Roe v Wade is on deck

[Jimmy Higgins]

because in Texas, most of them already don't. And that is going to spread.

I'd like to see RvW revisited and tweaked.

That is a wonderfully vague and useless statement.

Roe v Wade says abortion is a right to privacy a woman has. This right is contracted a tad with a Casey (early 90s) and then reaffirms rights from restrictions of abortion via Whole Women's Health ('16). Not certain what else can be tweaked.

 

[TomC]

because in Texas, most of them already don't. And that is going to spread.

I'd like to see RvW revisited and tweaked.

But returning to the old patchwork of state laws is a huge disaster.
Tom

Why? And how? Please state your credentials as a medical professional and/or holder of a Ph.D. in human embryology or adjacent field.

Why would I need such credentials to remember how things were prior to RvW?
Tom

 

[Toni]

because in Texas, most of them already don't. And that is going to spread.

I'd like to see RvW revisited and tweaked.

But returning to the old patchwork of state laws is a huge disaster.
Tom

Why? And how? Please state your credentials as a medical professional and/or holder of a Ph.D. in human embryology or adjacent field.

Why would I need such credentials to remember how things were prior to RvW?
Tom

First of all, I know your approximate age. It's doubtful you remember in any meaningful way how things were before Roe V Wade. I was under the age of consent in 1973 and you're younger than I am.

Secondly, why would you have anything meaningful to add to 'tweak' Roe v Wade unless you had an advanced understanding of the biology of pregnancy and human embryology? I'm not being snarky. I'm genuinely asking.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

First of all, I know your approximate age. It's doubtful you remember in any meaningful way how things were before Roe V Wade. I was under the age of consent in 1973 and you're younger than I am.

Secondly, why would you have anything meaningful to add to 'tweak' Roe v Wade unless you had an advanced understanding of the biology of pregnancy and human embryology? I'm not being snarky. I'm genuinely asking.

The only opinion your insults and ignorance are likely to change is my opinion about you and people like you.
Tom

So Toni has asked twice what your opinion specifically is... and your two responses have been evading answering the question. Why even bother to reply if all you are going to do is complain that people don't understand you.

 

[Keith&Co.]

because in Texas, most of them already don't. And that is going to spread.

I'd like to see RvW revisited and tweaked.

But returning to the old patchwork of state laws is a huge disaster.
Tom

Why? And how? Please state your credentials as a medical professional and/or holder of a Ph.D. in human embryology or adjacent field.

Why would I need such credentials to remember how things were prior to RvW?
Tom

So, it seems to me that 'before RvW' as a reference point wouldn't be a 'tweak.,' that'd be overturning it. Unless you have some legal or medical details to spell out in amplifying the decision?

Some details would be helpful here. What would you change, what would you change it to, and why, as in 'based on what?' So we can evaluate what it might add or subtract from the status quo..

 

[TomC]

So, it seems to me that 'before RvW' as a reference point wouldn't be a 'tweak.,' that'd be overturning it. Unless you have some legal or medical details to spell out in amplifying the decision?

I thought my post was clear. I was supporting RvW, in a limited way. By "the old patchwork of state laws" I meant the pre-RvW laws, state laws, which made abortion a matter of where you live and how able to travel to another state.

I consider that much worse than what we have. But I think we're headed back to that ugly state of affairs.
Tom

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, it seems to me that 'before RvW' as a reference point wouldn't be a 'tweak.,' that'd be overturning it. Unless you have some legal or medical details to spell out in amplifying the decision?

I thought my post was clear. I was supporting RvW, in a limited way.

Yes, that was clear. Pretty meaningless, though. What part of RvW would you support, what are the limits? What would you keep, what would you discard?
When you say 'limited way' what do you mean?

Such as, you would allow abortions:
Based on the patient's age? An upper or lower limit?
Based on their marital status? Number of kids? Married can abort after 4th kid, or only before 1 kid?
Based on the fetus development? 6 weeks, 24 weeks?

By "the old patchwork of state laws" I meant the pre-RvW laws, state laws, which made abortion a matter of where you live and how able to travel to another state.

Which we are returning to by Republican action. This is why they want it returned to the states, so they can concentrate resources state-by-state to make things the way they want.

 

[TomC]

Which we are returning to by Republican action.

I don't think the partisan politics are that simple.
It doesn't hurt the DNC to have a hot button issue when it comes to fund raising and turning out the base. By that I mean acquiring wealth and power.
Tom

 

[Keith&Co.]

Which we are returning to by Republican action.

I don't think the partisan politics are that simple.
It doesn't hurt the DNC to have a hot button issue when it comes to fund raising and turning out the base. By that I mean acquiring wealth and power.
Tom

But the Republican effort, overturn RvW, return it to the states, then concentrate money and voter engagement, that's pretty simple. And directly visible. And another duck.

 

[Jarhyn]

But that isn't funny.

No, it isn't. It's an unfunny bureaucratic machine that removes from any person the ability to shirk the responsibilities they have for being participants in certain kinds of games, especially when those games have REAL stakes.

It does not force anyone to reveal their gender positively. Those who wish to not deal with it can exit. Those who wish for whatever reason to blend I with PTM may.

And anyone who wishes to be identified as otherwise may also.

And when someone is not a pregnancy risk they can bust out the NPTM card and have actual pregnancy-free sex.

It eliminates trust-based risk from the equation.

It also creates an obviously desirous situation on behalf of those like Emily: NPTM spaces. And even NPTF spaces. The principle that does not name specific sex or gender or genital, the non-sexist universal "I have a right to live and freely associate within a space with no risk of anyone there becoming pregnant, to include myself; I have a right to know positively that my sex in this place and of it will not, cannot lead to procreation".

Nobody has any right to certainty that any activity shall lead to procreation.

Neither space really gets to justify publicly excluding those who are just NPT, though. It's kind of a "get out of all kinds of social-sexual exclusionary bullshit free" card.

If pregnancy and having kids is what it's about, filtering out NPTs on the basis of "I want to have biological kids only with the person I will raise them with", can be accomplished on a question on the first date. Also, some mechanisms are reversible.

Personally, I think that the answer to such questions would best be "I'd like to adopt if possible, some day, with the right person, even if it proves I can't directly have kids with them, or shouldn't; I don't think I really need to be passing on my genetics, if it turns out there's some problem with them. Not that I think there's any problem with them! I'm not going to let that stop me from loving someone or parenting a kid who needs a parent."

 

[Toni]

Which we are returning to by Republican action.

I don't think the partisan politics are that simple.
It doesn't hurt the DNC to have a hot button issue when it comes to fund raising and turning out the base. By that I mean acquiring wealth and power.
Tom

That’s the hot button issue that the QOP fundraisers on.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Which we are returning to by Republican action.

I don't think the partisan politics are that simple.
It doesn't hurt the DNC to have a hot button issue when it comes to fund raising and turning out the base. By that I mean acquiring wealth and power.
Tom

That’s the hot button issue that the QOP fundraisers on.

Not to mention, campaigns on. Bush promised to fill SCOTUS with judges that would overturn RvW. ....Then Thomas swore he'd never, ever discussed the issue. Uh huh. Sure-sure.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Which we are returning to by Republican action.

I don't think the partisan politics are that simple.
It doesn't hurt the DNC to have a hot button issue when it comes to fund raising and turning out the base. By that I mean acquiring wealth and power.
Tom

It is a hot button issue because the right-wing has been trying to kill Roe v Wade for decades.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, it seems to me that 'before RvW' as a reference point wouldn't be a 'tweak.,' that'd be overturning it. Unless you have some legal or medical details to spell out in amplifying the decision?

I thought my post was clear. I was supporting RvW, in a limited way.

It is either a right or it isn't a right. Supporting it "in a limited way" pretty much implies you support some level of gutting the right.

 

[Rhea]

I'd like to see RvW revisited and tweaked.

Tweaked in what way?
You’ve been asked four times now.

 

[laughing dog]

Which we are returning to by Republican action.

I don't think the partisan politics are that simple.
It doesn't hurt the DNC to have a hot button issue when it comes to fund raising and turning out the base. By that I mean acquiring wealth and power.
Tom

Sigh. There are plenty of hot-button issues for the DNC besides defending abortion rights. Having to deal with abortion rights simply defuses effort and funding from other issues. I am pretty sure the DNC would be ecstatic to not have to deal with defending abortion rights.

 

[laughing dog]

because in Texas, most of them already don't. And that is going to spread.

I'd like to see RvW revisited and tweaked.

But returning to the old patchwork of state laws is a huge disaster.
Tom

Why? And how? Please state your credentials as a medical professional and/or holder of a Ph.D. in human embryology or adjacent field.

Why would I need such credentials to remember how things were prior to RvW?
Tom

It would help provide some credibility for your seemingly ill-informed pronouncements.

 

[prideandfall]

It is a hot button issue because the right-wing has been trying to kill Roe v Wade for decades.

have they?
i don't think they have... i think they've been trying to *look* like they're killing RvW for decades, but they've had ample chances to pass federal level laws when they were in complete control of all 3 branches of government, and they never did so.

i'm definitely of the mind that for both democrats and republicans, abortion is far too useful of a political football for either side to ever want to definitively settle the matter one way or the other, the "struggle" they engage in over the issue is of vastly more value.

"republicans pass state laws which will inevitably be overturned in the supreme court" and "democrats rail against republicans passed laws which will inevitably be overturned in the supreme court" is a dance the two parties have been doing for 4 decades and it's fantastic for voter engagement and general political shit-stirring.
now, the republicans *might* have fucked up somewhat, i bet that they did not anticipate getting 3 justice appointments in a span of a couple years, and that may have tipped the SC dangerously into ideological zealotry... how hilarious (cynically) would it be if RvW hit the SC and the GOP accidentally altered abortion at a federal level?
on the other hand, that would possibly cause the GOP to go passive for a while, so the democrats could gain enough ground to be a credible fund-raising threat again.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is a hot button issue because the right-wing has been trying to kill Roe v Wade for decades.

have they?
i don't think they have... i think they've been trying to *look* like they're killing RvW for decades, but they've had ample chances to pass federal level laws when they were in complete control of all 3 branches of government, and they never did so.

i'm definitely of the mind that for both democrats and republicans, abortion is far too useful of a political football for either side to ever want to definitively settle the matter one way or the other, the "struggle" they engage in over the issue is of vastly more value.

"republicans pass state laws which will inevitably be overturned in the supreme court" and "democrats rail against republicans passed laws which will inevitably be overturned in the supreme court" is a dance the two parties have been doing for 4 decades and it's fantastic for voter engagement and general political shit-stirring.
now, the republicans *might* have fucked up somewhat, i bet that they did not anticipate getting 3 justice appointments in a span of a couple years, and that may have tipped the SC dangerously into ideological zealotry... how hilarious (cynically) would it be if RvW hit the SC and the GOP accidentally altered abortion at a federal level?
on the other hand, that would possibly cause the GOP to go passive for a while, so the democrats could gain enough ground to be a credible fund-raising threat again.

The GOP wouldn't go passive. They would immediately turn on their back-burner issues they have simmering, and see how many side dishes they could cook up before passivity.

There are whole churches that are nothing more than a political platform these days. They can pivot on some "new perversion". It's pretty apparent who their next Big Bad is going to be.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is a hot button issue because the right-wing has been trying to kill Roe v Wade for decades.

have they?

Yes, a lot! How many laws have been found unconstitutional that were passed by state legislatures. And with Barret getting on the bench, they've gone straight out for repeal.

i don't think they have... i think they've been trying to *look* like they're killing RvW for decades, but they've had ample chances to pass federal level laws when they were in complete control of all 3 branches of government, and they never did so.

You can't pass a federal law and keep it when it is unconstitutional. They finally have a SCOTUS that will find that Abortion isn't a Federal thing... and time is relative anyway.

i'm definitely of the mind that for both democrats and republicans, abortion is far too useful of a political football for either side to ever want to definitively settle the matter one way or the other, the "struggle" they engage in over the issue is of vastly more value.

It was settled, with three significant SCOTUS findings! But the GOP keeps passing laws at the state level. Besides, Roe v Wade isn't the goal, Griswold is.