SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Edge-]

so you think that those were voted on by the populace?
i'm really not sure what you're angling at here.

You vote for your federal Representative and Senator, and you vote for your state Representative and Senator, who are the ones who vote on those things. If you don't vote, you don't get a say in who represents you.

Are we really doing basic civics 101 in addition to a history lesson? Because again, neither of those were executive orders as you claimed, and both were laws (one a Connotational Amendment which is like, a super-law).

Just like voting, in part, determined the makeup of the current SCOTUS with the latest three appointments.

[Malkiah]

Edit: Beaten to it, but the two different links provide different background to back each other up.

so you also think those were voted on by the populace?

This remains a straw man. No one said higher turnout automatically meant better outcomes. You're making shit up rather than dealing honestly.

you've all said it, repeatedly - in fact it's pretty much the only argument you have.
it doesn't matter if any of you explicitly state it in those words, as you yourself are so fond of suggesting, the logical extension of an argument is as good as the argument itself.

you can't claim that a single non-voter changes anything because that's absurd, so your claim only makes sense under the implication that all non-voters voting would change anything.
you want a better outcome because you keep crying about how people like me are causing worse outcomes that you don't like, and thus logically the only way that works is that you belief that if all the non-voters voted, the world would be a liberal utopia... that is the only way your screeds about non-voters being morally culpable for political outcomes you don't like makes any sort of internal logical sense.
if hypothetically 100% of people who didn't vote were shown were be rabid christofascists, you and everyone else crying about non-voters are ruining the world would vanish instantly... you only sense it makes for you all and your tirades about voting is because you incorrectly think that if non-voters started voting suddenly all the boogeymen that get you riled up would go away.

however, it has been effectively demonstrated that A. non-voters are split equally between left/right to the same ratio as voters, and B. when voting is compulsory and near 100% you still get right-wing and fascist political outcomes.

- - - Updated - - -

Are we really doing basic civics 101 in addition to a history lesson? Because again, neither of those were executive orders as you claimed, and both were laws (one a Connotational Amendment which is like, a super-law).

oh we're doing the thing where we hyper focus on a single word to try to semantics quibble an argument we have no other rebuttal to? ok, fun times.
apparently i was thinking of the EPA or something. or any of the many other instances in the 50-70s where major institutions were created via executive order, excuse me.

the rest of your post is a repetition of your claim without evidence so i won't bother with it.

[Endus]

so you also think those were voted on by the populace?

I'm not entertaining misrepresentations of what representative democracy is as a system as if those misrepresentations are an honestly-intentioned argument.

At this point, you don't understand history, and you don't understand what representative democracy is as a system. That or you're being intentionally dishonest, or whatever reason.

you've all said it, repeatedly - in fact it's pretty much the only argument you have.

Directly quote me, then. You insist that's my argument, actually quote me saying that.

You can't, because it isn't something I've said. It's a straw man you invented to avoid honest discussion.

[Malkiah]

Directly quote me, then. You insist that's my argument, actually quote me saying that.

You can't, because it isn't something I've said. It's a straw man you invented to avoid honest discussion.

i won't devolve into a petty back and forth on this, but it's the height of hypocrisy for you you to leave out literally the next sentence of a post that addresses the thing you're replying to, while ALSO crying foul over a rhetorical technique that you yourself engage in all day, every day, on this forum.

you don't need to say the quiet part out loud for the quiet part to be said.
if you're NOT suggesting that, if you're denying it entirely, then we are far past the point of it mattering if it's a 'straw man' because your entire premise becomes instantly and utterly deranged.

[Endus]

i won't devolve into a petty back and forth on this, but it's the height of hypocrisy for you you to leave out literally the next sentence of a post that addresses the thing you're replying to, while ALSO crying foul over a rhetorical technique that you yourself engage in all day, every day, on this forum.

you don't need to say the quiet part out loud for the quiet part to be said.
if you're NOT suggesting that, if you're denying it entirely, then we are far past the point of it mattering if it's a 'straw man' because your entire premise becomes instantly and utterly deranged.

Nah. I pointed to voting as a necessary component of pushing to get your voice heard in a representative democracy. I made no claims that only good people vote. That's a baffling claim and I have no idea where you pulled that from, but it certainly wasn't from any subtext in my posts. Bad people vote, too. That's why it's important to be involved. Because otherwise, you're letting them have more of a voice than they otherwise would have.

That cuts both ways, obviously, but you don't hear your apathetic indifference so much from their side of the aisle. I wouldn't have thought this needed explanation out loud, but yeah; Republicans also vote. That wasn't something I thought anyone would call me to task for not explicitly stating, but here we are.

[Edge-]

https://azmirror.com/2024/03/07/hobb...contraception/

Sen. Sonny Borrelli, the No. 2 Republican in the state Senate, responded to a question about whether he would oppose future efforts to restrict access to emergency contraceptives by saying that women wouldn’t need contraceptives if they weren’t so promiscuous.

“Like I said, Bayer Company invented aspirin. Put it between your knees,” he said, implying that, if women hold aspirin between their legs, they won’t be able to have sex and risk pregnancy.

Republicans are still fucking awful human beings on this topic. At least he's only grossly saying that if women keep their legs closed they won't get preggers, and doesn't think that doing so will prevent a pregnancy after intercourse.

But uh, it's kinda hard for rape victims to do that, for exampe.

[Cthulhu 2020]

because voting democrats implicitly endorses the system, and the system is completely and utterly fucked to its core and is on its face immoral, on top of the fact that it represents zero of my core values.

Guess what I do? I work on the local level to help more progressive candidates get the traction they need for primary bids as well as a spot in the local general elections. City, county and state positions that are being voted on. Even the federal congress and senate is something that you can push smaller SocDem/Soc parties.

But the general national election? Naw, I'm not gonna take my chances with Trump or any of the modern GOP. If Dems don't win, the Republicans win and the Dems see that the American people want to go farther right (which I realize isn't how this works but that's the message it sends). Do you think Biden would have openly embraced a Republican border plan if the USA was in a healthy position politically? The answer is absolutely not. We have the right whipping people into a frenzy over a border crisis (there never is one, but they're sometimes convincing to the lowest common denominators) and a lot of the general population believes there genuinely is one.

Your indignant defiance means nothing to anyone but yourself. And that's okay. Just don't expect anybody to move left because of it. They won't. And it's not hyperbole to say that you could lose the ability to vote if the right wins. They're openly talking about Project 2025 which among other things installs right wing presidents as rulers for life. This isn't some Democrat conspiracy, this is literally something that the Republican front runner is endorsing and the rest of the party is falling in line behind him.

[D Luniz]

https://azmirror.com/2024/03/07/hobb...contraception/



Republicans are still fucking awful human beings on this topic. At least he's only grossly saying that if women keep their legs closed they won't get preggers, and doesn't think that doing so will prevent a pregnancy after intercourse.

But uh, it's kinda hard for rape victims to do that, for exampe.

Cause married couples just want to hold hands and then sleep in their separate twin beds.

[Odinfrost]

https://azmirror.com/2024/03/07/hobb...contraception/



Republicans are still fucking awful human beings on this topic. At least he's only grossly saying that if women keep their legs closed they won't get preggers, and doesn't think that doing so will prevent a pregnancy after intercourse.

But uh, it's kinda hard for rape victims to do that, for exampe.

I guess Borrelli doesn't know what a teenager is and must clearly have just instantly transformed from a 10 yo to a 35 yo. (Giving the man a buffer on the other end, just to be safe).
Also, clearly unaware what rape is. He probably think it's a form of wine.

[Poopymonster]

I guess Borrelli doesn't know what a teenager is and must clearly have just instantly transformed from a 10 yo to a 35 yo. (Giving the man a buffer on the other end, just to be safe).
Also, clearly unaware what rape is. He probably think it's a form of wine.

It's only rape if it's committed in the Rape section of northern France.
Otherwise it's just Strangers with Benefits.

[Edge-]

https://www.axios.com/2024/03/21/ivf...freedom-caucus

A group of right-wing House Freedom Caucus members on Wednesday sent a letter to the Department of Veterans Affairs opposing the agency's recent expansion of in vitro fertilization access.

Why it matters: It's a rare example of vocal Republican opposition to fertility treatments as the party has tried hard to distance from an Alabama Supreme Court ruling last month that froze IVF services in the state.

Several Republican lawmakers have gotten behind a GOP resolution declaring support for IVF, while one even signed onto a Democratic bill to create federal protections for fertility services.
Driving the news: At issue is the the VA's announcement last week that it will provide IVF services to unmarried veterans and those in same-sex marriages, as well as those who cannot create their own sperm or eggs.

Four Freedom Caucus members, led by Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.), wrote in a letter to VA Secretary Denis McDonough that they have "strong objections" to the new policy.
"IVF is morally dubious and should not be subsidized by the American taxpayer," they continued, echoing opposition from anti-abortion groups to the creation of "surplus" embryos as part of the IVF process.
The letter includes a list of questions for McDonough about the storage and treatment of surplus embryos and the cost and legality of the policy.
Zoom in: In addition to Rosendale, the letter was signed by Reps. Mary Miller (R-Ill.), Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.) and Bob Good (R-Va.), the chair of the Freedom Caucus.

The lawmakers wrote that it would "make more sense" to use the funds for the IVF policy tot "bolster adoption efforts" instead.
The other side: A VA spokesperson told Axios that, by law, the department's policy must adhere to that of the Pentagon, which similarly expanded IVF access.

The spokesperson added that the VA only covers the freezing of embryos but does not destroy them. In the event of divorce or death. Disposal is a choice for the veteran or their family.
Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.), who introduced the Democratic bill to create federal protections for IVF, told Axios of the letter, simply, "Unbelievable."

Republicans, again are very much not remotely on the same page with anything in terms of reproductive rights and bodily autonomy.

Just a reminder that yes, a great many Republicans do want a national abortion ban, including with no exceptions. Many want to outlaw birth control. And as we're seeing that extend to IVF as Republicans have never actually looked into the biological process of reproduction or our scientific understanding of it and consequently will just make up whatever sounds good to them, because they, who are also mostly men with no medical training, are the apparent experts on the reproductive process.

Now this opposition is just to the expansion of IVF offerings in the VA for veterans, including folks who are unable to have children with their own reproductive stuff or same sex couples or, unwed veterans.

I'm all for taking the Republican party seriously on this topic.

[Captain N]

I've started to realize that the Republican push for a nationwide abortion ban, the removal of contraceptives, and it's newest fight against IVF makes a strong case for the future where Republican politicians will do off the wall stuff like assigning men to impregnate women just so that these women are doing their part to keep civilization running ala Mad Max.

[Rasulis]

I've started to realize that the Republican push for a nationwide abortion ban, the removal of contraceptives, and it's newest fight against IVF makes a strong case for the future where Republican politicians will do off the wall stuff like assigning men to impregnate women just so that these women are doing their part to keep civilization running ala Mad Max.

You just started to realize that? The current GOP is basically a nascent developmental form of Atwood's Gilead.

[Endus]

IVF is as "morally dubious" as teaching evolution to kids, or funding NASA which clearly violates the fact that we live under a giant dome on a flat plane.

The only people who find it "dubious" are religious zealots and morons. They don't deserve to be ignored, they deserve to have whoever they challenge on this shit publicly point them out with a finger and a deep, resounding belly laugh. Mock these shitwits until they fuck off forever. They deserve nothing less.

And before anyone challenges me on "attacking religion"; religion sets guidelines that its followers should follow. That does not extend to enforcing those rules on society. The moment you start doing that, you're not talking "religion", you're talking "religiofascism" that's a direct assault on everyone else's religious rights.

[Xyonai]

IVF is as "morally dubious" as teaching evolution to kids, or funding NASA which clearly violates the fact that we live under a giant dome on a flat plane

These morons got backed into a corner with a dumb ruling in one state and, rather than admit it was stupid, they're doubling down on it because they're too belligerent to ever admit they were wrong and are actively trying to rewrite reality to make them right.

Like I'm sure if the IVF ruling in Alabama or whatever bumfuck state it happened in ended up ruling against anesthetics that might be used in pregnancy (due to a made up or overinflated threat they might pose to babies) then we'd be seeing a massive concerted effort to ban them by these same dweebs nationwide.

[Odinfrost]

I love the logic of the pro-life crowd.
They are protectors of life as long as said life cannot be sustained outside the womb
After that it's an FFA

[Sunseeker]

I love the logic of the pro-life crowd.
They are protectors of life as long as said life cannot be sustained outside the womb
After that it's an FFA

I giggled at this because "FFA" is "Future Farmers of America". Even farmers know to value the current cow over the possible calf.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Fun fact, during the original Roe v Wade trial, Texas Assistant AG made a joke so bad and sexist that it got its own wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_a..._the_last_word

Pro lifers really are just sexist most of the time.

[Edge-]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/25/polit...urt/index.html

The blockbuster case at the Supreme Court that could make it harder for millions of Americans to access the abortion pill mifepristone has turned almost entirely on 11 anti-abortion doctors and advocates who say their work has been upended by patients experiencing complications from the drug.

One of those doctors is also a Republican state senator in Indiana. Another claims to be an expert in an “abortion pill reversal” procedure that a leading medical group described as “unproven and unethical.” A third hasn’t been licensed to practice medicine for years.

Most of the doctors directly involved in the case, which will be heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, have long records advocating against abortion. None of the doctors who submitted declarations prescribe mifepristone and none have pointed to an instance when they personally were required to perform an abortion for a patient who had complications after taking the drug.

In what has emerged as the most important abortion case since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, the Supreme Court is being asked whether the Food and Drug Administration overstepped its authority by making it easier to obtain mifepristone, such as by expanding who may prescribe the drug and allowing it to be dispensed through the mail.

But before the court reaches that issue, it must first decide whether the doctors and medical groups who filed the lawsuit have been harmed by the drug in a way that gives them a right to sue, a concept known as “standing.” Adam Unikowsky, a well-known Supreme Court litigator, has questioned whether the groups are even close to meeting that standard.

Much of the evidence the doctors have put forward for how mifepristone’s availability is harming them is vague, at best, and has put the case on flimsy legal footing.

“They’re not forced to prescribe it,” said Unikowsky, a former clerk to the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. “Their theory of standing is based on other people being prescribed the drug by other doctors.”

Oh look, the doctors at the heart of this bullshit issue

A) Are mostly vocally anti-abortion and are, in some cases, partisan political actors.

B) Have no prescribed the drug themselves nor been in a situation where they might need to.

C) Promote debunked, junk science about "abortion pill reversals"

D) At least one hasn't had a license to practice medicine for years

Dr. Christina Francis, an Indiana OB-GYN and CEO of one of the anti-abortion groups involved in the case, hasn’t personally been forced to perform an “emergency abortion” because of mifepristone but told the court about a patient who arrived at an emergency room in such an unstable condition in 2022 that a colleague had to perform an emergency abortion despite feeling as though she was “forced to participate in something that she did not want to be a part of.”

So she wasn't forced to do anything contrary to her beliefs or anything else. But she knows someone who was and is sueing on their behalf? I don't think that's how standing works.

Leading medical groups such as the American Medical Association have told the Supreme Court that mifepristone is “extremely safe.” The FDA first approved the drug more than 20 years ago, though at that time pregnant women were required to schedule multiple in-person visits at a doctor’s office. The FDA later eliminated that requirement.

Removing that requirement, Francis claimed, “has led to a significant increase in women coming into our emergency rooms.” Francis described that assertion as anecdotal, claiming that it can take years for such trends to appear in published research.

And she has no actual data to support her wild assertion.

“I’m not aware of any other agency action across the federal government that has openly and expressly conscripted doctors to violate their conscience rights to divert their resources and to suffer emotional harm,” Baptist said.

When women arrive at hospitals, he said, “our doctors are more than happy to help them,” but, “that’s creating a concrete harm for them and they have every right to sue the federal government for that.”

So find employers who will not put you in those situations if you don't want to be put in that position. Or consider another field, because health care is health care even if they have moral issues with some health care.

I'll note, again, anti-abortion proponents still largely fail to show any real data to support their continually fantastical and fictional beliefs. As highlighted, who needs data when you can have an anecdote or two and use that to make broad, generalized claims! Can you even show the anecdote you claim happened happened? No, but that shouldn't matter!

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ketanj...ortion-hearing

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a sizzling retort to fellow Justice Samuel Alito Tuesday, questioning his “specialized scientific knowledge” of abortion-inducing drugs.

The justices heard arguments Tuesday morning from a lawyer for the anti-abortion Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which holds that the FDA erred in allowing mifepristone, one of the drugs used in a medication abortion, to be dispensed remotely. The FDA and most major medical associations say the ruling is sound, pointing to studies showing no difference in severe complications when the pills are dispensed via telemedicine versus in person.

Lawyers for the FDA and for the lead producer of mifepristone, Danco Laboratories, argued Tuesday that the alliance did not have standing to argue the case, as none of its members take or prescribe the drug.

Alito pushed back, asking Solicitor General Elizabeth Pregolar, the lead attorney for the government, who if anyone should be allowed to challenge the FDA’s ruling in court.

“Shouldn’t someone be able to challenge that in court?” he asked, adding, after she said she could not think of anyone who should: “The American people have no remedy for that?”

He later questioned Danco attorney Jessica Ellsworth along the same lines, asking if the FDA had ever approved a drug and then rescinded it after receiving reports of complications.

“During the questioning of the solicitor general, the statement was made that no court has ever previously second-guessed the FDA's judgment about access to a drug,” Alito said.

“Do you think the FDA is infallible?”

Jackson made clear her thoughts about Alito’s question in her own questioning of Ellsworth.

“You were asked if the agency is infallible, and I guess I’m wondering about the flip side, which is do you think that courts have specialized scientific knowledge with respect to pharmaceuticals?” she asked.

As a representative for a company that produces pharmaceuticals, she added, “Do you have concerns about judges parsing medical and scientific studies?”

Ellsworth said she did.

“There are two amicus briefs from the pharmaceutical industry that expand on why exactly that's so concerning for pharmaceutical companies who do depend on FDA's gold standard review process to approve their drugs,” she said.

Hundreds of drug company executives signed onto the briefs Ellsworth mentioned, which argued that allowing the Alliance to challenge the FDA’s regulation on mifepristone would upend the existing approval and regulatory system. Ovid Therapeutics CEO Jeremy Levin, one of the executives who signed on, previously called the case a “dagger at the heart of the entire industry.”

The manufacturers may have little to fear. Despite Alito’s testy line of questioning, most of the justices appeared likely to deny the alliance standing by the time oral arguments concluded.

I love that Justice Brown actually uses her brain and thinks about arguments in a more wholistic sense rather than taking a narrow view with the goal of achieving the conclusion she's already come to.

Because if she did that she might be citing 15th century alchemists!

Thankfully though, it sounds like the SCOTUS is fairly suspect on the quack science of the folks challenging this, which as noted include some folks who do not have a license to practice medicine and also seems to exclusively be people who have never been put in a position where they've potentially needed to prescribe this medication.

[AntiFascistVoter]

The anti-mifepristone argument was so wholly devoid of merit most of the justices seemed bored by it:

The Supreme Court appeared listless, even bored, during Tuesday’s oral arguments in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the case asking the courts to ban the abortion drug mifepristone.

Their frustration with the Alliance case is understandable, since they’ve been dealing with it for nearly an entire year. Last April, after two lower courts issued decisions that would have effectively removed mifepristone from the market, the justices voted 7-2 to leave access to mifepristone intact while this case was being appealed.



Senate Republicans object to moves to take control of the executive branch away from Matthew Kacsmaryk...
One way to stop cases like this from getting to the Court as often would be force litigators like Erin Hawley to file lawsuits with actual judges instead of self-appointed President of the United States of America Matthew Kacsmaryk. As it happens, the Judicial Conference of the United States has taken steps in that direction, and Mitch ‘government by judiciary” McConnell says no beuno:

On Tuesday, the little-known Judicial Conference of the United States — the policymaking arm of the federal judiciary — made some unusual headlines by announcing a new effort to make it harder for plaintiffs in certain lawsuits challenging state or federal policies to hand-pick the specific judge who hears their case. This crackdown on “judge shopping” is long overdue. It has also provoked a rather telling reaction from Republican Sens. Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn and Thom Tillis.


But hey, David French and simps claim there's Leftists out the persecuting white christians.... somewhere in Imagination Land.