Roe v Wade is on deck

[Swammerdami]

Dr. Jack Brown on Twitter: "BREAKING: In a brief re abortion, Supreme court Justices Amy Coney Barrett/Alito's Draft, said US needs a “domestic supply of infants” to meet needs of parents seeking to adopt — that those who would otherwise abort must be made to carry to term — giving children up for adoption." / Twitter
That's near the bottom of PDF page 34 of the 98 pages.

I watched only a few episodes of Hulu's The Handmaid's Tale but it immediately shrieked "Republican values" at me.

How right I was.

 

[Toni]

My personal beliefs about the politician's support of anti-abortion stances are:
1. It's a red meat/rabid dog issue, guaranteed to get a certain segment of society who are also single issue voters to raise money and it will get out the vote of those types of supporters.
2. They recognize the declining birth rate and the fact that significant segments of society are being propped up by immigrants, legal and not, many of whom are not white or not white enough. They want to save/produce more white babies. Not of their own bodies, but as worker bees.

 

[Elixir]

They want to save/produce more white babies.

Was your first clue Alito saying so straight up? The domestic supply of unwanted white babies is at a critically low level, and our racial supremacy is under dire threat, and God is telling

Regardless, both sides are not the same. "Both sides are the same" is for people who don't actually know what's going on and want to sound reasonable and aware.

You say "both sides" as though there are two, and only two, sides.
I see no reason to be that simplistic.

I see that as the sort of extremism that is the main problem. You're either with us or you're against us.

I'm not either one. I am both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life.
Tom

What does that even mean?

Do you support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, but not to actually have one?

I think it’s more like “I support your right to decide to have an abortion but really wish you wouldn’t”. It definitely reeks of “I disagree with what you’re saying but will fight to the death to defend your right to say it, so STFU!”

 

[Copernicus]

[...]

Everyone knows what the "choice" in question involves a choice to terminate a pregnancy, but it is really up to TomC to clarify what he meant. Similarly, everyone knows what the "life" in pro-life means. It's about the life of the fetus, not the mother or human live in general. Out of context, these labels could mean many different things, but we know what the intended context is.

We do; but that rarely seems to stop the pro-pregnancy-choice from hassling the pro-fetal-life over calling themselves "pro-life" even though they favor gun rights and the death penalty and whatnot. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander...

I think that the dispute over labels has some legitimacy, however. The more extreme elements of the anti-abortion movement are not pro-life at all. They are more pro-birth. They want to give a civil right to unborn and underdeveloped fetuses. Some have gotten so caught up in their zealotry that they have murdered abortion doctors and other adults in an effort to terrorize abortion providers and women seeking abortions. Doxing abortion providers is a blatant attempt to enable harassment and violence against people. A general ban on late term abortions that are often matters of life and death for the mother make no sense in terms of being for "life". The decision really needs to be made by the mother and qualified medical professionals, not government officials. The label "anti-abortion" is a more appropriate label, because that is generally what the movement is about--removing abortion as an option that a woman can choose. The label "pro-life" renders the point of the movement obscure in a way that "pro-choice" does not. If they don't like the label "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice", then "pro-birth" would be a more honest label.

The term "pro-abortion" is a bit more problematic, because it is not about persuading women to prefer or choose an abortion. It is about providing that option for a woman who has already decided to have an abortion. So it is more about providing women with a choice rather than trying to convince them to make a choice one way or the other. Some of the propaganda coming out of the anti-abortion side conveys the opposite view--that "pro-abortionists" actually advocate for the option of choosing abortion. That is what motivated the change of preferred label from "pro-abortion" to "pro-choice".

 

[Toni]

Catholics are about 20% of the U.S. population. Our Supreme Court, which of course is ostensibly representative of the citizens, now has 6 practicing Catholics and a seventh (Gorsuch) who was raised Catholic but is now reportedly Episcopalian. Seven justices who grew up on the teaching that abortion is murder and is a deep moral stain on the republic. Any doubt that they could give full citizenship rights to the fetus?

About that Catholics believe abortion is murder. It’s not as universally held belief as you might think. I know Catholics who are childless by choice, who limit the number of children they have to two or fewer, practice birth control, have had abortions.

 

[crazyfingers]

Catholics are about 20% of the U.S. population. Our Supreme Court, which of course is ostensibly representative of the citizens, now has 6 practicing Catholics and a seventh (Gorsuch) who was raised Catholic but is now reportedly Episcopalian. Seven justices who grew up on the teaching that abortion is murder and is a deep moral stain on the republic. Any doubt that they could give full citizenship rights to the fetus?

About that Catholics believe abortion is murder. It’s not as universally held belief as you might think. I know Catholics who are childless by choice, who limit the number of children they have to two or fewer, practice birth control, have had abortions.

Ya. The US Northeast is heavily Catholic but also heavily pro-choice. Massachusetts is very Catholic and very pro-choice.

If you look at the States that are anti-Choice, they are heavily Protestant evangelical, not Catholic.

I do not think that the Catholic members of the Supreme Court represent most Catholics in the US.

 

[Copernicus]

Catholics are about 20% of the U.S. population. Our Supreme Court, which of course is ostensibly representative of the citizens, now has 6 practicing Catholics and a seventh (Gorsuch) who was raised Catholic but is now reportedly Episcopalian. Seven justices who grew up on the teaching that abortion is murder and is a deep moral stain on the republic. Any doubt that they could give full citizenship rights to the fetus?

About that Catholics believe abortion is murder. It’s not as universally held belief as you might think. I know Catholics who are childless by choice, who limit the number of children they have to two or fewer, practice birth control, have had abortions.

Ya. The US Northeast is heavily Catholic but also heavily pro-choice. Massachusetts is very Catholic and very pro-choice.

If you look at the States that are anti-Choice, they are heavily Protestant evangelical, not Catholic.

I do not think that the Catholic members of the Supreme Court represent most Catholics in the US.

So the point is that we can't attribute the anti-abortion zealotry of Supreme Court justices to their religion directly, but their religion was a factor in getting them onto the Court. Abortion is viewed by most people as a moral issue, and many, if not most, believe that morality is connected to religious belief. Voting for a Catholic nominee to the Court has always been an easy decision for US senators, because that rings the right visceral bell for a large number of their constituents who oppose abortion and therefore Roe v Wade. That's why we have a Supreme Court packed with Catholics. And Republican presidents have made an effort to pick justices that they believed would vote to chip away at, if not overturn, Roe v Wade. Sotomayor is the rare exception of being a Catholic on the Court who is reliably expected to vote against gutting or overturning Roe v Wade.

Nominees to the Supreme Court have probably always involved a calculation on the politics of the justice, but demographics was never the overriding issue. We have a black justice now, Clarence Thomas, who is a conservative Republican zealot. The Republican outrage over Jackson's appointment had little to do with race, although the way some senators attacked or defended her often did reflect a racial bias. Republicans would be fine with another extremely conservative black nominee for the Court that they could count on to put a thumb on the scales of "blind" justice when making decisions about how the law should be interpreted. Republicans have finally achieved what they thought they wanted, and we will see whether they have reaped the whirlwind or just a short-lived little dust devil.

 

[ZiprHead]

Abortion in the Founders’ era: Violent, chaotic and unregulated

In the 18th-century United States and England, abortion was common enough that there were slang terms for it, like “taking the cold,” “taking the trade” and “bringing down the flowers.” It was less-effective and more dangerous than it is now; women seeking abortions often died from infected wounds or poisons. And it was generally unregulated, except for a few instances in England and one in colonial Maryland mentioned by Alito in the draft opinion.

In the late-18th and early-19th centuries, no states had laws against any form of abortion, though Alito averred that “manuals for justices of the peace printed in the colonies in the 18th century” sometimes "repeated Hale’s and [William] Blackstone’s statements that anyone who prescribed medication ‘unlawfully to destroy the child’ would be guilty of murder if the woman died.”

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Abortion in the Founders’ era: Violent, chaotic and unregulated

In the 18th-century United States and England, abortion was common enough that there were slang terms for it, like “taking the cold,” “taking the trade” and “bringing down the flowers.” It was less-effective and more dangerous than it is now; women seeking abortions often died from infected wounds or poisons. And it was generally unregulated, except for a few instances in England and one in colonial Maryland mentioned by Alito in the draft opinion.

In the late-18th and early-19th centuries, no states had laws against any form of abortion, though Alito averred that “manuals for justices of the peace printed in the colonies in the 18th century” sometimes "repeated Hale’s and [William] Blackstone’s statements that anyone who prescribed medication ‘unlawfully to destroy the child’ would be guilty of murder if the woman died.”

Ben Franklin published a formula for abortion.

 

[ZiprHead]

Ben Franklin published a formula for abortion.

So did The Bible.

 

[Copernicus]

The question decided by a 7-2 majority for Roe v Wade still comes down to the conclusion in Blackmun's written opinion that the right to choose an abortion is retained by the individual, i.e. the pregnant woman, not the federal or state governments, depending on the stage of the pregnancy. His opinion stated that it was a right prohibited to the federal government, and therefore the state governments. According to the 9th amendment in the Bill of Rights, there are rights not actually enumerated in the Constitution. So it doesn't need to mention abortion or even privacy per se. The 10th amendment states that these rights are retained by the people when the Constitution forbids federal and state governments from regulating them. So Roe v Wade did not legalize abortion. It ruled that government regulation was illegal except under specified conditions. The opinion only stated when the regulation of a pregnancy by a state government could be considered legal. Alito's draft opinion seems to be attacking the underpinning of the 9th and 10th amendments. That is, it seems to be claiming that the Constitution comprehensively grants people all the rights that they possess. This ruling could therefore undermine even the right to privacy, which is not a clearly enumerated right.

See: Roe v Wade | Oyez

 

[ZiprHead]

Doctors in Alabama Already Turn Away Miscarrying Patients. This Will Be Our New Normal Across the Country.

The state constitution already bans abortion. It’s a disaster for reproductive health care.

slate.com

was astounded by how often patients were turned away from emergency rooms and their doctor’s offices in the middle of their miscarriages. No wonder Alabama has the third-highest maternal mortality rate in the nation, I initially thought. People are denied urgent medical attention outright, which left me wondering at first if health care providers were simply negligent and not keeping up with their medical education. Or was this lack of care a reflection of discrimination? Eventually, I landed on discrimination as the cause.

But I was wrong. The reality is much worse. Instead, these medical professionals seem to know what they are supposed to do, but choose not to.
I came to this realization when I saw a patient in active miscarriage (bleeding, passing clots, cramping) who had just had an office visit with her primary physician. She was forced to wait more than 48 hours in order to get the results of her bloodwork. Doctors will sometimes check a patient’s levels of HCG, or human chorionic gonadotropin, to help distinguish miscarriages from ongoing pregnancies or ectopic pregnancies. I could not understand why someone with all of the clinical signs of a miscarriage in progress was required to wait for much-needed intervention, all the while bleeding and cramping and suffering.

I was angry that the patient’s doctor did not just provide the standard medical treatment for a miscarriage: surgically removing the contents of her uterus, which would stop her pain and bleeding. Then I saw a different patient who was actively miscarrying, and a lightbulb clicked on: The doctors were afraid of being attacked by the state of Alabama.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Doctors in Alabama Already Turn Away Miscarrying Patients. This Will Be Our New Normal Across the Country.

The state constitution already bans abortion. It’s a disaster for reproductive health care.

slate.com

was astounded by how often patients were turned away from emergency rooms and their doctor’s offices in the middle of their miscarriages. No wonder Alabama has the third-highest maternal mortality rate in the nation, I initially thought. People are denied urgent medical attention outright, which left me wondering at first if health care providers were simply negligent and not keeping up with their medical education. Or was this lack of care a reflection of discrimination? Eventually, I landed on discrimination as the cause.

But I was wrong. The reality is much worse. Instead, these medical professionals seem to know what they are supposed to do, but choose not to.
I came to this realization when I saw a patient in active miscarriage (bleeding, passing clots, cramping) who had just had an office visit with her primary physician. She was forced to wait more than 48 hours in order to get the results of her bloodwork. Doctors will sometimes check a patient’s levels of HCG, or human chorionic gonadotropin, to help distinguish miscarriages from ongoing pregnancies or ectopic pregnancies. I could not understand why someone with all of the clinical signs of a miscarriage in progress was required to wait for much-needed intervention, all the while bleeding and cramping and suffering.

I was angry that the patient’s doctor did not just provide the standard medical treatment for a miscarriage: surgically removing the contents of her uterus, which would stop her pain and bleeding. Then I saw a different patient who was actively miscarrying, and a lightbulb clicked on: The doctors were afraid of being attacked by the state of Alabama.

Duh! It's much more important that the sinner be punished than whether god calls a woman home early.

 

[crazyfingers]

Christianity isn't known as a death cult for nothing.

 

[Toni]

Abortion in the Founders’ era: Violent, chaotic and unregulated

In the 18th-century United States and England, abortion was common enough that there were slang terms for it, like “taking the cold,” “taking the trade” and “bringing down the flowers.” It was less-effective and more dangerous than it is now; women seeking abortions often died from infected wounds or poisons. And it was generally unregulated, except for a few instances in England and one in colonial Maryland mentioned by Alito in the draft opinion.

In the late-18th and early-19th centuries, no states had laws against any form of abortion, though Alito averred that “manuals for justices of the peace printed in the colonies in the 18th century” sometimes "repeated Hale’s and [William] Blackstone’s statements that anyone who prescribed medication ‘unlawfully to destroy the child’ would be guilty of murder if the woman died.”

Ben Franklin published a formula for abortion.

Men have ripped off women's ideas and knowledge for millennia.

 

[Rhea]

Doctors in Alabama Already Turn Away Miscarrying Patients. This Will Be Our New Normal Across the Country.

The state constitution already bans abortion. It’s a disaster for reproductive health care.

slate.com

was astounded by how often patients were turned away from emergency rooms and their doctor’s offices in the middle of their miscarriages. No wonder Alabama has the third-highest maternal mortality rate in the nation, I initially thought. People are denied urgent medical attention outright, which left me wondering at first if health care providers were simply negligent and not keeping up with their medical education. Or was this lack of care a reflection of discrimination? Eventually, I landed on discrimination as the cause.

But I was wrong. The reality is much worse. Instead, these medical professionals seem to know what they are supposed to do, but choose not to.
I came to this realization when I saw a patient in active miscarriage (bleeding, passing clots, cramping) who had just had an office visit with her primary physician. She was forced to wait more than 48 hours in order to get the results of her bloodwork. Doctors will sometimes check a patient’s levels of HCG, or human chorionic gonadotropin, to help distinguish miscarriages from ongoing pregnancies or ectopic pregnancies. I could not understand why someone with all of the clinical signs of a miscarriage in progress was required to wait for much-needed intervention, all the while bleeding and cramping and suffering.

I was angry that the patient’s doctor did not just provide the standard medical treatment for a miscarriage: surgically removing the contents of her uterus, which would stop her pain and bleeding. Then I saw a different patient who was actively miscarrying, and a lightbulb clicked on: The doctors were afraid of being attacked by the state of Alabama.

I was not aware that a D&C would be performed on someone actively miscarrying. When I had spontaeous abortions, once as late as 12 weeks, I was not offered any care during the miscarriage. I sat in the waiting room to get my HCG, doing the cramping, the bleeding and all, then went home when they said, “yup, that there is a spontaneous abortion. Call us to schedule another HCG in a day or two.” This was in a blue state.

So I don’t understand this post.
Maybe things have changed in the last 20 years?

 

[Toni]

Doctors in Alabama Already Turn Away Miscarrying Patients. This Will Be Our New Normal Across the Country.

The state constitution already bans abortion. It’s a disaster for reproductive health care.

slate.com

was astounded by how often patients were turned away from emergency rooms and their doctor’s offices in the middle of their miscarriages. No wonder Alabama has the third-highest maternal mortality rate in the nation, I initially thought. People are denied urgent medical attention outright, which left me wondering at first if health care providers were simply negligent and not keeping up with their medical education. Or was this lack of care a reflection of discrimination? Eventually, I landed on discrimination as the cause.

But I was wrong. The reality is much worse. Instead, these medical professionals seem to know what they are supposed to do, but choose not to.
I came to this realization when I saw a patient in active miscarriage (bleeding, passing clots, cramping) who had just had an office visit with her primary physician. She was forced to wait more than 48 hours in order to get the results of her bloodwork. Doctors will sometimes check a patient’s levels of HCG, or human chorionic gonadotropin, to help distinguish miscarriages from ongoing pregnancies or ectopic pregnancies. I could not understand why someone with all of the clinical signs of a miscarriage in progress was required to wait for much-needed intervention, all the while bleeding and cramping and suffering.

I was angry that the patient’s doctor did not just provide the standard medical treatment for a miscarriage: surgically removing the contents of her uterus, which would stop her pain and bleeding. Then I saw a different patient who was actively miscarrying, and a lightbulb clicked on: The doctors were afraid of being attacked by the state of Alabama.

I was not aware that a D&C would be performed on someone actively miscarrying. When I had spontaeous abortions, once as late as 12 weeks, I was not offered any care during the miscarriage. I sat in the waiting room to get my HCG, doing the cramping, the bleeding and all, then went home when they said, “yup, that there is a spontaneous abortion. Call us to schedule another HCG in a day or two.” This was in a blue state.

So I don’t understand this post.
Maybe things have changed in the last 20 years?

I wasn't tested--very early miscarriage. I was just told to report any prolonged bleeding, any fever, etc.

 

[lpetrich]

Abortion resistance braces for demands of a post-Roe future | AP News

The article described how abortion-assistance activists work, assisting people in traveling from abortion-hostile states like Texas to abortion-friendly states like Illinois.

It’s already started. In September, Texas passed a ban on abortion after six weeks; courts let it stand. Patients fanned out into surrounding states, clogging up clinics and ballooning waiting lists -- weeks turned to months. In Alabama, Dreith’s friend Robin Marty said she was going to have to direct patients to Illinois, an eight-hour drive.

The Midwest Access Coalition’s hotline is swamped and it’s about to get much busier: If Roe is overturned, abortion is expected to be banned in more than half of American states.

...
The coalition, funded by donations and grants, will have to make hard choices. There will be too many people and not enough money. They stopped funding partners traveling with adult patients. They’re considering capping the amount of money per client, and the number of clients per month.

Texas is outside the coalition’s coverage area, but it had offered to help when the state’s support groups, called abortion funds, were thrust into crisis. But now it is routing Texas callers back to other groups, which are also stressed.

...
When the draft Supreme Court opinion on Roe was leaked, “The Handbook for a Post-Roe America” sold out overnight. “Everybody wants something to do,” said Robin Marty, who wrote the 247-page manual. “I think people want to feel like there’s something within their control.”

It’s inconceivable, Marty said, that measures she described in her book might be necessary in a matter of weeks. “If I try to think about what this would look like, I can’t, because it’s a disaster.”

A disaster that has already started.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Abortion in the Founders’ era: Violent, chaotic and unregulated

In the 18th-century United States and England, abortion was common enough that there were slang terms for it, like “taking the cold,” “taking the trade” and “bringing down the flowers.” It was less-effective and more dangerous than it is now; women seeking abortions often died from infected wounds or poisons. And it was generally unregulated, except for a few instances in England and one in colonial Maryland mentioned by Alito in the draft opinion.

In the late-18th and early-19th centuries, no states had laws against any form of abortion, though Alito averred that “manuals for justices of the peace printed in the colonies in the 18th century” sometimes "repeated Hale’s and [William] Blackstone’s statements that anyone who prescribed medication ‘unlawfully to destroy the child’ would be guilty of murder if the woman died.”

Ben Franklin published a formula for abortion.

Men have ripped off women's ideas and knowledge for millennia.

 

[Toni]

Abortion in the Founders’ era: Violent, chaotic and unregulated

In the 18th-century United States and England, abortion was common enough that there were slang terms for it, like “taking the cold,” “taking the trade” and “bringing down the flowers.” It was less-effective and more dangerous than it is now; women seeking abortions often died from infected wounds or poisons. And it was generally unregulated, except for a few instances in England and one in colonial Maryland mentioned by Alito in the draft opinion.

In the late-18th and early-19th centuries, no states had laws against any form of abortion, though Alito averred that “manuals for justices of the peace printed in the colonies in the 18th century” sometimes "repeated Hale’s and [William] Blackstone’s statements that anyone who prescribed medication ‘unlawfully to destroy the child’ would be guilty of murder if the woman died.”

Ben Franklin published a formula for abortion.

Men have ripped off women's ideas and knowledge for millennia.

True dat.