SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Edge-]

Weird that whenever people keep talking to these "pro-life" folks that say they care so much about children are asked if they support all kinds of policies or proposals that would actually take care of and/or help real children, they suddenly have extensive concerns.

Or have a really urgent meeting they need to go to in a few minutes.

I'm still beginning to think that for most of them, while they may honestly believe it themselves, it's not actually about da keeds.

[Rasulis]

there's also this: https://www.npr.org/2023/02/01/11535...ess-nationwide

"A case before a federal judge in Texas could dramatically alter abortion access in the United States – at least as much, some experts say, as the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision last year, which overturned decades of abortion-rights precedent.

A decision is expected soon in the case challenging the Food and Drug Administration's approval more than 20 years ago of the abortion drug mifepristone, which a growing number of patients use to terminate pregnancies.

Jenny Ma, senior counsel with the Center for Reproductive Rights, says the outcome of the suit brought by a coalition of individuals and groups opposed to abortion - could amount to a "nationwide ban on medication abortion" with a greater impact than Dobbs."

ETA: Courtesy of judge shopping in Texas, btw.

It would be a hard climb for the anti-abortion side. As the article noted, it is very unusual to pull a drug from the market after more than two decades of widespread safe and effective use. Especially since the lawsuit is based on safety. Should be noted that mifepristone is also used to treat severe rheumatism and PTSD, and Type 2 Diabetes in adults with Cushing Syndrome.

[Levelfive]

It would be a hard climb for the anti-abortion side. As the article noted, it is very unusual to pull a drug from the market after more than two decades of widespread safe and effective use. Especially since the lawsuit is based on safety. Should be noted that mifepristone is also used to treat severe rheumatism and PTSD, and Type 2 Diabetes in adults with Cushing Syndrome.

Here's more about the judge on the case:

Trump’s worst judge is now a dangerous threat to press freedom https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ashington-post

Who Is Matthew Kacsmaryk? Trump Judge Challenging Right to Birth Control https://www.newsweek.com/who-matthew...ontrol-1767296

More on the birth control decision: A notorious Trump judge just fired the first shot against birth control https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...deanda-becerra

"But Kacsmaryk isn’t like most other judges. In his brief time on the bench — Trump appointed Kacsmaryk in 2019 — he has shown an extraordinary willingness to interpret the law creatively to benefit right-wing causes.

This behavior is enabled, moreover, by the procedural rules that frequently enable federal plaintiffs in Texas to choose which judge will hear their case — 95 percent of civil cases filed in Amarillo, Texas’s federal courthouse are automatically assigned to Kacsmaryk. So litigants who want their case to be decided by a judge with a history as a Christian right activist, with a demonstrated penchant for interpreting the law flexibly to benefit his ideological allies, can all but ensure that outcome by bringing their lawsuit in Amarillo.

And so, last Thursday, the inevitable occurred. Kacsmaryk handed down a decision claiming that “the Title X program violates the constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.”

Kacsmaryk’s decision is riddled with legal errors, some of them obvious enough to be spotted by a first-year law student. And it contradicts a 42-year-long consensus among federal courts that parents do not have a constitutional right to target government programs providing contraceptive care. So there’s a reasonable chance that Kacsmaryk will be reversed on appeal, even in a federal judiciary dominated by Republican appointees."

So I think (hope?) it's likely it would be reversed eventually (though it would first go to the 5th Circuit, which is pretty consistently partisan and awful), but I think there's a very good chance he'll follow through in the meantime. We'll know soon enough.

[RampageBW1]

I love this approach. Rather than pointing out hypocrisies as a 'gottem'. offering additional measures to lower the potential of needing an abortion that actually helps people.

I also appreciate that there is a measure of balance in the results, and not simply edited down to show only the most outrageous opinions (Staring at you Jordan Klepper).

Some parts of this video reminds me of George Carlin's bit on Abortion.

"If you're preborn, you're fine. If you're Preschool you're fucked."

But some of those people seem reasonable enough to want to support children in need.

There should be a litmus test for the "Pro-Life" crowd: if you call yourself pro-life; you can't just stop when the child is born, you have to want to care for those children after they are born so that those children don't go without. But they won't do that, will they? Because that would involve using money to buy those children food and child care.

Yes, in an ideal world, parents should be able to support their children on their own. But this is anything but an ideal world, so if we're gonna tell people that sex is only for procreation and nothing but procreation then the government should implement policies that pick up the slack for parents that would be struggling on account of this whole "No abortions" narrative.

[Kathandira]

Some parts of this video reminds me of George Carlin's bit on Abortion.

"If you're preborn, you're fine. If you're Preschool you're fucked."

But some of those people seem reasonable enough to want to support children in need.

There should be a litmus test for the "Pro-Life" crowd: if you call yourself pro-life; you can't just stop when the child is born, you have to want to care for those children after they are born so that those children don't go without. But they won't do that, will they? Because that would involve using money to buy those children food and child care.

Yes, in an ideal world, parents should be able to support their children on their own. But this is anything but an ideal world, so if we're gonna tell people that sex is only for procreation and nothing but procreation then the government should implement policies that pick up the slack for parents that would be struggling on account of this whole "No abortions" narrative.

I couldn't agree more. I would love to see more of this sort of surveying to better understand the different levels of 'pro-choice' people there are. Perhaps if each flavor of pro-lifer were to watch these videos, they may see that they don't really agree with the very people the march/protest with. If the extremists were culled out, the debates and decisions might have different results.

[Twdft]

Yes, in an ideal world, parents should be able to support their children on their own.

Quite easily solved, just double or maybe triple the minimum wage. Can't imagine the lady who says parents are responsible to feed their kids object to that.

[Darththeo]

Quite easily solved, just double or maybe triple the minimum wage. Can't imagine the lady who says parents are responsible to feed their kids object to that.

They'll just say it isn't their responsibility to insure that people can feed their kids.

[Glorious Leader]

They'll just say it isn't their responsibility to insure that people can feed their kids.

Worse they'll turn it on its head make it a moral issue. They always turn poverty into a character flaw and never a systemic concern. Their must be something wrong with those people. They need Jesus.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I love this approach. Rather than pointing out hypocrisies as a 'gottem'. offering additional measures to lower the potential of needing an abortion that actually helps people.

I also appreciate that there is a measure of balance in the results, and not simply edited down to show only the most outrageous opinions (Staring at you Jordan Klepper).

It's amazing how many of these people clearly don't care about the children and being "pro-life" is just some kind of cornerstone issue in their cult's pantheon. Am I surprised? Not at all.

[Kathandira]

It's amazing how many of these people clearly don't care about the children and being "pro-life" is just some kind of cornerstone issue in their cult's pantheon. Am I surprised? Not at all.

Honestly, I think it is moresoe that their hatred for helping people in need supersedes the desire to help children. Often you hear something along the lines of, "These children need help, please support the parents financially so the children don't suffer." And the pro-lifers reply is usually, "F that..should have kept your legs closed".

Their hatred for non-christian living trickles down to them allowing children to suffer.

[Rasulis]

I'll just leave this here.

Mississippi’s already troubling maternal mortality rate is worsening

In fact, the US maternal mortality rate peaked during the pandemic.

The overall maternal death rate in the US increased from 20.1 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2019 to 23.8 deaths per 100,000 in 2020. Since 2000, the rate more than doubled, from 9.8 deaths for every 100,000 live births, according to the CDC.

[Edge-]

I'll just leave this here.

Mississippi’s already troubling maternal mortality rate is worsening

In fact, the US maternal mortality rate peaked during the pandemic.

But like...doing anything about it costs money.

Those "sluts" just need to stop opening their legs otherwise they deserve this, we keep getting told. Like those "sluts" in the Missouri (I believe) statehouse that were showing off their elbows. Absolutely scandalous.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The unborn are an incredibly convenient demographic for conservatives to claim they care about. For one thing, there will always be abortions even if abortion is outlawed, as there will always be states, cities, and other sanctuaries where people might seek out having them regardless of legality. So even if abortion is outlawed, it will be an eternal, perpetual issue for them. On top of that... well I'll let you just read.



So yeah, the unborn are the perfect moral crusade for conservatives. Don't have to care about anyone actually living and breathing and don't have to spend any money pretending to care.

[Captain N]

Just to address the few posts above -- It's easy to support the unborn because you don't have to do anything but be mad. When it comes to actually being "Pro-Life" you need to do something about that, and that appears to be too much work for any of the pro-birth crowd.

[Edge-]

https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...tion-violence/

Dr. Scott Stringfield, medical director of the Choices Medical Clinic located directly south of Trust Women’s Wichita clinic, made the comments at a recent March for Life rally at the state Capitol in Topeka, where abortion opponents celebrated the fall of Roe v. Wade and moved to regain their footing after a failed attempt to remove abortion rights from the Kansas Constitution in August with the Value Them Both amendment. Stringfield called the 9/11 attack “a heinous act” but told March for Life attendees “you have to look at one thing. They (the terrorists) were principled. They were willing to die for what they believed in.”[...]“Some people who think they’re pro life, or consider themselves pro life, find themselves sticking a wet finger in the air to sometimes see which way the wind is going to blow before they make a decision,” Stringfield said. “That’s called pragmatism.”[...]“I encourage you to always choose principle over pragmatism,” he said.

Very reasonable, non-extreme people who clearly don't find anything to admire in terrorists amongst the "pro-life" crowd, apparently.

What a weird, completely unprompted positive example of "principles" that he came up with.

Why on earth do conservatives continue to justify tweets from @Dril years and years after they were made?

https://twitter.com/dril/status/831805955402776576

issuing correction on a previous post of mine, regarding the terror group ISIL. you do not, under any circumstances, "gotta hand it to them"

[Shadowferal]

The overturn of Roe v. Wade has been a catastrophe for Republican attempts to win over Gen Z

The Supreme Court's Dobbs decision appears to have ruined any chance of winning over many Gen Z voters, recently released polling shows.

June 2022, the Supreme Court overturned decades of abortion protections in its Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.

According to a recently released Walton Family Foundation/Murmuration survey that specifically sought to understand the motivations of the youngest voters, 29% of Gen Z respondents said that "abortion/women's rights" was the political issue that "concerned" them most when voting, coming ahead of "the economy," (8%) "election integrity," (7%) and "no specific issue" (10%).

Aside from "other," which also garnered 29%, abortion access was by far the most pressing issue amongst Gen Z.

The survey also showed that members of Gen Z appear to be much more concerned about the legislative battle for abortion access than adults aged 26 or older. While 29% of Gen Z respondents said they were concerned about abortion and women's rights, 11% of the older portion of the population said it was their top concern, an 18 percentage point difference.

The Murmuration survey findings aren't an anomaly — they're part of a growing trend in polling indicating that young Americans are increasingly motivated to get out and vote by the Dobbs decision.

According to polling from Gallup, 71% of respondents aged 18 to 29 identified as "pro-choice." The share of "pro-choice" respondents hiked significantly between 2021 and 2022, jumping 15 percentage points.

The conclusions drawn from these polls shouldn't be surprising to Republican leaders, as they've already seen voters come out in droves against a proposed constitutional amendment in Kansas post-Dobbs.

In August 2022, voters in Kansas, a Republican bastion, resoundingly rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have eliminated a right to abortion from the state constitution.

[Edge-]

Don't worry, Republican just want to raise the voting age because if they find out their platform is deeply unappealing to younger generations then clearly it's a problem with the younger generations and they just shouldn't vote.

One way Republican voters will find out that the policies of the party they vote for are consistently majority or plurality unpopular. You'd figure the ballot measures on this topic losing over and over, even in "safe red states" would be a big warning but I guess Republicans have responded to these learnings by choosing to bury their head deeper in the sand.

[Poopymonster]

Don't worry, Republican just want to raise the voting age because if they find out their platform is deeply unappealing to younger generations then clearly it's a problem with the younger generations and they just shouldn't vote.

One way Republican voters will find out that the policies of the party they vote for are consistently majority or plurality unpopular. You'd figure the ballot measures on this topic losing over and over, even in "safe red states" would be a big warning but I guess Republicans have responded to these learnings by choosing to bury their head deeper in the sand.

Funny thing is, by the time they would get their shit together and raise the voting age, those young adults that voted against Rs....be the new voting age. Plus you just pissed off the people who wanted to vote but are now "too young".

[Edge-]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...w-couple-birth

More consequences of Republican extremism on the issue and their actual lack of compassion for pregnant girls and women:

A report by the Washington Post chronicles how Dorbert and her husband, Lee Dorbert, are expecting their second child and have been told by doctors that the baby has been diagnosed with a fatal fetal abnormality known as Potter syndrome. But, they have said, the doctors could not perform an abortion because of their interpretation of a Florida law that took effect after the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade.

Potter syndrome is a rare condition related to a fetus’s development in the uterus. The syndrome is a result of abnormal kidney growth and function, which affects how much amniotic fluid surrounds the fetus during pregnancy.

It has been deemed a “doubly lethal diagnosis” because babies with malfunctioning kidneys can’t remove deadly toxins from their bodies and can in turn experience renal failure. Additionally, the absence of amniotic fluid in a womb causes a baby to be born without the ability to breathe.

According to Florida’s Reducing Fetal and Infant Mortality law, which was implemented last July, abortions are prohibited after 15 weeks of gestation, with a few exceptions, including one that would allow for a later abortion “if two physicians certify in writing that the fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality and has not reached viability”.

Last November, when the couple’s baby was diagnosed with the syndrome, a maternal fetal medicine specialist told the Dorberts that some parents choose to continue to full term while others opt to terminate the pregnancy through surgery or preterm labor.

The doctor added that he would consult with health system administrators regarding the new law, the Washington Post reports. The Dorberts eventually decided that they would like to terminate the pregnancy as early as they could because babies with the syndrome often die before they are born or end up suffocating within minutes or hours after their delivery.

Deborah Dorbert told the outlet that she recalled the specialist saying that the termination might be possible – but not until between 28 and 32 weeks.

Then, after the specialist consulted with health system administrators regarding the new law, the couple was told that they would have to wait to terminate the pregnancy until the 37th week of gestation – or near full term.

According to a text message Deborah Dorbert received from the coordinator at a maternal fetal medicine office that she visits often, the specialist made his determination after having legal administrators “look at the new law and the way it’s written”, the Washington Post reported.

“It’s horribly written,” the message added.

In their rush to control girls and womens bodies, most of these laws are horridly written and these kinds of stories are the result. A woman needing to carry to term, knowing full well the baby she will give birth to will die.

That's basically government-mandated emotional and psychological trauma. Courtesy of the Republican party.

[Endus]

That's basically government-mandated emotional and psychological trauma. Courtesy of the Republican party.

You say that like the infliction of such trauma was not the entire and sole intent of these laws in the first place.