The Abortion Thread

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25247
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer »

What really concerns me, assuming abortion rights are eliminated, is that the damage won't "only" be limited to pregnant women who get abortions (or want them), just as the War on Drugs' damage is not "only" limited to those who buy, sell or use illegal drugs. There have been too many innocent-victim horror stories to count -- I remember the woman who was in jail for some weeks while cops took their sweet time figuring out that no, the old spoon in her car had Spaghetti-O residue on it rather than drug residue -- and if you like what the War on Intoxicating Substances has done to American civil liberties, you'll LOVE what the War on Baby-Murderin' Sluts is going to do!
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 7988
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Shem »

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
05 Oct 2019, 23:06
I don't see Roe surviving another three term.
That worries me for a number of reasons, not least of all the potential for it to become another Dred Scott in terms of solidifying balkanization.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25247
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer »

Ohio bill will require doctors to reimplant ectopic pregnancies (a medically impossible procedure); doctors who do not will be charged with "abortion murder."

This is the same state that previously made headlines for trying to force an 11-year-old rape victim to become her rapist's babymama. Presumably they learned something from THAT debacle; this bill only mandates mamahood for girls who are at LEAST 13.

Still waiting for them freedom-lovin' "let's ban abortion" libertarians to explain how they propose to implement an abortion ban without trampling all over the rights of women and girls.
“There is no procedure to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy,” said Dr Chris Zahn, vice-president of practice activities at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. “It is not possible to move an ectopic pregnancy from a fallopian tube, or anywhere else it might have implanted, to the uterus,” he said.

“Reimplantation is not physiologically possible. Women with ectopic pregnancies are at risk for catastrophic hemorrhage and death in the setting of an ectopic pregnancy, and treating the ectopic pregnancy can certainly save a mom’s life,” said Zahn.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... 1575018204
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 14480
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Eric the .5b »

How exactly did Ohio lose its shit?
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25247
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer »

It's not just Ohio. A Pennsylvania bill would require burials and death certificates for miscarriages, abortions and fertilized eggs that never implanted in the uterus.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xwy ... ggs-hb1890
Anti-choice lawmakers in Pennsylvania have taken recent attempts to implement fetal personhood legislation to a new extreme: A new bill moving through the state legislature would redefine fetal death to mean death at any point in pregnancy, starting at conception, and require health providers to cremate or bury all fetal remains unless the pregnant person chooses to handle disposal on their own.

The bill is written in a way that it would require providers to obtain death certificates not just for miscarriages and abortions, but even for fertilized eggs that don't implant in the uterus. It would subject anyone who fails to do so to a $50 to $300 fine, or up to 30 days in prison. Death certificates get filed to the state, though the bill says identifying information will remain confidential.

The “Pennsylvania Final Disposition of Fetal Remains Act,” or House Bill 1890, is modeled on legislation Vice President Mike Pence signed into law as Indiana governor in 2016, which requires miscarried or aborted fetuses to be buried or cremated. Fetal burial laws serve no medical purpose but add additional costs and regulations on abortion providers.

Yet in May, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld this provision of the Indiana law, which included several other restrictions on abortion, citing a precedent that granted state governments a “legitimate interest in proper disposal of fetal remains.” ...
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 18110
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by lunchstealer »

Well trump has aborted their support from suburban women who are also the most pro choice of the GOP base, so at this point their only hope is to get every rabid nut job on the registration lists to get out there for their nutjobbiest psychopathy. Batshit abortion lunacy is gonna get the evangelists and own the libtard vote riled up, maybe?
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - Also JasonL

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 28898
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Warren »

The Dem nominee will be so unpalatable Trump will be re-elected in spite of the fact that he never wanted to be president and is doing everything he knows how to be removed from office.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25247
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer »

Warren wrote:
30 Nov 2019, 11:04
The Dem nominee will be so unpalatable Trump will be re-elected in spite of the fact that he never wanted to be president and is doing everything he knows how to be removed from office.
Minority voter suppression and gerrymandering will definitely help Trump's 2020 chances. His might be the third Republican victory in 20 years to get the numerical minority of voters.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25247
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer »

A South Carolina lawmaker has proposed a bill (which of course has zero chance of passing), basically suggesting that if the state IS going to outlaw abortion, the state should pay financial compensation to women who are being forced to act as surrogates for the state:

https://rewire.news/ablc/2019/12/13/gro ... avZ3Aliud8
If South Carolina lawmakers are going to ban abortion after six weeks’ gestation and force every pregnant person to carry their pregnancy to term, the state should damn well pay for the costs associated with giving birth to and raising that child.

That’s the premise behind a bill called the South Carolina Pro Birth Accountability Act that state Sen. Mia McLeod pre-filed Wednesday, and boy howdy!—it is a barn burner.

The bill, SB 928, demands that anti-choice lawmakers in South Carolina who have proposed banning abortion at six weeks into pregnancy put their money where their mouth is: If lawmakers are going to force people to carry their pregnancies to term, and if they are going to deem the development of an unborn embryo as more important than the life and rights of pregnant people, then South Carolina should compensate them for acting as a gestational surrogate for the state of South Carolina.

The law points out that given the surrogacy market, a pregnant person’s uterus is not unlike a rental property: People who commission surrogates pay that surrogate to carry a fetus to term and to give birth to a child. So why should South Carolina be permitted to force its citizens to act as surrogates for the state without compensating them?

According to SB 928, South Carolina shouldn’t, and the legislation hammers this point home by making several key points:

That from a medical perspective, there is no dispute that a six-week-old embryo cannot exist outside of the womb;
That South Carolina has deemed the development of a six-week old embryo governmentally more important than the life and rights of pregnant people; and
That the six-week ban will force pregnant people who otherwise could have elected an abortion to act as a gestational surrogate for the state of South Carolina, which—and this is my favorite part—cannot itself physically conceive or carry a child.

And here’s the kicker: “just as South Carolina may not constitutionally use a citizen’s rental property without just compensation, it may not constitutionally require a woman to incubate a child without appropriate compensation.” .... If the pregnant person becomes disabled as the result of carrying the fetus to term, then the state must cover all medical expenses associated with the disability. Similarly, if the child is born with a congenital abnormality or disability, the state must cover all medical expenses associated with that disability for the rest of the child’s life....
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 14480
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Eric the .5b »

Jennifer wrote:
13 Dec 2019, 23:20
A South Carolina lawmaker has proposed a bill (which of course has zero chance of passing), basically suggesting that if the state IS going to outlaw abortion, the state should pay financial compensation to women who are being forced to act as surrogates for the state:
Gutsy; I like it.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25247
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer »

207 Congressmen and Senators signed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade AND Casey (which IIRC shot down a state law attempting to give husbands veto power over their wives' bodies).
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 19683
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

Jennifer wrote:
02 Jan 2020, 20:46
207 Congressmen and Senators signed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade AND Casey (which IIRC shot down a state law attempting to give husbands veto power over their wives' bodies).
If Roe is overturned, it follows analytically that any subsequent cases predicated on its holding would no longer be considered binding precedent.

Roe was always a badly argued, results oriented decision, whether you agree with the intended results or not. I'd say abortion rights activists have a better chance of getting the ERA passed at this point than of depending upon Roe for the foreseeable future.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25247
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer »

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
04 Jan 2020, 15:48
Jennifer wrote:
02 Jan 2020, 20:46
207 Congressmen and Senators signed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade AND Casey (which IIRC shot down a state law attempting to give husbands veto power over their wives' bodies).
If Roe is overturned, it follows analytically that any subsequent cases predicated on its holding would no longer be considered binding precedent.

Roe was always a badly argued, results oriented decision, whether you agree with the intended results or not. I'd say abortion rights activists have a better chance of getting the ERA passed at this point than of depending upon Roe for the foreseeable future.
Hearing that from you of all people has me particularly concerned, when traditionally you were more likely to say stuff like this:
D.A. Ridgely wrote:
13 Nov 2016, 12:25
Personally, I think there is next to no chance any of the expanded civil liberties that have resulted from Supreme Court decisions since and including Roe v Wade will be reversed by the Supreme Court in the foreseeable future, which effectively means never, regardless of its composition. That's not how the Court has behaved 99% of the time. It is and always has been 'conservative' in the sense that it is loath to reverse itself. Rein in an opinion either it, as its composition changes, or other courts have interpreted, in its opinion, too broadly? Sure. Flat out say it was wrong? Hardly ever....
Damn. My state of Georgia already has the highest maternal mortality rate in the country (at least as of 2018), and also last year passed the "fetal personhood" law that would criminalize abortion, allow prosecution of miscarriages AND apply to women who go out of state for the procedures. I wonder how many of those laws would be upheld in court without Roe and its subsequent cases?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 19683
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

I've never argued that Roe is a well-reasoned decision. What I probably should have said in 2016 was that a full-throated reversal of Roe was highly unlikely, which I continue to believe; however, I do also now think as I did not four years ago that a more conservative Court is more likely to find ways of eviscerating the decision without actually reversing it. Moreover, I think the ERA would be a preferable foundation for women's rights including abortion rights.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 29341
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by thoreau »

So you're saying that the Court will never write "Roe was wrongly decided and is hereby overturned" but could write "This law stating that [something a layman might see as being in conflict with Roe] is upheld, but we still recognize Roe as being in effect because [reasons]"?

I can see that.
"There are so few people at the Federal Mall it's almost as empty as it was at Trump's inauguration."
--D.A. Ridgely

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 19683
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

thoreau wrote:
04 Jan 2020, 22:06
So you're saying that the Court will never write "Roe was wrongly decided and is hereby overturned" but could write "This law stating that [something a layman might see as being in conflict with Roe] is upheld, but we still recognize Roe as being in effect because [reasons]"?

I can see that.
Yeah, something like that. Roe's, pun intended, 'splitting of the legal baby' into trimesters was significantly predicated on fetal viability, so it was initially read as holding that there was sufficient legitimate state interest in preserving third-trimester lives that states could constitutionally ban third trimester abortions, but then Doe v. Bolton and subsequent cases relying more heavily on maternal health, broadly construed, extended the scope of Roe through the third trimester, as well. Given that maternal health, fetal viability, etc. are medical and not legal issues, I could see a more conservative Court revisiting those sorts of questions in light of medical advances and, sub rosa, deciding that it had "all along" devised a flexible standard that required modifying and, in turn, delegating more authority to the states.

ETA: Long time since I looked at any of these cases. Arguably, though it "reaffirmed" Roe, Casey already abandoned the trimester argument. My bad.

What I don't see the Court ever doing is deciding that a fetus is a legal person for purposes of full-blown constitutional protection. That said, my take on "ever doing" isn't quite as firm as it was four years ago.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25247
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer »

Question for DAR or any other lawyers: if there were no Roe or any other Supreme Court decisions interpreted as protecting abortion rights (IOW, if a state did ban abortion and the law was upheld), *would* there be anything preventing states from investigating miscarriages as possible crimes, as Georgia and others are threatening?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 19683
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

It's a good question and I don't know. Arguably, if there were no federal law whatever specifically regarding abortion, the decision of a state to criminalize abortion and then to begin "investigating miscarriages," whatever that might in practice entail, would still be limited by general constitutional limitations on criminal procedure, e.g., probable cause, etc.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25247
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer »

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
06 Jan 2020, 15:31
It's a good question and I don't know. Arguably, if there were no federal law whatever specifically regarding abortion, the decision of a state to criminalize abortion and then to begin "investigating miscarriages," whatever that might in practice entail, would still be limited by general constitutional limitations on criminal procedure, e.g., probable cause, etc.
But -- I am not so much "arguing" as "seeking reassurance," even though here they look alike -- what about the various ways the War on Drugs has (arguably) eroded probable cause -- rather, how might THOSE War on Drugs precedents play out in a War on Baby-Murderin' Sluts?

For example: there was a time when, for all my opposition to the drug laws, I likely would've rolled my eyes at anyone who suggested "This anti-drug madness will get so bad, there will come a time when respectable grandmothers with no criminal records will be arrested for buying over-the-counter allergy medicine twice in one week." Yet this no-shit happened. Or, people terrorized by SWAT teams who mistook their perfectly legal garden tomatoes for marijuana plants, or arrested because cops thought the sugary flakes off a glazed Krispy Kreme donut were actually bits of meth, or because cops thought Spaghetti-O residue was actually illegal drug residue, or [insert sundry other drug-war-horror stories here].

So -- going back to reproductive rights -- for all the various HIPAA and patient-privacy laws there are already some major legal exceptions, most notably the "mandated reporter" aspect: doctors are legally obligated to report evidence of suspected child abuse to the authorities (IIRC they are also required to tell the police anytime they treat a gunshot wound, or anything else strongly suggesting "a violent crime took place"). And in the name of punishing abortion patients, various states have ALREADY passed certain medically unnecessary mandates on abortion doctors -- you MUST perform a transvaginal ultrasound even though the patient neither wants nor needs it, you MUST recite a government-approved anti-abortion speech even if the patient literally covers her ears to avoid listening -- how much of a stretch is it to think certain states would pass (and uphold) laws adding "You must report suspected miscarriages/abortions" to the list?

Even in today's America with Roe theoretically intact, there have already been cases of women convicted of murder for "fetal homicide." Or the pregnant Alabama woman last year who lost her baby when someone else shot her, then SHE was charged with the fetus' "murder" (though prosecutors did eventually drop the charges -- after an international outcry).

THIS is what is already happening in an America where women at least have the theoretical right to choose whether or not to bear a pregnancy to term. How much worse will things get if the government no longer even PRETENDS the woman has any rights in the matter? With the War on Drugs, it is not at all true to say "So long as you personally don't use, sell or possess illegal drugs, you have absolutely nothing to worry about." And I don't think it hyperbolic or inaccurate at all, to say something similar will hold true in a War on Abortion: it will NOT be true to say "So long as you personally are not pregnant and trying to change that, you have absolutely nothing to worry about." The legal harm will NOT be limited to pregnant women seeking to end the pregnancy, and/or the doctors who help them do this.

In a country where you can already be arrested for buying than a few day's supply of nasal decongestant (lest you use it to make meth), how much of a stretch is it to think it might one day be illegal to buy "too much" vitamin C (lest you use it to induce an abortion)?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 19683
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

If you're seeking reassurance that abortion will never be illegal anywhere in the U.S. in the future, I can't provide it. I don't see the Court waffling back and forth on the topic (as it has, for example, over capital punishment) and I very seriously doubt state laws prohibiting abortions during the first trimester will withstand federal court scrutiny, but I think it's quite possible that Roe will be undermined by a more conservative Court, essentially reining in federal jurisdiction and relegating the issue to the states.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25247
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer »

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
07 Jan 2020, 15:16
If you're seeking reassurance that abortion will never be illegal anywhere in the U.S. in the future, I can't provide it.
No, that is not what I'm asking. My concern is, if abortion IS made illegal, what legal harms will be inflicted on pregnant women who are NOT seeking abortions, but who suffer miscarriages? Or, if things get really bad, women who were never pregnant in the first place but (for example) suffer from heavy and irregular periods (which could be a symptom of chemically induced early-term abortions). In other words, how much would a War on Abortion resemble a War on Drugs specifically in the sense of "harming people who aren't even violating the laws in question, but the cops/prosecutors go after them anyway?"
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25247
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer »

Dispatch from Captain Obvious: "Women denied abortions live in financial distress years later, study finds"
The financial cards are stacked against women who want but are denied an abortion, as they and their children are more likely to spend years living in poverty than those able to end their pregnancies, a new study suggests. Those compelled to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term are far more likely to experience eviction, bankruptcy and be mired in debt, according to the findings released Monday by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

In looking at a decade of credit data for women who sought abortions at 30 health providers in 21 states, the latest findings build upon a study released last year that found denied abortions quadrupled the odds of a new mother and her child living in poverty. The new analysis compared changes over time in credit report outcomes for three years before and up to five years after the intended abortion.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/women-deni ... S8dKgTe_o4

Given how many anti-abortionists like to talk about "consequences" and "you HAD a choice -- you could CHOOSE to keep your legs together, heh heh!" I daresay "punishing the sluts with poverty" is kinda the point.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 18110
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by lunchstealer »

Jennifer wrote:
22 Jan 2020, 16:14
I daresay "punishing the sluts with poverty" is kinda the point.
I know it's not universal, but this is a strong motivator amongst many forced-preggers.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - Also JasonL

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 19083
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Hugh Akston »

Brutality for its own sake seems to be a common value among the conservative classes
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 16732
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Aresen »

lunchstealer wrote:
22 Jan 2020, 17:28
Jennifer wrote:
22 Jan 2020, 16:14
I daresay "punishing the sluts with poverty" is kinda the point.
I know it's not universal, but this is a strong motivator amongst many forced-preggers.
Genesis 38 24 wrote:And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

Post Reply