SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Edge-]

https://www.nola.com/news/healthcare...00590b304.html

Proposed tweaks to Louisiana's strict abortion ban faltered Wednesday before a Republican-controlled House committee, dealing a blow to Gov. John Bel Edwards and other Democrats who hoped to ease the ban in certain cases, such as after rape or incest occurs.

The House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee killed two bills that would have exempted rape and incest victims from the ban, including one specifically aimed at child victims. After the first vote, lawmakers pulled other bills that would have lessened penalties for doctors who perform abortions and exempted women who experience miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies.

Louisiana Republicans have the chance to more narrowly define abortion restrictions, including granting exemptions for rape and incest while also exempting women who experience miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies.

Just a reminder of what Republicans are currently doing that intentionally doing to harm and torture girls and women, and make providing some health care services a liability for providers.

[Elder Millennial]

https://www.nola.com/news/healthcare...00590b304.html



Louisiana Republicans have the chance to more narrowly define abortion restrictions, including granting exemptions for rape and incest while also exempting women who experience miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies.

Just a reminder of what Republicans are currently doing that intentionally doing to harm and torture girls and women, and make providing some health care services a liability for providers.

I'll say this again, because it's worth saying again and again.

Conservatives look at the Handmaid's Tale Gilead as something inspirational. The cruelty is the point. That's why they also love banning that book so much, can't have the kids catch on to what's happening.

[Edge-]

I'll say this again, because it's worth saying again and again.

Conservatives look at the Handmaid's Tale Gilead as something inspirational. The cruelty is the point. That's why they also love banning that book so much, can't have the kids catch on to what's happening.

Don't worry, soon I'm sure we'll hear about how ultimately, this is all Democrats fault for not proactively passing protections in states where they've always been a minority party, actually.

[Xyonai]

https://www.nola.com/news/healthcare...00590b304.html



Louisiana Republicans have the chance to more narrowly define abortion restrictions, including granting exemptions for rape and incest while also exempting women who experience miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies.

Just a reminder of what Republicans are currently doing that intentionally doing to harm and torture girls and women, and make providing some health care services a liability for providers.

And it's shit like this why I don't take 'reasonable' pro-lifers' stances at face value. For all their hang wringing about allowing common sense exemptions, almost none of the legislators on their side - who actually draft and pass these laws - want those things.

[Mekh]

https://www.nola.com/news/healthcare...00590b304.html



Louisiana Republicans have the chance to more narrowly define abortion restrictions, including granting exemptions for rape and incest while also exempting women who experience miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies.

Just a reminder of what Republicans are currently doing that intentionally doing to harm and torture girls and women, and make providing some health care services a liability for providers.

The party of @tehdang everyone. It's worthwhile to keep calling this shit out. I'm sure he's got a mealy mouthed explanation for this one too.

[Edge-]

https://www.fox26houston.com/news/te...s-cdc-says.amp

Another example of, "If Republicans actually cared about what they claim to, they'd be focused on other issues." in relation to this topic -

An alarming report from the CDC reveals an increasing number of babies are being born with syphilis.

The CDC recently released a report revealing congenital syphilis cases increased by 32% between the years 2020 and 2021, and Texas accounted for the highest number of cases with nearly 700 congenital syphilis births reported.

"Texas, like a lot of southern states, is experiencing a surge in STI's, in particular syphilis. The reason why I believe this is happening is that it's kind of a quiet infection," said Dr. Irene Stafford, Maternal-Fetal Medicine Doctor with UTHealth & Memorial Hermann.

Congenital syphilis is when a mother passes the infection to her unborn baby. According to the CDC, the rise in these cases resulted in at least 220 stillbirths and infant deaths. And even if the child survives, there can be serious health consequences.

"Blood problems, bone problems, liver problems, and some babies can have neuro-syphilis where it goes to the central nervous system," Stafford explained.

Stafford says there's been an increase in syphilis, and other STDs in general, and she notes that some communities are at a greater risk than others.

"It disproportionately affects minorities and the underserved, and we know for a fact these communities in Houston have been disproportionately affected," Stafford said.

Stafford also says while congenital syphilis is a concerning and growing problem, there's a simple solution.

"It can be completely treated with just a simple shot of penicillin in pregnant individuals, so the most important thing to prevent congenital syphilis and the infection is to just get screened, tested, and treated," Stafford said.

She says early prenatal care is essential, pregnant women should be screened for syphilis at the beginning and later in their pregnancy. But she emphasizes everyone who is sexually active should be getting screened.

Again, if Republicans actually cared about ensuring healthy children are born and life is respected, they'd be in favor of better sex education, increased access to safer sex methods, and additional funding for prenatal care to prevent things like cases of congenital syphilis.

[Edge-]

Clearly this is the fault of abortion doctors and murderous mothers. The abortion law should be more restrictive!

/s

Unironically argued in this thread, yes.

But it's still absolutely telling that Republicans continually voluntarily pass, or voluntarily refuse to alter laws that are having a direct harm on individual and contradicting the central premise of the law ("protecting" life).

And then they wonder why they're getting their asses kicked by zoomers who all hate their fuckin guts and women who are increasingly abandoning a party that wants to control their bodies and force them to give birth to rape/incest babies before leaving them alone with the child they were forced to carry to term with no support from the state run by the same party.

[Edge-]

I think the telling bit is that there are now scores of women who wanted to have children, but ended up in a dystopian nightmare where their child died AND themselves almost died too. Quite a few of the stories we've seen indicated that these women now can't have children again ever because of it.

Republicans have been silent. Or I guess channeled tehdang and blamed doctors for not understanding the law.

I mean, forcing a woman to give birth to a baby that will die after seconds in her arms is sure a great way to traumatize her to the point where considering risking that process again isn't very appealing.

[tehdang]

I might be wrong here, however, in almost every case where you challenge on abortion here. Chonogo would point to laws about manslaughter, murder, and other unlawful killing.

Not abortion.

Stuff that covers what they object to.

When I talk with you and posit no restrictions on abortion throughout the pregnancy as something you might support or oppose, I'm talking about any abortion a woman wants and can find a doctor to perform. If you want it to be considered manslaughter by statute, you do want it to be made illegal.

Many states have current laws restricting the abortion of late term babies in such a manner, so feel free to pipe up that you support such laws making it illegal.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Feel free to dismiss and refuse to engage on anything you want.

Any other posters reading this confused with my stance on abortion law?


Remember the post history tehdang: (What follows is a flawed retelling)

Let me just quote you real quick:

It's pretty fucking simple, tehdang.

If the child is viable and the pregnancy is doing fine, it should be illegal to have an abortion when the fetus is viable outside the womb.

Then is where you tell me you think it should be illegal post-viability for healthy child/pregnancy.

I must confess that I took you at your word when you wanted it to be illegal. Later on, I talked about how no Democratic politician actually and vocally supports that position, and concluded with a comment on how "my proposal works" (it should be illegal for healthy) and wished it was a mainstream Democrat position. That's when you said:

That's the thing, I don't think it should be illegal. Because doctors won't abort viable healthy fetuses that aren't endangering their future mother.

Now these statements are in pretty direct conflict. Which one is a true statement of your beliefs? Illegal for healthy babies and pregnancy post-viability, or don't actually make it illegal because doctors would never, ever do such a thing! You can't really cite current laws already making it illegal (many states reject the no-restrictions and do make it illegal) if we're talking about whether you support laws making it illegal (which constitute restrictions on abortion).

[Endus]

Then is where you tell me you think it should be illegal post-viability for healthy child/pregnancy.

Why should it be illegal, at all, ever?

Why isn't this just a consideration of medical ethics/malpractice, the same way literally every other medical procedure is?

Those laws would still apply; you're asking for special laws just for abortion, specifically, and there's never any actual explanation for that stance, from anyone. At least, none that is not immediately dismissable because it's either religious fascism or direct misogyny, if not both.

Literally no argument. You act like you shouldn't have to explain yourself, when you're the one asking for special laws for this specific medical procedure above and beyond what already covers and protects patients in general. You're the one who has to justify that, the alternative stance requires no justification, because it's a default position. You want the special treatment, the onus lies with you. To convince us. Not the other way around.

[tehdang]

They're in direct conflict if you ignore all context, tehdang. Which you did.

Here, I'll repost what I said. I'll even give you MORE context!:
It's pretty fucking simple, tehdang.
If the child is not viable or the pregnancy is in danger, abortion is legal.
This is my fundamental core belief as it relates to abortion.

If the child is viable and the pregnancy is doing fine, it should be illegal to have an abortion when the fetus is viable outside the womb.
This is for you, so that hopefully you can understand that pro-choicers are not fans of baby-killing. I wish I didn't have to include the above statement, but you and anti-abortion people in this country have inserted yourselves into a conversation you shouldn't be having.

Would you like to stand next to the woman and doctor performing the abortion and give her your 2 cents on what you think? I consider that none of my business, so I definitely wouldn't. I guess your answer would depend on how rabidly anti-abortion you are.

Science and doctors inside that specific profession should be the ones to answer what "viable" means. NOT politicians and their lobbyists.
This is so we get laws grounded in reality instead of religion/ideology/every sperm is sacred thinking. Your camp.

Considering that this resolves the conflict by repudiating the second statement in contention with it, I accept it.

Doctors would go to jail if they abort a healthy, viable child without existing abortion laws. So why create yet another law when the violation has already occurred? The doctor has committed murder, manslaughter, or done something grievous enough to be sued for wrongful death, regardless of whether the mother asked for it or not. Because the child is a viable human being at that point.

Are you telling me that murder isn't law? Manslaughter isn't law?

We have laws that would put them in jail if the abort a healthy, pre-viable child. But we're talking about what laws you support, not laws currently on the books. If it's illegal now and you want it to remain illegal, then I'm not going to nitpick you if you like it to be called manslaughter by statute or wrongful death.

It's all very good if you opine that no doctor would do such a thing, and ignore insufficient rationales of post-viability abortion, if you also support laws criminalizing the act. That's an appropriate backstop.

The Atlantic, May 12th
https://archive.is/wszNF

If you need more nuance along with non-medical-reason late term abortions, alternate definitions of viability, and alternate conceptions of health, from an late-term-abortion-providing doctor.

[Adamas102]

The Atlantic, May 12th
https://archive.is/wszNF

If you need more nuance along with non-medical-reason late term abortions, alternate definitions of viability, and alternate conceptions of health, from an late-term-abortion-providing doctor.

Good insight into why having NO gestational limitations is ABSOLUTELY necessary.

It also makes it abundantly clear who you want to punish and legislate against; pregnant teens and rape victims who weren't able to get the abortions they needed due to conservative laws and practices in their own states. And the ones this doctor treats are the lucky ones who a.) had the means to travel to Colorado and b.) the money to pay for the expensive procedure. Again, "late term limitations" are just part of the malicious plan to force women to carry to term. Thank you for providing more evidence of this.

As Dr. Hern correctly notes, "every pregnancy IS a health issue", and as such any decision regarding it should be between the patient and their doctor. Lawmakers lack the knowledge to weigh in on that decision, and so do you.

[DarkTZeratul]

As Dr. Hern correctly notes, "every pregnancy IS a health issue", and as such any decision regarding it should be between the patient and their doctor. Lawmakers lack the knowledge to weigh in on that decision, and so do you.

To quote Pete Buttigieg, "I think the dialogue has been so caught up in where we draw the line, that we've gotten away from the fundamental question of who gets to draw the line. And I trust women to draw the line when it's their body. ...Let's put ourselves in the shoes of a women in that situation. If it's that late in your pregnancy, that means almost by definition, you've been expecting to carry it to term. We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name, women who have purchased a crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy, that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is, as horrible as that choice is, that woman may seek spiritual guidance, she may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to get any easier because the government is dictating how that choice should be made."

[Rasulis]

And it's shit like this why I don't take 'reasonable' pro-lifers' stances at face value. For all their hang wringing about allowing common sense exemptions, almost none of the legislators on their side - who actually draft and pass these laws - want those things.

Case in point.

Alabama would prosecute abortion as murder under newly introduced bill

HB454, introduced by Rep. Ernie Yarbrough, R-Trinity, would repeal the standing provision that prohibits prosecution following an abortion.

The bill could lead to prosecutions for anyone who terminates a pregnancy after fertilization, though it retains protections for people who are victims of domestic violence of assault.

Also, we'll soon have several constitutional election events which could be used to gauge voters' turnout and sentiment when it comes to abortion right.

August election in Ohio for a proposal that would require 60% of voters to enact constitutional amendments, instead of a simple majority of 50% plus one. Voters will get the final say over the proposed amendment at the polls on Aug. 8. Ohio legislators hope that turnout will be low and they could push the amendments through and make the upcoming November constitutional abortion amendments harder to pass. Apparently, they forgot Kansas August 2022 abortion referendum. Actually, this is a last-ditch effort for the GOP controlled Ohio legislative. If it failed, there is nothing that will stop the abortion constitutional amendment in November.

Pro-choice groups in Florida are working on putting an abortion constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2024. Tall order. The GOP controlled government will fight this all the way. Not to mention, changing Florida constitution will require 60% of votes. It will still be useful as a gauge on how Floridians feel about the issue. Also, miracles do happen.

[The Stormbringer]

Case in point.

Alabama would prosecute abortion as murder under newly introduced bill

Also, we'll soon have several constitutional election events which could be used to gauge voters' turnout and sentiment when it comes to abortion right.

August election in Ohio for a proposal that would require 60% of voters to enact constitutional amendments, instead of a simple majority of 50% plus one. Voters will get the final say over the proposed amendment at the polls on Aug. 8. Ohio legislators hope that turnout will be low and they could push the amendments through and make the upcoming November constitutional abortion amendments harder to pass. Apparently, they forgot Kansas August 2022 abortion referendum. Actually, this is a last-ditch effort for the GOP controlled Ohio legislative. If it failed, there is nothing that will stop the abortion constitutional amendment in November.

Pro-choice groups in Florida are working on putting an abortion constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2024. Tall order. The GOP controlled government will fight this all the way. Not to mention, changing Florida constitution will require 60% of votes. It will still be useful as a gauge on how Floridians feel about the issue. Also, miracles do happen.

As if we needed more evidence that these people hate women. Banning it isn't enough, no, we're gonna throw those women in prison and call them murderers and ruin their future for DARING to be anything but a breeding machine.

[Edge-]

It's funny because for a while anti-choice advocates were extremely concerned about the appearance of trying to punish women for receiving medical care because they realized how deeply unpopular of a position it was. Remember when even anti-choice groups criticized Trump back in 2015/6 when he proposed punishing the doctors and the patients?

It seems that the extremist groups realize that the game is up and that they can't really put spin on it that's publicly acceptable any longer given that even that position has proved deeply unpopular when put to the popular vote, so they're just proposing legislation that is as extremist as they've always wanted it to be.

It's not about punishing the girls and women, but actually yes that's exactly what it's about.

[Twdft]

As if we needed more evidence that these people hate women. Banning it isn't enough, no, we're gonna throw those women in prison and call them murderers and ruin their future for DARING to be anything but a breeding machine.

Irritating about all of these things is that you guys don't even have adequate maternity protection laws. Like not having to work 6 weeks before to 8 weeks after giving birth while still getting paid and not allowed to be fired.

Force births without protection really does show they hate women.

[Rasulis]

It's funny because for a while anti-choice advocates were extremely concerned about the appearance of trying to punish women for receiving medical care because they realized how deeply unpopular of a position it was. Remember when even anti-choice groups criticized Trump back in 2015/6 when he proposed punishing the doctors and the patients?

It seems that the extremist groups realize that the game is up and that they can't really put spin on it that's publicly acceptable any longer given that even that position has proved deeply unpopular when put to the popular vote, so they're just proposing legislation that is as extremist as they've always wanted it to be.

It's not about punishing the girls and women, but actually yes that's exactly what it's about.

Democrats in Texas tried to file bills to add exemptions to the near-total ban on abortion. Such as rape, incest, and miscarriage treatment. They couldn't even get a hearing.

Guess which bills are getting hearing? Bills restricting LGBTQ rights.

Texas Republicans have filed dozens of bills affecting LGBTQ people. Here’s what they’d do.

- - - Updated - - -

Irritating about all of these things is that you guys don't even have adequate maternity protection laws. Like not having to work 6 weeks before to 8 weeks after giving birth while still getting paid and not allowed to be fired.

Force births without protection really does show they hate women.

Which states have Paid Family Leave laws?

2023 Paid family and medical leave requirements by state

Not one so called pro-life states have the law.

[tehdang]

Good insight into why having NO gestational limitations is ABSOLUTELY necessary.

It also makes it abundantly clear who you want to punish and legislate against; pregnant teens and rape victims who weren't able to get the abortions they needed due to conservative laws and practices in their own states. And the ones this doctor treats are the lucky ones who a.) had the means to travel to Colorado and b.) the money to pay for the expensive procedure. Again, "late term limitations" are just part of the malicious plan to force women to carry to term. Thank you for providing more evidence of this.

As Dr. Hern correctly notes, "every pregnancy IS a health issue", and as such any decision regarding it should be between the patient and their doctor. Lawmakers lack the knowledge to weigh in on that decision, and so do you.

You've probably heard some of people here cite healthy baby and healthy pregnancy after the baby is viable outside the womb as conditions to ban abortions. This is opposed to considering every pregnancy a health issue in and of itself and thus legal. It's also opposed to non-health reasons like a distress of financial circumstances or death of a partner or relative. If anything, people should read the stated clash of doctoral ethics, and how far doctors are willing to go to justify a late-term abortion.

Food for thought when people deliberately dismiss general bans on late-term abortions with narrow exceptions.

[Mekh]

"The bill could lead to prosecutions for anyone who terminates a pregnancy after fertilization."

Not to put too fine a point on it but what kind of retarded phrasing is this anyway? As opposed to terminating pregnancies before fertilization?