Roe v Wade is on deck

[laughing dog]

Mmm. Yes, how horrible I am wanting to lock in abortion rights as a federal law which would override the states that have banned it.

Why wouldn't the Supreme Court just nullify that law the same way the court did to RvW?

To nullify that law, they would have to demonstrate that the law itself is unconstitutional.

It's a different standard. It's not a perfect parallel by any means, but you could think of it like the difference between a criminal and a civil trial. In a civil trial, the prosecution only has to demonstrate a "preponderance of evidence", whereas in a criminal trial, they have to demonstrate "beyond a reasonable doubt". The bar is much higher.

For the original RvW, it was based on a judicial interpretation that prohibiting abortion was a violation of privacy. The constitution doesn't actually explicitly guarantee a right to privacy - that in itself is an interpretive view. The 14th says the state can't deprive citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. That has been interpreted several times to imply that we have a right to privacy in many aspects. So RvW was kind of an interpretation (that abortion is a matter of privacy) on top of an interpretation (that privacy is guaranteed by the constitution).

If it's passed as an actual federal law, then it stands on it's own. To be overturned, the courts would need to show that it's an illegal law - and I don't think there's anything in the constitution that would support that. It's still possible, sure... but much more difficult to do.

This particular SCOTUS has shown they have no problem doing the difficult.

 

[Emily Lake]

Mmm. Yes, how horrible I am wanting to lock in abortion rights as a federal law which would override the states that have banned it.

Why wouldn't the Supreme Court just nullify that law the same way the court did to RvW?

To nullify that law, they would have to demonstrate that the law itself is unconstitutional.

It's a different standard. It's not a perfect parallel by any means, but you could think of it like the difference between a criminal and a civil trial. In a civil trial, the prosecution only has to demonstrate a "preponderance of evidence", whereas in a criminal trial, they have to demonstrate "beyond a reasonable doubt". The bar is much higher.

For the original RvW, it was based on a judicial interpretation that prohibiting abortion was a violation of privacy. The constitution doesn't actually explicitly guarantee a right to privacy - that in itself is an interpretive view. The 14th says the state can't deprive citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. That has been interpreted several times to imply that we have a right to privacy in many aspects. So RvW was kind of an interpretation (that abortion is a matter of privacy) on top of an interpretation (that privacy is guaranteed by the constitution).

If it's passed as an actual federal law, then it stands on it's own. To be overturned, the courts would need to show that it's an illegal law - and I don't think there's anything in the constitution that would support that. It's still possible, sure... but much more difficult to do.

This particular SCOTUS has shown they have no problem doing the difficult.

Therefore we should all just give up? Abandon the entire concept of justice and riot in the streets?

 

[laughing dog]

Mmm. Yes, how horrible I am wanting to lock in abortion rights as a federal law which would override the states that have banned it.

Why wouldn't the Supreme Court just nullify that law the same way the court did to RvW?

To nullify that law, they would have to demonstrate that the law itself is unconstitutional.

It's a different standard. It's not a perfect parallel by any means, but you could think of it like the difference between a criminal and a civil trial. In a civil trial, the prosecution only has to demonstrate a "preponderance of evidence", whereas in a criminal trial, they have to demonstrate "beyond a reasonable doubt". The bar is much higher.

For the original RvW, it was based on a judicial interpretation that prohibiting abortion was a violation of privacy. The constitution doesn't actually explicitly guarantee a right to privacy - that in itself is an interpretive view. The 14th says the state can't deprive citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. That has been interpreted several times to imply that we have a right to privacy in many aspects. So RvW was kind of an interpretation (that abortion is a matter of privacy) on top of an interpretation (that privacy is guaranteed by the constitution).

If it's passed as an actual federal law, then it stands on it's own. To be overturned, the courts would need to show that it's an illegal law - and I don't think there's anything in the constitution that would support that. It's still possible, sure... but much more difficult to do.

This particular SCOTUS has shown they have no problem doing the difficult.

Therefore we should all just give up? Abandon the entire concept of justice and riot in the streets?

The entire concept of justice has already been abandoned because if it hadn't, Roe V Wade would be the law of the land, Trump would have been impeached and then subsequently imprisoned.

The point I made was that it wouldn't be that difficult for this SCOTUS especially with Alito who can manufacture rationales out of thin air - to overturn a federal law on abortion.

 

[ZiprHead]

Mmm. Yes, how horrible I am wanting to lock in abortion rights as a federal law which would override the states that have banned it.

Why wouldn't the Supreme Court just nullify that law the same way the court did to RvW?

To nullify that law, they would have to demonstrate that the law itself is unconstitutional.

It's a different standard. It's not a perfect parallel by any means, but you could think of it like the difference between a criminal and a civil trial. In a civil trial, the prosecution only has to demonstrate a "preponderance of evidence", whereas in a criminal trial, they have to demonstrate "beyond a reasonable doubt". The bar is much higher.

For the original RvW, it was based on a judicial interpretation that prohibiting abortion was a violation of privacy. The constitution doesn't actually explicitly guarantee a right to privacy - that in itself is an interpretive view. The 14th says the state can't deprive citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. That has been interpreted several times to imply that we have a right to privacy in many aspects. So RvW was kind of an interpretation (that abortion is a matter of privacy) on top of an interpretation (that privacy is guaranteed by the constitution).

If it's passed as an actual federal law, then it stands on it's own. To be overturned, the courts would need to show that it's an illegal law - and I don't think there's anything in the constitution that would support that. It's still possible, sure... but much more difficult to do.

This particular SCOTUS has shown they have no problem doing the difficult.

Therefore we should all just give up? Abandon the entire concept of justice and riot in the streets?

The entire concept of justice has already been abandoned because if it hadn't, Roe V Wade would be the law of the land, Trump would have been impeached and then subsequently imprisoned.

The point I made was that it wouldn't be that difficult for this SCOTUS especially with Alito who can manufacture rationales out of thin air - to overturn a federal law on abortion.

Remember one of the arguments used to justify breaking RvW was made by a 17th century kook who believed in witches.

 

[Toni]

Mmm. Yes, how horrible I am wanting to lock in abortion rights as a federal law which would override the states that have banned it.

Why wouldn't the Supreme Court just nullify that law the same way the court did to RvW?

To nullify that law, they would have to demonstrate that the law itself is unconstitutional.

It's a different standard. It's not a perfect parallel by any means, but you could think of it like the difference between a criminal and a civil trial. In a civil trial, the prosecution only has to demonstrate a "preponderance of evidence", whereas in a criminal trial, they have to demonstrate "beyond a reasonable doubt". The bar is much higher.

For the original RvW, it was based on a judicial interpretation that prohibiting abortion was a violation of privacy. The constitution doesn't actually explicitly guarantee a right to privacy - that in itself is an interpretive view. The 14th says the state can't deprive citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. That has been interpreted several times to imply that we have a right to privacy in many aspects. So RvW was kind of an interpretation (that abortion is a matter of privacy) on top of an interpretation (that privacy is guaranteed by the constitution).

If it's passed as an actual federal law, then it stands on it's own. To be overturned, the courts would need to show that it's an illegal law - and I don't think there's anything in the constitution that would support that. It's still possible, sure... but much more difficult to do.

This particular SCOTUS has shown they have no problem doing the difficult.

Therefore we should all just give up? Abandon the entire concept of justice and riot in the streets?

All you hetero men should know that there is a growing movement to withhold sex.

You all do not have any idea how angry women are.

 

[ZiprHead]

To nullify that law, they would have to demonstrate say that the law itself is unconstitutional.

FTFY No demonstration necessary.

 

[Elixir]

I am not, and have never been, opposed to abortion being legal.

I know that Emily. You’re not opposed to abortion being legal as long as it is subjected to a second opinion. In advance. That is neither bodily autonomy nor personal freedom IMHO.

And that “position” was moderated from something that reeked even more strongly of authoritarianism, as it originally involved politicians.
At least that is what I have gotten from what you have said.

“I’m so misunderstood!” Is the wailing lament of one cannot succinctly explain themself.

If you clearly state the difference between what you really mean and what I (and a “couple of my extremist friends”) have gleaned from your posts, we can discuss it. Telling me I’m wrong, and endlessly re-phrasing that assertion doesn’t tell me what’s right. If you cannot do that, it’s pretty pointless to try to discuss with you.

 

[bilby]

Abandon the entire concept of justice and riot in the streets?

The entire concept of justice stems from people rioting in the streets. And from those riots becoming so severe that they become revolutions; Or sufficiently scary to tbe authorities that they choose to capitulate to the mob, rather than risk a revolution.

 

[Jarhyn]

Abandon the entire concept of justice and riot in the streets?

The entire concept of justice stems from people rioting in the streets. And from those riots becoming so severe that they become revolutions; Or sufficiently scary to tbe authorities that they choose to capitulate to the mob, rather than risk a revolution.

Well, the entire concept of justice under democracy.

There are other forms of governments whose entire concept of justice is "whatever allows the crown and gentry to do whatever they want and continue to have everything they care to and to shit on everything that remains."

The mob is the response to that second concept of justice.

 

[Elixir]

The entire concept of justice stems from people rioting in the streets.

Oh no, you’re misrepresenting Emily’s views again, I’m afraid. She’s all in favor of PEACEFUL, LAW ABIDING protest. But when the authorities determine that it has become rioting, it is their job to put it down by whatever means necessary.
Which in effect gives authorities the license to kill. The emotional part of me kind of agrees. It would have been nice if J6 had been brought to an early, abrupt halt “by whatever means”.

 

[Bomb#20]

Therefore we should all just give up? Abandon the entire concept of justice and riot in the streets?

All you hetero men should know that there is a growing movement to withhold sex.

You all do not have any idea how angry women are.

Um, you know Emily is a woman, don't you?

 

[Toni]

Therefore we should all just give up? Abandon the entire concept of justice and riot in the streets?

All you hetero men should know that there is a growing movement to withhold sex.

You all do not have any idea how angry women are.

Um, you know Emily is a woman, don't you?

Eh, I hit reply in error rather than just post.

Not directed at Emily.

 

[Elixir]

Therefore we should all just give up? Abandon the entire concept of justice and riot in the streets?

All you hetero men should know that there is a growing movement to withhold sex.

You all do not have any idea how angry women are.

Um, you know Emily is a woman, don't you?

Eh, I hit reply in error rather than just post.

Not directed at Emily.

Still applies though!

 

[Toni]

Don’t say I didn’ t try to warn you.

 

[Politesse]

Emily knows what women want. She is always telling us what women want, what women feel, what women need. No penises in public showers, mainly.

 

[Elixir]

Um, you know Emily is a woman, don't you?

I have to admit, I suspected all along!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No need for cops or politicians causing life-threatening delays in treatment.

For the fifty billionth time... these "life-threatening delays" are a figment of your imagination, and thus a strawman. I suppose if you really enjoy arguing with the voices in your head, go for it. Just stop implying that those voices represent my views or proposals.

Except those delays kill women.

Trigger Abortion Bans Linked to Delayed, Less Effective Miscarriage Care

Shifts in management may be an unintended effect of abortion restrictions

www.medpagetoday.com

You're killing women.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Great. I'll put you down in the camp that supports a woman's right to choose an abortion the day before her due date because she changed her mind. If you're happy to support that view, then by all means you can hold it. But don't fucking insist that I'm somehow a fundie faith-based asshat for not agreeing with you.

It doesn't happen.

It is not faith based to recognize that a prematurely delivered baby of 30 weeks development is not meaningfully different from a 30 week developed baby that has managed to avoid premature delivery and is still inside mom. It's not faith based to recognize that there's an ethical and moral conflict between viewing the former as a human with a right to protection from being murdered, whereas the latter is totally not a person and can be terminated at will with no hesitation at all and no consequence.

Last time we were talking about this you accepted that you're consigning them to a damaged life.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Whether a fetus has a right to his or her mother's blood and food is a complicated question that depends on the details of the individual case.

There ya go. Let’s not abridge the rights of the mother due to complicated questions about another organism’s parasitism on her body. Details of the case are no business of government IMO.
Emily, whose “position” has now evolved to

THE DOCTOR HAS TO WRITE DOWN THE CONDITION THAT MAKES THE ABORTION MEDICALLY INDICATED IN THE PATIENT'S MEDICAL RECORD

… seems to have conceded that the path of least harm is to allow the attending physician to make the decisions for which she formerly required the oversight of an “authority”, meaning legal authority, then morphed into requiring the assent of two doctors. Now her recommendation is consilient with my own, so I see no argument;

THE DOCTOR HAS TO WRITE DOWN THE CONDITION THAT MAKES THE ABORTION MEDICALLY INDICATED IN THE PATIENT'S MEDICAL RECORD

Which is a duh! No doctor is going to perform anything at that level without documenting why. That's simply standard medical practice.

You're splitting disingenuous hairs, Loren.

Doctors will document procedures, because that's how they get paid. But the don't always document conditions or medical necessity. Cosmetic surgeons don't document medical indications - the reason is "the patient wants it".

At present, in states with no restrictions on abortion at all, the doctor doesn't have to write down any justification or reason for the service. They document the procedure performed, not the medical indication for the procedure.

And they're not going to indicate that in the chart?!?!

What do you think they're going to document when the only reason is "mom wants it"? What diagnosis code goes with that?

What goes with it with cosmetic surgery?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Don't be stupid. The objective is DON'T SACRIFICE WOMEN.

No women are being sacrificed.

Abortion Bans Linked to Sharp Rise in Sepsis, Infant Death, and Pregnancy-Associated Death, New Research Shows - Population Reference Bureau

In the wake of Roe's overturn, states with abortion bans have seen 478 excess infant deaths and 59 excess deaths during or after pregnancy.

www.prb.org

59 women that you say don't exist.

Of course we will never have good data:

Maternal death reviews get political as state officials intrude • Stateline

Every state has a committee of medical and public health experts tasked with investigating deaths that occur during and after pregnancy.

stateline.org

The reaction is to quit looking.