16 Pro-Life Women Were Elected to Congress, Pro-Abortion Dems Lost 7 Seats

[Billiejeens]

Who said "Women don't like Trump"?

"Move over, Nancy Pelosi: Pro-life women are driving the new Republican surge in Congress – an unmistakable rebuke to Democrats’ radical abortion agenda.

With several races still too close to call, the number of newly elected pro-life women is up to 16. Seven of these candidates flipped seats held by pro-abortion Democrats. The group includes the first Iranian American elected to Congress, a member of the Cherokee nation, a daughter of Cuban exiles, and a first-generation Korean American, showing that the life issue brings a diverse coalition together. Including incumbents, the total number of pro-life women in the House now stands at 27.

In the Senate, the ranks of pro-life women continue to grow. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) won competitive reelection races. Additionally, former U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) won her race and will be the first woman to represent Wyoming in the Senate.."

16 Pro-Life Women Were Elected to Congress, 7 Took Seats From Pro-Abortion Democrats

And yet we ae to believe that the most pro life president ever lost. Yah, right

Still, this is very good news, and good example to young girls that many women are pro life, not just GOP men

No one believes that the president lost.
The criminals just want the win.

 

[Billiejeens]

Nothing is going to change with abortion

I'll bet the slave owners said the same thing about their slaves.
Until the first GOP president freed the slaves that is

And we are still paying for that.

 

[Chuz Life]

Abortion needs to be a states rights issue.

Women in California hate women in Alabama anyways, why the fuck do Californians care if Abortion is illegal in Alabama?

Can we discuss this states rights concept, please?

Great. Help me understand what the basis could possibly be, for ONE State to declare and establish that a child in the womb is a "person" and killing that child with an abortion is tantamount to murder. . . and at the same time, another State can deny that a child in the womb is a "person" and therefore, abortions are to remain legal.

Please explain to me how it is Constitutionally possible to have it both way.

Either the child in the womb is a "person" or they are not.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Abortion needs to be a states rights issue.

Women in California hate women in Alabama anyways, why the fuck do Californians care if Abortion is illegal in Alabama?

Can we discuss this states rights concept, please?

Great. Help me understand what the basis could possibly be, for ONE State to declare and establish that a child in the womb is a "person" and killing that child with an abortion is tantamount to murder. . . and at the same time, another State can deny that a child in the womb is a "person" and therefore, abortions are to remain legal.

Please explain to me how it is Constitutionally possible to have it both way.

Either the child in the womb is a "person" or they are not.

I am not going to argue whether abortion is ethical or not. You have your opinion and mine is the same. The legality of it should be state to state. You are not going to get a federal ban on abortion. It is simply not going to happen.

 

[Chuz Life]

Abortion needs to be a states rights issue.

Women in California hate women in Alabama anyways, why the fuck do Californians care if Abortion is illegal in Alabama?

Can we discuss this states rights concept, please?

Great. Help me understand what the basis could possibly be, for ONE State to declare and establish that a child in the womb is a "person" and killing that child with an abortion is tantamount to murder. . . and at the same time, another State can deny that a child in the womb is a "person" and therefore, abortions are to remain legal.

Please explain to me how it is Constitutionally possible to have it both way.

Either the child in the womb is a "person" or they are not.

I am not going to argue whether abortion is ethical or not. You have your opinion and mine is the same. The legality of it should be state to state. You are not going to get a federal ban on abortion. It is simply not going to happen.

Dude, I am not looking for a debate about the morality or about whether it is ethical or not.

The Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

I am seeking consistency, from you.

How can one State "Constitutionally" declare that a child in the womb is a "person" and at the same time, another State "Constitutionally" declare they are not?

Please explain.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Abortion needs to be a states rights issue.

Women in California hate women in Alabama anyways, why the fuck do Californians care if Abortion is illegal in Alabama?

Can we discuss this states rights concept, please?

Great. Help me understand what the basis could possibly be, for ONE State to declare and establish that a child in the womb is a "person" and killing that child with an abortion is tantamount to murder. . . and at the same time, another State can deny that a child in the womb is a "person" and therefore, abortions are to remain legal.

Please explain to me how it is Constitutionally possible to have it both way.

Either the child in the womb is a "person" or they are not.

I am not going to argue whether abortion is ethical or not. You have your opinion and mine is the same. The legality of it should be state to state. You are not going to get a federal ban on abortion. It is simply not going to happen.

Dude, I am not looking for a debate about the morality or about whether it is ethical or not.

The Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

I am seeking consistency, from you.

How can one State "Constitutionally" declare that a child in the womb is a "person" and at the same time, another State "Constitutionally" declare they are not?

Please explain.

I dont know. Different states have different death penalty rules.

States rights would mean different states have different opinions on when a fetus is a person. It will never be illegal in states like Oregon and New York. It will be in deep red states.

 

[Chuz Life]

Abortion needs to be a states rights issue.

Women in California hate women in Alabama anyways, why the fuck do Californians care if Abortion is illegal in Alabama?

Can we discuss this states rights concept, please?

Great. Help me understand what the basis could possibly be, for ONE State to declare and establish that a child in the womb is a "person" and killing that child with an abortion is tantamount to murder. . . and at the same time, another State can deny that a child in the womb is a "person" and therefore, abortions are to remain legal.

Please explain to me how it is Constitutionally possible to have it both way.

Either the child in the womb is a "person" or they are not.

I am not going to argue whether abortion is ethical or not. You have your opinion and mine is the same. The legality of it should be state to state. You are not going to get a federal ban on abortion. It is simply not going to happen.

Dude, I am not looking for a debate about the morality or about whether it is ethical or not.

The Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

I am seeking consistency, from you.

How can one State "Constitutionally" declare that a child in the womb is a "person" and at the same time, another State "Constitutionally" declare they are not?

Please explain.

I dont know. Different states have different death penalty rules.

States rights would mean different states have different opinions on when a fetus is a person. It will never be illegal in states like Oregon and New York. It will be in deep red states.

I understand your take on it.

I'm trying to get you to explain how it can be "Constitutional" to have it both ways at the same time.

You don't seem to understand it, yourself. So I will quit asking.

 

[Billiejeens]

Abortion needs to be a states rights issue.

Women in California hate women in Alabama anyways, why the fuck do Californians care if Abortion is illegal in Alabama?

Can we discuss this states rights concept, please?

Great. Help me understand what the basis could possibly be, for ONE State to declare and establish that a child in the womb is a "person" and killing that child with an abortion is tantamount to murder. . . and at the same time, another State can deny that a child in the womb is a "person" and therefore, abortions are to remain legal.

Please explain to me how it is Constitutionally possible to have it both way.

Either the child in the womb is a "person" or they are not.

I am not going to argue whether abortion is ethical or not. You have your opinion and mine is the same. The legality of it should be state to state. You are not going to get a federal ban on abortion. It is simply not going to happen.

Dude, I am not looking for a debate about the morality or about whether it is ethical or not.

The Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.

I am seeking consistency, from you.

How can one State "Constitutionally" declare that a child in the womb is a "person" and at the same time, another State "Constitutionally" declare they are not?

Please explain.

I dont know. Different states have different death penalty rules.

States rights would mean different states have different opinions on when a fetus is a person. It will never be illegal in states like Oregon and New York. It will be in deep red states.

I understand your take on it.

I'm trying to get you to explain how it can be "Constitutional" to have it both ways at the same time.

You don't seem to understand it, yourself. So I will quit asking.

The answer is -issues not enumerated are left to the state.

 

[rddean]

I was reading a report about red states in Appalachia having of falling life expectancy and a rising infant mortality rate. Red states in Appalachia have a 16% higher mortality rate than the rest of the country.

seems terribly sad to me.

I just want to know why Republicans are so willing to help the unborn get born, and so unwilling to help the already born?