SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Fugus]

There is a limit to Texas' bounty law reach.

How are they going to sue a company based in EU in Texas court?

Or abortion providers in California?

Are they going to sue Uber or Lyft drivers for providing transportation across state lines? Or airlines. Or Amtrak. How would they know that their passenger was going to get an abortion? Or even pregnant.

They won't be able to get all of them, but suing the parents for helping with a ride or their friends, and the person who is getting the abortion which is the main things.

For the companies, they would quickly come up with a system that shielded them as they can say they didn't know why they were going and it wasn't their policy to ask or even setup a transition station at the states borders.

But the main point of these would be to punish the person doing it and even those around them for assisting, they will likely try and see how close they can get it to murder charges I am betting.

[Azadina]

Basically, turn themselves into police states. Come to think of it, that's probably the wet dreams of most anti-abortion supporters.

And not just ordinary police states; sharia police states. Where women's rights, non heteros and all other minorities are illegal.

[cubby]

Rubio introduces bill prohibiting employers from receiving tax breaks for expenses related to abortions

The GQP is going to milk this development and the outcry for all it's worth. We're going down the rabbit hole. Again.

- - - Updated - - -

The Republican Party has long since forgotten that your freedom to your religion does not allow you to remove rights from people who are not you.

It's freedom of religion indeed, but only for those with the "right" religion (and I'll take the full points on that double entendre).

- - - Updated - - -

Some more food for thought. If the court overturns Roe, and they specifically say this is a states' rights issue. Then even a federal law making abortions legal might not be valid. I don't have the brain capacity at this hour to dive into this, but I'm guessing we're going to see some interesting analysis in the coming weeks/months.

[Endus]

It's freedom of religion indeed, but only for those with the "right" religion (and I'll take the full points on that double entendre).

Like, people need to start calling things out, right to their faces.

If you're trying to push your religious views into law, in any respect whatsoever, you're a religious extremist and a dangerous cultist. Period. I don't care what your sectarian identity is. You are pushing authoritarian theocracy and religious subjugation, and using the label of "freedom" with regards to any of that makes you a liar to boot.

And I don't mean randos. I mean sitting members of the House. They need to call Rubio a misogynistic little religio-fascist creep. On the House floor. To journalists. To the little creep's face. Every time he's present or raises his voice. Not calling this shit out is passivity and silence, and passivity and silence is complicity. The boat's heading for a waterfall into Gilead. Rock the fuckin' boat rather than sitting back and enjoying the ride and moaning about some false sense of civility or decorum that does not exist, it was already broken when these fuckers started pushing this garbage in the first place.

If this upsets the little fuckers, they can fuck off and go hide in a cabin in the woods somewhere and stop engaging with society.

[Rasulis]

In the same vein, since September, when Texas enacted their fetal heartbeat law (6 weeks), the number of out-of-state women seeking to terminate their pregnancies at Planned Parenthood clinics in Southern California has roughly quadrupled.

Plus.

There are 10 bills currently under consideration in Sacramento that would do everything from cover out-of-pocket expenses for women, protect health providers from civil suits filed against them in other states and expand the world of medical experts who can legally provide an abortion procedure or prescribe a medical abortion.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday encourage passage of a State Senate bill that would make L.A. County a safe haven for women seeking abortions and other reproductive care.

One proposal, from Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie Norris, D-Laguna Beach, would train health care workers to provide abortions in underserved parts of the state. Another would create a reproductive health pilot program in Los Angeles County.

[Edge-]

Rubio introduces bill prohibiting employers from receiving tax breaks for expenses related to abortions

The GQP is going to milk this development and the outcry for all it's worth. We're going down the rabbit hole. Again.

I do believe this is called "virtue signaling" in right wing circles.

[D3thray]

What I was thinking, things might get pretty bad over this. Especially if the Democrats don't get their asses in gear. Honestly hoping they actually prove my views on them wrong and they address this before it gets so extreme that they have no choice.

Also sad I know a few people who I am betting money are likely cheering this.

- - - Updated - - -



Nah, she just had a vaginal infection that had to be dealt with. Not really lying at all at that point as that is really what a pregnancy is until it reaches a point of consciousness and/or emotion.

… I just… I know it’s a joke maybe (maybe?) but that’s a bit dark

- - - Updated - - -

Because they don't care about bodily autonomy and think that women exist to be breeding stock, including teenage girls carrying the child of their rapist.

I mean, we don't have to mince words here. We can be very direct. Lots of dudes are still big-mad that women got the right to vote in a fluke (seriously, IIRC none of the elected officials actually expected it to pass) and have successfully convinced enough women of their side.

Same women that totes didn't believe the alt-right was filled with misogynists and created their own "female alt-right" groups only to cry about how all the dudes were, unsurprisingly, raging misogynists.

Is that kinda like all those male feminists that were, unsurprisingly, raging misogynists?

It’s almost like the phenomenon is completely divorced from ideology.

- - - Updated - - -

The very notion that "the Constitution doesn't explicitly mentions it thus there can't be federal laws about it lol" is farcical to the point of the absurd. Does it mean Congress cannot legislate on cell phones, airplanes, skyscrapers, tanks, video games or soft drinks? Because none of those existed when it was written so you know, tough luck. Leave the management of all air traffic to the States, ya'll.

There's a reason the people who wrote the damn thing included a provision for amendments. They were quite aware interpretations and morals change over time.

Except for the part in the constitution that says explicitly that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government in the document are reserved to the states. Kind of the opposite of farcical there. It’s where the whole idea of states’ right arises from.

[Fugus]

… I just… I know it’s a joke maybe (maybe?) but that’s a bit dark

Which part as the joke? The vaginal infection? Not really a joke.

At the early stages there is no consciousness of any kind and likely little to no bones or even organs. Quite literally they can be classified as a parasitic infection of sorts.

It might sound dark, but functionally it’s pretty accurate. Once they hit a point where they have a level of emotion or consciousness then we are at the point of it being a life rather than a cluster of cells feeding on the host.

Before that point, you will be hard pressed to find a classification that really would classify terminating it as murder that wouldn’t double so for unplugging someone in persistent vegetative state without trying to ignore science in favor or religion or talking about what it could potentially turn into instead of what it is at which point after we perfect coaxing our adult cells back into stem cells better will also have skin from our arms and ass meet the same standards as the cluster of cells.

[D3thray]

"Just put the baby up for adoption!" they all say.

And when asked if they'll adopt the baby, the recoil in horror as if you've asked them a fairly insane proposition. Because it's "someone else's problem" if the child suffers or not, and their hands are morally clean because they "saved a baby" that they genuinely don't give a single fuck about once the baby is born.

Because dead is so much better? I’m reluctantly pro-choice (basically it’s a decision that should be between a woman and her doctor for a variety of reasons, government shouldn’t be involved) but a fetus a still a fucking human being. Christ have a little self-awareness.

[Zeth Hawkins]

There are 10 bills currently under consideration in Sacramento that would do everything from cover out-of-pocket expenses for women, protect health providers from civil suits filed against them in other states and expand the world of medical experts who can legally provide an abortion procedure or prescribe a medical abortion.

The outright promotion of killing people is such a weird direction for the world to go in. Well not weird for California/Sacramento, I suppose.

[D3thray]

I can understand it, but only because I know people like that. You won't be able to follow it logically because logic has little to no part in it.

These are people who think that homosexuality is a mental disorder (Their own words).
These are people who think people on welfare are moochers except for themselves at which point will explain why they are the special exception or become a pretzel trying to show how they aren't on welfare even though they are.
These are people who reject facts whenever it conflicts with their faith and feelings.

I have literally had one tell me that they weren't really bad people, they were just against gay marriage because legalizing it was forcing it on them because they didn't want to see it.

The main ones who are against abortion use the excuses that the lump of cells has as much right as a fully developed person and it doesn't matter if they have no consciousness or emotions or even if it doesn't even have a developed brain at all, that even as a single cell, it has a soul which is all that matters and won't think beyond that.

The level of logic these people follow are about the level of logic children use to believe the Easter Bunny, can't even say Santa Claus because you at least see them every Christmas in malls and such. Only much more selfish and self-centered and will actually take a silent pleasure on watching others suffer even if they don't openly admit it in public.

But these people aren't using logic for their views.

I mean fuck I don’t even remember being two and I’ll bet you don’t either. Why not abortion up to the age of two, they’ll never remember it anyway.

What a stupid rationale to dehumanize people.

[Fugus]

I mean fuck I don’t even remember being two and I’ll bet you don’t either. Why not abortion up to the age of two, they’ll never remember it anyway.

What a stupid rationale to dehumanize people.

I remember flashes of being that young, I remember crying in the middle of the night one time because my ears where ringing and I thought it was a ghost in the corner because it sounded like it was coming from there and I couldn’t see anything there. It’s actually one of the earliest memories I haven’t forgotten yet.

One major difference between what I described and what you suggested. Consciousness and emotions. Whether you remember it or not, you had them in some fashion before you were given birth to and still in the womb.

That’s the cut off point, before that, you weren’t you and weren’t anything that could rationally be classified as a human and were just a glorified infection at that stage, same as I was and everyone else alive and dead.

[D3thray]

Well, no. It is logical. It's just that they're lying to your faces about the premises behind the logic.

Like "it's an unborn child, a human life, same as any other". Nobody actually believes that, not even the pro-lifers. Such a stance would oblige child support to be paid from conception. It would mean every miscarriage must be investigated as a possible homicide, due to the integral involvement of another person (the woman who's pregnant). This isn't a logical inconsistency, it's a demonstration that they never believed this premise to be true in the first place. If it were logical inconsistency, challenging them would get them to either abandon that premise, or adjust their reasoning to account for the new information you've given, and that does not happen.

Because that was never part of the actual reasoning. It's the deliberate lie they use to conceal their actual reasoning and motives, because they know those motives are awful. Humanity's actually pretty rational. It's just that the "reasoning" often boils down to "I'm super angry and hate a thing and want to hurt people associated with that thing because hurting those people makes me feel good". That's completely rational. Just evil.

Nor is it "faith", before anyone comes in here with that nugget. The number of people abiding by religious views they can not personally support* is a figure that trends towards zero over people's lifetimes. They might keep themselves safe while they're younger, but they'll generally escape that situation as soon as they can; the most obvious being cases of homophobic sects and the gay children that grow up within them, knowing that they're gay and not supporting their sect's venom. "Faith" is, almost always, just an excuse to do what you already wanted to do. If your faith rubbed against you the wrong way, you'd break with it, nearly always, given the opportunity (phrased this way because I do understand the threat some people are under and that they legitimately can't).


* "Support" as distinct from "abide by" or "go along with", because some people will, say, eat kosher even if they're not Jewish because their spouse is Jewish and it's just easier to go along than cook two different meals and maintain separate kitchens or whatnot. I'm talking "no, I can't support your religious views about honor killings" kind of stuff.

Within this framework, please explain convictions for manslaughter and or murder of a fetus from say a drunk drive striking a pregnant woman. Since it wasn’t the mother’s intention to abort the fetus, does that mean it gained equal protection under the law?

[DarkTZeratul]

It's not a justification it's basically them giving the country the middle finger saying justification nothing we can do whatever we want. That opinion basically says they can overturn whatever law they want because they can, gay marriage, interracial marriage, civil rights it doesn't matter we are going back to 1787.

But they're not overturning a law, they're reversing a judicial decision. If there were a law in place, no aspect of this argument would allow the Supreme Court to overturn it.

Gay marriage and interracial marriage were also judicial decisions, yes, though civil rights notably aren't. But this is part of why the Democrats have been trying to push an Equal Rights Amendment for years to explicitly enshrine much of that in the Constitution.

[D3thray]

I remember flashes of being that young, I remember crying in the middle of the night one time because my ears where ringing and I thought it was a ghost in the corner because it sounded like it was coming from there and I couldn’t see anything there. It’s actually one of the earliest memories I haven’t forgotten yet.

One major difference between what I described and what you suggested. Consciousness and emotions. Whether you remember it or not, you had them in some fashion before you were given birth to and still in the womb.

That’s the cut off point, before that, you weren’t you and weren’t anything that could rationally be classified as a human and were just a glorified infection at that stage, same as I was and everyone else alive and dead.

And that’s really the rub. Where is that point? Science has yet to answer that question as far as I know which is one of the reasons why people still look to religion to answer that question (beyond merely being religious). Get that answer wrong and maybe we’ve been committing genocide on a massive scale. It’s not an easy answer which is exactly why I believe it should be between a woman and her doctor. But the rhetoric about how fetuses aren’t people? Fucking gross.

[DarkTZeratul]

If the court overturns Roe, and they specifically say this is a states' rights issue. Then even a federal law making abortions legal might not be valid.

I would be curious as to how. What Roe v. Wade said is that the Constitution protects the right to have an abortion. Overturning it would indicate that it doesn't, but there's no justification I've seen for prohibiting Congress from passing a law guaranteeing access. States' rights have always ended when they run up against federal law.

[D3thray]

But they're not overturning a law, they're reversing a judicial decision. If there were a law in place, no aspect of this argument would allow the Supreme Court to overturn it.

Gay marriage and interracial marriage were also judicial decisions, yes, though civil rights notably aren't. But this is part of why the Democrats have been trying to push an Equal Rights Amendment for years to explicitly enshrine much of that in the Constitution.

And we really need legislation around these issues. Even RBG agreed Roe as it was decided was shaky at best.

[Byleth]

Out of curiosity, where did you move to? I might be pulling up stakes myself if this gets any worse. I'm raising three kids, including on girl, and this shit is just not ok, at all.

I am currently based in New Zealand. Couldn't be happier. First world living, and far enough removed from the rest of the political stage to be mostly left alone. It's wonderful.

I left from New York 6 months after trump was elected, and haven't regretted it for a moment. It also worked out great for Covid, as NZ has pretty much been on top of things since day one.

Abortion, gay/trans rights, and religious freedom are all settled law here. And while we are not immune to the effects of internet converted right wing nut jobs - The instance of them occurring are much lower, and they are generally scorned and laughed at.

Note: I say we, because I became a citizen here not long ago.

[Fugus]

And that’s really the rub. Where is that point? Science has yet to answer that question as far as I know which is one of the reasons why people still look to religion to answer that question (beyond merely being religious). Get that answer wrong and maybe we’ve been committing genocide on a massive scale. It’s not an easy answer which is exactly why I believe it should be between a woman and her doctor. But the rhetoric about how fetuses aren’t people? Fucking gross.

That’s the 10 million dollar question and one I really have no clear answer to.

Can pretty well guarantee it’s within the final 2 months of pregnancy. But the exact point would be impossible to pin down exactly as it would vary from fetus to fetus.

I understand how you can see my description as gross and it is, not because it’s wrong that, it’s very much accurate. It just doesn’t paint babies in the pristine light they typically are. From a dry, clinical and scientific perspective, that’s about what they are. A cluster of cells feeding off a host.

So overall, can’t say exactly when it transitions exactly from cells to person down to the exact moment but any time within the first 6 months is rather safe to say they have no emotions or consciousness.

Edit: had to change the 2 to a 6, typing on a phone and guess I miss tapped.

[unfilteredJW]

The outright promotion of killing people is such a weird direction for the world to go in. Well not weird for California/Sacramento, I suppose.

Good thing that’s not happening.

What else you got?