SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Rasulis]

It just might, unfortunately. Court cases at all levels rely on something called "Standing", the legal term for having a stake in the outcome. The courts have consistently ruled that someone needs Standing in order to bring suit (there are, of course, exceptions). The reason behind Standing is to prevent people from "testing" legal rules willy nilly. So it doesn't clog the court, create bad law, create unnecessary law, etc.

Because the woman in question is leaving to get an abortion in another state, the GOP could successfully argue that they have no standing in the case any more, and therefore it becomes unnecessary to rule. It would be unfortunate if the Court decided to deny cert based on standing, as it would be a drum that the GOP could beat on continually, using delays to force the interested parties to seek abortions out of state in a timely medical need.

We shall see how the court handles it. Don't get your hopes up. This court has not been favorable to women's rights, one Justice was literally a Handmaid, and another doesn't believe women have a right to tampons.

I am sure they are aware of the implication of Mrs. Cox having abortion performed in another state had on their case. Even if she had stayed, the chance of them getting a favorable ruling is pretty slim. As you said, the Texas court is pretty lopsided. I think they are trying to make political statement with this case. The whole fiasco made the pro-life movement looks pretty bad. There is no possible outcome where Mrs. Cox will be able to go home with a healthy baby. Yet, the state is forcing her to go through with her pregnancy. The optic is so bad that pretty much every GOP politicians pretend as if they have never heard of this case.

[cubby]

I am sure they are aware of the implication of Mrs. Cox having abortion performed in another state had on their case. Even if she had stayed, the chance of them getting a favorable ruling is pretty slim. As you said, the Texas court is pretty lopsided. I think they are trying to make political statement with this case. The whole fiasco made the pro-life movement looks pretty bad. There is no possible outcome where Mrs. Cox will be able to go home with a healthy baby. Yet, the state is forcing her to go through with her pregnancy. The optic is so bad that pretty much every GOP politicians pretend as if they have never heard of this case.

And that's what the GOP will do, pretend the case never happened and never comment on it. The GOP's war on women's rights will continue until the party implodes (and it might not implode). We are already seeing "first amendment" cases come forth that challenge the rights of anyone else, on any other basis. And the GOP's war on women is partially a religious war, making it a first amendment issue.

[Xyonai]

And that's what the GOP will do, pretend the case never happened and never comment on it. The GOP's war on women's rights will continue until the party implodes (and it might not implode). We are already seeing "first amendment" cases come forth that challenge the rights of anyone else, on any other basis. And the GOP's war on women is partially a religious war, making it a first amendment issue.

Just like the case with that 11 year old girl. The major players of the party will pretend it never happened, and the local level troglodytes will probably do everything in their power to try and punish everyone else who helped her.

Like I can't imagine Ken Paxton gives a shit about bad optics, the man's morally bankrupt to a degree I can't even come up with a funny metaphor for. And I love coming up with funny metaphors!

[Edge-]

Like I can't imagine Ken Paxton gives a shit about bad optics, the man's morally bankrupt to a degree I can't even come up with a funny metaphor for. And I love coming up with funny metaphors!

Dude's been under federal indictment for like a decade and just survived an impeachment attempt by House Republicans. He has no fucks left to give and he wants fights now.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/11/u...;smid=re-share

BTW court said nah. This should be a gift link, I believe. Either way, this line jumps out at me -

“These laws reflect the policy choice that the Legislature has made, and the courts must respect that choice,” the court wrote.

In no small part because we've been repeating it here every time someone comes in to argue that Republicans in these states actually do care about the pregnant girls and women in their state.

[Xyonai]

In no small part because we've been repeating it here every time someone comes in to argue that Republicans in these states actually do care about the pregnant girls and women in their state.

Also fondly remembering the number of cyclical conversations we've had in this thread with 'reasonable' Pro-life folks who assured us with all their heart that the laws that Republicans would make wouldn't be so nakedly cruel as they ended up becoming, as clearly the 'exemptions' put into them were enough to stop things like this from happening.

Turns out they were wrong, because the GOP is nothing if not both cruel -and- violently stubborn when it comes to their pet identity politics. If only we had thirty years of history we could look back on to divine this knowledge from, maybe then we'd not be blindsided by Republicans acting like Republicans.

[Gestopft]

Maybe the resident right-wingers like @tehdang can keep this Texas case in mind when the left doesn't support late term restrictions. It's not because we want viable fetuses to be destroyed (nobody does); it's because leaving what is or isn't 'an exception' up to political rather than medical institutions is an utter shitshow.

[Rasulis]

Like I can't imagine Ken Paxton gives a shit about bad optics, the man's morally bankrupt to a degree I can't even come up with a funny metaphor for. And I love coming up with funny metaphors!

He doesn't. Apparently, Texas Supreme Court justices don't give a shit either. However, millions of women who will be voting in 2024 do.

Democrats don't need to come up with abortion scare tactics. The GOP is doing fine on its own.

Also, there is another case heading to the State Supreme Court. Twenty women sued the state arguing that the medical exceptions in the state's abortion bans are too narrow to protect patients with complicated pregnancies. One had sepsis and almost died. Her uterus was scarred and one of her fallopian tubes is now permanently closed. It is now near impossible for her to have another baby.

One of the state's defenses was that the State of Texas never told the women not to have an abortion because they never asked for exemption. The hospitals were the ones that refused to perform the abortion. Now we know what the State of Texas would have told every single one of those women if they had asked for exemption. Big fat "NO."

[Xyonai]

One of the state's defenses was that the State of Texas never told the women not to have an abortion because they never asked for exemption. The hospitals were the ones that refused to perform the abortion. Now we know what the State of Texas would have told every single one of those women if they had asked for exemption. Big fat "NO."

In a just world where rules matter, this would shoot the GOP's entire case down and have the courts rule against them. But lord knows what dumb-ass make-believe nonsense the cons on the bench will come up with to justify it.

Hypocrisy is a feature with fascists; the rules only exist to either keep them in power or keep the people they don't like down.

[tehdang]

Maybe the resident right-wingers like @tehdang can keep this Texas case in mind when the left doesn't support late term restrictions. It's not because we want viable fetuses to be destroyed (nobody does); it's because leaving what is or isn't 'an exception' up to political rather than medical institutions is an utter shitshow.

I brought up why medical institutions should work with legislators in crafting better legislation on that score, with a backing article, and I got an almost inexplicable rationale why it's gross that they should not do that. Never got that contradiction resolved.

I read that the law's exception is only "life-threatening physical condition" or "a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function," and her doctor never confirmed to the court that either of these were the case. So, in your case, you want better and more broad exceptions, but this somehow translates to declaring that all laws look like Texas laws; all exceptions look like Texas exceptions.

Dr. Karsan asserted that she has a “good faith belief” that Ms. Cox meets the exception’s requirements. Certainly, a doctor cannot exercise “reasonable medical judgment” if she does not hold her judgment in good faith. But the statute requires that judgment be a “reasonable medical” judgment, and Dr. Karsan has not asserted that her good faith belief” about Ms. Cox’s condition meets that standard.

Doctor both said she believed she met the exception, but failed to state that she used her own reasonable medical judgment that she met the exception. The "medical institutions" failed to even pursue an exception in their expertise, prior to anything political being involved. Just so we're operating from a shared understanding of the facts.

[PosPosPos]

I brought up why medical institutions should work with legislators in crafting better legislation on that score, with a backing article, and I got an almost inexplicable rationale why it's gross that they should not do that. Never got that contradiction resolved.

A forced-birther quoting an "article" by another forced-birther on doctors refusing to compromise with forced birthism, I wonder why nobody is entertaining your bad faith bullshit.

I read that the law's exception is only "life-threatening physical condition" or "a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function," and her doctor never confirmed to the court that either of these were the case.

Doctor both said she believed she met the exception, but failed to state that she used her own reasonable medical judgment that she met the exception. The "medical institutions" failed to even pursue an exception in their expertise, prior to anything political being involved. Just so we're operating from a shared understanding of the facts.

"Her doctor never testified to the court that her patient's life was in danger, except well she did but because I am a bad faith forced-birther I refuse to acknowledge and selectively ignore what was actually presented to the court. Too bad, maybe next time she will cross her heart and hope to die."

If you and other evil conservatives are actively seeking imaginary loopholes in doctors' expert testimony, you shouldn't be surprised none of them wants to give any of your ilk the time of the day.

[Paranoid Android]

Feel bad for the woman who had to go through with this. Sorry I'm going to keep it political and the Dems better use this and mention this until elections. The fact that her unborn child was going to die within hours after birth and she even stated that the doctors told her the child would immediately have to go on life support, hospice. I don't know how that is pro-life. I personally keep my argument to right of the individual person and go no further. Yet here, conservatives really showing their cards they just wanted the woman to give birth.

[Dontrike]

I brought up why medical institutions should work with legislators in crafting better legislation on that score, with a backing article, and I got an almost inexplicable rationale why it's gross that they should not do that. Never got that contradiction resolved.

It's cute you think the fascist party wants to work with doctors to help people.

[The Stormbringer]

I brought up why medical institutions should work with legislators in crafting better legislation on that score, with a backing article, and I got an almost inexplicable rationale why it's gross that they should not do that. Never got that contradiction resolved.

I'm pretty sure several of us pointed out the reason why this wouldn't work is that lawmakers would just take what the doctors say and use that to make more restrictive, punishing exemptions that will inevitably result in problems due to cases where they don't fit those exact definitions, but still need an abortion to save lives.

[Mekh]

I brought up why medical institutions should work with legislators in crafting better legislation on that score, with a backing article, and I got an almost inexplicable rationale why it's gross that they should not do that. Never got that contradiction resolved.

Why the absolute fuck should experts negotiate with non-experts about decisions in their field of expertise?

[tehdang]

I'm pretty sure several of us pointed out the reason why this wouldn't work is that lawmakers would just take what the doctors say and use that to make more restrictive, punishing exemptions that will inevitably result in problems due to cases where they don't fit those exact definitions, but still need an abortion to save lives.

I'm not going argue against positions like "We aren't going to do this, because you guys are just too bad faith to engage on the same level" or "I'm fearful that any restrictions will be Texas restrictions." Be as fearful or apprehensive about dishonesty as you wish.

Just don't come to me saying both "The laws are wrong because the exceptions are bad/written by politicians not doctors" and "Doctors shouldn't get involved in consulting on the legislative process, making the exceptions meaningful to the purposes they are written." The same goes for "The legal and political intrusions on the doctors are the problem, we also value post-viability unborn babies" and "Pro-life legislation is so odious that doctors and pro-choice lawyers shouldn't help make them written to prioritize the sincere reasonable medical judgment of the doctor." I'd say that abandons practical considerations of laws that will be passed over your opposition, and women you think are impacted by such laws. If its cooties to make them better (you're mitigating harms by laws you oppose), then I doubt your sincere concern for the the impacts you decry. And maybe you are politically helped by poorly written laws: they get repealed faster, and you might get constitutional amendments in the backlash instead of mere repeal. Accusations of bad faith are a two-way street. Maybe the hard-nosed political calculation is desiring more pain and sacrifice now to achieve a better and faster results in the near future. I'm just speculating on this part, given the contradictions I see.

[PosPosPos]

I'm pretty sure several of us pointed out the reason why this wouldn't work is that lawmakers would just take what the doctors say and use that to make more restrictive, punishing exemptions that will inevitably result in problems due to cases where they don't fit those exact definitions, but still need an abortion to save lives.

Or they just pretend doctors didn't actually say anything if it doesn't line up with their misogynist narrative, as proven by the conservative lawmakers and judges as well as run-of-the-mill conservatives like Tehdang in the Kate Cox fiasco, where her ob-gyn clearly testified that her patient's life was in grave danger as her medical professional opinion and the unborn fetus wasn't going to live more than few hours after birth due to a major congenital defect.

There's just no point in discussion with conservatives, because their end goal is to destroy, disrupt and then control whatever is left in the aftermath.

[Endus]

I brought up why medical institutions should work with legislators in crafting better legislation on that score, with a backing article, and I got an almost inexplicable rationale why it's gross that they should not do that. Never got that contradiction resolved.

No, if you want to justify legislation denying women their basic human rights, it's on you to positively identify the need for said legislation. There has never been a single argument presented on this, in any arena of discussion I have ever been exposed to, that was not religious fascism at its core, or just wildly irrational and without any basis in reason whatsoever.

Literally not one justification that makes any sense to a secular thinker.

The legal system should not be overruling medical ethics when it comes to medical decisions.

[PosPosPos]

I'm not going argue against positions like "We aren't going to do this, because you guys are just too bad faith to engage on the same level" or "I'm fearful that any restrictions will be Texas restrictions." Be as fearful or apprehensive about dishonesty as you wish.

Yeah, except that dishonesty quite literally occurred in the Kate Cox case. The literal evidence that proves the point none of you conservatives are acting in any good faith.

[Endus]

Just don't come to me saying both "The laws are wrong because the exceptions are bad/written by politicians not doctors" and "Doctors shouldn't get involved in consulting on the legislative process, making the exceptions meaningful to the purposes they are written." The same goes for "The legal and political intrusions on the doctors are the problem, we also value post-viability unborn babies" and "Pro-life legislation is so odious that doctors and pro-choice lawyers shouldn't help make them written to prioritize the sincere reasonable medical judgment of the doctor." I'd say that abandons practical considerations of laws that will be passed over your opposition, and women you think are impacted by such laws. If its cooties to make them better (you're mitigating harms by laws you oppose), then I doubt your sincere concern for the the impacts you decry. And maybe you are politically helped by poorly written laws: they get repealed faster, and you might get constitutional amendments in the backlash instead of mere repeal. Accusations of bad faith are a two-way street. Maybe the hard-nosed political calculation is desiring more pain and sacrifice now to achieve a better and faster results in the near future. I'm just speculating on this part, given the contradictions I see.

Pro-life legislation is so inherently abusive and unjust that working with those who seek to implement it is untenable. It's like expecting black advocacy groups to work with pro-slavery groups when crafting the "blacks are all now slaves" legislation. No, they should be actively resisting your intentionally abusive legislation with everything they have. There is no merit to it.

Pro-life ideology is determinably evil. It exists to inflict suffering upon women as its primary purpose. No decent person should support such abusive legislation. Like anti-civil-rights legislation; supporting it pretty much by definition means you're a bad person.

[Endus]

You'd do yourself a bit of good if you just take the L on this instance. The law is clearly not working, and this Texas woman suffered needlessly and had to go to a judge to ask for an exemption.

Arguing that it's somehow the medical profession's fault in this instance is cruel, tehdang. It's not theoretical anymore.

The cruelty is intentional. That's the pro-life goal; to increase the cruelty inflicted upon "bad" women. In this particular case, "bad" meaning "unchaste women who are not properly submissive to the demands of Christian churches".