Roe v Wade is on deck

[Bomb#20]

Killjoy.
I was hoping Emily could provide rationale for thinking that restoring RvW was in any way a possibility. I could have used a pick-me-up, but alas. Emily is either out of ideas or is simply unwilling to share her treasure.

Of course it's a possibility. The Repubs will probably have worn out their welcome by 2028. The 2028 election actually will be the referendum on Trump the Dems unrealistically pinned all their hopes on 2024 being. So there's a good chance we'll have a Democratic WH and Congress from 2029 to 2030. Some Congressthing will no doubt submit a bill to enact RvW as federal law, just as some did the last times we had a Democratic WH and Congress, during segments of the Clinton and Obama presidencies. So all that needs to happen is for the next Democratic Congress to actually bring the bill to a vote and pass it, i.e., do their bloody job for the American people, instead of what they did the last two times the opportunity presented itself -- they calculated that not having RvW in federal law was to the advantage of the Democratic Party, so they bottled the bills up in committee until their majorities went away.

Had the Democrats passed that legislation in 2009 and Obama signed it... it would not be the law of the land today because of SCOTUS's Dobbs decision. SCOTUS ruled this is outside the venue of the Federal Government. Dobbs already overrules the legislation you think the Dems should pass. It'd have to go back to the Supreme Court to be over-over-ruled.

Right now it would take a Constitutional Amendment to put it back in the Federal sphere.

You really need to stop getting your image of legal rulings from the left-wing echo chamber -- you guys collectively appear to have profound misunderstandings not just of the Dobbs decision but of what it is the Supreme Court does. It shows up over and over in case after case.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the court held that the Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to abortion. The court's decision overruled both Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), returning to the federal and state legislatures the power to regulate any aspect of abortion not protected by federal statutory law."​

SCOTUS ruled that women don't get a right to abortion from the Constitution. That in no way implies they can't get a right to abortion from some vanilla federal law. There are all manner of federal laws banning states from infringing non-constitutional rights that the federal government just makes up. One of my neighbors enforced his federal right to build a 100-foot-high broadband antenna even though the state* refused to give him a permit.

(* The county, procedurally; but counties get their authority from state law.)

 

[Emily Lake]

That's what comes from elevating non-sentient fetuses to "personhood".

At what stage of development *exactly* does sentience occur? Is it magically conferred by passage through the vaginal canal, or is it carried in the hands of the doctor/midwife who is pulling the baby out of the mother's vagina or c-section? When *exactly* does a fetus become a baby?

People are worth more to people than other animals are, generally speaking.

People are worth more to people than fetuses are, generally speaking. Of course YMMV, and it looks like it does.

Again, what what point *exactly* does a fetus become a people? I'll accept without any objection at all that a fetus 2 weeks past conception is not a person. On the other hand, I'm not so comfortable saying that a fetus 2 weeks from delivery is not a person. Where do you personally draw the line on when it's just a fetus and when it's a person?

"a baby two days before delivery is nothing more than a lump of cells not at all worthy of any sort of protection"

THAT^^^ "belief" which you REPEATED ABOVE.

Are you just PLAYING dumb, or are you prematurely senile? A fucking planaria is "more than a lump of cells".
You are playing a very dishonest game. The dishonesty is not with me, it's with yourself. I think you believe are arguing in good faith, but it is obvious that you are not.

Okay, fine, you don't think it's "just" a lump of cells.

Do you think that a baby two days before delivery has sufficient personhood that they merit protection from being killed without extremely good and justifiable reasons? Or do you think they lack personhood, and can be destroyed with no more protections than one would provide to a planaria?

 

[Emily Lake]

Because, for like the fiftieth time now... The vast majority of americans, including the vast majority of women, support having some reasonable constraints on late-term abortions.

There were reasonable constraints to late term abortions before politicians got involved.

Please be more specific. At what point are you considering politicians to have gotten involved? Pre RvW? Or before RvW was overturned?

 

[Emily Lake]

Again, I am singularly uninterested in "saving" that fraction of 1% of aborted fetuses at the expense of people with names and address, SS#s, friends, relatives, jobs, memories and lovers.

What if those people are not harmed by refusing to kill the fetus that's a month shy of delivery?

Ok, I freely admit that I haven’t followed this entire thread but while I agree with you about restoring Roe V Wade, I honestly don’t understand this post I’m quoting here.

Can you please help me out?

Elixir is advocating for essentially enshrining abortion as a right, and is strongly opposed to having any restraints or limitations in place at all. That means that, under the approach Elixir is arguing for, it would be a woman's unassailable right to abort a fetus two days prior to delivery, for any reason at all, and her choice to do so could not be challenged. Thus, a healthy mother with no risks at all could chose to terminate a perfectly healthy fetus at any point until it has actually been delivered.

I disagree with this position. I take the view that at some point in gestation, it's no longer a fetus but a baby. And while I will 100% support termination late in the pregnancy if the mother's health is at risk in any fashion whatsoever, or if the infant is nonviable or has a severe defect, or otherwise is expected to not thrive. Thus, if there's any medically sound reason for termination, I don't think there should be any barriers at all. On the other hand, if the mother and the fetus are both healthy and there's no risks involved, I think somewhere in the third trimester, voluntary termination without medical necessity should be precluded. To me, at some point it stops being abortion of a non-sentient collection of cells, and becomes the killing of a baby. I allow that sometimes there are very good reasons to do so, but I don't think that it should always be allowable with no constraints.

Elixir repeatedly frames my view as if I want to see mothers bleed out in the parking lot while waiting for a judge to decide whether she can get an abortion - he keeps resorting to scenarios that I have already completely accepted as reasonable and acceptable. And he keeps insisting that my hesitance to allow a healthy woman to abort a healthy baby three days prior to deliver as being motivated by right-wing religiosity. Which is really annoying, as it's an intentional mischaracterization of my view.

 

[Emily Lake]

Killjoy.
I was hoping Emily could provide rationale for thinking that restoring RvW was in any way a possibility. I could have used a pick-me-up, but alas. Emily is either out of ideas or is simply unwilling to share her treasure.

Of course it's a possibility. The Repubs will probably have worn out their welcome by 2028. The 2028 election actually will be the referendum on Trump the Dems unrealistically pinned all their hopes on 2024 being. So there's a good chance we'll have a Democratic WH and Congress from 2029 to 2030. Some Congressthing will no doubt submit a bill to enact RvW as federal law, just as some did the last times we had a Democratic WH and Congress, during segments of the Clinton and Obama presidencies. So all that needs to happen is for the next Democratic Congress to actually bring the bill to a vote and pass it, i.e., do their bloody job for the American people, instead of what they did the last two times the opportunity presented itself -- they calculated that not having RvW in federal law was to the advantage of the Democratic Party, so they bottled the bills up in committee until their majorities went away.

Had the Democrats passed that legislation in 2009 and Obama signed it... it would not be the law of the land today because of SCOTUS's Dobbs decision. SCOTUS ruled this is outside the venue of the Federal Government. Dobbs already overrules the legislation you think the Dems should pass. It'd have to go back to the Supreme Court to be over-over-ruled.

Right now it would take a Constitutional Amendment to put it back in the Federal sphere.

Well, no, not really. If they passed legislation and signed it into law, it would be law. RvW got through in the first place based on an interpretation of what privacy implies, and it was overturned on the basis of that interpretation being successfully challenged. RvW was never a *law*. It was shoehorned in on an interpretation, which left it open to challenge.

If Congress did its actual job and made an actual law, it wouldn't be subject to that type of challenge.

 

[Bomb#20]

The Repubs will probably have worn out their welcome by 2028.

ROFL!!
Their welcome will not be up for re-election in 2028. I doubt there will be anything like a free or fair elections in 2026. <paranoid rant snipped>

The 2026 and 2028 elections will take place on schedule. They'll be as free as usual; 2028 will be unfair in the customary way the Electoral College gives an edge to the Repubs. Trump won't be the Repub candidate since he'll have been President twice. American democracy is a lot less fragile than the panickers think.

For your scenario to play out, I believe their Orange Jesus will need to be dead. And if he IS dead I predict he will still get 20-plus percent of the Republicans vote (that’s how stupid they are as a group)

Not that that is out of the question, and I hope for America’s sake that he croaks very soon. I wouldn’t bet on it but I’d pray for it if I was religious.

Be careful what you wish for. Presidents who live out their terms are rarely followed by another from the same party; but when presidents die in office the VP who takes over midstream is usually reelected. For my scenario to play out Vance needs to lose in 2028; that's more likely if Trump is still alive.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Killjoy.
I was hoping Emily could provide rationale for thinking that restoring RvW was in any way a possibility. I could have used a pick-me-up, but alas. Emily is either out of ideas or is simply unwilling to share her treasure.

Of course it's a possibility. The Repubs will probably have worn out their welcome by 2028. The 2028 election actually will be the referendum on Trump the Dems unrealistically pinned all their hopes on 2024 being. So there's a good chance we'll have a Democratic WH and Congress from 2029 to 2030. Some Congressthing will no doubt submit a bill to enact RvW as federal law, just as some did the last times we had a Democratic WH and Congress, during segments of the Clinton and Obama presidencies. So all that needs to happen is for the next Democratic Congress to actually bring the bill to a vote and pass it, i.e., do their bloody job for the American people, instead of what they did the last two times the opportunity presented itself -- they calculated that not having RvW in federal law was to the advantage of the Democratic Party, so they bottled the bills up in committee until their majorities went away.

Had the Democrats passed that legislation in 2009 and Obama signed it... it would not be the law of the land today because of SCOTUS's Dobbs decision. SCOTUS ruled this is outside the venue of the Federal Government. Dobbs already overrules the legislation you think the Dems should pass. It'd have to go back to the Supreme Court to be over-over-ruled.

Right now it would take a Constitutional Amendment to put it back in the Federal sphere.

You really need to stop getting your image of legal rulings from the left-wing echo chamber -- you guys collectively appear to have profound misunderstandings not just of the Dobbs decision but of what it is the Supreme Court does. It shows up over and over in case after case.

So Federal Government passes law. State passes contrary law. Go to SCOTUS. SCOTUS finds that "We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. The Abortion Act must be overruled." 10th Amendment for the win and abortion is out in Texas, and like 25 or 30 other states.

SCOTUS ruled that women don't get a right to abortion from the Constitution. That in no way implies they can't get a right to abortion from some vanilla federal law.

Except if a state says otherwise. What is the basis for Federal over State supremacy... if the Constitution doesn't say it?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Killjoy.
I was hoping Emily could provide rationale for thinking that restoring RvW was in any way a possibility. I could have used a pick-me-up, but alas. Emily is either out of ideas or is simply unwilling to share her treasure.

Of course it's a possibility. The Repubs will probably have worn out their welcome by 2028. The 2028 election actually will be the referendum on Trump the Dems unrealistically pinned all their hopes on 2024 being. So there's a good chance we'll have a Democratic WH and Congress from 2029 to 2030. Some Congressthing will no doubt submit a bill to enact RvW as federal law, just as some did the last times we had a Democratic WH and Congress, during segments of the Clinton and Obama presidencies. So all that needs to happen is for the next Democratic Congress to actually bring the bill to a vote and pass it, i.e., do their bloody job for the American people, instead of what they did the last two times the opportunity presented itself -- they calculated that not having RvW in federal law was to the advantage of the Democratic Party, so they bottled the bills up in committee until their majorities went away.

Had the Democrats passed that legislation in 2009 and Obama signed it... it would not be the law of the land today because of SCOTUS's Dobbs decision. SCOTUS ruled this is outside the venue of the Federal Government. Dobbs already overrules the legislation you think the Dems should pass. It'd have to go back to the Supreme Court to be over-over-ruled.

Right now it would take a Constitutional Amendment to put it back in the Federal sphere.

Well, no, not really. If they passed legislation and signed it into law, it would be law.

It'd be challenged by the state. Then SCOTUS needs to determine which one wins. The State would because SCOTUS said the Constitution doesn't count for abortion.

 

[Elixir]

That in no way implies they can't get a right to abortion from some vanilla federal law.

Certainly does mean that, federally. Why do you think RvW is dead?
On paper blue states have autonomy.

 

[Elixir]

RvW got through in the first place based on an interpretation of what privacy implies

And on that basis it was overturned. What it provided though -
The Court ruled that:
• Before fetal viability (approximately the end of the second trimester), the state cannot ban abortion but may regulate it to ensure safety.
• After viability, states may regulate or prohibit abortion, except when necessary to protect the life or health of the mother

- protected the right to abortion access under some conditions.
It was obviously weak in terms of the privacy argument in the eyes of the corrupt court, and so would any clone of it. Trying to get something stronger passed nationally is not going to happen.

 

[Elixir]

Elixir is advocating for essentially enshrining abortion as a right, and is strongly opposed to having any LEGAL restraints or LEGAL limitations in place at all

FIFY.
Please stop misrepresenting me. It’s not like I have failed to make that distinction.
You choose to ignore it because you think it makes your argument to keep the courts in the exam room sound more rational.

 

[Elixir]

At what stage of development *exactly* does sentience occur?

Gee Emily, I don’t know. Do you remember being a fetus? I remember being in a crib - just a few fleeting images - when I was less than 2 yrs old. But not being a fetus. You?

 

[Elixir]

SCOTUS ruled that women don't get a right to abortion from the Constitution. That in no way implies they can't get a right to abortion from some vanilla federal law.

Oh? The Constitution provides that rights not proscribed Constitutionally shall be retained be the people. So SCOTUS proscribed any Constitutional right to abortion with a contorted interpretation of the privacy provision. How are going to phrase your vanilla law such that
A) it will pass and
B) SCOTUS won’t strike it down if enacted?

 

[Elixir]

counties get their authority from state law

They are still subject to the FAA prohibiting your neighbor’s tower if they deem it a hazard. It’s an irrelevant case. Leaving it to States leaves women (PEOPLE) suffering and dying.

 

[Emily Lake]

So Federal Government passes law. State passes contrary law. Go to SCOTUS. SCOTUS finds that "We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. The Abortion Act must be overruled." 10th Amendment for the win and abortion is out in Texas, and like 25 or 30 other states.

Except if a state says otherwise. What is the basis for Federal over State supremacy... if the Constitution doesn't say it?

The problem right now is that the federal government never actually passed a law pertaining to abortion.

There was a court ruling that abortion was protected under the 14th amendment, based on a particular interpretation of privacy. That interpretation got challenged, and SCOTUS rescinded the prior ruling that abortion was constitutionally protected, finding that the meaning of privacy employed wasn't sufficiently supported. That creates a situation where legality then defaults to the states, because there was never a federal law in the first place.

If Congress actually does their job and makes a federal law, then the states would have to challenge that law... and that's a lot harder to do than to challenge an interpretation of a word used to assume constitutional protection.

While we're at it... Congress (okay, the 2029 congress, probably not the current one) needs to pass an actual law protecting marriage as well, because gay marriage in the US is based on a similar terminological interpretation, albeit a bit inverted if I recall. I'm not a lawyer, so I might not have the details right, but at no point did anyway say "It's legal for gay people to get married" - there's no actual legal protection in place. Rather, SCOTUS rules that it's not the place of the government to define what marriage means, and therefore that it's not the role of any government - state or federal - to deny marriage to anyone on the basis of their sexuality. Given Dobbs, I'm inclined to think that's as potentially fragile as abortion, and I'd really like congress to make laws regarding both topics.

 

[Emily Lake]

Elixir is advocating for essentially enshrining abortion as a right, and is strongly opposed to having any LEGAL restraints or LEGAL limitations in place at all

FIFY.
Please stop misrepresenting me. It’s not like I have failed to make that distinction.

What meaningful distinction do you think that creates? Genuinely, what kind of NON-LEGAL restraints or limitations do you think could exist when you frame abortion at any time for any reason as a protected right?

You choose to ignore it because you think it makes your argument to keep the courts in the exam room sound more rational.

I don't want the courts in the exam room, as I have repeatedly said, and clarified, and restates and reclarified.

 

[Emily Lake]

At what stage of development *exactly* does sentience occur?

Gee Emily, I don’t know. Do you remember being a fetus? I remember being in a crib - just a few fleeting images - when I was less than 2 yrs old. But not being a fetus. You?

I don't think sentience is the word you're looking for in your argument then. Sentience doesn't imply memory. Hell, I don't think I have any fleeting memories until probably about 3 or 4? And even those, I'm not sure they're real memories or if they're constructed from having heard the stories many times.

Sentience has to do with perception, awareness, and emotional response. I would argue that there's pretty decent support for late-stage fetuses being sentient, given that they respond to music, they react to their parents' strong emotions, etc.

 

[Emily Lake]

SCOTUS ruled that women don't get a right to abortion from the Constitution. That in no way implies they can't get a right to abortion from some vanilla federal law.

Oh? The Constitution provides that rights not proscribed Constitutionally shall be retained be the people. So SCOTUS proscribed any Constitutional right to abortion with a contorted interpretation of the privacy provision. How are going to phrase your vanilla law such that
A) it will pass and
B) SCOTUS won’t strike it down if enacted?

I'm like to assume that you're aware that there are lots and lots and lots of federal laws and statutes that are not enshrined in the constitution... but that kind of makes your question seem silly.

These are two different situations. In the first, we have an interpretation of terminology that results in a ruling that a specific action is constitutionally protected. This means that the action in question is already a guaranteed and protected right within the scope of the constitution. Such an interpretation can be re-interpreted on challenge, and the prior interpretation can be rescinded.

**ETA - this interpretative approach is what has been leveraged with respect to the 2nd, curtailing or limiting various gun rights. It's also what's been attempted (but unsuccessful) when trying to re-interpret the 2nd to mean only muskets are allowed, or that only people enrolled in a clearly defined militia organization are allowed to have guns.

In the second, we have a congressionally passed law. And the making of law is one of the powers granted to congress by the constitution. In order for SCOTUS to strike down a law, they would have to rule that the law itself actually violates one or more of the amendments in the constitution.

And that's only if it's nothing more than a bit of legislature, like ACA or HIPAA. If Congress gets even more motivated and can muster sufficient support, they could simply make a new amendment defining abortion as a right. And once it's an amendment, it takes an act of congress, not the courts, to remove it.

 

[Toni]

Again, I am singularly uninterested in "saving" that fraction of 1% of aborted fetuses at the expense of people with names and address, SS#s, friends, relatives, jobs, memories and lovers.

What if those people are not harmed by refusing to kill the fetus that's a month shy of delivery?

Ok, I freely admit that I haven’t followed this entire thread but while I agree with you about restoring Roe V Wade, I honestly don’t understand this post I’m quoting here.

Can you please help me out?

Elixir is advocating for essentially enshrining abortion as a right, and is strongly opposed to having any restraints or limitations in place at all. That means that, under the approach Elixir is arguing for, it would be a woman's unassailable right to abort a fetus two days prior to delivery, for any reason at all, and her choice to do so could not be challenged. Thus, a healthy mother with no risks at all could chose to terminate a perfectly healthy fetus at any point until it has actually been delivered.

I disagree with this position. I take the view that at some point in gestation, it's no longer a fetus but a baby. And while I will 100% support termination late in the pregnancy if the mother's health is at risk in any fashion whatsoever, or if the infant is nonviable or has a severe defect, or otherwise is expected to not thrive. Thus, if there's any medically sound reason for termination, I don't think there should be any barriers at all. On the other hand, if the mother and the fetus are both healthy and there's no risks involved, I think somewhere in the third trimester, voluntary termination without medical necessity should be precluded. To me, at some point it stops being abortion of a non-sentient collection of cells, and becomes the killing of a baby. I allow that sometimes there are very good reasons to do so, but I don't think that it should always be allowable with no constraints.

Elixir repeatedly frames my view as if I want to see mothers bleed out in the parking lot while waiting for a judge to decide whether she can get an abortion - he keeps resorting to scenarios that I have already completely accepted as reasonable and acceptable. And he keeps insisting that my hesitance to allow a healthy woman to abort a healthy baby three days prior to deliver as being motivated by right-wing religiosity. Which is really annoying, as it's an intentional mischaracterization of my view.

I see it as a different route than either of you seem to: I see the ‘guardrails’ so to speak as the willingness of medical professionals to refuse to perform any procedure that violates AMA guidelines, hospital policy or personal ethics.

The reason I’m not 100% in agreement with you, Emily, is that I am certain there are very rare events when either the mother or the fetus’ life can be saved but not both. Saving the mother would result in the death of a full term, viable fetus and could possibly construed as ‘abortion.’

Sadly birth accidents do happen. There are still births and maternal deaths despite all best efforts. These are not necessarily medical malpractice and they are not murder. Tragedy can only be the word to describe such events.

 

[Emily Lake]

counties get their authority from state law

They are still subject to the FAA prohibiting your neighbor’s tower if they deem it a hazard. It’s an irrelevant case. Leaving it to States leaves women (PEOPLE) suffering and dying.

SCOTUS ruled that women don't get a right to abortion from the Constitution. That in no way implies they can't get a right to abortion from some vanilla federal law.

Oh? The Constitution provides that rights not proscribed Constitutionally shall be retained be the people. So SCOTUS proscribed any Constitutional right to abortion with a contorted interpretation of the privacy provision. How are going to phrase your vanilla law such that
A) it will pass and
B) SCOTUS won’t strike it down if enacted?

These two posts are contradictory, Elixir - FAA rules are federal laws (statutes?) but aren't part of the constitution. They work in exactly the same way a federal law respecting abortion would work.