SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Endus]

Ohio has the right to restrict abortion, just as Indiana has the right to pass less strict restrictions.

Literally the same argument as someone saying in 1858 that "Virginia has the right to enslave and commit atrocities against blacks".

Skips right over whether doing so is ethical or not, which is the point. You're just bragging that Ohio has the "right" to be abusive and misogynist towards women. Why is that laudable, again?

Maybe you'd prefer if the states had to ask you first?

Maybe just "not beholden to 19th Century views of womanhood and not pushing religious doctrine on everyone who doesn't want to follow it, against their wills".

They don't have to ask any of us, specifically. Just maybe choose not to be monsters who pursue abuse of innocents as their intended policy outcome.

Or maybe, in a representative democracy, you're trying to skip the stage where a change in the law would be debated and voted on, based on age of the mother, or 6 weeks being far too early.

"Oh, a lot of our voters support monstrously evil things, so it's totes fine that we're monsters!"

Maybe, I don't know, use this case to argue that a compromise beyond 8 weeks is more suited to address rare situations, or some exception in the case of these rare situations.

Or maybe no "compromise", because allowing some evil abuse of women is still pro-abuse-of-women.

Maybe just don't do that. Maybe get called out for being misogynist theocratic trolls for wanting it, until you stop fucking doing so.

[D Luniz]

Im wondering what all these "state's rights" people will say when after the midterms, the GOP/GQP push for a federal ban

[Jastall]

Im wondering what all these "state's rights" people will say when after the midterms, the GOP/GQP push for a federal ban

"Elections have consequences"

"something something late-term abortions"

"it's about life, we never said it was about state's right"

"democrats just mad they can't kill babies anymore lulz"

Pick argument at random or make a soup of it. That's likely what it'll look like.

[Elegiac]

Ohio has the right to restrict abortion, just as Indiana has the right to pass less strict restrictions. Maybe you'd prefer if the states had to ask you first? Or maybe, in a representative democracy, you're trying to skip the stage where a change in the law would be debated and voted on, based on age of the mother, or 6 weeks being far too early. Maybe, I don't know, use this case to argue that a compromise beyond 8 weeks is more suited to address rare situations, or some exception in the case of these rare situations.

Remember kids: it's totally okay for "representative democracy" in Ohio to pass legislation restricting women's bodily autonomy, but it's totally not okay for "representative democracy" in New York to pass legislation restricting guns. /s

You're really telling on yourself with these shitty little double standards. Rofl. And I'm not even gonna get started on your nonsense supporting SCOTUS restricting state courts' ability to conduct judicial review of state legislation while also not questioning Marbury v. Madison at all.

[Slybak]

Literally the same argument as someone saying in 1858 that "Virginia has the right to enslave and commit atrocities against blacks".

You'd more likely find someone saying that in 1958 than 1858. States' rights as it pertained to slavery wasn't a thing before the war, and pro-slavery advocates did things like demand Federal legislation protecting the personal right to own slaves from state intervention, as was the case with both the Fugitive Slave Act, which conscripted citizens of Free States to uphold the rights of slaveowners from other states, as well as the Confederate constitution, which banned its member states from abolishing slavery within their territory.

That's the thing about Federalism: it's purpose is to give its advocates the ability to move between different jurisdictional levels, like it was a ladder, until they find the one where as a practical matter of legislative politics they can most easily get their way. They do this all the time with stuff like minimum wage laws.

[Inuyaki]

These people are just garbage.

Why do you have to insult garbage?

[Dontrike]

Ohio has the right to restrict abortion, just as Indiana has the right to pass less strict restrictions.

"It's Ohio's right to take rights away from people" Holy shit......

You gonna start saying "It's okay for Ohio to treat blacks as 3/5ths a person" next?

[Darththeo]

Remember kids: it's totally okay for "representative democracy" in Ohio to pass legislation restricting women's bodily autonomy, but it's totally not okay for "representative democracy" in New York to pass legislation restricting guns. /s

You're really telling on yourself with these shitty little double standards. Rofl. And I'm not even gonna get started on your nonsense supporting SCOTUS restricting state courts' ability to conduct judicial review of state legislation while also not questioning Marbury v. Madison at all.

Those two decisions show the hypocrisy in the SCOTUS.

Right to Privacy does not exist because it hasn't been around long enough.
However, the founders and for most of the US existence, believed states had the powers to place restrictions on guns and that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right not an individual one. It was in 2008 where it became recognized by a court case as an individual right.

So, 2008 is long enough for guns, but 1973 is too soon for abortion.

[Elegiac]

Those two decisions show the hypocrisy in the SCOTUS.

Right to Privacy does not exist because it hasn't been around long enough.
However, the founders and for most of the US existence, believed states had the powers to place restrictions on guns and that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right not an individual one. It was in 2008 where it became recognized by a court case as an individual right.

So, 2008 is long enough for guns, but 1973 is too soon for abortion.

Well yeah, it's just funny that tehdang is still pretending the conservative majority on SCOTUS is issuing genuinely well-reasoned legal opinions (they aren't) and any instance of them not doing so is basically the same thing as broad constructionist civil rights cases so therefore it's okay (it isn't).

Like I said, it's all obfuscation; conservatives hide behind thought-terminating arguments like originalism or what is basically the equivalent of judicial whataboutism because they know their positions are indefensible on the merits.

[Rasulis]

The Woman Whose Abortion Ban Death Lead to Two-Third Referendum in Predominantly Roman Catholic Ireland to Legalize Abortion.

Back pain first sent Halappanavar to Galway University Hospital on Oct. 21, 2012. She was sent home but returned just hours later after she “felt something coming down” and said she had “pushed a leg back in.” A midwife confirmed no fetal parts could be seen, according to the official report. Later that day, she described the pain as “unbearable,” according to the official report.

She was admitted and on Oct. 23, a doctor told her a miscarriage was “inevitable” due to the rupturing of the membranes that protect the fetus in the womb, despite the fact that her baby was a normal size and was registering a heart beat. The medical team had decided to “monitor the fetal heart in case an accelerated delivery might be possible once the fetal heart stopped,” the official report said.In Halappanavar’s case, an accelerated delivery would likely have meant a medically induced miscarriage.

When, on Oct. 23, Halappanavar and her husband, Praveen, asked about medically inducing the miscarriage instead of delaying the inevitable, a doctor told them: “Under Irish law, if there’s no evidence of risk to the life of the mother, our hands are tied so long as there’s a fetal heart[beat],” the official report said.

The report added that once their waters have broken, pregnant women are at very high risk of infection, which in some cases can be fatal.

On Oct. 28 at 1:09 a.m., having caught an infection and gone into septic shock, Halappanavar was pronounced dead.

“It was a life-threatening condition but they took the view of not doing anything because of the legal framework,” Arulkumaran said in the interview.

Irish law in 2012 allowed abortion to prevent a “potential major hazard or threat to the mother’s life.” But the Halappanavar report said a doctor decided the point at which an abortion was “allowable in Irish law” had not been reached.

This is not a theoretical scenario in the U.S., said Dr. Jen Gunter, an OB-GYN based in California and the author of “The Vagina Bible.”

“I’ve personally been in a situation where due to the state law, abortion was illegal at our medical center and we had a patient who needed one,” she said in an interview, declining to share any further details of the case aside from the fact that it was in Kansas, where abortion is legal up to 22 weeks with some restrictions.

“It wasn’t a pregnancy complication, her organs were failing because of the extra burden of pregnancy due to her underlying condition,” she added.

The attorneys at the medical center in Kansas told Gunter she couldn’t perform the abortion unless the woman was in “imminent danger.”

“I was like, ‘What does that mean?’ And their interpretation was that she was going to die in the next three minutes,” she said. Gunter said the hospital attorneys set up a call with the state politician involved in the legislation, who told her, “Do what you think is best, doctor.”

“So I thought, ‘Then why do we have this law?’” she said.

Gunter is unsparing in her prediction for what tighter abortion laws could mean in the U.S.

She said women could die despite better antibiotics to treat septic abortions

“Halappanavar? That won’t ever change things in the States when that happens here, and it will happen.”

Lawmaker Ivana Bacik, leader of the Irish Labour Party and a long-standing advocate of abortion rights, led a protest against the Supreme Court decision outside the American Embassy in Dublin on Monday “in solidarity for American women and girls.”

“Our experience here is that banning and criminalizing abortion puts women’s lives in danger. It’s very clear that’s the appalling reality now for American women,” she said.

“If you remove the right to abortion from women and girls, you endanger lives. The reality is that there will be life-threatening conditions in pregnancy that will threaten lives and health.”

Bacik said Halappanavar’s story was instrumental in turning public opinion toward a “yes” vote in 2018. As was the case of a brain-dead woman in Ireland whose life support machine was only turned off more than three weeks after she was declared clinically dead in 2014 following a protracted legal battle because she was 18 weeks pregnant.

It will be 100 times worse in the US. Ireland maternal mortality rate when Halappanavar died in 2012 was 6 per 100,000 live births. Current maternal mortality rates in pro-life states range between 27 to over 60 per 100,000 live births. We may be looking at triple digit maternal mortality rates in some US states.

[Nymrohd]

The Woman Whose Abortion Ban Death Lead to Two-Third Referendum in Predominantly Roman Catholic Ireland to Legalize Abortion.









It will be 100 times worse in the US. Ireland maternal mortality rate when Halappanavar died in 2012 was 6 per 100,000 live births. Current maternal mortality rates in pro-life states range between 27 to over 60 per 100,000 live births. We may be looking at triple digit maternal mortality rates in some US states.

I think I said it earlier. You may well lose more women to botched abortions than you lost men in Vietnam. So maybe you need an equal response.

[Blur4stuff]

One of the strongest motivations behind these bans is to increase white population (so they believe). What they fail to understand, as others have pointed out, is that it's likely to reduce the white population. Not just from women's deaths, but from the extra effort people will put into not getting pregnant in the first place. Not just women, but men too.

The two younger generations have already been avoiding parenthood. That way of life is only going to get more popular.

[unfilteredJW]

One of the strongest motivations behind these bans is to increase white population (so they believe). What they fail to understand, as others have pointed out, is that it's likely to reduce the white population. Not just from women's deaths, but from the extra effort people will put into not getting pregnant in the first place. Not just women, but men too.

The two younger generations have already been avoiding parenthood. That way of life is only going to get more popular.

You want us to have kids?

Fucking pay us enough to do that.

[Ivanstone]

the extra effort people will put into not getting pregnant in the first place. Not just women, but men too.

Already happening.
https://www.fatherly.com/news/one-te...l-abortion-ban

[Poopymonster]

Already happening.
https://www.fatherly.com/news/one-te...l-abortion-ban

Vhemt approves.

[Glorious Leader]

Ohio has the right to restrict abortion, just as Indiana has the right to pass less strict restrictions. Maybe you'd prefer if the states had to ask you first? Or maybe, in a representative democracy, you're trying to skip the stage where a change in the law would be debated and voted on, based on age of the mother, or 6 weeks being far too early. Maybe, I don't know, use this case to argue that a compromise beyond 8 weeks is more suited to address rare situations, or some exception in the case of these rare situations.

The irony here is that Ohio evidently has a right, a complete non person in the corporeal sense but actual individual woman do not. I find the silence of so called libertarians defeaning.

[tehdang]

The irony here is that Ohio evidently has a right, a complete non person in the corporeal sense but actual individual woman do not. I find the silence of so called libertarians defeaning.

Who's the so-called libertarians here? The last I checked, they were split on the issue. Non-aggression principle, government interference, personhood, libertarians in every camp. Conservatives here are rare, but I don't recall reading a single identifiable libertarian response in the whole of the thread.

[Glorious Leader]

Who's the so-called libertarians here? The last I checked, they were split on the issue. Non-aggression principle, government interference, personhood, libertarians in every camp. Conservatives here are rare, but I don't recall reading a single identifiable libertarian response in the whole of the thread.

Which is the point... unless its taxes they have little.to say when ostensible they should be allies for the pro life cause. Again Ohio, a political conception should have rights but individual woman can and will be denied rights.

[gondrin]

Who's the so-called libertarians here? The last I checked, they were split on the issue. Non-aggression principle, government interference, personhood, libertarians in every camp. Conservatives here are rare, but I don't recall reading a single identifiable libertarian response in the whole of the thread.

Actual libertarians(ones that actually practice what they preach and aren't just pretend) would be shouting as loudly as pro-choice people at this. Libertarians would absolutely hate the SC ruling as it interjects government into peoples lives.

[Miffinat0r]

Actual libertarians(ones that actually practice what they preach and aren't just pretend) would be shouting as loudly as pro-choice people at this. Libertarians would absolutely hate the SC ruling as it interjects government into peoples lives.

This is libertarians who chose pure ideology over religion.

Religious libertarians are adamantly opposed to abortions.