SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[prwraith]

so fuckin resign, you spineless bitch

not that anyone believes this shit rofl

Sadly, people do believe this shit :/

[Rasulis]

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...in-post-roe-te



This is wilfull and intentional torture of girls and women, leaving them with lifelong trauma for literally zero reason other than Republicans in many states, including Texas, just can't be bothered to tighten up the language around their laws and are perfectly happy with pregnant girls and women suffering.

If Republicans cared they'd be out in the streets protesting this outrage. They'd be demanding that these girls and women get the care they need to protect their health and not pointlessly traumatize them and saddle them with medical bills they may not be able to afford.

I'm perfectly, 100% fine saying that if Texas Republican voters aren't out there protesting this shit that's for one reason: Because this is either their goal as well, or because they genuinely lack basic human empathy to care for the needless suffering their party is inflicting on pregnant girls and women.

This is monstrous, and it's yet another monstrous story amongst too many to count in recent years. Brought to us by the Republican party.

Amy O'Donnell, director of communications for the Texas Alliance for Life, calls Casiano's situation "heartbreaking," but says she supports the abortion bans and opposes creating exceptions for fetal anomalies.

People like these are why the GOP's influence in the suburbs is eroding rapidly.

Because she went into labor early, Casiano has less time than she expected to sort out how to pay for Halo's funeral. She was quoted $4,000 by one funeral home. The family moved less than a year ago and used up all their savings on the move. Her family cooked menudo, a spicy Mexican soup, and raised $645 selling it by the bowl.

Cogdell, who runs the Christian grief group that's been helping Casiano, says she was able to get several services donated, including picking up the baby's body. In addition to the $480 she raised for Halo's funeral, Cogdell said she used her organization's general family assistance funds to pay for the rest of the funeral, which cost $1,400 in all.

Casiano has the burial scheduled for Friday morning. Because it's Good Friday, she was told it would be an extra $1,100 – she and Cogdell protested and the funeral home agreed to waive it. Even so, she says because she is short on funds, she's going to dress Halo herself and have a simple graveside service with an open casket. Later, she'll try to do a memorial service and put down a headstone. "Ultimately, I just want my daughter buried," she says.

Shouldn't the State of Texas pay for something that they mandate?

Duane says Texas has promised those funds before, as part of its defense of the fetal burial law. In that lawsuit, Duane argued that funerals can be expensive. "The state kept promising that they were going to provide all of these resources and grants and all this money for people who needed to have funerals," Duane says. "[Texas] never did any of that. It was all just political theater."

Yeah. All talk and no action.

Even as she tries to give her daughter the best funeral she can, she thinks she should have been able to get an abortion in Texas months ago. "This whole situation didn't even have to happen," she says.

[Mekh]

People like these are why the GOP's influence in the suburbs is eroding rapidly.



Shouldn't the State of Texas pay for something that they mandate?



Yeah. All talk and no action.

I'm sure @tehdang can explain it all.

[Rasulis]

A federal judge suspends FDA's longtime approval of abortion pill, but gives the government 7 days to appeal

The GOP picked the fights. Instead of concentrating on the issues of economy, crime, border, etc. They decided to ban abortion, trans, drag, same sex marriage, books, etc. And they wonder why the suburbs are abandoning the party.

[Paranoid Android]

Breaking: Judge Kacsmaryk has stayed the FDA approval of mifepristone, the abortion pill that has been approved for over two decades. This is slated to take effect in seven days.

https://twitter.com/CAKitchener/stat...0dK9GeGXw&s=19
@Rasulis. I think this needs to be in post, so just adding some more info. Thanks.

Yes this drug has been approved for 23 years. The judicial activism that conservatives hate is in full swing.

Be ready for a new front of fascism through the courts.

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/CAKitchener/stat...0dK9GeGXw&s=19
@Rasulis. I think this needs to be in post, so just adding some more info. Thanks.

Yes this drug has been approved for 23 years. The judicial activism that conservatives hate is in full swing.

Be ready for a new front of fascism through the courts.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...rtion-98441293

SPOKANE, Wash. -- US judge in Washington state orders feds to keep access to abortion pill, countering ruling from Texas judge.

JUDGE! FIGHT! JUDGE! FIGHT! JUDGE! FIGHT!

Thank goodness the Republican party spend decades turning the judiciary into yet another political battlefield.

[s_bushido]

"If voters in red states don't want abortion to be legal, that should be their right. It doesn't effect people in the rest of the country."
-Some enlightened centrist.

[AntiFascistVoter]

*taps sign*


Major copium from the NRO...
The National Review is trying to convince themselves that they got their doors blown off in Wisconsin because of bad messaging, and it’s hilarious:




The general public is finally waking up to the idea that the courts do matter, and they've always been political.

For decades it was uncivil to ask a GOP nominee their position on abortion... Or if there was literal video of them saying they wanted to outlaw it. Pundits would rush to their defense. "They didnt really mean it" "No way they would overturn PRecEDenT".

[Edge-]

Wait...they think running away from an extremist position on abortion is what lost?

Boy, I remember when NRO was at least an ostensibly respectable conservative outlet with at least a few writers who had above room temperature IQ's. ooph

[Paranoid Android]

From President of AMA.

My @AmerMedicalAssn statement today: "The court’s disregard for well-established scientific facts in favor of speculative allegations and ideological assertions will cause harm to our patients and undermines the health of the nation." More below...

https://twitter.com/JackResneckMD/st...Dx6hy0pyA&s=19

I love this post with so much truth. The judge and let's be honest is attacking science in favor of their idealogy.

I know sometimes maybe my term of fascism, but this and admittedly the doctrine of the Republican party killing science is what any or some exterme groups embrace.

Also my Goodness please, please Democrats shout from the mountains. Sorry the burden is on women, but I hope they don't sleep one second. National bans going to eff all.

[Captain N]

Wait politicians and judges attacking science in favor of their ideology? I could have sworn Ive heard that somewhere before....

[Elder Millennial]

Looking at the chart above of states not supporting the right to bodily autonomy.

The Confederate States of Ya'll Qaedastan are still alive and well.

[Rasulis]

Wait politicians and judges attacking science in favor of their ideology? I could have sworn Ive heard that somewhere before....

On that note.

Kansas lawmakers approved a bill early on Friday that would require healthcare providers to tell patients that medication abortions can be reversed once started, a claim medical experts call unfounded and potentially dangerous.

Fortunately, we have a Democrat for governor in Kansas.

The legislation now proceeds to Kansas' Democratic Governor Laura Kelly, who is expected to veto it, potentially setting up a court challenge if the bill's Republican backers can muster a two-thirds majority in each chamber to override her veto.

Unfortunately, I think they have that 2/3rd majority.

- - - Updated - - -

Texas is planning to built it's own version of China's Great Firewall?

There is more than one way to burn a book, Ray Bradbury wrote, and the world is full of people running about with lit matches. Texas House Rep. Steve Toth brandished the equivalent of a butane torch earlier this session when he introduced House Bill 2690, legislation that seeks to ban websites that contain information about abortion — but he and Texas Republicans may find it’s harder than they think to make speech they don’t like disappear from the internet.

Toth’s bill would make it illegal to “create, edit, upload, publish, host, maintain, or register a domain name for an internet website, platform, or other interactive computer service that assists or facilitates a person’s effort in obtaining an abortion-inducing drug.” Internet service providers themselves would be in the awkward position of enforcing the law by making “every reasonable and technologically feasible effort” to block sites with information about abortion, abortion providers, or abortion funds — keeping Texans in the dark about their health care options, essentially.

The legislation names several websites specifically: Aid Access, Plan C, Hey Jane, and CaraFem, among them. The only way to scrub such sites from Texas’ internet is for individual ISPs to agree to block them inside the state’s borders. To achieve that goal, the bill also establishes incentives for private citizens to sue internet service providers that fail to block the sites. (Rolling Stone reached out to a number of internet service providers operating in Texas, including AT&T, EarthLink, Charter Communications/Spectrum, T-Mobile, Windstream, Viasat, and HughesNet. None responded to inquiries about the legislation and whether they will oppose it.)

Even if internet service providers choose to comply, it will be logistically difficult to prevent individuals from accessing information they’re determined to find, says Hey Jane founder Kiki Freedman. “We do think that the technical feasibility of the bill is somewhat laughable,” says Freedman, who was an executive at Uber before starting the company, which ships abortion medication to a number of states. There are well-known tools like VPNs, for example, that allow internet users to mask their IP address and location in order to access content that might not be available in their areas.

In addition to being a logistical challenge, the proposed law is “a total train wreck under the First Amendment,” Brian Hauss, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, tells Rolling Stone. “The whole point of the First Amendment is to prevent the government from censoring ideas or information because it disagrees with the view that’s expressed — and that’s exactly what this law is trying to do.”

Hauss pointed to a landmark Supreme Court case, Bigelow v. Virginia, with parallels to the proposed Texas law. Before Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal in Virginia, as was “encouraging” abortion through, for example, advertisements about services in states where the procedure was legal. In 1971, Jeffrey Bigelow, editor of Charlottesville’s Virginia Weekly, was arrested for running a display ad for an abortion referral service in New York. The case ultimately made it to the Supreme Court, where a majority of justices found that the advertisement qualified as protected speech.

“What the Supreme Court essentially said is: Virginia can’t prevent its residents from going to New York to obtain services that are lawful in New York.… The notion that a state can intentionally keep its residents ignorant about the availability of lawful services in other states was very decisively rejected by the Supreme Court in that decision,” Hauss explains.

Jennifer Pinsof, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says the private-enforcement mechanism proposed in the bill is a tactic she hasn’t seen before. “There have been other efforts to create liability for posting abortion-related info online, but the ISP-blocking aspect is new and I haven’t seen any other bills that put pressure on ISPs to block access to certain websites,” Pinsof wrote in an email. “The result will be a chilling effect on speech and a looming threat of litigation that can be used to silence those who seek to give women truthful information about their reproductive options.”

Like Texas’ Senate Bill 8, the abortion-bounty law passed in 2021, House Bill 2690 would be enforced by private citizens, rather than the government — an effort to hamper a legal challenge to the law. (Opponents typically sue the agency charged with enforcing the law to stop its enforcement, but that is difficult if the law is meant to be enforced by citizens instead.) Toth recently proposed another bill — this one targeting drag artists — using the same bounty-hunter framework. But whether such laws will be allowed to stand remains a matter of debate: At least one state court judge has declared the private enforcement scheme unconstitutional.

“To me, the most disturbing part of it is just how extreme these legislatures are willing to go in terms of throwing out other fundamental rights in order to attack access to health care,” Freedman says. “The goalposts are clearly shifting towards a space that is even further disconnected from the opinion of health care experts, but also the will of their voters.” A majority of Texans oppose banning abortion, according to research done by the University of Texas, with a scant 15 percent of Texans supporting a complete ban on abortion access.

Toth dubbed his bill “The Women and Child Safety Act.” Not only is pregnancy far more dangerous than abortion — one study found women are 14 times more likely to die from childbirth than an abortion — unwanted pregnancies have also been proven to create unsafe conditions for the child. Multiple studies have found that children born from unwanted pregnancies are more likely to experience and witness domestic violence, and one 10-year study found that, for years after giving birth, women who sought and failed to terminate their pregnancies were struggling to cover basic living expenses like food, housing, and transportation, compared to similar women who were able to obtain an abortion.

Melissa Grant, the COO of Carafem, called the inclusion of her organization in Toth’s proposed bill “not particularly surprising,” in spite of the fact that Carafem does not provide services in Texas. House Bill 2690, she says, is “about continuing to push the boundaries of what’s legal, in a restrictive way, to try to shut down the availability of people to receive legal services.”

“It’s hard to believe that anyone would have the time or the effort to spend looking into things that seem so antithetical to [the principles] this country was founded on.… But if the ultimate impact is to try to get abortion providers distracted so that they’re fighting laws instead of serving patients, well, I suppose to some degree, they’re winning,” she says. “But our goal is to try to keep our eyes on the horizon and moving forward to help people who need us.”

Right now, she says, she is focusing on what she can do in Texas. “What I can do [in Texas] is continue to provide … accurate information about what abortion is and what it’s not, where it is illegal in this country to access it, and reliable evidence-based information about how abortion care works, and combat misinformation that is running wild.”

[PosPosPos]

Representatives aren't puppets of their national or state party structure. It also presupposes that she will abandon everything she ran on. Go back to my previous posts if you're confused about my thoughts in the event she abandons her core campaign issues.

So yes, you do support the act of defrauding voters if it means consolidating conservative power. This word salad of yours just attempts to shift the blame from those committing fraud to the victims of fraud. How very you.

[Jastall]

Man, I remember when the main argument against abortion was those precious state's rights. T'is interesting to see how unimportant those are now when it comes to those particular pills.

[tehdang]

So yes, you do support the act of defrauding voters if it means consolidating conservative power. This word salad of yours just attempts to shift the blame from those committing fraud to the victims of fraud. How very you.

That's a very hyperpartisan spin you're applying here. I'll echo it as an exercise. You wish to shackle representatives to their party bosses and threaten them if they dare step out of line, no exceptions. You're acting as a mouthpiece of enforced conformity. Party corruption finds a hospitable place in your worldview.

This is entirely based on your argument that party identity, not abandoning past positions she ran on, is the measure of defrauding voters.

[Mekh]

So yes, you do support the act of defrauding voters if it means consolidating conservative power. This word salad of yours just attempts to shift the blame from those committing fraud to the victims of fraud. How very you.

Look what you have done. You have made @tehdang so upset, he absolutely failed to tell us why he supports women being forced to birth unviable fetuses, their funerals not being paid in spite of promises to the contrary or the internet of Texas being censored about the fact that abortions exist.

[Taifuu]

That's a very hyperpartisan spin you're applying here. I'll echo it as an exercise. You wish to shackle representatives to their party bosses and threaten them if they dare step out of line, no exceptions. You're acting as a mouthpiece of enforced conformity.

Inaccurate. What we want is people to stick by the platforms they ran on. You STILL haven't provided an explanation as to why switching to the Republican party was the appropriate choice over switching to being an independent. There is also the option to resign and force a special election for her district so someone who could stand up to the alleged bullying can be elected. Assuming that she doesn't vote alongside Republicans, why even join the party at that point? Is the expectation that they are going to fund her campaigns despite knowing she won't vote alongside them?

[Endus]

That's a very hyperpartisan spin you're applying here. I'll echo it as an exercise. You wish to shackle representatives to their party bosses and threaten them if they dare step out of line, no exceptions. You're acting as a mouthpiece of enforced conformity. Party corruption finds a hospitable place in your worldview.

This is entirely based on your argument that party identity, not abandoning past positions she ran on, is the measure of defrauding voters.

Again, for the cheap and dishonest seats, the outrage is not that she dared question Democratic policies. The outrage is not that she didn't fall in line. The outrage is not even that she chose to leave the Democratic Party. The outrage is that she joined the Republicans, who actively campaign against the stated policy viewpoints she personally has expressed to her voters in the past and which led to her support from that base.

Pospospos made no argument that "party identity" was the measure of defrauding voters. You're making that up, likely as just pure projection of your own personal biases, since there's certainly nothing in their post that would suggest that.

[tehdang]

Look what you have done. You have made @tehdang so upset, he absolutely failed to tell us why he supports women being forced to birth unviable fetuses, their funerals not being paid in spite of promises to the contrary or the internet of Texas being censored about the fact that abortions exist.

If only my political opponents would not be so upset! If only calling points word salad made them even more eager to have more points called word salad (as the post you quoted was responding to)! I think I've heard enough trolling on the topic.

No that's wholly in the realm of GQP voters, factually speaking.

"You will stay in the party or you're defrauding voters" - The Best News to party corruption. She was a swing vote on some issues before, I'm sure she will be after. I don't think she's going to suddenly discover that a decade of pro-choice was just an extremely disciplined con.

Inaccurate. What we want is people to stick by the platforms they ran on. You STILL haven't provided an explanation as to why switching to the Republican party was the appropriate choice over switching to being an independent.

You don't like her choice of response, but you still haven't given a reason why she can't stick to her campaign promises with a different party tag. Is the -D or -R after her name or district actual predestination? Does it rob her of free will? I'm only hearing demands and knee-jerk reactionary hatred. She didn't act like you wanted, therefore such an inappropriate choice is ipso facto proof of voting treachery? I don't see it.