SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[gondrin]

I dunno, the mere fact of the physical necessity of a mother not only for life but perpetuation of the human species puts this in a singular category not well covered by legal precedent in other areas. It’s a unique issue in law in my opinion.

Question I have should I be able to forcefully take, lets say, your kidney/lung/part of your intestine, if I am in need of it as it is to keep me alive? Remember, RvW is about bodily autonomy. If women lose theirs, so should everyone else and be forced to do things against their will even if it comes to harm them.

If we force women to carry to term and force them to use their bodies to sustain said life, then people should also be able to be forced to do organ donations against their will, while still alive, to sustain those who need them.

If we also force women to carry to term, even at the cost of the life of the woman, then we should also force people to give up critical organs, like a heart, liver or any other organs people only have 1 of required to live to let someone else live.

Otherwise, it would be hypocritical to do so.

[s_bushido]

Question I have should I be able to forcefully take, lets say, your kidney/lung/part of your intestine, if I am in need of it as it is to keep me alive?

This is exactly why quibbling over the status of the fetus is irrelevant. And it's exactly why being anti-abortion was never about the "sanctity of life" or whatever morally-superior horseshit they pretend it is. It's about power, and "those sluts should have kept their legs closed."

[postman1782]

This is exactly why quibbling over the status of the fetus is irrelevant. And it's exactly why being anti-abortion was never about the "sanctity of life" or whatever morally-superior horseshit they pretend it is. It's about power, and "those sluts should have kept their legs closed."

Yep, they struck down the mask and vaccine mandates, because of bodily autonomy, but are now doing this? Because what? It isn't bodily autonomy. It is religious bullshit. Same with Alito looking at banning gay marriage, sodomy, contraception and interracial marriage.

[Darththeo]

Question I have should I be able to forcefully take, lets say, your kidney/lung/part of your intestine, if I am in need of it as it is to keep me alive? Remember, RvW is about bodily autonomy. If women lose theirs, so should everyone else and be forced to do things against their will even if it comes to harm them.

If we force women to carry to term and force them to use their bodies to sustain said life, then people should also be able to be forced to do organ donations against their will, while still alive, to sustain those who need them.

If we also force women to carry to term, even at the cost of the life of the woman, then we should also force people to give up critical organs, like a heart, liver or any other organs people only have 1 of required to live to let someone else live.

Otherwise, it would be hypocritical to do so.

Liver regrows after transplant, but we cannot forcefully take a liver for transplant.
You can live "normally" with one kidney, so surely we could take one. But no.

If you aren't an organ donor when you die, hospitals legally cannot take organs to save another person. We give dead people more control over their body than a living woman.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, they struck down the mask and vaccine mandates, because of bodily autonomy, but are now doing this? Because what? It isn't bodily autonomy. It is religious bullshit. Same with Alito looking at banning gay marriage, sodomy, contraception and interracial marriage.

They aren't directly banning it. They are making rights that were determined to belong to the people to the states instead.

That's the issue they are reinterpreting Roe v Wade via the tenth amendment assuming the states are given powers over people as priority, and not people.

The 9th Amendment is clear there are rights not listed in the Constitution, so the argument "This isn't a right listed in the constitution" is a bs argument on the fact of it.

[Poopymonster]

I hate to keep banging the drum, but there’s that uncertainty factor again with the legal definition which again is why I really don’t want the law involved, and yet 8 1/2 months along, pretty sure there should be legal protections as you say. There are circumstances where killing is legal (self-defense, capital punishment) I feel like there needs to be a shift in society towards both acknowledging that abortion is at the very least killing of a life and acceptance of if not always approval for the act. Because I totally understand those who say it’s ending a human life as well as those saying the mother should have a say to a greater or lesser extent depending on circumstances.

Btw I also agree drugs should be decriminalized and I’d also go as far as abolishing the DEA. I don’t really fit neatly into the ‘far-right fascist’ bin several posters like to toss me into.

The law is already involved in life in the US. We decree with an EILI5 class that you can drive at 16. We deem you fit, by dint of simply having survived to a certain point, to vote at 18 legally. You can start trying to kill someone the government tells you to at 18 by legally joining the military. You can start trying to kill yourself at 18 by legally purchasing cigarettes. You can't legally drink until you're 21. You're your parents problem until you are 18. Sure, you might be Wile E Coyote, Super Genius, levels of brainmeats. You might have 90 year old man nutsack quantity of brain wrinkles. But you don't get shit until you pass those arbitrary numbers set by law.

Unless we want to rework EVERYTHING so that life starts at conception, good luck getting your exact birthday. Especially in winter in northern states when entertainment during power outages from blizzards is sex. For multiple night in a row. Or newlyweds fucking like their lives depend on it. Birth certificates? Insurance? Social Security? Retirement? Anything age related has to kicked back 9 months.

If we want to arbitrarily assign a point (X months), then do it. No floating points. No "But my baby is developing fast". None of that bullshit. If driving, smoking, going to war, and drinking can all be given arbitrary points in a lifespan legally, then the start of the clock for those needs a singular point. Personally, first breath outside the host works for me. That's the current standard. Just be ready to fuck around with all the numbers of a persons life if you choose otherwise.

I mean, if you believe abortion is murder, how can you even think that a woman would be a fit parent if (again in your mind) she wanted to kill the kid?

[minteK917]

The 9th Amendment is clear there are rights not listed in the Constitution, so the argument "This isn't a right listed in the constitution" is a bs argument on the fact of it.

True, but lets be honest your politician sit on their laurel on that shit not just current democrats. A congress pass law, not the court. Most other western countries these laws are set in by legislation and no longer challenged. If you actually want to protect rights, you cannot use broad language like the 9th. Now your democrats cant do shit with 50 seats in congress, but that wasent always the case since 1973.

[Mihalik]

I dunno, the mere fact of the physical necessity of a mother not only for life but perpetuation of the human species puts this in a singular category not well covered by legal precedent in other areas. It’s a unique issue in law in my opinion.

"Women do not have the right to bodily autonomy because we must breed them to perpetuate the species."

That is you. What the fuck is wrong with you?

- - - Updated - - -

So people are warning women living in Red states to turn off their location services on their phones, delete period tracking apps, and to only buy feminine hygiene products, Plan B and pregnancy tests with cash.

Reasonable. Gilead is here.

[Darththeo]

True, but lets be honest your politician sit on their laurel on that shit not just current democrats. A congress pass law, not the court. Most other western countries these laws are set in by legislation and no longer challenged. If you actually want to protect rights, you cannot use broad language like the 9th. Now your democrats cant do shit with 50 seats in congress, but that wasent always the case since 1973.

The issue is that while Democrats have 50 seats in Congress now, the only way to protect it fully is with an Amendment to the Constitution and that won't happen because 50 senators isn't enough.

Also, as it stands right now, only 49 Senators would vote for the bill while Manchin is questionable if they would vote yes. It was Sinema and Manchin, but Sinema came out and voiced her support for the bill.

[Mihalik]

If you aren't an organ donor when you die, hospitals legally cannot take organs to save another person. We give dead people more control over their body than a living woman.

Yes, but you cannot fuck and breed a corpse, nor can a corpse make you a sammich. Cuz let's be honest here, that's what this is about.

[Draco-Onis]

The issue is that while Democrats have 50 seats in Congress now, the only way to protect it fully is with an Amendment to the Constitution and that won't happen because 50 senators isn't enough.

Also, as it stands right now, only 49 Senators would vote for the bill while Manchin is questionable if they would vote yes. It was Sinema and Manchin, but Sinema came out and voiced her support for the bill.

Sinema is against getting rid of filibuster to get it done so her "support" is as flimsy as her being a democrat.

[Darththeo]

Sinema is against getting rid of filibuster to get it done so her "support" is as flimsy as her being a democrat.

Yeah, I know. I was speaking in a best case scenario.

It is annoying that I live in a country where Politicians can lie while technically not lying.

[Paranoid Android]

BREAKING NEWS: Canada announces that it will “certainly” allow American women to go to Canada to receive abortion care if Roe v. Wade is overturned because EVERY woman in the world “deserves access.” RT TO THANK CANADA!

Since I follow some lefties I get the Occupy Democrats Twitter feed into my timeline and they post some of the funniest, craziest tweets ever.

This tweet is crazy, This twee is almost appears to be as if this is a victory. Who cares if Canada allows access to woman's care. A woman would need a passport, ID to travel as funny enough the main thing we fight is Voter ID as a restriction here.

Then some of the replies is are just as crazy. These people and Occupy Democrat are out of touch.

[Darththeo]

BREAKING NEWS: Canada announces that it will “certainly” allow American women to go to Canada to receive abortion care if Roe v. Wade is overturned because EVERY woman in the world “deserves access.” RT TO THANK CANADA!

Since I follow some lefties I get the Occupy Democrats Twitter feed into my timeline and they post some of the funniest, craziest tweets ever.

This tweet is crazy, This twee is almost appears to be as if this is a victory. Who cares if Canada allows access to woman's care. A woman would need a passport, ID to travel as funny enough the main thing we fight is Voter ID as a restriction here.

Then some of the replies is are just as crazy. These people and Occupy Democrat are out of touch.

So, you don't understand anything and that's why you find it funny.

I wouldn't personally advertise that I find things funny because of my ignorance on it.

[Levelfive]

No, I really don't understand because it doesn't follow logically for me.
I don't see how someone being born unwanted is better than not being born at all. I cannot understand why someone would think that.
I don't see how banning something that will lead to someone having an unsafe version done is better than just allowing it legally.

It's only illogical if you take them at their word. The reason trying to reconcile their words with their actions (or inaction) falls apart logically under scrutiny is because they're lying. As an example, when the HPV vaccine came out for girls, these very same groups created a huge controversy out of thin air protesting it (this may sound somewhat familiar...). HPV (human papilloma virus, which is the most common std) is responsible for 99.7% of cervical cancer cases, as well as the majority of all sorts of other cancers--why in the world would a vaccine for it be "controversial"? Because, as some of them astonishingly admitted out loud, they didn't want to do anything that would reduce the risks of sex for girls. They would rather girls and women get fucking cancer than worry less about having sex. Once you understand that, all their behavior--like their utter disregard for the health, well being, and lives of pregnant women and their born babies--makes perfect, horrifying sense. Women having sexual and reproductive freedom means women can determine their futures and have economic independence, the fear of which animates the radical right like little else, aside from racial progress.

Laws which separately distinguish a fetus as a distinct criminal charge of manslaughter haven't been held up to constitutional scrutiny. Before extremist states like Texas decided to try out those laws, murder of a pregnant woman could have enhanced penalties, sort of like hate crimes where you get an enhanced penalty if you did the crime BECAUSE of the race of a woman.

And it won't hold up to judicial scrutiny, or rather, it shouldn't. Legal personhood is the basis of applicability for laws. And legal personhood is granted on first breath. You don't get a social security number before birth, you can't claim your 8 month old fetus as a dependent on your taxes. Moreover, those benefits should NOT be extended to some point before birth, because viability is a shifting line, and not a "bright line," which is what you really want for legal definitions, and the "humanity" of a fetus is, at best, a philosophical question, and at worst (legally speaking) a religious question. The former has no real answer, the latter not permitted to be used as justification for a law.

Furthermore - conservatives would love to extend this straight to conception. Hypothetical: A 2 week pregnant woman is murdered. Neither she nor her murderer knows she was pregnant - but because it's a murder, that fact comes out at autopsy. I'd argue no reasonable person can, with a straight face, say that that murderer should be charged with two murders. And since conception and birth are the only real bright line tests for human personhood that we can nail down, and conception is a patently absurd place to confer legal personhood - we're stuck with live birth. I'm sure most of us can say fairly that the opposite situation (2 weeks FROM birth, IE 8 1/2 months pregnant) feels a bit squeamish for saying no legal person exists at that point - but the law is sometimes like that. I don't want people to do drugs and become addicted - most people can clearly say drug abuse is a negative thing - but I do think, legally, using drugs should not be a crime.

The decision lays the groundwork for fetal personhood, and thus a way to outlaw abortion nationwide:

Draft Supreme Court Decision Charts Path Toward Outlawing Abortion Everywhere https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/d...bortion-outlaw via @TPM

[beanman12345]

Yes because we are a republic and not a democracy.

Sorry to go off topic, but FDR called the US a democracy, cause we are one. Some "America First" Nazi's who didn't want us to go war decried it with "we are a republic not a democracy." Seriously people need to stop parroting this stupid ass phrase, since it's not even an actual argument.

[LilSaihah]

Isn't all the "you can go to Canada" kind of irrelevant seeing as there isn't the legislative will nor power to actually create an abortion ban and it's possibly more likely that we may see Congress try to create laws that would protect abortion rights?

Even if it's not made legal federally, wouldn't there be more than a few states that would turn around and just legalize it?

Don't have to go to Canada, you can just go to California. (If we're operating under the logic of "you can just go to X to get an abortion")

[Levelfive]

How will anti-abortion states outlaw abortion once Roe vs. Wade is overturned?

Unlike in the past, abortion will still be legal in at least half the states in the US. States like California are committed to provide abortion services to out of state patients.

There are companies that are committed to working with providers to provide free transportation across state lines.

We have online companies like Aid Access, founded by Dr. Rebecca Gomperts, who has been supplying abortion pills to US women. For free in cases of financial needs. Which accounts for over 70% of Aid Access clients. The company is based in EU and has volunteers througout EU and Asia that mailed the prescription to the US from different addresses.

How are anti-abortion states going to stop this? Prevent pregnant women from crossing state lines? Check points at state lines? Forced pregnancy tests? Check every single piece of mails for abortion pills?

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

Yes: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...aws/ar-AAUQnDH

Now, after seeing the legal success of Texas’s “sue-thy-neighbor” bill, Republican lawmakers are attempting to use its framework to not only ban abortion and gender-affirming care, but prohibit people from leaving their home states to obtain these life-saving procedures in elsewhere. That these proposals to trap people in their states are coming from the allegedly pro-freedom and anti-government interference party would be a funny bout of irony if the proposals weren’t so deadly.

“It’s utterly outrageous,” Andrew Beck, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, told Jezebel. “This is taking the Texas model, which has already eviscerated access to abortion in Texas and trying to apply it to people seeking abortion anywhere, whether or not in the state of Missouri. We’re already at a national crisis point.”

This week, the Idaho House passed H.B. 675, which would make it a felony punishable by up to life in state prison to provide transgender teens with puberty-blockers, hormones, and gender-affirming surgeries. It would also ban parents or guardians of trans teens from taking them out of state for this care. The bill now heads to the Idaho Senate.

In Missouri, state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman attached an eight-page amendment to H.B. 1677—a bill originally about prescription drug prices—which would allow private citizens to sue anyone who performs an abortion on a Missouri resident, possesses or distributes abortion pills, and aids or abets a Missouri abortion patient regardless of where the abortion is performed. The majority of Missouri residents who get abortions have traveled to Illinois and other states for care. The Missouri bill has not yet had a floor vote.

Any lawsuits filed under bills like these would rely on surveillance of people’s movements and medical care. On first reading, both seem unconstitutional. But that’s what experts said about S.B. 8 when it initially came before the court in September, and the Supreme Court upheld it. Legal experts said the same about Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that will likely overturn or severely hamper Roe v. Wade. That case involves a 2018 Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks, well before Roe’s standard of fetal viability which is about 22-24 weeks of pregnancy. The only thing that has changed since 2018 is the ideological balance of the Supreme Court.

“It was only a matter of time, honestly. Using the mechanism of private enforcement first seen in SB 8, Missouri has gone further—allowing individuals to sue those who provide aid to those seeking an abortion, including abortions that would be conducted outside of Missouri’s jurisdictional boundaries,” said Melissa Murray, a professor at New York University School of Law and an expert in reproductive rights and family law.

@LilSaihah

[LilSaihah]

I think the point is that its an option, there if needed.

It seems kinda facetious. "want to smoke weed? go to amsterdam" doesn't really make a lot of sense, and the fundamental logic is the same. If abortions are good, you shouldn't need to bugger off to Canuckistan to get one.

[Paranoid Android]

Isn't all the "you can go to Canada" kind of irrelevant seeing as there isn't the legislative will nor power to actually create an abortion ban and it's possibly more likely that we may see Congress try to create laws that would protect abortion rights?

Even if it's not made legal federally, wouldn't there be more than a few states that would turn around and just legalize it?

Don't have to go to Canada, you can just go to California. (If we're operating under the logic of "you can just go to X to get an abortion")

If you think they are going to stop at states, then you are delusional. Maybe I am delusional, but I feel a federal law banning abortion nationwide will be next for the GOP.

If not even that the laws of Missouri and another state had in their law that people could be fined and possibly prosecuted for traveling outside the state.

US states could ban people from traveling for abortions, experts warn

It was proposed in Missouri, but blocked. So this is the house on fire, oh crap scenario. Yet again these people are not about anything but extreme fundamentalism and controlling the woman's body.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems kinda facetious. "want to smoke weed? go to amsterdam" doesn't really make a lot of sense, and the fundamental logic is the same. If abortions are good, you shouldn't need to bugger off to Canuckistan to get one.

Yeah, the point is woman's choice is becoming illegal and offering travel vouchers is not a victory. Especially when this disappointingly affects the poor and minorities. Much harder to travel to Canada or even California if you live in Mississippi for instance.

[Mihalik]

BREAKING NEWS: Canada announces that it will “certainly” allow American women to go to Canada to receive abortion care if Roe v. Wade is overturned because EVERY woman in the world “deserves access.” RT TO THANK CANADA!

Since I follow some lefties I get the Occupy Democrats Twitter feed into my timeline and they post some of the funniest, craziest tweets ever.

This tweet is crazy, This twee is almost appears to be as if this is a victory. Who cares if Canada allows access to woman's care. A woman would need a passport, ID to travel as funny enough the main thing we fight is Voter ID as a restriction here.

Then some of the replies is are just as crazy. These people and Occupy Democrat are out of touch.

Accelerationism is cancer and disconnected middle class Sunday socialists are disconnected middle class Sunday socialists.