SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Endus]

Show me the record that whomever the homicide was committed against ever existed as a living being.

This was the irresponsible part of the supreme court (aside from invading womens right to privacy). And granted the supreme court can't legislate but there should be no legislation on where life begins and is recognized as a being. This is a decision for doctors to come to consensus on. If a consensus cannot be reached then they can confer with lawmakers but the fact that we as a society can't even come to agreement on whether it's a fetus, an unborn child, a child yet to be born, or a person is silly.

Fetal personhood remains 1000% irrelevant to the question. It's a matter of self-ownership of your own body, versus an entirely hypothetical and controversial claim of a right to life.

Even if you steel-man the debate and grant the fetus personhood from conception, there is not any other circumstance where we violate Person A's bodily autonomy/self-ownership for the sake of Person B's right to life. If we did, we'd allow forced organ harvesting from living donors (you don't need two lungs, you liver will grow back, etc) and tissue harvesting as well. Among other things. This reversal on this principle is only suggested in the specific case of abortion rights, and only ever on religious grounds.

And that means it should be summarily rejected, both as a violation of the supremacy of bodily autonomy over right to life, and as a violation of freedom of religion. The argument internally fails on two simultaneous grounds, even if we grant the fetal personhood claim, which we really shouldn't. It's just irrelevant to waste time on fetal personhood, because even if pro-lifers get that "win", their position still fails twice over.

Pro-life is an evil movement whose intention is entirely malicious and misogynist. Its purpose is to render women into being second-class people, whose primary role is not as persons, but as ambulatory wombs for childbearing who remain subservient to that role regardless of their preferences. It's such a blatantly vile and abusive position to take, it really needs to start getting treated the same way as you'd treat someone with swastika tattoos on their neck, or someone who thinks they should be allowed to kill their own kids for "dishonouring" the family on some fringe religious grounds.

It's equivalently malicious. There is no positive motivation behind pro-life movements. It's entirely about subjugating women and forcing religious fascism on the population. Nothing else.

[Edge-]

Show me the record that whomever the homicide was committed against ever existed as a living being.

They would, but actually considering the full scope of consequences of fetal personhood as a legal concept seems to be way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way above the pay grade for most of the folks arguing for it.

[Poopymonster]

They would, but actually considering the full scope of consequences of fetal personhood as a legal concept seems to be way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way above the pay grade for most of the folks arguing for it.

To start with: Insurance (Gotta cover your kids from conception), drinking (everyone is now 9 months older), enjoying government sanctioned violence abroad (Military), driving, smoking, owning firearms, and more I don't recall off the top of my head.
They'll spin this as "You can kick kids off their parents insurance 9 months earlier now! GET THOSE N, um, er, NAUGHTY PEOPLE WE CAN NOW TRY AS ADULTS! AGE OF CONSENT IS LOWER WOOHOO!"

[prwraith]

They would, but actually considering the full scope of consequences of fetal personhood as a legal concept seems to be way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way above the pay grade for most of the folks arguing for it.

Oh I agree. I also agree with everything Endus said in that the question of personhood is largely irrelevant towards the legalities.

That said, this is ultimately why I don't even think this should be a political question. This should be what is right and good for you the patient of this doctor. It's also not for the doctor to say he doesn't believe in abortion. His duty is to the patient and only to the baby in the case that its past the stage of fetal viability. And again that stage of fetal viability needs to be decided on via medical consensus not political

[Endus]

Oh I agree. I also agree with everything Endus said in that the question of personhood is largely irrelevant towards the legalities.

That said, this is ultimately why I don't even think this should be a political question. This should be what is right and good for you the patient of this doctor. It's also not for the doctor to say he doesn't believe in abortion. His duty is to the patient and only to the baby in the case that its past the stage of fetal viability. And again that stage of fetal viability needs to be decided on via medical consensus not political

This is exactly how it's been in Canada for decades now. SCOC ruled abortion restrictions unconstitutional in 1988. There was a failed attempt in '89 to pass a new restrictive law and it failed in the Senate, and we haven't revisited the issue since. It almost never comes up, even, though conservatives are making noises now as they look southward for guidelines. It won't end up going anywhere.

[Edge-]

https://omaha.com/news/state-regiona...ee9f4df07.html

Social media messages about homosexuality, race and abortion prompted heated exchanges Wednesday at a confirmation hearing for the new CEO of Nebraska’s Health and Human Services Department.

“It’s not just a handful of things,” State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha said at Steve Corsi’s confirmation hearing. “It is a pattern.”

Corsi has drawn fire for his social media activity since his August appointment. He didn’t write any of the posts in question, but Cavanaugh and other critics noted that he liked messages that cast doubt on COVID-19 treatments, referred to homosexuality as a sin, and claimed that transgender individuals were mentally ill.

Gov. Jim Pillen appointed Corsi to replace former DHHS CEO Dannette Smith. Corsi made his Twitter account private after critics began to highlight his activity on the social media platform — now known as X — which he said he had considered a private matter. He said he did so because a “press firestorm” had become a distraction.

So the necessary setup, and there's a reason I'm posting in this thread. He had a good response on questions of race but...

Cavanaugh also pressed Corsi on a post he liked that said “abortion isn’t health care because pregnancy isn’t a disease.” Corsi said he still agreed with that post.

That response spurred Cavanaugh to explain why she believes abortion is health care. She said miscarriages are considered abortions, and noted that there are women who need abortions because their pregnancies pose serious risks to their health.

“You want to be the head of the Department of Health and Human Services, and you do not understand what is essential health care for reproductive health,” Cavanaugh said. Corsi did not respond further to her abortion comments.

Again, Republicans do not seem to understand pregnancies, especially Republican men. Even as they consistently seek to regulate them, and women's bodies or seek to be in positions of power in dealing with peoples health.

or accountability and disclosure forms, and said she first learned about his work with Epiphany just a few hours before the hearing. Corsi called his lack of disclosure an “error in oversight.”

Pillen has entered Nebraska into a $10 million contract with Epiphany to work on ways to reduce government waste. Although news of the contract broke after Corsi stopped working at the company, the contract had been signed in June. Cavanaugh said it was an emergency contract, which meant the state didn’t consider any other bids.

“Are you the right person for this position when you are working in darkness with an organization that you yourself did not disclose that you were employed by, days before you received this position?” Cavanaugh asked. “It’s very, very concerning.”

Damn, doesn't sound like a very forthright dude at all.

[PosPosPos]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...ape-and-incest

“If you want to go after the rapist, let’s give him the death penalty. Absolutely, let’s do it,” Brattin said. “But not the innocent person caught in-between that, by God’s grace, may even be the greatest healing agent you need in which to recover from such an atrocity.”

Republican Sen. Mike Moon was also in favor of the ban and added to Brattin’s comments, calling for rapists to be castrated.

How many republicans, including but not limited to Trump, would have to be castrated then? Not that they would abide by their own laws, but still.

[Dontrike]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...ape-and-incest







How many republicans, including but not limited to Trump, would have to be castrated then? Not that they would abide by their own laws, but still.

He says it like they'd actually go after rapists when in fact they're far more likely to let them join the republican party. Also, Abbot said he'd "eliminate all rape" and as we can see he's been doing a bang up job.

[Gestopft]

If pro-"life" people were in reality pro-life, then we would have:
1) mandatory paid parental leave. Not just maternity, but paternity as well.
2) improved social safety nets that people who need assistance to raise their kids can get it.
3) improved sex education.
4) making it far easier to get contraceptive

And yet, the majority of pro-lifers are also all opposed to the above. It is almost like they don't care about the the things that have been proven to reduce abortions.

Because the heart of the pro-life movement isn't about protecting life or reducing abortions. It's about controlling people's (read: mostly women's) sexual behavior by forcing the worst of the consequences on them.

[Darththeo]

Because the heart of the pro-life movement isn't about protecting life or reducing abortions. It's about controlling people's (read: mostly women's) sexual behavior by forcing the worst of the consequences on them.

My bad, I should have mentioned the last part as being sarcastic.

Yeah, I am aware. If you control women, you control a population.

[Benggaul]

Misery living up to their nickname...

Missouri senators vote against allowing abortions in rape, incest cases

Missouri senators voted Wednesday against amendments that would have allowed abortions in the cases of rape and incest in the state.

Missouri senators debated a bill that would make it illegal for public funds to go toward abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood. During the debate, Missouri state Sen. Tracy McCreery (D) introduced amendments that would allow exceptions for abortion in incest and rape cases.

“I think the consensus is that Missouri law went too far when they banned all abortions,” she said during the discussion, according to audio posted online by the state Senate.

However, her efforts were struck down along party lines by the Republican-controlled state Senate, The Associated Press reported. McCreery also argued the current abortion ban shows the state does not care about women who are victims of rape.
“What we’re saying is, ‘We don’t care,’” McCreery said of the abortion ban, according to the AP. “We’re going to force you to give birth, even if that pregnancy resulted from forcible rape by a family member, a date, an ex-husband or a stranger.”

State Sen. Rick Brattin (R) pushed back on allowing exceptions, arguing that giving birth in the cases of rape and incest could help the mother recover, according to AP.

Ah, good, another man who knows exactly what a woman needs to get over the trauma of rape.

[Edge-]

Misery living up to their nickname...

Missouri senators vote against allowing abortions in rape, incest cases



Ah, good, another man who knows exactly what a woman needs to get over the trauma of rape.

Have any of these Republican men suggested that these rape victims put a...I think it was tylenol, between their knees?

[Xyonai]

Because the heart of the pro-life movement isn't about protecting life or reducing abortions. It's about controlling people's (read: mostly women's) sexual behavior by forcing the worst of the consequences on them.

It's a fundamental pillar of Conservatism in general. Like name a social issue they've run on in the last - let's be generous - hundred years that wasn't about controlling someone else's lives because they/their voting base think that 'those people' are yucky or don't deserve to be treated equally.

[Gestopft]

It's a fundamental pillar of Conservatism in general. Like name a social issue they've run on in the last - let's be generous - hundred years that wasn't about controlling someone else's lives because they/their voting base think that 'those people' are yucky or don't deserve to be treated equally.

Technically I'd say maintaining social hierarchies is the fundamental pillar of conservatism; those hierarchies themselves being the systems that control people.

[Xyonai]

Technically I'd say maintaining social hierarchies is the fundamental pillar of conservatism; those hierarchies themselves being the systems that control people.

Same shit with a different hat, really. They just want shit to be worse on purpose because it makes them feel important.

[Adamas102]

His duty is to the patient and only to the baby in the case that its past the stage of fetal viability. And again that stage of fetal viability needs to be decided on via medical consensus not political

I really hate it when people (and especially a certain someone in this thread) bring up the concept of "fetal viability" because they invariably have no real understanding of what that means.

There are basically two points: the point at which an infant has undergone enough prenatal development to be able to independently survive outside the womb which is about 32 weeks and will never really change because people kinda need functioning lungs to survive, and the point at which medical technology is capable of keeping a prematurely extracted infant alive outside the womb which obviously will change as technology progresses.

While that second number is closer to 22 weeks nowadays, it requires state of the art medical equipment and care that is extremely expensive and simply isn't available in every hospital, and even still that technology falls short to some extent since children who are born that early and survive typically grow up with severe neurological impairments as a result. Extreme premature birth is definitely not a desirable outcome for a pregnancy. It's great that we have that kind of technology that can help parents in that situation who were hoping to carry to term, but it's ridiculous to hold that as a benchmark in order to impose pregnancy on those who don't want it.

If you're OK with legislating based on "fetal viability with medical intervention" then in 50 years we might instead be talking about "embryonic viability" if technology has gotten to the point where an embryo could be extracted and progress through all the prenatal development stages outside the womb. At that point you might as well outlaw abortion entirely since "viability" would be possible at all stages, even if the process were prohibitively expensive and the long term health prospects were extremely poor.

So no, I don't think medical consensus alone should be the determining factor. If we get to a point where fetal extraction is a low cost and easy procedure will no risk to the woman, and the extracted fetus is able to continue development outside the womb with low chance of long term impairments THEN we can talk about that being a viable alternative to abortion.

[Rasulis]

South Carolina bill would offer compensation to women denied abortions

A South Carolina bill would offer women who would have sought abortion care, if not for the state's ban, compensation for continuing their pregnancies to term. The proposal is currently being considered by a South Carolina Senate subcommittee.

The bill, called the South Carolina Pro Birth Accountability Act, will require the state to provide women who would have obtained abortion care if not for the ban with "reasonable living, legal, medical, psychological, and psychiatric expenses that are directly related to prenatal, intrapartal, and postpartal period," according to the bill.

"It provides just compensation to women and girls who are eligible under South Carolina law. Now that we have the six-week abortion ban, I thought it only fitting and appropriate for the state to help cover the escalating costs of prenatal and postnatal care, from conception to college," South Carolina state Sen. Mia McLeod, the sponsor of the bill, said in a video statement at Wednesday's subcommittee hearing that was posted on X, formerly known as Twitter.

How would the compensation work?

To obtain the compensation, a woman would need to file an affidavit with South Carolina's Department of Social Services indicating that she would have chosen to terminate her pregnancy if not for the state's ban on the procedure.

The affidavit can be filed any time after a medical professional determines the existence of fetal cardiac activity, preventing the woman from terminating the pregnancy and before the child is born.

"Upon receipt of an affidavit filed by a woman pursuant to this subsection, the department shall assign a case manager to the woman in order to develop a case plan to ensure that the woman is receiving adequate prenatal care, and to determine any available state funded programs and services for which the woman and unborn child are eligible. The case manager must meet with the pregnant woman monthly in person to ensure that the pregnancy is continuing and that the requisite programs, services, and funding are accessible," according to the bill.

The Democratic bill also offers pregnant women automatic eligibility to participate in the state's Nurse-Family Partnership program, allowing them to pair with a specialty-trained nurse who would provide home visits from early pregnancy to the child's second birthday, according to the bill.

Pregnant women could also get public assistance, including Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, until the fetus reaches the age of 18, according to the bill.

In the event that the pregnant woman, fetus or both die during the pregnancy or during labor and delivery, the bill would require the state to cover all funeral and burial expenses, the bill states.

In the event that the woman becomes disabled due to carrying the fetus to term, the state would also cover any medical expenses, including the cost of surgery, treatment, physical or occupational therapy for as long as she is disabled, according to the bill.

For fetuses born with a congenital abnormality or disabilities, the state would also cover the medical expenses associated, including "costs of hospitalization, therapeutic and ADA-compliant equipment and accommodations, and long term care and treatment for the life of the child," according to the bill.

The state would also cover "costs associated with health, dental, and vision insurance for the child until the age of eighteen, including payment of any premiums, copays, deductibles, and other expenses," according to the bill.

"In the case of an unmarried woman, if the biological father of the child is unknown or unable to provide support," the state would provide child support, according to the bill.

In cases of rape or incest, the state would also provide child support, the bill says.

Under the bill, the child would also receive a "fully funded" state college savings plan.

The bill would also allow pregnant mothers to claim the fetus as a child to receive child-related federal or state income tax credits or deductions, such as the child tax credit, as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected, according to the bill.

Money to pay for the bill would come from a fund established by the state's General Assembly, according to the bill.

In the event that the pregnant woman dies as a result of the pregnancy or during child birth, her estate can pursue a civil lawsuit against the state for damages, the bill says.

Biological fathers would also be required to provide child support starting at the date when the fetal heartbeat was detected, it says.

Very reasonable in my humble opinion. How do pro-life organizations feel about the bill?

"South Carolina Citizens for Life is opposed to S874, the Pro-Birth Accountability Act, because this act is an attempt by those hostiles to the Fetal Heartbeat Act to disrupt life-protecting policies in our state," the group said in a letter to the subcommittee that was shared with ABC News.

Gatling also said it is false that anti-abortion groups do not care about babies after they are born and said the group has "always supported child-centered and women-centered programs," saying the state already provides women with billions of dollars worth of support.

"The 'Pro-Birth Act' is a cynical publicity stunt intended to characterize as anti-woman those of us who work to protect the innocent lives of unborn children and their mothers. S874 misstates the purpose and effect of the Fetal Heartbeat Act which provides clear protection for women whose bodily health is endangered by a pregnancy. Further S874 insinuates there are few if any public and private programs that support families and children with health care, food, financial assistance, or resources for children with special needs," the letter said.

To quote Pastor Dave Barnhart,

"The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you, they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor, they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct, unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare, unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike, they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships, and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power or privilege, without reimagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."

- - - Updated - - -

‘Fleeing under the cover of darkness’: How Idaho’s abortion ban is changing pregnancy in the state

Another horror story. However, the impact goes beyond just the parents.

It’s not just patients who are feeling the effects of Idaho’s abortion law. Lyons, the family medicine doctor in Hailey, said many of her colleagues who treat higher-risk pregnant patients have left the state.

“We had 10 perinatologists taking care of women in Idaho,” she told CNN. “That’s down to five, and two of those are working part-time.

“Many of my colleagues felt like they could not practice the standard of care in Idaho anymore and that they were put into an ethical and moral dilemma as to how to help a woman who is in crisis,” she said.

States with abortion bans tend to have about a third fewer ob/gyns per capita than states where abortion remains legal, a CNN analysis of federal data found.

As of May 2022, there was one ob/gyn for about every 3,100 women of reproductive age in states where abortion is legal, compared with one for about every 4,500 in states where it is banned. Estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics capture employment data for obstetricians and gynecologists from 40 states; Idaho is among the 10 states that do not have data. Of those 10, abortion is banned in five states, it remains legal in four, and one has a gestational limit.

Dr. Thomas Lee, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, recently moved to St. Luke’s in Boise from Portland. The move, he said, was for personal reasons: “Boise is a wonderful place in general,” he told CNN via email. “Sunshine, city size, outdoor activities.”

There are no legal restrictions on abortion in Oregon. Before the move, Lee said, he had “some very targeted conversations regarding the potential legal exposures given the abortion ban. … I did have some serious concerns about the impact upon patient care and the potential conflict between providing appropriate medical care to my patients … and violating Idaho law.”

He said he’d “strongly disagree” with any assertion that doctors and other health-care providers in his field aren’t leaving the state.

“This is absolutely not my impression during my brief time in practice in Idaho,” he said.

He said two of the maternal-fetal medicine specialists, referred to as MFMs, in the practice he joined six months ago had left before he arrived, “reportedly due to the abortion ban,” and that “the other established MFM practice in town only has minimal staffing currently due to the departure of several of their MFMs prior to my arrival.”

“I think the math is clear that MFM subspecialists have been leaving Idaho,” he said, and that “has significantly impacted access to care for high-risk pregnancy services – in a state/region in which access to these services had been already limited.”

[Xyonai]

But we were absolutely assured by our well meaning and good natured Conservative posters that Republicans would happily support bills and legislation to support mothers and children of unwanted or complicated pregnancies.

Are you telling me that they're all fucking liars and, not only that, the pro-life people who want to shut down actual attempts to support mothers in states where Abortions are criminalized are just a bunch of self righteous, short sighted, malicious assholes????

Good golly gosh, if only there was a pattern of behavior with these people we could've looked at to inform us of their shitty opinions and capacity for needless cruelty!

Edit: I know I've made this same sarcastic quip more than once before, but it always bares repeating when the people who've made it clear that they're a bunch of assholes continue to act like a bunch of assholes despite all the pearl clutching saying otherwise. Like this is beyond not caring about mothers/children when it comes to denying abortion access, it's actively railing against protections for them for when things fuck up because it makes these self-centered dipshits look bad. Fuck them straight to hell.

[The Stormbringer]

Same shit with a different hat, really. They just want shit to be worse on purpose because it makes them feel important.

No, see, it's not that it makes them feel important, it makes them important. If they can scare enough people, they can be elected into positions of power, and then use that power to affect real change in the world around them, get kickbacks, bribes--erm, sorry I mean lobbying efforts, and all sorts of goodies both socially and economically. They want the world worse so their lives can be better by wielding fear and suffering as a weapon.

[Frogguh]

That's the problem with the two party system when both parties suck.

Democrats and their voters advocate killing the unborn on the slightest whim, and many actively celebrate it. They not only don't possess the moral high ground, they aren't even on the moral battlefield. Try to hold people accountable for their choices and it's "cOnTrOlLiNg wOmEn". They're just sick, and their ideology blinds them from even basic thinking.

Republicans and many of the pro-life advocates, on the other hand, turn around and oppose birth control and programs to help out parents in poverty, which would go a long way to reducing the number of unborn killed. They're just complete idiots.

The problem for the pro-life advocate, then, is that in the battle to reduce the number of unborn killed, one party staunchly supports killing them and the other staunchly opposes the best methods for reducing the number that is achievable through political action.

The true problem is the cultural rot of celebrating promiscuous behavior, which has been absolutely devastating on society in far more ways than just this one topic. The only way to truly protect life is to change the culture, and our hedonistic society isn't interested.