Roe v Wade is on deck

[Emily Lake]

My horrible, horrific, evil position that RvW was a really good policy, and that I'd even be willing to raise the gestational limit for non-medically-necessary voluntary abortions a bit.

The road to the hell we're in was paved with such lovely intentions.
I don't know that a solution exists as long as misogynist billionaires rule the world.

Do you think that the entire rest of the planet and all the countries in it are hell?

 

[Emily Lake]

I wasn't trying to address whether she hates women. Rather, I was addressing why people distrust her claim of support for the RvW position.

It's absurd to distrust my claim of support for the RvW position, when that's quite literally the only thing I've ever argued for.

The devil is in the details.

You proposed some onerous requirements on third trimester abortions--things that simply couldn't be met in smaller facilities.

I proposed that doctors have to document the medical reason for the termination in their medical records. If smaller facilities can't do that, they shouldn't be practicing medicine at all.

And as we have seen with other quests to ban "improper" abortion it comes down to whether they can prove it's proper, rather than the best medical estimate. How do you know how far along a pregnancy is? It's sometimes impossible to prove it's at less than 6 months.

Somehow we're pretty damned good at getting it right. I've repeatedly said that I'm happy to increase the line to 27 or 28 weeks, and you could probably even talk me up to 30 if you try.

You argued for RvW with booby traps.

What booby traps did I add to RvW when I argued that RvW should be made into a law as it was?

 

[TomC]

You proposed some onerous requirements on third trimester abortions--things that simply couldn't be met in smaller facilities.

I don't remember that. Could you please give an overview of the onerous requirements you're referring to?
There's about 70 million iidb posts on this subject, so maybe I missed them.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

My horrible, horrific, evil position that RvW was a really good policy, and that I'd even be willing to raise the gestational limit for non-medically-necessary voluntary abortions a bit.

The road to the hell we're in was paved with such lovely intentions.
I don't know that a solution exists as long as misogynist billionaires rule the world.

Do you think that the entire rest of the planet and all the countries in it are hell?

Gee, I’ve only been to a dozen or few, and all in the Northern hemisphere so I can’t say that I have strong thoughts about all the rest of the countries on the planet. I’ve heard rumors. You? Did you check them all out? Are they your definition of hell?
I’ve been to some poverty stricken places that seemed like hell to me, but people were going about thei lives, laughing, crying, suffering, living and dying. Have you not seen that in all your years of ground travel?

Why would my thoughts (or yours) about whether certain places are hell, have anything to do with the existential threat to American democracy, the freedom of its people or the imposition of world governments’ will upon the bodies of their people? Your embrace or my criticism of RvW “ideals” isn’t going to make one whit of difference to anyone’s opinion of the relative hellishness of various places.

 

[robnisch]

Despite Bans, Number of Abortions in the United States Increased in 2023

www.guttmacher.org

It's complicated. But overturning Roe V Wade made things worse.

 

[Emily Lake]

My horrible, horrific, evil position that RvW was a really good policy, and that I'd even be willing to raise the gestational limit for non-medically-necessary voluntary abortions a bit.

The road to the hell we're in was paved with such lovely intentions.
I don't know that a solution exists as long as misogynist billionaires rule the world.

Do you think that the entire rest of the planet and all the countries in it are hell?

Gee, I’ve only been to a dozen or few, and all in the Northern hemisphere so I can’t say that I have strong thoughts about all the rest of the countries on the planet. I’ve heard rumors. You? Did you check them all out? Are they your definition of hell?
I’ve been to some poverty stricken places that seemed like hell to me, but people were going about thei lives, laughing, crying, suffering, living and dying. Have you not seen that in all your years of ground travel?

Why would my thoughts (or yours) about whether certain places are hell, have anything to do with the existential threat to American democracy, the freedom of its people or the imposition of world governments’ will upon the bodies of their people? Your embrace or my criticism of RvW “ideals” isn’t going to make one whit of difference to anyone’s opinion of the relative hellishness of various places.

This is a nonsense reply, Elixir.

I support RvW, and even slightly less stringent.
You respond by implying that RvW is on the road to hell.
Every single country in Europe, as well as AU and NZ, have abortion laws that are more limiting and restrictive than RvW.
The conclusion must therefore be that all other developed nations are hell.

 

[Elixir]

I support RvW, and even slightly less stringent.
You respond by implying that RvW is on the road to hell.

I point out that it got us here, and you respond as if that’s not a problem with RvW, but rather a problem with … me attacking you?

Sorry Ems - I’m pointing out that even as a Constitutional provision affirmed by the SCOTUS, it was subject to perversion.

I concede - this culture behaves in a manner undeserving of just policies.

 

[Emily Lake]

I support RvW, and even slightly less stringent.
You respond by implying that RvW is on the road to hell.

I point out that it got us here, and you respond as if that’s not a problem with RvW, but rather a problem with … me attacking you?

Sorry Ems - I’m pointing out that even as a Constitutional provision affirmed by the SCOTUS, it was subject to perversion.

I concede - this culture behaves in a manner undeserving of just policies.

RvW didn't get us here! RvW being overturned based on interpretation got us here! The LACK of RvW got us here!

And I'm responding that you're attacking me, because you're making shit up to fling at me and it's not true.

 

[Elixir]

RvW didn't get us here!

lol!
As predicted.

RvW being overturned based on interpretation got us here!

So are you blaming the interpreters, or “libs like me” for letting six corrupt justices interpret the Constitution, which, according to the Constitution, is their fucking job?
Or is it me attacking you that didit?
I blame “conservatives”, now outing themselves for what they are.

 

[Elixir]

Every single country in Europe, as well as AU and NZ, have abortion laws that are more limiting and restrictive than RvW.

Oh, very well then. That settles it.
Let’s all chant “ARE VEE DUBBLE YOU!!”
If you can get say, a million people to assemble in front of the Supreme Court chanting, that might work. But not with this regime in power. You become terrorists, aka fair game.

 

[Emily Lake]

RvW didn't get us here!

lol!
As predicted.

RvW being overturned based on interpretation got us here!

So are you blaming the interpreters, or “libs like me” for letting six corrupt justices interpret the Constitution, which, according to the Constitution, is their fucking job?
Or is it me attacking you that didit?
I blame “conservatives”, now outing themselves for what they are.

WTAF is wrong with you? I blame all of congress and both parties with not getting off their collective asses and legislating abortion access during the nearly half a century it was there. They made a law regarding same sex marriage, rather quickly on the heels of an SC interpretation - and that was a good thing! Why didn't they do the same thing for abortion? Had they done that at any point in the 49 years it was in place, we wouldn't be in this fucking mess.

 

[Emily Lake]

Every single country in Europe, as well as AU and NZ, have abortion laws that are more limiting and restrictive than RvW.

Oh, very well then. That settles it.
Let’s all chant “ARE VEE DUBBLE YOU!!”
If you can get say, a million people to assemble in front of the Supreme Court chanting, that might work. But not with this regime in power. You become terrorists, aka fair game.

Okay, you're not making sense at all. This is incomprehensible, so I'm out.

 

[Elixir]

and legislating abortion access

RvW is/was legslation. It was ruled unconstitutional.
It is not possible to craft legislation that is not subject to interpretation.

 

[Jarhyn]

and legislating abortion access

RvW is/was legslation. It was ruled unconstitutional.
It is not possible to craft legislation that is not subject to interpretation.

Not to mention the fact that one of those two parties fought tooth and nail to prevent legislation of abortion repeatedly over the intervening years.

It has been a conflict going on for decades, and we know how the parties align and have aligned.

I find it to be absolutely right-leaning behavior, liberal-mask/nazi-monster kind of bullshit to to play that "both sides" bullshit in the midst of this attack on Roe.

It should have been legislated.

Every time anyone attempted, Republicans blocked any discussion of it.

Democrats often did not try because it would lose more conservative purple seats.

It wasn't that it wasn't tried, it was blocked, not by "both sides" but by conservatives, and anyone who has a really hard time looking at that is just a fucking Nazi.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

and legislating abortion access

RvW is/was legslation. It was ruled unconstitutional.

Roe v Wade was a court decision that ruled restrictions on abortion access was unconstitutional, not legislation itself. It would be later tightened up a bit in Planned Parenthood v Casey.

Then SCOTUS in Dobbs said, 'well maybe not'.

It is not possible to craft legislation that is not subject to interpretation.

Indeed. Even the ban in Texas proves how hard it is to manage such stuff as women in desperate need of health care are denied it because hospitals don't know if the woman is in bad enough condition. This is what happens when the law is written to punish instead of protect people.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

RvW didn't get us here!

lol!
As predicted.

RvW being overturned based on interpretation got us here!

So are you blaming the interpreters, or “libs like me” for letting six corrupt justices interpret the Constitution, which, according to the Constitution, is their fucking job?
Or is it me attacking you that didit?
I blame “conservatives”, now outing themselves for what they are.

WTAF is wrong with you? I blame all of congress and both parties with not getting off their collective asses and legislating abortion access during the nearly half a century it was there.

Pass a law? Why would that have made any difference? SCOTUS didn't rule in Dobbs that the Federal Government didn't write a law, therefore there was no known Congressional Intent regarding abortion rights, therefore no more abortion rights. You are angry at Congress for not doing something that wouldn't have made a difference. The only thing that would have prevented Dobbs was a Constitutional Amendment... maybe. This Roberts Court is something else.

SCOTUS ruled that abortion was outside the limits of the Federal Government. Dobbs ruled that any recognition (which would include any LAW passed by the Federal Government) was null and void because there was no Constitutional Protection to abortion. They made this a Federal v State issue here and determined the Federal Government had no supremacy in forcing abortion protections on states. And SCOTUS was indicating that the States could overrule the Feds because the Constitution didn't protect a woman's right to her body.

What sharply distinguishes the abortion right from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roe and Casey rely is something that both those decisions acknowledged: Abortion destroys what those decisions call 'potential life' and what the law at issue in this case regards as the life of an 'unborn human being'.

FYI, this is a primer to banning abortion Federally.

They made a law regarding same sex marriage, rather quickly on the heels of an SC interpretation - and that was a good thing!

When Thomas noted in Dobbs to revisit Obergerfell ("...should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell"), you think he had a stroke because he didn't know the Federal Government passed a law?

Why didn't they do the same thing for abortion? Had they done that at any point in the 49 years it was in place, we wouldn't be in this fucking mess.

I can't tolerant this level of ignorance anymore! It is almost like it is intentional.

 

[Elixir]

I can't tolerant this level of ignorance anymore! It is almost like it is intentional.

It’s not the ignorance, it’s the pride in it that is so irritating.