Roe vs Wade Overturned

[SoCal Deek]

42 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said:

 

No its not in a strictly legal sense. But since abortion is now murder in a lot of states, and men don't get pregnant, how do you enforce the law? 

Well these ancillary questions are what they hope to distract you with so you aren’t forced to look at the gruesome heart of the matter. I said before it’s a really tough question. One that deserves serious societal debate. But this is not about privacy. If it was, then you could kill (including yourself), ingest anything, or rob, or rape anyone you want, so long as you do it in private. 

[B-Man]

 

 

No kidding.

 

Just like it always should have been decided.

 

 

After Dobbs, the Path Forward Is Not Through the Courts. 

 

“While it may sound strange coming from the lawyer who heads the ACLU, the real path forward is not through the courts. We must turn to the political process and increase pressure on elected officials—especially at the state and local level. State Constitutions will provide opportunities for new advocacy. We can enact constitutional amendments and pass ballot measures that expand abortion rights and access, as we are doing in Michigan this November.”

 

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/roe-dobbs-aclu/

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

Hospital in Missouri no longer providing emergency contraceptives

 

Quote

Under new Missouri law, doctors who perform or induce an abortion not related to a medical emergency can be charged with a Class B felony. That would result in their license being revoked, and a possible prison sentence of 5-15 years. The hospital system will still allow contraception and abortion-related care at its Kansas locations.

 

“First, the Missouri law is ambiguous, but may be interpreted as criminalizing emergency contraception. As a system that deeply cares about its team, we simply cannot put our clinicians in a position that might result in criminal prosecution,” a statement from St. Luke’s reads. “St. Luke’s will continue to monitor the situation to ensure the reproductive care we provide, including abortions for maternal medical emergencies, continues to comply fully with all applicable laws.”

 

The silver lining here, is that their other hospital is in Kansas. So if you get raped in Kansas City, Missouri, you can still hop the border to get treated.

[T&C]

https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/politics/2022/06/29/pelosi-receives-communion-in-vatican-amid-abortion-debate

[SoCal Deek]

11 hours ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus

I’m going to guess that you’re not god….correct? 

[Boatdrinks]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

Hospital in Missouri no longer providing emergency contraceptives

 

 

The silver lining here, is that their other hospital is in Kansas. So if you get raped in Kansas City, Missouri, you can still hop the border to get treated.

That’s a dumb law that should be changed. (Probably pushed through while no one was paying attention)This will be up to the people to accomplish. Perhaps Medical personnel should leave the state and hospitals should leave the state. The democratic process will have an influence on the market for medical services. 

[Andy1]

I think a bunch of republican states have extreme laws that were passed just to please the religious right, without ever thinking they would actually take effect. Now they are in effect. Hopefully the medical community and outraged citizens push the politics to modify these draconian laws. 

[ChiGoose]

3 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

That’s a dumb law that should be changed. (Probably pushed through while no one was paying attention)This will be up to the people to accomplish. Perhaps Medical personnel should leave the state and hospitals should leave the state. The democratic process will have an influence on the market for medical services. 

 

This is my major concern about Roe no longer being the law of the land. There is absolutely nothing preventing states from passing incredibly stupid laws or laws that are so vague that doctors do not know how to act.

 

Mississippi drafted a law that said that removing ectopic pregnancies count as abortions and are there for illegal before they ended up removing that provision:

 

Source:

Quote

Missouri legislators held a public hearing on a bill that would make it a felony to "perform or induce an abortion" to treat an ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancies never result in a baby and can be fatal if left untreated.

 

While the Missouri bill is expected to fail, the legislation is an example of how ectopic pregnancy can get mistakenly swept up in efforts to target abortion access.

 

Under the regime of Roe and Casey, that law would have been tossed out had it been approved. Now that we are in a post-Roe world, the only thing stopping these sorts of laws is our voters and politicians.

 

Which does not give me a ton of confidence...

 

[Andy1]

30 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

his is my major concern about Roe no longer being the law of the land. There is absolutely nothing preventing states from passing incredibly stupid laws or laws that are so vague that doctors do not know how to act.

This is what will happen. I doubt that these legislatures are going to invite the medical community to help craft their laws. Instead they will say something stupid like “only allowed to save the life of the mother”. So if a fetus medically needs to be aborted, will doctors need to wait until the mothers life is in danger before doing the necessary procedure? Will the mother be denied medical care, increasing the risk to her health? They may have to tell women to “come back when you are about to die “. 
 

They may eventually figure it out, but women will suffer until then.

[B-Man]

 

[ChiGoose]

35 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

This is what will happen. I doubt that these legislatures are going to invite the medical community to help craft their laws. Instead they will say something stupid like “only allowed to save the life of the mother”. So if a fetus medically needs to be aborted, will doctors need to wait until the mothers life is in danger before doing the necessary procedure? Will the mother be denied medical care, increasing the risk to her health? They may have to tell women to “come back when you are about to die “. 
 

They may eventually figure it out, but women will suffer until then.

 

This is exactly what has happened in other countries and led to the death of the mothers.

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

This is exactly what has happened in other countries and led to the death of the mothers.

Which is why the Court said to take these debates up with the elected representatives. This should all be hashed out there, and then come back to the court if there are disputes. 

[ChiGoose]

12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Which is why the Court said to take these debates up with the elected representatives. This should all be hashed out there, and then come back to the court if there are disputes. 

 

Personally, I don't think it should be up to politicians as to whether people live or die. But that's just me.

[Andy1]

It’s a simple problem to solve. The states need to give exclusive authority to determine the medical need for an abortion to the patients doctor. No other subjective qualifications required for the procedure. Somehow, I don’t think that’s going to happen.

[ChiGoose]

6 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

It’s a simple problem to solve. The states need to give exclusive authority to determine the medical need for an abortion to the patients doctor. No other subjective qualifications required for the procedure. Somehow, I don’t think that’s going to happen.

 

I think that there is good room for common ground of a majority of Americans.

 

Prevent unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions:

• Comprehensive sex ed
• Easy access to free contraceptives

Make it easier to choose life:

• Re-enact the child tax credit from last year
• Universal free pre-natal and post-natal healthcare
• Parental leave
• Free or affordable childcare
• Free or affordable meals for kids

If we focused on why we have abortions, we could make progress towards both reducing the number of abortions and starting a pro-natalist movement in the US. We could remove the messiness of doctors needing lawyers to tell them what they can and can't do to help their patients while making it far likely that someone would seek an abortion for non-medical needs.

 

But if we leave it to the states, then women in some states are going to have to make some very difficult choices about their lives and their legal liability.

[Boatdrinks]

6 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

This is my major concern about Roe no longer being the law of the land. There is absolutely nothing preventing states from passing incredibly stupid laws or laws that are so vague that doctors do not know how to act.

 

Mississippi drafted a law that said that removing ectopic pregnancies count as abortions and are there for illegal before they ended up removing that provision:

 

Source:

 

Under the regime of Roe and Casey, that law would have been tossed out had it been approved. Now that we are in a post-Roe world, the only thing stopping these sorts of laws is our voters and politicians.

 

Which does not give me a ton of confidence...

 

Ectopic pregnancies are never viable. This is known medical fact. That is likely why such a provision was removed. The fact it was even included in a draft shows extreme ignorance. If it were included, such a law would ultimately be unconstitutional, no? I believe that document would have something to say about what laws can be passed. As for confidence, who else but the people (via their duly elected representative politicians ) should be making laws anyway? It would seem such a process is the entire idea of our Republic. Exactly what does inspire confidence in you when it comes to our American system of government? 

2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I think that there is good room for common ground of a majority of Americans.

 

Prevent unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions:

• Comprehensive sex ed
• Easy access to free contraceptives

Make it easier to choose life:

• Re-enact the child tax credit from last year
• Universal free pre-natal and post-natal healthcare
• Parental leave
• Free or affordable childcare
• Free or affordable meals for kids

If we focused on why we have abortions, we could make progress towards both reducing the number of abortions and starting a pro-natalist movement in the US. We could remove the messiness of doctors needing lawyers to tell them what they can and can't do to help their patients while making it far likely that someone would seek an abortion for non-medical needs.

 

But if we leave it to the states, then women in some states are going to have to make some very difficult choices about their lives and their legal liability.

So the issue of abortion can be solved by simply handing out “ free” (i.e someone else pays for it..) stuff? Brilliant. 

[Boatdrinks]

5 hours ago, Andy1 said:

This is what will happen. I doubt that these legislatures are going to invite the medical community to help craft their laws. Instead they will say something stupid like “only allowed to save the life of the mother”. So if a fetus medically needs to be aborted, will doctors need to wait until the mothers life is in danger before doing the necessary procedure? Will the mother be denied medical care, increasing the risk to her health? They may have to tell women to “come back when you are about to die “. 
 

They may eventually figure it out, but women will suffer until then.

If the politicians will only write stupid ideas into law, why would the people of these states continue to elect them as their representatives ? 

[BringMetheHeadofLeonLett]

On 6/26/2022 at 7:53 AM, Chef Jim said:

Dipshit?   He seemed to be happy for the Dems. 🙄

There are no Dems.  There is no us and them.  There are Americans, and there are dipshits. 

Americans make this country work.  Dipshits argue its demise. 

[Doc Brown]

4 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

So the issue of abortion can be solved by simply handing out “ free” (i.e someone else pays for it..) stuff? Brilliant. 

As a taxpayer, does it make more sense as a taxpayer to pay to prevent a pregnancy than pay for 18 years of welfare for single mothers?

[Andy1]

6 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

If the politicians will only write stupid ideas into law, why would the people of these states continue to elect them as their representatives ? 

Are you naive enough to believe that legislatures dominated by men will write the laws governing the bodies of women correctly the first time? I would bet that the tendency will be for them to over reach to please the religious righteous. Over the years, the laws may be corrected but until then, women will suffer. 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Andy1

[LeviF]

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

As a taxpayer, does it make more sense as a taxpayer to pay to prevent a pregnancy than pay for 18 years of welfare for single mothers?

Well, no, not in the sense that you’re asking. 
 

But that question is a good illustration of how badly a country can lose the plot when it’s no longer truly a nation, but a glorified economic zone held together at the lower levels with scotch tape and Elmer’s glue. 

[SoCal Deek]

10 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Personally, I don't think it should be up to politicians as to whether people live or die. But that's just me.

Sorry to break it to you but that’s already the case and has been since the beginning of the country. What you call politicians are more commonly called elected representatives. This is our system….and it generally works pretty well. 

[Tiberius]

17 minutes ago, LeviF said:

Well, no, not in the sense that you’re asking. 
 

But that question is a good illustration of how badly a country can lose the plot when it’s no longer truly a nation, but a glorified economic zone held together at the lower levels with scotch tape and Elmer’s glue. 

No longer a nation? Ya, ok 

[LeviF]

24 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

No longer a nation? Ya, ok 

 

A nation requires more than just shared (open) borders. 

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, LeviF said:

 

A nation requires more than just shared (open) borders. 

Sure does, but your point is still silly 

[LeviF]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Sure does, but your point is still silly 

 

What do you think you have in common with the average 2020 Trump voter, Tibs? Genuinely curious. Presumably this guy would agree with the recent Supreme Court decisions, would think that the J6 hearings are grandstanding at best, and live in middle America. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 6/29/2022 at 1:46 AM, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus

“Epicurus? No, I haven’t seen him.”

-God

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, LeviF said:

 

What do you think you have in common with the average 2020 Trump voter, Tibs? Genuinely curious. Presumably this guy would agree with the recent Supreme Court decisions, would think that the J6 hearings are grandstanding at best, and live in middle America. 

What does this have to do with your point we are not a nation? 

[LeviF]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

What does this have to do with your point we are not a nation? 

 

If a group of people are to be called a nation they need to share some things that are bigger - ancestry, values, cultural heritage, history, etc. The various Native tribes can rightfully be called "nations" even if they're scattered now. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

10 hours ago, Andy1 said:

It’s a simple problem to solve. The states need to give exclusive authority to determine the medical need for an abortion to the patients doctor. No other subjective qualifications required for the procedure. Somehow, I don’t think that’s going to happen.

This is an interesting angle.  A woman with an absolute right to choose has to get a doctor’s approval?  
 

 

[Tiberius]

43 minutes ago, LeviF said:

 

If a group of people are to be called a nation they need to share some things that are bigger - ancestry, values, cultural heritage, history, etc. The various Native tribes can rightfully be called "nations" even if they're scattered now. 

My mother was a Trump supporter 

[muppy]

[SoCal Deek]

38 minutes ago, muppy said:

Thanks for sharing this. It’s really quite true. But…the answer to this age old challenge is certainly not to snuff out the unborn before they are born. Doing that is the ultimate out of sight, out of mind. 

[B-Man]

5 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

As a taxpayer, does it make more sense as a taxpayer to pay to prevent a pregnancy than pay for 18 years of welfare for single mothers?

 

 

Not every single mother is a "welfare mom"  Doc.

 

That's kind of a limited view.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BillStime]

Whoops 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

[Andy1]

9 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

This is an interesting angle.  A woman with an absolute right to choose has to get a doctor’s approval?  
 

 

Wow! That’s not what I meant. Everything I spoke of was in the context of a medically necessary abortion that the woman wanted. The doctors opinion (as patient advocate) should rule, not clumsy ambiguous legal wording written by morons in a legislature.

Edited June 30, 2022 by Andy1

[nedboy7]

5 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The trauma Donald Trump’s administration caused to young children and parents separated at the US-Mexico border constitutes torture, according to evaluations of 26 children and adults by the group Physicians for Human Rights (PHR).

The not-for-profit group’s report provides the first in-depth look at the psychological impact of family separation, which the US government continued despite warnings from the nation’s top medical bodies.

“As a clinician, nobody was prepared for this to happen on our soil,” the report co-author Dr Ranit Mishori, senior medical adviser at PHR, told the Guardian. “It is beyond shocking that this could happen in the United States, by Americans, at the instruction and direct intention of US government officials.”

Legal experts have argued family separation constituted torture, but this is the first time a medical group has reached the determination.

[SoCal Deek]

19 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

 

 

The trauma Donald Trump’s administration caused to young children and parents separated at the US-Mexico border constitutes torture, according to evaluations of 26 children and adults by the group Physicians for Human Rights (PHR).

The not-for-profit group’s report provides the first in-depth look at the psychological impact of family separation, which the US government continued despite warnings from the nation’s top medical bodies.

“As a clinician, nobody was prepared for this to happen on our soil,” the report co-author Dr Ranit Mishori, senior medical adviser at PHR, told the Guardian. “It is beyond shocking that this could happen in the United States, by Americans, at the instruction and direct intention of US government officials.”

Legal experts have argued family separation constituted torture, but this is the first time a medical group has reached the determination.

So it was obviously those parents faults for not aborting their children before bringing them along during the commission of a crime. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 hours ago, Andy1 said:

Wow! That’s not what I meant. Everything I spoke of was in the context of a medically necessary abortion that the woman wanted. The doctors opinion (as patient advocate) should rule, not clumsy ambiguous legal wording written by morons in a legislature.

Thanks for clarifying.