SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Shadowferal]

Hmmm...this is sooner than I expected; JUST IN: Bombshell Report Reveals Biden Prepping to Endorse Sweeping Changes to Supreme Court

President Joe Biden is working on pushing sweeping changes to the Supreme Court, including establishing term limits and an “enforceable code of ethics,” reported the Washington Post on Tuesday.

“He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberation,” wrote the Post’s Tyler Pager and Michael Scherer in a bombshell report

The Post noted that Biden “previewed” his new stance on reforming the court “in a Zoom call Saturday with the Congressional Progressive Caucus.”

“I’m going to need your help on the Supreme Court, because I’m about to come out — I don’t want to prematurely announce it — but I’m about to come out with a major initiative on limiting the court … I’ve been working with constitutional scholars for the last three months, and I need some help,” Biden said, according to the Post.

[Lenonis]

JUST IN: Bombshell Report Reveals Biden Prepping to Endorse Sweeping Changes to Supreme Court

Meh - anything that needs to go through Congress will die and anything that he does by executive order will be challenged all the way up to the court he's trying to reign in and they'll swat it away.

[Edge-]

https://apnews.com/article/texas-abo...9c811e1cc2b4d3

A Texas woman who was jailed and charged with murder after self-managing an abortion in 2022 can move forward with her lawsuit against the local sheriff and prosecutors over the case that drew national outrage before the charges were quickly dropped, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Drew B. Tipton denied a motion by prosecutors and the sheriff to dismiss the lawsuit during a hearing in the border city of McAllen. Lizelle Gonzalez, who spent two nights in jail on the murder charges and is seeking $1 million in damages in the lawsuit, did not attend the hearing.

Texas has one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion bans and outlaws the procedure with limited exceptions. Under Texas law, women seeking an abortion are exempt from criminal charges, however.

Starr County District Attorney Gocha Ramirez and other defendants have argued their positions provide them immunity from civil lawsuits.

Rick Navarro, an attorney for the defense, argued that it was “at worst a negligence case” during the hearing. Ramirez has previously told The Associated Press that he “made a mistake” in bringing charges.

Tipton asked Gonzalez’s attorneys whether they could prove the prosecutors knew of the exception.

“What we intend to show is that negligence doesn’t explain this oversight. It is the role and function of prosecutors to be aware of the elements of the statutes that they are charging,” said David Donatti, an attorney with the ACLU of Texas who is representing Gonzalez.

Gonzalez was indicted in 2022 after she took the drug misoprostol while 19 weeks pregnant. She was treated at a Texas hospital, where doctors later performed a caesarian section to deliver a stillborn child after they detected no fetal heartbeat.

Her lawsuit filed in March also named the county, which runs the small hospital where Gonzalez was treated, claiming that hospital staff violated patient privacy rights when they reported the abortion. An amended complaint alleged that the sheriff’s office interviewed Gonzalez and arrested her later under direction from the prosecutors.

The charges were dropped just days after the woman’s arrest. In February, Ramirez agreed to pay a $1,250 fine under a settlement reached with the State Bar of Texas. Ramirez also agreed to have his license held in a probated suspension for 12 months.

Wednesday’s decision will allow the case to move forward.

So the $10K "bounty" sure seems to have driven at least someone in the hospital where Gonzalez was treated to violate her HIPAA rights (I hear Republicans think those are very important even if they don't know what that means!).

Being pregnant in Texas seems like it remains pretty risky for women.

https://www.marchofdimes.org/perista...as/report-card

Texas has a D- grade from the March of Dimes

https://www.marchofdimes.org/perista...ia/report-card

California, in comparison, has a B- grade.

https://www.marchofdimes.org/perista...da/report-card

Florida has a D+

https://www.marchofdimes.org/perista...on/report-card

Washington has a B

https://www.marchofdimes.org/perista...na/report-card

Louisiana has an F

https://www.marchofdimes.org/perista...rk/report-card

New York has a C+

I'm wondering if there are any trends emerging?

[LemonDemonGirl]

I think most people's minds on abortion would change if they heard about horrific miscarriages, but I guess not...

[PosPosPos]

I think most people's minds on abortion would change if they heard about horrific miscarriages, but I guess not...

By "most people" you mean conservatives; and no, they won't change their minds until it happens to them personally, and even then they will only believe their own abortions are moral, not the abortions of others.

[Sunseeker]

I think most people's minds on abortion would change if they heard about horrific miscarriages, but I guess not...

I dont know what you think they havent heard about that they dont chalk up to "gods plan" or "poor life choices"?

[Edge-]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ontrol-lawsuit

Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, has sued the Biden administration over a longstanding federal program that provides teenagers access to contraception without parental consent, the state’s latest attack against the federal government’s reproductive healthcare policies.

“This suit is likely a preview of where the Texas GOP – and national Republicans – stand on attacking contraception access,” says Mary Ziegler, a professor at University of California, Davis, School of Law and reproductive health expert. “While Republicans say they don’t want to take aim at contraception, this is another sign that this is actually where we’re headed.”

Title X, created in 1970, offers comprehensive family planning and preventive health care services for low-income and uninsured residents. Texas is among a handful of states that require parental consent before a teenager can get birth control – but Title X-funded contraception was the exception. Under the program, minors can receive contraception confidentially.

Texas has the highest repeat teen birth rate and one of strictest abortion bans in the US.

Reminder that it's not just abortion that Republicans are coming after, it's contraception too.

Sure this is a "narrow" case, but so were their attacks on Roe v. Wade until they managed to get that successfully overturned.

[Sunseeker]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ontrol-lawsuit



Reminder that it's not just abortion that Republicans are coming after, it's contraception too.

Sure this is a "narrow" case, but so were their attacks on Roe v. Wade until they managed to get that successfully overturned.

On top of it, it's part of Republicans long-term strategy to strip minors of any autonomy beyond the orders of their parents. Remember, they brought you into this world, and they can take you out! But only after you're born.

[Flarelaine]

Some insight I found on CNN on what is too far even for this court.

Inside the Supreme Court’s negotiations and compromise on Idaho’s abortion ban

[Kathranis]

Meh - anything that needs to go through Congress will die and anything that he does by executive order will be challenged all the way up to the court he's trying to reign in and they'll swat it away.

It's still good to fight for reforms in public even if they can't push it through right now. The SCOTUS is unpopular at the moment, with two members plagued by scandals. It also becomes an issue they Dems can campaign on, intrinsically linked to the abortion ban.

[cubby]

What bothers me is that people dont understand that abortion and miscarriage are the exact same thing

They are indeed NOT.

[Endus]

They are indeed NOT.

The only difference is that one is spontaneous and the other is induced.

A miscarriage is, in medical jargon, a "spontaneous abortion".

[cubby]

The only difference is that one is spontaneous and the other is induced.

A miscarriage is, in medical jargon, a "spontaneous abortion".

Agreed. Which is why they are not "exactly the same thing". It's a purposeful event, based on an individual's right to choose. Whereas a miscarriage is something not chosen. It's why they have different names.

(I know you know all this - saying it for everyone)

And it's important enough to make that point clear. Because the abortion issue is all about women's rights to their bodies and to be in 100% control of what happens to their bodies.

[Doomcookie]

Let's clear the air and say this is grammatically wrong. It should read "the abortion issue is all about a woman's right to her body and to be in 100% control of what happens to her body."

I will add that's wrong. It can't be that a pregnancy is about only "her body." When a pregnant woman goes to a physician, the physician has two patients. And legally, feticide is homicide, with exception of medical abortions depending on the state. So, you can't just say a fetus isn't a person or other such arguments, when that is legal precedent.

I'm going to interject here that I'm not for outlawing form of abortion, at all. Although, I am against it ethically. That's only between me and my wife, and she shares that opinion.

There was the case in Ireland, since they have a constitutional abortion ban, that a woman died because she couldn't have a procedure to remove a septic partial abortion. That's fucking horrendous and no one should have to go through any of that.



All miscarriages are abortions. QED. Semantics like arguing that squares aren't rectangles.

Of course you can say that. A tapeworm isn't a person, either.

They are also not the exact same thing, especially in the eyes of the law... and science.

It's Republicans who want to do exactly what you claim is horrendous. You should really be taking it up with them.

[Edge-]

So, you can't just say a fetus isn't a person or other such arguments, when that is legal precedent.

Citation needed for the legal precedent on fetal personhood, as that's a can of worms Republicans keep almost opening but they stop themselves each time they start to realize how fucking terrible of an idea it is given the expansive consequences.

[Endus]

I will add that's wrong. It can't be that a pregnancy is about only "her body." When a pregnant woman goes to a physician, the physician has two patients. And legally, feticide is homicide, with exception of medical abortions depending on the state. So, you can't just say a fetus isn't a person or other such arguments, when that is legal precedent.

That's not just misleading, it's definitively incorrect.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?...edition=prelim

1(a) defines a legal "person" in part with "shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development". Meaning any fetal member of the human species that has not yet been born alive at any stage of development is [i]thus definitively not a "person" under the law.

Further, 1(c) makes it even more explicit; "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this section".

You're specifically barred from making any legal argument for fetal personhood through this definition.

So yes. We can, conclusively and clearly, state openly that a fetus is not in any way a legal "person", and that any arguments to that extent are objectively disprovable.

[Shadowferal]

I will add that's wrong. It can't be that a pregnancy is about only "her body." When a pregnant woman goes to a physician, the physician has two patients. And legally, feticide is homicide, with exception of medical abortions depending on the state. So, you can't just say a fetus isn't a person or other such arguments, when that is legal precedent.

Mom is God here. Not the law, not the doctor.

[unfilteredJW]

Why would I take it up with them? I'm not a member of their party.

This is a lie and can be summarily discarded as such.

[Doomcookie]

Unborn Victims of Violence act of 2004. Granted that's a federal code. But 29 states have similar laws.

- - - Updated - - -



Why would I take it up with them? I'm not a member of their party.

They are the ones doing it.

The GOP are the ones who think that women and girls are merely incubators and unwilling sexual prey.

[Endus]

Unborn Victims of Violence act of 2004. Granted that's a federal code. But 29 states have similar laws.

It also conclusively proves your claim false.

If a fetus was an actual person under the law, this act would be completely unnecessary as violence against the fetus would already be covered under standard battery and homicide legislation. They aren't, because they aren't people, and that's why there are additional laws like this.

Fetuses are not persons under the law. Categorically.

Plus the whole definition of a "person" that I linked above which explicitly excludes a fetus from being so defined.