Roe v Wade is on deck

[Derec]

Numbers (5:11-31), God's instructions on how to perform an abortion.

It is pretty clear nowhere in the Bible is there a prohibition against abortion. However, it is pretty clear many early Christians opposed the practice, as attested for example in the Didache. And lack of biblical support was never a problem for Catholics, who have always been strong on Church tradition. It is the "sola scriptura" Evangelicals, who came to anti-abortion activism relatively late, that are in vain trying to find biblical warrant for their position.

 

[ZiprHead]

Numbers (5:11-31), God's instructions on how to perform an abortion.

It is pretty clear nowhere in the Bible is there a prohibition against abortion. However, it is pretty clear many early Christians opposed the practice, as attested for example in the Didache. And lack of biblical support was never a problem for Catholics, who have always been strong on Church tradition. It is the "sola scriptura" Evangelicals, who came to anti-abortion activism relatively late, that are in vain trying to find biblical warrant for their position.

So should we listen to twelve guys over the instruction from God himself?

 

[Derec]

So should we listen to twelve guys over the instruction from God himself?

I didn't say we should listen to them ...

 

[ZiprHead]

So should we listen to twelve guys over the instruction from God himself?

I didn't say we should listen to them ...

But you say the pro-forced-birthers are listening to the twelve guys.

My guess is the vast majority of PFB never heard of the Didache.

 

[TomC]

Numbers (5:11-31), God's instructions on how to perform an abortion.

I don't think that's what the passage is about.

I don't think that the ancient authors gave a thought to abortion as a moral issue. As far as they were considered, the "vessel" and the "fruit of the womb" were both the possessions of the person. Obviously, that's the male. But children were a valuable asset, of course a man wouldn't want his chattel ruined, normally.

But if it's not breathing it's not alive, so you can't kill it. Abortion of an unborn fetus is not killing anything.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Numbers (5:11-31), God's instructions on how to perform an abortion.

I don't think that's what the passage is about.

I don't think that the ancient authors gave a thought to abortion as a moral issue. As far as they were considered, the "vessel" and the "fruit of the womb" were both the possessions of the person. Obviously, that's the male. But children were a valuable asset, of course a man wouldn't want his chattel ruined, normally.

But if it's not breathing it's not alive, so you can't kill it. Abortion of an unborn fetus is not killing anything.
Tom

Tell that to the forced birthers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Numbers (5:11-31), God's instructions on how to perform an abortion.

It is pretty clear nowhere in the Bible is there a prohibition against abortion. However, it is pretty clear many early Christians opposed the practice, as attested for example in the Didache. And lack of biblical support was never a problem for Catholics, who have always been strong on Church tradition. It is the "sola scriptura" Evangelicals, who came to anti-abortion activism relatively late, that are in vain trying to find biblical warrant for their position.

Except the punishment for accidentally killing a fetus is very different (equivalent to our civil justice system) than for accidentally killing the woman (equivalent to our criminal justice system.) The fetus is property, not a person.

 

[blastula]

Ohio Issue 1 goes down, unofficially.

 

[ZiprHead]

Good.

 

[ZiprHead]

A prison guard says she was forced to stay at her post during labor pains. Texas is fighting compensation for her stillbirth.

The seven-months-pregnant officer reported contraction-like pains at work, but said she wasn’t allowed to leave for hours. The anti-abortion state is fighting her lawsuit, in part by saying her fetus didn’t clearly have rights.

www.texastribune.org

On a warm November night, Salia Issa had just begun her shift as an Abilene prison officer when she felt the intense pain of what she believed was a contraction.

Seven months pregnant, Issa said she quickly alerted her supervisors. She told them she needed to go to the hospital but knew prison policy wouldn’t allow her to leave her post until someone could replace her.

No one came for hours.

Issa kept calling for relief, but her supervisor repeatedly refused her, even telling her she was lying, according to a federal lawsuit filed against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and prison officials.


“You just want to go home,” the supervisor allegedly told her.

Eventually, two and a half hours after the pain started, the expectant mother said she was allowed to leave the Middleton Unit. As quickly as the pain would allow her, Issa drove to a nearby hospital, where doctors rushed her into emergency surgery after being unable to find a fetal heartbeat. The baby was delivered stillborn.

If Issa had gotten to the hospital sooner, medical personnel told her, the baby would have survived, the lawsuit claims.

Nearly a year later, Issa and her husband, Fiston Rukengeza, on behalf of themselves and their unborn child, sued TDCJ and three of Issa’s supervisors — Brandy Hooper, Desmond Thompson and Alonzo Hammond. They argue the state caused the death of their child by violating state and federal laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, and they are seeking money to cover medical costs and funeral expenses and to compensate for pain and suffering.

But the prison agency and the Texas attorney general’s office, which has staked its reputation on “defending the unborn” all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, are arguing the agency shouldn’t be held responsible for the stillbirth because staff didn’t break the law. Plus, they said, it’s not clear that Issa’s fetus had rights as a person.

“Just because several statutes define an individual to include an unborn child does not mean that the Fourteenth Amendment does the same,” the Texas attorney general’s office wrote in a March footnote, referring to the constitutional right to life.

 

[Toni]

A prison guard says she was forced to stay at her post during labor pains. Texas is fighting compensation for her stillbirth.

The seven-months-pregnant officer reported contraction-like pains at work, but said she wasn’t allowed to leave for hours. The anti-abortion state is fighting her lawsuit, in part by saying her fetus didn’t clearly have rights.

www.texastribune.org

On a warm November night, Salia Issa had just begun her shift as an Abilene prison officer when she felt the intense pain of what she believed was a contraction.

Seven months pregnant, Issa said she quickly alerted her supervisors. She told them she needed to go to the hospital but knew prison policy wouldn’t allow her to leave her post until someone could replace her.

No one came for hours.

Issa kept calling for relief, but her supervisor repeatedly refused her, even telling her she was lying, according to a federal lawsuit filed against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and prison officials.


“You just want to go home,” the supervisor allegedly told her.

Eventually, two and a half hours after the pain started, the expectant mother said she was allowed to leave the Middleton Unit. As quickly as the pain would allow her, Issa drove to a nearby hospital, where doctors rushed her into emergency surgery after being unable to find a fetal heartbeat. The baby was delivered stillborn.

If Issa had gotten to the hospital sooner, medical personnel told her, the baby would have survived, the lawsuit claims.

Nearly a year later, Issa and her husband, Fiston Rukengeza, on behalf of themselves and their unborn child, sued TDCJ and three of Issa’s supervisors — Brandy Hooper, Desmond Thompson and Alonzo Hammond. They argue the state caused the death of their child by violating state and federal laws as well as the U.S. Constitution, and they are seeking money to cover medical costs and funeral expenses and to compensate for pain and suffering.

But the prison agency and the Texas attorney general’s office, which has staked its reputation on “defending the unborn” all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, are arguing the agency shouldn’t be held responsible for the stillbirth because staff didn’t break the law. Plus, they said, it’s not clear that Issa’s fetus had rights as a person.

“Just because several statutes define an individual to include an unborn child does not mean that the Fourteenth Amendment does the same,” the Texas attorney general’s office wrote in a March footnote, referring to the constitutional right to life.

Heh. Not surprising that it’s a baby only so you one as the state doesn’t have to pay for a thing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A prison guard says she was forced to stay at her post during labor pains. Texas is fighting compensation for her stillbirth.

The seven-months-pregnant officer reported contraction-like pains at work, but said she wasn’t allowed to leave for hours. The anti-abortion state is fighting her lawsuit, in part by saying her fetus didn’t clearly have rights.

www.texastribune.org

Heh. Not surprising that it’s a baby only so you one as the state doesn’t have to pay for a thing.

I think this is just a case of a bad boss who doesn't care that workers have lives apart from their job.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So at what point can we fire judges for awful judging? We have the FDA mifepristone case and the appeals court ruled:

After extensive briefing and oral argument, we hold that the district court’s stay order should be VACATED in part and AFFIRMED in part. We conclude that the Medical Organizations and Doctors’ claim as to the 2000 Approval is likely barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, that component of the district court’s order must be VACATED. This meansthat, until final judgment, Mifeprex will remain available to the public underthe conditions for use that existed in 2016.

This is extraordinarily bothersome. The Federal Court judge fucked up something as simple as "statute of limitations" issues. How in the heck can a judge be allowed to stay behind a bench fucking something that simple up?

But then they start doing some henky stuff themselves.

We also VACATE the portion of the order relating to the 2019 Generic Approval because the Medical Organizations and Doctors have not shown that they are injured by that particular action. The generic version of mifepristone will also be available under the same conditions as Mifeprex.

Okay, that should be that right?

Nope, the conservative lawyers do their best to explain that the medical professionals at the FDA didn't do enough to prove use of the drug would be safe when not done in an office. Because... a doctor's office is magical or something and people don't have trouble with pills in medical buildings. So off to SCOTUS that goes.

A prison guard says she was forced to stay at her post during labor pains. Texas is fighting compensation for her stillbirth.

The seven-months-pregnant officer reported contraction-like pains at work, but said she wasn’t allowed to leave for hours. The anti-abortion state is fighting her lawsuit, in part by saying her fetus didn’t clearly have rights.

www.texastribune.org

Heh. Not surprising that it’s a baby only so you one as the state doesn’t have to pay for a thing.

I think this is just a case of a bad boss who doesn't care that workers have lives apart from their job.

I completely agree, until I see that the state is fighting her lawsuit instead of saying "oh gosh, that is fucked up, how can we make this right with you?".

 

[lpetrich]

Why the latest abortion pill ruling has enviros rolling their eyes - POLITICO

Courts have said that people who like plants and animals can sue when wildlife is harmed. People who “delight” in fetuses should have the same right, a Trump-appointed judge wrote.

The newest federal court ruling on abortion pills is gaining attention for one judge’s unorthodox argument — one that equated anti-abortion activists to wildlife lovers.

Judge James Ho of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, writing separately from his two colleagues on a three-judge panel, borrowed from environmental case law to contend that medical providers challenging abortion care suffer “aesthetic injury from the destruction of unborn life.”

“It’s well established that, if a plaintiff has ‘concrete plans’ to visit an animal’s habitat and view that animal, that plaintiff suffers aesthetic injury when an agency has approved a project that threatens the animal,” Ho wrote, citing a long list of environmental opinions from the Supreme Court and other federal appeals courts.

“Unborn babies are a source of profound joy for those who view them,” he continued. “Expectant parents eagerly share ultrasound photos with loved ones. Friends and family cheer at the sight of an unborn child. Doctors delight in working with their unborn patients — and experience an aesthetic injury when they are aborted.”

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why the latest abortion pill ruling has enviros rolling their eyes - POLITICO

Courts have said that people who like plants and animals can sue when wildlife is harmed. People who “delight” in fetuses should have the same right, a Trump-appointed judge wrote.

The newest federal court ruling on abortion pills is gaining attention for one judge’s unorthodox argument — one that equated anti-abortion activists to wildlife lovers.

Judge James Ho of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, writing separately from his two colleagues on a three-judge panel, borrowed from environmental case law to contend that medical providers challenging abortion care suffer “aesthetic injury from the destruction of unborn life.”

“It’s well established that, if a plaintiff has ‘concrete plans’ to visit an animal’s habitat and view that animal, that plaintiff suffers aesthetic injury when an agency has approved a project that threatens the animal,” Ho wrote, citing a long list of environmental opinions from the Supreme Court and other federal appeals courts.

“Unborn babies are a source of profound joy for those who view them,” he continued. “Expectant parents eagerly share ultrasound photos with loved ones. Friends and family cheer at the sight of an unborn child. Doctors delight in working with their unborn patients — and experience an aesthetic injury when they are aborted.”

And what about the profound harm suffered by those with unwanted pregnancies? It seems to me this is a double-edged sword.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Why the latest abortion pill ruling has enviros rolling their eyes - POLITICO

Courts have said that people who like plants and animals can sue when wildlife is harmed. People who “delight” in fetuses should have the same right, a Trump-appointed judge wrote.

The newest federal court ruling on abortion pills is gaining attention for one judge’s unorthodox argument — one that equated anti-abortion activists to wildlife lovers.

Judge James Ho of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, writing separately from his two colleagues on a three-judge panel, borrowed from environmental case law to contend that medical providers challenging abortion care suffer “aesthetic injury from the destruction of unborn life.”

“It’s well established that, if a plaintiff has ‘concrete plans’ to visit an animal’s habitat and view that animal, that plaintiff suffers aesthetic injury when an agency has approved a project that threatens the animal,” Ho wrote, citing a long list of environmental opinions from the Supreme Court and other federal appeals courts.

“Unborn babies are a source of profound joy for those who view them,” he continued. “Expectant parents eagerly share ultrasound photos with loved ones. Friends and family cheer at the sight of an unborn child. Doctors delight in working with their unborn patients — and experience an aesthetic injury when they are aborted.”

And what about the profound harm suffered by those with unwanted pregnancies? It seems to me this is a double-edged sword.

There is no harm from unwanted pregnancies because babies bring nothing but joy to those who view them.

 

[lostone]

Why the latest abortion pill ruling has enviros rolling their eyes - POLITICO

Courts have said that people who like plants and animals can sue when wildlife is harmed. People who “delight” in fetuses should have the same right, a Trump-appointed judge wrote.

The newest federal court ruling on abortion pills is gaining attention for one judge’s unorthodox argument — one that equated anti-abortion activists to wildlife lovers.

Judge James Ho of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, writing separately from his two colleagues on a three-judge panel, borrowed from environmental case law to contend that medical providers challenging abortion care suffer “aesthetic injury from the destruction of unborn life.”

“It’s well established that, if a plaintiff has ‘concrete plans’ to visit an animal’s habitat and view that animal, that plaintiff suffers aesthetic injury when an agency has approved a project that threatens the animal,” Ho wrote, citing a long list of environmental opinions from the Supreme Court and other federal appeals courts.

“Unborn babies are a source of profound joy for those who view them,” he continued. “Expectant parents eagerly share ultrasound photos with loved ones. Friends and family cheer at the sight of an unborn child. Doctors delight in working with their unborn patients — and experience an aesthetic injury when they are aborted.”

And what about the profound harm suffered by those with unwanted pregnancies? It seems to me this is a double-edged sword.

There is no harm from unwanted pregnancies because babies bring nothing but joy to those who view them.

How long has it been since you lost touch with the real world?

 

[ZiprHead]

Why the latest abortion pill ruling has enviros rolling their eyes - POLITICO

Courts have said that people who like plants and animals can sue when wildlife is harmed. People who “delight” in fetuses should have the same right, a Trump-appointed judge wrote.

The newest federal court ruling on abortion pills is gaining attention for one judge’s unorthodox argument — one that equated anti-abortion activists to wildlife lovers.

Judge James Ho of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, writing separately from his two colleagues on a three-judge panel, borrowed from environmental case law to contend that medical providers challenging abortion care suffer “aesthetic injury from the destruction of unborn life.”

“It’s well established that, if a plaintiff has ‘concrete plans’ to visit an animal’s habitat and view that animal, that plaintiff suffers aesthetic injury when an agency has approved a project that threatens the animal,” Ho wrote, citing a long list of environmental opinions from the Supreme Court and other federal appeals courts.

“Unborn babies are a source of profound joy for those who view them,” he continued. “Expectant parents eagerly share ultrasound photos with loved ones. Friends and family cheer at the sight of an unborn child. Doctors delight in working with their unborn patients — and experience an aesthetic injury when they are aborted.”

And what about the profound harm suffered by those with unwanted pregnancies? It seems to me this is a double-edged sword.

There is no harm from unwanted pregnancies because babies bring nothing but joy to those who view them.

How long has it been since you lost touch with the real world?

Sarcasm based on Judge Ho's idiocy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why the latest abortion pill ruling has enviros rolling their eyes - POLITICO

Courts have said that people who like plants and animals can sue when wildlife is harmed. People who “delight” in fetuses should have the same right, a Trump-appointed judge wrote.

The newest federal court ruling on abortion pills is gaining attention for one judge’s unorthodox argument — one that equated anti-abortion activists to wildlife lovers.

Judge James Ho of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, writing separately from his two colleagues on a three-judge panel, borrowed from environmental case law to contend that medical providers challenging abortion care suffer “aesthetic injury from the destruction of unborn life.”

“It’s well established that, if a plaintiff has ‘concrete plans’ to visit an animal’s habitat and view that animal, that plaintiff suffers aesthetic injury when an agency has approved a project that threatens the animal,” Ho wrote, citing a long list of environmental opinions from the Supreme Court and other federal appeals courts.

“Unborn babies are a source of profound joy for those who view them,” he continued. “Expectant parents eagerly share ultrasound photos with loved ones. Friends and family cheer at the sight of an unborn child. Doctors delight in working with their unborn patients — and experience an aesthetic injury when they are aborted.”

And what about the profound harm suffered by those with unwanted pregnancies? It seems to me this is a double-edged sword.

It is incredible how an anonymous third party is prescribed priority access to a woman's body, over the woman herself.

 

[Copernicus]

Why the latest abortion pill ruling has enviros rolling their eyes - POLITICO

Courts have said that people who like plants and animals can sue when wildlife is harmed. People who “delight” in fetuses should have the same right, a Trump-appointed judge wrote.

The newest federal court ruling on abortion pills is gaining attention for one judge’s unorthodox argument — one that equated anti-abortion activists to wildlife lovers.

Judge James Ho of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, writing separately from his two colleagues on a three-judge panel, borrowed from environmental case law to contend that medical providers challenging abortion care suffer “aesthetic injury from the destruction of unborn life.”

“It’s well established that, if a plaintiff has ‘concrete plans’ to visit an animal’s habitat and view that animal, that plaintiff suffers aesthetic injury when an agency has approved a project that threatens the animal,” Ho wrote, citing a long list of environmental opinions from the Supreme Court and other federal appeals courts.

“Unborn babies are a source of profound joy for those who view them,” he continued. “Expectant parents eagerly share ultrasound photos with loved ones. Friends and family cheer at the sight of an unborn child. Doctors delight in working with their unborn patients — and experience an aesthetic injury when they are aborted.”

And what about the profound harm suffered by those with unwanted pregnancies? It seems to me this is a double-edged sword.

It is incredible how an anonymous third party is prescribed priority access to a woman's body, over the woman herself.

The judge is expressing his feeling about how the law created by a legislature ought to work and his philosophy that the courts should be used to fix the problems with the laws as they are written. The argument may seem unorthodox, but it is part of a broad theme that seems quite common among Trump-appointed and Heritage Foundation-endorsed judges. They feel empowered to use the courts to get their political policies incorporated into law.