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

Roe v Wade is on deck

lpetrich said:
Abortion pills are emerging as a battleground in the abortion wars. They are cheap and safe and easy to distribute, and one does not have to travel to an abortion clinic to use them.
Eight red states have already enacted restrictions on the pills in anticipation of the Biden administration easing federal restrictions on the drug and allowing it to be prescribed via telemedicine and mailed to homes — a decision the FDA will make later this month. And 16 other Republican-controlled states have introduced bills to limit access.

...
The two-drug regimen is far cheaper than a surgical abortion, can be ordered online and taken at home and carries a less than half-a-percent risk of major complications.

Yet the pills can only be taken during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. By the time a person realizes they are pregnant and finds out how to obtain them, it may be too late. Abortion rights groups also worry misinformation and fear will prevent people from using the pills or deter them from seeking follow-up care if needed, particularly as more states move to ban them.

“I can’t stress enough that states are criminalizing this — putting people in jail who self-manage their abortions and going after those who help them do so,” Colón said. “If Roe is overturned, I expect that will only get worse.”
Click to expand...
What will the right wing do? Set up border checkpoints?
Click to expand...
No, they'll just want the death penalty for the woman and whoever sold her the pill.
 
lpetrich said:
Abortion pills are emerging as a battleground in the abortion wars. They are cheap and safe and easy to distribute, and one does not have to travel to an abortion clinic to use them.
Eight red states have already enacted restrictions on the pills in anticipation of the Biden administration easing federal restrictions on the drug and allowing it to be prescribed via telemedicine and mailed to homes — a decision the FDA will make later this month. And 16 other Republican-controlled states have introduced bills to limit access.

...
The two-drug regimen is far cheaper than a surgical abortion, can be ordered online and taken at home and carries a less than half-a-percent risk of major complications.

Yet the pills can only be taken during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. By the time a person realizes they are pregnant and finds out how to obtain them, it may be too late. Abortion rights groups also worry misinformation and fear will prevent people from using the pills or deter them from seeking follow-up care if needed, particularly as more states move to ban them.

“I can’t stress enough that states are criminalizing this — putting people in jail who self-manage their abortions and going after those who help them do so,” Colón said. “If Roe is overturned, I expect that will only get worse.”
Click to expand...
What will the right wing do? Set up border checkpoints?
Click to expand...
Have some on hand, like epi shots, or naloxone, or any other of a number of drugs and treatments for the modern pharmacopoeia.

You think I'm going to throw out the shit I get when I get a kidney stone? Hell no. I'm going to keep it for a year or three in case I get a other, so that when I get that one diagnosed I already have treatment started.

I can't imagine having a treatment on hand for something else horribly shitty, painful, and life threatening would be a bad thing. Maybe make it like guns: impossible to stop. Downside is, prohibition rules pop into effect, with cartels and fakes.
 
They're hearing arguments in the Mississippi case right now.

 
lpetrich said:
Abortion pills are emerging as a battleground in the abortion wars. They are cheap and safe and easy to distribute, and one does not have to travel to an abortion clinic to use them.
Eight red states have already enacted restrictions on the pills in anticipation of the Biden administration easing federal restrictions on the drug and allowing it to be prescribed via telemedicine and mailed to homes — a decision the FDA will make later this month. And 16 other Republican-controlled states have introduced bills to limit access.

...
The two-drug regimen is far cheaper than a surgical abortion, can be ordered online and taken at home and carries a less than half-a-percent risk of major complications.

Yet the pills can only be taken during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. By the time a person realizes they are pregnant and finds out how to obtain them, it may be too late. Abortion rights groups also worry misinformation and fear will prevent people from using the pills or deter them from seeking follow-up care if needed, particularly as more states move to ban them.

“I can’t stress enough that states are criminalizing this — putting people in jail who self-manage their abortions and going after those who help them do so,” Colón said. “If Roe is overturned, I expect that will only get worse.”
Click to expand...
What will the right wing do? Set up border checkpoints?
Click to expand...
SCOTUS doesn't like setting policy and usually holds to very small narrow decisions. But if SCOTUS says that they are Pro-State's Choice, can a state make it a crime to go over the border (international or state) to get an abortion? With this SCOTUS make up, I wouldn't doubt a sloppy decision to make these things take forever to iron out. Undoing Roe v Wade is not simple. If a woman's Federally seen reproductive rights are actually a state's choice for abortion, why not "the pill"?

This could end up imploding on the GOP.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
This could end up imploding on the GOP.
Click to expand...
I've said this before, probably elsewhere, that we should eliminate the filibuster. If the Republicans gain power they will implement their wildly unpopular agenda and ruin their party for a long, long time.

People saw how Trump was a bad president and it spurred the largest election turnout in many years. I think the same would happen if the above happened too.
 
ZiprHead said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
This could end up imploding on the GOP.
Click to expand...
I've said this before, probably elsewhere, that we should eliminate the filibuster. If the Republicans gain power they will implement their wildly unpopular agenda and ruin their party for a long, long time.

People saw how Trump was a bad president and it spurred the largest election turnout in many years. I think the same would happen if the above happened too.
Click to expand...
Well, the GOP drives America into debt and conflict, and then the Dems right the ship... and the people give it back to the GOP.

Eliminating the filibuster doesn't merely allow the GOP to "do their worst", but it also allows them to strip away anything the Democrats did in the past. McConnell has tried to get the Dems to do it, but they haven't taken the bait.
 
Early on, sounds like SCOTUS might be okay with pulling back the "viability" line. Which wouldn't be a viability line, but an arbitrary line. That'd be a bad decision, but an even more bitter pill if that is the "win" the Pro-Birth movement waited this long for.

CJ Roberts referenced the issue of how the State's case grew larger post acceptance, from the 15 week limit to overruling Roe v Wade, a technicality and SCOTUS loves to punt on technicalities.

Something I've noted, (my emphasis)
article said:
"If this court renounces the liberty interest recognized in Roe and reaffirmed in Casey, it would be an unprecedented contraction of individual rights and a stark departure from principles of stare decisis," she {US Solicitor General} continued.
Click to expand...
Historically, the real bad cases like Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scot relied on looking the other way and exceptions in order to withhold rights. Reversing Roe would be retracting rights. That isn't something SCOTUS really does.
 
Meanwhile, consensus portion of right-wing of SCOTUS seem to be happy with being dumb.
article said:
In broad strokes, he sums up Mississippi’s argument asking the court to interpret the Constitution as neutral on abortion, and to return the issue to state or Congress. He asked Rikelman to respond.

Then he {Kavanuagh} asked a question about stare decisis, ticking off several “consequential” decisions — including on school segregation, voting rights, and business regulations — where the court overturned precedent.

If the court had listened to the arguments that it should adhere to precedent in those cases, “the country would be a much different place,” Kavanaugh said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor shot back at Kavanaugh's question that cited several court decisions that overturned precedent. Most of those cases, Sotomayor said, were “us recognizing and overturning state control over issues that we said belong to individuals.”
Click to expand...
It is funny how the right-wing justices are trying less and less to be actually professional about this and sounding more and more like web board posters. He brings up cases where states were inhibiting rights and SCOTUS ignored precedence to expand rights... in an attempt to justify taking away Federal protection on abortion rights and give that control to the states.

It is such a bullshit argument. Look, SCOTUS was wrong on Plessy v Ferguson, so let's strip away abortion rights.

So it seems:
  • 6-3 to allow new arbitrary 15 week limit on abortion
  • 4-2-3 to allow overruling Roe v Wade in whole
 
And now a long wait till June for a decision, just in time for midterms.

I only heard a little, will have to go back and listen to it all, it was interesting hearing their voices and learning their personalities. CourtTV helpfully provides a photo of each speaker.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
ZiprHead said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
This could end up imploding on the GOP.
Click to expand...
I've said this before, probably elsewhere, that we should eliminate the filibuster. If the Republicans gain power they will implement their wildly unpopular agenda and ruin their party for a long, long time.

People saw how Trump was a bad president and it spurred the largest election turnout in many years. I think the same would happen if the above happened too.
Click to expand...
Well, the GOP drives America into debt and conflict, and then the Dems right the ship... and the people give it back to the GOP.

Eliminating the filibuster doesn't merely allow the GOP to "do their worst", but it also allows them to strip away anything the Democrats did in the past. McConnell has tried to get the Dems to do it, but they haven't taken the bait.
Click to expand...
I agree. Getting rid of Obama care, throwing perhaps millions off of their health insurance, would probably be one of the first past acts they would trash. They came damn close once already. Republicans like that program, as long as you don't call it ObamaCare. Republican voters would not be happy and Dem voters would be inspired.

There's a lot more on their agenda that would truly affect people. Social Security, Medicare, pharmaceuticals, minimum wage, labor unions.

Most people don't pay much attention to politics. This sort of shit would wake them up and start paying attention.
 
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Reminder that Brett Kavanaugh ...." / Twitter
Reminder that Brett Kavanaugh *still* remains credibly accused of sexual assault on multiple accounts w/ corroborated details & this year the FBI admitted it never fully investigated.

Yet the court is letting him decide on whether to legalize forced birth in the US. No recusal.

Out of 9 justices, 3 were appointed by a man who tried to overthrow the US government (& elected via minority).

Those 3 will decide whether the US will legalize forcing people to give birth against their will.

Legitimacy requires consent of the governed. They are dismantling it
Click to expand...
Norman Ornstein on Twitter: "@AOC Reminder that Kavanaugh lied ..." / Twitter
Reminder that Kavanaugh lied in both his appeals court confirmation hearing and the Supreme Court hearing about his dealings with Manny Miranda over stolen Senate Democratic emails. Trump WH covered it up. He should never have been confirmed to either position.

Senate Democrats should get-- and release-- the materials from the National Archives that the Trump Administration illegitimately withheld during the Kavanaugh hearings.
Click to expand...
 
Who is Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch? She could bring down Roe v. Wade. - The Lily
"Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch believes abortion bans empower women. She’s taking that argument to the Supreme Court."
The motto got right to the crux of Fitch’s argument, while alluding to a belief that has shaped her 12-year political career: Empower women, and they will help themselves.

In the opening brief she submitted in July, Fitch asked the Supreme Court to use Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to overturn Roe v. Wade. She argued that abortion prevents women from reaching their full potential. When Roe was decided in 1973, she wrote, the justices maintained that an unwanted pregnancy would doom women to “a distressful life and future.” But nearly 50 years later, Fitch claims “sweeping policy advances” now allow women to fully pursue motherhood and a career, stamping out the need for abortion.

To come up with this argument, which underpins the most important abortion case in decades, Fitch said she drew inspiration from her own life. After she and her husband divorced in 2004, she raised three kids as a single mother while ascending to the highest ranks of state government, becoming the state’s first female attorney general and the first Republican attorney general since 1878. The juggling act wasn’t easy, Fitch said — but with hard work and a color-coded calendar, she pulled it off. Now, she said, abortion bans like the one in Mississippi can help other women “have it all.”

Critics immediately descended on Fitch. Abortion activists called her a hypocrite, highlighting her privilege, while a consortium of 154 economists scrutinized her argument in their own amicus brief to the Supreme Court. They pointed out that the United States is one of the only countries without a national paid family leave policy and the average price of child care, adjusted for inflation, has increased by almost 50 percent in the past three decades.
Click to expand...
Her argument is a stupid argument. Abortion is useful as a backup in case birth control fails -- and that article made zero mention of birth control.
 
NPR had some guy on from a Organization of "Concerned Women", and it was such a BS show. They want to give the power back to the people. Oddly enough, the people have the power at the moment to choose. They want to remove that.

When asked whether they'll allow states to keep abortion if Roe is overturned, he went on a BS route about how they want to change the culture about sanctity of life. IE... they want to make abortion illegal, period.

Liked it when he wanted to put pressure on doctors, not the women that are in hard times. As if the early pregnancy is the hardest part of having a child. Also, put pressure on the men who make women pregnant. I have no idea what that means. See, because if a guy just supports a woman he had sex with, having a child is a piece of cake?

Based on what is coming out, this definitely feels like a piecemeal banning of abortion plan.

My question is, if the Supreme Court okays MS's law... are they creating a new 15 week limit... or are they letting the states decide the limit? And what mockery is there in banning abortion down the road if this court doesn't overrule Roe now, granted, the MS cases was about the 15 weeks, not Roe specifically being overturned, but Jebus, 4 Justices are good with overturning Roe even when that isn't even in the original brief.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Meanwhile, consensus portion of right-wing of SCOTUS seem to be happy with being dumb.
article said:
In broad strokes, he sums up Mississippi’s argument asking the court to interpret the Constitution as neutral on abortion, and to return the issue to state or Congress. He asked Rikelman to respond.

Then he {Kavanuagh} asked a question about stare decisis, ticking off several “consequential” decisions — including on school segregation, voting rights, and business regulations — where the court overturned precedent.

If the court had listened to the arguments that it should adhere to precedent in those cases, “the country would be a much different place,” Kavanaugh said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor shot back at Kavanaugh's question that cited several court decisions that overturned precedent. Most of those cases, Sotomayor said, were “us recognizing and overturning state control over issues that we said belong to individuals.”
Click to expand...
It is funny how the right-wing justices are trying less and less to be actually professional about this and sounding more and more like web board posters. He brings up cases where states were inhibiting rights and SCOTUS ignored precedence to expand rights... in an attempt to justify taking away Federal protection on abortion rights and give that control to the states.

It is such a bullshit argument. Look, SCOTUS was wrong on Plessy v Ferguson, so let's strip away abortion rights.

So it seems:
  • 6-3 to allow new arbitrary 15 week limit on abortion
  • 4-2-3 to allow overruling Roe v Wade in whole
Click to expand...

That can't be right, because,

www.motherjones.com

Sen. Susan Collins Says Brett Kavanaugh Believes the Right to Abortion is Settled Law

Collins has said she would not support a Supreme Court nominee who would overturn Roe.
www.motherjones.com www.motherjones.com
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Kavanaugh wouldn't lie!
Click to expand...
I think that at the very least, Roe will get gutted. I hate to keep saying this, but this was all predicted when Trump got elected. The left lost two extremely winnable presidential cycles (Bush v Gore, Trump v Clinton) because we couldn't unite and get motivated enough to win against flawed candidates. And we're paying for this now. To me, the most shocking statistic from the Trump 2016 and 2020 runs is that a majority of white women voted for Trump. It's hard for me to understand. But if we want bodily control returned to the people, we need to vote every election. It's real simple, if the republicans get trounced in 2022 and 2024. We take the senate and retain the presidency, eventually these rulings will be reversed. The deal is who wants it more, the left or the right?
 
Harry Bosch said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Kavanaugh wouldn't lie!
Click to expand...
I think that at the very least, Roe will get gutted. I hate to keep saying this, but this was all predicted when Trump got elected. The left lost two extremely winnable presidential cycles (Bush v Gore, Trump v Clinton) because we couldn't unite and get motivated enough to win against flawed candidates. And we're paying for this now. To me, the most shocking statistic from the Trump 2016 and 2020 runs is that a majority of white women voted for Trump. It's hard for me to understand. But if we want bodily control returned to the people, we need to vote every election. It's real simple, if the republicans get trounced in 2022 and 2024. We take the senate and retain the presidency, eventually these rulings will be reversed. The deal is who wants it more, the left or the right?
Click to expand...
Yes, 2000 and 2016 were painful and debilitating, but I'd say 2010 was even worse, because that opened the sluice gates for gerrymandering and making Democrats have to win by 50% more to get majorities half the size that the GOP can get. That and McConnell stole a SCOTUS seat, there is no way to say it otherwise. Granted, it'd still be 4-4-1 for the far right on the bench.

And I don't think Roe is getting "gutted". It looks like a multi-stage repeal. My guess is SCOTUS is going to give states an ability to set their own time limits, because 15-weeks is too arbitrary to make a standard, I think, and that also allows the states to rev the engines to repeal. Texas is already aiming at the abortion pill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom