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

Roe v Wade is on deck

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,014
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
This is distressing: A Nebraska woman is facing felony charges for helping her teenage daughter obtain an abortion earlier this year. Her daughter, who was 17 years-old at the time and 22 weeks pregnant (abortion is illegal in the state after 20 weeks), is also being charged. She will be tried as an adult. I’m looking to get more details on the case, but a couple of noteworthy items: Law enforcement not only went through the girl’s medical records, but got a warrant for her Facebook messages. That’s where the mother and daughter allegedly talked about how to properly take abortion medication—the prosecutor is also using a message where the teen expressed not wanting to be pregnant as evidence.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,972
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
AA10rULx.jpg

There are apparently Republicans who think Democrats want to extend abortion rights a year and a half post birth.
Tom
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,647
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Code for: we've done it 27 times, it's only impossible when the Congress is deadlocked by partisan bickering.
Congress is comparatively easy. Getting 3/4 of states to ratify it is the real challenge.
Any controversial amendment will have a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of getting ratified.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,141
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Any controversial amendment will have a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of getting ratified.
That is by design. Consitutional amendment is not meant as an inexpensive political football, it should only happen where there is significant consensus as to the necessity.
 

lostone

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2021
Messages
160
Basic Beliefs
skeptic
which is why even the Equal Rights Amendment never became law. Many states see no need to protect the rights of women. The same states, pretty much, that have passed strict anti-abortion laws.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,712
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Any controversial amendment will have a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of getting ratified.
That is by design. Consitutional amendment is not meant as an inexpensive political football, it should only happen where there is significant consensus as to the necessity.
Yes, one does not want it to be too easy, but the US Constitution is one of the most difficult to amend of nations' constitutions. US state constitutions are usually much easier to amend.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,141
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Any controversial amendment will have a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of getting ratified.
That is by design. Consitutional amendment is not meant as an inexpensive political football, it should only happen where there is significant consensus as to the necessity.
Yes, one does not want it to be too easy, but the US Constitution is one of the most difficult to amend of nations' constitutions. US state constitutions are usually much easier to amend.
Also true. But, there are historical reasons for that.

(We former colonists all severely, sometimes mortally, despise each other. And we always have.)
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,014
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Americans overwhelmingly would like to be able to vote on an abortion measure on their state ballot, an exclusive USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds. And if they had the chance, they would oppose efforts to ban the procedure by almost 2-1.

The survey, taken in the aftermath of the stunning defeat in Kansas last week of a proposal to remove abortion rights from the state constitution, is more evidence of a backlash to the Supreme Court's decision that allows states to sharpen restrictions on abortion or bar it entirely.

More:Kansas abortion vote raises warning signs for GOP nationwide in November.

Seven in 10 say they would support using a ballot measure to decide abortion rights in their state, an idea backed across party lines, by 73% of Democrats, 77% of Republicans and 67% of independents. Democrats are the most energized on the issue; 43% say they "strongly support" putting abortion on the ballot.

If there were a ballot measure in their state, those polled would vote by 54%-28% in favor of making abortion legal. Democrats support legal abortion in their state by 7-1 (76%-10%) and independents by 2-1 (52%-27%). Among Republicans, 34% would support abortion rights and 54% would oppose them, a worrisome fissure for the party that has long been identified with the anti-abortion movement.

At particular risk for the GOP are two groups of swing voters. Suburbanites by 56%-26% say they would vote to support abortion rights in a ballot measure. And women by 60%-25% would support an abortion rights initiative, significantly more than the backing among men of 47%-32%.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,712
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Any controversial amendment will have a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of getting ratified.
That is by design. Consitutional amendment is not meant as an inexpensive political football, it should only happen where there is significant consensus as to the necessity.
Yes, one does not want it to be too easy, but the US Constitution is one of the most difficult to amend of nations' constitutions. US state constitutions are usually much easier to amend.
Also true. But, there are historical reasons for that.
Like what?
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,972
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Like what?

The key word there is "historical".

When all this was being designed, late 18th century, the states really were pretty much sovereign entities. One wasn't so much an American as a Georgian or New Yorker. Things have changed hugely since then. But that view of the U.S. did largely shape our Founding Documents and institutions.

Frankly, if weren't for the ongoing existential threat of the British we'd have probably fractured into multiple countries by 1800.
Tom
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,712
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Justice Samuel Alito, in some recent decisions, elevated "religious freedom" above everything else. But would he endorse "religious freedom" if it got in his way? Like Protestants who consider Catholics Mary-worshippers who are loyal to a foreign power?

Or this: Religious Liberty Is For Pro-Choice People Too
Though the constitutional law of “religious liberty” is a murky and ever-developing field, we are all accustomed to hearing anguished claims from conservative Christians that laws requiring them to provide or pay for reproductive-health services or treat LGBTQ employees and customers equally are an unacceptable violation of their beliefs. Now that the Supreme Court has struck down the federal right to an abortion, it’s clearer than ever that the Christian right and its Republican allies are aiming to construct a system where they are free to live their values as they wish, regardless of the impact on others.

But as a new lawsuit in Florida shows, what’s good for the conservative goose may also be good for the progressive gander.
Noting
Religious leaders sue over Florida abortion law signed by Ron DeSantis - The Washington Post
When the Rev. Laurie Hafner ministers to her Florida congregants about abortion, she looks to the founding values of the United Church of Christ, her lifelong denomination: religious freedom and freedom of thought. She taps into her reading of Genesis, which says “man became a living being” when God breathed “the breath of life” into Adam. She thinks of Jesus promising believers full and abundant life.

“I am pro-choice not in spite of my faith, but because of my faith,” Hafner says.

She is among seven Florida clergy members — two Christians, three Jews, one Unitarian Universalist and a Buddhist — who argue in separate lawsuits filed Monday that their ability to live and practice their religious faith is being violated by the state’s new, post-Roe abortion law. The law, which is one of the strictest in the country, making no exceptions for rape or incest, was signed in April by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), in a Pentecostal church alongside antiabortion lawmakers such as the House speaker, who called life “a gift from God.”
Gov. Ron DeSantis is a Catholic.
The lawsuits are at the vanguard of a novel legal strategy arguing that new abortion restrictions violate Americans’ religious freedom, including that of clerics who advise pregnant people. The cases are part of an effort among a broad swath of religious Americans who support abortion access to rewrite the dominant modern cultural narrative that says the only “religious” view on abortion is to oppose it.

“The religious right has had the resources and the voices politically and socially to be so loud, and frankly, they don’t represent the Christian faith,” Hafner told The Washington Post. “Those of us on the other side, with maybe a more inclusive voice, need to be strong and more faithful and say: ‘There is another very important voice.’

“Look biblically; Jesus says nothing about abortion. He talks about loving your neighbor and living abundantly and fully. He says: ‘I come that you might have full life.’ Does that mean for a 10-year-old to bear the child of her molester? That you cut your life short because you aren’t able to rid your body of a fetus?”
All i can say is: where have they been? They've let the Religious Right be the public face of their religion.
“Since time immemorial, the questions of when a potential fetus or fetus becomes a life and how to value maternal life during pregnancy have been answered according to religious beliefs and creeds,” say the suits, which use identical language except when describing each plaintiff’s faith.

The new law, the suits read, sets “a pernicious elevation of the legal rights of fetuses while at the same time it devalues the quality of life and the health of the woman or girl who is pregnant. It is in direct conflict with Plaintiff’s clerical obligations and faith and imposes severe barriers and substantial burdens to their religious belief, speech and conduct.”
Along with
Synagogue challenges Florida abortion law over religion - The Washington Post

Back to my earlier-linked article.
Douglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law and an authority on religious-freedom law, said states and the Supreme Court could curtail the efforts among faith leaders who support abortion rights by arguing that there is a “compelling government interest” in protecting fetal life. And the right kind of compelling government interest can be an exception to most constitutional rights, he explained.

“For better or worse, a compelling government interest is whatever five justices say it is,” Laycock said. “It’s a matter of judicial interpretation, not legislative enactment. And pretty clearly, we have six justices who would happily say that the state’s interest in fetal life is compelling” and outweighs the free exercise of religion.

Plus, Laycock said, the justices wouldn’t have taken the monumental step of overturning Roe v. Wade only to turn around and allow “an alternate route to choice, an enormous loophole, or even a small loophole.”

“They may like free exercise, but they oppose abortion more,” he said.
In effect, religious freedom only for kinds of religion that they like.
 
Last edited:

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,141
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Any controversial amendment will have a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of getting ratified.
That is by design. Consitutional amendment is not meant as an inexpensive political football, it should only happen where there is significant consensus as to the necessity.
Yes, one does not want it to be too easy, but the US Constitution is one of the most difficult to amend of nations' constitutions. US state constitutions are usually much easier to amend.
Also true. But, there are historical reasons for that.
Like what?
Fundamentally, there was a fear that the states, though "united" against foreign domination, were not truly equal to one another in power, wealth, and influence. You see an anxiety concerning domination by other states written into the Constitutional structure at several points, most powerfully the composition of the Senate, the requirements for constitutional amendment, the Tenth amendment itself, and we could have discussion about several other points here. It's important to keep in mind that the writing of the Consitution was itself a somewhat sketchy affair, overthrowing for all intents and purposes the government originally set up by the Revolutionaries. In that government, guided by the Articles of Confederation, states exercised much more liberally interpreted rights over their own affairs, but this also allowed the manipulation and abuse of smaller states by their more powerful neighbors. The first adopted draft of the US Constitution is a masterwork of compromise, creating a vastly more powerful federal government but using a complex system of checks and balances to keep it functional.

The problem with compromises is that they are very situational. By 1830, it was clear that the previous generation's compromises were not going to be sufficient placation to guarantee peace between the States. And after things had really fallen apart, a new set of compromises had to be negotiated in order to rebuild the United States as a single nation, resulting in amendments to the Constitution so all-encompassing in scope that they eventually changed the way the document was used altogether, and in many ways, we are still struggling to put the high-minded principles represented by the Fourteenth Amendment into practice. Pretending that the Constitution is, was, or ever could be a "perfect" or unchanging document is a flawed concept, a familiar mistake whose ending we all know, because of the previous occasions when the Union has fractured despite all of the safety measures we might try to apply.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,712
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Joseph Naumann, Catholic bishops lost in Kansas abortion vote - The Washington Post
Analysts were quick to frame the result as a setback for the antiabortion movement, but activists and experts say it also amounts to a rejection of the Catholic Church hierarchy, which had shelled out massive sums of money in support of the amendment’s passage. The vote may hint, too, at a mounting backlash against the church’s involvement in the nation’s abortion debate — not least among Catholics themselves.
"Keep your rosaries off our ovaries!"
In the wake of the vote, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, who publicly supported the amendment’s passage, issued a statement Wednesday lamenting its failure.

“We were not able to overcome the millions spent by the abortion industry to mislead Kansans about the amendment, nor the overwhelming bias of the secular press whose failure to report clearly on the true nature of the amendment served to advance the cause of the abortion industry,” Naumann wrote.
Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo :p
 
Last edited:

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,712
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The Anti-Abortion Movement is Deciding: Hypocritical Misogyny or Abject Cruelty?
I am really thrilled to have a piece in the issue about IVF in a post-Roe limbo — how providers and patients alike are scared and uncertain about the future, how anti-abortion laws may make it much harder for people to start or expand their families, and how that’s shaping care and reproductive decision-making today.
Then getting into fetal personhood, including personhood since when the father's sperm goes into the mother's egg.
IVF complicates this. When Alabama passed a law criminalizing abortion and purporting to protect embryos, some objected because of concerns about IVF. If a fertilized egg is a person, the argument went, then IVF as it is currently practiced becomes either illegal or highly legally risky in a state that imbues a fertilized egg with a full set of rights. But Alabama state legislator Clyde Chambliss had an answer: “The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant.”

In other words, fertilized eggs are only people if they are inside of a woman.
As author Jill Filipovic says, "That doesn’t really make sense — unless the whole point is to control women, and not to protect fertilized eggs."

She continued with "Typical IVF procedures involve the creation of multiple embryos. Embryos that will not turn into a healthy pregnancy are typically screened out and discarded." Then discussing what to do about multiple viable ones. Donate them? Store them? Destroy them?
Today, roughly two in every 100 babies born in the US was conceived with the aid of reproductive technology. Those numbers are higher in areas where women have higher levels of education and have children later.

I’ve written before about how virtually no one — not even self-identified pro-lifers — actually believes that a fertilized egg is a person.
She then notes what an awkward dilemma IVF poses to anti-abortionists.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,712
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It seems to me that the Biden Admin was caught flat-footed by the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe vs. Wade. Even though it was very evident that that was what the court was likely to do. The appointments of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The taking of the Dobbs case. The leaked decision document.

noting
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,712
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
A Court Without Precedent - The Atlantic

"The judiciary is supposed to be informed by historical memory, and guided by more than its members’ whims."

"Just a few years ago, a clear majority of Americans trusted the Supreme Court. Now, a month after Roe v. Wade was overturned, poll after poll shows that a clear majority of Americans do not."
For more than a decade, the Court has issued narrow rulings, decided by slim majorities, that align with Republican political goals. Five Justices unleashed dark money in politics. They gutted the Voting Rights Act. They pulled the rug out from under public-sector unions. In that sense, Dobbs—the decision overturning Roe—is part of a larger trend.

But the American public is right to see Dobbs as different. Not just because of the decision’s impact, or the outrage it’s caused. More than a radical opinion, Dobbs represents a radical new approach to interpreting the Constitution. If left unchecked, the justices’ decision could mark not just the end of Roe, but the upending of America’s system of checks and balances.
Stare decisis - "to stand by what was decided"
Stare decisis does not bind judges’ hands entirely. It does, however, restrain them. When the Court’s majority feels a past case was wrongly decided, it is expected to rule narrowly instead of broadly, chipping away at old precedents and only gradually establishing new ones. It’s the legal equivalent of choosing renovation over demolition. The law should evolve rather than lurch.

No less important, by following stare decisis, justices recognize that the Court is bigger than the people who happen to be serving on it, with decisions that outlast the people who make them. The judiciary is supposed to be informed by historical memory, and guided by more than its members’ whims. Stare decisis is what makes the Court an institution. Without it, the judiciary is just a collection of opinionated people.
Clarence Thomas rejects stare decisis, while the other court conservatives profess to uphold it.

About some broader issues about the RvW decision,
The first of these was pointed out by Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined the 6–3 Dobbs majority that upheld Mississppi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks but did not support overturning Roe. Citing the “fundamental principle of judicial restraint,” he wrote, “It is only where there is no valid narrower ground of decision that we should go on to address a broader issue, such as whether a constitutional decision should be overturned.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,712
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
In other words, while the 1954 Court felt Plessy was egregiously wrong, its egregious wrongess was not in itself enough for the Justices to overturn the ruling. They overturned Plessy, they argued, only because they had no other viable choice.

Perhaps the conservatives in Dobbs felt similarly about Roe, but that’s not the standard they used to justify their decision. Instead, in a concurring opinion, Kavanaugh laid out his own set of rules for disregarding precedent: “(i) the prior decision is not just wrong, but is egregiously wrong, (ii) the prior decision has caused significant negative jurisprudential or real-world consequences, and (iii) overruling the prior decision would not unduly upset legitimate reliance interests.”

The problem with Kavanaugh’s checklist is that each of its elements is completely subjective. In essence, Kavanaugh believes judges should unfailingly abide by past decisions unless they really don’t want to. That’s not a way to apply stare decisis. It’s a way to scrap it.
Seems like we are living in an era of judicial Calvinball, where the conservative Justices freely invent pseudo-historical and pseudo-Constitutional justifications for however they want to rule.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,428
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
In other words, while the 1954 Court felt Plessy was egregiously wrong, its egregious wrongess was not in itself enough for the Justices to overturn the ruling. They overturned Plessy, they argued, only because they had no other viable choice.

Perhaps the conservatives in Dobbs felt similarly about Roe, but that’s not the standard they used to justify their decision. Instead, in a concurring opinion, Kavanaugh laid out his own set of rules for disregarding precedent: “(i) the prior decision is not just wrong, but is egregiously wrong, (ii) the prior decision has caused significant negative jurisprudential or real-world consequences, and (iii) overruling the prior decision would not unduly upset legitimate reliance interests.”

The problem with Kavanaugh’s checklist is that each of its elements is completely subjective. In essence, Kavanaugh believes judges should unfailingly abide by past decisions unless they really don’t want to. That’s not a way to apply stare decisis. It’s a way to scrap it.
Seems like we are living in an era of judicial Calvinball, where the conservative Justices freely invent pseudo-historical and pseudo-Constitutional justifications for however they want to rule.
When have conservatives ever used any science? I see plenty of sciencyness, but no science.

When have conservatives ever used any history?
I see plenty of anachronisms, but no actual history.

When have the conservatives ever actually cared about using reason or logic consistently?
I see plenty of discussion of principles, but no uniformity in their application.

The goal of conservative thought is to justify doing whatever the fuck they want. That doesn't work well when you have to be consistent
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,712
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Ron Filipkowski 🇺🇦 on Twitter: "Matt Gaetz today:

Q - Is it safe to say that, based off these comments, that you’re suggesting the women at these abortion rallies are ugly and overweight?

A - Yes

Q - What do you say to people who think those comments are offensive?

A - Be offended (vid link)" / Twitter


Matt Gaetz, Under Investigation for Sex With a Minor, Says Women Who Support Abortion Rights Are Too Fat and Ugly to Get Pregnant | Vanity Fair
Congress is filled with a lot of loathsome, moronic, thoroughly repugnant people, but perhaps none more so than Representative Matt Gaetz. Currently under investigation for allegedly paying women for sex and, separately, sleeping with a minor and transporting her across state lines, the Florida legislator responded to the assault on reproductive rights in May by tweeting: “How many of the women rallying against overturning Roe are over-educated, under-loved millennials who sadly return from protests to a lonely microwave dinner with their cats, and no bumble matches?” But apparently that was just the start of this overgrown frat boy’s ignorant antiabortion routine, which he followed up on Saturday by telling a room full of teens and young adults that any woman who supports reproductive rights is too ugly for him to f--k.

...
“Have you watched these pro-abortion, pro-murder rallies?” Gaetz asked. “The people are just disgusting. But why is it is that the women with the least likelihood of getting pregnant are the ones most worried about having abortions? Nobody wants to impregnate you if you look like a thumb. These people are odious on the inside and out. They’re like 5’2”, 350 pounds, and they’re like, ‘Give me my abortion or I’ll get up and march and protest.’ I’m thinking, March? You look like you got ankles weaker than the legal reasoning behind Roe v. Wade. A few of ‘em need to get up and march. They need to get up and march for like an hour a day, swing those arms, get the blood pumping, maybe mix in a salad.”

A right-wing man who slavered over AOC despite calling her a supporter of killing babies:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Here is a video he posted of the incident. I was actually walking over to deck him because if no one will protect us then I’ll do it myself but I needed to catch a vote more than a case today (vid link)" / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "I posted about a deeply disgusting incident that happened today on the Capitol steps, but took it down bc it’s clearly someone seeking extremist fame.

It’s just a bummer to work in an institution that openly allowed this, but talking about it only invites more. Just really sad." / Twitter


I think that he ought to get together with Rep. Matt Gaetz.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez shares video of man who harassed her on steps of U.S. Capitol
Standing at the bottom of the Capitol steps, the man, whose identity is unclear, recorded Ocasio-Cortez walking up the stairs. "See my favorite big booty Latina AOC!" he yells in the video, repeatedly pointing at her. "I love you AOC — you're my favorite!"

"She wants to kill babies, but she's still beautiful," he continues. "You look very beautiful in that dress. You look very sexy. Look at that big booty on AOC — that’s my favorite big booty Latina."
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,712
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Aaron Rupar on Twitter: "Gaetz: "Why is it that the women with the least likelihood of getting pregnant are the ones most worried about having abortions? Nobody wants to impregnate you if you look like a thumb." (vid link)" / Twitter -- with some video of him saying that.

Matt Gaetz says "women who look like a thumb" shouldn't complain about abortion rights | Salon.com

How the Supreme Court's "fauxriginalists" are warping the Constitution | Salon.com - "Right-wing justices claim they're delving for true meanings beneath the Constitution. It's another Big Lie"

That's the argument of Praveen Fernandes of the Constitutional Accountability Center, who suggests that a true originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution would not provide conservative results, because the document is, on the whole, remarkably progressive. Instead, Fernandes says, judicial conservatives distorting the meaning of the Constitution by practicing fauxriginalism:

[P]rogressives have not been fighting originalism; we have been fighting fauxriginalism. Fauxriginalism distorts the meaning of the Constitution, often by focusing selectively on some parts of the document, rather than by looking at the text, history, and values of the whole Constitution. Conservatives like to claim that originalism leads them to conservative results, but that's because they too often give a cramped meaning to the Constitution's text and ignore the constitutional history and values that help elucidate what that text means. In truth, conservatives have been a bit like the kid in our grade school class who delivered a book report, but who had only read the first chapters of the book — and didn't even read them that carefully.
Would the Catholic conservatives like how many of the colonial governments viewed Catholicism?
How progressive is it really? According to scholar Garry Wills, the Establishment Clause alone was a defining miracle of the U.S. Constitution. As James Madison wrote in his "Memorial and Remonstrance" statement on church and state, disestablishment both protected the free expression of religion and protected all citizens from the use of "Religion as an engine of Civil policy." In a letter to Madison, Thomas Jefferson argued that as the earth belongs to the living, any constitution (not just ours) was a living document, something that needed to be updated frequently as society evolved.
Some of the colonies had state-supported churches, all mainline-Protestant ones. So neither Catholics nor evangelicals will like originalism there.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,712
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Seven days in June: A coup more effective than Donald Trump's | Salon.com - June 24 to June 30

Weakening separation of church and state, and revoking Roe vs. Wade.

“Embarrassment to the Supreme Court”: Alito gloats and taunts critics of his anti-abortion ruling | Salon.com - "After writing an opinion striking down Roe, Alito hits out at Boris Johnson, Justin Trudeau and Prince Harry"
"Despite this temptation, I'm not going to talk about cases from other countries," Alito continued. "All I'm going to say is that, ultimately, if we are going to win the battle to protect religious freedom in an increasingly secular society, we will need more than positive law."

...
Alito during his remarks alleged that "religious liberty is under attack" even though the impenetrable conservative majority on the Supreme Court gave religious rights groups their biggest wins in generations this term: striking down abortion rights, siding with a public high school football coach who prayed on the field after games, and banning Maine from excluding religious schools from tuition assistance programs.

"It is hard to convince people that religious liberty is worth defending if they don't think that religion is a good thing that deserves protection," Alito said.
Liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan:
"I'm not talking about any particular decision or even any particular series of decisions, but if over time the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that's a dangerous thing for a democracy," she said during a conference in Montana last week. "People are rightly suspicious if one justice leaves the court or dies and another justice takes his or her place and all of sudden the law changes on you."
 

lostone

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2021
Messages
160
Basic Beliefs
skeptic
If the law is so flexible that we no longer know what the law currently is until the Scotus of the moment tells us what it is, how can we know how to be law abiding citizens? That is why courts should be slow to change laws and their interpretations.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,712
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Biden’s abortion response curbed by fears of another Supreme Court showdown - POLITICO
The White House remains largely intent on sticking to its deliberate process — arguing that rushing into major decisions just to ease Democrats’ nerves could end up doing more harm over the long term. Over the weekend, White House communications director Kate Bedingfield dismissed criticism of Biden’s urgency on abortion in a statement to The Washington Post, attributing it to activists “who have been consistently out of step with the mainstream of the Democratic Party.”
Seems like hippie-punching to me, like Bill Clinton vs. Sister Souljah.

Also making excuses for being so slow and negligent. Anyone with any knowledge of the US abortion culture war will be aware of what anti-abortionists want, and their willingness to accept whatever victories they can get, even if those victories are very tiny ones. The nomination of the three Trump Justices, the taking of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, and the leaked decision draft. Amy Coney Barrett made the conservative bloc large enough to override John Roberts if he decides to vote with the liberal bloc, taking the Dobbs case indicated a willingness to revoke RvW, and the leaked draft only supported that willingness.

With that willingness so evident, the Biden Admin ought to have been working on options well in advance.
The administration rejected the option of opening abortion clinics on federal territory, citing concerns that patients in red states that criminalize abortion could be arrested as soon as they step off federal land. Officials also worried it would violate the Hyde Amendment prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortion, and allow a future Republican administration could retroactively punish doctors working at such clinics.
The Bidenites wring their hands a lot. What cowards.
Despite Biden’s vow to take another look at the option, the administration is also skeptical of declaring a public health emergency over the restrictions on abortion access, an idea advanced ahead of the Supreme Court decision by a group of Black women Democrats in Congress.
But that has a risk of politicizing declarations of public health emergency.
Biden has yet to rule out other significant administration options, such as declaring that Food and Drug Administration regulations approving the use of abortion pills preempt state anti-abortion laws — or that the Hyde Amendment banning the use of federal money for abortion does not extend to funding out-of-state travel for people seeking abortions.

But there’s broad belief that those explicit moves would prompt immediate challenges from red states, and good odds those cases would end up in front of conservative judges thanks to the GOP’s Trump-era push to remake the judiciary.

Even if a policy survived the lower courts, it could still be rejected by the same five conservative Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe and have jumped at nearly any chance to constrain the government’s administrative authority.
The Biden Admin often seems very indecisive.
When he does make a big decision, it can appear slapdash; Biden, while traveling overseas, settled so suddenly on endorsing eliminating the filibuster to codify Roe that Vice President Kamala Harris didn’t know he planned to announce it that day, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.

Days earlier, Harris, whose aides the person said had been advocating for more decisive action from the White House, downplayed the filibuster idea in an interview with CNN — a move that fed the initial round of activist anger over the administration’s immediate response.
So the Biden Admin is much like the Clinton Admin and the Obama Admin -- whimpering cowardly centrists who are afraid of displeasing the right wing, despite the right wing's portrayal of those admins as a bunch of hard-line extreme left-wing autocratic ogres.
White House official stressed that the administration continues to analyze additional ideas under the criteria they can “pass legal muster and that help and do not put at risk those whose rights and health we are trying to protect.”

But even Democrats and legal scholars who sympathize with the administration’s difficult position say Biden will ultimately need to take a big swing on abortion — no matter the odds of success.

“There’s always a possibility this court is going to broadly refashion the law in a way that limits Democratic administrations,” said Leah Litman, a University of Michigan law professor, adding that the White House should test the courts on abortion pill access and the Hyde Amendment. “That doesn’t seem a good enough reason to not do anything.”
If Joe Biden wants to be an FDR-style president, he ought to act like FDR.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
6,258
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Biden’s abortion response curbed by fears of another Supreme Court showdown - POLITICO
The White House remains largely intent on sticking to its deliberate process — arguing that rushing into major decisions just to ease Democrats’ nerves could end up doing more harm over the long term. Over the weekend, White House communications director Kate Bedingfield dismissed criticism of Biden’s urgency on abortion in a statement to The Washington Post, attributing it to activists “who have been consistently out of step with the mainstream of the Democratic Party.”
Seems like hippie-punching to me, like Bill Clinton vs. Sister Souljah.

Also making excuses for being so slow and negligent. Anyone with any knowledge of the US abortion culture war will be aware of what anti-abortionists want, and their willingness to accept whatever victories they can get, even if those victories are very tiny ones. The nomination of the three Trump Justices, the taking of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, and the leaked decision draft. Amy Coney Barrett made the conservative bloc large enough to override John Roberts if he decides to vote with the liberal bloc, taking the Dobbs case indicated a willingness to revoke RvW, and the leaked draft only supported that willingness.

With that willingness so evident, the Biden Admin ought to have been working on options well in advance.
The administration rejected the option of opening abortion clinics on federal territory, citing concerns that patients in red states that criminalize abortion could be arrested as soon as they step off federal land. Officials also worried it would violate the Hyde Amendment prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortion, and allow a future Republican administration could retroactively punish doctors working at such clinics.
The Bidenites wring their hands a lot. What cowards.
Despite Biden’s vow to take another look at the option, the administration is also skeptical of declaring a public health emergency over the restrictions on abortion access, an idea advanced ahead of the Supreme Court decision by a group of Black women Democrats in Congress.
But that has a risk of politicizing declarations of public health emergency.
Biden has yet to rule out other significant administration options, such as declaring that Food and Drug Administration regulations approving the use of abortion pills preempt state anti-abortion laws — or that the Hyde Amendment banning the use of federal money for abortion does not extend to funding out-of-state travel for people seeking abortions.

But there’s broad belief that those explicit moves would prompt immediate challenges from red states, and good odds those cases would end up in front of conservative judges thanks to the GOP’s Trump-era push to remake the judiciary.

Even if a policy survived the lower courts, it could still be rejected by the same five conservative Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe and have jumped at nearly any chance to constrain the government’s administrative authority.
The Biden Admin often seems very indecisive.
When he does make a big decision, it can appear slapdash; Biden, while traveling overseas, settled so suddenly on endorsing eliminating the filibuster to codify Roe that Vice President Kamala Harris didn’t know he planned to announce it that day, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.

Days earlier, Harris, whose aides the person said had been advocating for more decisive action from the White House, downplayed the filibuster idea in an interview with CNN — a move that fed the initial round of activist anger over the administration’s immediate response.
So the Biden Admin is much like the Clinton Admin and the Obama Admin -- whimpering cowardly centrists who are afraid of displeasing the right wing, despite the right wing's portrayal of those admins as a bunch of hard-line extreme left-wing autocratic ogres.
White House official stressed that the administration continues to analyze additional ideas under the criteria they can “pass legal muster and that help and do not put at risk those whose rights and health we are trying to protect.”

But even Democrats and legal scholars who sympathize with the administration’s difficult position say Biden will ultimately need to take a big swing on abortion — no matter the odds of success.

“There’s always a possibility this court is going to broadly refashion the law in a way that limits Democratic administrations,” said Leah Litman, a University of Michigan law professor, adding that the White House should test the courts on abortion pill access and the Hyde Amendment. “That doesn’t seem a good enough reason to not do anything.”
If Joe Biden wants to be an FDR-style president, he ought to act like FDR.
That's not fair. In 1937, democrats controlled 80% of the house; 80% of the senate. So, yea, the d's got a lot of stuff done! FDR gets the credit, but come on. Today, Biden has 50% of the senate, 51% barely of the house. If people want more democratic policies, elect more democrats.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,712
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
‘The Court has no comment’: It’s not publicly known whether the May leak of Alito’s draft opinion on Roe v. Wade is still under investigation - MarketWatch

"The draft was largely incorporated into Justice Samuel Alito’s final opinion"

Less than 24 hours after the unprecedented leak of the draft opinion that ultimately overturned Roe v. Wade, Chief Justice John Roberts ordered an investigation into the “egregious breach.”

Since then? Silence.
Was the leaker someone embarrassing? Like Sam Alito himself?
 

Patooka

Contributor
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
5,321
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
This is beyond fucked.

This appeal arises from an order denying a pregnant minor’s request to bypass parental notice of and consent for the termination of her pregnancy under the process set forth in section 390.01114, Florida Statutes.

So basically, this 17 year old was denied to have an abortion because she wasn't mature enough to make the decision herself. Fucking Florida logic.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,014
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
This appeal arises from an order denying a pregnant minor’s request to bypass parental notice of and consent for the termination of her pregnancy under the process set forth in section 390.01114, Florida Statutes. The order was “without prejudice,” the trial court stating that it “may re-evaluate its decision” in a renewed hearing for the minor to “adequately articulate her request.”

The minor is almost seventeen years-old and parentless. She lives with a relative but has an appointed guardian. She is pursuing a GED with involvement in a program designed to assist young women who have experienced trauma in their lives by providing educational support and counseling. The minor experienced renewed trauma (the death of a friend) shortly before she decided to seek termination of her pregnancy.

Her petition—a standard form that she completed by hand— stated two potential bases for a waiver under the statute. First, the minor states that she is sufficiently mature to make the decision, saying she “is not ready to have a baby,” she doesn’t have a job, she is “still in school,” and the father is unable to assist her. See § 390.01114(6)(c), Fla. Stat. (2022) (specifying that a judicial bypass order may be issued if the trial judge “finds, by clear and
convincing evidence, that the minor is sufficiently mature to decide
whether to terminate her pregnancy”). Second, the minor states
that her “guardian is fine with what [she] wants to do,” which
would be a sufficient basis for a waiver of notice if other statutory
requisites are met. Id. § 390.01114(4)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (“Notice is
waived in writing by the person who is entitled to notice and such
waiver is notarized, dated not more than 30 days before the
termination of pregnancy, and contains a specific waiver of the
right of the parent or legal guardian to notice of the minor’s
termination of pregnancy[.]”). She inexplicably checked the box
indicating she did not request an attorney, which is available by
law for free under the statute. Id. § 390.01114(6)(a), Fla. Stat.
(“The court shall advise the minor that she has a right to courtappointed counsel at no cost to the minor. The court shall, upon
request, provide counsel for the minor at least 24 hours before the
court proceeding.”).
Sorry for the formatting.

So she has no parents to notify, her guardian supports her decision, she is in school and has no income and she realizes her becoming a mother is an untenable position for her to be in.

But she must have the baby.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,771
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Maybe the Church should pay her $350,000 to cover the costs of raising the child as well as sending both her and the child to college? I mean, isn't a part of the Catholic church's (which is the mother of all Christian churches in my opinion despite what they say because they use the catholic bible) position to expect the government to provide financial Aid as a tool against abortion? The Catholic church (and all it's offspring Christian churches) are half assing this because they ae gun hoe about stopping abortion but not gun hoe about making sure the government or themselves provide meaningful assistance.

I don't believe they should have any say, whatsoever. Just calling them out on their own BS.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,014
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,712
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Roe Overturned: Action Items | Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - YouTube - June 26
After a busy day of activism, she got a chance to go online. She said that she wanted to assure us that we have things that we can do beyond voting. Necessary but not sufficient, and I agree. One must vote, but it's not enough to vote.

I like that AOC knows about "necessary but not sufficient". If X implies Y, then Y is a necessary condition for X, and X a sufficient condition for Y.  Necessity and sufficiency

She challenges critics to come up with plans of their own. Then discusses what actions one can take, like donating to abortion funds. She asks her listeners if they can let visiting abortion seekers stay in their homes. "Everybody have something to give." Like some talent: being an artist or a writer, or having digital skills. What can one do "on a consistent basis"?

She asks that because the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, despite being huge, didn't have as much followup as was necessary to make the desired changes, and many communities reverted to how they were before.

Then how the overturning of RvW affects everybody, especially poor and minority women. She then said that small actions can add up, as sand in the gears of the horrible machine of right-wing oppression. Important to be willing to discuss abortion.

She says that her colleagues ought to consider funding not themselves but colleagues in frontline (vulnerable) seats. I note Katie Porter D-CA-47, who got 51% of the vote in the primary, with the Republicans getting a combined total of 49%.

AOC listed Ohio, supporting Tim Ryan against someone that she did not want to name. Why does she consider JD Vance so odious? Georgia. Iowa - House seat imperiled: presumably Cindy Axne D-IA-03. She suggests adopting some swing seat.

She recommends voting in primaries, and she recommended assessing whether antiabortion Democrats ought to continue. Also those who don't do much other than do the bidding of big donors. She recommends looking at state elections and local elections.

She then got into policy issues, saying that the Democratic Party is not doing enough for ordinary people. Some people in high places wring their hands and say that we can't do this and we can't do that, and she asked what they propose to do. She prefers: no = try something else, not give up.

She mentions opening abortion clinics on Federal land in red states. She then praises Rep. Ayanna Pressley for opposing the Hyde Amendment. But some people turned cowardly about doing so.

She recalled the Trump Admin responding to criticism of its actions with going ahead until stopped. She proposes doing the same sort of thing - that even a small bit of action before the courts strike something down is better than nothing.

She then got into the issue of whether or not some Supreme Court Justice candidates lied about their positions on RvW to get into that court. She said that it would be dangerous to normalize the precedent of such lying. Then discussing jumping back and forth about states' rights and what to use as precedent, like on guns. Then on releasing some documents connected to the January 6 insurrection - all but Clarence Thomas, whose wife is one of the insurrectionists, giving him a conflict of interest that he has refused to acknowledge.

She then noted that Abraham Lincoln ignored the Dred Scott decision when he issued his Emancipation Proclamation. Then FDR responding to the Supreme Court striking down New Deal stuff by threatening to pack that court with his appointees. The court backed down.

Then she returned to doing research on candidates. One should adopt some swing-seat candidate to support. One should also push politicians to say what they willing to do, as opposed to saying that they can't do this, that, or the other. AOC herself has done a commendable job of that, I must say. It's not enough to get people's votes and then do nothing with the power that those votes has given one.

She then gets into some endorsements, and she said that soon after she got elected, she contributed to several swing-district Democrats. I recall that there was some controversy about her doing so, because many of her intended recipients didn't want to be associated with her. "Here is a bribe I won't take", it seems like to me. She also bragged about some bacon she brought home, support of the reproductive-health facilities of the Elmhurst Hospital in Queens, NYC. But all bacon is pork. :D
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,712
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
AOC on Medical Emergencies in a Post-Roe America | Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - YouTube - June 30
If you think overturning Roe isn't going to be a big deal even for medical emergencies, you are in for a tough awakening.
Overturning Roe in states that ban abortion - including in states with exceptions for the mother's life - take the medical decision-making power AWAY from patients and doctors and puts it into the hands of the hospital's lawyer.
That means that many hospitals will have to wait until a person is actively at risk of death before assessing that they will be legally covered to treat them.

You shouldn't have to get a lawyer to receive life-saving care. This is just one of the MANY ways that abortion bans disproportionately impact working class and poor women.
That's already happening. How in danger of dying does one have to be before one can get an abortion? So hospitals have been consulting lawyers.

She suspects that many of the legislators that write anti-abortion laws are ignorant of a lot of female reproductive physiology and what can go wrong, like ectopic pregnancies.

She also notes that some pregnancy complications can cause disabilities that can last for the rest of one's life. Something not covered by "life of the mother" exceptions.

H.R.8296 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress - codifies RvW
The vote on it - 219-210, on party lines except for Henry Cuellar D-TX, who voted against it.

H.R.3755 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress - the same bill, but a year ago
The vote on it - 218-211, also on party lines except for Henry Cuellar.

H.R.8373 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Right to Contraception Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress - codifying Griswold v. CT
The vote on it - 228-195, all Democrats for it and most Republicans against it. The exceptions, all R's:
Yes: Cheney WY, Fitzpatrick PA, Gonzalez OH, Katko NY, Kinzinger IL, Mace SC, Salazar FL, Upton MI
Present: Gibbs OH, Kelly PA
Not voting: Burchett TN, Davis R IL, McCaul TX, McKinley WV, Miller WV, Steube FL

H.R.8404 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Respect for Marriage Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress - same-sex marriage (codifying Obergefell v. Hodges) and interracial marriage (codifying Loving v. VA)
The vote on it - 267-157, all Democrats for it and 1/4 of Republicans also for it (Y 47, N 157, nv 7)

None of these bills had any success in the Senate.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,014
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
She suspects that many of the legislators that write anti-abortion laws are ignorant of a lot of female reproductive physiology and what can go wrong, like ectopic pregnancies.
I disagree. I think they just don't care.

The stupid Republican bitch running for governor here in Michigan says no exception for the life of the woman. Fuck that cunt.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
She suspects that many of the legislators that write anti-abortion laws are ignorant of a lot of female reproductive physiology and what can go wrong, like ectopic pregnancies.
I disagree. I think they just don't care.

The stupid Republican bitch running for governor here in Michigan says no exception for the life of the woman. Fuck that cunt.
A bunch of them are absolutely that ignorant but most simply don't care. They have to be more holy right to life than anyone else because they're afraid someone will turn on them if they show any sense or mercy. Those are the better of the lot. The rest are worse.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,500
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This is beyond fucked.

This appeal arises from an order denying a pregnant minor’s request to bypass parental notice of and consent for the termination of her pregnancy under the process set forth in section 390.01114, Florida Statutes.

So basically, this 17 year old was denied to have an abortion because she wasn't mature enough to make the decision herself. Fucking Florida logic.
Many judges categorically deny minors requesting abortions. This is no surprise.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,428
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
This is beyond fucked.

This appeal arises from an order denying a pregnant minor’s request to bypass parental notice of and consent for the termination of her pregnancy under the process set forth in section 390.01114, Florida Statutes.

So basically, this 17 year old was denied to have an abortion because she wasn't mature enough to make the decision herself. Fucking Florida logic.
Many judges categorically deny minors requesting abortions. This is no surprise.
"Unsurprising" does not speak to whether it is logical or correct.

Patooka is discussing an "ought" and you are discussing an "is".

You will speak past each other until Patooka starts caring about IS Loren starts discussing OUGHT.

While I am unsurprised, it should be be no surprise that I am still going to reject the travesty of justice happening when judges so categorically deny abortions.

It's unsurprising when in war, the enemy soldiers are firing at you. You still fire back.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,090
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
This is beyond fucked.

This appeal arises from an order denying a pregnant minor’s request to bypass parental notice of and consent for the termination of her pregnancy under the process set forth in section 390.01114, Florida Statutes.

So basically, this 17 year old was denied to have an abortion because she wasn't mature enough to make the decision herself. Fucking Florida logic.
Many judges categorically deny minors requesting abortions. This is no surprise.
Maybe not to you but imagine being a parent less pregnant teenager who is told she must carry to term a pregnancy although she herself is not physically, mentally or emotionally mature enough to deal with pregnancy and childbirth, much less making good decisions about the resulting child because you have no parents to advise you.

This probably is surprising to a teen who must navigate life on her own to be told she isn’t mature enough to make the decision most likely to allow her to pursue a future where she can be a self supporting adult with at least a high school diploma, perhaps a path to university or community college and in any case, life as a fully functioning adult.

But then again, it is entirely possible that she’s sufficiently aware of how the system’s failures have placed her in such an untenable position to be completely unsurprised.
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,485
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
A Republican reconsidering banning abortion (SC already has a "hearbeat" ban he voted for, they are now considering a stricter ban).




I wonder if that sentiment has anything do with this weird polling swing to Dems from fathers.


In May, Republicans led Democrats among Dads by a whopping 53 to 33 percent margin. In August, Dads shifted to supporting Democrats for Congress 44 to 36 percent – 20 percent were either “other” or “undecided.”
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,500
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This is beyond fucked.

This appeal arises from an order denying a pregnant minor’s request to bypass parental notice of and consent for the termination of her pregnancy under the process set forth in section 390.01114, Florida Statutes.

So basically, this 17 year old was denied to have an abortion because she wasn't mature enough to make the decision herself. Fucking Florida logic.
Many judges categorically deny minors requesting abortions. This is no surprise.
"Unsurprising" does not speak to whether it is logical or correct.

Patooka is discussing an "ought" and you are discussing an "is".

You will speak past each other until Patooka starts caring about IS Loren starts discussing OUGHT.

While I am unsurprised, it should be be no surprise that I am still going to reject the travesty of justice happening when judges so categorically deny abortions.

It's unsurprising when in war, the enemy soldiers are firing at you. You still fire back.
I agree it's wrong, I'm just saying this isn't something new. It's unrelated to Dobbs.
 

Patooka

Contributor
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
5,321
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
I agree it's wrong, I'm just saying this isn't something new. It's unrelated to Dobbs.
I doubt completely unrelated. The decision must have emboldened pro-life activist judges. I certainly suspect an uptick of such decisions compared to this time last year. Whether it is a significant uptick I couldn't say, but I'd bet yes.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,014
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Gietzen said he plans to file a lawsuit Monday seeking a full statewide recount.

Gietzen said he won’t publicly report the names of private donors helping him finance the recount, even though a state ethics official says it’s required. Gietzen, who leads a small GOP group, the Kansas Republican Assembly, argues that he’s not campaigning for the anti-abortion measure but is instead promoting election integrity.
 

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
6,957
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Yes, a recount. The supporters of that recount had to pay good money for it. That wasted money could have bought a lot of good whiskey.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
20,712
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
(Republicans losing the NY-19 special election...)
Ryan Grim on Twitter: "This has to be a scary stat for House Republicans. ..." / Twitter
This has to be a scary stat for House Republicans. There’s a reason the “pro-life” agenda has never been an electoral play for Republicans in swing districts, and why judicial nominees lied about their respect for Roe.

Now that they’re forced to be honest about their position — go home with your ectopic pregnancy and deliver a still birth in a few months and hope you get to the hospital before you die — it’s not so easy for them

The next retreat: the policy we want is not actually the law yet in the entire country, just everywhere we have power! This backpedaling shows the utter bankruptcy of their position

Taniel on Twitter: "RESULT: Do you remember Jared Smith ..." / Twitter
RESULT: Do you remember Jared Smith, the Florida judge in Hillsbourgh County (Tampa) who tried to block a teenager from accessing abortion because her grades were too low? (https://jezebel.com/florida-judge-tried-to-deny-teen-abortion-over-her-gpa-1848419163)

He was ousted tonight. He trails 52% to 48% with mail + all precincts reporting.

The race is nonpartisan, but here's just one indication that Democratic voters supported his opponent Nancy Jacobs: Jacobs won the mail-in vote very solidly, and Smith won the Election Day vote very solidly.

Here’s a second, related result.

And remember to check out this ir @boltsmag cheat sheet for all your election nights needs (and follow @boltsmag to boot!): https://boltsmag.org/whats-on-the-b

RESULT: James Bush (Florida's only Dem lawmaker who voted for the 15-week abortion ban & for the 'Don't Say Gay' bill) has LOST his re-election bid.

With mail ballots & 99% of precincts reporting, Bush trails by 3% against challenger Ashley Gantt.
Noting
Judge Tries to Deny Teen Abortion Over Her GPA
When a 17-year-old girl in Florida, called “Jane Doe,” sought judicial bypass to have an abortion without the involvement of her parents, as state law requires, the judge presiding over her case deemed her GPA too low. The judge denied Doe the legal permission to have an abortion without her parents’ knowledge, presumably because having poor grades means a teenager should definitely be required to become a parent.

Hillsborough County Circuit Court Judge Jared E. Smith took particular issue with Doe testifying that she had a “B” average, despite records showing a lower GPA, and wrote in his decision that her “testimony evinces either a lack of intelligence or credibility, either of which weigh against a finding of maturity pursuant to the statute.” A district court later overruled that decision by a 2-1 margin, noting that Doe’s GPA “demonstrate[d] average intelligence for a high school student”—as if grades, academic achievement, or really any factor, let alone one so arbitrary, should dictate a minor’s human rights.
 
Top Bottom