SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Azadina]

Personally I think abortion is wrong, but what's more important I think it's exactly the kind of situation where it should be a state decision. People obviously have very different opinions about it.

Why is womens bodily autonomy a state decision, but mens is not? Riddle me that.

[unfilteredJW]

Yeah well many people do consider abortion to be murder. So people want to ban it, just like murder.

Whether to commit murder or not shouldn't be a decision individuals make for themselves.

And those peoples opinions are based on religion and misogyny so they can be discarded completely.

[Endus]

Yeah well many people do consider abortion to be murder. So people want to ban it, just like murder.

Whether to commit murder or not shouldn't be a decision individuals make for themselves.

And those people are willfully ignorant misogynists. Objectively speaking. Their entire goal is to subjugate women, to reduce them to breeding livestock.

Because there isn't a single other instance where denying someone the use of your body would be considered "murder", if that someone dies as a result. Someone needs a kidney or they'll die and you're literally the only match? You can say "no", and that isn't "murder". That's the same principle that lies behind abortion rights, and if you're telling me you see a meaningful difference, I'm going to say that you're a liar.

[DarkTZeratul]

The abortion up to the moment before birth is such an emotional argument as well. Something like 98% of abortions happen before the 20th weeks.

In fact, 91% happen before the 13th week. And 65% happen within the first 8 weeks.

[Edge-]

Yeah well many people do consider abortion to be murder. So people want to ban it, just like murder.

Whether to commit murder or not shouldn't be a decision individuals make for themselves.

You know, this would almost be believable if Republicans weren't also trying to punish women for miscarrying, or attempting to make medically necessary abortion to save the life of the mother - especially when there is no chance of saving the fetus - illegal, then you kind of lose the argument that this is about some kind of moral position about the sanctity of life/murder. Especially given the lack of concern for the actual health of the mother during the pregnancy, nor the child once it is born.

Folks just want to force women to be breeding chattel like they used to be before they got all those rights and got all uppity. Hence why none of them actually give a shit about the health of a pregnant woman or child outside of the potential for an abortion.

[Glorious Leader]

Personally I think abortion is wrong, but what's more important I think it's exactly the kind of situation where it should be a state decision. People obviously have very different opinions about it.

Why do you think states are more qualified to make that decision than woman themselves?

[Edge-]

Why do you think states are more qualified to make that decision than woman themselves?

Because, apparently they're the "Goldilocks" size for enforcing personal values on their constituents, apparently. I'm still not clear on this since states vary greatly in size and population, and some states literally have fewer people living in them than some cities.

But best I can tell, "Federal" is too big, "Personal" is too small, but "State", is juuuuuuuust right.

[s_bushido]

Birth control pills, intrauterine devices and emergency contraception would also be outlawed, based on their interpretation of the bill.[/I]

It's not the first time Republican theocrats have tried to shove birth control under the same label as abortion. And it yet again puts the lie to the claim that these fuckers actually believe it's murder. Rather than simply a way for them to control women's sex lives and bodies.

But at least these particular Louisiana fuckers have the balls to follow through on trying to treat abortion as homicide. So I'll give them credit for that.

[Dontrike]

Well I'm certainly proud of your character development. You went from being critical of those who chose not to vaccinate to being the champion of body autonomy.

Almost like not getting a vaccine affects others as you spread disease like a plague rat while an abortion only affects one person. How you don't get that is baffling.

[s_bushido]

WTF is happening…

Seems pretty straightforward.

[Dontrike]

Blatantly unconstitutional in the most oft-quoted sections of proposed bills I see. We have courts to preserve freedom of movement across state boundaries from looney legislatures.

Just like we had courts protecting the rights being dismantled here, almost like shit keeps going further towards fascism.

[Kronik85]

Never did I think it would get this bad, honestly. I had a sigh of relief once Biden went into office, but it’s not getting better. And I’m angry how Democrats scream that they won’t let it happen, but it’s happening and it seems they don’t have the backbone to get aggressive and actually do something. Biden addressed it, and basically said to vote them out, so not much help there when these red states are gerrymandering, etc, to make it harder for them to lose. And when you’re in a state that’s predominantly conservative, how does your vote even matter?

Our only option is just move, and even then it seems delusional to think that the state we go to will remain blue.

What exactly are the Dems meant to do with a Supreme Court or states they do not control with a legislature they barely control?

The only thing Dems can use is Executive Orders and they were the absolute worst when Trump was in power faced with institutional resistance and gridlock, and when Biden loses they just get scrapped anyway.

The US is currently undergoing some growing pains and where one side of it is happy to be a cultural and economic powerhouse the other wants to speedrun it's way to becoming the next Taliban.

If you don't like how your state is going, the only thing to be done is get the fuck out.

[jonnysensible]

What exactly are the Dems meant to do with a Supreme Court or states they do not control with a legislature they barely control?

The only thing Dems can use is Executive Orders and they were the absolute worst when Trump was in power faced with institutional resistance and gridlock, and when Biden loses they just get scrapped anyway.

The US is currently undergoing some growing pains and where one side of it is happy to be a cultural and economic powerhouse the other wants to speedrun it's way to becoming the next Taliban.

If you don't like how your state is going, the only thing to be done is get the fuck out.

what can the dems possible do in control of all branches of government? please give 15 dollars and vote harder

[cubby]

Never did I think it would get this bad, honestly. I had a sigh of relief once Biden went into office, but it’s not getting better. And I’m angry how Democrats scream that they won’t let it happen, but it’s happening and it seems they don’t have the backbone to get aggressive and actually do something. Biden addressed it, and basically said to vote them out, so not much help there when these red states are gerrymandering, etc, to make it harder for them to lose. And when you’re in a state that’s predominantly conservative, how does your vote even matter?

Our only option is just move, and even then it seems delusional to think that the state we go to will remain blue.

And it's going to get worse, across the country, even in Blue states. Because the GOP is going to take the White House in 2024 - maybe not Trump, but someone even worse (think Trump's insanity but not dumb enough to get caught).

Roe being overturned isn't just the loss of the right to an abortion - it's far worse. Privacy itself will start to disappear. Slowly, over the next couple of decades, we'll see other rights, possibly even healthcare privacy, gone. The LBGTQ community are shitting themselves already with Roe going down, and that's before the Religious Right, which really hasn't brought about it's full power, starts to dismantle rights based on religious freedom.

Roe drowning is just the first step. Gilead, or the GQP's version of it in reality, isn't far behind. There could be a national ban on abortion shortly.

[Muzjhath]

The only solution to a country so much in disagreement on what constitutes a body worth saving is local legislatures persuading and voting on the compromise. If the country saw it your way, not a pregnancy but a sacrifice, not many voices but one national diktat, and one beginning and end, then you'd have a point here.

The obvious point being that people disagree on the "rights of citizens." In this case, the rights of the most vulnerable future citizens of this country. The birth canal is the uber-bestower of rights to too many.

So, on this bit. When will you start championing for a national registry blood and organ information as to save as many lives as possible? And insist that everyone that doesn't have a medical reason (blood born infections etc) are in it?
Because either you want the government(s) (local, regional, state, or federal) to be able to save lifes no matter bodily autonomy. Or you don't and this argument is one you ought not use.

[tehdang]

It is more than they are charging the women with a crime that occurred in an area they lack jurisdiction to charge a crime for.

It isn't that she "traveled" but she broke the law by having an abortion. Essentially saying she can be charged for actions in another state that aren't actually against that state's laws. Essentially, these states are attempting to argue that they ALWAYS have jurisdictions on their citizens regardless of where they are.

States don't have jurisdiction on actions taken in other states. If any of them hit law, the sections on that die on lawsuit. The only thing they can do is stop people from importing abortion pills into the state (again, proposed legislation subject to change)

This is an extraordinarily misleading and bad faith argument, and demonstrates that you either have absolutely no idea what the fuck you're talking about - like, at all - or are being willfully dishonest about what this decision would actually mean.

That the bill before the Supreme Court would set a limit at 15 weeks is utterly irrelevant

You manage to criticize a quote about willingness to compromise, in a post section about possibility of compromise, without talking about the compromise. Ok, you want to remind people that a decision that overturns Roe changes more than just the 15 weeks law? Fine. Don't pretend that's a response to me.

As to the bolded; how so? You truly think the likes of Ted Cruz, who was in vacation while his State faced a storm that cut power to countless people and sometimes escalated their bills to astronomical levels, are notably different from Biden, McConnel and the rest of them? That's wishful thinking at the very best of times. You're assuming it to be true without much in the way of reasons or evidence. Don't be surprised if that doesn't constitute a convincing argument.

If the anecdote is a spectacularly bad optics play, I think you don't really believe this. Did he pass some disconnected legislation in Cancun or something?

As for the rest, riddle me something. States should decide but the bill in front of SCOTUS will limit it to 15 weeks which you seem to define as the moderate polling and international norm... so why not just make that the norm everywhere? Why even entertain the possibility of extremist positions if you apparently dislike them so?

The court doesn't get to decide what's extreme or what's not. It has no relevance here in setting policy.

And you miss the point RE legislation crossing state lines. It may be unconstitutional, it may be found as such by the heavily politicized court (and yes before you start this isn't new bit is still a fact), but it remains a telling sign that a lot of this "muh state's right" drivel is a smokescreen. Even moreso if the plan to ban it nationwide is set in motion, which is hardly impossible given that the memo very clearly announces the court's intention to keep taking position again progressive causes. And in the context of conservative legislation making bills attacking abortion such as Texas's now infamous bounty bill a good year before now, it's very hard to take seriously the notion that there's any respect for the notion of compromise coming from Republicans.

Yes, we're going to disagree about a politicized court. They're taking good steps in removing some of the absolute insanity done by liberal majorities and some 5-4 decisions with a swing vote of yesteryear. But libs will always moan when they don't get to pass their legislative agenda through court decree, when their legislative program fails. Conservatives are used to it, it makes no difference.

I can join you in criticism of state laws, but I think you're being awfully deceitful on calling '"muh state's right" drivel is a smokescreen.' Who gets to decide matters of extreme importance is a huge question in a constitutional republic. You may think doing everything all at once nationally, through the supreme court or congress, ought to be good (or, really, is good, but only when things go your way), but I'm very set against it in questions like the one before us. You want to talk smokescreen, and missing the point, but you're gliding over the point and trying to ignore the criticism. I can say "The Texas Law is a bad law, for reason of the private right of action." It doesn't pain me to say that. Whether or not you can settle it there, or want to allege state's issues need also to be a smokescreen for nefarious purposes, is a reflection of who you are in this debate.

The abortion up to the moment before birth is such an emotional argument as well. Something like 98% of abortions happen before the 20th weeks. After that even the most liberal places mostly do it if there's a serious threat to the health of the mother. From the 38th-ish week onward abortions hardly happen, it's just a premature birth. No one's killing newborn if they show up at 8 months 3 weeks instead of 9 months. This is a far cry from the other extreme who ban the practice under any circumstances no matter how dire. Canada has no limit on abortion and what would you know, there's no late-term abortion plague or any other fanciful scenarios.

Something like 10k-12k abortions happen in the last trimester. Pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. That's like the level of gun homicides in the same country. I'm not joining you in "it hardly ever happens, so keeping it legal doesn't matter." Very rare events like abortions due to incest and rape also lower than that 2% level, but exemptions based on those are talked about nonstop. So, sorry, but no dice from me. If third trimester, or last 4 weeks, or last 2 weeks, or last two minutes should be legal, rarity isn't the excuse.

Just like we had courts protecting the rights being dismantled here, almost like shit keeps going further towards fascism.

The constitution not guaranteeing the right of abortion, and why that's part of the slide towards fascism. Well, perhaps the unborn children will disagree. They don't exactly get to vote on what's a fascist instinct towards their life, but disregarding the most vulnerable is kind of the progressive position here.

So, on this bit. When will you start championing for a national registry blood and organ information as to save as many lives as possible? And insist that everyone that doesn't have a medical reason (blood born infections etc) are in it?
Because either you want the government(s) (local, regional, state, or federal) to be able to save lifes no matter bodily autonomy. Or you don't and this argument is one you ought not use.

Now we've got the baby-growing-inside-mommy-is-the-same-as-a-blood-donor argument. How about we get some rights for the baby, then talk about how to find donors for blood and organs? There's a nasty transition, perhaps counted in hours, between when a baby may be receiving the blood transfusions you're trying to source, and when the baby's life may be ended with no legal repercussions.

[Elegiac]

Now we've got the baby-growing-inside-mommy-is-the-same-as-a-blood-donor argument. How about we get some rights for the baby

Sure; they can have the same rights as any other human - that being they are not entitled to the use of someone else's body even if that use would save their life. What you're looking for isn't granting "some rights", it's giving them rights that no other human possesses.

But at least we seem to be whittling you down from some vague abstract argument about federalism to what your *actual* opinion is.

[Muzjhath]

The constitution not guaranteeing the right of abortion, and why that's part of the slide towards fascism. Well, perhaps the unborn children will disagree. They don't exactly get to vote on what's a fascist instinct towards their life, but disregarding the most vulnerable is kind of the progressive position here.

Now we've got the baby-growing-inside-mommy-is-the-same-as-a-blood-donor argument. How about we get some rights for the baby, then talk about how to find donors for blood and organs? There's a nasty transition, perhaps counted in hours, between when a baby may be receiving the blood transfusions you're trying to source, and when the baby's life may be ended with no legal repercussions.

Except that pretty much all legal rulings in the US around abortion tends to hang on bodily autonomy. As well as the fact that you want to force women to give up their bodily autonomy for the sake of saving other lives.
The only reasonable thing is to look at other things.
So obviously the dead have no right to their organs. And every organ that's healthy and can be transplanted into those in need should have that happen to them no? It'll save lives and life is sacred!

[Xyonai]

Speaking of 'Maybe States Shouldn't have all the power to decide what someone does with their body': Louisiana bill would allow murder charges for abortions

[Elegiac]

Except that pretty much all legal rulings in the US around abortion tends to hang on bodily autonomy. As well as the fact that you want to force women to give up their bodily autonomy for the sake of saving other lives.
The only reasonable thing is to look at other things.
So obviously the dead have no right to their organs. And every organ that's healthy and can be transplanted into those in need should have that happen to them no? It'll save lives and life is sacred!

Inb4 "abortion is different because the women gave consent for the abrogation of their bodily autonomy by spreading their legs" or some bullshit of that nature.

It's funny how even the people pretending their arguments are rooted in rationality and legalism always end up falling back to the same nonsense pro-life talking points as every other religious fundamentalist when pressed. Rofl.