• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Roe v Wade is on deck

Jimmy Higgins said:
...fly-in abortionists...

...free rein...

Has this guy paid for airline tickets?
Click to expand...
Like, my mind is reeling from how bad of faith this is. Like, this is biblical proportions of antichrist level lies here, and I'm not even a fucking Christian!
 
Today on 10-yr old Mommies, we follow the actions being taken by the Ohio GOP to prevent another 10 year old rape victim from having to go out of state to get an abortion by adding a simple modification to the legislation that makes it clear that such a case is an exemption to the ban...


...


...


Yeah, imagine, the absolute crushing event of rape occurs to your pre-teen daughter... and on top of that, the state legislature wants to force her to then have a baby.
 
Legislation ensuring women's right to travel were blocked in the senate by Republicans.
 
A bit more on the AG Yost and GOP pretending their legislation (gifted) protects child rape victims.
article said:
Yost on Thursday afternoon shared a backgrounder that explained Ohio’s abortion exceptions and gestured toward the second exception. But his office has yet to directly explain how it applies to a 10-year-old rape victim. The document itself states that, "Whether these exceptions apply to a particular case depends upon the facts of the case.” The only facts known at the time of Yost’s comment were the age of the victim and the rape.

Also, what is the threshold for “serious risk?” And would any resulting impairment necessarily be “substantial” and “irreversible?” (It must be both.)

That’s a crucial point. According to the Ohio law, any doctor who provides a post-fetal-heartbeat abortion that doesn’t qualify under one of these exceptions is guilty of a felony and could face up to a year in prison. Abortion rights advocates and abortion-providing doctors have long warned that vague and untested post-Roe standards would cause doctors to avoid providing abortions that might even cause such questions to be asked, for fear of being prosecuted.
Click to expand...
The law is pretty clear except for the case of exceptions, where the law becomes less clear. And the way the law is written, and the punishments involved for violating it, doctors can be forgiven to take less liberty with their interpretation of the law. And of course, being doctors, they most likely aren't lawyers!

And we continue to see a vacuum of empathy and competence from the Ohio GOP who are purposefully allowing this failure of legislation to remain.
 
A 1792 case reveals that key Founders saw abortion as a private matter

A basic premise of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was that the Constitution can protect the right to abortion only if it is “deeply rooted in our history and traditions.” This statement complements Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s concept of originalism, or the idea that the court should interpret the Constitution by trying to infer “the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it.”

Alito’s evidence that abortion was always considered a criminal act, and thus something the Constitution should not protect, consisted of a single criminal case that was prosecuted in 1652 in the (Catholic) colony of Maryland. He then jumped ahead to laws that states enacted, mostly in the mid-to-late-19th century, to criminalize abortion. This cursory survey of abortion in early America was hardly complete, especially because it ignored the history of abortion in the years in which the Constitution was drafted and ratified.
Click to expand...
In April 1793, Richard appeared before a tribunal of county judges who weighed the merits of serious criminal charges to decide whether they should be adjudicated in a higher court. Few defendants in the 1790s had legal counsel, but Richard and his stepfather assembled a good team: Henry, a charismatic litigator and former governor famous for his “Give me liberty or give me death” speech; Marshall, a rising star and the future U.S. Supreme Court chief justice; and William Campbell, the U.S. attorney for Virginia.


The circumstantial obstetric evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that Nancy’s pregnancy ended that night at the Harrisons’ home. Marshall recorded Martha Randolph’s testimony that Nancy was pregnant and that she delivered the herb, noting that the gum of guaiacum was “designed” for producing an abortion. But he did not describe this as a crime.
No effort seems to have been made to determine whether the pregnancy had reached the stage of quickening. If it was post-quickening, the state could have prosecuted Nancy and Martha. Instead Henry skillfully undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses, and Marshall successfully took the untenable position that there was never a pregnancy and, thus, Richard could not be guilty of murder.
While the release of Richard — a wealthy White man with great lawyers — was not surprising, what was remarkable and relevant to today’s debates is that evidence of an intended abortion was discovered in an unwed, unpropertied woman and not fully investigated or acted upon. Nancy would later admit she had been pregnant, yet neither she nor her accomplice were ever charged.
Click to expand...
Though Marshall’s notes on Commonwealth v. Randolph are extensive, this episode is poorly documented in the county court records, and, thus, no formal case law was generated. Regardless, the episode begs examination as it involved key Founders who occupied vastly different positions on the political spectrum, both nationally and in Virginia. The Federalist Marshall believed in a strong national government. Jefferson mostly supported a decentralized system. Henry was a populist. Yet all three tacitly agreed that abortion in this case was a private matter, not a criminal act worthy of further investigation and prosecution. In a remarkable coda, Nancy went on to marry Gouverneur Morris of New York, an influential signer of the Constitution, who was well aware of her backstory.
If anything, the saga demonstrates that the concept of abortion as a private matter was “deeply rooted” in the minds of our nation’s Founders. As Americans consider their next move on the abortion issue at the state level, they should be mindful of the precedents followed by these early giants of our republic.
Click to expand...
 
This is what it looks like when women become second-class citizens

The horror stories from state abortion bans are piling up: Women facing dangerous delays in care for miscarriages. Doctors violating their training and waiting until their patient is at death’s door before performing an abortion. Pharmacists struggling to understand whether filling prescriptions for drugs that are used both for abortions and for post-miscarriage treatment opens them up to criminal charges.
Episodes in which women are needlessly denied treatment will become commonplace. The Advocate reports this disturbing account from Louisiana:
A woman who was 16 weeks pregnant had her water break, and her doctor wanted to perform a dilation and evacuation, a type of abortion procedure, to take out the fetus, which was not viable. But the doctor consulted with an attorney, who advised against it. … [T]he woman preferred the abortion, but instead “was forced to go through a painful, hours-long labor to deliver a nonviable fetus, despite her wishes and best medical advice.”
Click to expand...
Hospitals and their lawyers are being forced to interpret statutory terms that don’t correspond to medical practice and language. These laws often demand a degree of certainty doctors can’t provide. Katie McHugh, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Indiana, tells me doctors must now tell patients that a given procedure is “what she would medically recommend,” but then inform the patient she can’t receive that treatment in her state. In other words, doctors in some states are becoming travel agents for abortion services.
Click to expand...
 
ZiprHead said:
This is what it looks like when women become second-class citizens

The horror stories from state abortion bans are piling up: Women facing dangerous delays in care for miscarriages. Doctors violating their training and waiting until their patient is at death’s door before performing an abortion. Pharmacists struggling to understand whether filling prescriptions for drugs that are used both for abortions and for post-miscarriage treatment opens them up to criminal charges.
Episodes in which women are needlessly denied treatment will become commonplace. The Advocate reports this disturbing account from Louisiana:
A woman who was 16 weeks pregnant had her water break, and her doctor wanted to perform a dilation and evacuation, a type of abortion procedure, to take out the fetus, which was not viable. But the doctor consulted with an attorney, who advised against it. … [T]he woman preferred the abortion, but instead “was forced to go through a painful, hours-long labor to deliver a nonviable fetus, despite her wishes and best medical advice.”
Click to expand...
Hospitals and their lawyers are being forced to interpret statutory terms that don’t correspond to medical practice and language. These laws often demand a degree of certainty doctors can’t provide. Katie McHugh, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Indiana, tells me doctors must now tell patients that a given procedure is “what she would medically recommend,” but then inform the patient she can’t receive that treatment in her state. In other words, doctors in some states are becoming travel agents for abortion services.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And how long before the QOP passes laws prohibiting a doctor advising a course of treatment that's illegal where they are?
 
ZiprHead said:


I think it's aimed more at doctors who perform abortions.
Click to expand...

Well, at least now it’s legal for the pregnant woman to kill the person attacking her for seeking the abortion. Also legal for a bystander to do same in defense of the woman.
 
Rhea said:
ZiprHead said:


I think it's aimed more at doctors who perform abortions.
Click to expand...

Well, at least now it’s legal for the pregnant woman to kill the person attacking her for seeking the abortion. Also legal for a bystander to do same in defense of the woman.
Click to expand...

Kill the doctor but not the rapist.
 
So one can just convict the fetus of having committed a capital offense and the issue goes away?
 
So, are they suggesting that Eric Rudolph be released from prison related to the abortion clinic bombing? Maybe name a road after him? Not the same state, but the parallel is legit.

This is a proposed amendment though. I can't imagine it could pass even if it only needs 50% +1 votes. That said, it is still very chilling!
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
So, are they suggesting that Eric Rudolph be released from prison related to the abortion clinic bombing? Maybe name a road after him? Not the same state, but the parallel is legit.

This is a proposed amendment though. I can't imagine it could pass even if it only needs 50% +1 votes. That said, it is still very chilling!
Click to expand...
That someone is a POS enough to put it in writing and getting support is troubling, to say the least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom