitution—where none exists? They are going to go above and beyond to do the prolifers a solid and rule against the abortion supporters and against what the language plainly says? I don't gamble and I don't need your money.

You need a life

Well it passed, guess we get to see everything go to total chaos now right?? No more laws!

(11-09-2022 10:56 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Well it passed, guess we get to see everything go to total chaos now right?? No more laws!

Doubly so since the Michigan Democrats control all three branches of government. You can expect a few weeks to pass before they conveniently forget they ran their entire campaign on swearing up and down that only Michigan's 1931 abortion law would be effected...

(11-09-2022 12:46 PM)RunningGame Wrote:  

(11-09-2022 10:56 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Well it passed, guess we get to see everything go to total chaos now right?? No more laws!

Doubly so since the Michigan Democrats control all three branches of government. You can expect a few weeks to pass before they conveniently forget they ran their entire campaign on swearing up and down that only Michigan's 1931 abortion law would be effected...

Or, before they fix any potential loopholes/fallout created by the wording of the proposal. Seeing as they are the party that wants to see this enshrined in the Constitution and hold up to any court challenges. As opposed to its opponents who only want to hold it in the most negative light possible and have a recent history of being okay burning everything down in the name of "the win".

(11-09-2022 04:49 PM)AFLAGWA Wrote:  

(11-09-2022 12:46 PM)RunningGame Wrote:  

(11-09-2022 10:56 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Well it passed, guess we get to see everything go to total chaos now right?? No more laws!

Doubly so since the Michigan Democrats control all three branches of government. You can expect a few weeks to pass before they conveniently forget they ran their entire campaign on swearing up and down that only Michigan's 1931 abortion law would be effected...

Or, before they fix any potential loopholes/fallout created by the wording of the proposal. Seeing as they are the party that wants to see this enshrined in the Constitution and hold up to any court challenges. As opposed to its opponents who only want to hold it in the most negative light possible and have a recent history of being okay burning everything down in the name of "the win".

Can't amend a constitutional amendment with legislation...

Do you really want to embarrass yourself more than you already have on the football forum?

(11-09-2022 09:33 PM)RunningGame Wrote:  Or, before they fix any potential loopholes/fallout created by the wording of the proposal. Seeing as they are the party that wants to see this enshrined in the Constitution and hold up to any court challenges. As opposed to its opponents who only want to hold it in the most negative light possible and have a recent history of being okay burning everything down in the name of "the win".

Can't amend a constitutional amendment with legislation...
[/quote]

The courts it is, then... I would imagine it will be similar to the way it played out with the emergency powers laws. Should someone try and force sterilization on a 12 year old boy, that is...I think that was one of the opponents talking points. Or, if my veterinarian offers to perform an abortion at the local Wal-mart.

(11-09-2022 12:46 PM)RunningGame Wrote:  Doubly so since the Michigan Democrats control all three branches of government. You can expect a few weeks to pass before they conveniently forget they ran their entire campaign on swearing up and down that only Michigan's 1931 abortion law would be effected...

Affected

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affected

(11-10-2022 04:36 AM)AFLAGWA Wrote:  

(11-09-2022 09:33 PM)RunningGame Wrote:  Or, before they fix any potential loopholes/fallout created by the wording of the proposal. Seeing as they are the party that wants to see this enshrined in the Constitution and hold up to any court challenges. As opposed to its opponents who only want to hold it in the most negative light possible and have a recent history of being okay burning everything down in the name of "the win".

Can't amend a constitutional amendment with legislation...

The courts it is, then... I would imagine it will be similar to the way it played out with the emergency powers laws. Should someone try and force sterilization on a 12 year old boy, that is...I think that was one of the opponents talking points. Or, if my veterinarian offers to perform an abortion at the local Wal-mart.
[/quote]

No, Prop 3 is pretty clear about consent. But the problem with it is it lets children give consent for things they really can't consent to because they are children. Consent remains the only rule. In the past, Michigan has had to prosecute many people for performing and assisting abortions without a medical license or doing it improperly, and that pretty much is impossible now.

(11-10-2022 12:39 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Do you really want to embarrass yourself more than you already have on the football forum?

Yes.

But more seriously, dude, I don't why that set you off last night. I guarantee you that me not being willing to utterly trash everyone (not named Andre Carter) is not keeping Lester on the sidelines. I am not even a season ticket holder anymore. But yeah, being a football coach is very hard, and I wish more people gave it a try.

Most jobs are hard, they become easier when you're proficient.

Also telling that you're more willing to "utterly trash" Andre Carter than the well-compensated coaches who haven't shown an ability to maintain discipline on this team.

(11-10-2022 09:00 AM)RunningGame Wrote:  No, Prop 3 is pretty clear about consent. But the problem with it is it lets children give consent for things they really can't consent to because they are children. Consent remains the only rule. In the past, Michigan has had to prosecute many people for performing and assisting abortions without a medical license or doing it improperly, and that pretty much is impossible now.

To be clear about a couple of things...even given my sarcastic tone in my earlier post, I fully recognize how serious of a matter this is to people on both sides of the issue and don't want to invoke or provoke the emotional side of those positions.

A few things to consider...

The idea of "children" and consent are situationally variable. I think most of us would say that a human of any age has the right to deny consent to how someone else wants to use their body. For decades we have tried to communicate that to the school age population and in the last decade have even made it a law (Erin's Law) that it must be taught in schools. Yet the age of consent where someone can say how THEY want to use their body is 16. You are a responsible enough "child" to drive a car at 16 where you literally take the lives of yourself and everyone else on the road every time you put your car in drive, but not responsible enough to consume tobacco or alcohol products until you are 18 and 21, respectively. If you are right wing pundit, you still claim that the former POTUS' offspring are "children" when only one of them is below the age of 29. In this argument, not necessarily by you, "child" is used to cause an emotional response to the situation. In 2021 as an example, around 8% of all abortions in Michigan were performed on teens. The vast majority of those 16 and up. The group with the overwhelmingly highest rate were aged 20-29...hardly children. I think the focus should be on making sure that those choices are the most informed choices possible through education and support. As always, we should all do our best to protect against undue influence toward making those decisions, but I also think that is true at any age. Consent laws in Michigan will not go away. Someone may push them and challenge them at the MiSC, but they will not go away simply because Proposal 3 passed.

The use of the term "many" relative to the number of "illegal" abortions or those done/assisted with improper licensing is no different than using "child". It is, and again...not necessarily by you, intentionally ambiguous. I can't find any data that states how many (actual) individuals were prosecuted for what you are saying relative to abortion specifically. In our country's history, there were greater numbers of the types of abortions that you describe, but it wasn't because the laws of the land allowed for them to happen. It was the exact opposite. These situations were created directly due to limited access, poor education, severe penalties, etc. If anything, providing better access and education without fear of judgement or incarceration can actually lead to fewer abortions being performed. Additionally, operating (a) without a license and (b) outside of a licensed facility are both still crimes in Michigan. Malpractice is still malpractice. Proposal 3 doesn't change that. It may eventually wind up being tried in court, but it will not change that.

While I will agree with you and many of the opponents of Proposal 3 that there is some ambiguity that WILL eventually need to be hashed out in court, I won't concede that it is the Pandora's Box that some are making it out to be.

As a public school teacher with a health education background, you can imagine that I have looked over this issue more than once and tried to find as many sources as possible because this WILL become a topic of conversation at our school board meetings (just as CRT has) relative to our Reproductive Health Curriculum. What I can tell you as a microcosm of the impact that Proposal 3 has on existing laws, is that the law regarding the prohibition of addressing abortion as a contraceptive method WILL NOT CHANGE because of Proposal 3. Additionally, for as much as I LOATHE Bridge Michigan, one of their articles did a pretty good job having out the technicalities regarding the impact of Proposal 3 while addressing both sides without taking either.

Should you choose to peruse...

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-govern...ons-minors

I do not like to get into these discussions, and I know few here will care about my opinion, but against my better judgment I will just offer this:

I do not pretend to know, especially since there is no mention of abortion in The Bible to my knowledge, whether it is right or wrong in the eyes of God.

Therefore, I support the right of women to choose.

(11-10-2022 10:19 AM)AFLAGWA Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 09:00 AM)RunningGame Wrote:  No, Prop 3 is pretty clear about consent. But the problem with it is it lets children give consent for things they really can't consent to because they are children. Consent remains the only rule. In the past, Michigan has had to prosecute many people for performing and assisting abortions without a medical license or doing it improperly, and that pretty much is impossible now.

To be clear about a couple of things...even given my sarcastic tone in my earlier post, I fully recognize how serious of a matter this is to people on both sides of the issue and don't want to invoke or provoke the emotional side of those positions.

A few things to consider...

The idea of "children" and consent are situationally variable. I think most of us would say that a human of any age has the right to deny consent to how someone else wants to use their body. For decades we have tried to communicate that to the school age population and in the last decade have even made it a law (Erin's Law) that it must be taught in schools. Yet the age of consent where someone can say how THEY want to use their body is 16. You are a responsible enough "child" to drive a car at 16 where you literally take the lives of yourself and everyone else on the road every time you put your car in drive, but not responsible enough to consume tobacco or alcohol products until you are 18 and 21, respectively. If you are right wing pundit, you still claim that the former POTUS' offspring are "children" when only one of them is below the age of 29. In this argument, not necessarily by you, "child" is used to cause an emotional response to the situation. In 2021 as an example, around 8% of all abortions in Michigan were performed on teens. The vast majority of those 16 and up. The group with the overwhelmingly highest rate were aged 20-29...hardly children. I think the focus should be on making sure that those choices are the most informed choices possible through education and support. As always, we should all do our best to protect against undue influence toward making those decisions, but I also think that is true at any age. Consent laws in Michigan will not go away. Someone may push them and challenge them at the MiSC, but they will not go away simply because Proposal 3 passed.

The use of the term "many" relative to the number of "illegal" abortions or those done/assisted with improper licensing is no different than using "child". It is, and again...not necessarily by you, intentionally ambiguous. I can't find any data that states how many (actual) individuals were prosecuted for what you are saying relative to abortion specifically. In our country's history, there were greater numbers of the types of abortions that you describe, but it wasn't because the laws of the land allowed for them to happen. It was the exact opposite. These situations were created directly due to limited access, poor education, severe penalties, etc. If anything, providing better access and education without fear of judgement or incarceration can actually lead to fewer abortions being performed. Additionally, operating (a) without a license and (b) outside of a licensed facility are both still crimes in Michigan. Malpractice is still malpractice. Proposal 3 doesn't change that. It may eventually wind up being tried in court, but it will not change that.

While I will agree with you and many of the opponents of Proposal 3 that there is some ambiguity that WILL eventually need to be hashed out in court, I won't concede that it is the Pandora's Box that some are making it out to be.

As a public school teacher with a health education background, you can imagine that I have looked over this issue more than once and tried to find as many sources as possible because this WILL become a topic of conversation at our school board meetings (just as CRT has) relative to our Reproductive Health Curriculum. What I can tell you as a microcosm of the impact that Proposal 3 has on existing laws, is that the law regarding the prohibition of addressing abortion as a contraceptive method WILL NOT CHANGE because of Proposal 3. Additionally, for as much as I LOATHE Bridge Michigan, one of their articles did a pretty good job having out the technicalities regarding the impact of Proposal 3 while addressing both sides without taking either.

Should you choose to peruse...

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-govern...ons-minors

You sound like you’ve thought this out in great detail. Your problem is the Prop 3 folks didn’t wait for their election night party to be over to go from promising no other law would be affected to talking about other laws must be repealed to conform with Prop 3.

According to Bridge, looks like the first laws on the chopping block are the 24-hour waiting period (what other non-emergency surgery can you get in a walk-in basis with zero referral?), and the law stopping people from being forced to pay for abortions through health insurance.

But don’t take my word for it, just follow the news this legislative term.

And the greatest single example of unlicensed personnel and terrible conditions didn’t happen in a state like Texas; it happened in Pennsylvania, where the pro-choice Republican Governor Tom Ridge said he wasn’t going to enforce those draconian prolife policies like requiring abortion facilities to be inspected like other outpatient facilities.

(11-11-2022 09:19 AM)RunningGame Wrote:  You sound like you’ve thought this out in great detail. Your problem is the Prop 3 folks didn’t wait for their election night party to be over to go from promising no other law would be affected to talking about other laws must be repealed to conform with Prop 3.

According to Bridge, looks like the first laws on the chopping block are the 24-hour waiting period (what other non-emergency surgery can you get in a walk-in basis with zero referral?), and the law stopping people from being forced to pay for abortions through health insurance.

But don’t take my word for it, just follow the news this legislative term.

And the greatest single example of unlicensed personnel and terrible conditions didn’t happen in a state like Texas; it happened in Pennsylvania, where the pro-choice Republican Governor Tom Ridge said he wasn’t going to enforce those draconian prolife policies like requiring abortion facilities to be inspected like other outpatient facilities.

While I'm certain there were some people that position Prop 3 as having no impact on any other laws, the broader messaging that I took was that it will (A) enshrine rights that Roe provided prior to it being overturned (B) have an impact with laws as they relate primarily to abortion (I believe 40+) and any law that would impact other areas of reproductive health and © would not do all of the outlandish things that the opposition was stating it would. I think that anyone stating or believing that this would only impact a law from 1931 was naïve at best and disingenuous at worst. But, like I said yesterday, those issues will get hashed out in court just like the emergency powers laws were.

We were talking about Michigan yesterday when I wrote what I wrote, not Texas or Pennsylvania.

It is obvious that you and I are at different ends of this thing. I have a feeling, as with most things, it will settle somewhere in the middle of our perceptions when all is said and done.

(11-11-2022 12:28 PM)AFLAGWA Wrote:  

(11-11-2022 09:19 AM)RunningGame Wrote:  You sound like you’ve thought this out in great detail. Your problem is the Prop 3 folks didn’t wait for their election night party to be over to go from promising no other law would be affected to talking about other laws must be repealed to conform with Prop 3.

According to Bridge, looks like the first laws on the chopping block are the 24-hour waiting period (what other non-emergency surgery can you get in a walk-in basis with zero referral?), and the law stopping people from being forced to pay for abortions through health insurance.

But don’t take my word for it, just follow the news this legislative term.

And the greatest single example of unlicensed personnel and terrible conditions didn’t happen in a state like Texas; it happened in Pennsylvania, where the pro-choice Republican Governor Tom Ridge said he wasn’t going to enforce those draconian prolife policies like requiring abortion facilities to be inspected like other outpatient facilities.

While I'm certain there were some people that position Prop 3 as having no impact on any other laws, the broader messaging that I took was that it will (A) enshrine rights that Roe provided prior to it being overturned (B) have an impact with laws as they relate primarily to abortion (I believe 40+) and any law that would impact other areas of reproductive health and © would not do all of the outlandish things that the opposition was stating it would. I think that anyone stating or believing that this would only impact a law from 1931 was naïve at best and disingenuous at worst. But, like I said yesterday, those issues will get hashed out in court just like the emergency powers laws were.

We were talking about Michigan yesterday when I wrote what I wrote, not Texas or Pennsylvania.

It is obvious that you and I are at different ends of this thing. I have a feeling, as with most things, it will settle somewhere in the middle of our perceptions when all is said and done.

It wasn't just some people saying it wouldn't affect any other law, it was their $50 million dollar campaign's top message: https://twitter.com/mireprofreedom/statu...BJ5FumNWTw

(11-13-2022 02:05 AM)RunningGame Wrote:  It wasn't just some people saying it wouldn't affect any other law, it was their $50 million dollar campaign's top message: https://twitter.com/mireprofreedom/statu...BJ5FumNWTw

Like I said, naive or disingenuous. Anyone that has ever paid attention to the way new legislation works is that there are almost always conflicts.

The truth is we don't know how many/what/if other laws will be in conflict. Some of the laws that will need to be addressed only exist BECAUSE of the 1931 law and some others only exist BECAUSE of Roe.

Like I also stated previously, I do believe that this will have an impact on certain other laws, but I do not believe that it will reflect the extremes of the opposition.

At the end of the day, the majority of laws that are in conflict or are superseded by the passage of this amendment, even if by association, are in conflict because the people of Michigan decided that they should be. Again, I think it would be naive to think that there won't be collateral implications, but they will get sorted out in due time.

I think the reality is that if you were to try and put the positions of those that supported Prop 3 v. those that opposed it on a balanced scale and judge them on intentional disinformation, intent of law to protect v. control, extending rights v. restricting them, etc. It would be very difficult to OBJECTIVELY show that the end result isn't what the majority of the voting population of Michigan wanted.

When all the Republican Party has been pushing for the last six+ years has been fear and disinformation, it makes me think anything they tell me about a ballot proposal is also fear and disinformation. Most of Michigan agreed with me. Fix your party and come up with an actual platform.