SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Ivanstone]

Kansas is oddly more blue than people realize. I was shocked when they elected their last governor.

They’re not. It just shows that you can’t put up a complete dumpster fire and expect to win. Kelly is less conservative than I thought she’d be but she’s not joining the Justice Democrats either.

John Bel Edwards won Louisiana because the GOP kept putting up shit candidates, he’s centre-right enough to make them hold their nose and he went full troll on Vitter during the election. It helps that the previous Governor was also a loon.

The Dems can win some state wide positions. Conservatives are mostly content to vote for assholes but if you’re awful at your job your supporters won’t get off the couch.

[Rasulis]

In a few years, we may be seeing severe shortage of OB/GYN in pro-life states.

OB-GYN residents want to quit in Indiana after state's abortion law, harassment

YOUSRY: A survey of residents and fellows across all specialties at the hospital found that 80% of the doctors said they are less likely to stay and practice in Indiana with the abortion ban. Scott says last year, more than half of them stayed.

YOUSRY: That could be trouble for patients in states like Indiana that already have a shortage of providers. One study suggests that nearly half of all rural counties in the U.S. do not have a single hospital with obstetric services. Dr. Scott says it'll also restrict the hands-on training she can offer doctors in abortion and managing miscarriages. Some programs may send residents to states without abortion restrictions, but that could be a logistical nightmare. All of this has given Beatrice Soderholm a lot to think about. Soderholm was certain she wanted to practice in Indiana. But lately, family in Minnesota have asked why she would stay.

[Edge-]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/florid...ticles&via=rss

A Florida appeals court will force a parentless 16-year-old girl to give birth because the teen is not “sufficiently mature” to decide for herself whether or not to terminate the pregnancy.

A circuit court judge previously denied the girl’s request to waive a state law requiring minors get parental consent for an abortion. On Monday, a three-judge panel upheld the decision.

The unnamed teen, according to the appellate ruling, is getting a GED through a program for young people who have experienced traumatic events in their lives. In her petition, the girl—who lives with a relative and has an appointed guardian—argued that she is “still in school” and “is not ready to have a baby,” noting that her guardian was “fine with what [she] wants to do.”

That moment when you're not "sufficiently mature" enough to give informed consent for abortion services because you're a 16 year old girl, but you're apparently "sufficiently mature" as a 16 year old girl to raise a child.

Oh, and she doesn't have parents and lives with relatives with an appointed guardian.

Thise is the hell that Republicans and conservatives want to force girls to endure.

[Mekh]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/florid...ticles&via=rss



That moment when you're not "sufficiently mature" enough to give informed consent for abortion services because you're a 16 year old girl, but you're apparently "sufficiently mature" as a 16 year old girl to raise a child.

Oh, and she doesn't have parents and lives with relatives with an appointed guardian.

Thise is the hell that Republicans and conservatives want to force girls to endure.

Can't wait for the day Florida gets reclaimed by the ocean...

[Edge-]

Can't wait for the day Florida gets reclaimed by the ocean...

I'm still on #TeamBugsBunny.

[tehdang]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/florid...ticles&via=rss



That moment when you're not "sufficiently mature" enough to give informed consent for abortion services because you're a 16 year old girl, but you're apparently "sufficiently mature" as a 16 year old girl to raise a child.

Oh, and she doesn't have parents and lives with relatives with an appointed guardian.

Thise is the hell that Republicans and conservatives want to force girls to endure.

She states to the court that the guardian is ready to consent to whatever choice she makes, but does not communicate that consent in proper legal fashion to the court (ie hearsay doesn’t count as proof). The original judge made that much obvious, and she naturally wins her petition when she redoes it. That’s why Florida provides a free lawyer for it, which she did not take advantage of.

[Dontrike]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/florid...ticles&via=rss



That moment when you're not "sufficiently mature" enough to give informed consent for abortion services because you're a 16 year old girl, but you're apparently "sufficiently mature" as a 16 year old girl to raise a child.

Oh, and she doesn't have parents and lives with relatives with an appointed guardian.

Thise is the hell that Republicans and conservatives want to force girls to endure.

I wonder what Florida will do with the kid (or the tens of thousands) that will be put up for adoption soon.

[Edge-]

She states to the court that the guardian is ready to consent to whatever choice she makes, but does not communicate that consent in proper legal fashion to the court (ie hearsay doesn’t count as proof). The original judge made that much obvious, and she naturally wins her petition when she redoes it. That’s why Florida provides a free lawyer for it, which she did not take advantage of.

So a girl who's not mature enough to understand the legal system is also mature enough to raise a baby, gotcha. That's the subtext of the ruling as well, btw. She's mature enough to recognize that she's not ready to bear and raise a child, but not quite mature enough to do so the proper way so there's just nothing that can be done but to force her to carry the child until she can figure out our legal system as a immature 16 year old.

The whole problem rests on -

However, Judges Harvey Jay and Rachel Nordby wrote in the main decision that the trial court found the teen “had not established by clear and convincing evidence that she was sufficiently mature to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy.”

The consequence is that she won't be a teen mother who is woefully unprepared to raise a baby, furthering her own hardship and suffering as she struggles to provide for herself and a child as a single teenage mother without parents.

But hey, if we can just blame her for now jumping through legal loopholes that's a way better alternative!

[tehdang]

So a girl who's not mature enough to understand the legal system is also mature enough to raise a baby, gotcha. That's the subtext of the ruling as well, btw.

Not actually, no. This is about exceptions to a parental notification law, not a litmus test of who's mature enough to raise children. In fact, adoption frequently fits the bill for mothers that don't wish to raise their babies.

She's mature enough to recognize that she's not ready to bear and raise a child, but not quite mature enough to do so the proper way so there's just nothing that can be done but to force her to carry the child until she can figure out our legal system as a immature 16 year old.

My post says the exact opposite. The petition is for exemption from notification, both claiming she's mature enough to make the decision without adult consultation, and that her guardian stands by her ability to make that choice. Clearly you have some kind of devotion to forced-birth narratives.

The consequence is that she won't be a teen mother who is woefully unprepared to raise a baby, furthering her own hardship and suffering as she struggles to provide for herself and a child as a single teenage mother without parents.

But hey, if we can just blame her for now jumping through legal loopholes that's a way better alternative!

She needn't care for it beyond the date of delivery, but let's get back to the point you're continually evading.She wins her petition if she doesn't state hearsay about her guardian's opinion, but has it properly prepared in writing before the court.

She returns to court with a notarized letter from her guardian. Done deal. It's clear enough from the original judge's decision, who showed no prejudice against her making a better petition to the court.

If I was as driven by agenda as you appear to be, I might suggest that you wish to cut out protections from vulnerable teens by requiring no evidentiary standard when they go before a court and tell the judge how their parents or guardians think and feel. You see, we should always trust teenagers to be completely honest in making representations of what they've heard from others. Yep, the best course is to cut parents out from important life decisions from their daughters, rather--sons and daughters and neithers. Only then may we be truly sure that the specter of forced birth never rears its ugly head.

Come off the soap box and let the petitioner redraft the petition, and learn that checking the box for not obtaining free counsel is a bad move. She's set back a week, not 30 weeks and a delivered baby.

[Edge-]

In fact, adoption frequently fits the bill for mothers that don't wish to raise their babies.

Can we stop this extremely dishonest bullshit? Nobody is adopting these children, even the people who show up to protests with signs reading, "WE WILL ADOPT YOUR CHILD!"

And with the ongoing state of our adoption systems within states, it's basically just attempting to morally justify child negligence while keeping your (the royal you) conscious clean.

Clearly you have some kind of devotion to forced-birth narratives.

What's the ruling, again?

She needn't care for it beyond the date of delivery

Sure, that's exactly how it works I guess. But the 9 months up to then when it's causing health complications she may not be able to afford? Tough shit, 16 year old girl!

She wins her petition if she doesn't state hearsay about her guardian's opinion, but has it properly prepared in writing before the court. If I was as driven by agenda as you, I might suggest that you wish to cut out protections from vulnerable teens by requiring no evidentiary standard when they go before a court and tell the judge how their parents or guardians think and feel.

Given this unique situation, I think binary laws that don't allow any context to factor into a decision are regressive, yes.

Yep, the best course is to cut parents out from important life decisions from their daughters

She doesn't have parents. She stays with relatives and is a ward of the state, technically. I wonder if that has anything to do with it, what with the states official positions on abortion and whatnot.

only then may we be truly sure that the specter of forced birth never rears its ugly head.

Reminder: Republicans spent weeks denying a story about a 10 year old girl needing to cross state lines for abortion services after a rape, and when the story was verified pivoted to attacking the doctor that provided care to the terrified girl and ended a pregnancy that could have caused serious harm to the small child.

It's literally not a specter. It's literally what many Republicans have on the books, or are trying to pass as laws/state Constitutional Amendments right now. And, despite all the high minded talk of "states rights" continue to have open discussions regarding national abortion access bans and even bans on birth control.

[Rasulis]

I wonder what Florida will do with the kid (or the tens of thousands) that will be put up for adoption soon.

Florida is the only state in the south where women can get legal abortion up to 15 weeks.

DeSantis shows no interest in changing that. Probably has something to do with his presidential ambition.

Even within the state, overturning Roe vs. Wade was not popular.

Florida is considered a Republican stronghold. But after the statehouse passed the 15-week abortion ban in February, 57% of a sample of registered voters said they opposed the law, while 34% supported it, according to a poll by the University of North Florida.

A more recent poll of Florida residents conducted by the University of South Florida in July showed that 57% of Floridians disapproved of the recent Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade and one-third of respondents said the state should protect abortion rights.

[tehdang]

Can we stop this extremely dishonest bullshit? Nobody is adopting these children, even the people who show up to protests with signs reading, "WE WILL ADOPT YOUR CHILD!"

And with the ongoing state of our adoption systems within states, it's basically just attempting to morally justify child negligence while keeping your (the royal you) conscious clean.

Adoptions occur at a rate over a hundred thousand a year. I wish your ideology didn't have to erase newborn adoption to comport with your stances.

What's the ruling, again?

You're acting like the judge decided she had to carry it to term. That's not the ruling. The lower court ruling was narrowly decided against her, for small reasons that are easily rectified (if she is being honest in her petition, that is).

Sure, that's exactly how it works I guess. But the 9 months up to then when it's causing health complications she may not be able to afford? Tough shit, 16 year old girl!

So we've gone from lying about being forced to raise the child, to hypotheticals about health effects in the late term of an abortion. I'd like an admission of wrong from you as you withdraw the talking point, before we go to another one you might as quickly abandon.

Given this unique situation, I think binary laws that don't allow any context to factor into a decision are regressive, yes.

I don't think any judge should accept hearsay evidence, including from minor children, just because you consider the situation unique. Re-submit with her claims about the guardian actually coming from the guardian in writing. Easy fix.

She doesn't have parents. She stays with relatives and is a ward of the state, technically. I wonder if that has anything to do with it, what with the states official positions on abortion and whatnot.

Parents and guardians. She made representations of what her guardian thought in her petition. I didn't hear any claim that the guardian does not agree, and is mistreating her. If you happen across such evidence, please share.

Reminder: Republicans spent weeks denying a story about a 10 year old girl needing to cross state lines for abortion services after a rape, and when the story was verified pivoted to attacking the doctor that provided care to the terrified girl and ended a pregnancy that could have caused serious harm to the small child.

It's literally not a specter. It's literally what many Republicans have on the books, or are trying to pass as laws/state Constitutional Amendments right now. And, despite all the high minded talk of "states rights" continue to have open discussions regarding national abortion access bans and even bans on birth control.

Here we go again about how current issue, parental consent laws in Florida, are just like evil bigots attacking doctors in Indiana and Ohio. Whatever you want to do to get out of discussing the clear downsides on how you wish justice functioned. I'll just add that if she was raped by an illegal alien, or if her relative or legal guardian was shielding her rapist, I will revise my stance on applicability. I don't give fringe voices special influence on considering exemptions to specific laws.

[Breccia]

Adoptions occur at a rate over a hundred thousand a year.

That's an order of magnitude too low. Adoptions are not enough. I don't think they ever were.

[Endus]

That's an order of magnitude too low. Adoptions are not enough. I don't think they ever were.

There's hundreds of thousands of kids in foster care, and many of them will never be adopted. There isn't a high enough demand for children, and potential adoptive parents are often choosy to boot, for fairly obviously bigoted reasons.

[Breccia]

There's hundreds of thousands of kids in foster care, and many of them will never be adopted. There isn't a high enough demand for children, and potential adoptive parents are often choosy to boot, for fairly obviously bigoted reasons.

Indeed. 2021 was an exception, but abortions are overall on a decline. But even after decades of decline, they're still far higher than adoptions. Maybe if alt-right religioius fanatics took over, they could force abortions so low adoptions could cover the rest, but at the current rate of decline it'd be decades.

[Elegiac]

Yep, the best course is to cut parents out from important life decisions from their daughters, rather--sons and daughters and neithers. Only then may we be truly sure that the specter of forced birth never rears its ugly head.

I was wondering how long it was going to take before the right wing posters in this thread started up with their "children are fundamentally the property of their parents" angle.

[masterhorus8]

I was wondering how long it was going to take before the right wing posters in this thread started up with their "children are fundamentally the property of their parents" angle.

Which is a bit ironic considering their stance on abortion...

[Elegiac]

Which is a bit ironic considering their stance on abortion...

Yep.

And hypocrisy aside, "parental rights" are legal constructs based in the assumption that parents will by default act in the best interests of their offspring. You do not have an inherent right "to be involved in important life decisions" if you cannot demonstrate that you'll act in your kids' best interests, which right wing people consistently fail to do when it comes to situations like underaged pregnancy, sex ed, or being a parent of a queer child. Or even shit as basic as history education, as we're seeing in places like Florida.

[Jastall]

That's an order of magnitude too low. Adoptions are not enough. I don't think they ever were.

And that's with legal abortion. Adding many more children to the system would only add further strains on the system with no guarantees of there being more prospective parents for them.

[s_bushido]

Here we go again about how current issue, parental consent laws in Florida, are just like evil bigots attacking doctors in Indiana and Ohio.

Considering how often parental consent laws are being used as an excuse for bigoted parents to continue neglecting and abusing their LGBT children in recent years? Yes, I will assume that stories involving those laws coming from Republican states involve bigotry and ignorance until it's demonstrated otherwise. That way, if they don't, I can be pleasantly surprised. The right in this country lost the benefit of the doubt on these issues ages ago...if they ever had it in the first place.