SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Endus]

No, this is not correct.

Abortion is in lieu of deprivation of resources. If we could remove a baby without killing it, we would, but we can't.

Death by deprivation of resources is not ending a human life. It is failing to assist in the continuation of a human life.
To use the Justin Bieber example, you're not killing Justin Bieber, but if he does not find assistance he will die. Key words: you're not killing Justin Bieber.
The key issue is whether or not you are responsible for continuing Justin Bieber's life. You are not.

Cool. So denying resources to the fetus just lets it die, and neither the doctor hor the pregnant host is responsible. You've debunked your own argument.

If you're having consensual sex, knowing that a child can be the consequence of that sex, you are responsible for the children that come of it & you have an obligation to support them.
This is not really contested either morally or legally; child negligence laws, child support, etc etc.
The only thing we'd have to discuss at this point is whether that obligation begins at conception or at birth or at some other point.

It clearly begins at birth, because there is no child until birth. A fetus is owed no such obligations, and you've made no such argument to establish otherwise.

You're predicating this on a legal standard that states you are wrong on the base facts. No one pays child support for a fetus or faces negligence charges while pregnant. Because there's no child.

The distinction in the circumstance of rape is that the fetus is not, and never was, the responsibility of the woman because they did not voluntarily engage in the action that put it there.

No such "responsibility" exists. It's an attack on women's rights, nothing more. This claim of yours has no basis; you're making it up based on nothing but an apparent desire to harm women for having non-procreative sex.

The difference between the fetus and the 5-year-old is that you've made a conscious decision to not abort & to not give the child up for adoption.

Your 30 year old manchild can get a job and buy his own chicken tendies. You can 'abort' him as much as you like.

Well, now you're literally stating you don't think people fathered by rape are "people" and anyone can just kill them for funsies. Cool beans, but doesn't make you come off as reasonable.

[unfilteredJW]

Just seeing the phrase "conception is the consequence of sex" is such misogynistic bullshit.

[Captain N]

Just seeing the phrase "conception is the consequence of sex" is such misogynistic bullshit.

Those are just words spoken by incels as if it's a woman's problem they can't get laid....so the desire...no need to punish them runs strong.

[PosPosPos]

Those are just words spoken by incels as if it's a woman's problem they can't get laid....so the desire...no need to punish them runs strong.

There are many good reasons why women are more likely to stay single these days, and incels don't seem to understand the more they hate women the more they push them away.

[tehdang]

Abortion is in lieu of deprivation of resources. If we could remove a baby without killing it, we would, but we can't.

The fact of premature delivery and survival really represents a change in "remov[ing] a baby without killing it." That's when the second bodily autonomy, that of the baby, gets a little more force. That's not the mother's body, or some subservient organ like a liver, it's a human baby, and capable of independent survival.

If you're having consensual sex, knowing that a child can be the consequence of that sex, you are responsible for the children that come of it & you have an obligation to support them.
This is not really contested either morally or legally; child negligence laws, child support, etc etc.
The only thing we'd have to discuss at this point is whether that obligation begins at conception or at birth or at some other point.

In an extremely overgeneralized framework, there is implied responsibility. But the cases where it's failed birth control (let's pretend 7% or 10%) or a drunken encounter, I say the moral balance is a state or private org taking on the responsibility on the person's behalf after birth. Then the compassionate case on bad decision making makes possible a transfer of responsibility for the sake of the child, who in no way bears a moral burden for the poor choices of the conceiving parents. These are born out in safe surrender locations and welfare programs for parents of young children.

[Endus]

The fact of premature delivery and survival really represents a change in "remov[ing] a baby without killing it." That's when the second bodily autonomy, that of the baby, gets a little more force. That's not the mother's body, or some subservient organ like a liver, it's a human baby, and capable of independent survival.

And this argument is intellectually masturbatory. Viable fetuses that can be born healthy will be born healthy, rather than aborted, if the pregnancy needs to be ended. That's how medical ethics work, it's already the standard. Why is it pro-lifers constantly insist that doctors are without ethics and must have strict laws to control their actions, but only for abortion?

In an extremely overgeneralized framework, there is implied responsibility.

No, the entire concept of "responsibility" to unborn children derives directly from a religious view of women as reproductive tools for men. That their purpose is to be a walking womb and thus their only "responsibility" is to bear those children hale and hearty.

It's misogyny through and through. If there's a "responsibility" to having sex and getting pregnant, that "responsibility" is entirely satisfied by getting an abortion to end that pregnancy.

But the cases where it's failed birth control (let's pretend 7% or 10%) or a drunken encounter, I say the moral balance is a state or private org taking on the responsibility on the person's behalf after birth. Then the compassionate case on bad decision making makes possible a transfer of responsibility for the sake of the child, who in no way bears a moral burden for the poor choices of the conceiving parents. These are born out in safe surrender locations and welfare programs for parents of young children.

You're having to tie yourself into weird rationalizations and pretzel logic because your core premises don't hold up and you won't just discard them to try and develop a rational moral viewpoint.

[Adamas102]

That's not the mother's body, or some subservient organ like a liver, it's a human baby, and capable of independent survival.

If what you mean by “independent survival” (a term that no one who has spent any time around infants would use to describe a baby) you mean simply being able to survive extraction from the uterus without assistance then there’s already pretty much no crossover with abortion outside of severe medical issues being present.

If “independent survival” is your measure for when the fetus’ life should be taken into consideration (while still leaving room for medical emergencies) then you really shouldn’t have any issues with abortion.

[Sunseeker]

If what you mean by “independent survival” (a term that no one who has spent any time around infants would use to describe a baby) you mean simply being able to survive extraction from the uterus without assistance then there’s already pretty much no crossover with abortion outside of severe medical issues being present.

If “independent survival” is your measure for when the fetus’ life should be taken into consideration (while still leaving room for medical emergencies) then you really shouldn’t have any issues with abortion.

And quite honestly, if we were going by an actual "when the child can survive on its own" measure, "children" wouldn't be "people" until about 5-7. A toddler sure as hell can't survive on its own. A very intelligent 4-year old, maybe. And it's not like this hasn't been a measure used historically either. There's a reason there are a number of "naming ceremonies" and "coming of age" events in societies around the world somewhere between 5 and 13. Since historically infant mortality rates fairly high, and you could (almost)always have another.

Talk about late term abortion.

But really that is to say all the Conservative "metrics" about survival are just silly. Look if you want to argue "it's a person at conception" you've got some laws that are gonna be funky to apply to it, but at least it's a fairly straight-forward hard line. "It's a person, no exceptions; rape/incest/etc.. is shitty, but still a person." At least it's internally consistent. All this talk about fetal heartbeats, brain activity, "survivability" are just silly. Either it's a person, no exceptions; or it's "something else" and now we're just haggling over price.

[Edge-]

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...w/71502425007/

Right to Life, three Republican lawmakers and others filed a lawsuit Wednesday asking the federal courts to intervene and overturn a state constitutional amendment that protects abortion rights in Michigan that won wide support from voters one year ago.

The filing in Michigan’s Western District court Wednesday came a day after Ohio voters passed a similar “reproductive freedom” ballot initiative enshrining abortion rights in its state constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court in June 2022 ruled abortion laws must be left up to the states, overturning a half-century of federal abortion protections and spurring Michigan voters to approve Proposal 3 in the November 2022 general election, adding the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy to Michigan's constitution.

Wednesday's lawsuit argues the language approved by voters for inclusion in Michigan’s constitution creates a “super right” to reproductive freedom that conflicts with the First and Fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution and with constitutional guarantees to a “Republican form of government.”

The lawsuit asks for a permanent injunction stopping enforcement of Proposal 3, which is now written into state constitution as the "right to reproductive freedom."

“At no time in our nation’s history has such a super-right, immune from all legislative action, ever been created by a popular vote outside of the checks and balances of a republican form of government,” the filing said.

This seems like such an incredibly poor, and dishonest argument.

Seems like Republicans are just incredibly upset that their political position on this topic is wildly unpopular, which is especially highlighted with Ohio's vote yesterday.

Asked about the new lawsuit Wednesday morning, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, D-Royal Oak, jokingly responded, "good luck."

“You can’t just keep challenging things when you don’t get the response you want," McMorrow added.

This seems to generally be the current conservative legal philosophy: If you challenge things you don't like enough, regardless of if you have any basis for the challenge, you might get what you want eventually.

[Paranoid Android]

I'm telling you I love Republicans. They don't give a Bleep. Some issue voted on democratically or unpopular. Eff it! Let's try to overturn it and force our will on the people. Their evil is unbound.

[Edge-]

I'm telling you I love Republicans. They don't give a Bleep. Some issue voted on democratically or unpopular. Eff it! Let's try to overturn it and force our will on the people. Their evil is unbound.

This is what happens when your party is a tyranny of the minority. Republicans are too beholden to their religious base, meaning they have to focus on the biggest single issue those single-issue voters animate on, even if that issue is majority unpopular and even broadly unpopular with their voters outside of that loud, violent minority.

[masterhorus8]

I'd love to hear someone that actually believes in what that filling is claiming to argue how the freedom to do something is conflicting with the first amendment.

[Edge-]

I'd love to hear someone that actually believes in what that filling is claiming to argue how the freedom to do something is conflicting with the first amendment.

I believe the arguments would be -

"It treads upon our First Amendment right to exert religious control over peoples bodies."

and

"We're arguing for fetal personhood on this one narrow issue so the Fourteenth is applicable, but please don't ask us any questions outside of the strict confines of this narrow application of this interpretation as that would be terribly difficult and complicated to get into because we just haven't thought about it at all."

[masterhorus8]

I believe the arguments would be -

"It treads upon our First Amendment right to exert religious control over peoples bodies."

It'd be exactly like arguing that the first amendment is in the way of their first amendment rights. XD

I'd love to see someone try that...

[DarkTZeratul]

"You can't have a 'super right' that precludes any and all attempts to legislate it!"
"What about the Second Amendment?"
"That's different! We like that one."

[Edge-]

It'd be exactly like arguing that the first amendment is in the way of their first amendment rights. XD

I'd love to see someone try that...

Maybe the lady that testified to a House Committee that Washington D.C. is powered by burning aborted fetuses is available to make that case. Though I don't believe she's has legal training or a license to practice law, so they'd have to speed her through law school real quick and then make sure she passed the appropriate Bar exam etc.

- - - Updated - - -

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1722270703096148078

Fox News, lamenting that people "don't care as much" about issues like inner city crime or border security but that they really do care about abortion rights and access to reproductive health care.

Steve Doocey, occasionally a smart cookie, correctly notes that every time the issue of abortion access and rights to bodily autonomy have been on the ballot that Democrats have won. And correctly noting that Republicans are continuing to try to put the issue on the ballots for 2024, and are likely to face similar losses.

I'm again reminded of the analogy of the dog finally catching the car they were chasing and not knowing what to do next. Let's look back a short year ago on this - https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...g-roe-00042387

Republicans finally got the Roe v. Wade decision they wanted, and in public, they are delighted.

More quietly, however, according to interviews with more than a dozen Republican strategists and party officials, they just didn’t want it to come right now — not during a midterm election campaign in which nearly everything had been going right for the GOP.

“This is not a conversation we want to have,” said John Thomas, a Republican strategist who works on House campaigns across the country. “We want to have a conversation about the economy. We want to have a conversation about Joe Biden, about pretty much anything else besides Roe … This is a losing issue for Republicans.”

Yet since then, Republicans have consistently pushed to make it an issue for voters. And when they've been worried that they might lose, they've tried to ratfuck that process.

But it’s a victory that will almost certainly come at a cost. In Republican circles, a consensus has been forming for weeks that the court’s overturning of a significant — and highly popular — precedent on a deeply felt issue will be a liability for the party in the midterms and beyond, undercutting Republicans to at least some degree with moderates and suburban women.

Yep, that's sure born out so far.

“The only thing [Democrats] have got going for them is the Roe thing, which is what, 40 years of settled law that will be changed that will cause some societal consternation,” said the former congressman, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “And can they turn that into some turnout? I think the answer is probably ‘Yes.’”

“Maybe instead of losing 45 seats, they lose 30,” he said, while at a minimum, “there will be a few seats that Republicans would have won without [the abortion rights decision], and they may not win them now.”

Ooph, this was wrong back then and it's even more hilariously wrong now. It's not surprising how wildly out of touch Republicans are from the general electorate on this topic.

“You go to any diner in America, and nobody’s talking about this,” said Dave Carney, a national Republican strategist based in New Hampshire. “That’s not what’s driving the conversation. Real people, working people, people who vote, are talking about the incompetence of the president, and then they go down the list of six or seven things,” including the rising price of goods and the recent baby formula shortage.

I actually forgot about the baby formula shortage! But not this topic which is still in the news.

Every poll and political strategist of both parties would suggest that any other issue this year is riper for Republicans to exploit and that, politically, there is little upside for the GOP in the shifting focus to Roe.

Still, Heckman said, “We can’t choose when the Supreme Court acts, and certainly the left will come roaring out of the starting gate, as they’ve indicated they will. So, we just have to engage and present the other side.”

He added, “I think it’s a case we can win.”

So far, it is a case that they have consistently lost as their arguments have been consistently poor and their tactics consistently dishonest.

- - - Updated - - -

https://twitter.com/AndrewJTobias/st...80390066684332

Ohio House Speaker Jason Stephens: “I remain steadfastly committed to protecting life, and that commitment is unwavering. The legislature has multiple paths that we will explore to continue to protect innocent life. This is not the end of the conversation.

The voters have spoken but I don't like what they said so I'm just gonna ignore it and do the exact opposite of what a literal majority of voters in the state clearly want. - Republicans, consistently.

[Rasulis]

Biggest takeaway from Virginia elections is that voters don't trust GOP politicians when it comes to abortion.

Unlike 2022, voters in 2024 clearly made the connection that voting for GOP candidates = abortion bans.

Youngkin 15 weeks ban + exceptions may sound reasonable on paper. However, voters simply don't trust GOP politicians not to turn that one inch that they were given into a mile.

[Edge-]

It looks like a majority of Americans don’t like the rape and incest thing

Fox & Friends continues to grapple with the losses last night and the continued clear message that voters do not want Republicans legislating reproductive health care access. They sometimes just have such a way with words, credit to Lawrence Jones for this one.

Fuller context -

“You gotta talk directly to the people; you gotta give and take on some issues," proposed co-host Lawrence Jones during a discussion about polling differences between abortion and other hot-button issues. “It looks like a majority of Americans don’t like the rape and incest thing,” he added. “Donald Trump got a lot of pushback from the Republican base that he wasn’t strong enough even though he helped overturn Roe v. Wade with his appointment of judges. But it looks like he’s in the majority when it comes to American voters, and he’s not getting a ding when it comes to the national polling.

[Rasulis]

House Republican leadership is hoping to pass the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill this week.

Is there a problem? Yep. Some bright GOP politicians included a provision to restrict federal funding from being used to enforce City of Washington D.C.'s Reproductive Health Nondiscrimination Act, a 2014 law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees who seek an abortion or contraception.

What do some Republicans reps think about the provision? "We're just sick of every appropriations bill being a vehicle for some off the wall abortion policy," Rep. John Duarte (R-Calif.)

[Edge-]

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/...ld-be-ignored/

In the wake of the election, Prichard posted a tweet urging the government in Ohio to simply “ignore the results of the election” because “direct democracy should not exist.”

Just another example of elected Republican officials engaging in antidemocratic, authoritarian rhetoric and demanding that America suffer under a tyranny of the actual minority - them.