SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Malkiah]

It seems you may have found the crossroads that I did with this recent conversation, then.

If the exercise is futile, why exactly are we posting in the thread about abortion? Before I come off as aggressive, I honestly am asking myself that same question, because I've "self-fellated" just as much in this thread. Thanks for the word reference, @Malkiah.

at the risk of being lectured further by people who only post here to hear themselves talk, i'll chime in because it's directly related to what i was thinking last night:
the pro-choice movement has IMO completely ceded the soul of the argument to the other side, and as a result spends all of its time quibbling over details instead of the broader issue.

i obviously don't agree that a zygote is equivalent to a toddler, but i understand that to the people who DO think that a zygote is a toddler (whether genuinely or out of malicious intent is irrelevant) that trying to argue it with scientific facts is like trying to argue that black lives don't matter using the Bell Curve as your evidence.
no, it's not academically the same obviously, but it's rhetorically the same to the other side of this debate and that's the thing i think a lot of people just don't grasp.

so i personally wonder how the narrative would be different if the pro-choice side stopped arguing from the pro-life position, and argued from the pro-choice side more strictly.
the "pro-life" (pffft) position is that conception and birth, at all costs and above all other considerations for any other factor, is the only morally correct point of view.
this cannot be argued with by quibbling over when adequate cell division has occurred to classify it as "human" or not, nor countered by pointing out that draconian law attempting to implement this philosophy results in untold suffering on others.
to an extent this premise has even been internalized by much of the pro-choice movement at least in the US, personified by the "safe, legal, and rare" slogan.

i have the opinion that this lack of push-back on their central tenet is why regressives are so emboldened with their stance and gratuitous with their attempts to force it on others.
it could be that more rigorous counter-argument in ways that don't cater to their starting position would be more effective - for example, i personally don't give a shit about the question of when life actually starts and will just say that as soon as a sperm hits an egg it's a fully formed baby if that's what they want to pretend, but that abortion is still correct on the basis that we as a society have deemed whole swaths of people as legitimately killable for a variety of reasons and fetuses are just another in that list.
i guess you could shorten that down to i basically apply the castle doctrine to pregnancy.

maybe the national conversation wouldn't change in the US if more uncompromising rhetorical tactics were used.
and maybe that sort of thing isn't possible because most people can't buy into that idea, perhaps i'm extreme in my views.
but, i can't see it as being less effective than the current way people go about it.

[s_bushido]

I'd say that's pushback. It's not over by a long shot, but I think the winds have changed significantly, and I believe the rhetoric will reflect those changes. Perhaps we're witnessing the throes of the pro-life movement. I'm also aware we could be heading towards a more authoritarian view, in light of their reactions to the voters about abortion rights. Time will tell, but you're right, perhaps now that we have more than politicians bloviating about things, the voters finally get their say, and our conversations will change with them. It's just a question of when.

The """pro-life""" movement isn't going anywhere any time soon. The instant they get the power to institute a federal ban, they will. In the meantime, if they can find a way to ignore the will of the voters on a state level, they'll do that too.

[Endus]

The """pro-life""" movement isn't going anywhere any time soon. The instant they get the power to institute a federal ban, they will. In the meantime, if they can find a way to ignore the will of the voters on a state level, they'll do that too.

Let's be clear; the "pro-life" movement is just one head of the much larger hydra of Christian Nationalism. They're never going away until actions are seriously taken to keep religious extremism out of government. Or at least recognize Christian Nationalists as being the same class of malicious actor as Islamists pushing for a global Caliphate. Twin hydras, really, the differences between the two are entirely superficial.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Donald Trump might have actually stood a chance in 2024, but with how DEEPLY unpopular straight out abortion bans are, Democrats are winning in huge margins for 2021, 2022, and 2023 elections where they normally wouldn't. Republicans moving to ban all abortion has proven to be the biggest flaw in their plans. If they were smart they would have waited until they had a total grip on power and removed all dissent from government in their plans to take total control. But they jumped the gun to outlaw abortion and people are still able to vote them out of office.

[Captain N]

Donald Trump might have actually stood a chance in 2024, but with how DEEPLY unpopular straight out abortion bans are, Democrats are winning in huge margins for 2021, 2022, and 2023 elections where they normally wouldn't. Republicans moving to ban all abortion has proven to be the biggest flaw in their plans. If they were smart they would have waited until they had a total grip on power and removed all dissent from government in their plans to take total control. But they jumped the gun to outlaw abortion and people are still able to vote them out of office.

We just have to hope that the people who actually voted for Reproduction Rights on ballots, like those in Ohio, pay attention to who is trying to ignore the will of the people by bringing up court cases. We know Republicans don't care about what people want, so anyone who is Pro-Woman but continues to vote in folks who are going to ignore ballot initiatives aren't helping anyone.

[Rasulis]

Another example of GOP reasonably abortion policy.

Some Republicans Were Willing to Compromise on Abortion Ban Exceptions. Activists Made Sure They Didn’t.

A review by ProPublica of 12 of the nation’s strictest abortion bans passed before Roe was overturned found that over the course of the 2023 legislative session, only four states made changes. Those changes were limited and steered by religious organizations. None allowed doctors to provide abortions to patients who want to terminate their pregnancies because of health risks.

ProPublica spoke with more than 30 doctors across the country about their experiences trying to provide care for patients in abortion-ban states and also reviewed news articles, medical journal studies and lawsuits. In at least 70 public cases across 12 states, women with pregnancy complications faced severe health risks and were denied abortion care or had treatment delayed due to abortion bans. Some nearly died or lost their fertility as a result. The doctors say the true number is much higher.

Early signs indicated Republicans might compromise, as voters in red states showed strong popular support for protecting abortion access and polls revealed the majority of American voters do not support total abortion bans. That opposition has only hardened since then, as reproductive rights drove a wave of Democratic electoral victories in Kentucky, Virginia and Pennsylvania in November. In Ohio, voters approved an amendment to the state’s constitution guaranteeing the right to an abortion.

But in the most conservative states, Republicans ultimately fell in line with highly organized Christian groups. Those activists fought to keep the most restrictive abortion bans in place by threatening to pull funding and support primary challenges to lawmakers that didn’t stand strong.

Their fervor to protect the laws reflects a bedrock philosophy within the American anti-abortion movement: that all abortion exceptions — even those that protect the pregnant person’s life or health — should be considered the same as sanctioning murder.

Imagine those same people taking control of abortion policy at the Federal level.

[Edge-]

Another example of GOP reasonably abortion policy.

Some Republicans Were Willing to Compromise on Abortion Ban Exceptions. Activists Made Sure They Didn’t.



Imagine those same people taking control of abortion policy at the Federal level.

This is, ultimately, the core issue. That's a small but significant minority of extremists with enough power in the Republican party to shit this topic up and keep it a mess for girls and women for years to come.

And that's precisely why people don't, and shouldn't, trust the Republican party on this issue.

[Rasulis]

More examples of how GOP truly cares for the well being of mothers and babies.

Idaho Banned Abortion. Then It Turned Down Supports for Pregnancies and Births.

Idaho legislators disbanded a state committee that investigated the root causes of maternal deaths, making it the only state in the nation with no such mortality review.

They allowed two bills to die that would have put Idaho on the same track as nearly every other state with abortion restrictions — including Florida, Kentucky and Texas — by extending postpartum Medicaid coverage to 12 months. Idaho’s Medicaid coverage ends two months after birth, the minimum under federal law.

They turned down $36 million in federal grants to support child care this summer, while other states with new abortion restrictions — Alabama, Louisiana and Missouri among them — made investments in early childhood education and day care. Idaho lawmakers at the time attributed the decision to a pending audit of a different batch of grants.

[Edge-]

More examples of how GOP truly cares for the well being of mothers and babies.

Idaho Banned Abortion. Then It Turned Down Supports for Pregnancies and Births.

Seemingly at every opportunity Republicans have to actually enact "pro-life" and "pro-mother" and "pro-baby" policies like this, we see them either fail to act or intentionally act in the opposite direction - as is here.

This is why nobody paying attention will ever believe that the Republican party writ-large isn't packed with extremists on this issue, and why when we hear them promise how these draconian restrictions won't become national or that they really do support states deciding themselves, we don't believe them. Because as we're already seeing in states where the voters did choose - and choose to protect their access to reproductive health care - Republican politicians are seeking to ignore or otherwise void or go around the will of the voters on this topic.

I'll again take this opportunity to note that not a single Republican controlled state that I've seen has taken any time reviewing their legislation on this topic and working on updating it to limit the kind of pointless suffering we're still seeing happen on the regular as girls or women in need of abortion services cannot receive them because the non-viable pregnancy hasn't put their life in jeopardy yet so they just have to wait until they're about to die to get the care they need, greatly increasing the risk to their life and causing pointless physical and emotional suffering. Republicans in those states seem to continue to view the suffering of those girls and womens as the system working correctly, I guess.

[The Stormbringer]

I sincerely hope every woman and girl moves out of Idaho as soon as they're able. This is fucking stupid. The politicians are not even being remotely subtle about how misogynistic they are there.

[Edge-]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...ortion-access/

Lawyers in the Texas attorney general’s office on Tuesday said women should sue their doctors, not the state, over a lack of access to abortion in defending the state’s strict law.

Beth Klusman of the Texas Attorney General’s Office made that point in oral arguments before the state Supreme Court in a case challenging Texas’s abortion ban, which bars doctors from providing abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected — typically around six weeks into pregnancy — with exceptions only for cases in which the life of the mother is at risk.

“If a woman is bleeding, if she has amniotic fluid running down her legs — then the problem is not with the law,” Klusman said. “It is with the doctors.”

Klusman was responding to plaintiffs in the case, who had charged the legislation had plunged the state into a “health care crisis.”

Just a reminder of the kind of casual cruelty and dishonesty of the Republican party on this topic, including in Texas.

The doctors would love to perform the procedure. Their hospital's legal department says otherwise.

Everyone, having correctly identified the draconian, poorly written laws as the source of the problem, is apparently wrong and it's the doctors that could be criminally charged under state law who are the ones who are the problem. Them and their hospital's legal department whose job it is to shield them from unnecessary liability like potentially performing illegal medical procedures.

In court, the state argued that the 22 women suing the state were the wrong plaintiffs going after the wrong target.

First, Klusman argued that the women had no standing to challenge the 2021 law — because it targeted doctors, not pregnant women themselves.

Second, she argued that women with complicated and dangerous pregnancies should have no problem obtaining abortions under the law, and that they should be taking up their grievances with the doctors who had denied them the procedures they now argued were medically necessary rather than the state.

A woman risking death if she doesn’t get an abortion, Klusman argued, would clearly “qualify for a medical emergency exemption. And so if she has to come to court to make that happen, that is not the state’s fault.”

I'll once again remind some on this thread that these issues could easily be resolved via a legislative session seeking to tighten up the language in the bill to address hospital concerns and be able to provide care while complying with the law, with far less ambiguity.

Republicans continue to choose not to.

[The Stormbringer]

I guess Republicans just thought doctors would break the law and suffer the consequences until there were no more doctors left to help women...? And that women would blame doctors for not wanting to go to prison, rather than understand Republicans are the real problem?

Also, imagine having to come to court to quality for a medical emergency exemption. Court, which often takes weeks or months or years. Is Klusman fucking stupid?

[Mekh]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...ortion-access/



Just a reminder of the kind of casual cruelty and dishonesty of the Republican party on this topic, including in Texas.

The doctors would love to perform the procedure. Their hospital's legal department says otherwise.

Everyone, having correctly identified the draconian, poorly written laws as the source of the problem, is apparently wrong and it's the doctors that could be criminally charged under state law who are the ones who are the problem. Them and their hospital's legal department whose job it is to shield them from unnecessary liability like potentially performing illegal medical procedures.



I'll once again remind some on this thread that these issues could easily be resolved via a legislative session seeking to tighten up the language in the bill to address hospital concerns and be able to provide care while complying with the law, with far less ambiguity.

Republicans continue to choose not to.

Casual reminder @tehdang enjoys this.

[Poopymonster]

I guess Republicans just thought doctors would break the law and suffer the consequences until there were no more doctors left to help women...? And that women would blame doctors for not wanting to go to prison, rather than understand Republicans are the real problem?

Also, imagine having to come to court to quality for a medical emergency exemption. Court, which often takes weeks or months or years. Is Klusman fucking stupid?

Working. As. Intended.

[Rasulis]

The University of North Florida polled Florida voters and found 62% support the amendment and 29% are opposed to it, with a 4.37% margin of error.

“If this amendment does make it on the ballot, initiatives like this one need a supermajority of 60% in order to pass, and it looks like the proposed abortion amendment is right at that threshold among these respondents,” said University of North Florida pollster Dr. Michael Binder. “Even among registered Republicans, 53% would vote to protect abortion rights in Florida, with just 39% voting no.”

If they could get it on the ballot, it appears that they have a good chance of getting the required 60% vote to pass the amendment.

[Edge-]

The University of North Florida polled Florida voters and found 62% support the amendment and 29% are opposed to it, with a 4.37% margin of error.

“If this amendment does make it on the ballot, initiatives like this one need a supermajority of 60% in order to pass, and it looks like the proposed abortion amendment is right at that threshold among these respondents,” said University of North Florida pollster Dr. Michael Binder. “Even among registered Republicans, 53% would vote to protect abortion rights in Florida, with just 39% voting no.”

If they could get it on the ballot, it appears that they have a good chance of getting the required 60% vote to pass the amendment.

Given what the Republican legislature in Florida has done the last time that citizens passes ballot measures they really didn't like - like enfranchisement for former felons who have since served their time - I'm fully expecting them to be gaming out how to counter such a vote should those results come to pass.

Because Republicans have, especially on this topic, consistently made it clear that they do not care about "the will of the voters" in the slightest.

[Rasulis]

Given what the Republican legislature in Florida has done the last time that citizens passes ballot measures they really didn't like - like enfranchisement for former felons who have since served their time - I'm fully expecting them to be gaming out how to counter such a vote should those results come to pass.

Because Republicans have, especially on this topic, consistently made it clear that they do not care about "the will of the voters" in the slightest.

I have no doubt that they will try their best to muck it up. All the talks about letting the voters decide are nothing more than a bunch of BS.

[DarkTZeratul]

I have no doubt that they will try their best to muck it up. All the talks about letting the voters decide are nothing more than a bunch of BS.

Let the voters decide! Unless what the voters decide isn't what the Republicans want, in which case the voters elected the Republicans so the Republicans should decide.

[LemonDemonGirl]

Yet another reason for me to be glad that I live in Canada. It's the 21st Century, and women are having to let others tell them what to do with their bodies? I call bulls&@t.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, why is it called Roe v Wade?

[DarkTZeratul]

Also, why is it called Roe v Wade?

Because Roe v. Wade was the original Supreme Court decision that effectively legalized abortion, that has now been overturned.

Court cases are named after the parties involved, and that original decision was a lawsuit brought by Jane Roe against district attorney Henry Wade, on the basis that Texas's law preventing her from having an abortion was unconstitutional.