SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Twdft]

That's a fair point: If they're unaware they are pregnant and say, only pay for one fare on the train, can the train company come after them to collect the second fare after they find out they're now carrying a passenger, themselves?

I see your point, I see your point. The law must be amended that women have to keep track of every bus ticket they bought in the last couple months and in the happy event of a fusion of a human spermatozoon with a human ovum they are required to disclose this fact to the nearest bus driver and buy another ticket for each they used earlier.

[Tentim]

We'd love to see good-faith, responsible, and objectively justifiable arguments. The problem is that right-wingers insist on presenting only arguments rooted in petty, abusive bigotries, and with a goal of inflicting suffering and hardship on innocents, and demanding consideration despite those factual and ethical failures out the gate.

You want your arguments to be given due consideration and respect? Make arguments that deserve it, because you and the rest sure the fuck haven't been.

Not really just it's a learned defense to move the topic towards forbidden topics to get them banned or make the entire topic taboo.

It's why once you leave a left leaning platform to an open one most left leaning ideology is eviscerated. It can't even acknowledge arguments against it much less debate them.

[Edge-]

It's why once you leave a left leaning platform to an open one most left leaning ideology is eviscerated. It can't even acknowledge arguments against it much less debate them.

rofl

Meanwhile in reality - https://twitter.com/vanguard_pod/sta...49284355211264

Conservatives consistently crumple at the slightest pushback. Including failing to be able to define a term they wrote an entire fucking book about.

[Tentim]

rofl

Meanwhile in reality - https://twitter.com/vanguard_pod/sta...49284355211264

Conservatives consistently crumple at the slightest pushback. Including failing to be able to define a term they wrote an entire fucking book about.

Imagine that, finding a idoit on Twitter riveting stuff that.

[Endus]

Not really just it's a learned defense to move the topic towards forbidden topics to get them banned or make the entire topic taboo.

It's why once you leave a left leaning platform to an open one most left leaning ideology is eviscerated. It can't even acknowledge arguments against it much less debate them.

Case in point about the resilience of conservative arguments; you're manufacturing a nonsense persecution claim rather than attempting to make any actual counterclaim to any actual argument presented.

So I repeat; We'd love to see good-faith, responsible, and objectively justifiable arguments. Instead, you insist on this kind of nonsense.

[Edge-]

Imagine that, finding a idoit on Twitter riveting stuff that.

"on twitter"

On Hill Rising, a generally garbage podcast that's long platformed right wing idiots, having been created by Jon Solomon.

Sorry if that example is inconvenient.

[Taifuu]

Not really just it's a learned defense to move the topic towards forbidden topics to get them banned or make the entire topic taboo.

It's why once you leave a left leaning platform to an open one most left leaning ideology is eviscerated. It can't even acknowledge arguments against it much less debate them.

Please provide evidence of this. The only time I have ever seen this sort of thing is when they pull some random person off the street or when they just yell at someone and consider that winning the argument. Probably because the vast majority of right-wing talking points cannot actually be backed up with any sort of evidence.

I also recommend that you watch any Jordan Klepper Trump rally videos to see an actual example of what you describe occurring.

[Tentim]

Case in point about the resilience of conservative arguments; you're manufacturing a nonsense persecution claim rather than attempting to make any actual counterclaim to any actual argument presented.

So I repeat; We'd love to see good-faith, responsible, and objectively justifiable arguments. Instead, you insist on this kind of nonsense.

As you insist. Best of luck out there

- - - Updated - - -

"on twitter"

On Hill Rising, a generally garbage podcast that's long platformed right wing idiots, having been created by Jon Solomon.

Sorry if that example is inconvenient.

I have no idea what any of those things or people are...

[Poopymonster]

Normally, vague laws wind up losing in court, yeah? Just too many people are scared to fight these...

They can't afford to either, public defenders are kinda ass most times.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a fair point: If they're unaware they are pregnant and say, only pay for one fare on the train, can the train company come after them to collect the second fare after they find out they're now carrying a passenger, themselves?

Insurance for the thing also.

[s_bushido]

Not really just it's a learned defense to move the topic towards forbidden topics to get them banned or make the entire topic taboo.

It's why once you leave a left leaning platform to an open one most left leaning ideology is eviscerated. It can't even acknowledge arguments against it much less debate them.

Remember the good ol' days when you were pretending to be an enlightened centrist? Pepperidge Farm Remembers.

[Tentim]

Remember the good ol' days when you were pretending to be an enlightened centrist? Pepperidge Farm Remembers.

No but I recall both sides idoits in whatever the thread was about. Not aligning with either of the major parties out of sheer embarrassment for their stupidity is a more subtle position then blue/red and confuses people horribly. I'm rarely on the fence about most issues.

[Dontrike]

It's why once you leave a left leaning platform to an open one most left leaning ideology is eviscerated. It can't even acknowledge arguments against it much less debate them.

"Finishing an argument when you're by yourself proves you were right."

[Tentim]

"Finishing an argument when you're by yourself proves you were right."

So.. I don't really know what you want here...

Do we just highjack the thread for a slap fight?

[Dontrike]

So.. I don't really know what you want here...

Do we just highjack the thread for a slap fight?

What I want you to do is perform a bit of introspection, maybe then you'll be able to come to grips with a great many things.

[Tentim]

What I want you to do is perform a bit of introspection, maybe then you'll be able to come to grips with a great many things.

Ahh so this is a weird internet slap fight.

[Rasulis]

Apparently, even all Republican State Supreme Court justices have problems with the current crops of anti-abortion laws.

An All-Republican State Supreme Court Unanimously Protects Abortion Rights

The North Dakota legislature enacted the state’s current ban in 2007, intending it to take effect if and when the Supreme Court overruled Roe. But this summer, a state judge halted the law before it could spring into action, preserving the legality of abortion within the state (whose lone provider is in the process of moving to Minnesota). State officials pressed the state Supreme Court to lift the hold, and had good reason to assume they’d prevail: The court is made up of five Republicans, four appointed by a GOP governor and one elected to his seat. (How conservative is the state’s judiciary? One justice recused from the abortion case and was replaced by another Republican appointee from a lower court.)

But state officials encountered a problem when defending the ban: It has no true exception in cases where the patient’s life is endangered. Instead, it allows defendants to raise life endangerment as an affirmative defense once they are already being prosecuted. Unlike a genuine exception—which clarifies that a life-saving abortion is not a crime at all—this approach puts the burden on defendants to prove to a jury that they acted to save a patient’s life. If they do not succeed, they face up to five years’ imprisonment. A similar law in Tennessee has forced doctors to wait until a patient is at risk of imminent death before terminating a pregnancy. Yet Tennessee’s GOP-controlled legislature has resisted replacing its current “affirmative defense” provision with a true exception for the life of the patient, and Tennessee Right to Life staunchly opposes such a reform.

The North Dakota Supreme Court took a different path. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Jon J. Jensen noted that the state constitution grants all residents the right “of enjoying and defending life and liberty” and “pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.” These guarantees “implicitly include the right to obtain an abortion to preserve the woman’s life or health,” Jensen wrote. When the state classifies emergency abortions as de facto criminal unless proven otherwise, it deprives patients of “a right to enjoy and defend life and a right to pursue and obtain safety.” The chief justice backed up this conclusion by pointing out that North Dakota expressly permitted abortions to protect life or health in 1887, before it became a state, and preserved this exception in a series of statutes passed after its admission to the union in 1889. The right is thus “deeply rooted in North Dakota’s history and culture,” a key component of “ordered liberty before, during, and at the time of statehood.”

Technically, Jensen’s decision found a right to abortion only to protect a patient’s life or health. Yet it kept the entire abortion ban on hold, allowing the lower court to determine precisely how much of the law should remain permanently blocked. The ruling explicitly guarantees abortion access whenever it is “necessary to prevent severe, life altering damage”—but also appears to go further: Jensen wrote that while “the legislature can regulate abortion, it must do so in a manner that is narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling interest.” (This standard is known as strict scrutiny.) That language suggests that all abortion restrictions must survive strict scrutiny, not only those that protect a patient’s life or health. At a minimum, the ruling surely mandates great deference to a doctor’s judgment about when termination is necessary to preserve “health.” But it may also safeguard abortion rights more broadly. The opinion also points to medical journals published shortly after North Dakota’s statehood noting that being “mentally unfit” was a legitimate reason for an abortion, raising the possibility that mental health may sometimes justify termination today. Presumably, the ruling’s exact contours will be sussed out in future decisions.

However, the court ultimately comes down on these bigger questions, one thing is now clear: North Dakota cannot compel patients to risk death before obtaining an emergency abortion. The judiciary has determined that the state cannot turn a high-risk pregnancy into a death sentence. We will soon see if other states’ courts follow suit, or if they agree with the now-mainstream Republican position that a fetus’ life simply matters more than the patient who is carrying it.

[s_bushido]

Apparently, even all Republican State Supreme Court justices have problems with the current crops of anti-abortion laws.

Well, that's something. I guess even they could see that criminal prosecutions for people who can't prove their pregnancy was life-threatening is unconscionable...

[Rasulis]

This is likely just the beginning.

Idaho hospital stops labor and delivery services citing "political climate"

"Highly respected, talented physicians are leaving. Recruiting replacements will be extraordinarily difficult," Bonner General Health, located in the city of Sandpoint, said in a news release.

Pregnant women who utilized Bonner General, a 25-bed hospital, will now have to drive to hospitals or birthing centers in Coeur d'Alene or Spokane to give birth.

In 2022, doctors delivered 265 babies at Bonner General and admitted less than 10 pediatric patients, the hospital said.

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, abortion bans have added another challenge to rural hospitals that have struggled to keep their doors open and their facilities fully staffed and running.

Nationwide, hospitals have been sounding the alarm that states with strict abortion laws risk losing staff or doctors to other regions. According to the Associated Press, in Indiana, one of the first states to restrict abortion following the Supreme Court's decision, the Indiana Hospital Association said the state is "creating an atmosphere that will be perceived as antagonistic to physicians."

Idaho has one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country. According to the Associated Press, in a court brief filed in August 2022 in support of a Justice Department lawsuit against the Idaho abortion ban, medical groups argued that Idaho physicians are forced to choose whether to break state or federal law.

In a report last September, Pew found that Idaho was one of six states in which authorities can prosecute health care providers for performing abortions.

"The Idaho Legislature continues to introduce and pass bills that criminalize physicians for medical care nationally recognized as the standard of care. Consequences for Idaho Physicians providing the standard of care may include civil litigation and criminal prosecution, leading to jail time or fines," Bonner General said in its news statement.

"We have made every effort to avoid eliminating these services," said Ford Elsaesser, Bonner General Health's Board President, in a statement. "We hoped to be the exception, but our challenges are impossible to overcome now."

[Edge-]

That'll surely make protecting the health of the mother and baby during delivery so much easier.

Maybe Republicans should think of like, narrowing the language on these kinds of laws to prevent this kind of thing from happening elsewhere?

[masterhorus8]

Maybe Republicans should think of like, narrowing the language on these kinds of laws to prevent this kind of thing from happening elsewhere?

Nah, that'd defeat the purpose.