SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Zython]

I was simply pointing out how ridiculous your post is.

"Just be thankful we don't do that anymore (yet)"

The people who call for that sort of punishment are generally the least likely to be able to stomach the reality—something you are clearly quite detached from.

Man, I missed this place. Where else can you get outrage and saying that lying is wrong?

(Well, Twitter, but...)

[Wewlad]

Man, I missed this place. Where else can you get outrage and saying that lying is wrong?

(Well, Twitter, but...)

Yes, all you did was say lying is wrong, not publicly espouse your psychopathic fantasy. /s

And to think you hated lying so much.

[Zython]

Yes, all you did was say lying is wrong, not publicly espouse your psychopathic fantasy. /s

And to think you hated lying so much.

Well, it's the part that you clearly took umbrage with.

[Wewlad]

Well, it's the part that you clearly took umbrage with.

And you're still apparently unable to own what you posted. Playing dumb won't help you.

[gondrin]

Speaking of features and bugs, North Carolina legislators had an opportunity to craft a better bill, but sadly, moral compunctions would not allow that. Opinion piece commenting on and citing an article by Duke physicians in the New England Journal of Medicine:

National Review

I would laud legislators that are seeking bans on abortion with exceptions to reach out to medical doctors on how to define and what constitutes conditions putting the mother's life or the baby's life at substantial risk. But this article points out that lawmakers are sometimes turned down, and cites doctors at Duke University refusing to do so. The story on poorly crafted exceptions in the language appears to have two sides. One, doctors feel compunction in aiding a law they oppose, superseding feelings towards lessening harm as a result of passed legislation. In doing so, their profession is complicit in criticism directed at the laws by stating that their exceptions are poorly crafted. It also mitigates the force of certain appeals consisting of claims that the laws' unintended ambiguity on certain cases of fetal defect/life-threatening conditions was, in-fact, maliciously crafted to achieve ambiguity.

I don't have access to the medical journal, so can't quote the entirety of sections that were quoted in the article from it. I wish and hope that this is an on-going discussion among doctors on the ethics of advising legislators. If you don't want shitty laws, advise and advocate for less shitty laws. If you don't want to get your hands dirty in laws you oppose as a whole, then kindly don't complain when they're less well-crafted and have to go through years of court wrangling and uncertainty. One nasty little consequence of this process is giving the impression that the progressive position is tolerating bad 6-week 12-week and 15-week bans, in the hopes of getting better representatives and better future laws with criticism of their defects. It might be political successful (time will tell), though very morally questionable, to say, "I oppose this bill for being rushed and poorly-written ... and object on moral grounds for using my medical expertise and time to advise better writing."

I have a question, has anyone ever stated that the fetus does not have a right to life? I haven't heard that by pretty much anyone, even people who want abortion all the way up to the day before birth. However, people have said, along with myself, that the fetus does not have a right to use someone else to sustain its own life. If the person who is sustaining said life stated that they do not want to do so, the fetus has no right to demand in any way to force said sustaining.

This goes with anything. If someone is having kidney failure, they do not have a right to demand usage of dialysis machines to keep themselves alive. If they need a blood transfusion to live, they do not have a right to demand blood from another person in order to live.

The moment you remove bodily autonomy from someone, you pretty much make them a slave.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09...as-new-mexico/



In which Republicans continue to express a general dislike of freedom and seek to restrict travel for people who are pursuing legal medical care in other states.

Ahh yes, I wonder how they will pay to enforce this. I figure it is the same mentality that goes into wanting to build a wall at the border while forgetting that people can just go around said thing.

[Endus]

I have a question, has anyone ever stated that the fetus does not have a right to life? I haven't heard that by pretty much anyone, even people who want abortion all the way up to the day before birth.

I'm probably one of the strongest advocates for unrestricted abortion rights here, so here's my point of view on that question, point by point to make it easy to follow and see where any disagreements might occur.

1> Rights are a legal framework that only exist for human beings.

2> A human being is defined under the law in pretty much all jurisdictions I'm aware of (Canada, USA, and UK in particular) as some variant of "a child who was born alive".

3> A fetus, by definition, has not been born, and thus cannot fall under that legal definition, and thus has the same capacity to have "rights" as a toaster.

4> Yes, birth is an arbitrary point, but live birth is also a clear and determinate binary state, and any earlier establishment of being a "human being" would be just as arbitrary and far less determinate. The commencement of heartbeats or coherent brain activity are talked about, but that becomes a question of when they're detectable, not when they actually start, and it's not clear without pretty invasive testing.

And most importantly;
5> The whole question of "right to life" is fundamentally moot in any case, because right to life never trumps bodily autonomy in any other instance, and I have yet to see any argument that it should in the case of pregnancy. If you want to argue that abortions must not directly harm the fetus in its removal, by all means make that argument, but if you're trying to deny abortion rights, you're attacking womens' bodily autonomy in a way that you'd never apply in any other circumstance and I can't see how you rationally justify it here.

Once you acknowledge #5, the arbitariness mentioned in #4 ceases to be terribly meaningful because it doesn't apply to this circumstance as a criticism, and for pretty much any other it's just fundamentally not relevant. If you can think of a non-abortion-related instance where there's a meaningful discussion to be had there, by all means, bring it up.

I would agree that a fetus doesn't have a "right to life", the same way it doesn't have a "right to free speech", because it's not a legal person. But this doesn't actually inform my stance on abortion rights at all; I can freely concede this point for the sake of the argument, and do regularly in this thread, precisely because it's so fundamentally irrelevant. I could also point to myriad demonstrations where people implicitly admit they agree that a fetus isn't actually a person; the religious types making these arguments so strongly generally don't hold funereal services for miscarriages, especially ones occurring in the first trimester, which they certainly would if they actually believed these were people, right? See also investigating miscarriages as potential homicides, which no one argues for, and so on. It's a tenet I can concede because it doesn't actually affect my position in any way, but it really does just boil down to an emotional argument maliciously used by people who, themselves, don't actually believe that position to be true. They're just hoping to shame their enemies into poor choices that favor their position.

However, people have said, along with myself, that the fetus does not have a right to use someone else to sustain its own life. If the person who is sustaining said life stated that they do not want to do so, the fetus has no right to demand in any way to force said sustaining.

This goes with anything. If someone is having kidney failure, they do not have a right to demand usage of dialysis machines to keep themselves alive. If they need a blood transfusion to live, they do not have a right to demand blood from another person in order to live.

The moment you remove bodily autonomy from someone, you pretty much make them a slave.

If you think bodily autonomy should not trump right to life, you're inherently arguing that your body should be open to forced harvesting of tissue or spare organs, by the government, for the purpose of saving the life of another person. If they need blood for transfusion, and you're a match, you don't get to say "no", you'll be taken by force if you resist. Does anyone actually support this? Of course not!

Because they don't actually believe right to life trumps bodily autonomy. That's never been what the debate's about. It's very specific to forcing pregnancy on those who don't want to continue with it, denying them the freedom to choose for themselves. That's why this is the only case where this comes up, and not any of the other instances where bodily autonomy and right to life conflict.

[tehdang]

I have a question, has anyone ever stated that the fetus does not have a right to life? I haven't heard that by pretty much anyone, even people who want abortion all the way up to the day before birth. However, people have said, along with myself, that the fetus does not have a right to use someone else to sustain its own life. If the person who is sustaining said life stated that they do not want to do so, the fetus has no right to demand in any way to force said sustaining.

This goes with anything. If someone is having kidney failure, they do not have a right to demand usage of dialysis machines to keep themselves alive. If they need a blood transfusion to live, they do not have a right to demand blood from another person in order to live.

The moment you remove bodily autonomy from someone, you pretty much make them a slave.

I think the calculus changes a bit once the developing baby is fully capable of surviving outside the womb; where its bodily autonomy should receive some importance. If you think viability, or the unborn baby's ability to survive outside the womb, changes nothing for you, then I'd really question whether you actually believe the "right to use someone else to sustain its own life" matters. I don't subscribe to some "right to life" that's unchanging throughout pregnancy, though I know others who do. The unborn baby is surely worth more consideration as a separate body than your kidney. Maybe you would consider how a prematurely delivered, post-viability baby suddenly receives more rights than a kidney found outside your body, and you'd find the DNA within more consistent with the identity of a different individual.

But may I remind you that my posting here was referencing an article on to what extent doctors do or ought to offer input on restrictive bills on abortion, as regards some claims that these bills do not contain well-written exceptions to early-term abortion bans. I appreciate some conversational equity on the main body of the post, before launching into a tangent that you allege you haven't heard anybody say. Or maybe, you might quote exactly which sentences of my post you wish to respond to, because some "right to life" does not actually appear there.

[Endus]

I think the calculus changes a bit once the developing baby is fully capable of surviving outside the womb; where its bodily autonomy should receive some importance. If you think viability, or the unborn baby's ability to survive outside the womb, changes nothing for you, then I'd really question whether you actually believe the "right to use someone else to sustain its own life" matters.

This is a question of medical ethics, not abortion rights. If a fetus is viable, the safest means of removing it, if doing so is necessary, is by inducing an early birth.

You're again trying to focus on the rarest of circumstances as if that speaks to the general, not realizing there are already clear answers in place for those circumstances.

The unborn baby is surely worth more consideration as a separate body than your kidney. Maybe you would consider how a prematurely delivered, post-viability baby suddenly receives more rights than a kidney found outside your body, and you'd find the DNA within more consistent with the identity of a different individual.

Different DNA is one thousand percent irrelevant. Some people are chimeric and have more than one type of DNA. Others have identical twins (or triplets, or more) who share their DNA, so neither's DNA concretely identifies them as an individual. This is not an argument anyone who understands science would ever use, because it's so willfully dishonest. It's an intentionally bullshit premise only pushed by extremists.

[Edge-]

This is a question of medical ethics, not abortion rights. If a fetus is viable, the safest means of removing it, if doing so is necessary, is by inducing an early birth.

Honestly, it seems like conservatives think that doctors are all unethical, immoral monsters who simply can't wait to throw a freshly born baby into the baby aborting/crushing machine or something. It's like they've never met a medical professional, much less one specializing in reproductive health care. Which honestly wouldn't be shocking at all.

[DarkTZeratul]

Honestly, it seems like conservatives think that doctors are all unethical, immoral monsters who simply can't wait to throw a freshly born baby into the baby aborting/crushing machine or something. It's like they've never met a medical professional, much less one specializing in reproductive health care. Which honestly wouldn't be shocking at all.

Given how many of these same Conservatives can't seem to fathom how someone can be a good person if they don't have God telling them to be good, it makes me seriously wonder if they're just sociopaths who would happily do heinous things to other people if only they were allowed to, and genuinely think everyone else is as terrible as they are.

[Zython]

And you're still apparently unable to own what you posted. Playing dumb won't help you.

I'm not denying anything, I'm judging your morality.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the calculus changes a bit once the developing baby is fully capable of surviving outside the womb; where its bodily autonomy should receive some importance. If you think viability, or the unborn baby's ability to survive outside the womb, changes nothing for you, then I'd really question whether you actually believe the "right to use someone else to sustain its own life" matters. I don't subscribe to some "right to life" that's unchanging throughout pregnancy, though I know others who do. The unborn baby is surely worth more consideration as a separate body than your kidney. Maybe you would consider how a prematurely delivered, post-viability baby suddenly receives more rights than a kidney found outside your body, and you'd find the DNA within more consistent with the identity of a different individual.

But may I remind you that my posting here was referencing an article on to what extent doctors do or ought to offer input on restrictive bills on abortion, as regards some claims that these bills do not contain well-written exceptions to early-term abortion bans. I appreciate some conversational equity on the main body of the post, before launching into a tangent that you allege you haven't heard anybody say. Or maybe, you might quote exactly which sentences of my post you wish to respond to, because some "right to life" does not actually appear there.

Again, what proof is there that you believe any of this?

[Strange One]

Women have miscarriages all the time, so apparently God is perfectly fine with abortions. He performs them himself.

[Dontrike]

Women have miscarriages all the time, so apparently God is perfectly fine with abortions. He performs them himself.

Of course she's fine with it, the Bible has abortion instructions and says a baby isn't alive until its first breath. Even by their own fan fiction the fetus isn't alive.

[Lenonis]

It's really hard to take arguments seriously from someone who supports a party that tries to claim that dems want to legalize post-birth abortions.

Here's a tip - if you want to get the public on your side on this topic maybe keep the absurdity out of it.

[Gelannerai]

It's really hard to take arguments seriously from someone who supports a party that tries to claim that dems want to legalize post-birth abortions.

Here's a tip - if you want to get the public on your side on this topic maybe keep the absurdity out of it.

Wait, I thought Republicans were in total support of the death penalty. Isn’t that why states like Texas have fast-tracked that shit?

[Lenonis]

Wait, I thought Republicans were in total support of the death penalty. Isn’t that why states like Texas have fast-tracked that shit?

Oh yes - Republicans love killing people - as long as they can't be used as a prop in the abortion argument. They love a good fetus but really loathe when they are born. Then they are fine with the children going hungry and sufferings, judging from their continued efforts to reduce SNAP, free school lunches, welfare and the like.

They are truly a group of awful people these days.

[Rasulis]

Sometimes you just have to laugh.

Texas Sues Yelp for Warnings about Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Drawing Countersuit from Review Platform

Texas sued Yelp on Thursday for allegedly misleading consumers about crisis pregnancy centers, prompting the online review platform to countersue the state for allegedly infringing on its protected speech.

“Yelp specifically targeted pregnancy resource centers nationwide with their false and misleading disclaimer,” the lawsuit filed by Texas states. “Other types of facilities, such as Planned Parenthood and clinics performing abortion services, did not have disclaimers placed on their webpages even if the disclaimer would have been true for that facility.”

Texas attorney general Ken Paxton sued Yelp on Thursday in a district court of Bastrop County, Texas for allegedly engaging in “deceptive trade practices” and misrepresenting crisis pregnancy centers, which offer services to pregnant women but generally do not perform or recommend abortions. The lawsuit argues that Yelp violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices − Consumer Protection Act, Texas Business and Commerce Code.

Days after Politico published a leaked draft opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson in May, 2022, Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman issued a statement endorsing abortion access and affirming Yelp’s commitment to advocating for such procedures.

“We need more business leaders to use their platform and influence to help ensure that reproductive rights are codified into law, and that the wave of abortion bans and restrictive policies across the country are not allowed to stand,” reads Stoppelman’s article, published in May, 2022.

Yelp added what Texas described as a “misleading disclaimer” on the business pages of crisis pregnancy centers in August, 2022.

“This is a Crisis Pregnancy Center. Crisis Pregnancy Centers typically provide limited medical services and may not have licensed medical professionals onsite,” the Yelp notice stated.

Texas alleges that the disclaimer was selectively applied to crisis pregnancy centers, “regardless of the kind of medical services offered and regardless of whether the center actually had licensed medical professionals onsite.” Texas further alleges the notice was not added to other facilities which provide abortions but do not have licensed professionals on site.

Twenty-four attorneys generals sent a letter to Stoppelman on February 7, 2023, arguing that the disclaimer was misleading and overly broad because some crisis pregnancy centers do have licensed medical professionals.

Yelp then updated the notice shown to consumers.

“This is a Crisis Pregnancy Center. Crisis Pregnancy Centers do not offer abortions or referrals to abortion providers,” the new notice stated.

Paxton’s office referred to the new notice as an “accurate description” in a press release.

Attorney General Paxton mailed Yelp a letter dated September 22, 2023 notifying the company of intent to file suit, which states that Texas is authorized to seek “civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation.”

“For nearly six months Yelp singled out pregnancy resource centers for an alleged lack of medical professionals on site, effectively dissuading innumerable consumers who may otherwise have utilized these centers for medical and other services,” the lawsuit filed by Texas states.

Yelp preemptively filed a lawsuit, dated September 27, in a San Francisco federal court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

Yelp argues that, since 2018, it has received reports that crisis pregnancy centers “mislead consumers about their services” and were “diverting consumers seeking medical abortions away from actual medical providers by manipulating search results to promote their non-abortion services.”

Yelp began to categorize businesses as “crisis pregnancy centers,” which include “businesses offering pregnancy-related services, but not abortion services or referrals to abortion providers.” Yelp argues that its original notice was “accurate and not misleading” based on “evidence” of what crisis pregnancy centers “may not” offer and what they “typically” provide.

The lawsuit filed by Yelp cites that Paxton recognized the updated consumer notice as “accurate.”

Yelp alleges that its “truthful statements” are fully protected speech, and that Attorney General Paxton has violated the Constitution by seeking to punish Yelp’s free expression.

“An injunction is necessary to avert an irreparable chill on Yelp’s First Amendment rights, and free Yelp from either forgoing its rights or facing prosecution for excising them,” Yelp’s lawsuit states.

Free speech for me. Not for you.

[Edge-]

Sometimes you just have to laugh.

Texas Sues Yelp for Warnings about Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Drawing Countersuit from Review Platform



Free speech for me. Not for you.

I enjoy that Yelp already updated the language to make these folks happy and it's still not enough, even if it's 100% factual information that's not misrepresented in any way.

Feds really need to speed the fuck up on their case against his ass. But I guess this tracks with Texas counties trying to literally stop people from traveling through them to seek reproductive health care.

[tehdang]

Sometimes you just have to laugh.

Texas Sues Yelp for Warnings about Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Drawing Countersuit from Review Platform



Free speech for me. Not for you.

Twenty-four attorneys generals sent a letter to Stoppelman on February 7, 2023, arguing that the disclaimer was misleading and overly broad because some crisis pregnancy centers do have licensed medical professionals.

Yelp then updated the notice shown to consumers.

“This is a Crisis Pregnancy Center. Crisis Pregnancy Centers do not offer abortions or referrals to abortion providers,” the new notice stated.

It should have stopped with that.

According to a report by the pro-life group the Charlotte Lozier Institute, 68,832 workers serve pregnancy centers, including nearly 3,800 licensed medical staff. The report states that 2,700 pro-life pregnancy centers nationwide provided 1,848,376 people with free services, including over 700,000 pregnancy tests and 486,000 ultrasounds. The centers also provided aid after birth, including more than 2 million baby outfits and nearly 1.3 million packs of diapers

The Charlotte Lozier Institute found that abortions made up 97.2 percent of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy resolution services in 2020-2021, while prenatal services, miscarriage care, and adoption referrals accounted for less than 3 percent of services total.

You missed a couple paragraphs from the article towards the end.

[Rasulis]

In hindsight, 2022 should have been a big year for GOP. Democrats made several major mistakes. By not following the State Constitution during redistricting, New York’s legislature ended up handing 5 districts to the Republicans. In California, fresh from overwhelming defeat of the recall effort, Newsom did not bother to campaign for his re-election. Instead, he used his campaign fund for pro-abortion advertisements in other states. There were 3 to 5 close House elections that could have benefitted from his campaign.

Despite Democrats’ mistakes, they ended up increasing the lead in Senate, and losing only by a narrow margin in the house. The “X” factor was the Supreme Court overturned of “Roe vs. Wade”. From the campaigns, it's crystal clear that the abortion rights movement was ready for ruling and the anti-abortion community was not.

Fast forward a year later, and nothing have changed. The abortion rights organizations have one simple clear message - “freedom from government interference in one's personal reproductive health decisions”. Which surprisingly also resonates with many GOP voters.

On the other hand the pro-life movement is splintered. Some want to leave abortions to the states and some want Federal ban. Then we have those that favored 6-week ban, 15 weeks, and even from the moment an egg is fertilized. Although unpopular, a very vocal faction would like to criminalize women for having performed abortion. Then there is the lunatic Catholic fringe who is against contraceptive in general. When pro-life is not enough anymore, we have a a small but growing group of pro-life Christians who identify as “abortion abolitionists.” They would accept nothing but complete ban on abortions with no exceptions. Even the US Catholic Bishop Conference won’t go that far.

Take a look at Ohio abortion right referendum coming up in 6 weeks. There are at least three anti-abortion parallel campaigns undercutting each other. That also have an impact on campaign funding. The pro-choice movement on the other hand is united behind its simple message.