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

Roe v Wade is on deck

Just wanted to pipe in here how much of a complete joy it is to read the opinions of men regarding the rights of women to make the medical decisions that they and their medical providers feel are in the best interests of the woman.
Hey now, not every person here grown while pumping testosterone is offering dumb opinions here.

I wonder, would you want for a feature/implant that would allow you to just turn it on and off like a light switch, assuming there weren't risks of any back doors?

I live in today, not tomorrow and thankfully not yesterday. In today's world there is still unfortunate truth in the moniker "if men could get pregnant there would be more abortion clinics than bars." Or any such variant.

So in today's world, there is unfortunately a great deal of value in an empathetic funnel towards a resolution here: make men really empathize with the realities of getting pregnant and what it really entails.

MAKE them consider the game theory you have to go through, and what they would change to make life better for someone so afflicted with the power and consequences of a functional uterus "when that would be them".

It's shitty you have to worry after and get the opinions of people this way, but let's not pretend that it's no longer necessary?
 
Just wanted to pipe in here how much of a complete joy it is to read the opinions of men regarding the rights of women to make the medical decisions that they and their medical providers feel are in the best interests of the woman.
There goes another woman thinking they have the right to make decisions without us men to assist them and their irrational moods.

Now if anyone needs me, I'll be getting a foot surgically removed from my groin.
The really ironic parts about all of this?

The look on men's faces if they ever have to hear about tampons---or childbirth, much less being in the room (honestly I do think all the men who are in the labor/delivery room with the women are heroes--sincerely). And then the lectures about how condoms diminish sensation and birth control (pills or vasectomy) are too risky. It's almost as though they've never read the pamphlets about birth control pills, IUDs, tubal ligations, etc. Oh, wait.

I mean, a lot of them really dig the bigger boobs that come with breastfeeding but then they get all queasy when you have to climb over them to get the baby and you drip on them.
 
And to be clear, SCOTUS doesn't particularly find for a right to privacy until a case in the 1890s.

steve_bank's post pisses me off so much because it disregards the reality that Constitutional Law is an endless parade of cases that went to the Supreme Court over the two plus centuries. Many of the cases build off each other, mainly because SCOTUS doesn't like to make huge steps unless absolutely necessary.

Roe v Wade builds off of Griswold v Connecticut. It isn't judicial activism.
That is pretty much what I said, shoehorning all things into a limted Bill Of Rights from 200 yeras ago even when it doesm't fit, leading SCOTUS upholding RVW to SCOUTUS taking it aprtt.

The solution is a federal law. That is probably why COTUS exploitly says that not enumerated as federal power is regulated to the starees.

The role of judges in RVW is not to decide what is right or wrong, the role is to decide constitutionality of laws in context of COTUS.

I don't see where there is anything that prevents or enables abortion in COTUS. According to COTUS unless there is federal law it is up to the states.
Where in the Constitution is there any privilege about being able to wrap one's woody in a condom or for a woman to take "the pill"? Where is the limitation of how the police can surveil a person, like whether a car can have a tracker placed on it, to track on public roadways (without a warrant)? The Constitution is of all things... very vague. It isn't extremely concise. Certain aspects offer clarity, but when it comes to enumeration of rights, it is vague, as enumeration can get complicated. And as noted before, the Bill of Rights was problematic for some because they feared enumerating some rights would give the impression that other rights didn't exist, when that wasn't the point!

I can't go up to a woman and pull off her skirt (or pants). That is a crime! There is no anti-pants'ing spoken of in the Constitution. I certainly am not allowed to forcibly have sex with a woman. That is an even bigger crime. Nothing about rape in the Constitution. I'm not even allowed to take photos of naked women inside their homes (from outside their homes) and post them online. I can't tap their phones, break into their email, heck, I get in trouble just going into the women's locker room. Again, all of that, not in the Constitution. Why?

Why in the heck is it so hard to understand that privacy is a fundamental right.

And sexuality is about the most intimate part of someone's privacy. The State has no viable interest in when a woman bleeds, whether she is pregnant, how she handles the pregnancy. How a woman manages he reproductive system is something that is between her and her doctor(s). There is no standing reason for the state to get involved.
 
Just wanted to pipe in here how much of a complete joy it is to read the opinions of men regarding the rights of women to make the medical decisions that they and their medical providers feel are in the best interests of the woman.
Hey now, not every person here grown while pumping testosterone is offering dumb opinions here.

I wonder, would you want for a feature/implant that would allow you to just turn it on and off like a light switch, assuming there weren't risks of any back doors?

I live in today, not tomorrow and thankfully not yesterday. In today's world there is still unfortunate truth in the moniker "if men could get pregnant there would be more abortion clinics than bars." Or any such variant.

So in today's world, there is unfortunately a great deal of value in an empathetic funnel towards a resolution here: make men really empathize with the realities of getting pregnant and what it really entails.

MAKE them consider the game theory you have to go through, and what they would change to make life better for someone so afflicted with the power and consequences of a functional uterus "when that would be them".
This view is very problematic, because it is mistaking this as some sort of misunderstanding or oversight.

The reality is that this has nothing to do with empathy and everything to do with control. It is ironic that those who support such grandiose personal freedoms, are the exact ones that are actually authoritarians that want their personal religion and culture beliefs imparted on all other people. They don't want abortion and "the pill" illegal because of morality, they want to control the people and make this nation into their perverse version of righteous.
 
Just wanted to pipe in here how much of a complete joy it is to read the opinions of men regarding the rights of women to make the medical decisions that they and their medical providers feel are in the best interests of the woman.
Hey now, not every person here grown while pumping testosterone is offering dumb opinions here.

I wonder, would you want for a feature/implant that would allow you to just turn it on and off like a light switch, assuming there weren't risks of any back doors?

I live in today, not tomorrow and thankfully not yesterday. In today's world there is still unfortunate truth in the moniker "if men could get pregnant there would be more abortion clinics than bars." Or any such variant.

So in today's world, there is unfortunately a great deal of value in an empathetic funnel towards a resolution here: make men really empathize with the realities of getting pregnant and what it really entails.

MAKE them consider the game theory you have to go through, and what they would change to make life better for someone so afflicted with the power and consequences of a functional uterus "when that would be them".
This view is very problematic, because it is mistaking this as some sort of misunderstanding or oversight.

The reality is that this has nothing to do with empathy and everything to do with control. It is ironic that those who support such grandiose personal freedoms, are the exact ones that are actually authoritarians that want their personal religion and culture beliefs imparted on all other people. They don't want abortion and "the pill" illegal because of morality, they want to control the people and make this nation into their perverse version of righteous.
It is a misunderstanding and oversight for enough people to make the difference against those for whom it is not a misunderstanding.

Identifying that it is not a misunderstanding becomes possible when you ask them the question, make them speak about the game theory here and watch how they become embarrassed even to talk about it.
 
Just wanted to pipe in here how much of a complete joy it is to read the opinions of men regarding the rights of women to make the medical decisions that they and their medical providers feel are in the best interests of the woman.
There goes another woman thinking they have the right to make decisions without us men to assist them and their irrational moods.

Now if anyone needs me, I'll be getting a foot surgically removed from my groin.
The really ironic parts about all of this?

The look on men's faces if they ever have to hear about tampons---or childbirth, much less being in the room (honestly I do think all the men who are in the labor/delivery room with the women are heroes--sincerely).
Honestly, I thought my wife did most of the work. Just standing there and being supportive wasn't quite that hard, other than there wasn't a tv in the room showing "the game". :D

I'm still uncertain what I'm going to do. Ohio has been stolen by the GOP and they'll pass and sign anti-abortion legislation.
 
Please, somebody, pass a blue equivalent of SB8 that makes it look tame in comparison! Do something that the court can't ignore.
 
Texas Supreme Court rules glitching the law is fine.
article said:
The decision by the Texas Supreme Court turned on whether medical licensing officials had an enforcement role under the law known as Senate Bill 8, and therefore, could be sued by clinics that are reaching for any possible way to halt the restrictions.

But writing for the court, Justice Jeffrey Boyd said those state officials have no enforcement authority, “either directly or indirectly."
The amount of bs in these rulings is beyond any level of tolerance.

Can blue states pass laws allowing people sue conservatives that voted or helped them vote? Or what about people that go to church... or someone that bought a gun? I mean, it would be grossfully unconstitutional, but apparently that isn't an issue anymore.
 
Texas Supreme Court rules glitching the law is fine.
article said:
The decision by the Texas Supreme Court turned on whether medical licensing officials had an enforcement role under the law known as Senate Bill 8, and therefore, could be sued by clinics that are reaching for any possible way to halt the restrictions.

But writing for the court, Justice Jeffrey Boyd said those state officials have no enforcement authority, “either directly or indirectly."
The amount of bs in these rulings is beyond any level of tolerance.

Can blue states pass laws allowing people sue conservatives that voted or helped them vote? Or what about people that go to church... or someone that bought a gun? I mean, it would be grossfully unconstitutional, but apparently that isn't an issue anymore.
I wish. It would have to be something that is uniform but affects rich white people.

Like suing people who hire tax accountants.
 
Texas Supreme Court rules glitching the law is fine.
article said:
The decision by the Texas Supreme Court turned on whether medical licensing officials had an enforcement role under the law known as Senate Bill 8, and therefore, could be sued by clinics that are reaching for any possible way to halt the restrictions.

But writing for the court, Justice Jeffrey Boyd said those state officials have no enforcement authority, “either directly or indirectly."
The amount of bs in these rulings is beyond any level of tolerance.

Can blue states pass laws allowing people sue conservatives that voted or helped them vote? Or what about people that go to church... or someone that bought a gun? I mean, it would be grossfully unconstitutional, but apparently that isn't an issue anymore.
I wish. It would have to be something that is uniform but affects rich white people.

Like suing people who hire tax accountants.
Can we be allowed to sue people in Texas that sue people over abortion?
 
Texas Supreme Court rules glitching the law is fine.
article said:
The decision by the Texas Supreme Court turned on whether medical licensing officials had an enforcement role under the law known as Senate Bill 8, and therefore, could be sued by clinics that are reaching for any possible way to halt the restrictions.

But writing for the court, Justice Jeffrey Boyd said those state officials have no enforcement authority, “either directly or indirectly."
The amount of bs in these rulings is beyond any level of tolerance.

Can blue states pass laws allowing people sue conservatives that voted or helped them vote? Or what about people that go to church... or someone that bought a gun? I mean, it would be grossfully unconstitutional, but apparently that isn't an issue anymore.
I wish. It would have to be something that is uniform but affects rich white people.

Like suing people who hire tax accountants.
Can we be allowed to sue people in Texas that sue people over abortion?
Maybe?
 
New Missouri abortion bill
"SB 1178 - Under this act, a person or entity commits the offense of trafficking abortion-inducing devices or drugs if such person or entity knowingly imports, exports, distributes, delivers, manufactures, produces, prescribes, administers, or dispenses, or attempts to do so, any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or other means or substance to be used to perform or induce an abortion on another person in violation of state or federal law. The offense is a Class B felony, but is a Class A felony when: (1) the abortion was performed or induced, or attempted, on a woman carrying an unborn child of more than ten weeks gestational age; (2) the abortion was performed or induced, or attempted, on a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy..."
How godawful are these people to propose such a thing???
 
New Missouri abortion bill
"SB 1178 - Under this act, a person or entity commits the offense of trafficking abortion-inducing devices or drugs if such person or entity knowingly imports, exports, distributes, delivers, manufactures, produces, prescribes, administers, or dispenses, or attempts to do so, any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or other means or substance to be used to perform or induce an abortion on another person in violation of state or federal law. The offense is a Class B felony, but is a Class A felony when: (1) the abortion was performed or induced, or attempted, on a woman carrying an unborn child of more than ten weeks gestational age; (2) the abortion was performed or induced, or attempted, on a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy..."
How godawful are these people to propose such a thing???
That's so stupid that it's probably a mistake.
 
New Missouri abortion bill
"SB 1178 - Under this act, a person or entity commits the offense of trafficking abortion-inducing devices or drugs if such person or entity knowingly imports, exports, distributes, delivers, manufactures, produces, prescribes, administers, or dispenses, or attempts to do so, any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or other means or substance to be used to perform or induce an abortion on another person in violation of state or federal law. The offense is a Class B felony, but is a Class A felony when: (1) the abortion was performed or induced, or attempted, on a woman carrying an unborn child of more than ten weeks gestational age; (2) the abortion was performed or induced, or attempted, on a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy..."
How godawful are these people to propose such a thing???
That's so stupid that it's probably a mistake.
I’d have to agree as part 1) would cover 2), so why bring it up.

Also fuck them all to hell.

I also presume the missing part of the bill involving widespread and free access to birth control to help reduce accidental pregnancies was also a mistake.
 
New Missouri abortion bill
"SB 1178 - Under this act, a person or entity commits the offense of trafficking abortion-inducing devices or drugs if such person or entity knowingly imports, exports, distributes, delivers, manufactures, produces, prescribes, administers, or dispenses, or attempts to do so, any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or other means or substance to be used to perform or induce an abortion on another person in violation of state or federal law. The offense is a Class B felony, but is a Class A felony when: (1) the abortion was performed or induced, or attempted, on a woman carrying an unborn child of more than ten weeks gestational age; (2) the abortion was performed or induced, or attempted, on a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy..."
How godawful are these people to propose such a thing???
That's so stupid that it's probably a mistake.
Why do you think it was a mistake? Are you under the impression that they hold any value at all for a woman or girl? There is not even any clause regarding saving the life of the woman. Because why would they care about that?
 
New Missouri abortion bill
"SB 1178 - Under this act, a person or entity commits the offense of trafficking abortion-inducing devices or drugs if such person or entity knowingly imports, exports, distributes, delivers, manufactures, produces, prescribes, administers, or dispenses, or attempts to do so, any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or other means or substance to be used to perform or induce an abortion on another person in violation of state or federal law. The offense is a Class B felony, but is a Class A felony when: (1) the abortion was performed or induced, or attempted, on a woman carrying an unborn child of more than ten weeks gestational age; (2) the abortion was performed or induced, or attempted, on a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy..."
How godawful are these people to propose such a thing???
That's so stupid that it's probably a mistake.
Why do you think it was a mistake? Are you under the impression that they hold any value at all for a woman or girl? There is not even any clause regarding saving the life of the woman. Because why would they care about that?
Because 2) is covered under 1).
 

For Anna, there would have been little to no time to get an abortion in Texas by the time she discovered her pregnancy. She and Scott were open to having a baby, even if a bit sooner than they might have planned, so they moved up their wedding plans to December.

When their wedding day arrived, Anna was 19 weeks pregnant. And she was in her wedding dress, getting makeup done with her bridesmaids, when she noticed something was wrong.

"It felt like something was coming out of me. So I freaked out. I literally wet my dress in the seat that I was in," she says.

Anna had to race against time
Anna's water had broken too early for the baby to survive. She and Scott spent the night of their wedding in the emergency room, trying to take in the heartbreaking news.

"Basically, the doctor looked at me and was like, well, the baby's underdeveloped," says Anna. "Even with the best NICU care in the world, they're not going to survive."

And as painful as it was to hear that, the doctors told Anna there was another urgent concern.

" 'You're at a high chance of going septic or bleeding out,' " she says the doctors told her — a risk of infection or hemorrhage, which could become deadly. " 'And unfortunately, we recommend termination, but we cannot provide you one here in Texas because of this law.' "

[...]

"A physician who made that determination in the moment would be doing so knowing that if someone second-guessed their judgment, [anyone] could file a lawsuit saying that you violated SB 8," she says.

In the emergency room on their wedding night, Anna and Scott say the doctors appeared nervous and concerned but could do little to help them.

"I remember being like, what, why can't you just do this?" says Anna. "They couldn't even say the word 'abortion.' I could see the fear in these doctors' eyes that they were just so scared to even talk about it."

"They were typing stuff out on their phones and showing it to us," adds Scott, saying that the doctors were afraid to even be overheard helping them plan an abortion.

The next day, Anna's OB-GYN needed a plan to get Anna to a place where she could get the procedure as quickly as possible. They ruled out some nearby states, including Oklahoma and Arkansas, with mandatory waiting periods as long as three days.

"So there's two options," says Scott. "There's New Mexico and there's Colorado. Would we rather have her go into labor on a plane or, like, out by Midland in a car?"

"And I said absolutely not," says Anna's doctor, who spoke with NPR on the condition of anonymity over fears of facing lawsuits. "Because West Texas is at least eight or nine hours of desert. Sometimes you have hours with no cellphone reception, no gas station ... in the middle of a medical crisis. So I requested she at least take a flight. And make it a direct flight if possible."

But Anna says that plan came with its own set of risks. There's a lump in her throat as she talks about what could have happened on the plane.

"I had to come up with a game plan with my OB in case I went into labor on the flight. And I made sure that I bought us front-row seats so I could be close to the bathroom in case it happened. And I'm like, no one should ever have to do that."

But even through tears, Anna says she knows she was lucky to have several thousand dollars in savings to cover the cost — and to get an appointment in Colorado at all.
A quote from the article by an anti-abortion activist.
"Yeah, I mean it's, it's absolutely horrific," says John Seago. He's the legislative director with Texas Right to Life, which helped push SB 8 through the state legislature last year. He says even though he feels for Anna and for Palmer's patient, the law's supporters believe that abortion is an "act of injustice," no matter what.

"Even in the worst circumstances, another act of violence on an innocent victim is not the best solution that we have," he says.

Seago says when it comes to medical emergencies, medical associations should do more to help doctors understand what's allowed under the law.

"It seems politically advantageous for some of these groups that oppose the bill, and oppose all pro-life legislation, to just say this is unreasonable," he says.
 

For Anna, there would have been little to no time to get an abortion in Texas by the time she discovered her pregnancy. She and Scott were open to having a baby, even if a bit sooner than they might have planned, so they moved up their wedding plans to December.

When their wedding day arrived, Anna was 19 weeks pregnant. And she was in her wedding dress, getting makeup done with her bridesmaids, when she noticed something was wrong.

"It felt like something was coming out of me. So I freaked out. I literally wet my dress in the seat that I was in," she says.

Anna had to race against time
Anna's water had broken too early for the baby to survive. She and Scott spent the night of their wedding in the emergency room, trying to take in the heartbreaking news.

"Basically, the doctor looked at me and was like, well, the baby's underdeveloped," says Anna. "Even with the best NICU care in the world, they're not going to survive."

And as painful as it was to hear that, the doctors told Anna there was another urgent concern.

" 'You're at a high chance of going septic or bleeding out,' " she says the doctors told her — a risk of infection or hemorrhage, which could become deadly. " 'And unfortunately, we recommend termination, but we cannot provide you one here in Texas because of this law.' "

[...]

"A physician who made that determination in the moment would be doing so knowing that if someone second-guessed their judgment, [anyone] could file a lawsuit saying that you violated SB 8," she says.

In the emergency room on their wedding night, Anna and Scott say the doctors appeared nervous and concerned but could do little to help them.

"I remember being like, what, why can't you just do this?" says Anna. "They couldn't even say the word 'abortion.' I could see the fear in these doctors' eyes that they were just so scared to even talk about it."

"They were typing stuff out on their phones and showing it to us," adds Scott, saying that the doctors were afraid to even be overheard helping them plan an abortion.

The next day, Anna's OB-GYN needed a plan to get Anna to a place where she could get the procedure as quickly as possible. They ruled out some nearby states, including Oklahoma and Arkansas, with mandatory waiting periods as long as three days.

"So there's two options," says Scott. "There's New Mexico and there's Colorado. Would we rather have her go into labor on a plane or, like, out by Midland in a car?"

"And I said absolutely not," says Anna's doctor, who spoke with NPR on the condition of anonymity over fears of facing lawsuits. "Because West Texas is at least eight or nine hours of desert. Sometimes you have hours with no cellphone reception, no gas station ... in the middle of a medical crisis. So I requested she at least take a flight. And make it a direct flight if possible."

But Anna says that plan came with its own set of risks. There's a lump in her throat as she talks about what could have happened on the plane.

"I had to come up with a game plan with my OB in case I went into labor on the flight. And I made sure that I bought us front-row seats so I could be close to the bathroom in case it happened. And I'm like, no one should ever have to do that."

But even through tears, Anna says she knows she was lucky to have several thousand dollars in savings to cover the cost — and to get an appointment in Colorado at all.
A quote from the article by an anti-abortion activist.
"Yeah, I mean it's, it's absolutely horrific," says John Seago. He's the legislative director with Texas Right to Life, which helped push SB 8 through the state legislature last year. He says even though he feels for Anna and for Palmer's patient, the law's supporters believe that abortion is an "act of injustice," no matter what.

"Even in the worst circumstances, another act of violence on an innocent victim is not the best solution that we have," he says.

Seago says when it comes to medical emergencies, medical associations should do more to help doctors understand what's allowed under the law.

"It seems politically advantageous for some of these groups that oppose the bill, and oppose all pro-life legislation, to just say this is unreasonable," he says.

Yes, I read that article. Thanks for posting it here--I had forgotten where it was that I read it.

The quote from Seago tells it all: He sees nothing wrong with forcing a woman to risk sepsis, permanent sterility, and even death rather than more quickly terminating a pregnancy that cannot result in a viable baby.

The idea of a baby is so much more palatable for some than the idea that a woman can obtain appropriate medical treatment in a medical emergency or simply because she finds herself unwilling to continue a pregnancy for whatever reasons she finds legitimate.
 
The quote from Seago tells it all: He sees nothing wrong with forcing a woman to risk sepsis, permanent sterility, and even death rather than more quickly terminating a pregnancy that cannot result in a viable baby.

The idea of a baby is so much more palatable for some than the idea that a woman can obtain appropriate medical treatment in a medical emergency or simply because she finds herself unwilling to continue a pregnancy for whatever reasons she finds legitimate.
It's a feature, not a bug.
 
Back
Top Bottom