ChiGoose

Mask, err hood, off

He is probably upset his bid for Congress isn't going well so he's going to try and whip up the clownshow.

What if she did not consent? What if she could not consent? What if she did consent and wanted the pregnancy but now it endangers her life? Without the protections of Roe and Casey, there are no guardrails for these scenarios. It is completely up to state legislatures on how to handle them.

I’m in central time, so I still have an hour or so before bedtime. What did I say that was histrionic?

The states will all set their own laws, so that rich people always have access to abortion but poor people may not. Some states will enact long arm statutes to punish people seeking abortions elsewhere. People in some states will have more rights than people in other states. People in some states may be prosecuted for miscarriages, needing to spend money on a lawyer to fight the charges. Taxpayers in some states will have to pay for care for people fleeing other states for medical care. That is what “letting the states decide” means.

It means that if you’re pregnant and then not pregnant, you can be investigated for an abortion. Which is why everyone should delete their period tracking apps.

Everyone knew they were lying at the time. Collins and Manchin are fools.

They are. And who’s gonna stop them?

Something I've noticed is that some people only see things through the lens of winning or losing, not principles. You see that with people claiming the Jan 6th committee is a plot to influence the midterms, which would be very dumb because the midterms are too far away. If that was the actual plan, they would have started in September and ran through October. There's obviously value in creating a historical record of what led to the events on Jan 6th and what happened that day, regardless of whether or not it helps a particular party. But to believe that, you need to value things beyond your side winning. So when you see posts about the committee failing, or not moving the needle for the election, I think it's just because those people cannot see a reason for action other than personal or political gain. Who is winning the horse race? That's all that matters to them. If the GOP is still expected to win in the midterms, it must mean the committee is meaningless.

Funnily enough, Roe v. Wade was decided on similar privacy grounds as Obergfell v. Hodges, Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Loving v. Virginia. In his concurrence, Thomas stated that they should look at cases to revisit all of those except Loving v. Virginia.

Originalism is the idea that the justices can know with certainty what the founders intended about any issue, and therefore any precedent that contradicts it should be overturned. So justices get to ask themselves questions like "What did the founders think about airplane regulations?" come to a conclusion and write that decision. It's an easy way to decide the issue however you want and them make up a reason to support your decision. Under originalism, we would never have had Brown v. Board of Education. You may be thinking of textualism, which is to simply focus on the plain meaning of the text. It's a legit method of constitutional interpretation but is often confused with originalism. Traditional judicial precedent interpretation takes into account the constitution, the law in question, as well as the history of the law as applied to the facts of the case. It promotes stability of the law as opposed to the quickly changing law we find ourselves in with an originalist court.

Originalism is a bunk jurisprudence.

Maybe it should be left to the states?

We're basically in a race to see if Boomers can install permanent minority rule before they die off and lose power. I think we're losing.

Because it's about control.

Thanks, and that's why I wanted to point it out. Our public discourse on abortions generally just assumes we are talking about unwanted pregnancies and that the laws are super clear and only impact those cases. The reality is much more complicated. Ideally, I would not have the government intervene in medical care and instead let the patient and their doctor make the best decision they can. That is going to be much more difficult for pregnancies moving forward with Roe and Casey being struck down. Abortions are a difficult, traumatic, and awful thing. I wish we would focus on proven methods to prevent unwanted pregnancies such as comprehensive sex ed and easy access to contraceptives. And to make it easier for people in difficult positions trying to decide what to do, I wish we had pro-natalist policies like affordable healthcare, parental leave, and affordable (or even free) childcare. Those kinds of things would reduce abortions for unwanted pregnancies (because there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies) and reduce abortions for poor and struggling people by providing them help to ensure that they will be able to afford and keep their baby. But the actual medical decision? The government should have no place there.

They did lie and every person in the world knew they were lying at the time except Susan Collins and Joe Manchin. Reversing Roe is not pointless because it'll get abortion banned in a good number, if not mot, states without a nationwide ban (which has a higher bar to clear). So it's a big win for the anti-choice movement. Many animals eat their own babies.

I think you're see strong movements for a nationwide ban should the GOP control all three branches. Also, I would not be surprised for SCOTUS to go after Obergfell v. Hodges, Lawrence v. Texas, and even Connecticut v. Griswold.

I assume the people advocating for fetal personage based on Christianity are also for banning pork, shellfish, tattoos, and wearing mixed fabrics.

I wish you were right. I would suggest you start talking to people in the medical profession and reading the actual laws. What you're saying seems like common sense but it's not actually how medicine and law work. In the meantime, here are some real world examples of how different abortion laws impact care for miscarriage: In Texas: In Michigan: In Poland: In Ireland: Some more info: Bloomberg: Women jailed for a miscarriage:

Methods of abortion: methotrexate, mifepristone, D&C, D&E, etc. Treatment for miscarriage: methotrexate, mifepristone, D&C, D&E, etc. @B-Man: these are completely different things.

They will not be required to, it all depends on how they want to write the laws. And from what I've seen, many of the people writing these laws are not exactly the brightest people.

If you think overturning Roe and banning abortions is about having more babies, then you're not paying attention. And as I have pointed out elsewhere, this can have dire consequences for women who have miscarriages. If people really wanted to reduce the number of abortions, there are proven methods for that. Banning abortions is not one of them, but reducing the number of abortions isn't the point for them anyway.

Well for one, because one would hope that women would have access to proper healthcare regardless of which state they were in. And for another, states like mine are now going to have to provide services to people from other states, in effect subsidizing them. Decisions in some states can have impacts on people in other states.

There are proven ways to reduce the numbers of abortions, but "pro-life" advocates generally oppose them in favor of banning abortion. Truly pro-life would be advocating for pro-natalist policies (which would likely find decent bipartisan support). Banning abortion will not end abortions, it'll just make them less safe. Hard to argue that cruelty isn't the point.