SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Cthulhu 2020]

Point me to the pro-choice person in this forum speaking a defense of any status quo abortion law regarding 1) elective abortions 2) performed after a certain gestational age. It would be a welcome discovery for me. No joke, I'd appreciate learning it. I would be quite happy to hear a pro-choice person say "[INSERT BLUE STATE HERE] makes abortion generally legal up until [16 weeks/18 weeks/"viability"/20 weeks/24 weeks] and I support such a restriction on abortion.

People as a whole do not support unconditional access to abortion, and if you believe they do you've poorly misinformed yourself, likely because the only sources you ever believe is the alt right pipeline. If you think everyone in here has been arguing for unconditional access to abortion at any point during term, then you've not been paying attention to the thread in general. Not much of a surprise considering you hopped into the discussion only recently. But really, the only thing this thread has been discussing recently is about the abortion bans. Because that's what conservatives have been doing.

But again, you're a dishonest poster, posting dishonest things, making utterly dishonest takes about others. "WAH WAHHHHHHH people want to have abortions right before pregnancy!" "Bruh nobody wants that" "BUT EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD HAS BEEN ARGUING FOR THAT!"

Do you know why nobody has been discussing their limitations on when abortion is okay in here? Because conservatives have been outright banning abortion, and it's hurting women. It's causing women to die both due to pregnancy complications that doctors will not treat due to legal ramifications, as well as women getting into severe medical issues because they can't get proper reproductive care since conservatives have utterly gutted reproductive health care. Pregnancy crisis centers don't offer shit. Diapers, bottles, and ultrasounds? Fuck off, that doesn't do shit.

Limitations on abortions are generally arbitrary. There's generally very little restriction on first trimester, with a good number of restrictions on second trimester depending on state, and all states more or less had outright bans on third trimester abortions save for grave medical emergencies for either the mother or child. Your moral panic about third trimester abortion is PATHETIC and MEANINGLESS in this discussion, and serves zero purpose other than to demonstrate how you have zero argument yourself. If the only thing you're bringing to the table is to cry about third trimester abortions, I'm happy to tell you that those don't happen save in extreme cases. Less than 1% of all abortions happen past 21 weeks, and again, only happen because of severe medical issue.

It feels so excedingly idiotic that every time the abortion debate is had with a conservative, they always cry about aborting babies before birth or in the third trimester "for funsies" because it makes them feel like their side is more reasonable and makes the pro-choice side look crazy. But that's all conservatives have. Lies and dishonest moral panics about things that don't happen.

[PosPosPos]

-word salad snip-

You didn't have to write up walls and walls of text telling us and faux-justifying over and over how you have utter contempt for not just medical and scientific consensus, but also for democracy.

But you did so anyway, because you are just engaging in bad faith invitations to debate.

so what should we expect?

Other than the usual sealions and gish-gallops?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Other than the usual sealions and gish-gallops?

It's just so easy to rebuke their sad attempts at arguments, because they're all the same. For as much as they claim the other side is NPCs who will believe anything they're told, the conservative side uses a lot of the same exact lines and thus make it super easy to counter. The whole panic about women getting abortions in the third trimester for funsies is a popular one among Republicans. But just like every other moral panic that conservatives engage in, it's not something that happens in reality. The third trimester abortions are less than 1% of overall abortions, and are always limited to things such as medical emergency.

So we have a poster who's been arguing in favor of outright abortion bans, but when it's been demonstrated to him time and again how destructive outright bans are, and how conservatives can't claim to be pro-life because pregnancy related deaths are now UP in areas where abortion is illegal, he falls back onto "WELL YOU GUYS JUST WANT TO ABORT BABIES RIGHT BEFORE THEY'RE BORN HUH!" as if we haven't heard that lame ass goalpost shift 5000 times already.

But you're right, it's naught more than sealioning. He constantly cries about sources, while never providing any himself, and when the evidence is overwhelmingly against him he disappears from a debate only to pop up elsewhere and once again begin demanding others be the ones to provide evidence. It's transparently dishonest.

[Endus]

Miscarriage and abortion is close in kind to dying from a sudden sickness and dying from an intentional act of murder. For some circumstances on post-viability dilemmas, the question becomes, "We must deliver the baby now, but why would you also demand to first kill it?" Let me reiterate so you can't miss it, the moral argument between death from intentional act and death from sudden sickness isn't so easily discarded.

Liar.

"Abortion" refers to the ending of a pregnancy; that is what is "aborted".

If a fetus is advanced enough to be viable, the abortion procedure that would be used would be inducing birth. There would be no medical reason whatsoever to kill the fetus first. You're lying about what abortion even is to fearmonger about stupid made-up delusional fantasies.

As for your "moral argument about death from intentional act"; killing in self defense is an "intentional act". A police officer shooting an active threat is an "intentional act". Etc. Intentional killing is not automatically a moral wrong. Worse, we're talking about non-viable fetus in nearly every case, here, so presuming the moral standard is the same as killing an actual person is the real false equivalence being drawn here. Which you're again lying about, to our faces, because admitting the truth kills your entire argument dead.

- - - Updated - - -

People as a whole do not support unconditional access to abortion, and if you believe they do you've poorly misinformed yourself, likely because the only sources you ever believe is the alt right pipeline.

It's not like that's even a crazy concept. Canada's had no legal restrictions on abortion for 35 years now. It's just managed via medical ethics and standards of practice, like any other medical procedure. There have been essentially no issues as a result of that legal change.

Also, universal health care, and abortions are covered, so there isn't even a financial barrier of any kind.

[Rasulis]

Here is something that most people probably missed during the 2022 election cycle.

Alaska’s constitution privacy clause granted Alaskans the right to abortion without gestation limit. Republicans in Alaska have been wanting to change this for a long time. Their only option is to change the constitution.

The first avenue is by placing a ballot measures to be voted by Alaskans. Which would require two-third legislator votes. A non-starter.

The second is by holding a constitution convention which is voted once a decade. It came up in 2022, and the pro-convention supporters made it clear that changes to Alaska’s abortion right will be on the table if it passed.

In 2012 the “no” votes won by 2 to 1. Early polls indicated that, although still a long shot, the margin in 2022 might be closer. Instead the “no” votes won by 70.5% to 29.5%.

This shows that even in a R+14 state, majority voters do not want abortion restrictions.

[Edge-]

In 2012 the “no” votes won by 2 to 1. Early polls indicated that, although still a long shot, the margin in 2022 might be closer. Instead the “no” votes won by 70.5% to 29.5%.

This shows that even in a R+14 state, majority voters do not want abortion restrictions.

Weird how every time this actually goes to the voters in any capacity there's overwhelming support for bodily autonomy as a bipartisan issue. Even in fairly deep red states.

I mean it's not weird at all and people aren't remotely as extreme on the topic - as a whole - as Republican politicians would very much like you to believe. Shame their voters keep electing these bad politicians with extremist views on the topic.

[Fugus]

Weird how every time this actually goes to the voters in any capacity there's overwhelming support for bodily autonomy as a bipartisan issue. Even in fairly deep red states.

I mean it's not weird at all and people aren't remotely as extreme on the topic - as a whole - as Republican politicians would very much like you to believe. Shame their voters keep electing these bad politicians with extremist views on the topic.

Also goes to show how religiously those voters have shown up at the polls over the decades to get these zealots elected to begin with compared to how many only seem to show up when they realize they themselves are directly being attacked with their own rights.

Shows how many Americans just refuse to show up most times and how the GOP can strip them of every right, freedom and paycheck they want so long as they don't do it directly or overtly. The boiled frog in action.

[Rasulis]

We are watching a slow-moving trainwreck in terms of women's healthcare in the US. It is especially acute in states where abortion is banned.

Training Location Preferences of U.S. Medical School Graduates Post DOBBS V. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION Decision

[Cthulhu 2020]

"I never thought leopards would eat MY face," sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party.

[Adamas102]

If you think the decision should be solely between a mother and a doctor, really the mother making an informed decision, then it is up to you to inform me the circumstances where that changes. I'm not going to put words in your mouth to say you really meant up to 39 weeks, or up to 35 weeks. If you think the unborn baby deserves no legal protections at any stage of the pregnancy, then that's a pretty extensive time period. If you think it will never happen after a certain gestational age except for something life-threatening, then you really have no argument for making it illegal except for life-threatening situations. I'm trying not to put words in your mouth, so let me know if you wish to prohibit any kinds of elective abortions after viability, or at any point late in the pregnancy.

I spent quite a bit of time in my last posts regarding how we discuss the issue regarding "How rare is too rare to talk about" and "Elective abortions never happen and it's too much work to outlaw them after certain points" ("The life of the unborn baby is never a consideration when talking about the burdens of pregnancy").

Well first off, "if no one is doing it then what's wrong with making a law stopping it" is just such a terrible way of coming up with legislature...

Limitations are NOT middle-ground. They're just part of the malicious, multi-phase attempt to force women to carry pregnancies. First you set an arbitrary limit on the number of weeks; 10, 16, 20, doesn't matter. Then you make it harder and harder for women to actually get abortions within that time frame; outlaw certain medications, drive away clinics that will do the procedure, put in a few more roadblocks and now only wealthy families with the money and time to travel can get a timely abortion. On top of that, these sorts of laws also serve to delay those who need the procedure due to medical issues (sometimes with dire consequences when risking infection and/or putting off necessary treatments). So no, it's not about it being "too much work". It's about laws like this being both detrimental and malicious in nature.

Secondly, I'll clear this up so that you don't have to guess between 30, 35, 39 weeks or whatever. I said NO limitation (see above for several reasons why). The ONLY reason anyone would bring up these sorts of late term weeks is because they're either being dishonest with their argument by fabricating scenarios that don't exist, or they're ignorant of how, when, and why abortions are performed. No one is getting an abortion that late UNLESS there is imminent danger to the baby and/or the mother IF delivery is attempted.

You obviously have NO idea what women go through when pregnant. If you did, this fantasy of someone waking up one morning at 30+ weeks pregnant and deciding to get an abortion for no reason wouldn't even cross your mind. Women who simply do not want to have a child WILL try to terminate the pregnancy AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. ALWAYS. The only people you're be trying to legislate against are victims of your own making that were unable to terminate as soon as they learned they were pregnant because of laws YOU pushed for. Again, part of the malicious plan to just force as many women as possible to give birth with no consideration for the lives at stake.

[Rasulis]

This is getting complicated.

Generic abortion pill maker GenBioPro sues FDA over its response to orders halting drug’s approval

GenBioPro is seeking a court order that would require the FDA to go through certain procedural steps laid out under federal law before declaring its mifepristone product unapproved. The company is also asking the court to bar the federal government from taking enforcement actions against the company before the FDA had gone through statutory process of withdrawing or suspending the drug.

The new lawsuit was filed in federal court in Maryland and sets up a third legal battlefront over access to abortion pills.

Meanwhile, on the other bat channel.

US Supreme Court extends block on abortion pill curbs until Friday

Proof that Texas truly cares about the well-being of parents.

Texas Republicans Are About To Kill A Paid Parental Leave Bill

[cubby]

You obviously have NO idea what women go through when pregnant. If you did, this fantasy of someone waking up one morning at 30+ weeks pregnant and deciding to get an abortion for no reason wouldn't even cross your mind. Women who simply do not want to have a child WILL try to terminate the pregnancy AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. ALWAYS. The only people you're be trying to legislate against are victims of your own making that were unable to terminate as soon as they learned they were pregnant because of laws YOU pushed for. Again, part of the malicious plan to just force as many women as possible to give birth with no consideration for the lives at stake.

@tehdang - if a woman is contemplating an abortion at 30 weeks, it's for medical reasons, not indecision.

If you knew anything about the history of abortions and why they are being banned by the religious right, you'd know it has nothing to do with the baby and everything to do with men controlling women. I know you don't like to face some of the realities of modern and complicated politics, but remember that one of the current SCOTUS Justices was a Handmaid. I'm not saying that to be snarky or score points or anything like our past interactions - I want to actively engage you in this conversation so you can consider the full picture of the debate and dialogue. Even the notion of a baby being alive in the womb came from the religious right, not from medical professionals - again all in the name of controlling women's bodies.

- - - Updated - - -

This is getting complicated.

Generic abortion pill maker GenBioPro sues FDA over its response to orders halting drug’s approval

GenBioPro is seeking a court order that would require the FDA to go through certain procedural steps laid out under federal law before declaring its mifepristone product unapproved. The company is also asking the court to bar the federal government from taking enforcement actions against the company before the FDA had gone through statutory process of withdrawing or suspending the drug.

The new lawsuit was filed in federal court in Maryland and sets up a third legal battlefront over access to abortion pills.

Meanwhile, on the other bat channel.

US Supreme Court extends block on abortion pill curbs until Friday

Proof that Texas truly cares about the well-being of parents.

Texas Republicans Are About To Kill A Paid Parental Leave Bill

The case will be interesting, because the court is in reality considering banning the sale of prescription medicines based on a minority religious belief, rather than any factual evidence. Really, all the factual evidence (as if there were another kind - even if some groups would like you to think that ) points to more abortion options for women creating a healthier environment and life for the women and the baby (yes, abortion options allow for healthier babies).

[Edge-]

https://www.kctv5.com/2023/04/19/2nd...nsas-governor/

Kansas’ governor has vetoed legislation that would mandate clinics to tell patients that a medication abortion can be interrupted using an unproven drug regimen.

Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed the bill Wednesday, again pushing back state GOP efforts to restrict abortion despite a decisive statewide vote affirming abortion rights last year.

The governor’s action marked the second time this month that she vetoed an anti-abortion bill approved by the GOP-controlled Legislature.

Last week, she rejected a measure that could subject doctors to criminal charges and lawsuits if they are accused of not providing enough care for infants delivered alive during certain abortion procedures, even if they are expected to die within seconds outside the womb because of a severe medical issue.

...

But Republican lawmakers may be able to override the bill vetoed on Wednesday in a vote later this month. If they do, patients asking for a medical abortion would get a state-mandated, written notice that they can interrupt their abortion, even though the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology says there is no scientific evidence that the “reversal” approach promoted by abortion opponents is safe or effective.

Abortion rights supporters contend both measures break faith with voters.

Reminder: It's never been about reality. It's never been about the "child". It's never been about "protecting life". It's always been about controlling the bodies of girls and women, hence why Kansas Republicans are trying to force doctors to promote an untested, unproven drug regimen that has not been tested or evaluated through studies to see if it's even safe for the pregnant person to take.

Which, as Democrats point out -

“We were told that we must listen to the people,” Kansas Senate Democratic Leader Dinah Sykes said before her chamber passed the bill earlier this month, recalling the campaign ahead of the statewide vote in August 2022. “Nearly 60% of Kansans — Democrats, Republicans and independents — voted ‘no’ on giving elected representatives and state senators more power to pass laws regarding abortion.”

Continues to stand in direct contradiction to the actual will of the voters within the state, who already spoke on the issue.

[Nymrohd]

I have to ask, doesn't the federal government have the authority to conduct an advisory referendum? Obviously cannot be done now since the House would refuse to budget it, but if they get the House back in 2024 can it be done? Note, advisory, not binding.

[Shadowferal]

Too funny not to quote;

"COMPROMISE SOLUTION ON ABORTION! Ban abortion for registered Republicans only," Ann Coulter wrote.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Too funny not to quote;

"COMPROMISE SOLUTION ON ABORTION! Ban abortion for registered Republicans only," Ann Coulter wrote.

Would probably be one of the fastest ways to end the Republican party as a political organization.

Also not exactly a big surprise that a lot of women Republicans are starting to jump ship. While all of the "good American Christian" white women who have planned, stable families are still on board, it seems a lot of conservative women were paying lip service for the sake of appearing loyal to the party affiliation, not thinking that they'd ACTUALLY go after abortion. And now that they are the women are like "Man, I didn't know the leopards eating people's faces party would eat MY face!"

[fwc577]

Would probably be one of the fastest ways to end the Republican party as a political organization.

Also not exactly a big surprise that a lot of women Republicans are starting to jump ship. While all of the "good American Christian" white women who have planned, stable families are still on board, it seems a lot of conservative women were paying lip service for the sake of appearing loyal to the party affiliation, not thinking that they'd ACTUALLY go after abortion. And now that they are the women are like "Man, I didn't know the leopards eating people's faces party would eat MY face!"

That's because the White "Good American Christian" woman has been lucky enough to not yet have to deal with a difficult pregnancy.

It's crazy when I look at some of my friends as I have a few who fall into that category and they've got multiple, healthy kids with non-difficult pregnancies. Meanwhile, I've got other friends who either used to be Republican or who will never vote Republican who have had to either deal with difficult pregnancies and/or had multiple miscarriages.

One of my friends who is mostly liberal absolutely despises Republicans has a 2-year old now who would not have been possible without invitro which is something that is potentially in jeopardy because of these chuckle fucks. She literally had like 3-4 miscarriages before having a successful, yet difficult, pregnancy. She really wanted to be a mom. She could see how this stuff could've played out very differently for her with these archaic laws. She is healthy and active. Eats well. Yet her body just kept rejecting pregnancies. Imagine having a murder investigation opened on you because, to no fault of your own, your body rejected a pregnancy? That shit makes her tremble with fear because dealing with the miscarriages was ALREADY stressful enough for her.

[Twdft]

Too funny not to quote;

"COMPROMISE SOLUTION ON ABORTION! Ban abortion for registered Republicans only," Ann Coulter wrote.

Things I did not have on my bingo card: agreeing with Ann Coulter

[Darththeo]

Miscarriage and abortion is close in kind to dying from a sudden sickness and dying from an intentional act of murder.

The name for a miscarriage, the technical name, is spontaneous abortion. And the majority of abortions are done via pills ... they are induced miscarriages.

It is akin to comparing someone dying from a fall vs being pushed off and then dying from the fall. How the person dies is for all intents and purposes, the same. The only differences is intent.

People who are anti-abortion always bring up what happens in 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions as the "default" abortion ... it isn't.

Anytime an anti-abortion activist gets pissy at comparing abortion to miscarriage is merely showing they do not understand either. Abortion literally comes from the Latin word for miscarriage.

[Shadowferal]

Things I did not have on my bingo card: agreeing with Ann Coulter

I know, right!

My world just got a tad strange.