SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Rasulis]

Mrs. Cox’s case was interesting. The legal team expected that their request for TRO won’t be granted by the state. However, the case provided clarity for the other ongoing case where 20 women + 2 OB/Gyn are suing the state of Texas.

The State’s defense was that only pregnant women with pregnancy related health emergencies have standing to sue. Since none of the women are currently under such condition, they have no standing. Pretty cynical defense in my opinion.

The three questions the states asked all the women.

Did you request an exemption? Obviously, no. The state never set a procedure to do so. Mrs. Cox had to go to court. Some of the women were in the middle of active miscarriage when the decision to do an abortion had to be made. Do we expect them to retain attorneys and file a lawsuit with blood between their legs?

Did the state of Texas told you not to have an abortion? No.

Did Ken Paxton told you not to have an abortion? No.

Mrs. Cox basically took the state's dare and sued for an exemption. Now we know how the state of Texas reacted to such request. There is no more hiding behind the “medical exemption” pretext. It is now out in the open for all to see.

[Xyonai]

Mrs. Cox basically took the state's dare and sued for an exemption. Now we know how the state of Texas reacted to such request. There is no more hiding behind the “medical exemption” pretext. It is now out in the open for all to see.

it was obvious the 'Medical Exemptions' rules were all bunk from the get go, between the GOP's history of being dishonest pricks and the vague/unclear wording of a lot of these exemptions. Honestly if there was a single, politically sound bone in any of these fuckers' bodies they would've let -this- case slide, but shitheads like Paxton absolutely cannot help themselves and showed the rest of the country how little of a shit they give about anything beyond their ideological purity and/or virtue signalling.

So now the rest of the Texas GOP has to cover their eyes and ears and pretend this whole debacle doesn't exist, less they're forced to choose between inciting the lunatic base they've cultivated, or further alienating the moderates they need to win future elections.

[Rasulis]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/ted-...texas-abortion

Ted Cruz has no actual response when asked about his state's AG's behavior and the current situation with Cate Cox.

He simply refers to the press office because he probably knows he doesn't have any comments on the topic that won't piss off a large group of people he relies on.

That VF article is pretty funny. Mike Sington, NBC Senior Executive called Ted Cruz chicken shit. VF also called John Cornyn, indirectly, a certified weasel and a coward.

- - - Updated - - -

A Shocking Number of Republicans Are Signing Florida’s Abortion Petition
Republican voters are helping Florida put abortion on the ballot next year.

The petition proposes ensuring abortion access until the point of viability—roughly 24 weeks into pregnancy. That’s four and a half months longer than the state’s impending six-week abortion ban. So far, the petition has garnered 753,305 valid signatures, according to the Florida Division of Elections website, up from 687,000 last week. And more than 150,000 of those signatures come from Republicans.

The only thing that will stop the amendment from getting on the ballot is the State's Supreme Court.

[Captain N]

The only thing that will stop the amendment from getting on the ballot is the State's Supreme Court.

Will this be the same Supreme Court that will side with Republican politicians when the ballot passes, and claims that the voters didn't know exactly what they were voting for and like Ohio ignores the will of the people?

[Rasulis]

Will this be the same Supreme Court that will side with Republican politicians when the ballot passes, and claims that the voters didn't know exactly what they were voting for and like Ohio ignores the will of the people?

I am aware of that. We'll just have to see.

Meanwhile, it is not only Texas. Eighteen women from 10 states tell their stories.

Meet 18 women who shared heartbreaking pregnancy journeys in post-Roe world

None of these women took their decision to have an abortion lightly. Some spent years and tens of thousands trying to conceive.

[tehdang]

A Shocking Number of Republicans Are Signing Florida’s Abortion Petition
Republican voters are helping Florida put abortion on the ballot next year.



The only thing that will stop the amendment from getting on the ballot is the State's Supreme Court.

There's the compromise. A bipartisan group of voters comes together to push legal abortion into later weeks, while still blocking it from the very late-term. (And language might need to change to still accomplish the latter part, or the amendment might be defeated for the same. Just talking about the principle here)

I am aware of that. We'll just have to see.

Meanwhile, it is not only Texas. Eighteen women from 10 states tell their stories.

Meet 18 women who shared heartbreaking pregnancy journeys in post-Roe world

None of these women took their decision to have an abortion lightly. Some spent years and tens of thousands trying to conceive.

This sort of activism should encourage legislators and popular ballot initiatives to strengthen and clarify existing laws with exceptions for the life of the mother/impairment of major bodily function. If the state doesn't have laws regarding non-viable unborn babies, these stories should also spur legislation and ballot initiatives to have those exceptions. And the pro-life movement as a whole needs to recognize these needs and push to strengthen and clarify the exemptions.

[Edge-]

There's the compromise. A bipartisan group of voters comes together to push legal abortion into later weeks, while still blocking it from the very late-term. (And language might need to change to still accomplish the latter part, or the amendment might be defeated for the same. Just talking about the principle here)

It might be, if state Republicans don't have a recent history, including in Florida specifically, of finding ways to undermine the will of the voters on popular ballot measures.

I'll point to Ohio currently, and Florida previously on the topic of the re-enfranchisement of felons who have served their time. The Legislature in both instances things/thought they knew better than the voters themselves.

Hence why nobody currently believes Republican politicians on the topic.

This sort of activism should encourage legislators and popular ballot initiatives to strengthen and clarify existing laws with exceptions for the life of the mother/impairment of major bodily function. If the state doesn't have laws regarding non-viable unborn babies, these stories should also spur legislation and ballot initiatives to have those exceptions. And the pro-life movement as a whole needs to recognize these needs and push to strengthen and clarify the exemptions.

It should, yet as we've been pointing out since Roe was overturned, no Republican states have made any apparent effort to do so.

Instead, despite growing numbers of horror stories of the abject cruelty and suffering these women, many of whom are "pro-life" and very much wanted to have children and now may never again, stateside Republicans remain unmoved.

Which is what we continue to point out, and you seemingly refuse to acknowledge that this cruelty is a voluntary choice on the part of those Republicans. Nothing is stopping a single one of those states from calling a special session to address this imminent problem in accordance with their ideological beliefs.

[tehdang]

It might be, if state Republicans don't have a recent history, including in Florida specifically, of finding ways to undermine the will of the voters on popular ballot measures.

I'll point to Ohio currently, and Florida previously on the topic of the re-enfranchisement of felons who have served their time. The Legislature in both instances things/thought they knew better than the voters themselves.

Hence why nobody currently believes Republican politicians on the topic.

We'll see. The topic of political representatives serving a term in a republic compared to a more direct democracy and plebiscite is interesting but a little off-topic.

It should, yet as we've been pointing out since Roe was overturned, no Republican states have made any apparent effort to do so.

Instead, despite growing numbers of horror stories of the abject cruelty and suffering these women, many of whom are "pro-life" and very much wanted to have children and now may never again, stateside Republicans remain unmoved.

Which is what we continue to point out, and you seemingly refuse to acknowledge that this cruelty is a voluntary choice on the part of those Republicans. Nothing is stopping a single one of those states from calling a special session to address this imminent problem in accordance with their ideological beliefs.

The formulation of "cruelty is a voluntary choice" promises more than it can deliver, honestly. I think the real test is whether exceptions were deliberately made worse than they could otherwise have been because evil people wanted more suffering from pregnant women in general. In opposition, carefully crafting exceptions in the radical legal shakeup of Dobbs after fifty years of Roe & Casey against institutional opposition from hospitals and doctors would naturally yield uncertainty. The mainstream, non-profit-based pro-life movement deserves some blame for advocating for untenable early bans across every state, instead of seeking pro-life compromise positions that respects the diversity of views on what ought to be legal. The position I'm seeing that basically says "not just wrong, but intentionally cruel and wanting the suffering" does go too far in assigning malice, etc. I say that not enough money and legal support has been purposed on a national level to make pro-life laws better in their language and support, and the same on a state-by-state level in state laws to work with amenable providers to publish guidelines on legal liability and prosecution. This is made tougher by obvious bad incentives from pro-choice doctors, hospitals, and organizations, who would rather see the laws repealed than grudgingly seek compliance papers and policies, but pro-life advocates need to realize that such opposition is unavoidable and must be worked both through and around. As an example, Ken Paxton needs more fair-minded opposition articles from pro-life organizations for the deficiencies in his abortion lawsuit, and Texas abortion law needs amendment to better give life/health of mother exemptions and new exemptions for life-threatening fetal anomalies.

The laws will just fall for their inadequacies, as we've already seen, and ought to fall if pro-life money and advocacy can't support state-by-state compromise positions. To the extent that this hasn't been happening, that's a serious and deserved indictment of the mainstream pro-life movement and majorly funded advocacy organizations. From what I can tell, they have a naive attachment to the fact that so much pro-life legislation was successfully adopted, which was a successfully policy achievement in a very general sense, but not enough serious contemplation of existing vague and sloppy language that will be used to undo the same legislation over the next year or two. That's part of an entire book that will need to be written on how the mainstream pro-life movement failed to achieve lasting policy successes after abortion law went back to the people. Asking for too much, and failing to craft and modify workable abortion laws that states attorneys general can work with health-care providers, hospitals, and insurance for compliance. Then failing to message around legal successes and legal failures (ie is it true that Cox risks a life-threatening medical condition or substantial impairment of a major bodily function if the baby is carried to term, and that's the real reason a doctor did not affirm that Cox qualified for the exemption in his/her reasonable medical judgment).

But of course, the positions I advocate for in law are centered around 20-24 week bans with exceptions, and I stand apart from the mainstream pro-life movement. That movement critiques me for the fact that my position allows most abortions to still take place, and kills innocent babies with heartbeats, or that can feel pain. Not that 6-week or 15-week bans don't also protect unborn babies at 24 weeks, they do, but those are typically insufficient compromise positions for a variety of reasons I've stated around here. Inasmuch as this means the current institutions promoting this side of the argument, broadly speaking, need a major shakeup and reform, I agree. Not for a real and sustained objection based on malintent, but for failing to appreciate state-by-state needs and the voting population of each state, and when amendments to insufficient laws are more important than the law on the book itself.

[Rasulis]

Not sure how we can compromise on abortion. There is a huge chasm between state laws.

At one end of the spectrum, we have Alaska, where abortion is legal at all stages. No excuse required. "Medically necessary" abortions sought by low-income women are state funded.

At the other end we have Tennessee. In Tennessee, abortion is illegal from fertilization, except to prevent death or serious health risk of the mother. No exception for rape or incest. The mother health exemption is not expressed. It is affirmative defense. Regardless of the circumstances, a doctor that performed abortion could be charged with a felony. In court, the doctor would have to show that the procedure was necessary. In a typical court case, the prosecutor has the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt. In affirmative defense case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Although the standard is lower than reasonable doubt. If convicted, the penalty is incarceration, loss of license, and hefty penalty.

Where is the middle ground between the two?

[tehdang]

Not sure how we can compromise on abortion. There is a huge chasm between state laws.

At one end of the spectrum, we have Alaska, where abortion is legal at all stages. No excuse required. "Medically necessary" abortions sought by low-income women are state funded.

At the other end we have Tennessee. In Tennessee, abortion is illegal from fertilization, except to prevent death or serious health risk of the mother. No exception for rape or incest. The mother health exemption is not expressed. It is affirmative defense. Regardless of the circumstances, a doctor that performed abortion could be charged with a felony. In court, the doctor would have to show that the procedure was necessary. In a typical court case, the prosecutor has the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt. In affirmative defense case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Although the standard is lower than reasonable doubt. If convicted, the penalty is incarceration, loss of license, and hefty penalty.

Where is the middle ground between the two?

If you think it's at all workable for a national policy to be settled on abortion, then no compromise is possible, broadly speaking.

Within states, that's literally happening. Now, there is no compromise between a person that is dead-set on abortion being illegal from the moment of conception, and somebody that says no law based on progress of the pregnancy will ever get their support. But, literally, 6-week bans 15-week bans 20-week bans are compromises within the time dimension. If you think the unborn baby has any moral worth, or deserving of state protection, then it's essentially compromising in favor of balancing the needs of the expecting mother against that and saying some form of "at least abort before the heartbeat/feels pain/baby is viable outside the womb." As much as an individual person can have strongly held beliefs that no compromise ought to happen in this dimension, existing legislation and actual polls all detail compromise positions on multiple spectra. Even people that start off wanting abortion to be illegal frequently compromise when somebody asks them "at least let abortion be legal when it's the result of incest or rape or necessary to save the mother's life."

Your article last page was on a voter initiative campaign that can be honestly summarized as "we should compromise further towards permitting abortion prior to viability." The mode for compromise is state legislatures, via the vote for representatives, together with the governor, and direct initiative/referendum in states that have that process. Persuasion and debate, campaigns from advocacy orgs, and all the rest apply.

[s_bushido]

That's a lot of words to say "I'm just going to ignore the fact that the representatives will themselves just ignore what their voters actually want when it suits them."

You are right that no compromise is possible between those who want a medical procedure to be a decision made between doctors and patients, and those who think that their religious beliefs trump reality.

[Levelfive]

If you think it's at all workable for a national policy to be settled on abortion, then no compromise is possible, broadly speaking.

Within states, that's literally happening. Now, there is no compromise between a person that is dead-set on abortion being illegal from the moment of conception, and somebody that says no law based on progress of the pregnancy will ever get their support. But, literally, 6-week bans 15-week bans 20-week bans are compromises within the time dimension. If you think the unborn baby has any moral worth, or deserving of state protection, then it's essentially compromising in favor of balancing the needs of the expecting mother against that and saying some form of "at least abort before the heartbeat/feels pain/baby is viable outside the womb." As much as an individual person can have strongly held beliefs that no compromise ought to happen in this dimension, existing legislation and actual polls all detail compromise positions on multiple spectra. Even people that start off wanting abortion to be illegal frequently compromise when somebody asks them "at least let abortion be legal when it's the result of incest or rape or necessary to save the mother's life."

Your article last page was on a voter initiative campaign that can be honestly summarized as "we should compromise further towards permitting abortion prior to viability." The mode for compromise is state legislatures, via the vote for representatives, together with the governor, and direct initiative/referendum in states that have that process. Persuasion and debate, campaigns from advocacy orgs, and all the rest apply.

This just acknowledges that Roe *was* the compromise. Fundamental rights should never be up for a vote. "Letting" abortion be legal in cases you agree with just means it's not abortion you object to, it's women having sex voluntarily.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a lot of words to say "I'm just going to ignore the fact that the representatives will themselves just ignore what their voters actually want when it suits them."

You are right that no compromise is possible between those who want a medical procedure to be a decision made between doctors and patients, and those who think that their religious beliefs trump reality.

And the expectation that we should be willing to compromise our own bodily autonomy away is fucking monstrous by itself.

[Endus]

tehdang's position exposes a fundamentally rotten principle; the idea that "compromise" must, inherently, be more considered, rational, and reasonable than those positions between which it sits.

It's trivial to expose this notion as fraudulent; should we consider the Jim Crow era of harsh and abusive race restrictions against black Americans to be the ideal "compromise" between the institution of slavery or modern freedom (as flawed as it may be)? Should the compromise on pedophilia be to split the difference between those who want under-16s protected from sexual protection and the sexual predators, and just set the age of consent to Age 8?

No.

Obviously not.

So obviously that you can comfortably take any argument insisting its position is a "compromise" and thus ethical for that reason, and launch that willfully dishonest fallacy right into the fuckin' sun. Anyone making such an argument is trying to manipulate you. They are not interested in honest discussion, they are not seeking to be rational or reasonable. They're going to lie to your face and hope you're unstudied enough to fall for manipulation without being able to identify where the con in the claim lies.

It's in that word; "compromise". That only functions as an argument when both sides have valid concerns and a middle ground should be found. You will start such discussions by acknowledging those valid concerns on both sides. These folks, like tehdang, will not do this. They'll declare themselves to be seeking a "compromise" without having to establish that both positions they fall between have inherent validity. They also do this with the word "moderate", for the same reason; to try and feign an appearance of weighing both sides and coming to a reasoned conclusion. In reality, they're just giving an invalid position an implicit endorsement, and offering a "compromise" to try and lock things down at least partially in that side's favor. And once they've secured that win, that compromise position becomes the new extreme, and they're now going to be pushing for middle ground between it and the invalid extremist view they're implicitly backing. That's what they did with Roe V. Wade, and why we're here now. Roe v. Wade was a compromise, and a particularly chickenshit one from a legislative point of view, skipping over the issue itself to file it under "medical privacy".

It's a dishonest manipulation strategy. Don't fall for it.

[Elegiac]

That's a lot of words to say "I'm just going to ignore the fact that the representatives will themselves just ignore what their voters actually want when it suits them."

Yep! Pretty funny that in the year of our lord 2023 we still have people out here who genuinely believe that casting themselves as political moderates and harping on about "compromise" "debate" or "processes" makes it remotely less obvious that they're reactionary scumbags with indefensible viewpoints about democracy or human rights.

tehdang's position exposes a fundamentally rotten principle; the idea that "compromise" must, inherently, be more considered, rational, and reasonable than those positions between which it sits.

It's trivial to expose this notion as fraudulent; should we consider the Jim Crow era of harsh and abusive race restrictions against black Americans to be the ideal "compromise" between the institution of slavery or modern freedom (as flawed as it may be)? Should the compromise on pedophilia be to split the difference between those who want under-16s protected from sexual protection and the sexual predators, and just set the age of consent to Age 8?

No.

Obviously not.

So obviously that you can comfortably take any argument insisting its position is a "compromise" and thus ethical for that reason, and launch that willfully dishonest fallacy right into the fuckin' sun. Anyone making such an argument is trying to manipulate you. They are not interested in honest discussion, they are not seeking to be rational or reasonable. They're going to lie to your face and hope you're unstudied enough to fall for manipulation without being able to identify where the con in the claim lies.

It's in that word; "compromise". That only functions as an argument when both sides have valid concerns and a middle ground should be found. You will start such discussions by acknowledging those valid concerns on both sides. These folks, like tehdang, will not do this. They'll declare themselves to be seeking a "compromise" without having to establish that both positions they fall between have inherent validity. They also do this with the word "moderate", for the same reason; to try and feign an appearance of weighing both sides and coming to a reasoned conclusion. In reality, they're just giving an invalid position an implicit endorsement, and offering a "compromise" to try and lock things down at least partially in that side's favor. And once they've secured that win, that compromise position becomes the new extreme, and they're now going to be pushing for middle ground between it and the invalid extremist view they're implicitly backing. That's what they did with Roe V. Wade, and why we're here now. Roe v. Wade was a compromise, and a particularly chickenshit one from a legislative point of view, skipping over the issue itself to file it under "medical privacy".

It's a dishonest manipulation strategy. Don't fall for it.

Fuckin' beat me to it, man. Lol.

[PosPosPos]

Yep! Pretty funny that in the year of our lord 2023 we still have people out here who genuinely believe that casting themselves as political moderates and harping on about "compromise" "debate" or "processes" makes it remotely less obvious that they're reactionary scumbags with indefensible viewpoints about democracy or human rights.



Fuckin' beat me to it, man. Lol.

What can anyone expect from someone who openly admits he's a contrarian who sides with the minority on every issue, regardless of the (abject lack of) values or reasonings of said minority?

[Mekh]

What can anyone expect from someone who openly admits he's a contrarian who sides with the minority on every issue, regardless of the (abject lack of) values or reasonings of said minority?

We used to call that trolling and it was against the rules. Those were the days.

[Dontrike]

Now, there is no compromise between a person that is dead-set on abortion being illegal from the moment of conception

There's almost no one who advocates for that and the fact you brought it up proves how disingenuous you are.

[The Stormbringer]

tehdang's position exposes a fundamentally rotten principle; the idea that "compromise" must, inherently, be more considered, rational, and reasonable than those positions between which it sits.

-SNIP-

It's a dishonest manipulation strategy. Don't fall for it.

I really, really hope tehdang addresses this in full, but I sincerely doubt he will.

[Rasulis]

The idea of compromise at this stage is a joke. Medical exemption should have been a no-brainer. Yet, look at the recent case in Texas. All the other Southern States have the same stupid super-vague medical exemption language as Texas.

[DarkTZeratul]

The idea of compromise at this stage is a joke. Medical exemption should have been a no-brainer. Yet, look at the recent case in Texas. All the other Southern States have the same stupid super-vague medical exemption language as Texas.

And all of them defend the vagueness with "obviously there are medical exemptions, and it's your doctor's fault for telling you there aren't," but when a doctor finally double-checks with the court that this qualifies, the AG vows absolute fucking retribution to the fullest extent of the law if they actually go through with it.