SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Tentim]

"Finishing an argument when you're by yourself proves you were right."

So.. I don't really know what you want here...

Do we just highjack the thread for a slap fight?

[Dontrike]

So.. I don't really know what you want here...

Do we just highjack the thread for a slap fight?

What I want you to do is perform a bit of introspection, maybe then you'll be able to come to grips with a great many things.

[Tentim]

What I want you to do is perform a bit of introspection, maybe then you'll be able to come to grips with a great many things.

Ahh so this is a weird internet slap fight.

[Rasulis]

Apparently, even all Republican State Supreme Court justices have problems with the current crops of anti-abortion laws.

An All-Republican State Supreme Court Unanimously Protects Abortion Rights

The North Dakota legislature enacted the state’s current ban in 2007, intending it to take effect if and when the Supreme Court overruled Roe. But this summer, a state judge halted the law before it could spring into action, preserving the legality of abortion within the state (whose lone provider is in the process of moving to Minnesota). State officials pressed the state Supreme Court to lift the hold, and had good reason to assume they’d prevail: The court is made up of five Republicans, four appointed by a GOP governor and one elected to his seat. (How conservative is the state’s judiciary? One justice recused from the abortion case and was replaced by another Republican appointee from a lower court.)

But state officials encountered a problem when defending the ban: It has no true exception in cases where the patient’s life is endangered. Instead, it allows defendants to raise life endangerment as an affirmative defense once they are already being prosecuted. Unlike a genuine exception—which clarifies that a life-saving abortion is not a crime at all—this approach puts the burden on defendants to prove to a jury that they acted to save a patient’s life. If they do not succeed, they face up to five years’ imprisonment. A similar law in Tennessee has forced doctors to wait until a patient is at risk of imminent death before terminating a pregnancy. Yet Tennessee’s GOP-controlled legislature has resisted replacing its current “affirmative defense” provision with a true exception for the life of the patient, and Tennessee Right to Life staunchly opposes such a reform.

The North Dakota Supreme Court took a different path. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Jon J. Jensen noted that the state constitution grants all residents the right “of enjoying and defending life and liberty” and “pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.” These guarantees “implicitly include the right to obtain an abortion to preserve the woman’s life or health,” Jensen wrote. When the state classifies emergency abortions as de facto criminal unless proven otherwise, it deprives patients of “a right to enjoy and defend life and a right to pursue and obtain safety.” The chief justice backed up this conclusion by pointing out that North Dakota expressly permitted abortions to protect life or health in 1887, before it became a state, and preserved this exception in a series of statutes passed after its admission to the union in 1889. The right is thus “deeply rooted in North Dakota’s history and culture,” a key component of “ordered liberty before, during, and at the time of statehood.”

Technically, Jensen’s decision found a right to abortion only to protect a patient’s life or health. Yet it kept the entire abortion ban on hold, allowing the lower court to determine precisely how much of the law should remain permanently blocked. The ruling explicitly guarantees abortion access whenever it is “necessary to prevent severe, life altering damage”—but also appears to go further: Jensen wrote that while “the legislature can regulate abortion, it must do so in a manner that is narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling interest.” (This standard is known as strict scrutiny.) That language suggests that all abortion restrictions must survive strict scrutiny, not only those that protect a patient’s life or health. At a minimum, the ruling surely mandates great deference to a doctor’s judgment about when termination is necessary to preserve “health.” But it may also safeguard abortion rights more broadly. The opinion also points to medical journals published shortly after North Dakota’s statehood noting that being “mentally unfit” was a legitimate reason for an abortion, raising the possibility that mental health may sometimes justify termination today. Presumably, the ruling’s exact contours will be sussed out in future decisions.

However, the court ultimately comes down on these bigger questions, one thing is now clear: North Dakota cannot compel patients to risk death before obtaining an emergency abortion. The judiciary has determined that the state cannot turn a high-risk pregnancy into a death sentence. We will soon see if other states’ courts follow suit, or if they agree with the now-mainstream Republican position that a fetus’ life simply matters more than the patient who is carrying it.

[s_bushido]

Apparently, even all Republican State Supreme Court justices have problems with the current crops of anti-abortion laws.

Well, that's something. I guess even they could see that criminal prosecutions for people who can't prove their pregnancy was life-threatening is unconscionable...

[Rasulis]

This is likely just the beginning.

Idaho hospital stops labor and delivery services citing "political climate"

"Highly respected, talented physicians are leaving. Recruiting replacements will be extraordinarily difficult," Bonner General Health, located in the city of Sandpoint, said in a news release.

Pregnant women who utilized Bonner General, a 25-bed hospital, will now have to drive to hospitals or birthing centers in Coeur d'Alene or Spokane to give birth.

In 2022, doctors delivered 265 babies at Bonner General and admitted less than 10 pediatric patients, the hospital said.

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, abortion bans have added another challenge to rural hospitals that have struggled to keep their doors open and their facilities fully staffed and running.

Nationwide, hospitals have been sounding the alarm that states with strict abortion laws risk losing staff or doctors to other regions. According to the Associated Press, in Indiana, one of the first states to restrict abortion following the Supreme Court's decision, the Indiana Hospital Association said the state is "creating an atmosphere that will be perceived as antagonistic to physicians."

Idaho has one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country. According to the Associated Press, in a court brief filed in August 2022 in support of a Justice Department lawsuit against the Idaho abortion ban, medical groups argued that Idaho physicians are forced to choose whether to break state or federal law.

In a report last September, Pew found that Idaho was one of six states in which authorities can prosecute health care providers for performing abortions.

"The Idaho Legislature continues to introduce and pass bills that criminalize physicians for medical care nationally recognized as the standard of care. Consequences for Idaho Physicians providing the standard of care may include civil litigation and criminal prosecution, leading to jail time or fines," Bonner General said in its news statement.

"We have made every effort to avoid eliminating these services," said Ford Elsaesser, Bonner General Health's Board President, in a statement. "We hoped to be the exception, but our challenges are impossible to overcome now."

[Edge-]

That'll surely make protecting the health of the mother and baby during delivery so much easier.

Maybe Republicans should think of like, narrowing the language on these kinds of laws to prevent this kind of thing from happening elsewhere?

[masterhorus8]

Maybe Republicans should think of like, narrowing the language on these kinds of laws to prevent this kind of thing from happening elsewhere?

Nah, that'd defeat the purpose.

[Rasulis]

That'll surely make protecting the health of the mother and baby during delivery so much easier.

Maybe Republicans should think of like, narrowing the language on these kinds of laws to prevent this kind of thing from happening elsewhere?

Meanwhile, the maternal mortality rate in the US is getting worse.


Per CDC, it grew by 38% in 2021.

[Captain N]

Republican politicians -- So pro-life their polices result in the death rate of pregnant women going up 38%. That needs to be put on a T-shirt, coffee mug, key chain, and a massive billboard throughout the Red States.

[Katchii]

Republican politicians -- So pro-life their polices result in the death rate of pregnant women going up 38%. That needs to be put on a T-shirt, coffee mug, key chain, and a massive billboard throughout the Red States.

S.C. Republicans propose bill that could subject women who have abortions to the death penalty

So pro-life, they'll kill you!

Fucking clown show. Except it's not funny, at all, it's horrifying because these asshats are making policies to support their fucked up ideology.

[Edge-]

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...lp-it-00087688

Legislatures in Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio and Oklahoma are debating bills this session that would hike the filing fees, raise the number of signatures required to get on the ballot, restrict who can collect signatures, mandate broader geographic distribution of signatures, and raise the vote threshold to pass an amendment from a majority to a supermajority. While the bills vary in wording, they would have the same impact: limiting voters’ power to override abortion restrictions that Republicans imposed, which took effect after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year.

After watching the pro-abortion rights side win all six ballot initiative fights related to abortion in 2022 — including in conservative states such as Kansas and Kentucky — conservatives fear, and are mobilizing to avoid, a repeat.

A consequence of Republicans discovering that their extremist position on this topic is very unpopular when the voters actually get a say in the matter?

Make it harder for the voters to get a direct say in the matter. And consequently, any matter hereon out.

Republicans continue their long, proud tradition of complaining about how unfair democracy is that it doesn't favor their minority interests and positions and continue to do everything possible to circumvent or ignore it at nearly every turn.

[Elegiac]

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...lp-it-00087688

A consequence of Republicans discovering that their extremist position on this topic is very unpopular when the voters actually get a say in the matter?

Make it harder for the voters to get a direct say in the matter. And consequently, any matter hereon out.

Republicans continue their long, proud tradition of complaining about how unfair democracy is that it doesn't favor their minority interests and positions and continue to do everything possible to circumvent or ignore it at nearly every turn.

I'm genuinely mystified as to why they think doubling down on an issue that very likely helped cost them a red wave last year is going to pay political dividends.

Then again, we are talking about the same party who is actively courting another government shutdown despite the fact it has never, ever worked out for them electorally.

[Edge-]

I'm genuinely mystified as to why they think doubling down on an issue that very likely helped cost them a red wave last year is going to pay political dividends.

Then again, we are talking about the same party who is actively courting another government shutdown despite the fact it has never, ever worked out for them electorally.

I mean, it lines up. Republicans consistently hold/pass majority/plurality unpopular positions/bills while Democrats hold/pass majority/plurality popular position/bills. Republicans just benefit from a lot of things like having a whole-ass news channel that exists to do their PR/messaging for them.

[Elegiac]

I mean, it lines up. Republicans consistently hold/pass majority/plurality unpopular positions/bills while Democrats hold/pass majority/plurality popular position/bills. Republicans just benefit from a lot of things like having a whole-ass news channel that exists to do their PR/messaging for them.

Even then, the messaging doesn't seem to be particularly effective in this case.

[s_bushido]

I'm genuinely mystified as to why they think doubling down on an issue that very likely helped cost them a red wave last year is going to pay political dividends.

Because if they fuck the system thoroughly enough, they don't have to worry about what voters actually want...and can cling to power regardless of how wildly unpopular everything they stand for is.

[Captain N]

Because if they fuck the system thoroughly enough, they don't have to worry about what voters actually want...and can cling to power regardless of how wildly unpopular everything they stand for is.

They don't even have to fuck it thoroughly. All they have to do is screw it up enough and then refuse to do anything when Democrats get into power and then folks like tehdang and tentim will scream "but both sides are bad".

[Rasulis]

Elevated Access recruits hobby pilots to fly abortion patients out of states with bans.

For people trying to get to an abortion appointment several states away — maybe with just a few days’ notice — private flights can be game-changing.

They can turn a multi-day drive into just a couple of hours, and they can take off much closer to a passenger’s home than a commercial airport. Elevated Access makes the flights free to passengers, who won’t have to purchase an expensive, last-minute plane ticket.

And they’re virtually anonymous. Pilots only know a passengers’ first name and weight (to avoid exceeding small aircraft weight limits).

“We don’t check ID because that’s not part of private aviation. There’s no ticketing or TSA or anything like that,” said Mike (not to be confused with Michael), the founder of Elevated Access. “If somebody feels like they need to use a fake first name, they can definitely do that.”

“There are tons of little airports like this dotted all over,” Michael says. “I try to avoid the big airports. Usually, we fly into one that’s closer to where they live.”

[RampageBW1]

Elevated Access recruits hobby pilots to fly abortion patients out of states with bans.

This is probably one reason why states whom want total ban on abortions also want to prevent women from leaving the state if they are pregnant. Not that they have any business doing so, because what a woman does with her body is no one's business but her own.

But I imagine this is gonna become an expensive service once enough people start taking them up on the offer.

[Rasulis]

This is probably one reason why states whom want total ban on abortions also want to prevent women from leaving the state if they are pregnant. Not that they have any business doing so, because what a woman does with her body is no one's business but her own.

But I imagine this is gonna become an expensive service once enough people start taking them up on the offer.

The service is free of charge. I think it will stay that way. I am just not sure if they'll be able to keep up with demand.

More than anything, this illustrates the difficulty of banning something which is legal in half the US states.

Here is another one.

California bill to protect doctors who mail abortion pills

Here is a company that ship abortion pills worldwide. Including places where they are illegal. it is a non-profit based in Canada. Yes. They'll ship to Texas.

https://www.womenonweb.org/