SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[masterhorus8]

I remember something a video said a long time ago but actually made sense and was correct. It was talking about the non-violent protests.

He said non-violent protest only work with the implied threat of potential violence if things aren't addressed. If your protests aren't capable of violence, then you aren't non-violent, you are harmless, there is a difference.

Yeah, that's kinda why worker strikes typically get more traction, like the rail worker strikes. Their 'not working' was damaging enough that it's a 'threat' to the people that care.

[Fugus]

Yeah, that's kinda why worker strikes typically get more traction, like the rail worker strikes. Their 'not working' was damaging enough that it's a 'threat' to the people that care.

Not really what me or the other guy was talking about but can see it.

When it comes to economic things, you just have to be a bigger threat to them economically if they fight you than if they just give you what you are asking. But that is still some calculus there because they also add in the thought of how much it would embolden you or others like you in the future if they cave.

The social things, the threat of violence tends to have to be much more direct and physical as they are trying to hold you down and consider you the lesser while also having the economic support of them behind them as well since you being an unprotected underclass makes it easier to exploit you for cheap labor and to break the backs of other laborers as they blame you for it.

And even with the economic things, you have to deal with potential direct physical violence as the companies will have little to no issues directing violence at you if they can get away with it. We have plenty of history of companies having their security or hiring others to attack workers on strike and protesting. If it weren't for the backlash over it, they would gladly use slave and child labor even today and any company that didn't would put themselves at a competitive disadvantage to any company that did.

If its over the money, threatening the money helps but expect the owners of that money to threaten your life and family in response so be prepared to respond accordingly.

If its over people thinking of you as lesser than them, that threat has to be directed at them in response because these are people who would gladly kill you normally even if you weren't protesting if it got them what they wanted let alone you actively defying them and the only thing that will make them care is when they are putting them and theirs at the same risk in the process.

[Captain N]

Can we sticky this graph?

A great idea but the same "Pro-Life" clowns in this thread are the same folks who spent 2 1/2 years claiming the CDC was lying about vaccinations and that it was all about (insert favorite conspiracy theory here) instead of trying to keep people alive. I don't think they'll believe this graph either I'm afraid.

Even though this is the author's credentials:

Wm. Robert Johnston, PhD, is the curator of Johnston’s Archive, and a leading expert on worldwide abortion numbers. He is a research physicist having earned a doctorate in physics from the University of Texas at Dallas, a master’s in physics from the University of Texas at El Paso, and a bachelor’s in astronomy from the University of Texas at Austin. He began collecting international abortion statistics in 1983, and publishing compilations online at Johnston’s Archive in 2001. Currently (2018), this data collection includes 519 web pages, with abortion data for 112 countries and 26 territories or regions of special status, including subnational region data for 50 countries, compiled from over 1,600 sources (www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion).

[Flarelaine]

If the pro-choice can win in a GOP trifecta state like Ohio, then GOP is in deep trouble in 2024.

Beyond the possibility of choice prevailing, I'm looking forward to the day when the GOP succeeds in riling up the complacent non-voting folks enough to wash the likes of Gym Jordan out of office.

[Rasulis]

Beyond the possibility of choice prevailing, I'm looking forward to the day when the GOP succeeds in riling up the complacent non-voting folks enough to wash the likes of Gym Jordan out of office.

I think that's what we are seeing now. The complacent non-voting folks, millennial and gen-z voters, are showing up at the voting booths. Democrats found their motivating issue in abortion.

The suburbs are moving left also. They see GOP with their book ban, trans ban, drag ban, ban etc. as being extreme. Seriously, I learned a long time ago that Americans are like cats, they hated being told "no."

Meanwhile, the GOP is losing its talking points.

Inflation has gone down from 8% during the 2022 mid-term election to 5%.

Unemployment is also down.

Job creation is down but higher than 2019.

Starting wages and wages in general, although not as fast as before, are still increasing.

New business creation is still robust. Way above pre-pandemic.

Despite SBV failure, consumers trust in small and medium banks stay at a high level. The important part is no contagion. First Republic Bank was able to withstand the $70B run on. Effectively cutting the chain reaction off.

As for immigration, unless you live next to the Rio Grande, that's not an issue. The maid that you hired to clean your home once a week is likely an illegal immigrant. I am pretty sure that ours is illegal, and I don't care.

The horrible Afghan withdrawal has not made the news for a while.

[Nymrohd]

Can we sticky this graph?

I would hope to see the next administration move for a right to a blanket right to abortion up to the 16/18 week with exceptions for risk of life/risk of health and fetal impairment which should be unlimited. It would still be problematic for many women who might suffer from risk of life but it would completely remove the teeth of the GOP arguments.

[Edge-]

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...n-at-hospitals

The molar pregnancy Jaci Statton had would never become a baby. It was cancerous, though.

At the last hospital in Oklahoma she went to during her ordeal last month, Statton says staff told her and her husband that she could not get a surgical abortion until she became much sicker.

"They were very sincere; they weren't trying to be mean," Statton, 25, says. "They said, 'The best we can tell you to do is sit in the parking lot, and if anything else happens, we will be ready to help you. But we cannot touch you unless you are crashing in front of us or your blood pressure goes so high that you are fixing to have a heart attack.'"

Oklahoma has three overlapping abortion bans, with different and sometimes contradictory definitions and exceptions. A study published Tuesday along with a commentary in the Lancet medical journal shows hospitals all over Oklahoma are struggling to interpret the laws and create policies that comply with the state's abortion bans. The resulting confusion is having dangerous consequences for women like Statton.

In which, once again as continually happens, the vague nature of these Republican-written laws result in health care providers not being able to provide the necessary, routine care to save lives and prevent suffering.

Republicans see this and do nothing, which leads me to believe they are either callously indifferent to the suffering of pregnant girls or women or that the goal of their legislation is specifically to cause suffering and possible death for pregnant girls and women.

[s_bushido]

I'd prefer they go with a science-based approach determined by typical viability length. If it's 22-24 weeks right now, then that's the limit. If viability improves earlier, lower it. I think that'd be more effective in removing these emotional and religious arguments that we keep seeing from the GOP.

It would never pass... The people who use those "emotional and religious arguments" are the type who say that "life begins at conception." I'm not sure how much compromise is possible with people like that. Because unless the Dems manage to flip enough seats to make compromise unnecessary, GOP votes will still probably be required for anything that couldn't simply be overturned on a whim the instant that party gains any sort of majority.

[Edge-]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/amanda...nyn-at-hearing

A Texas woman testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the subject of the harm of abortion bans tore into her senators on Wednesday, saying she nearly died as “a direct result” of the policies Ted Cruz and John Cornyn support.

Amanda Zurawski, one of five women suing the state of Texas for denying them abortions after medical complications arose in their pregnancies, began by noting that neither Cruz nor Cornyn was present in the room.

“But I would like for them to know that what happened to me… it’s a direct result of the policies that they support,” she said. “I nearly died on their watch. And furthermore, as a result of what happened to me, I may have been robbed of the opportunity to have children in the future.”

Despite that, Zurawski continued, she considered herself “lucky,” as she had a supportive partner and a job “that allowed me to grieve for three days as I waited to almost die.”

She raised the specter of the “many” women who need life-saving abortions but don’t have the same support system. “What about them?” she asked.

Zurawski, who was diagnosed with an “incompetent cervix” during her second trimester last year, received an emergency abortion only after her condition deteriorated and she went into septic shock.

“I cannot adequately put into words the trauma and despair that comes with waiting to either lose your own life, your child’s life, or both,” she told The Intercept earlier this year. “For days I was locked in this bizarre and avoidable hell.”

On Wednesday, Zurawski explained that the mental health repercussions—including PTSD and depression—she’s suffered in the eight months since the ordeal have been “paralyzing.”

Texas is one of 13 states nationwide that currently outlaws abortion. The language in its abortion laws is both restrictive and “incredibly vague,” Zurawski said, “and it leaves doctors grappling with what they can and cannot do, what health care they can and cannot provide.”

Last month, the nonprofit Center for Reproductive Rights sued Texas on behalf of Zurawski and four other women who suffered “catastrophic harms” because they were forced to continue carrying their babies. The suit seeks clarity on when and how healthcare providers can legally perform an abortion in the state.

Both Cruz and Cornyn sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and were in attendance at other parts of Wednesday’s hearing, according to The Hill.

Cornyn later admitted that Zurawski should not have had to wait for an abortion, but appeared to shrug off the implication that he bore any blame on a systemic level.

“Sounds like she’s got a good medical malpractice lawsuit,” he told reporters, according to the Dallas Morning News.

Again, women testify about the suffering they are forced to endure and how they are forced to risk their lives pointlessly because state-level Republicans refuse to clearly define their legislation and leave hospitals unable to provide routine, necessary care.

I wonder how many young girls will need to flee their states to receive potentially live-saving reproductive health care, or how many other women will suffer and almost die, or actually die, because Republicans are callously uncaring of the consequences of their vague, poorly written laws.

If they respected life as they claim the very least they could do is more clearly define limits and exceptions to prevent girls and women from suffering for no reason in these kinds of situations.

[Rasulis]

“Sounds like she’s got a good medical malpractice lawsuit.”

One wonders why the suburbs are abandoning the GOP. Then you saw a comment like this, and a light bulb went on. At least Ted Cruz is smart enough to know when not to say anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Republican Party Loses One Of Its Biggest Donors: Billionaire Peter Thiel Says 'I'm Out'

A business associate of Thiel's said that the Republican Party's recent focus on "culture war" issues drew him away from the party, citing the party’s position on abortion and transgender people's rights as examples.

The GOP should be more focused on how the U.S. can innovate and compete with China on the global market, said the source.

Yep. Keep pushing those issues.

[Edge-]

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/28/11727...a-and-nebraska

Thankfully, more failures in attempts to pass extreme, draconian restrictions on the bodies of girls and women.

Apparently a handful of Republican women in SC were responsible for stopping that bill, so at least some of the Republican party with an actual personal stake in this topic are coming to their senses.

It won't stop Republicans from continuing to try though, this was the third attempt in SC to pass draconian laws controlling the bodies of girls and women.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.lmtonline.com/news/artic...n-17918961.php

Lawmakers in the Texas Senate approved a bill that would erect a monument "to celebrate life" on state Capitol grounds in Austin.

The sculpture would be a replica of the “Life Monument," which features a mother with a fetus visible in her womb. The original is currently installed in the Church of San Marcello al Corso in Rome.

Senate Continuing Resolution 24, filed by state Sen. Tan Parker of District 12 in North Texas, was approved in a 20-10 vote on April 25. The bill now moves on to the Texas House where it will also need to pass in order for the sculpture to be built.

Clarify the language in their draconian bans on women's reproductive rights to achieve their goals while limiting the number of women who must needlessly suffer?

No, of course not. That might show that they actually care about the issue like they say they do.

But they'll tackle the serious problems here: The need to build a statue for a bundle of unspecified cells at an unknown cost. It's "not meant to make a political statement" which is, of course, a fuckin lie and everyone knows it.

- - - Updated - - -

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law...search&index=0

US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said he has a “pretty good idea” of who is responsible for leaking the draft opinion last term of the court’s majority decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion and denied being the culprit.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal editorial features editor posted Friday, Alito called the theory that the draft was leaked by a conservative to lock in a five-justice majority “infuriating.”

“Look, this made us targets of assassination,” Alito said in the interview conducted earlier this month. “Would I do that to myself? Would the five of us have done that to ourselves? It’s quite implausible.”

The justice instead said he’s certain the draft decision was leaked in an effort to stop the decision from becoming the court’s final ruling in June.

“And that’s how it was used for those six weeks by people on the outside—as part of the campaign to try to intimidate the court,” he said.

I still hold the opinion that the most likely source of the leak is indeed Alito himself.

[Taifuu]

- - - Updated - - -

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law...search&index=0



I still hold the opinion that the most likely source of the leak is indeed Alito himself.

It definitely was. Why would someone be willing to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice for a ruling that they may (most likely) make in the future, but not want to assassinate them after the decision had been made? That's the argument that he's making here; that it was the leak that prompted the assassination attempts and not the actual ruling itself. Also, the only assassination attempt I can even find on a Supreme Court Justice is this one for Kavanaugh:

https://medium.com/discourse/the-att...d-3ecf88f8015f

According to the affidavit, Roske disclosed to investigators that he intended to assassinate Kavanaugh following the May 2nd leak of a draft opinion on the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which protects women’s rights to abortion in the United States (3).

Didn't even go for Alito first despite Alito authoring the decision.

[Edge-]

https://www.axios.com/2023/04/28/tru...ntial-election

What they're saying: Trump told ABC affiliate WMUR in New Hampshire, where he held a rally Thursday, that if elected again, he would "look at" a 15-week abortion ban proposed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) if it passed Congress.

He added that his campaign is "looking at a lot of different options."
"We'll get something done where everyone is going to be very satisfied," he said.
"I think we'll get it done on some level, it could be on different levels, but we're gonna get it done. I know the issue very well. I think I know the issue better than most and we will get that taken care of."

Reminder: He doesn't understand the issue at all and hasn't since the first time he proposed criminal penalties for girls and women seeking abortion services back during his 2016 campaign.

Just a reminder about the risk for girls and women should people decide to vote for Republicans, at least Republican men.

[SoulForge]

https://www.axios.com/2023/04/28/tru...ntial-election



Reminder: He doesn't understand the issue at all and hasn't since the first time he proposed criminal penalties for girls and women seeking abortion services back during his 2016 campaign.

Just a reminder about the risk for girls and women should people decide to vote for Republicans, at least Republican men.

Trump can fuck off. They fought for it to go back to the states. Now they want it nationally. You know damn well its not going to stop at 15. If they get 15 they will then attempt to pass laws to shrink it until its nothing.

[Nymrohd]

Trump can fuck off. They fought for it to go back to the states. Now they want it nationally. You know damn well its not going to stop at 15. If they get 15 they will then attempt to pass laws to shrink it until its nothing.

15 is already a disaster anyway. What even is their reasoning for 15? Viability at this point in time is at what, 23 weeks? And many of those babies don't make it.

[LilSaihah]

15 is already a disaster anyway. What even is their reasoning for 15? Viability at this point in time is at what, 23 weeks? And many of those babies don't make it.

I thought maybe they'd taken the number from one of their neighbors. It looks like Mexico has 12 weeks for its limit and Canada varies between 12 and 24. Newfoundland hits the mark on 15 weeks so perhaps they believe they are the apex of human development; I can't blame them, I'm also a big fan of Trailer Park Boys.
Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if they just looked at all the other countries, noticed that they all sit between 12 and 24 weeks, and decided 15 was a nice round number.

[Endus]

I thought maybe they'd taken the number from one of their neighbors. It looks like Mexico has 12 weeks for its limit and Canada varies between 12 and 24. Newfoundland hits the mark on 15 weeks so perhaps they believe they are the apex of human development; I can't blame them, I'm also a big fan of Trailer Park Boys.
Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if they just looked at all the other countries, noticed that they all sit between 12 and 24 weeks, and decided 15 was a nice round number.

Canada doesn't have any arbitrary standard on abortions under the law. No abortion regulations whatsoever, outside of standard medical malpractice and ethics stuff.

Abortions aren't generally offered past 24 weeks because at that point, the fetus is viable and we're either talking about special cases which are determined based on medical need, or we're in the territory of inducing birth to end the pregnancy rather than what's typically referred to as abortion.

Also, Trailer Park Boys is made and set in Nova Scotia, not Newfoundland.

[LilSaihah]

Canada doesn't have any arbitrary standard on abortions under the law. No abortion regulations whatsoever, outside of standard medical malpractice and ethics stuff.

Abortions aren't generally offered past 24 weeks because at that point, the fetus is viable and we're either talking about special cases which are determined based on medical need, or we're in the territory of inducing birth to end the pregnancy rather than what's typically referred to as abortion.

That makes sense, I'd just read the chart on Wikipedia. I've reread it and I wasn't sure how to interpret the number of providers initially but I'd guess the number of providers maps to the population, so something in the field of 80-85% of Canadians have access to abortions <24 weeks.

Also, Trailer Park Boys is made and set in Nova Scotia, not Newfoundland.

i guess i'm not a real tpb fan

[Masark]

That makes sense, I'd just read the chart on Wikipedia. I've reread it and I wasn't sure how to interpret the number of providers initially but I'd guess the number of providers maps to the population, so something in the field of 80-85% of Canadians have access to abortions <24 weeks.

That chart is about limits of capabilities, not legal limits. i.e. if a woman in Saskatchewan was 19 weeks along and needed an abortion for whatever reason, she would need to be transferred to a facility in a different province (Most likely BC or Ontario), because we simply don't have the staff and equipment needed.

Number of providers is just that. It's the number of facilities in the province that perform abortions.

[tripleh]

Recent 150 year old law that went into effect once roe V. wade was overturned.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/28/polit...ght/index.html