SCOTUS draft to remove Roe V Wade leaked

[tehdang]

Pro-life are anti-woman and misogynistic.

My response was to @Ghost of Cow, and I think he gets it by now through his interactions with hardliners.

So who are you "fighting" if it's a war of Men vs. Women, exactly? And do you stand with pro-life women on this issue purely because of gender? Of course not. It's a stupid way to approach the issue, the only thing that comes out of it people fighting about the wrong thing and the low hanging fruit of throwing labels around.

The reality is that it's not "Men vs Women", it specifically IS pro-life vs pro-choice. Bodily autonomy vs. religious or other irrelevant beliefs. Not gender vs. gender.

I think they do have to make a stand on pro-life women. Essentially, declare they are men telling women that they're anti-women by means of their pro-life stance. It's almost designed to push the persuadable out of whatever camp says that women hate themselves and are the only people that should be listened to.

I would think the practically evenly-split polling, and certainly the pluralities opposing abortion without restriction past ~15/20 weeks, would speak to something beyond a gendered campaign.

Republicans are already planning to ban abortion on the federal level, so that even blue states won't be able to have their own abortion laws.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/repub...b0c77098bb4659

He clearly wants to ignite pro-life legislative pushes in each state, but I've got a swamp to sell you if you think states like California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts are going to be receptive to Mike Pence's legislative agenda.

[Endus]

This kind of weird hardline "you can't think anything but what I think" approach doesn't change any minds either, though.

Who says I'm hoping the change their minds? They're radical extremists pushing harm onto women.

I'm hoping to marginalize and ostracize them, so they no longer affect society.

If someone says they're 100% pro-choice but that the idea of it makes them said because it's traumatic to the woman or whatever, then I don't see a purpose in attacking that person. (Outside of concern trolling approaches like, "Oh, I think choice is fine, buuuuut isn't it....")

There's a whopping difference between "the idea of abortions makes me sad" and calling abortions "sad and tragic" as a whole, which implies that everyone sees them that way, that it's inherent to the idea of abortion.

Own your personal feelings and don't presume everyone else must share them.

No, because it's long been answered. Fetal viability has been the standard. But some people refuse to accept that and keep dishonestly asking, "SO YOU WANT TO RIP THEM OUT ONE DAY BEFORE BIRTH?!?!?!?!?!?!?!" which is literally not what anyone anywhere is saying and is just hyperbole to try to shock folks and manipulate the emotions of other ignorant people.

That's been the legal standard, and there's fairly broad support for it. This shit ain't new.

It's also the medical standard, because if they can induce birth of a viable fetus, that's the safest means of ending that pregnancy for both.

We just don't call those "abortions", because they result in a birth. But they effectively are the same thing.

Canada has no special laws for abortion, at all. No weeks limitations, nothing. It's held to the same medical scrutiny as any procedure would/could be. Why should anyone else get a say, other than the patient and their doctor?

[Gestopft]

Darn, you dodged answering that question like a boss.

Because it's either a) a mind-bogglingly stupid question for anyone who has in any way critically considered the issue to ask or b) an intentionally dishonestly framed question meant to elicit an emotional response instead of a serious inquiry.

[cordrann]

Our system is fucked, completely. The Senate/House system was created with good intentions, and doing away with that would essentially require a new constitution. But the EC is just a ridiculous and wholly outdated system kept in place by the GQP, because it's the only way they can win a Presidential election.

While I think the idea of the Senate is probably a good one, I think they should have significantly less power as a body than they do currently. The House should be able to overrule/bypass the Senate with enough of a majority and the Senate should not be solely responsible for confirmations. If the House is 51/49 let the Senate decide, if the House is 60/40 or maybe even 55/45 the Senate should be irrelevant.

[CrimsonKing]

My response was to @Ghost of Cow, and I think he gets it by now through his interactions with hardliners.

I think they do have to make a stand on pro-life women. Essentially, declare they are men telling women that they're anti-women by means of their pro-life stance. It's almost designed to push the persuadable out of whatever camp says that women hate themselves and are the only people that should be listened to.

I would think the practically evenly-split polling, and certainly the pluralities opposing abortion without restriction past ~15/20 weeks, would speak to something beyond a gendered campaign.

He clearly wants to ignite pro-life legislative pushes in each state, but I've got a swamp to sell you if you think states like California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts are going to be receptive to Mike Pence's legislative agenda.

You didn't read the whole thing did you? The article clearly states that some Republicans would be okay with pushing for abortion bans on a state by state basis, but others would want to codify abortion bans on the federal level.

[Ghost of Cow]

Own your personal feelings and don't presume everyone else must share them.

The irony here is that your attack has nothing to do with policy or outcomes and is ONLY predicated on, "You don't see it the way I see it."

Soooo....yeah....

[Nymrohd]

No, because it's long been answered. Fetal viability has been the standard. But some people refuse to accept that and keep dishonestly asking, "SO YOU WANT TO RIP THEM OUT ONE DAY BEFORE BIRTH?!?!?!?!?!?!?!" which is literally not what anyone anywhere is saying and is just hyperbole to try to shock folks and manipulate the emotions of other ignorant people.

That's been the legal standard, and there's fairly broad support for it. This shit ain't new.

And there are cases were you have induced birth and then just let the baby die (as in, the baby can only survive through extraordinary means because of a horrible illness that is also only really diagnosable very late. So it's viable if by viable we mean it will suffer horribly for a few months, maybe a year, and then die.

Ofc when presented with such cases as an argument for pro-choice I've honestly had people from the religious right argue that God could save the child with a miracle.

But really, bodily autonomy. No other argument is in any way needed. There is no proper counter argument to the right of bodily autonomy allowing even late term abortions.

[Mihalik]

That argument is a double-edged sword though. While it is true that spiritual stuff can't be measured, other abstractions such as the ethical validity of having an abortion also can't be measured.

Drivel.

On more time.

Even if we assume the fetus has personhood (absolutely no reason why we should do anything of the sort), one person's right to life does not trump another person's right to bodily autonomy. If it does, that opens a whole can of worms related to medical mandates, self defense etc.

YOU are making an exclusive exception to the right to bodily autonomy that exclusively applies to pregnant women (biological females to be specific) and absolutely no one else, without any sort of internally consistent ethical foundation. Because for example once there's a living breathing child in play the same imposition immediately disappears.

This is not a "pro-life" or whatnot debate. This a "forced pregnancies v bodily autonomy" debate.

[Endus]

The irony here is that your attack has nothing to do with policy or outcomes and is ONLY predicated on, "You don't see it the way I see it."

Soooo....yeah....

Because there's nothing to attack on policy or outcomes. You expressed how you feel. And I said, basically, "so what? That's just how YOU feel." You didn't make an argument regarding policy other than wanting your personal feelings to drive it.

And I said "nah". That's all it deserved. Make a policy or outcome argument, and I'll respond in kind. Make an emotional argument, and I'll point out I and others don't share those emotions.

[Celista]

https://www.statnews.com/2018/12/05/...en-well-being/

My sessions with children have been filled with absent and resentful parents, who made the choice to have a child due to ideological reasons or peer pressure, rather than genuine desire and ability to have a child. Many of the children in my office yearn for love and acceptance from the people who are supposed to love and protect them.

Many of these children are neglected and abused. If placed into foster care, they are also at increased risk of neglect and abuse, due to an underfunded and overwhelmed child welfare system.

Sessions with clients are an hour a week. An hour a week with an adult who cares does not make up for a life with a parent who makes it clear that they did not want them.

What are we going to do as a society for these children?

[zealo]

https://www.statnews.com/2018/12/05/...en-well-being/

My sessions with children have been filled with absent and resentful parents, who made the choice to have a child due to ideological reasons or peer pressure, rather than genuine desire and ability to have a child. Many of the children in my office yearn for love and acceptance from the people who are supposed to love and protect them.

Many of these children are neglected and abused. If placed into foster care, they are also at increased risk of neglect and abuse, due to an underfunded and overwhelmed child welfare system.

Sessions with clients are an hour a week. An hour a week with an adult who cares does not make up for a life with a parent who makes it clear that they did not want them.

What are we going to do as a society for these children?

Absolutely nothing, id expect.

They only care before a birth happens.

[PC2]

Even if we assume the fetus has personhood (absolutely no reason why we should do anything of the sort), one person's right to life does not trump another person's right to bodily autonomy. If it does, that opens a whole can of worms related to medical mandates, self defense etc.

YOU are making an exclusive exception to the right to bodily autonomy that exclusively applies to pregnant women (biological females to be specific) and absolutely no one else, without any sort of internally consistent ethical foundation. Because for example once there's a living breathing child in play the same imposition immediately disappears.

This is not a "pro-life" or whatnot debate. This a "forced pregnancies v bodily autonomy" debate.

Ok sounds good. I wasn't disagreeing with any of that.

[CrimsonKing]

Clarence Thomas is extremely biased and hateful towards liberals, so that's why he makes the rulings that he does. Wouldn't be surprised if he's not the only one on the court that acts and feels this way. The below article only has part of the story, they link to the New York Times that is behind a paywall.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told his law clerks in the '90s that he wanted to serve for 43 years to make liberals' lives 'miserable'

[Rasulis]

TX, OK, TN, MO to name a few.

Not sure about the other 3 states, but not in Texas.

Texas' trigger law (HB 1280) would take effect 30 days after Roe vs. Wade was overturned. It would make 2nd degree felony “for a person who knowingly performs, induces, or attempts and abortion.” 1st degree if the unborn child dies. Plus fines of at least 100,000.

However, both the civil and criminal penalties are only for people who perform the abortion. Not the women getting the abortion. The women are victims (according to the law).

The same goes for so called “bounty” law. Texas residence (only) can sue clinics, doctors, nurses and even people who drive a woman to get abortion, for at least 10,000. Again, not the woman.

Both laws are designed to deprive women looking for access to abortion of the support network. The great state of texas is too cowardly to go directly after the women. Because they know doing that will make the state looks really bad.

[Gestopft]

No, the Democrats are not the solution. Voting is not the solution. They've got the system locked down and will never lack enough power to shape things the way they want them. Short of an actual uprising, I see nothing changing, and the masses are far too pacified for that to ever happen.

The flaw with this logic is that in reality, things can get worse. Democrats are standing between this country and American fascism. Are the the Dems useless and pathetic? Of course. Are they too tied in with their donor class to enact sweeping change any time soon? I'd agree with that. But disappointing Neoliberalism that is at least still pro-democracy is better than American fascism every day of the week, and if you don't vote for either...you may well end up with the fascism.

[tehdang]

You didn't read the whole thing did you? The article clearly states that some Republicans would be okay with pushing for abortion bans on a state by state basis, but others would want to codify abortion bans on the federal level.

The article tries to group them together, but the clear combination of no Republican president, and the existence of the filibuster, makes only the state campaigns material.

You are right in the sense that Democrats have been foolhardy talking about lifting the filibuster, which would put federal legislation on the table.

[jeezusisacasual]

Welcome to another Lochner era lets hope it does not last 40 years like the previous one.

[tehdang]

https://www.statnews.com/2018/12/05/...en-well-being/

My sessions with children have been filled with absent and resentful parents, who made the choice to have a child due to ideological reasons or peer pressure, rather than genuine desire and ability to have a child. Many of the children in my office yearn for love and acceptance from the people who are supposed to love and protect them.

Many of these children are neglected and abused. If placed into foster care, they are also at increased risk of neglect and abuse, due to an underfunded and overwhelmed child welfare system.

Sessions with clients are an hour a week. An hour a week with an adult who cares does not make up for a life with a parent who makes it clear that they did not want them.

What are we going to do as a society for these children?

I should hope reform of the foster care system, and increased resources and decreased obstacles for adoption. I certainly hope that answer isn't to pressure certain parents *at risk of not fulfilling their roles* into aborting the child, rather than risk he/she might live with issues of love, attention, and abuse. I don't think the specter of (whatever true percentage) poorly treated kids gives rise to arguments that they were better off killed in the womb than having the chance to overcome childhood trauma. Simultaneously, it would be a poor reflection on society indeed if treatment specialists helping with these kids thought it a great misfortune of their being born alive, but troubled through no fault of their own, and something that ought to make them question their entire existence. It's a challenge, for sure, but not worth trying to rewind the tape to permanently erase childhood suffering.

[Ghost of Cow]

I should hope reform of the foster care system, and increased resources and decreased obstacles for adoption. I certainly hope that answer isn't to pressure certain parents *at risk of not fulfilling their roles* into aborting the child, rather than risk he/she might live with issues of love, attention, and abuse. I don't think the specter of (whatever true percentage) poorly treated kids gives rise to arguments that they were better off killed in the womb than having the chance to overcome childhood trauma. Simultaneously, it would be a poor reflection on society indeed if treatment specialists helping with these kids thought it a great misfortune of their being born alive, but troubled through no fault of their own, and something that ought to make them question their entire existence. It's a challenge, for sure, but not worth trying to rewind the tape to permanently erase childhood suffering.

Oh no, I'm not expecting positive changes in red states.

I can see it coming now. For-profit orphanages. Everywhere.

[RobertoCarlos]

Damn America why you going backwards 50 years.

Is this the aftermath of trump loading the senate with yes men republicans?