News Roe v. Wade overturned

[hal2kilo]

Let's hope all blue states follow suit soon

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/washington-block-anti-abortion-states-180705360.html

We have a wonderful governor.

 

[hal2kilo]

As far as a soul goes, it's a loaded question, but it's a point that needs to be addressed regardless.
I don't think it's politically tenable fur democrats to claim people have no souls. You won't get far with that argument.

But yes, it's ambiguous, at least with answering the question when precisely does a developing life transform from a mass of cells into a person with rights?

As far as biology goes, it's also ambiguous. Conception, basic formation of the heart, brain activity, response to stimulus, passing thru the magical walls of the uterus? Some other arbitrary milestone?

Where you draw the line and others draw the line will be different based on different values.

Given this ambiguity, and given the lack of specific constitutional language and specious legal reasoning behind the original ruling (which was the finding of the court, and has been a bipartisan view), it's likely most appropriate that this question is left to states to decide. Federalism has a place here.

CA can codify in their constitution based on their values, and if MS has different traditions and values, they can do the opposite, and they will have to own the messy consequences of such.

A soul exists due to consciousness. I really don't remember much from the womb, do you?. I told my mom about crying in a playpen while my dad was building our screened porch, and she said how could you remember that? You were only 18 months old.

 

[JD50]

A "soul" is a completely religious concept and has no place in this discussion TBQH.

It's also nonsense but that's a completely different discussion.

 

[Homerboy]

I called a female friend of mine to hear what she is thinking. I got 2 hours or pure rage in my ear.

Her take it's all about control of women by men. I couldn't disagree with her.

Yeap - I've heard so many of my female friends (and wife) cry/rage/despair
It's not even the fact they they will likley have an abortion (I'm old, they are old). Its the IDEA that they (females) are being told what they can and can't do with their bodies. Their autonomy. Their fear for their daughters future lives. Their sons' girlfriends (and in turn, their sons). Its denigrating and insulting on every level for them. Just... deplorable (to steal a word).

 

[Homerboy]

A "soul" is a completely religious concept and has no place in this discussion TBQH.

It's also nonsense but that's a completely difference discussion.

Ah, but when you're trying to impose Sharia Christian Law, then it does have a place.

 

[hal2kilo]

Yeap - I've heard so many of my female friends (and wife) cry/rage/despair
It's not even the fact they they will likley have an abortion (I'm old, they are old). Its the IDEA that they (females) are being told what they can and can't do with their bodies. Their autonomy. Their fear for their daughters future lives. Their sons' girlfriends (and in turn, their sons). Its denigrating and insulting on every level for them. Just... deplorable (to steal a word).

What women want is obviously at the bottom of the list.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

What level of development does the soul develop?

Umm, never

 

[VRAMdemon]

People keep getting caught up in the “abortion” part. What the Supreme Court did was strip women's rights from the protection of parts of the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments. Womens reproductive and sexual privacy and freedom have been removed from ownership and turned over to a government. Now, HIPPA (most likely) doesn’t protect women's gynecological choices if they are suspected of a "nefarious act". Any woman who suffers a miscarriage is now going to be in that pool of suspects. Women are bearing the consequence of this decision, even if men are affected. This is effectively a decision that puts women into “their place” within a patriarchal Christian government structure.

The ‘Don’t Tread On Me!’ crowd that is supposedly in favor of individual liberties/personal liberties has always been selective about which freedoms the government should respect and protect and those that it should not. “Freedom for me but not for thee,”

The philosophy is that there is a divinely or naturally ordained hierarchy of people (or groups of people) In Their Place, and they all must Know Their Place and Stay In Their Place. Now, if they apply themselves they may be granted the grace of a seat, one table up, or they may earn one by fighting and prevailing in a way that impresses the Betters, but they must NOT overthrow the hierarchy itself. One tool to put this in effect is a legal structure by which you can hold the threat of criminal penalties over anyone who deviates from the established norm of how everyone should carry or comport themselves. The rich, powerful and connected can continue to have affairs, abortions, and be gay on the Down Low, as long as they keep it secret or discreet, but woe to whoever comes out and says “I want this to be accepted as the norm”. You have to maintain the show of “polite society” and “values” and that it’s “those others” who are prone to promiscuity and crime; you do that by letting it be known the government can regulate your private conduct, so behave yourself or we’ll take you down.

Consenting-adult victimless sex crime laws boil down to just keeping a blackmail weapon in society’s back pocket to force the nonconforming to shut up and keep their heads down. And while they're at it, they’re also society giving Dad a weapon with which to crush any “wrong” partner of his sons and daughters… or any son or daughter who picked the “wrong” partner.

It is hard to enforce all these laws against abortion if there IS a robust right to privacy, because the State has to intrude far into your privacy to enforce those laws. Once the right to privacy is undermined sufficiently, how does Griswold stand? Without Griswold how does privacy as a constitutional right stand? People hear “right to privacy” and it makes no sense to them. It’s the “right to make choices about your private life”, which would be better described as “personal liberty”. And, of course the "personal liberty" crowd is picking and choosing what personal liberties should be allowed.

 

[eelw]

Good job cops. Those 90lb females are an extreme threat!!!!

'Full House' star Jodie Sweetin thrown to ground by police during abortion rights protest | CNN

Los Angeles police clashed with protesters during an abortion rights demonstration where actress Jodie Sweetin appeared to be pushed to the ground.

www.cnn.com

 

[sdifox]

Good job cops. Those 90lb females are an extreme threat!!!!

'Full House' star Jodie Sweetin thrown to ground by police during abortion rights protest | CNN

Los Angeles police clashed with protesters during an abortion rights demonstration where actress Jodie Sweetin appeared to be pushed to the ground.

www.cnn.com

Hey, they pushed a 70 year old man to the ground causing open wound, they are just making sure to not be sexist.

 

[sportage]

One thing for sure, women will help other women by organizing and bussing women from restrictive states to non restrictive states to get their abortion. When the pro-lifers see this happening, the bussing and the caravans, we will have violence against those busses as they travel just like the violence back in the 1960's against black freedom riders as freedom riders traveled to promoted voting rights.

As in the 60's with blacks and civil rights, we will again see violence but this time from pro-lifers against women traveling to other states seeking to exercise their abortion rights.
And that will definitely lead to a push from pro-lifers and from republican controlled US congress to enact laws banning abortion nation wide.

Want to know how a nation wide abortion ban will come into play? THIS is how a nation wide abortion ban will come into play. First, the violence from pro-lifers against the pro-choice caravans, and next the call for nation wide abortion ban claiming it necessary in order to prevent the violence against the pro-choice caravans.
Sound a little screwy? It is a little screwy to say the least. Actually, a lot screwy.

Make no mistake, the pro-lifers next demand will be a nation wide abortion ban because pro-choice women will still find a way to getting an abortion despite what the US Supreme Court says, and watching that happen will drive the pro-lifers absolutely crazy.

 

[Bitek]

A "soul" is a completely religious concept and has no place in this discussion TBQH.

It's also nonsense but that's a completely different discussion.

You may think it's nonsense, unfortunately you live in a country where religion, moral and philosophical questions do matter to lots of people.

This is now a political and democratic contest of ideas. There is no scotus/constitutional armor to hide behind anymore. Ending the filibuster isn't a realistic solution either.


Regardless, the central question and controversy is personhood and when it begins.

Just focusing on women's rights ignores this. Proponents of bans believe abortion is murder of an individual, and a fetus also has rights.
Nowhere else do we permit ending of human life other than for capital criminal offenses, self defense or war.

Ironically, there are a biblical passages to support that "life" doesn't begin until a baby takes their first breath (god breathing in breathe of life stuff)

Conservative Christians (eg Pence) have drawn the line of life/personhood at conception.

If you try to take a purely "scientific" approach... Then what makes taking the life inside the womb ok, but not after it's left?
What scientific voodoo are you going to point to to say when precisely individual rights do or don't apply?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

If you try to take a purely "scientific" approach... Then what makes taking the life inside the womb ok, but not after it's left?
What scientific voodoo are you going to point to to say when precisely individual rights do or don't apply?

Variable, based on level of independence from the mother, followed by the family unit, followed by developmental maturity, based on a loose set of vaguely agreed upon morals, as we do now.

 

[Bitek]

Variable, based on level of independence from the mother, followed by the family unit, followed by developmental maturity, based on a loose set of vaguely agreed upon morals, as we do now.

And now turn that into statues

Won't be a common std nationally, it's a messy affair, hence why I think it's best dealt with at state level for the time being and focus on keeping the right to travel legal, highlight new tragedies to sour opinion, and meanwhile build a judicial pipeline strategy to counter the federalist society.

 

[Brovane]

I would say based on what Thomas wrote in the ruling. State Legislators should mo

One thing for sure, women will help other women by organizing and bussing women from restrictive states to non restrictive states to get their abortion. When the pro-lifers see this happening, the bussing and the caravans, we will have violence against those busses as they travel just like the violence back in the 1960's against black freedom riders as freedom riders traveled to promoted voting rights.

As in the 60's with blacks and civil rights, we will again see violence but this time from pro-lifers against women traveling to other states seeking to exercise their abortion rights.
And that will definitely lead to a push from pro-lifers and from republican controlled US congress to enact laws banning abortion nation wide.

Want to know how a nation wide abortion ban will come into play? THIS is how a nation wide abortion ban will come into play. First, the violence from pro-lifers against the pro-choice caravans, and next the call for nation wide abortion ban claiming it necessary in order to prevent the violence against the pro-choice caravans.
Sound a little screwy? It is a little screwy to say the least. Actually, a lot screwy.

Make no mistake, the pro-lifers next demand will be a nation wide abortion ban because pro-choice women will still find a way to getting an abortion despite what the US Supreme Court says, and watching that happen will drive the pro-lifers absolutely crazy.

Why would you assume there will be pro-choice caravans? It could be just as simple as giving woman who need a Abortion a plane ticket to another state.
There is no need to organize a caravan.

 

[Brovane]

What a absolute mess. Let's pass a law but then not tell Doctors treating patients how to be compliant with the law. A@#hats.

Ohio 'Heartbeat' Abortion Ban: 'The Law Changed Beneath My Feet'

Hackney said he was familiar with the law, but not at the level of detail that someone who specializes in treating high-risk pregnant patients would need to be in order to practice within its bounds.

"What are the spelled-out exceptions for [saving the mother's] life?" he said. "Do you need a two-physician sign-off?"

"What if literally tonight, I have a patient coming in and she's hemorrhaging at 20 weeks," he continued. "I'm suddenly operating under a new set of laws, which I have not had time to prepare for. You don't want to have to be seeking legal counsel in the middle of something bad. You always want to care for the patient."

Underlying all of this is that in Ohio, now, "the stakes are jail." Abortion providers face felony charges and up to a year in prison.

Normally, there would be a period of time where lawyers know a law will go into effect and can determine what practices would be compliant with that law. Doctors and lawyers would work together to interpret the law, which is a complicated process under normal deadlines, Hackney said. Add to that the vagueries of this particular bill.

"The law isn't written to the level of specification that we would normally have in medicine," he said. "The demarcations are very artificial ones that we wouldn't use in medicine. They're things that sound good to legislators but don't translate well in the real world."

Not having that buffer period put ob/gyns -- especially those who treat high-risk pregnancies -- on edge.

"There were people on call in labor and delivery units all throughout the state of Ohio who were suddenly operating under an entirely different set of laws," he said. "It's by no means implausible that patients with life-threatening conditions would be coming in on a Saturday or Sunday."

 

[linkgoron]

You may think it's nonsense, unfortunately you live in a country where religion, moral and philosophical questions do matter to lots of people.

This is now a political and democratic contest of ideas. There is no scotus/constitutional armor to hide behind anymore. Ending the filibuster isn't a realistic solution either.


Regardless, the central question and controversy is personhood and when it begins.

Just focusing on women's rights ignores this. Proponents of bans believe abortion is murder of an individual, and a fetus also has rights.
Nowhere else do we permit ending of human life other than for capital criminal offenses, self defense or war.

Ironically, there are a biblical passages to support that "life" doesn't begin until a baby takes their first breath (god breathing in breathe of life stuff)

Conservative Christians (eg Pence) have drawn the line of life/personhood at conception.

If you try to take a purely "scientific" approach... Then what makes taking the life inside the womb ok, but not after it's left?
What scientific voodoo are you going to point to to say when precisely individual rights do or don't apply?

While in theory what you say might make sense, and most of the pro-choice would probably say something like 15-23 weeks without medical reasons and anywhere after for medical reasons, all of this is not really related to the issue.

The whole issue here is controlling women and sex. Punishing "sluts" and women who have sex out of marriage etc. If the proponents of anti-abortion laws really cared about the fetus, they would call for better sex education, promote contraception, provide paid maternity (and even better - paternity) leave (note that there are only five states that provide paid maternity leave) and maybe even provide meaningful financial assistance for newborns etc. Instead, they basically ban sex education, discourage contraception and will never provide any real assistance to the mothers in need.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

And now turn that into statues

Alright, before birth, it's up to the mother. Post-birth, the health and wellbeing of the child takes priority. 16 and older, it's up to the child, exception being if they're developmentally compromised in a way that could endanger themselves to be alone.

Yes, it's blunt, and amoral in many ways. It also doesn't satisfy everyone which makes it a pretty good compromise.

 

[HomerJS]

Remember how all the right wing media got such a hard on about the leaked memo

They went 24x7 about the memo. SCOTUS was launching an investigation

Interesting, we haven’t heard any results and right wing media hasn’t mentioned it in a long time

My spidey senses are tingling somethings up

 

[NWRMidnight]

Uhm, all of the rulings on the ACA would have been 9-0 in a prior era so you are further proving my point.

Your position here is almost comically naive.

Bullshit! You are manipulating facts to support a "feelz" argument. We are talking about the Current SCOTUS, not what a prior era would have resulted in. Would have but didn't.. that's why the ACA hasn't been fully struck down as predicted.. you don't even want to acknowledge the point I was making.. You aren't even arguing in good faith because now, you are going back over a decade before the ACA, to try and argue what todays' SCOTUS would do, speciallky since this SCOTUS didn't strike down the ACA in their latest ruling on it, which has NOTHING to do with a prior era. You are grasping and straws to support an unsubstantiated argument that has no legal standing at this time.. No, not basing what will happen in future cases, based off assumptions, is not being naïve. You are being naïve arguing without any legal standards supporting your position, it's all based off assumptions and feelz. You have yet to show any legal standing that supports your side of the argument.. Again, all you have thrown at me is assumptions based off feelz.. that's it.. So get back to me when you can actually show legal standing that supports states can prosecute their residence for legal activities in another state.

Or do you have a time machine/crystal ball you have not told us about? Or are you just shaking your magic eight ball for your answer.. Because it's answer would be as factual as the assumptions you are arguing.

 

[UNCjigga]

Good job cops. Those 90lb females are an extreme threat!!!!

'Full House' star Jodie Sweetin thrown to ground by police during abortion rights protest | CNN

Los Angeles police clashed with protesters during an abortion rights demonstration where actress Jodie Sweetin appeared to be pushed to the ground.

www.cnn.com

“HOW RUDE!!!”

Sorry, had to do it.

 

[NWRMidnight]

You don't have an opinion on police entering someone's apartment, noticing they're two men having sex, and charging them with a crime?

What does that have to do with Roe vs Wade, or any legal standing that states can prosecute their residence from legal activities in another state? That is a completely different subject and should have it's own thread to discuss it, so my opinion is not relevant on that subject in this topic. You are trying to muddy the water with irreverence because you have nothing to support what's actually being discussed/argued. That or you are trying to de-rail this topic by throwing out an off topic subject into the mix.

 

[Jaskalas]

The reasoning was based on the due process clause in the 14th Amendment.

Substantive due process

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Ah, thank you. This has enough information for me to fill in the gaps and come up to speed where the where and why of it.

 

[Vic]

You may think it's nonsense, unfortunately you live in a country where religion, moral and philosophical questions do matter to lots of people.

This is now a political and democratic contest of ideas. There is no scotus/constitutional armor to hide behind anymore. Ending the filibuster isn't a realistic solution either.


Regardless, the central question and controversy is personhood and when it begins.

Just focusing on women's rights ignores this. Proponents of bans believe abortion is murder of an individual, and a fetus also has rights.
Nowhere else do we permit ending of human life other than for capital criminal offenses, self defense or war.

Ironically, there are a biblical passages to support that "life" doesn't begin until a baby takes their first breath (god breathing in breathe of life stuff)

Conservative Christians (eg Pence) have drawn the line of life/personhood at conception.

If you try to take a purely "scientific" approach... Then what makes taking the life inside the womb ok, but not after it's left?
What scientific voodoo are you going to point to to say when precisely individual rights do or don't apply?

With all due respect, none of that are the actual issues. Conservatives don't care about unborn fetuses and never have. They don't care whether life begins at conception or birth. They don't care that outlawing abortion will have no overall impact on the rate that women will have an abortion. And they for sure don't care that outlawing abortion does nothing to solve the problem as to why a woman might want to get an abortion in the first place.
All they care about is casting the first stone at the adultress. Period.
Liberals need to stop making liberal arguments at conservatives because conservatives don't care about liberal arguments. They don't think that way. They don't believe in the Golden rule or "there but for the Grace of God go I." They're not rational or logical wrt ethics or justice.
Conservatives think in emotional terms of us (in-groups) and them (out-groups). Which, in this case, means that any woman unfortunate enough to have had sex (consenual or not) with a man that resulted in a pregnancy where the man won't provide for the child is automatically outcast. And that is all conservatives care about. Casting the first stone at the adultress. Period.
With this in mind, I hope that liberals can move past conservative red herrings and recognize the real issues. Which is the only agenda conservatives for a better society is to use the govt to punish and otherwise remove from society everyone they see as 'them.'
I sincerely hope liberals stop arguing pedantics and start taking this threat seriously.. before it's too late.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Row v Wade hasn't positively affected my life. I don't care that it was overturned. I'm not particularly religious, but am tired of this being a national political issue. I think presidents in the future may actually benefit from not having to discuss baby killing as part of their part affiliation. I can't wait for people to stop bitching about not paying attention in sex ed classes.