What I should have said and meant was that we aren't talking about Irish voters. American voters are a whole other breed of cat. Heh.

Absolutely undeniable fact... multiple breeds of cats, and exactly why you and andygaus and Mezzomamma are all dead on accurate about this issue.

So, to recap: Convincing Americans to see your political point of view is like herding cats. :)

I think the issue at hand is do 25% of Americans decide how the entire 100% live?

Exactly right: Rule by the minority. Rather than moderate their political views to allow people to make their own decisions, they want to legislate their religious beliefs into United States federal law. There is no such thing as forced abortion in the United States, but you wouldn't know that to listen to the anti-abortionists trying to legislate the religious beliefs down everyone else's throats. If they don't like abortion, no one will force them to have one... unless they give the power to control their reproductive rights to their government. If Americans allow government to force women to give birth, you're only a step away from allowing your government to force you to abort.

If the Dominionists/zealots want government legislation that allows them to legally practice bigotry based on religious scripture, it should not surprise them in the least when that government allows others to deny them service because they're adulterers in the eyes of God or have divorced.

So, to recap:

The Bible says all kinds of things, and if anyone insists we are all governed by them, then it shouldn't surprise you in the least if they stone you and spit in your eye and love you and leave you to die.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11093449/FBI-agents-raid-Mar-Lago-Trump-says-home-siege-agents.html

Well, we're not talking about Ireland here, are we.

How are we not talking about other countries such as Ireland when Alito leans on Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century English jurist who was not a fan of abortion but most definitely in favor of martial rape (still legal in some states up until the early 1990s)?

Alito's opinion quotes from History of the Pleas of the Crown to form his argument against abortion (which was legal when the Constitution was ratified) so why wouldn't foreign countries be relevant? Rhetorical question.

Nicely done, Kick. I get the impression that our Elizabeth takes the, "these truths are self evident" morally outraged point of view. Which is duh 4th Amendment stuff to my mind so I am entirely sympathetic.

I think the issue at hand is do 25% of Americans decide how the entire 100% live? Or does freedom of religion mean freedom from some one else's religion?

The American Taliban says yes, I can. That's why freedom is what should be stressed.

Still missing the overall, I see ...

No, andygaus is definitely not missing the "overall," please allow me to explain why he isn't since I provide a service here connecting the dots.

In multiple commentaries, Elizabeth Miller (Canada) makes a very good point (dot) regarding the fact that there is a bigger picture to the forced-birth (abortion) issue than Democrats highlighting the extreme cases andygaus mentions in multiple commentaries, and she is most definitely correct.

In multiple commentaries, andygaus cuts to the chase and makes points (dots) regarding the more focused outcomes that involve the abortion issue and how it specifically affects women/young rape victims when politicians (not doctors) make blanket reproductive health care decisions that have life and death implications, and this commenter along with Mezzomomma are also most definitely correct.

So then, the "overall" picture is this, Elizabeth: It's both. The vast majority of those Americans who agree with you that it's a larger issue of protecting our freedoms and liberties as equal citizens of the United States are likely already voting with you, but you cannot take their vote for granted and most definitely should pound the table with the angle that motivates them to make sure you move them to the polls, i.e., the "big picture."

On the other hand, you have voters who want to legislate their religious beliefs into American law (Sharia law for Christians) who would happily burn down the entire country if they don't get their way. You think I am kidding? A Trump cult zombie at CPAC a couple days ago, quote: "If Donald Trump don't win, I hope God just ends it." These religious hypocrites worship a thrice divorced, adulterous, genital grabbing, womanizing, lying con artist, and they'd take away your rights and their own rights too as long as they could enshrine their biblical laws (only the ones they like, of course) into laws for everyone, and there's nothing you could do to get their vote.

However, there are also those who sit firmly in the middle that basically decide elections in America who need it explained to them in no uncertain terms how the abortion issue can affect them, their children, friends, and their sisters in order to pull them over to your side, and you do that by appealing to their emotions, discussing a 10-year-old child being forced to travel to another state because the gerrymandered legislature in her state had promulgated laws wherein medical doctors were scared shitless by the vague and ambiguous laws made by the so-called "religious right" in order to avoid criminal prosecution for providing needed medical care to a girl who was raped at 9 and needed an abortion at 10 because her state full of political dipshits who whined and moaned that government shouldn't be allowed to force you to wear a mask because "freedom" decided it was okay to force a 10-year-old pregnant child to have her rapist's baby, making her a victim twice as well as her family.

Therefore, the "overall" is to pound the table with EM's points to get those on your side motivated to go to the polls while at the same time pounding the table with the ideas of andygaus and Mezzomomma to motivate those on your side to the polls and also to pull over those fence-sitting voters who may not realize the myriad of ways in which they could be affected by allowing government at any level to make reproductive and/or medical decisions that are none of their damn business.

So, to recap: Motivate those who are with you to get to the polls by discussing the "big picture" issues and move the fence-sitters to your side in ways they may not have imagined by highlighting the individual outcomes of the extreme position.

The extreme position on the abortion issue is not the left-wing position to allow Americans to make their own health care decisions in consultation with their parents, families, and medical providers, the extreme position is the right-wing idea that abortion should be criminalized and outlawed even in cases of rape, incest and to protect the health of the mother.

Republicans… looking to strip our rights away at every turn!

Yes! That is the line that needs to be repeated, over and over ... with 'our' meaning all Americans!

Those get the headlines and engage sympathy; they counteract the stereotypes of feckless, immoral behavior put forth by the forced birth brigade in a way that even the best statistics don't.

Yeah, they get the headlines but not necessarily the votes. Statistics won't get the job done, either.

SC’s Lindsey Graham says let states decide as Democrats push to codify same-sex marriage

The Democratic-controlled House last week passed the so-called Respect of Marriage Act, seeking to codify Supreme Court precedents legalizing same-sex and interracial marriages. South Carolina House Republican Reps. Nancy Mace, of Daniel Island, and Tom Rice, of Myrtle Beach, joined Democrats last week to pass legislation codifying same-sex and interracial marriages.

The bill needs the support of at least 10 Republican senators to pass in the evenly divided U.S. Senate. When the Senate may vote on the bill is not known. Graham said last week he would not support the bill. U.S. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C. has not commented on the bill.

“ I respect the voters in South Carolina, and I’m going to allow this issue, with my vote in Washington, to be decided by them,” Graham told reporters in Greenville during a news conference on Monday.

In the court’s Dobbs v. Jackson ruling — which overturned Roe v. Wade — Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that other precedents, including the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case which legalized same-sex marriage across the country, should be revisited. “I believe the same-sex marriage case to be the law of the land, it’s still the the law. I respect the decision, while I disagree with the legal analysis,” Graham said.

The Dobbs case allows each state to decide whether abortion is legal within its own borders. “That’s the way it was before 1973. I think that’s the best way to go,” Graham said. “The best way to go for me about marriage would be using the same type of system.”

Republicans have joined Democrats’ push to protect the right for same-sex marriage and interracial marriage, which was legalized by the 1967 Loving v. Virginia ruling.

Graham said the legislative moves made by Democrats is nothing more than to help them in the upcoming midterm elections. “This is an issue, I think, to generate voter intensity for our Democratic colleagues. These are issues that are emotional issues,” Graham said. “There is a standing constitutional case that protects same-sex marriage. The fear that may be overturned tomorrow, I don’t share.”

Read more at: https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article263802168.html#storylink=cpy

Republicans… looking to strip our rights away at every turn!

I love that they want to let states determine whether to recognize marriage equality.

Graham said the legislative moves made by Democrats is nothing more than to help them in the upcoming midterm elections. “This is an issue, I think, to generate voter intensity for our Democratic colleagues. These are issues that are emotional issues,” Graham said.

Yes! Graham finally understands that legislation that is positive and helps members of our nation IS POPULAR with the voters! Support of this legislation would be good for Republicans if they could get past their rule to vote against anything the Democrats support!

I think women, and supportive men, have already chosen a strategy that works and I like it!

Nichols said that when she went to Roddenberry to say that she would like to have her letter of resignation back, Roddenberry opened up his desk drawer and scooped out the letter that he had torn into small pieces and placed the pile into her hands. He never had any intention of letting her quit.

As for the kiss with Shatner... the Post says it was not that big of a deal to viewers at the time, but it sure as heck was to the network! In fact, the network wanted the show to shoot a version of the scene where Nichols and Shatner just hugged that would be used for networks in the South. They both thought it was silly and so they started hamming it up and making each other burst out laughing. It took them forever to get a hug scene shot that was usable on the last day of shooting for that episode. The next morning when the final editing was being done, the producers realized that they would have to use the kiss scene everywhere because no one noticed that Shatner had crossed his eyes when being "forced" to hug Nichols.

And that's not even counting the Repug Congresscritters being indicted. I can see a real Republican bloodbath this November which would certainly be karmic justice for getting in bed with Trump in the first place.