Roe v Wade is on deck

[TomC]

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.

Really?
Oklahoma lets male parents decide against parenthood, and the various burdens and responsibilities?

I find that hard to believe.

But I don't live there. Maybe the male parent can decide against parenthood, without regard for the female parent's preferences.

I doubt it. Feel free to convince me.
Tom

 

[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.

Really?
Oklahoma lets male parents decide against parenthood, and the various burdens and responsibilities?

I find that hard to believe.

But I don't live there. Maybe the male parent can decide against parenthood, without regard for the female parent's preferences.

I doubt it. Feel free to convince me.
Tom

OK passed legislation to criminalize performing an abortion.No abortion, man is a daddy now. So yes, if you were paying attention to the subject of the thread and not derailing over whether a woman controls her own body.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You haven't been paying attention--I'm fine with an agreement that they will not abort.

 

[Toni]

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.

Really?
Oklahoma lets male parents decide against parenthood, and the various burdens and responsibilities?

I find that hard to believe.

But I don't live there. Maybe the male parent can decide against parenthood, without regard for the female parent's preferences.

I doubt it. Feel free to convince me.
Tom

Male parent? You mean male progenitor.

No one can be forced to parent a child. Women and unfortunately girls can be forced to give birth, no matter the consequences to their short term or long term physical or mental health, no matter whether or not the sex was consensual or rape. No matter whether they will be forced to curtail their career or educational goals. But no one can force them or the male progenitor to parent a child. At least in Oklahoma and soon other states, women can be forced to carry a pregnancy, no matter how dangerous it is to their health. No matter how likely or unlikely it is that the baby survives or lives in a meaningful way. Until and unless the Suprene Court or the national legislature decides differently.

Raising a child is an entirely different matter. Most often in the case of unmarried parents, the mother retains custody. There is no reason that the father cannot try to gain custody. The non-custodial parent pays towards the support of the child, either an amount that is mutually agreed upon or, if such agreement cannot be otherwise reached, then the courts step in and determine that amount as well as establish visitation schedules, etc. But unfortunately, parents do not always meet their agreed upon obligations for visitation or monetary support. No one can be forced to behave like a parent. Because the state has an interest in the adequate maintenance of the child, the state can mandate financial support and attempt to enforce such mandate.

Some states do a better job with this than others. I agree that enforcement can be draconian and unfair. That is fixable.

Sometimes it is agreed that the best interests of the child that the child is placed for adoption. Both parents must agree in nearly all cases but in some cases parental rights can be stripped.

I realize that some men find it grossly unfair that they cannot control what a woman does or does not do with regards to any pregnancy. They also will not be the ones who face a single physical risk as a result of a pregnancy, a miscarriage, an abortion, childbirth. Zero men die during childbirth. Zero men have their future fertility risked because of a difficult pregnancy or childbirth. Men do not risk gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, eclampsia, or high blood pressure or stroke or heart attack or kidney failure. Or a host of other pregnancy related complications. Men never develop mastitis or have cracked nipples from breast feeding. They do not develop bladder control problems. They don’t have episiotomies or cesarean sections. Hell, they want a medal for even thinking about a vasectomy. Condoms interfere with his sexual pleasure so can’t have that! He doesn’t have to go back to work before his body has recovered. He does get to complain about having to wait to have sex until his wife has been cleared.

But it’s soooooooo unfair that men can’t decide whether or not a woman has the baby that he impregnated her with.

 

[IIDB Staff]

Discussion on who should pay child support has been split to here

Who Should Pay Child Support? (Split from Roe v Wade is on deck)

Very much so. The response to whether a woman has the right to her body is "but what about the guys rights?" If a woman wants to have a right to an abortion, men shouldn't have to pay for their babies. In other words, the Toms out there want to be able to financially blackmail a woman into...

iidb.org

This thread is about abortion and a pregnant person’s right, or lack of right, to choose to have one on their own body.

 

[lpetrich]

4 states moved to restrict abortion access this week - CNNPolitics

Kentucky abortion providers suing to block restrictive new law

... The law bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, restricts access to medication abortion and enforces more requirements for minors to obtain abortions in the state.

The plaintiffs argue they can't comply with the new law, claiming Kentucky hasn't yet set up a system to meet its reporting requirements.

...
he measure went into effect this week after Kentucky's Republican-controlled legislature on Wednesday overrode Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear's veto of the bill.

The governor had said the bill was "likely unconstitutional," noting its lack of exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape and incest and arguing it would cost the state an estimated near $1 million to enforce.

Only two clinics remaining in that state.

Florida governor signs 15-week abortion ban into law

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a measure into law on Thursday that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy without exemptions for rape, incest or human trafficking.

The bill allows exemptions in cases where pregnancy poses "serious" health risks or fatal fetal abnormalities are detected if two physicians confirm the diagnoses in writing.

It goes into effect on July 1.

Oklahoma governor signs near-total ban

Oklahoma GOP Gov. Kevin Stitt on Tuesday signed a bill into law that makes performing an abortion illegal in the state, with an exception only in the case of a medical emergency.

The law will take effect this summer, barring any legal challenge.

Senate Bill 612, which cleared the state Senate last year and the House earlier this month, makes performing an abortion or attempting to perform one a felony punishable by a maximum fine of $100,000 or a maximum of 10 years in state prison, or both.

That means that Texans will have to go even further for abortions.

Tennessee House passes bill that would restrict medication abortion

The Tennessee Republican-led House passed a bill on Thursday that would allow only physicians to provide drugs used in medication abortions and bar the drugs from being sent via mail.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to rule on a case involving a Mississippi law in June. What other states have very restrictive laws in the works?

 

[lpetrich]

Kentucky is the first state to effectively end abortions - Vox

Florida's 15-week abortion ban is signed into law : NPR

What’s Happening to Abortion Legislation in States Across the U.S. - The New York Times - "Florida’s governor signed a law banning most abortions after 15 weeks. It is part of a cascade of restrictive abortion legislation in Republican-led states."

Abortion bans have been introduced in 30 states this year, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. Bans have passed at least one legislative chamber in seven states: Arizona, Idaho, Wyoming, Florida, Kentucky, Oklahoma and West Virginia. They have been enacted in six of those states: Florida, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Arizona, Idaho and Wyoming.

On the other side,

With Roe v. Wade’s future unclear, many states are pushing legislation that protects the right to an abortion. Some 30 states and the District of Columbia are considering measures that protect and expand access to abortion, according to Ms. Nash. Laws that protect the right to an abortion already exist in at least 16 states and the District of Columbia.

This seems like a rerun of the years before the Civil War, when supporters and opponents of slavery were increasingly at loggerheads, and were willing to physically fight each other, like in Kansas.

Vermont politicians are considering adding abortion protection to their state's constitution, though I must note that state constitutions are usually much easier to amend than the national one, and they have often accumulated a *lot* of stuff in them.

California Positions Itself as a ‘Refuge’ of Abortion Rights - The New York Times - "A new legislative proposal includes the recommendation to fund the procedure for low-income women who come to California for abortion services."

The proposal, which was released with the backing of Gov. Gavin Newsom and the leaders of California’s two legislative chambers, calls for increasing funding for abortion providers and dozens of other measures to make it easier for clients to access abortion services and providers to get paid. It also includes a recommendation to fund the procedure for low-income women who come to California for abortion services.

That proposal: ca_fab_council_report_.pdf

 

[lpetrich]

What Americans Can Expect If Abortion Pills Become Their Only Safe Option | FiveThirtyEight

Medication can be an effective tool for people trying to evade abortion restrictions, and it’s much safer than other illegal abortion methods. But as abortion access is further restricted, increased reliance on pills could also make more people struggle through an intensely painful — even traumatic — experience, with little access to medical support, lots of stigma and more legal risk than ever before.

Then how the abortion pills work.

To end a pregnancy, people first take mifepristone, which stops the pregnancy from growing. Then the second drug, misoprostol, which is usually taken 24 to 48 hours later, tells the uterus to expel the pregnancy. According to current FDA regulations, the combination can be used until the 10th week of pregnancy.

Then the steady rise of pill abortions from the introduction of the abortion pill in 2000 to over 50% of abortions today.

As access to in-person abortion dwindles, medication abortion is more available than it’s ever been. For a long time, the FDA’s regulations said that medication abortion needed to be provided in-person, in a medical setting, but after the rules changed — temporarily at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and then permanently a few months ago — a crop of abortion-focused telehealth companies sprang up with the goal of making the process as seamless as possible. As a result, it’s now possible to get an abortion in more than 20 states without ever setting foot in a clinic. That also means it’s cheaper.

Anti-abortion lawmakers have realized this and are trying to crack down on the mail distribution of abortion pills in several states. ... Access to abortion pills could undermine the coming wave of abortion bans, and everyone knows it.

It looks like abortion opponents are running scared. Nice to see them getting a setback.

Mifepristone was earlier known as RU-486.

 

[lpetrich]

What a tidal wave of anti-abortion legislation tells us about a post-Roe world. - "Republican-led legislatures are already developing schemes to punish patients and providers around the country."

Texas’ short-lived prosecution of Lizelle Herrera, who was charged with murder for a self-induced abortion, is a preview of what’s to come if Roe v. Wade is overturned. The far-right bloc of justices has signaled their interest in overturning the precedent, and a decision is expected in June. When Roe is gone, 26 states will ban abortion. Across the country, red states are already building a new regime to mete out punishments for abortion providers, patients, and their families.

...
Conservative lawmakers who view abortion as homicide do not want it to be legal anywhere in America, and they are already trying to stop blue states, as well as the federal government, from facilitating it. Although the FDA has approved medication abortion, some states are seeking to outlaw abortion pills—deeming them a dangerous substance akin to narcotics and imposing yearslong prison sentences on anyone who distributes or possesses them. These drug-trafficking laws are bound to ensnare people who order the pills online, or transport them home from nearby blue states. The growing number of criminal charges against women who obtained an illegal medication abortion demonstrates that it is impossible to criminalize abortion pills without also criminalizing patients themselves. (There were nearly 1,300 criminal investigations of pregnancy outcomes between 2006 and 2020, when Roe was still on the books; that number will spike after it falls.)

Today’s anti-abortion movement has even proposed new laws that prevent people from crossing state lines to terminate a pregnancy.

Like in Missouri and Georgia.

Then asking about whether a state's laws would apply to another state.

Here’s where the new goals of the anti-abortion movement matter most. If fetuses are legal “citizens,” then states could argue that they must be protected from out-of-state abortion providers. A red state might order a blue state to extradite an abortion provider (or patient) within its borders, dragging the judiciary into “complex, uncharted territory.” Or a red state could threaten to prosecute any provider who stepped inside its borders. Hill also pointed out that the Constitution also requires states to give “full faith and credit” to the judgments of other states’ courts. So if a Missouri court orders an Illinois doctor to pay damages for terminating a fetus from Missouri, the Illinois courts are, in theory, obligated to make him pay up.

California has taken these threats seriously. Its Legislature is likely to pass a bill prohibiting California courts from hearing or enforcing civil judgments issued in other states against people who perform or “abet” abortions. The measure would shield doctors from vigilante laws like Texas’ S.B. 8. It’s part of a package of legislation that seeks to shield California doctors and patients from anti-abortion crackdowns in other states.

These interstate clashes will inevitably trigger congressional action. ...

With Republicans expected to seize Congress in the midterms, the stage would be set for legislation ordering blue states to submit to red states’ extraterritorial abortion laws. ...

Such possible legislation seems like a latter-day version of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, something that mandated that northerners were to assist southerners in returning escaped slaves.

Seems like a recipe for Civil War II.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What a tidal wave of anti-abortion legislation tells us about a post-Roe world. - "Republican-led legislatures are already developing schemes to punish patients and providers around the country."

Texas’ short-lived prosecution of Lizelle Herrera, who was charged with murder for a self-induced abortion, is a preview of what’s to come if Roe v. Wade is overturned. The far-right bloc of justices has signaled their interest in overturning the precedent, and a decision is expected in June. When Roe is gone, 26 states will ban abortion. Across the country, red states are already building a new regime to mete out punishments for abortion providers, patients, and their families.

...
Conservative lawmakers who view abortion as homicide do not want it to be legal anywhere in America, and they are already trying to stop blue states, as well as the federal government, from facilitating it. Although the FDA has approved medication abortion, some states are seeking to outlaw abortion pills—deeming them a dangerous substance akin to narcotics and imposing yearslong prison sentences on anyone who distributes or possesses them. These drug-trafficking laws are bound to ensnare people who order the pills online, or transport them home from nearby blue states. The growing number of criminal charges against women who obtained an illegal medication abortion demonstrates that it is impossible to criminalize abortion pills without also criminalizing patients themselves. (There were nearly 1,300 criminal investigations of pregnancy outcomes between 2006 and 2020, when Roe was still on the books; that number will spike after it falls.)

Today’s anti-abortion movement has even proposed new laws that prevent people from crossing state lines to terminate a pregnancy.

Like in Missouri and Georgia.

Then asking about whether a state's laws would apply to another state.

Here’s where the new goals of the anti-abortion movement matter most. If fetuses are legal “citizens,” then states could argue that they must be protected from out-of-state abortion providers. A red state might order a blue state to extradite an abortion provider (or patient) within its borders, dragging the judiciary into “complex, uncharted territory.” Or a red state could threaten to prosecute any provider who stepped inside its borders. Hill also pointed out that the Constitution also requires states to give “full faith and credit” to the judgments of other states’ courts. So if a Missouri court orders an Illinois doctor to pay damages for terminating a fetus from Missouri, the Illinois courts are, in theory, obligated to make him pay up.

California has taken these threats seriously. Its Legislature is likely to pass a bill prohibiting California courts from hearing or enforcing civil judgments issued in other states against people who perform or “abet” abortions. The measure would shield doctors from vigilante laws like Texas’ S.B. 8. It’s part of a package of legislation that seeks to shield California doctors and patients from anti-abortion crackdowns in other states.

These interstate clashes will inevitably trigger congressional action. ...

With Republicans expected to seize Congress in the midterms, the stage would be set for legislation ordering blue states to submit to red states’ extraterritorial abortion laws. ...

Such possible legislation seems like a latter-day version of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, something that mandated that northerners were to assist southerners in returning escaped slaves.

Seems like a recipe for Civil War II.

That'll be the formal banning of birth control. The pro-birth party is steamrolling these legislative bills in red and purple states that they have gerrymandered into red states. I think what might happen is the urban areas could revolt with the State Legislatures. The oddity is that SCOTUS might rule State Law trumps Federal law in overturning local City Ordinances.

 

[blastula]

Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.

www.politico.com

Time to pack the court.

 

[lpetrich]

In that draft decision, Justice Samuel Alito wrote

Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.

From the article,

A person familiar with the court’s deliberations said that four of the other Republican-appointed justices – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – had voted with Alito in the conference held among the justices after hearing oral arguments in December, and that line-up remains unchanged as of this week.

The three Democratic-appointed justices – Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – are working on one or more dissents, according to the person. How Chief Justice John Roberts will ultimately vote, and whether he will join an already written opinion or draft his own, is unclear.

The leaking of this document is very unusual for the Supreme Court. Could this leak be a deliberate one by one of the Justices?

Issuing trial balloons as leaks was something that Secretary of State Henry Kissinger often did, describing himself as a "senior official" in those leaks.

 

[lpetrich]

The draft contains the type of caustic rhetorical flourishes Alito is known for and that has caused Roberts, his fellow Bush appointee, some discomfort in the past.

At times, Alito’s draft opinion takes an almost mocking tone as it skewers the majority opinion in Roe, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, a Richard Nixon appointee who died in 1999.

“Roe expressed the ‘feel[ing]’ that the Fourteenth Amendment was the provision that did the work, but its message seemed to be that the abortion right could be found somewhere in the Constitution and that specifying its exact location was not of paramount importance,” Alito writes.

Alito declares that one of the central tenets of Roe, the “viability” distinction between fetuses not capable of living outside the womb and those which can, “makes no sense.”

Samuel Alito, like Clarence Thomas, uses "abortionists" a lot, while in a rejection of an anti-abortion argument, John Roberts used "abortion providers" instead.

 

[Derec]

“Roe expressed the ‘feel[ing]’ that the Fourteenth Amendment was the provision that did the work, but its message seemed to be that the abortion right could be found somewhere in the Constitution and that specifying its exact location was not of paramount importance,” Alito writes.

The "emanations from the penumbrae" has always been a weird and weak legal argument.
And I agree with Roe in principle, as I do with Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell.

However (and with the danger of being accused of hobby horsing) I do not think the Left cares too much about the principle. They like the outcome when it comes to abortion or gay sex/marriage, but if they do not agree with the choice, they do not much care for the right of consenting adults to make it.

I have yet to see a coherent argument why the reasoning behind Roe and Lawrence should not mean that laws against consensual adult work are just as unconstitutional as those against abortion or sodomy.

 

[Derec]

Time to pack the court.

Packing the court because you do not agree with a specific ruling (and a speculated ruling at this point at that) would set a horrible precedent.

Had Trump done that the tenor around here would be "fascism", "dictator" etc.

 

[SLD]

In that draft decision, Justice Samuel Alito wrote

Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.

From the article,

A person familiar with the court’s deliberations said that four of the other Republican-appointed justices – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – had voted with Alito in the conference held among the justices after hearing oral arguments in December, and that line-up remains unchanged as of this week.

The three Democratic-appointed justices – Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – are working on one or more dissents, according to the person. How Chief Justice John Roberts will ultimately vote, and whether he will join an already written opinion or draft his own, is unclear.

The leaking of this document is very unusual for the Supreme Court. Could this leak be a deliberate one by one of the Justices?

Issuing trial balloons as leaks was something that Secretary of State Henry Kissinger often did, describing himself as a "senior official" in those leaks.

Probably a clerk is the source. The clerks don’t necessarily share the judge’s view. They could be liberals working for Alito.

 

[Trausti]

Probably a clerk is the source. The clerks don’t necessarily share the judge’s view. They could be liberals working for Alito.

??? Justices pick their own clerks. But the draft opinion is circulated to all justices - has to be, so the dissenters can prepare theirs.

 

[Toni]

Time to pack the court.

Packing the court because you do not agree with a specific ruling (and a speculated ruling at this point at that) would set a horrible precedent.

Had Trump done that the tenor around here would be "fascism", "dictator" etc.

What the fuck do you think Trump did but pack the court with those who would overturn Roe V Wade??????

 

[Trausti]

Time to pack the court.

Packing the court because you do not agree with a specific ruling (and a speculated ruling at this point at that) would set a horrible precedent.

Had Trump done that the tenor around here would be "fascism", "dictator" etc.

What the fuck do you think Trump did but pack the court with those who would overturn Roe V Wade??????

He didn't add any seats. That's what court packing means. It had that meaning when FDR tried it. Ginsberg said that's what it means.

 

[Derec]

What the fuck do you think Trump did but pack the court with those who would overturn Roe V Wade??????

"Packing the court" refers to increasing the size of the court and filling the new vacancies to change or solidify the balance of the court.
It has been threatened by FDR and some Dems (including blastula) want to do it now.