Roe v Wade is on deck

[Toni]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.

www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.

What you appear to be saying is: the Supreme Court should have written a legal opinion it does not believe, to head off undesirable social outcomes.

I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.

And I believe Laws are made in the interest of society. I also have the antiquated opinion that every legal decision should also include context. The US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade had four-fifths of fuck all context. Obvious to most, but not apparently to you, and for that you have my most sincere apologies.

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate. My most sincere apologies that you think otherwise.

They should indeed. But the Federalist Society judges are making decisions based on their personal political leanings which the political climate of the Trump administration placed 3 of them on the court to do why do you think tptb allowed Trump to run??? To appoint politically conservative judges who would be friendly towards industry abd socially conservative to throw bones to the Republican base so that they will spend all their time preparing for and causing End Times and not noticing how their own rights and bank accounts are being raided.

 

[Metaphor]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.

www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.

What you appear to be saying is: the Supreme Court should have written a legal opinion it does not believe, to head off undesirable social outcomes.

I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.

And I believe Laws are made in the interest of society. I also have the antiquated opinion that every legal decision should also include context. The US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade had four-fifths of fuck all context. Obvious to most, but not apparently to you, and for that you have my most sincere apologies.

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate. My most sincere apologies that you think otherwise.

They should indeed. But the Federalist Society judges are making decisions based on their personal political leanings which the political climate of the Trump administration placed 3 of them on the court to do why do you think tptb allowed Trump to run???

Tptb? The powers that be?

Trump ran against Clinton because he beat the other Republican candidates in popularity. He won because he won the electoral college. There was no conspiracy to allowing him to run.

To appoint politically conservative judges who would be friendly towards industry abd socially conservative to throw bones to the Republican base so that they will spend all their time preparing for and causing End Times and not noticing how their own rights and bank accounts are being raided.

I have no idea what conspiracy theory you are entertaining, but I think you should keep it to yourself.

 

[Metaphor]

Not quite. The Court said "the State you live in can decide to restrict abortions", not "you no longer have a right to an abortion".

Yes quite. If a right can be restricted, then one doesn't have that right. .

Huh? Then nobody has any rights, legal or otherwise, ever.

Nope.

Literally, none. Every legal right is limited or restricted.

Australians have the 'right' to universal health care. But it is not unlimited. It doesn't cover dental issues. It doesn't cover experimental techniques. It doesn't cover the cost of your prescriptions (though our pharmaceutical benefits scheme is very generous).

By your reckoning, Australian's don't have that right, or any rights at all.

 

[Metaphor]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.

www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.

What you appear to be saying is: the Supreme Court should have written a legal opinion it does not believe, to head off undesirable social outcomes.

I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.

And I believe Laws are made in the interest of society. I also have the antiquated opinion that every legal decision should also include context. The US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade had four-fifths of fuck all context. Obvious to most, but not apparently to you, and for that you have my most sincere apologies.

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate. My most sincere apologies that you think otherwise.

They should indeed. But the Federalist Society judges are making decisions based on their personal political leanings

If that is true, isn't that true of every judge in every court in every land at all times? Or were the Roe v Wade judges free from the taint of political leanings?

 

[Toni]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.

www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.

What you appear to be saying is: the Supreme Court should have written a legal opinion it does not believe, to head off undesirable social outcomes.

I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.

And I believe Laws are made in the interest of society. I also have the antiquated opinion that every legal decision should also include context. The US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade had four-fifths of fuck all context. Obvious to most, but not apparently to you, and for that you have my most sincere apologies.

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate. My most sincere apologies that you think otherwise.

They should indeed. But the Federalist Society judges are making decisions based on their personal political leanings which the political climate of the Trump administration placed 3 of them on the court to do why do you think tptb allowed Trump to run???

Tptb? The powers that be?

Trump ran against Clinton because he beat the other Republican candidates in popularity. He won because he won the electoral college. There was no conspiracy to allowing him to run.

To appoint politically conservative judges who would be friendly towards industry abd socially conservative to throw bones to the Republican base so that they will spend all their time preparing for and causing End Times and not noticing how their own rights and bank accounts are being raided.

I have no idea what conspiracy theory you are entertaining, but I think you should keep it to yourself.

tptb =the powers that be, yes.

Of course the GOP allowed Trump to run in their primary. Just because he earned the most votes did NOT guarantee him the nomination. BTW, if they didn't want him to run, they would have scuttled his campaign before the primaries. What those who operate behind the scenes thought is that with Trump, they had a useful idiot. And he was that but unfortunately for them and for all of us and for the entire world, he also managed to cultivate a cult of personality around himself. I can't explain the appeal because I honestly cannot understand how anyone could hear anything he said and not be utterly repulsed--an opinion I've had of him since long before he decided to be political.

 

[Toni]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.

www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.

What you appear to be saying is: the Supreme Court should have written a legal opinion it does not believe, to head off undesirable social outcomes.

I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.

And I believe Laws are made in the interest of society. I also have the antiquated opinion that every legal decision should also include context. The US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade had four-fifths of fuck all context. Obvious to most, but not apparently to you, and for that you have my most sincere apologies.

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate. My most sincere apologies that you think otherwise.

They should indeed. But the Federalist Society judges are making decisions based on their personal political leanings

If that is true, isn't that true of every judge in every court in every land at all times? Or were the Roe v Wade judges free from the taint of political leanings?

No. Of course every individual has his/her own personal bent/leanings and laws and the constitution are always being interpreted at all levels, including at the Supreme Court. However, this current court seems bent on overturning long standing principles that each decision is built upon prior cases and decisions so that there is consistency in the court and in the law. What the current majority has done is essentially legislate from the bench, and erase precedence.

I have no idea how things work in Australia but in the US, this is quite....upside down.

 

[Metaphor]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.

www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.

What you appear to be saying is: the Supreme Court should have written a legal opinion it does not believe, to head off undesirable social outcomes.

I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.

And I believe Laws are made in the interest of society. I also have the antiquated opinion that every legal decision should also include context. The US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade had four-fifths of fuck all context. Obvious to most, but not apparently to you, and for that you have my most sincere apologies.

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate. My most sincere apologies that you think otherwise.

They should indeed. But the Federalist Society judges are making decisions based on their personal political leanings which the political climate of the Trump administration placed 3 of them on the court to do why do you think tptb allowed Trump to run???

Tptb? The powers that be?

Trump ran against Clinton because he beat the other Republican candidates in popularity. He won because he won the electoral college. There was no conspiracy to allowing him to run.

To appoint politically conservative judges who would be friendly towards industry abd socially conservative to throw bones to the Republican base so that they will spend all their time preparing for and causing End Times and not noticing how their own rights and bank accounts are being raided.

I have no idea what conspiracy theory you are entertaining, but I think you should keep it to yourself.

tptb =the powers that be, yes.

Of course the GOP allowed Trump to run in their primary. Just because he earned the most votes did NOT guarantee him the nomination. BTW, if they didn't want him to run, they would have scuttled his campaign before the primaries. What those who operate behind the scenes thought is that with Trump, they had a useful idiot. And he was that but unfortunately for them and for all of us and for the entire world, he also managed to cultivate a cult of personality around himself. I can't explain the appeal because I honestly cannot understand how anyone could hear anything he said and not be utterly repulsed--an opinion I've had of him since long before he decided to be political.

I still have no idea what this has to do with anything. Do you believe Trump appointed particularly political justices, compared to what another Republican would have done, or compared to what a Democrat would have done?

Had Clinton won instead, she'd have appointed left-leaning justices that catered to her base, just as Biden has done. And perhaps her appointees might have leaned the other way in Dobbs. But the lean would have been just as political.

 

[Metaphor]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.

www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.

What you appear to be saying is: the Supreme Court should have written a legal opinion it does not believe, to head off undesirable social outcomes.

I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.

And I believe Laws are made in the interest of society. I also have the antiquated opinion that every legal decision should also include context. The US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade had four-fifths of fuck all context. Obvious to most, but not apparently to you, and for that you have my most sincere apologies.

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate. My most sincere apologies that you think otherwise.

They should indeed. But the Federalist Society judges are making decisions based on their personal political leanings

If that is true, isn't that true of every judge in every court in every land at all times? Or were the Roe v Wade judges free from the taint of political leanings?

No. Of course every individual has his/her own personal bent/leanings and laws and the constitution are always being interpreted at all levels, including at the Supreme Court. However, this current court seems bent on overturning long standing principles that each decision is built upon prior cases and decisions so that there is consistency in the court and in the law. What the current majority has done is essentially legislate from the bench, and erase precedence.

Of course, they've done neither, or, if they have, it's been happening for decades. I'll remind you that 'legislating from the bench' is something that liberal justices were accused of twenty years ago. But--let me guess--it's only justices who you perceive as conservative who would dare legislate from the bench.

I have no idea how things work in Australia but in the US, this is quite....upside down.

Overturning precedent is serious, but if you think the original reasoning was wrong, it is your duty to overturn the precedent.

 

[Toni]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.

www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.

What you appear to be saying is: the Supreme Court should have written a legal opinion it does not believe, to head off undesirable social outcomes.

I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.

And I believe Laws are made in the interest of society. I also have the antiquated opinion that every legal decision should also include context. The US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade had four-fifths of fuck all context. Obvious to most, but not apparently to you, and for that you have my most sincere apologies.

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate. My most sincere apologies that you think otherwise.

They should indeed. But the Federalist Society judges are making decisions based on their personal political leanings which the political climate of the Trump administration placed 3 of them on the court to do why do you think tptb allowed Trump to run???

Tptb? The powers that be?

Trump ran against Clinton because he beat the other Republican candidates in popularity. He won because he won the electoral college. There was no conspiracy to allowing him to run.

To appoint politically conservative judges who would be friendly towards industry abd socially conservative to throw bones to the Republican base so that they will spend all their time preparing for and causing End Times and not noticing how their own rights and bank accounts are being raided.

I have no idea what conspiracy theory you are entertaining, but I think you should keep it to yourself.

tptb =the powers that be, yes.

Of course the GOP allowed Trump to run in their primary. Just because he earned the most votes did NOT guarantee him the nomination. BTW, if they didn't want him to run, they would have scuttled his campaign before the primaries. What those who operate behind the scenes thought is that with Trump, they had a useful idiot. And he was that but unfortunately for them and for all of us and for the entire world, he also managed to cultivate a cult of personality around himself. I can't explain the appeal because I honestly cannot understand how anyone could hear anything he said and not be utterly repulsed--an opinion I've had of him since long before he decided to be political.

I still have no idea what this has to do with anything. Do you believe Trump appointed particularly political justices, compared to what another Republican would have done, or compared to what a Democrat would have done?

Had Clinton won instead, she'd have appointed left-leaning justices that catered to her base, just as Biden has done. And perhaps her appointees might have leaned the other way in Dobbs. But the lean would have been just as political.

Clinton would probably have appointed justices that the right would call left leaning but only an absolute idiot or a fascist sees Clinton as left leaning. The truth is that, with the exception of the current court, heavy emphasis on Trump's nominees, the court has not been political per se.

Here is an article that nicely describes the latest justice's record and how she might be expected to rule in the future:

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson—what can we expect?

An assessment of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

www.brookings.edu

Brookings, for reference, is considered left, right or center, depending on the publication. Most people I know who are familiar with Brookings see it as centrist.

 

[ZiprHead]

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate.

Yet that's exactly what they did.

 

[Copernicus]

All of this debate over whether judicial nominees lied about how they would vote is beside the point. Trump was very clear that he would only nominate justices that would vote to overturn Roe v Wade, so everyone knew how Kavanaugh and Barrett intended to vote on that question. The effort to make them admit it publicly was never going to succeed, so the hearings were really about political posturing by both sides. Barrett and Kavanaugh were expected to give ambiguous answers, and those were to be (and were) used by some legislators to pretend that their votes to confirm were not actually votes to overturn Roe v Wade. The most famous example of such a vote was from Maine Senator Susan Collins, who now claims that she was lied to by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

The reality of the Dobbs decision was technically not to outlaw abortion in the US, but to outlaw it in almost 30 of the 50 states and support the spread of such bans to other states. That kind of process has played out in some other countries, for example Poland, where the majority of the population wanted abortion to remain a legal option. Nevertheless, a conservative right wing minority managed to take power through the election process and criminalize abortion. The intent of the Dobbs ruling was to open the floodgates of criminalizing abortion, but legislatures will have to actually cast the stones for it to happen. So now it is a matter of packing legislative bodies with conservative majorities that will do the deed.

As things stand now, a few states will outlaw all forms of abortion for any reason whatsoever. That sets up the possibility of a pregnant American woman in those states undergoing what happened to an American woman in Malta, who had to be quickly flown out of that country to Mallorca in order to save her life. Her pregnancy was no longer viable, but doctors could not perform an abortion to save her life.

See:

US woman denied termination in Malta: 'I was terrified'​

 

[Politesse]

The most famous example of such a vote was from Maine Senator Susan Collins, who now claims that she was lied to by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

So her defense was that.... she was too dumb to realize the most ill-concealed secret imaginable?

 

[Toni]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.

www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.

What you appear to be saying is: the Supreme Court should have written a legal opinion it does not believe, to head off undesirable social outcomes.

I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.

And I believe Laws are made in the interest of society. I also have the antiquated opinion that every legal decision should also include context. The US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade had four-fifths of fuck all context. Obvious to most, but not apparently to you, and for that you have my most sincere apologies.

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate. My most sincere apologies that you think otherwise.

They should indeed. But the Federalist Society judges are making decisions based on their personal political leanings

If that is true, isn't that true of every judge in every court in every land at all times? Or were the Roe v Wade judges free from the taint of political leanings?

No. Of course every individual has his/her own personal bent/leanings and laws and the constitution are always being interpreted at all levels, including at the Supreme Court. However, this current court seems bent on overturning long standing principles that each decision is built upon prior cases and decisions so that there is consistency in the court and in the law. What the current majority has done is essentially legislate from the bench, and erase precedence.

Of course, they've done neither, or, if they have, it's been happening for decades. I'll remind you that 'legislating from the bench' is something that liberal justices were accused of twenty years ago. But--let me guess--it's only justices who you perceive as conservative who would dare legislate from the bench.

I have no idea how things work in Australia but in the US, this is quite....upside down.

Overturning precedent is serious, but if you think the original reasoning was wrong, it is your duty to overturn the precedent.

In the past the Supreme Court HAS overturned precedent but only to increase freedoms and rights, not to constrict them.

The most famous example of such a vote was from Maine Senator Susan Collins, who now claims that she was lied to by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

So her defense was that.... she was too dumb to realize the most ill-concealed secret imaginable?

That's pretty much her MO in all things.

 

[Copernicus]

The most famous example of such a vote was from Maine Senator Susan Collins, who now claims that she was lied to by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

So her defense was that.... she was too dumb to realize the most ill-concealed secret imaginable?

Perhaps she was, but I take a more cynical view--that her voters were too dumb or apathetic to realize that she was playing them in a desperate attempt to hold onto here Senate seat. It actually seems to have worked.

 

[TomC]

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate.

Yet that's exactly what they did.

Worse, IMHO.

They made a decision based on the partisan political climate of the people who got them appointed. Got them appointed by ignoring the Constitution.

As much as I disapprove of elective abortion as a form of birth control, this ruling was appalling. We're back to the patchwork of state laws. Where any dumbasses who are trying to get elected to state office will propose even more extreme legislation designed to appeal to a base. Regardless of the actual effects on society at large.

The recent SCOTUS ruling didn't actually change abortion laws. What it did was make rights available to people who either lived in states like California, Illinois, or New York, or had the wherewithal to get there.
That "has the wherewithal" part is extremely important.

What makes this nonsense particularly ironic is this. McConnell blew off the Constitution in 2016. Obama nominated replacement judge, Merrick Garland. The TeaPartiers, led by McConnell, decided not to hold a vote, despite the Constitution.
Now, their appointees are dumping "established law" because they think the Constitution should be interpreted rather strictly, not what's best for the USA.

I wonder what would have been decided by the current SCOTUS if McConnell's "I think we should wait until after The People have a say to hold a vote" concerning Constitutional Law. Then there's the fact that The People did have a say, and Hillary Clinton was clearly their choice.

It's this level of treasonous partisanship that caused me to become a straight ticket Democratic voter. The TeaParty Insurrection on Jan 6 was yet another. The list is just endless.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

The most famous example of such a vote was from Maine Senator Susan Collins, who now claims that she was lied to by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

So her defense was that.... she was too dumb to realize the most ill-concealed secret imaginable?

She has made a career of pretending that she would have been on the right side of every debate, except someone else made her vote for the wrong side.

 

[Copernicus]

As much as I disapprove of elective abortion as a form of birth control, this ruling was appalling. We're back to the patchwork of state laws. Where any dumbasses who are trying to get elected to state office will propose even more extreme legislation designed to appeal to a base. Regardless of the actual effects on society at large.

Why do you frame it that way? Who uses elective abortion as a form of birth control? This is a misogynist myth concocted to stir up anger against women who choose to have abortions.

 

[TomC]

As much as I disapprove of elective abortion as a form of birth control, this ruling was appalling. We're back to the patchwork of state laws. Where any dumbasses who are trying to get elected to state office will propose even more extreme legislation designed to appeal to a base. Regardless of the actual effects on society at large.

Why do you frame it that way? Who uses elective abortion as a form of birth control? This is a misogynist myth concocted to stir up anger against women who choose to have abortions.

I frame it that way because it's reality.
Not the whole reality. But I've gotta ask, do you really not understand that abortion rights haven't changed in the last few days? That abortion is still quite available to anyone who is in several states?

I'm one of the people who used abortion as a form of birth control. I'm not the only one. It's quite common. "I wish I hadn't made a choice that resulted in a baby". We didn't actually get the abortion, but we'd decided to get it.

It was me. As much as some posters on IIDB insist on calling me a misogynist, it's not true. I'm an egalitarian. That makes me racist and misogynistic and transphobic and every other bad thing a Wokester can think of.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

As much as I disapprove of elective abortion as a form of birth control, this ruling was appalling. We're back to the patchwork of state laws. Where any dumbasses who are trying to get elected to state office will propose even more extreme legislation designed to appeal to a base. Regardless of the actual effects on society at large.

Why do you frame it that way? Who uses elective abortion as a form of birth control? This is a misogynist myth concocted to stir up anger against women who choose to have abortions.

I frame it that way because it's reality.
Not the whole reality. But I've gotta ask, do you really not understand that abortion rights haven't changed in the last few days? That abortion is still quite available to anyone who is in several states?

And it is now (or extremely soon to be) not available to anyone in several states?
And since when should someone HAVE to travel in order to get a safe medical procedure?

I'm one of the people who used abortion as a form of birth control. I'm not the only one. It's quite common. "I wish I hadn't made a choice that resulted in a baby". We didn't actually get the abortion, but we'd decided to get it.

Then you did not use abortion as a form of birth control. Is it too much for you to get the facts straight in your own experience?

So what if there are women who use abortion as a form of after-the-fact birth control? Do you seriously think that rape or incest victims should be denied the choice of not risking their lives to carry an unwanted embryo to term? Or that a woman should be denied a medically safer procedure to reduce any health risks? Are you against anyone using legal and safe after the fact methods to deal with a unwanted outcome or just women?

 

[Copernicus]

As much as I disapprove of elective abortion as a form of birth control, this ruling was appalling. We're back to the patchwork of state laws. Where any dumbasses who are trying to get elected to state office will propose even more extreme legislation designed to appeal to a base. Regardless of the actual effects on society at large.

Why do you frame it that way? Who uses elective abortion as a form of birth control? This is a misogynist myth concocted to stir up anger against women who choose to have abortions.

I frame it that way because it's reality.
Not the whole reality. But I've gotta ask, do you really not understand that abortion rights haven't changed in the last few days? That abortion is still quite available to anyone who is in several states?

Rubbish. If you want to talk reality, then admit that abortion clinics are shutting down and moving out of some states right now as a result of this decision. Options to get an abortion are disappearing quickly now, even though the Dobbs decision has not yet resulted in judicial actions to close those options down. That is how  democratic backsliding works. People take actions in anticipation of future legal consequences, even if those consequences are not an immediate threat. Rights tend to evaporate quickly more through voluntary actions than compelled actions. Doctors will fail to perform abortions, if they see a possibility that they could be arrested, sued, or harassed in the future as a consequence.

I'm one of the people who used abortion as a form of birth control. I'm not the only one. It's quite common. "I wish I hadn't made a choice that resulted in a baby". We didn't actually get the abortion, but we'd decided to get it.

It was me. As much as some posters on IIDB insist on calling me a misogynist, it's not true. I'm an egalitarian. That makes me racist and misogynistic and transphobic and every other bad thing a Wokester can think of.
Tom

Your personal story is interesting, but your spin on it is open to challenge. Deciding to get an abortion in your case was not a form of birth control, which is normally defined as a method of preventing conception (i.e. contraception). You are extending the meaning of birth control to include abortion and then declaring that people use abortion for birth control. FTR, I did not call you a misogynist, although you clearly took it that way. I called the idea that people use abortion for birth control a "misogynist myth" used to blame women for getting abortions. It is a popular trope with the anti-abortion crowd. That's why I asked you why you chose to frame it that way. Why would you even call your intention to get an abortion that never happened a form of birth control? When you engaged in sex, did you think it was OK not to use contraception because there was always the option to get an abortion? I haven't been following your personal story all that closely, so maybe I missed something there.

How Birth Control Is Different From an Abortion

How is birth control different from an abortion? What is the process like? What are the effects on your body? Learn the differences between birth control and an abortion.

www.webmd.com