SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[unfilteredJW]

But I'm no fool to keep in discourse that I think has been substantive from my point of view, and you declare is dismissive, disrespectful, "word salad," unconvincing, and in bad faith.

Continuing your long tradition here of no self awareness.

[Endus]

If I can detect that tensions and tempers are lower in the future, and not just as regards you and your posts, I do think there are some points to address in these past posts that are worthy to take up as subjects. They include, in no particular order, elective abortions post-viability (20/24weeks until full term)

Still waiting for an explanation as to why medical ethical standards are insufficient, here.

what (if anything) changes at 32 weeks & "abortion legal up until birth,"

"Abortion legal up to birth" is just "no specific legislation about abortion". It's still restricted by medical ethical standards. Which pro-lifers ignore willfully.

the differences between why a journalist would ask about an abortion for the women's "health is at risk" vs how a doctor might say every abortion can be said to be a "health risk" semantically

Every pregnancy is a health risk. That's a simple fact, and refusal to acknowledge it when it's been pointed out repeatedly is an implicit admission of malice.

why disregarding the life of the child at every juncture is the twin argument to allegedly dismissing the serious reasons why an abortion is contemplated (and why this forum desperately needs a diversity of views on the subject, but does not possess it)

There is no "child". You're forcing your religious views as if they are facts. They are not. We push back on this because it's deeply offensive to everyone who does not share your religious views. When you start from an untenable premise like this, every argument you make predicated on it is rendered invalid as a consequence.

Why won't we accept that view as an option? Because it's exactly as abusive as creationists demaning the biblical Creation be taught in schools alongside evolution and geology. Your religion is not everyone's religion, and trying to force your religion on others is unacceptable.

revisiting the "Abortion Absolutist" article from the Atlantic

Why? You've been openly, unrepentantly dishonest about that article, and Hern himself. You've tried to present him as if his views are immoral or unacceptable. They aren't. His medical ethics aren't in question. He's been a regular victim of anti-abortion violence and threats. What, exactly, is your issue?

But I'm no fool to keep in discourse that I think has been substantive from my point of view, and you declare is dismissive, disrespectful, "word salad," unconvincing, and in bad faith.

It is. You keep demanding we accept your faith principles as if they were universal facts that even nonbelievers must be held to, which is just religious extremism. You've attacked people like Hern without cause. And so on. Whether you think you've been "substantive" does not matter; that's just descriptive of how deep in your own extremism you've fallen. Creationists think their anti-evolution rhetoric is "substantive" too. They're wrong, as you are here.

[Ivanstone]

disregarding the life of the child at every juncture

I am entirely open to no restrictions on abortions.

And yet I have much more regard for the life of the child then you do because you tirelessly flag wave for politicians who don't care about the life of children.

You don't care if they can survive child birth. You don't care if they're getting adequate shelter. Or food. Or an education. Or medical treatment.

If you actually cared about children you wouldn't have the politics you have.

[Endus]

I am entirely open to no restrictions on abortions.

And yet I have much more regard for the life of the child then you do because you tirelessly flag wave for politicians who don't care about the life of children.

You don't care if they can survive child birth. You don't care if they're getting adequate shelter. Or food. Or an education. Or medical treatment.

If you actually cared about children you wouldn't have the politics you have.

"I want this developmentally damaged child to be born to suffer for the days or weeks it will take to die naturally, because I truly care about children" says the person who isn't being honest with you about their goals.

[Xyonai]

"I want this developmentally damaged child to be born to suffer for the days or weeks it will take to die naturally, because I truly care about children" says the person who isn't being honest with you about their goals.

But how can we be sure the doctors are -actually- making the right call, hmn? Have you considered that the trained medical professionals might not know what they're talking about? Have they bothered asking the fetus that cannot physically respond to them and, if it could, would probably just be babbling in horrifying pain?

This is why we need our duly elected representatives, who sometimes have negative amounts of medical knowledge and refuse to actually consult trained medical professionals when drafting legislation, to regulate these sadistic baby-killers before they keep performing all those Third Trimester abortions that I assure you happen all the time and for no good reason.

[Mekh]

"I want this developmentally damaged child to be born to suffer for the days or weeks it will take to die naturally, because I truly care about children" says the person who isn't being honest with you about their goals.

But that poor thing born with only half a skull might pull through through with the power of god! (And if not it's another soul for the Evangelical pyre.)

[Karreck]

I think the tensions and emotions are a little too high in this thread at the moment to carry on

Discussions involving a woman's right to reproductive freedom and body autonomy should have high emotions.
One side is trying to maintain those rights for woman, the other side (your side) thinks women should just be incubators and deserve no body autonomy.
I think you are the one that needs to calm down here and stop arguing in bad faith.

[Edge-]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...deral-guidance

FYI: Federal guidance can't help pregnant folks in TX if they have a medical emergency and end up in the ER needing abortion services. They'll still have to go through the process of basically seeking approval from the state - probably giving Ken Paxton a call and hoping he's awake and not in a meeting or something.

[bladeXcrasher]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...deral-guidance

FYI: Federal guidance can't help pregnant folks in TX if they have a medical emergency and end up in the ER needing abortion services. They'll still have to go through the process of basically seeking approval from the state - probably giving Ken Paxton a call and hoping he's awake and not in a meeting or something.

He'll just deny like he did with the last lady who needed an abortion and ended up having to flee the state to get needed healthcare.

[Rasulis]

He'll just deny like he did with the last lady who needed an abortion and ended up having to flee the state to get needed healthcare.

Legislatures in red states don't give a damn because they think they have safe seats. Until they start losing elections, they will keep putting forth stricter and stricter abortion laws.

[Rasulis]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...deral-guidance

FYI: Federal guidance can't help pregnant folks in TX if they have a medical emergency and end up in the ER needing abortion services. They'll still have to go through the process of basically seeking approval from the state - probably giving Ken Paxton a call and hoping he's awake and not in a meeting or something.

We have always known that the health exemptions are not worth the papers they were written on. However, red states legislatures kept using health exemptions to place blame on the hospitals, the doctors and even the patients themselves. With this decision, now it is in the open. It is not the hospitals, nor the doctors or the patients. It is the states.

[Orange Joe]

snip

Can you quote a scientific paper that details when a fetus becomes a person?

[Paranoid Android]

BREAKING: The Supreme Court allows Idaho to enforce its strict abortion ban, even in medical emergencies

https://twitter.com/AP/status/174339...IJpLh3l5A&s=19

Give it to SCOTUS they are letting states eff themselves, err decide.

Biden is going to appeal.

Just to be clear: The Supreme Court will now be deciding TWO major abortion cases this term, involving access to medication abortion and the ability to obtain an emergency abortion at an ER. It seems the justices have not, in fact, removed themselves from the abortion debate.

https://bsky.app/profile/mjsdc.bsky..../3kibckbuuon2m

Didn't know these two were coming up. I guess the people who are in these states are effed. Another warning to people who can't even have an ER abortion.

An ih btw what Idaho just eliminated.

[Edge-]

https://www.tampabay.com/news/florid...ed-parenthood/

Well, it might be an issue put to Florida voters as well if Florida Republicans can't find a way to stop it ahead of time.

Which makes me wonder how they're planning to undermine the results if they don't go the way they want, as Florida Republicans have done when voters passed ballot measures they disagreed with previously.

[Rasulis]

https://www.tampabay.com/news/florid...ed-parenthood/

Well, it might be an issue put to Florida voters as well if Florida Republicans can't find a way to stop it ahead of time.

Which makes me wonder how they're planning to undermine the results if they don't go the way they want, as Florida Republicans have done when voters passed ballot measures they disagreed with previously.

University of Florida Statewide poll in November 2023.



It looks like if the amendment is on the ballot in 2024, it should win easily.

[Masark]

University of Florida Statewide poll in November 2023.



It looks like if the amendment is on the ballot in 2024, it should win easily.

Not that easily. Florida requires 60% to pass amendments, not just 50%.

[Dontrike]

Not that easily. Florida requires 60% to pass amendments, not just 50%.

That and lawmakers will likely ignore or mess up the ballot if it were to pass.

[Rasulis]

Not that easily. Florida requires 60% to pass amendments, not just 50%.

If the poll is accurate, 62% of voters are for the amendment, 29% against, and 9% don't know of refused to answer. If you ignore the 9%, 68% are for the amendment. Well above the 60% requirement.

Even among GOP voters, 53% are for, 39% against, and 9% undecided. Therefore, approximately 57% of GOP voters are for the amendment.

All the previous polls, if you take out the don't know, came out over 60% or very close to it.

I think the chances are pretty good.

Will the lawmakers honor the will of the voters? That's a different question.

[Karreck]

Will the lawmakers honor the will of the voters? That's a different question.

We all know the answer to that question.

[Nymrohd]

The statewide approach in getting guarantees that can maintain abortion access on the short or medium term are absolutely necessary; they save lives.
But what I'd be afraid is if traditionally Republican voters that favour choice as defined by these local measures might be complacent and believe those are enough to guarantee their rights and will keep voting GOP otherwise. Yes back in 2022 there was an outcry but the repeal of Roe Vs Wade was fresh and voters may not have considered the efforts that Pro-Choice groups would, largely successfully, make to constrain anti-choice state laws by the GOP. Perhaps the effect of this completely unpopular decision will be blunted and people are overestimating its eventual effect on the 2024 elections.