SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Edge-]

https://www.chron.com/culture/religi...n-18561878.php

"It saddens me deeply that was the decision that she made," said Alexandra Sizemore, director of development at Houston Coalition For Life, a nonprofit whose mission is to end abortion citywide. "I'm glad the Texas Supreme Court stepped in to not allow her to do it here. I just wish her doctors and lawyers would've done everything that they could to protect her from that particular decision to go to a different state altogether."

It seems some "pro-life" folks in Texas are despondent at the initial Kate Cox ruling, and apparently think she also needs to be protected from the knowledge that she could travel to another state to get the medical procedure done to protect her health.

Sizemore, a 49-year-old Catholic, said she believes abortion should be banned at conception and that abortions essentially equate to murder. She is open to medical doctors intervening to perform "life-saving measures" only when a pregnant woman is facing life-threatening circumstances in accordance with state law.

Here we have the thrust of the matter: Frequently these "exceptions" are only when "the life of the mother is at risk" which is a very narrow exception that ignores a mountain of serious medical issues and risks that don't fall under "life is at immediate risk, but very soon will be and is extremely avoidable".

We keep seeing this play out, and we keep seeing Republicans uninterested in addressing legislation to avoid these kinds of issues.

Like other anti-abortion leaders, Sizemore rejects the idea that Cox's life was in danger and instead believes the pregnant woman was a "victim of the lies of the abortion industry" and her doctor and lawyers only brought her case to court to circumvent the law. "I can see what they're trying to do, they're trying to slowly change the law back," Sizemore said. "I think it's pretty obvious."

Again, here we have the rub: "Pro-life" folks genuinely think there's some grand conspiracy involving "pro-aborts" and basically the whole of the medical profession.

This is unhinged, conspiracy theorist extremism.

Sizemore, who provides free ultrasounds to pregnant women in Houston and protests outside of Planned Parenthoods clinics, disagreed. She acknowledged that Cox faced "some medical risks" in continuing the pregnancy but determined that she "was not in any immediate danger."

"I would not want anything to happen to the mother," Sizemore said. "Regardless of the baby's diagnosis, it doesn't mean that the baby doesn't deserve to live out the life that God planned for that baby. The most compassionate option would be to do everything for that child."

A random person, with no medical training, having not actually interacted with a patient apparently has the exact diagnosis and prognosis for the patient.

Just a reminder of how deeply dishonest and ignorant these people are. Providing ultrasounds does not make you a doctor.

John Seago, the son of a Baptist pastor turned president of Texas Right to Life, the largest anti-abortion group in the state which is headquartered in Houston, echoed that Cox's medical risks "were not life threatening." The state abortion ban, Seago said, has a "very clear medical emergency definition."

"The idea that there is some kind of malice or agenda to make these decisions for women or make sure that doctors can't intervene, that's completely wrong," Seago, 36, said. "As someone pro-life, I don't want women with life-threatening conditions to have any delay in their medical treatment if needed. This is a case where a doctor clearly understands that this case doesn't fit into our exception, and they are asking for permission to have an abortion anyway."

Another noted non-medical professional giving their diagnosis and treatment recommendation.

Why do conservatives even go to doctors if they're all medical experts?

Advocates from both sides of the abortion ban said they supported the state Supreme Court telling the Texas Medical Board "to provide guidance in response to any confusion that currently prevails."

Gee, it's that thing we all keep saying in this thread and also that thing that Republicans keep choosing not to do and also that thing that gets defended for some reason in this thread.

[Endus]

Here we have the thrust of the matter: Frequently these "exceptions" are only when "the life of the mother is at risk" which is a very narrow exception that ignores a mountain of serious medical issues and risks that don't fall under "life is at immediate risk, but very soon will be and is extremely avoidable".

We keep seeing this play out, and we keep seeing Republicans uninterested in addressing legislation to avoid these kinds of issues.

It also conveniently exposes whoever's endorsing that idea as a operating in bad faith; someone who does not actually believe their own bullshit.

If they really thought the fetus was a human life from conception, then why would risk to the mother be an argument that justifies killing that life? It's a position that inherently acknowledges that the fetus is not a human life in the same sense as the mother, and thus can be eliminated to protect her life. That's an admission that the core belief; that the fetus is a human life from conception, is not one the pro-life advocate actually believes. It's emotional rhetoric they use to cover up their real motives.

Same applies to any pro-life advocate endorsing rape and/or incest exceptions, though it's way more clear-cut there since there's no question of the pregnant person's life being at risk at all.

When people willfully lie right to your face like this, stop taking them or their stated views seriously. They're malicious and dishonest actors whose central goal and purpose is harming women, not protecting lives.

[Rasulis]

And all of them defend the vaguewith "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.

The states do not want these cases to be heard. Their defense is based on "standing." In their opinion, the plaintiff with standing has to be pregnant with cognizable harm and injury. Basically, only a woman with amniotic fluid and blood dripping down her legs has the right to sue the state. At issue here is that they do not want to face judicial review of these very, very dangerous statutes.

In Amanda Zurawski case for example, the State of Texas argued that she does not have standing to sue because she is unlikely to be able to get pregnant again and the law won't affect her. What the state neglect to mention in the defense was that she is unlikely to get pregnant again because of the laws that the state has enacted in the first place.

No one in these states is taking responsibility for the human suffering, and, as clearly shown in the article that Edge linked, they’re trying to deflect blame on the women themselves or on their doctors.

- - - Updated - - -

Gee, it's that thing we all keep saying in this thread and also that thing that Republicans keep choosing not to do and also that thing that gets defended for some reason in this thread.

The Texas Medical Board is not exactly the best place to get unbiased guidelines. The board members were appointed by the governor. Most of current members were Abbot top donors. Quite a few have no experience in patient advocacy.

Money, politics and patient safety: Abbott donors on Texas Medical Board

[Edge-]

The Texas Medical Board is not exactly the best place to get unbiased guidelines. The board members were appointed by the governor. Most of current members were Abbot top donors. Quite a few have no experience in patient advocacy.

Money, politics and patient safety: Abbott donors on Texas Medical Board

I do believe this is known as "stacking the deck". Also, just your average political corruption in America.

[PosPosPos]

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/19/u...rge/index.html

This is the type of world conservatives like tehdang want to create.

Where women can miscarry and doctors and administrators are, rightfully, too worried about legality to treat them, then said women undergoing that traumatic experience gets unironically charged with ridiculous crimes and punished for surviving the ordeal.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

There's already a perfectly reasonable compromise:

If you don't like abortions... don't get one. We promise we won't force it on you. That's what the "choice" part of "pro-choice" means.

[Nymrohd]

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.

Can accurate language exist for medical exemptions? Most states that restrict abortion with an assortment of exemptions simply leave it to medical judgment and since doctors presume good faith from the state they just exercise it. That is just not possible in the US since that good faith demonstrably does not exists. Are we discussing the possibility of a ghoulish reality where we have a stat based approach where doctors would have to reduce medication just to bring the pregnant woman far enough into distress to hit the magic number and allow the abortion? Because that is the only result that precise language would cause.

[Twdft]

Can accurate language exist for medical exemptions?

The woman asks her doctor for medical advice on the situation. That's all that's needed. Just make a consultation to discuss everything mandatory with the final decision being that of the woman.

[masterhorus8]

The woman asks her doctor for medical advice on the situation. That's all that's needed. Just make a consultation to discuss everything mandatory with the final decision being that of the woman.

But then the next problem comes in of the government stepping in to make sure you talked to your doctor before getting the abortion.

[PosPosPos]

The woman asks her doctor for medical advice on the situation. That's all that's needed. Just make a consultation to discuss everything mandatory with the final decision being that of the woman.

Which is why the doctors' attorneys are telling them it opens them up to being sued or charged by the state, and women are getting threats and actual action from the state that prevents them from getting life-saving healthcare....oh wait.

[Rasulis]

The woman asks her doctor for medical advice on the situation. That's all that's needed. Just make a consultation to discuss everything mandatory with the final decision being that of the woman.

Pretty much. The typical OB/Gyn specialists will have 12 years specialized education (4 years undergrad, 4 years medical school, and 4 years residency.) Add another 2 - 3 years of medical fellowship for those specializing in high-risk pregnancies. What’s the point making them go through all those years of learning and experience, if they are going to have their decisions being second guessed by politicians with no patient advocacy experience.

- - - Updated - - -

Show us how much you care about children's welfare.

More Than Half of Children Losing Medicaid Coverage Live in Just 5 States - Texas, Florida, Georgia, Ohio and Arkansas – accounted for 54% of the reductions, or more than 1.2 million children.

In terms of total disenrollment, the 10 states that have refused Medicaid expansion – Texas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kansas, Wisconsin and Wyoming – have removed more children from coverage than all of the expansion states combined, HHS said.

- - - Updated - - -

Do not forget Texas foster care system in the words of U.S. District Judge Janis Jack.

“Texas’s foster care system is broken, and it has been that way for decades,” Jack wrote in a damning 260-page ruling that landed like a bomb. “All the while, Texas’s … children have been shuttled throughout a system where rape, abuse, psychotropic medication, and instability are the norm.”

The US foster care system for the most part sucks. However, Texas' foster care system suckage is of completely different order of magnitude.

[Surfd]

https://www.chron.com/culture/religi...n-18561878.php

Sizemore rejects the idea that Cox's life was in danger and instead believes the pregnant woman was a "victim of the lies of the abortion industry" and her doctor and lawyers only brought her case to court to circumvent the law.

Anyone who uses the phrase "abortion industry" while being completely serious needs to immediately be removed from polite society and introduced to a nice, quality padded cell.

"Regardless of the baby's diagnosis, it doesn't mean that the baby doesn't deserve to live out the life that God planned for that baby. The most compassionate option would be to do everything for that child."

In a perfect world, this woman would discover she has a malignant cancer that will 100% kill her very painfully and slowly, but is completely curable by modern medical treatment, and when she goes in for an assessment, the Doctor would tell her that while they COULD treat her cancer, she really just needs to live out the life that God planned for her when he gave it to her in the first place.

[Endus]

In a perfect world, this woman would discover she has a malignant cancer that will 100% kill her very painfully and slowly, but is completely curable by modern medical treatment, and when she goes in for an assessment, the Doctor would tell her that while they COULD treat her cancer, she really just needs to live out the life that God planned for her when he gave it to her in the first place.

It's always fascinating that these people claim to speak for God. Maybe God wanted this abortion to happen, and by preventing it, she's the one defying God's will.

They really need to just shut the fuck up about God. Nobody gives a shit what you imagine in your own head about your own personal God. That's not my God, and that means whatever you believe is absolutely 100% irrelevant, and someone trying to force their views on me is violence that deserves only violence in response.

At best, you've got a faith group who share a particular view of God, and that's fine. But that belief still has no validity or truth outside that group. You can't prove any of it to be true, it's just a shared fiction you enjoy.

And if anyone wants to take issue with me describing it as a "fiction", feel free to provide objective proof of some particular God. Fictions have power; we're a species that tell each other stories. I'm not dismissing the value you might derive from your faith. I'm denying that it has any objectively determinable truth to its god-claims. If it did, it wouldn't require faith. And until you've got objectively determinable truth on your side, it's just your story against my story and everyone else's story, and nobody's story is any "better" than anyone else's, and you can fuck off if you try and force me to give up my views and adopt yours. I'll fight you every step of the way. And I mean physically, if it gets pushed to that point. Religious fascism is an ideological disease and cannot be permitted to prosper.

[Cthulhu 2020]

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)

If late term abortions are outright banned we're still going to have the issue of fetuses or women with life threatening conditions being denied care.

These fantasy scenarios where women get late term abortions "for funsies" that Republicans like to point to are just that, fantasies.

[Sunseeker]

I'm not going to quote him because I prefer him on ignore, but the "compromise" is exactly what we had. A fairly restricted early-term abortion, with a few exceptions for late-term abortions in the case of deformity and danger to the mother. The 'cons took away compromise in favor of extremism. You already got compromise. You didn't want it.

The half-way point between "reasonable living temperate" and "absolute zero" is still death. So yeah, fuck every single conservative who talks about "compromise".

[Endus]

I'm not going to quote him because I prefer him on ignore, but the "compromise" is exactly what we had. A fairly restricted early-term abortion, with a few exceptions for late-term abortions in the case of deformity and danger to the mother. The 'cons took away compromise in favor of extremism. You already got compromise. You didn't want it.

The half-way point between "reasonable living temperate" and "absolute zero" is still death. So yeah, fuck every single conservative who talks about "compromise".

And just to make the point, Canada's had zero legal restrictions on abortion since the '80s. Roe V. Wade isn't the "other side", that is. And it's caused absolutely no suffering or negative consequence here. We have lower abortion rates than the USA did before Roe v. Wade collapsed. Canada is the horrorscape pro-life advocates fear. Look upon us, ye mighty, and despair?

Meanwhile, American women are being directly harmed on the daily because of these pro-life laws banning abortions.

The time's come to abandon compromise and stand up for women's freedom of choice and self-ownership.

[The Stormbringer]

I'm not going to quote him because I prefer him on ignore, but the "compromise" is exactly what we had. A fairly restricted early-term abortion, with a few exceptions for late-term abortions in the case of deformity and danger to the mother. The 'cons took away compromise in favor of extremism. You already got compromise. You didn't want it.

The half-way point between "reasonable living temperate" and "absolute zero" is still death. So yeah, fuck every single conservative who talks about "compromise".

The issue I run into a lot is people who do have deeply religious beliefs, or beliefs that are founded in religion, and so they'll just take one look at abortion and say, "That's killing a baby!" and ignore every argument or explanation that might say otherwise. I have no idea how to approach people like that, and don't know if I even should try to talk to them about it.

[Endus]

The issue I run into a lot is people who do have deeply religious beliefs, or beliefs that are founded in religion, and so they'll just take one look at abortion and say, "That's killing a baby!" and ignore every argument or explanation that might say otherwise. I have no idea how to approach people like that, and don't know if I even should try to talk to them about it.

You shouldn't. They're religious extremists. Their position isn't based on reason or evidence, but divine command.

[The Stormbringer]

You shouldn't. They're religious extremists. Their position isn't based on reason or evidence, but divine command.

I guess. My boss is on the "you should probably stop abortions at the time there's a heartbeat, barring exceptions for rape, incest, or medical problems for the baby or the mother" train. And even one of my younger coworkers feels that "women being pregnant is just a consequence of their actions, and they should live with the consequences". I tried explaining that they can live with the consequences by getting an abortion, and he was... mixed on it. Sort of a, "Yeah, I get that women would have to live with the emotional trauma of that decision so I can see it" but also still leaning on the side of pro-life. He might not be a lost cause, but my boss definitely is.

[Gestopft]

And even one of my younger coworkers feels that "women being pregnant is just a consequence of their actions, and they should live with the consequences"

And this right here is the heart of the pro-life movement: controlling people's (mostly women's) sexual behavior by enforcing consequences.