Roe v Wade is on deck

[Trausti]

 

[TomC]

Dang.
I didn't think anyone on this forum could out raunch me.
I tip my hat Trausti.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

*snip*

I'll need to file that under, 'Y' for "Yes, that's nice".

 

[Toni]

Here’s the part where I mention that, when confronted with a real pregnancy, people sometimes have unexpected reactions and feelings. Sometimes people who never thought they’d consider abortion absolutely want an abortion. Sometimes people faced with an unexpected pregnancy really want to have that baby—forever or to give the baby for adoption. Even if it means big changes in plans.

It’s best if they both agree and then do whatever it takes to make that decision work for all. But because only the woman is pregnant, her choice is the one that wins out. That includes deciding to have an abortion or have a baby without telling him. The second choice: having the baby, really really really should include telling him ( assuming this was a mutually consensual encounter) but she has no obligation to tell him she’s having an abortion unless she wants to or needs his support.

She can change her mind, but I don't see that she gets to obligate him in doing so.

Obligates him to what, exactly? She cannot obligate him to parent. She cannot obligate him to remain (or enter) into any kind of relationship with her, or accompany her to any kind of medical appointment.

If she does have a baby, she can —and the state can—compel him to make child support payments.

He cannot compel her to follow his preferences with regards to continuing the pregnancy. He cannot compel her to remain in or enter into any relationship with him.

Neither can compel the other to sign away parental rights should a baby result.

 

[ZiprHead]

The Oklahoma legislature’s near-total ban on abortion, explained

Republican lawmakers passed a bill subjecting abortion providers to criminal penalties in most cases.

www.vox.com

The Republican-led Oklahoma state House has passed a near-total ban on abortion except in cases where the pregnant person’s life is endangered.

Under the bill, anyone who performs an abortion would face up to 10 years in prison and up to $100,000 in fines. The bill, first passed by the Oklahoma Senate last year, was suddenly revived Tuesday without explanation from Republican lawmakers.

It will now head to Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt, who has committed to signing any anti-abortion legislation that comes across his desk and has previously described himself as America’s “most pro-life governor.”

The ban would go into effect 90 days after the state legislature adjourns at the end of May unless courts intervene. Reproductive rights groups are expected to file legal challenges to the ban, which they believe is unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade recognized a pregnant person’s fundamental right to seek an abortion, but found that states could still impose restrictions on the procedure in the service of protecting the pregnant person’s health and the potential life of a fetus once it can survive outside the womb.

 

[lpetrich]

Oklahoma House passes near-total abortion ban with threat of prison for providers | Reuters

Oklahoma lawmakers on Tuesday passed a bill that would make it illegal to perform an abortion in the state except in medical emergencies, penalizing those who do with up to $100,000 in fines and 10 years in prison.

The Republican-controlled state House of Representatives brought the bill to a vote this week, after it was passed last year by the Midwestern state's Senate. It now heads to the desk of Republican Governor Kevin Stitt for signing.

Stitt has signaled his support for anti-abortion legislation. If he signs the measure, it would take effect this summer unless blocked by courts.

This bill states "a person shall not purposely perform or attempt to perform an abortion except to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency."

The Oklahoma legislature has introduced other anti-abortion bills.

Separate legislation introduced this year proposes banning almost all abortions and relying on private citizens to sue any person who "aids or abets" abortions, similar to Texas' six-week abortion ban. That bill contains an emergency clause, which would allow it to take effect immediately once it is passed and signed by the governor.

The US Supreme Court is due to rule at the end of June on a Mississippi anti-abortion law. Will it weaken Roe vs. Wade? Revoke it?

 

[ZiprHead]

Starr County woman arrested for “self-induced abortion”

STARR COUNTY, Texas (ValleyCentral) — A woman has been charged with murder after authorities say she performed a “self-induced abortion.” Lizelle Herrera, 26, was arrested on Thur…

www.valleycentral.com

STARR COUNTY, Texas (ValleyCentral) — A woman has been charged with murder after authorities say she performed a “self-induced abortion.”

Lizelle Herrera, 26, was arrested on Thursday by the Starr County Sheriff’s Office and charged with murder.

According to a sheriff’s office spokesperson, Herrera was arrested after it was learned she “intentionally and knowingly cause the death of an individual by self-induced abortion.”

 

[TomC]

Starr County woman arrested for “self-induced abortion”

STARR COUNTY, Texas (ValleyCentral) — A woman has been charged with murder after authorities say she performed a “self-induced abortion.” Lizelle Herrera, 26, was arrested on Thur…

www.valleycentral.com

STARR COUNTY, Texas (ValleyCentral) — A woman has been charged with murder after authorities say she performed a “self-induced abortion.”

Lizelle Herrera, 26, was arrested on Thursday by the Starr County Sheriff’s Office and charged with murder.

According to a sheriff’s office spokesperson, Herrera was arrested after it was learned she “intentionally and knowingly cause the death of an individual by self-induced abortion.”

What does "it was learned" mean?

Sounds pretty weasily to me.

Did some self appointed Texan sherrif alert the authorities? Are they planning to cash in by filing a lawsuit?

Is a political cartoon still considered "too much"?
Tom

 

[Toni]

Interesting article containing various political cartoons re: Texas abortion ban: https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/09/10/cartoons-texas-abortion-law/

If you can’t view this article please try pasting the link in an anonymous browser.

 

[Toni]

Starr County woman arrested for “self-induced abortion”

STARR COUNTY, Texas (ValleyCentral) — A woman has been charged with murder after authorities say she performed a “self-induced abortion.” Lizelle Herrera, 26, was arrested on Thur…

www.valleycentral.com

STARR COUNTY, Texas (ValleyCentral) — A woman has been charged with murder after authorities say she performed a “self-induced abortion.”

Lizelle Herrera, 26, was arrested on Thursday by the Starr County Sheriff’s Office and charged with murder.

According to a sheriff’s office spokesperson, Herrera was arrested after it was learned she “intentionally and knowingly cause the death of an individual by self-induced abortion.”

What does "it was learned" mean?

Sounds pretty weasily to me.

Did some self appointed Texan sherrif alert the authorities? Are they planning to cash in by filing a lawsuit?

Is a political cartoon still considered "too much"?
Tom

Woman Arrested for Abortion in Texas, Held on Half-Million-Dollar Bond: 'This Arrest Is Inhumane' - Ms. Magazine

Texas police charged a woman with murder for self-inducing an abortion using pills. Lizelle Herrera, 26, lives near the Texas-Mexico border.

msmagazine.com

 

[ZiprHead]

Interesting article containing various political cartoons re: Texas abortion ban: https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/09/10/cartoons-texas-abortion-law/

If you can’t view this article please try pasting the link in an anonymous browser.

Gifted link
Link

If that one doesn't work, try this one:

https://wapo.st/3LQJmOx

 

[ZiprHead]

Starr County woman arrested for “self-induced abortion”

STARR COUNTY, Texas (ValleyCentral) — A woman has been charged with murder after authorities say she performed a “self-induced abortion.” Lizelle Herrera, 26, was arrested on Thur…

www.valleycentral.com

STARR COUNTY, Texas (ValleyCentral) — A woman has been charged with murder after authorities say she performed a “self-induced abortion.”

Lizelle Herrera, 26, was arrested on Thursday by the Starr County Sheriff’s Office and charged with murder.

According to a sheriff’s office spokesperson, Herrera was arrested after it was learned she “intentionally and knowingly cause the death of an individual by self-induced abortion.”

Here is a little more on this story, but not a lot.

Texas woman, 26, charged with murder over ‘self-induced abortion’

Law enforcement official confirms arrest and charge but police do not say under which law Lizelle Herrera charged

www.theguardian.com

Herrera was arrested on Thursday and remained jailed on Saturday on a $500,000 bond in the Starr county jail in Rio Grande City, on the US-Mexico border, sheriff’s major Carlos Delgado said.

“Herrera was arrested and served with an indictment on the charge of murder after Herrera did then and there intentionally and knowingly cause the death of an individual by self-induced abortion,” Delgado said.

Delgado did not say under which law Herrera had been charged. He said no other information would be released until at least Monday because the case remained under investigation.

Texas law exempts Herrera from a criminal homicide charge for aborting her own pregnancy, University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck said.

Homicide “doesn’t apply to the murder of an unborn child if the conduct charged is ‘conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child’,” Vladeck said.

Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women also noted the state law exemption.

“What’s a little mysterious in this case is, what crime has this woman been charged with?” Paltrow said. “There is no statute in Texas that, even on its face, authorizes the arrest of a woman for a self-managed abortion.”

In Rio Grande City on Saturday, the abortion rights group Frontera Fund called for Herrera’s release.

“We don’t yet know all the details surrounding this tragic event,” said Rockie Gonzales, founder and board chair of the organization.

“What we do know is that criminalizing pregnant people’s choices or pregnancy outcomes, which the state of Texas has done, takes away people’s autonomy over their own bodies, and leaves them with no safe options when they choose not to become a parent,” Gonzalez said.

And a little more here:

“What we know is that…she was in the hospital and had a miscarriage and divulged some information to hospital staff, who then reported her to the police,” Rockie Gonzalez, the founder and director of the Frontera Fund told Medium.

Frontera Fund posted the phone number of the Starr County jail in Rio Grande City, where Herrera is being held, and urged Twitter followers to call to demand her release.

“It’s wrong and unconstitutional for Lizelle to be arrested on alleged murder charges,” the group said.” “Pregnant people should not be criminalized regardless of pregnancy outcomes.”

Texas woman arrested after performing ‘illegal’ abortion on herself: authorities

A Texas woman was arrested Thursday for allegedly performing an “illegal” abortion on herself, authorities said.

nypost.com

 

[marc]

The Texas DA has dropped the charge. Still no details as to exactly what it was she was supposed to have done.

Texas DA To Dismiss Murder Charge Against Woman Accused Of 'Self-Induced Abortion'

Starr County District Attorney Gocha Allen Ramirez said that 26-year-old Lizelle Herrera "cannot and should not be prosecuted for the allegation against her."

www.huffpost.com

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Whoever thought condoms are 100% effective? Never have I posted such a thing.

My position is that if a man is unwilling to support whatever choice his sex partner(s) make as a result of his orgasm, then he should be upfront about that, in writing, before engaging in any activity that might lead to his orgasm.

Why? Don't try and tell me you would honour any such agreement. That you would not demand the State extract money from the father no matter what he said up front?

Why on earth would I care to have sex with such a selfish, shortsighted person who is unwilling to take responsibility for birth control or any progeny that might result from such failure? Why would i care to engage in intimate contact with someone who is unwilling to assume their fair share of responsibility?

Fundamentally, you want the right to make an agreement and then go back on it if you change your mind.

I'm sorry, but the right to free speech has been cancelled because someone could lie.

The Texas DA has dropped the charge. Still no details as to exactly what it was she was supposed to have done.

Texas DA To Dismiss Murder Charge Against Woman Accused Of 'Self-Induced Abortion'

Starr County District Attorney Gocha Allen Ramirez said that 26-year-old Lizelle Herrera "cannot and should not be prosecuted for the allegation against her."

www.huffpost.com

Fuck Texas and its government.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Whoever thought condoms are 100% effective? Never have I posted such a thing.

My position is that if a man is unwilling to support whatever choice his sex partner(s) make as a result of his orgasm, then he should be upfront about that, in writing, before engaging in any activity that might lead to his orgasm.

Why? Don't try and tell me you would honour any such agreement. That you would not demand the State extract money from the father no matter what he said up front?

Why on earth would I care to have sex with such a selfish, shortsighted person who is unwilling to take responsibility for birth control or any progeny that might result from such failure? Why would i care to engage in intimate contact with someone who is unwilling to assume their fair share of responsibility?

Fundamentally, you want the right to make an agreement and then go back on it if you change your mind.

You want the right to make an agreement and then go back on it if you change your mind.

Oh, wait: you think all the choices should belong to men. And they can be. Happiness lies in their hands.

I'm tired of this red herring. It keeps coming around and around. A woman's right is not contingent on anything.

A woman should be upfront and honest, a man should be upfront and honest. But none of that is mildly relevant as this is about a woman's right to her body. Care of a child is another issue, which should be another thread called "Protecting men from evil lying women... until Roe v Wade is overturned and then they are on the hook anyway". A woman should not be coerced into having a child or an abortion. Forcing of either one of these options is abominable. Also...

A: A woman has the right to her body.
B: But what about the guy?
A: What about the guy?
B: He could be on the hook for child care.
A: He is on the hook for child care if there is NO LEGAL ABORTION!!!!
B: Oh shit! Forgot that. Yeah... a woman has the right to her body!

 

[prideandfall]

No. I expect women to receive equal treatment, I object to systems that are unfair in either direction. You always take the path that benefits the woman, right or wrong. That's opposite to but no better than the old approach of always favoring the man.

women *are* getting equal treatment.

they get 100% of the choice because they get 100% of the pregnant.
men get 0% of the choice because men get 0% of the pregnant.

this is absolute fairness to its core.

 

[Toni]

Fundamentally, you want the right to make an agreement and then go back on it if you change your mind.

What the actual fuck, Loren?

I’m not capable of becoming pregnant! I’m not sleeping with someone in hopes of trapping him into making me pregnant at my age or at any age.

You fail to understand.

A couple agrees that if they have an oops that they will abort. You want that agreement to mean nothing, she gets to decide anew when it actually happens.

I really thought much better than of you than your contributions in this thread. You’re intelligent and educated. You’re married to a woman you seem to love. Yet you seem to hold women in general in such contempt that is rarely seen in the US outside of the GOP.

No. I expect women to receive equal treatment, I object to systems that are unfair in either direction. You always take the path that benefits the woman, right or wrong. That's opposite to but no better than the old approach of always favoring the man.

No--you mentioned only what the WOMAN had to do. You assume that the man doesn't want her to continue the pregnancy. Actually, a lot of men DO want her to continue the pregnancy, whether she wants to or not.

I DO take all positions that give a woman autonomy over her body. Men who do not want to become responsible for a pregnancy have plenty of choices to make: vasectomy, condoms, or abstinence. Or only having sex with someone who cannot get pregnant.

A lot of people feel differently about whether they welcome a pregnancy AFTER they become pregnant. Once something abstract like a potential pregnancy becomes concrete like a real pregnancy, the calculus changes for a lot of people. Male and female. The risks a woman takes by becoming pregnant, even if she has an abortion or a miscarriage, are substantially and materially much greater than those risks a man takes. Even if they were equal: it is still her body. She gets to choose.

 

[ZiprHead]

Oklahoma has pulled the trigger, banning all abortions. No details yet on exceptions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oklahoma has pulled the trigger, banning all abortions. No details yet on exceptions.

https://wapo.st/366pGHh

Mother's life in danger only. No exception for rape or incest.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I wrote what I did: that the man should sign a document accepting or refusing to accept responsibilities for any unplanned conception prior to sex so that the woman would be able to make an informed decision.

And if a man has signed such a document, you agree that he should be absolved from any legal responsibility if the women becomes pregnant?

I'm still interested in your answer to this, Toni.

I'm still waiting.

This is off topic. How many times does that need to be stated?

No it isn't.

Either parents who made a baby have a responsibility that results from the choice they made or they don't.

It's the blatant sexism of feminism.
"Women get to choose parenthood, after the fact, but men do not." that's so blatantly gender bigotry.

Not in Oklahoma. If there is no legal abortion, this issue isn't addressable. Guy is on the hook.