Roe vs Wade Overturned

[The Frankish Reich]

2 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Imagine considering yourself a women's rights activist and cheering this decision because now your team is gonna win.

 

It's like saying "I hate injuries but I'm pumped Tom Brady just got hurt for the year!"

But, but, but ... I do hate injuries, and I do hope that Tom Brady gets hurt for the year! Is there anything wrong with that?

 

Seriously, what I'm saying is this: there's been a lot of posturing on the Republican side. The "I'm more pro-life than you!" stuff that gets you through the primaries. Roe v. Wade provided these candidates cover. You can vote for things without really thinking through what they mean. 

Repub Candidate A: "I support a ban on all abortions after 8 weeks."

Repub Candidate B: "My opponent is not really pro-life! I support a ban on ALL abortions, from the time of fertilization."

 

Now: so, that in vitro clinic has to close unless it tracks/reports to the state officials that ALL embryos will be implanted in a woman's uterus?

Now: so, a Colorado abortion provider is advertising abortion trips from Oklahoma. Are you going to outlaw that?

Now: so, 100% of experts attest that the fetus cannot be born alive. Are you going to allow an abortion in those circumstances?

Then: Elon Musk - "I'm moving to Texas, the land of the free!" Now: Tesla engineers: "I am not moving to Texas."

 

Repercussions, repercussions. None of which were considered by those blowhard politicians trying to win an election.

 

 

Edited June 24, 2022 by The Frankish Reich

[FireChans]

Just now, The Frankish Reich said:

But, but, but ... I do hate injuries, and I do hope that Tom Brady gets hurt for the year! Is there anything wrong with that?

I can't bear to answer yes.

 

***** I have been thwarted by my own analogy.

5 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Dead fetus = spontaneous abortion, not induced abortion. So, correct.

But: nonviable fetus? Severe genetic defect, sure to be "born" stillborn? Illegal to abort that fetus in many states. Make that mom deliver!

If there's a proposal in my state to ensure legal abortions for non-viable infants, I will support it.

[HappyDays]

In terms of pure constitutional law this is probably the right decision. Roe v Wade was always an activist decision. But it really sucks for women that live in states who are going to criminalize abortion. Abortions will still happen in those states, just unsafely. Millions of unwanted pregnancies being carried to term will lead to an increased crime rate in about 20 years. I don't have a problem with the court decision but illegal abortion in many states is a net negative for the country IMO.

 

Edited June 24, 2022 by HappyDays

[ALF]

I'm pro life but don't impose my beliefs on others. I would imagine pro choice advocates fund raising to cover travel and other expenses to those who can't afford out of state abortion.

[HappyDays]

7 minutes ago, FireChans said:

If there's a proposal in my state to ensure legal abortions for non-viable infants, I will support it.

 

The issue is I don't trust legislators to build laws around that science. Not even a little bit. In my mind it has always seemed simpler to leave it up to the person that carries the fetus, period. I get that abortion is a moral grey area but in a free society we have to accept those grey areas because the alternative is stripping people of their freedoms.

[The Frankish Reich]

4 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

In terms of pure constitutional law this is probably the right decision. Roe v Wade was always an activist decision. But it really sucks for women that live in states who are going to criminalize abortion. Abortions will still happen in those states, just unsafely. Millions of unwanted pregnancies being carried to term will lead to an increased crime rate in about 20 years. I don't have a problem with the court decision but illegal abortion in many states is a net negative for the country IMO.

 

Not to mention men on the hook for child support for a child neither parent wanted.

[FireChans]

4 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

In terms of pure constitutional law this is probably the right decision. Roe v Wade was always an activist decision. But it really sucks for women that live in states who are going to criminalize abortion. Abortions will still happen in those states, just unsafely. Millions of unwanted pregnancies being carried to term will lead to an increased crime rate in about 20 years. I don't have a problem with the court decision but illegal abortion in many states is a net negative for the country IMO.

 

 

The issue is I don't trust legislators to build laws around that science. Not even a little bit. In my mind it has always seemed simpler to leave it up to the person that carries the fetus, period. I get that abortion is a moral grey area but in a free society we have to accept those grey areas because the alternative is stripping people of their freedoms.

Bolded is all you need to say.

 

Left right or center, after COVID, we can all agree that legislators and government officials by and large SUCK at being scientists.

 

What's really the quandry is should states be allowed to make what I would consider bad decisions and legislation? In our system of government, the answer is yes.

2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Not to mention men on the hook for child support for a child neither parent wanted.

Oh no, will someone think of the men!

 

***** all that. You get a girl pregnant, pony up you deadbeat.

[NyQuil]

33 minutes ago, B-Man said:

The PROPER treatment for a miscarriage is a D&C.

Actually it is a D&S which is a D&C with suction.

 

Its the same procedure as an elective abortion.

[ChiGoose]

5 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

A D&C , A dilation and curettage procedure is used to scrape out the remaining tissue from a spontaneous miscarriage. NOT AN ABORTION

 

This has nothing to do with it.

 

See how this works ?

 

Goose types out a false reaction to today's ruling and now I have to point it out repeatedly.

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, T&C said:

Is a miscarriage really an abortion though... nothing is being aborted, the child has passed away inside the mothers body and rightfully so should be removed for the mothers health. Sorry you all had to go through that... my Mom did twice when I was younger.

 

As someone who has had to unfortunately become intimately familiar with all of this over the last couple of years, I am going to try to spell this out as clearly as I can.

 

Medically, there is little difference between an abortion and treatment for a miscarriage. Depending on how far along, it might be a pill or a shot like methotrexate, or it might be D&C or D&E. In fact, when you have severe bleeding in a pregnancy and go to the ER only to find everything is still fine, your paperwork will read "threatened abortion." A miscarriage is labeled "spontaneous abortion." When you have a miscarriage, doctors generally suggest one of these methods because the other option is to wait and hope the body expels the fetus and tissue. This risks the mother going septic and potentially dying. A simple procedure is preferable to that risk.

 

Legally, it all depends on how the laws are written. Under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the law required an exception for the life or health of the mother. So someone who is pregnant but the fetus dies or stops developing is able to get the proper care because without it, they could go septic.

 

Now that Roe and Casey are overturned, there is no such requirement nationally. States can absolutely enact full abortion bans with no exceptions. This will mean that doctors may not be able to provide treatment for miscarriages until the mother starts suffering from something like sepsis. Or they may make the law vague enough that doctors are unsure of what they can or cannot do, and side on the edge of caution and reject treatment. We've already seen this in Texas since their new abortion law was enacted. Depending on how the laws are written, it may make providing abortion care so difficult and risky, the abortion providers just shut down, leaving people with few to no options.

 

The immediate pushback to this is that states won't pass those kinds of laws. I would love for that to be the case. But like I said, we've already seen doctors in Texas unsure if they can provide care in certain instances of miscarriage. Also, we've seen idiotic attempts like a proposed law in Ohio that would require ectopic pregnancies (pregnancies in the fallopian tube that can cause a rupture and kill the mother are treated with an abortion) to be re-implanted, a procedure that does not exist. Thankfully, that did not pass. But we also see in countries with very strict abortion laws that women die from miscarriage because they cannot get the proper treatment. With today's decision, there is absolutely nothing stopping states from passing similar laws.

 

So when I said that I am happy I live in Illinois, it's because we have laws here that protect my wife and if we lost another pregnancy, she would have no problem getting the help she needs. Soon, women in many states will likely not have that safety.

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

Just now, NyQuil said:

Actually it is a D&S which is a D&C with suction.

 

Its the same procedure as an elective abortion.

And so we can have debates about whether a particular fetus is viable. And in Texas, people running to court to try to get an order to stop a D&C or D&S because they suspect the fetus is still "alive." 

As our friend says: What a mess.

[HappyDays]

Just now, FireChans said:

What's really the quandry is should states be allowed to make what I would consider bad decisions and legislation? In our system of government, the answer is yes.

 

Sure, too many people in this country rely on the Supreme Court to make their preferred policies for them. I'm cool with the Supreme Court deciding in favor of legalized interracial marriage, gay marriage, etc. because that's focusing on comparative rights among American citizens. Abortion doesn't fall under that umbrella for me. Laws like that should be enacted by the legislative bodies in this country. Of course such a thing will never happen but it isn't the Supreme Court's job to play the role of tiebreaker.

[The Frankish Reich]

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

States can absolutely enact full abortion bans with no exceptions. This will mean that doctors may not be able to provide treatment for miscarriages until the mother starts suffering from something like sepsis. Or they may make the law vague enough that doctors are unsure of what they can or cannot do, and side on the edge of caution and reject treatment. We've already seen this in Texas since their new abortion law was enacted.

You said it better than I. All very true. It's easy for politicians to pass overbroad laws when they know they're not enforceable. Welcome to the real world.

[NyQuil]

Also I’m expecting new clinics to open in blue states that border red states right on the state line.

[BillsFanNC]

Odds that dementia Joe will call for calm and discourage violence? 

 

0.0

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, NyQuil said:

Also I’m expecting new clinics to open in blue states that border red states right on the state line.

 

Illinois is already prepping to service the midwest and Texas.

 

Just another example of blue states subsidizing red states.

[Big Blitz]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

The best day for Democrats since both Georgia Senate races went their way in late 2020!

 

Republicans who love Trump because "he put pro-life conservatives on the Court": be careful what you wish for.

 

 

Lol.

 

Unfortunately, I just paid $400 for gas and groceries.

 

[Big Blitz]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

🎯

 

 

Oh it’s happening 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you low infos know you've been running on abortion and war on women hard for the last 10 years?

 

How's that working out for you?

 

It took a POTUS that got into your feelings and a CCP fake virus to "win" an election.  

 

 

 

 

This fall:  

 

Dems:  "We want to still kill kids."

 

GOP:  "How have paying the bills been going for you the last 2 years?  #SQUADLOL

 

 

Sorry.  You'd need an economy you didn't destroy in March of 2020 to salvage this magenta wave that's coming.  

 

Mask up.....and let me know when you decide what a woman even is.  

 

[muppy]

58 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Thank god I live in Illinois. This is going to be so awful for so many people. 

the states that could conceivably prohibit abortion creates an incentive for women who are that desperate for one to travel to a state where the procedure is offered.   Kind of like marijuana tourism was for states like CO and OR before it as more widely legalized.

 

as one of the few female posters at this board what I will say about abortion rights is simply this. Please for the love of all that is holy  women and men use PROTECTION. I dont care if it is a condom or even a day after pill to prevent fertiization. I think the act of needing to get an abortion itself is traumatic enough never mind the legalities of where it will need to take place.

 

I hate abortion but support a womens right to choose. 

17 minutes ago, NyQuil said:

Also I’m expecting new clinics to open in blue states that border red states right on the state line.

yep wouldnt surprise me. with accompanying billboards with adverts can u imagine . 

[Big Blitz]

You had an open SCOTUS seat that was essentially a Nov 2016 referendum on abortion - maybe you should have went to Wisconsin. 

 

If I remember the 2016 campaign right, Hillary and the Ds ran 24/7 on that seat and the importance of keeping abortion legal....

 

Oh wait.....that was Russia and gold showers.   

 

 

Well maybe they did.  But the country doesn't have "preserve abortion till birth at all costs" anywhere near the top of their totem pole of concerns.  

[BillsFanNC]

Don't hold your breath Senator.

 

 

[Mark Vader]

4 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

Don't hold your breath Senator.

 

 

I would stay away from big cities. 

 

The potential for violence and destruction is very high.

[Big Blitz]

Just now, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd like to thank Obama, "stimulus," Obamacare, and his general awfulness for spurring the TEA Party - its culmination in Donald J. Trump - and the spine of Mitch McConnell for getting this to happen. 

 

 

God Bless them and those 5 Supreme Court Justices that understand the Constitution and have a clear moral compass.  

[muppy]

wow up to 26 states laws could be affected by this decision wether it be immediately, near future or conceivably change their laws and straight up outlaw abortions.

 

Is Abortion Illegal? Your Rights in Every State as Roe v. Wade Overturned (msn.com) the link won't embed.

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, muppy said:

wow up to 26 states laws could be affected by this decision wether it be immediately, near future or conceivably change their laws and straight up outlaw abortions.

 

Is Abortion Illegal? Your Rights in Every State as Roe v. Wade Overturned (msn.com) the link won't embed.

 

Here is an article outlining it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/abortion-state-laws-criminalization-roe/

 

13 states with trigger laws will ban abortion shortly.

5 states likely will ban abortion soon

 

[Tiberius]

This is nothing more than an attack on poor women. Trump's people care about a fetus? Ya right. They don't care a fig for the constitution but want to save the unborn? No, this is just a way of hurting people 

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

This is nothing more than an attack on poor women. Trump's people care about a fetus? Ya right. They don't care a fig for the constitution but want to save the unborn? No, this is just a way of hurting people 

 

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.

[Demongyz]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Here is an article outlining it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/abortion-state-laws-criminalization-roe/

 

13 states with trigger laws will ban abortion shortly.

5 states likely will ban abortion soon

 

 

 

West Wendover Nevada will have abortion clinics next to the casinos for all the Utahites to get abortions. 

 

I wonder if they will make adoptions easier and cheaper, that would be great.  Maybe the US can reproduce at a fast enough rate to replace the population going forward.

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

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.

And Thomas gave the game away, they are going after more rights. 

[Demongyz]

Just now, Tiberius said:

And Thomas gave the game away, they are going after more rights. 

Except the opinion states they aren't going to even though Thomas believes it's none of the Feds business.

[muppy]

48 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

Odds that dementia Joe will call for calm and discourage violence? 

 

0.0

 

 

 

hey DR just curious: do you think such a call for no violence isn't appropriate for he to say? He needs to urge calm IMO  The fringe who would do such things I really pray is small. But this is as hot a tribal issue and development as there is and you I trust know that mate.

 

m

[ALF]

McConnell ordered by Trump to use the nuclear option to reduce Senate confirmation vote for Supreme Court Justice from 60 to 50 + VP made the SC Court partisan.

[Demongyz]

11 minutes ago, ALF said:

McConnell ordered by Trump to use the nuclear option to reduce Senate confirmation vote for Supreme Court Justice from 60 to 50 + VP made the SC Court partisan.

What are you talking about?  Harry Reid did this.

 

Edit: I'm wrong, they did it for everything but Supreme Court, you are correct, It was Trump and McConnell.  Everyone is boneheaded.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Demongyz

[Demongyz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZcZIMhjD0k

 

Here you go.

[Tiberius]

One wonders how far this court will go. What can stop them from just overturning every single law Republicans don't like. If Dems try and pack the court, the court could rule it unconstitutional. This could be another form of coup. Ginni Thomas would be on board 

[Big Blitz]

11 minutes ago, ALF said:

McConnell ordered by Trump to use the nuclear option to reduce Senate confirmation vote for Supreme Court Justice from 60 to 50 + VP made the SC Court partisan.

 

 

No - Harry Reid did that. 

 

https://rollcall.com/2020/10/15/if-you-dont-like-the-supreme-court-blame-harry-reid/

 

 

Because they thought there would be a D president forever......and Ds love one thing and it isn't the voters.  It's power.  

 

[Demongyz]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

One wonders how far this court will go. What can stop them from just overturning every single law Republicans don't like. If Dems try and pack the court, the court could rule it unconstitutional. This could be another form of coup. Ginni Thomas would be on board 

This wouldn't be so bad for states to be able to do what they want.  I don't know why New York and California should tell people how to live in South Dakota.

[Demongyz]

6 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

No - Harry Reid did that. 

 

https://rollcall.com/2020/10/15/if-you-dont-like-the-supreme-court-blame-harry-reid/

 

 

Because they thought there would be a D president forever......and Ds love one thing and it isn't the voters.  It's power.  

 

Harry Reid did this for everything but Supreme Court, then McConnel and Trump expanded it to Supreme court in 2017 according to this article.

https://marketrealist.com/p/can-you-filibuster-a-supreme-court-nomination/

Edited June 24, 2022 by Demongyz

[ChiGoose]

8 minutes ago, Demongyz said:

This wouldn't be so bad for states to be able to do what they want.  I don't know why New York and California should tell people how to live in South Dakota.

 

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.

[Nextmanup]

2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Thank god I live in Illinois. This is going to be so awful for so many people. 

The people put Trump in office as part of an effort to "blow things up" are going to find out that things aren't so good when they are blown up.

 

Who will this hit the hardest?  The lowest on the socio-economic ladder, just like everything in America.

 

This country is nothing but an exercise in social Darwinism.

 

 

 

[Big Blitz]

4 minutes ago, Demongyz said:

Harry Reid did this for everything but Supreme Court, then McConnel and Trump expanded it to Supreme court in 2017 according to this article.

https://marketrealist.com/p/can-you-filibuster-a-supreme-court-nomination/

 

 

Missing my point.  

 

Reid's initial actions despite being warned this would happen he did it anyway.