Roe v Wade is on deck

[Emily Lake]

Few doctors would allow a woman to continue in labor if her life or the child’s was in imminent danger.

Some might allow it continue if only the mother's life is endangered, but the child's is not. Because then the mother is only taking a risk with her own life, not someone else's.

Granted, I can't come up with a scenario for that other than perhaps the mother having a pre-existing medical condition of some rare sort?

 

[Playball40]

Florida is a bunch of hypocrites. As a parent you can choose not to vaccinate, but you're REQUIRED to have a c-section? That's such horseshit. If the woman signed a waiver holding the hospital harmless of not performing a c-section, in case of maternal/fetal harm, I wonder if the outcome would have been different. I don't think it's about 'protecting the mother or the infant' but rather protecting themselves from liability.

 

[Playball40]

And medically it is BETTER for both mother and newborn to have a vaginal birth. That does not mean, in certain circumstances, that a c-section wouldn't be needed/required.

 

[Emily Lake]

Florida is a bunch of hypocrites. As a parent you can choose not to vaccinate, but you're REQUIRED to have a c-section? That's such horseshit. If the woman signed a waiver holding the hospital harmless of not performing a c-section, in case of maternal/fetal harm, I wonder if the outcome would have been different. I don't think it's about 'protecting the mother or the infant' but rather protecting themselves from liability.

It might be to protect themselves from liability in some cases, sure. Hospitals and doctors aren't perfectly noble beasts.

In terms of hold harmless waivers... would you accept a "hold harmless" waiver from a christian science adherent, who declines a blood transfusion for their child, when that child will die without it? Do you think the hospital or state should have the authority to override that parent's decision if the parent's choice directly results in an avoidable death for the child?

 

[Toni]

Florida is a bunch of hypocrites. As a parent you can choose not to vaccinate, but you're REQUIRED to have a c-section? That's such horseshit. If the woman signed a waiver holding the hospital harmless of not performing a c-section, in case of maternal/fetal harm, I wonder if the outcome would have been different. I don't think it's about 'protecting the mother or the infant' but rather protecting themselves from liability.

It might be to protect themselves from liability in some cases, sure. Hospitals and doctors aren't perfectly noble beasts.

In terms of hold harmless waivers... would you accept a "hold harmless" waiver from a christian science adherent, who declines a blood transfusion for their child, when that child will die without it? Do you think the hospital or state should have the authority to override that parent's decision if the parent's choice directly results in an avoidable death for the child?

I wrestle with that sort of thing. I find it reprehensible that any parent t would refuse potentially life saving or serious illness saving treatment further their child.

OTOH, I don’t think parents or anyone legally acting on the behalf of another person should be required to agree to treatment that would spare the life of the patient but leave the patient permanently and severely disabled, brain dead or in intractable pain. If the medical establishment is compelled to carry out a treatment resulting in permanent complete dependence on medical intervention and extensive expensive daily care, then the medical establishment needs to assume all responsibility for care, physically and medically and financially first the rest of the patient’s life.

 

[Emily Lake]

Florida is a bunch of hypocrites. As a parent you can choose not to vaccinate, but you're REQUIRED to have a c-section? That's such horseshit. If the woman signed a waiver holding the hospital harmless of not performing a c-section, in case of maternal/fetal harm, I wonder if the outcome would have been different. I don't think it's about 'protecting the mother or the infant' but rather protecting themselves from liability.

It might be to protect themselves from liability in some cases, sure. Hospitals and doctors aren't perfectly noble beasts.

In terms of hold harmless waivers... would you accept a "hold harmless" waiver from a christian science adherent, who declines a blood transfusion for their child, when that child will die without it? Do you think the hospital or state should have the authority to override that parent's decision if the parent's choice directly results in an avoidable death for the child?

I wrestle with that sort of thing. I find it reprehensible that any parent t would refuse potentially life saving or serious illness saving treatment further their child.

OTOH, I don’t think parents or anyone legally acting on the behalf of another person should be required to agree to treatment that would spare the life of the patient but leave the patient permanently and severely disabled, brain dead or in intractable pain. If the medical establishment is compelled to carry out a treatment resulting in permanent complete dependence on medical intervention and extensive expensive daily care, then the medical establishment needs to assume all responsibility for care, physically and medically and financially first the rest of the patient’s life.

I don't disagree with you on that.

 

[ZiprHead]

Appeals court blocks FDA rule that allows women to obtain abortion drugs by mail

A federal appeals court temporarily reinstated a nationwide requirement that abortion pills be obtained in person, undermining access to the method of abortion that has only grown more widespread since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Friday’s ruling from the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals is a major victory in the anti-abortion movement’s war against medication abortion, which now accounts for roughly two-thirds of all abortions in the United States.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Louisiana last year against the US Food and Drug Administration, after President Donald Trump’s administration refused to act on calls to reinstate the in-person dispensing requirement for abortion pills through the regulatory process.

 

[crazyfingers]

Appeals court blocks FDA rule that allows women to obtain abortion drugs by mail

A federal appeals court temporarily reinstated a nationwide requirement that abortion pills be obtained in person, undermining access to the method of abortion that has only grown more widespread since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Friday’s ruling from the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals is a major victory in the anti-abortion movement’s war against medication abortion, which now accounts for roughly two-thirds of all abortions in the United States.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Louisiana last year against the US Food and Drug Administration, after President Donald Trump’s administration refused to act on calls to reinstate the in-person dispensing requirement for abortion pills through the regulatory process.

Relatedly

Trump Is Going After Birth Control. Here’s Why.​

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/04/25/birth-control-maha-abortion-trump-00889738?category=fascinating_stories&position=3&scheduled_corpus_item_id=dd5e677d-db35-4e8d-b926-4c522a2cfed2&url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/04/25/birth-control-maha-abortion-trump-00889738&utm_campaign=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ten_tabs

 

[ZiprHead]

We got a temporary win.

Supreme Court restores access to abortion pill by mail for now The order reinstates mail access to the drug for one week while the justices consider emergency applications by drugmakers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We got a temporary win.

Supreme Court restores access to abortion pill by mail for now The order reinstates mail access to the drug for one week while the justices consider emergency applications by drugmakers.

Weren't these people complaining about national injunctions by local courts?

 

[Emily Lake]

Appeals court blocks FDA rule that allows women to obtain abortion drugs by mail

A federal appeals court temporarily reinstated a nationwide requirement that abortion pills be obtained in person, undermining access to the method of abortion that has only grown more widespread since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Friday’s ruling from the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals is a major victory in the anti-abortion movement’s war against medication abortion, which now accounts for roughly two-thirds of all abortions in the United States.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Louisiana last year against the US Food and Drug Administration, after President Donald Trump’s administration refused to act on calls to reinstate the in-person dispensing requirement for abortion pills through the regulatory process.

Relatedly

Trump Is Going After Birth Control. Here’s Why.​

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/04/25/birth-control-maha-abortion-trump-00889738?category=fascinating_stories&position=3&scheduled_corpus_item_id=dd5e677d-db35-4e8d-b926-4c522a2cfed2&url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/04/25/birth-control-maha-abortion-trump-00889738&utm_campaign=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ten_tabs

Preventive medicine is supposed to be free; there's not much that's more effectively or materially and significantly preventive than birth control.

 

[laughing dog]

Appeals court blocks FDA rule that allows women to obtain abortion drugs by mail

A federal appeals court temporarily reinstated a nationwide requirement that abortion pills be obtained in person, undermining access to the method of abortion that has only grown more widespread since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Friday’s ruling from the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals is a major victory in the anti-abortion movement’s war against medication abortion, which now accounts for roughly two-thirds of all abortions in the United States.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Louisiana last year against the US Food and Drug Administration, after President Donald Trump’s administration refused to act on calls to reinstate the in-person dispensing requirement for abortion pills through the regulatory process.

Relatedly

Trump Is Going After Birth Control. Here’s Why.​

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/04/25/birth-control-maha-abortion-trump-00889738?category=fascinating_stories&position=3&scheduled_corpus_item_id=dd5e677d-db35-4e8d-b926-4c522a2cfed2&url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/04/25/birth-control-maha-abortion-trump-00889738&utm_campaign=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ten_tabs

Preventive medicine is supposed to be free; there's not much that's more effectively or materially and significantly preventive than birth control.

Just part of the GOPs eternal war on women.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Appeals court blocks FDA rule that allows women to obtain abortion drugs by mail

A federal appeals court temporarily reinstated a nationwide requirement that abortion pills be obtained in person, undermining access to the method of abortion that has only grown more widespread since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Friday’s ruling from the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals is a major victory in the anti-abortion movement’s war against medication abortion, which now accounts for roughly two-thirds of all abortions in the United States.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Louisiana last year against the US Food and Drug Administration, after President Donald Trump’s administration refused to act on calls to reinstate the in-person dispensing requirement for abortion pills through the regulatory process.

Relatedly

Trump Is Going After Birth Control. Here’s Why.​

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/04/25/birth-control-maha-abortion-trump-00889738?category=fascinating_stories&position=3&scheduled_corpus_item_id=dd5e677d-db35-4e8d-b926-4c522a2cfed2&url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/04/25/birth-control-maha-abortion-trump-00889738&utm_campaign=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ten_tabs

Preventive medicine is supposed to be free; there's not much that's more effectively or materially and significantly preventive than birth control.

Where is that coming from? That article had nothing to do with cost. It is about the movement for white people to have more babies.

You know, while you were busy trying to get rid of Roe v Wade for something a little morally better because of all those fourth trimester abortions in the nation, there has been a white nationalist movement growing and they don't give a fuck about the morality of abortion, they just want more white babies. And now these people have control of the White House, SCOTUS, and US House and Senate (maybe forever). Massively gerrymandered state legislatures are seeking to nationally ban access to some forms of medicinal birth control via local Federal Court decisions before moving on to the next more common type of birth control.

And they are going to win. So who cares about cost when it won't be legal to begin with?

 

[Emily Lake]

Appeals court blocks FDA rule that allows women to obtain abortion drugs by mail

A federal appeals court temporarily reinstated a nationwide requirement that abortion pills be obtained in person, undermining access to the method of abortion that has only grown more widespread since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Friday’s ruling from the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals is a major victory in the anti-abortion movement’s war against medication abortion, which now accounts for roughly two-thirds of all abortions in the United States.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Louisiana last year against the US Food and Drug Administration, after President Donald Trump’s administration refused to act on calls to reinstate the in-person dispensing requirement for abortion pills through the regulatory process.

Relatedly

Trump Is Going After Birth Control. Here’s Why.​

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/04/25/birth-control-maha-abortion-trump-00889738?category=fascinating_stories&position=3&scheduled_corpus_item_id=dd5e677d-db35-4e8d-b926-4c522a2cfed2&url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/04/25/birth-control-maha-abortion-trump-00889738&utm_campaign=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ten_tabs

Preventive medicine is supposed to be free; there's not much that's more effectively or materially and significantly preventive than birth control.

Where is that coming from? That article had nothing to do with cost. It is about the movement for white people to have more babies.

I oppose blocking birth control, which I think is rather apparent from my comment. My view has nothing at all to do with race, so kindly don't foist that bullshit off on me.

You know, while you were busy trying to get rid of Roe v Wade

This is untrue. Please rescind it and don't repeat this falsehood again. Thank you in advance.

for something a little morally better because of all those fourth trimester abortions in the nation, there has been a white nationalist movement growing and they don't give a fuck about the morality of abortion, they just want more white babies. And now these people have control of the White House, SCOTUS, and US House and Senate (maybe forever). Massively gerrymandered state legislatures are seeking to nationally ban access to some forms of medicinal birth control via local Federal Court decisions before moving on to the next more common type of birth control.

And they are going to win. So who cares about cost when it won't be legal to begin with?

And the remainder of your post has nothing at all to do with me.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Appeals court blocks FDA rule that allows women to obtain abortion drugs by mail

A federal appeals court temporarily reinstated a nationwide requirement that abortion pills be obtained in person, undermining access to the method of abortion that has only grown more widespread since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Friday’s ruling from the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals is a major victory in the anti-abortion movement’s war against medication abortion, which now accounts for roughly two-thirds of all abortions in the United States.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Louisiana last year against the US Food and Drug Administration, after President Donald Trump’s administration refused to act on calls to reinstate the in-person dispensing requirement for abortion pills through the regulatory process.

Relatedly

Trump Is Going After Birth Control. Here’s Why.​

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/04/25/birth-control-maha-abortion-trump-00889738?category=fascinating_stories&position=3&scheduled_corpus_item_id=dd5e677d-db35-4e8d-b926-4c522a2cfed2&url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/04/25/birth-control-maha-abortion-trump-00889738&utm_campaign=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ten_tabs

Preventive medicine is supposed to be free; there's not much that's more effectively or materially and significantly preventive than birth control.

Where is that coming from? That article had nothing to do with cost. It is about the movement for white people to have more babies.

I oppose blocking birth control, which I think is rather apparent from my comment. My view has nothing at all to do with race, so kindly don't foist that bullshit off on me.

I couldn't have been more explicit in saying the "[That article] is about the movement for white people to have more babies."

So enough of your persecution complex crap.

You know, while you were busy trying to get rid of Roe v Wade

This is untrue. Please rescind it and don't repeat this falsehood again. Thank you in advance.

It isn't a falsehood. Though your reaction is typical Emily Lake/muridi, taking something out of context because you didn't bother to stop and think for a moment before you flew off the handle.

You have stated you didn't like Roe v Wade and the grounds it was founded on. You have stated so. You wanted reproductive freedoms, but in a different way. Well, you got your wish with Roe v Wade getting axed. Just too bad there wasn't a replacement, other than hope one lives in a state that allows abortion.

for something a little morally better because of all those fourth trimester abortions in the nation, there has been a white nationalist movement growing and they don't give a fuck about the morality of abortion, they just want more white babies. And now these people have control of the White House, SCOTUS, and US House and Senate (maybe forever). Massively gerrymandered state legislatures are seeking to nationally ban access to some forms of medicinal birth control via local Federal Court decisions before moving on to the next more common type of birth control.

And they are going to win. So who cares about cost when it won't be legal to begin with?

And the remainder of your post has nothing at all to do with me.

Your post remarked about cost of birth control, which had nothing to do with the article. I discussed the subject of the article, and the likelihood that abortion rights may very well disappear federally.

 

[Emily Lake]

Appeals court blocks FDA rule that allows women to obtain abortion drugs by mail

A federal appeals court temporarily reinstated a nationwide requirement that abortion pills be obtained in person, undermining access to the method of abortion that has only grown more widespread since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Friday’s ruling from the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals is a major victory in the anti-abortion movement’s war against medication abortion, which now accounts for roughly two-thirds of all abortions in the United States.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Louisiana last year against the US Food and Drug Administration, after President Donald Trump’s administration refused to act on calls to reinstate the in-person dispensing requirement for abortion pills through the regulatory process.

Relatedly

Trump Is Going After Birth Control. Here’s Why.​

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/04/25/birth-control-maha-abortion-trump-00889738?category=fascinating_stories&position=3&scheduled_corpus_item_id=dd5e677d-db35-4e8d-b926-4c522a2cfed2&url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/04/25/birth-control-maha-abortion-trump-00889738&utm_campaign=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ten_tabs

Preventive medicine is supposed to be free; there's not much that's more effectively or materially and significantly preventive than birth control.

Where is that coming from? That article had nothing to do with cost. It is about the movement for white people to have more babies.

I oppose blocking birth control, which I think is rather apparent from my comment. My view has nothing at all to do with race, so kindly don't foist that bullshit off on me.

I couldn't have been more explicit in saying the "[That article] is about the movement for white people to have more babies."

So enough of your persecution complex crap.

crazyfingers posted an article noting increased pressure from this administration to limit access to birth control. I very strongly oppose limiting birth control across the board, and I commented as such. You insist that race ought to have something to do with my view. I disagree. I can have a view of my own that has nothing to do with race. Your desire to make it about race has nothing to do with my views.

You know, while you were busy trying to get rid of Roe v Wade

This is untrue. Please rescind it and don't repeat this falsehood again. Thank you in advance.

It isn't a falsehood. Though your reaction is typical Emily Lake/muridi, taking something out of context because you didn't bother to stop and think for a moment before you flew off the handle.

You have stated you didn't like Roe v Wade and the grounds it was founded on. You have stated so. You wanted reproductive freedoms, but in a different way. Well, you got your wish with Roe v Wade getting axed. Just too bad there wasn't a replacement, other than hope one lives in a state that allows abortion.

None of that is true. Like, not even a little bit of it. I never opposed Roe v Wade, I didn't disagree with any of it. I absolutely have not states so. It's a falsehood - straight up not true. Whether you're addled and mixing up posters, or your memory is flawed and your brain is feeding you wrong info is pretty much irrelevant to me. What you've state here, and doubled down on, is flatly untrue.

for something a little morally better because of all those fourth trimester abortions in the nation, there has been a white nationalist movement growing and they don't give a fuck about the morality of abortion, they just want more white babies. And now these people have control of the White House, SCOTUS, and US House and Senate (maybe forever). Massively gerrymandered state legislatures are seeking to nationally ban access to some forms of medicinal birth control via local Federal Court decisions before moving on to the next more common type of birth control.

And they are going to win. So who cares about cost when it won't be legal to begin with?

And the remainder of your post has nothing at all to do with me.

Your post remarked about cost of birth control, which had nothing to do with the article. I discussed the subject of the article, and the likelihood that abortion rights may very well disappear federally.

The article was about this admin looking at ways to reduce access to birth control.

My comment wasn't about cost, by the way. It's about the things that get classed as preventive and required to be provided free of charge, and my very strong belief that birth control *should* be preventive.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You know, while you were busy trying to get rid of Roe v Wade

This is untrue. Please rescind it and don't repeat this falsehood again. Thank you in advance.

It isn't a falsehood. Though your reaction is typical Emily Lake/muridi, taking something out of context because you didn't bother to stop and think for a moment before you flew off the handle.

You have stated you didn't like Roe v Wade and the grounds it was founded on. You have stated so. You wanted reproductive freedoms, but in a different way. Well, you got your wish with Roe v Wade getting axed. Just too bad there wasn't a replacement, other than hope one lives in a state that allows abortion.

None of that is true. Like, not even a little bit of it. I never opposed Roe v Wade, I didn't disagree with any of it. I absolutely have not states so. It's a falsehood - straight up not true. Whether you're addled and mixing up posters, or your memory is flawed and your brain is feeding you wrong info is pretty much irrelevant to me. What you've state here, and doubled down on, is flatly untrue.

link

It gets messy and complicated, but I don't find fault with SCOTUS for overturning Roe v. Wade. The means by which it got put in place have always been sketchy, and the reasoning by which it was overturned is something I find justifiable and rational. I 100% am opposed to the rush from states to make abortion illegal - it hurts to my core. But I still don't think SCOTUS was wrong to overturn it, because the reasoning used to pass it was bad. I'd rather start the process over and seek a fully supported and justifiable law than have it hinge on a sketchy interpretation that can be applied to make other laws that I do not support.

 

[Jarhyn]

You know, while you were busy trying to get rid of Roe v Wade

This is untrue. Please rescind it and don't repeat this falsehood again. Thank you in advance.

It isn't a falsehood. Though your reaction is typical Emily Lake/muridi, taking something out of context because you didn't bother to stop and think for a moment before you flew off the handle.

You have stated you didn't like Roe v Wade and the grounds it was founded on. You have stated so. You wanted reproductive freedoms, but in a different way. Well, you got your wish with Roe v Wade getting axed. Just too bad there wasn't a replacement, other than hope one lives in a state that allows abortion.

None of that is true. Like, not even a little bit of it. I never opposed Roe v Wade, I didn't disagree with any of it. I absolutely have not states so. It's a falsehood - straight up not true. Whether you're addled and mixing up posters, or your memory is flawed and your brain is feeding you wrong info is pretty much irrelevant to me. What you've state here, and doubled down on, is flatly untrue.

link

It gets messy and complicated, but I don't find fault with SCOTUS for overturning Roe v. Wade. The means by which it got put in place have always been sketchy, and the reasoning by which it was overturned is something I find justifiable and rational. I 100% am opposed to the rush from states to make abortion illegal - it hurts to my core. But I still don't think SCOTUS was wrong to overturn it, because the reasoning used to pass it was bad. I'd rather start the process over and seek a fully supported and justifiable law than have it hinge on a sketchy interpretation that can be applied to make other laws that I do not support.

Leave it to TheBeave to thumbs-down shown receipts.

 

[Emily Lake]

You know, while you were busy trying to get rid of Roe v Wade

This is untrue. Please rescind it and don't repeat this falsehood again. Thank you in advance.

It isn't a falsehood. Though your reaction is typical Emily Lake/muridi, taking something out of context because you didn't bother to stop and think for a moment before you flew off the handle.

You have stated you didn't like Roe v Wade and the grounds it was founded on. You have stated so. You wanted reproductive freedoms, but in a different way. Well, you got your wish with Roe v Wade getting axed. Just too bad there wasn't a replacement, other than hope one lives in a state that allows abortion.

None of that is true. Like, not even a little bit of it. I never opposed Roe v Wade, I didn't disagree with any of it. I absolutely have not states so. It's a falsehood - straight up not true. Whether you're addled and mixing up posters, or your memory is flawed and your brain is feeding you wrong info is pretty much irrelevant to me. What you've state here, and doubled down on, is flatly untrue.

link

It gets messy and complicated, but I don't find fault with SCOTUS for overturning Roe v. Wade. The means by which it got put in place have always been sketchy, and the reasoning by which it was overturned is something I find justifiable and rational. I 100% am opposed to the rush from states to make abortion illegal - it hurts to my core. But I still don't think SCOTUS was wrong to overturn it, because the reasoning used to pass it was bad. I'd rather start the process over and seek a fully supported and justifiable law than have it hinge on a sketchy interpretation that can be applied to make other laws that I do not support.

Oh For Fuck's Sake.

You claim I was trying to get rid of RvW. That is untrue. I NEVER tried to get rid of it. I was quite happy with that being the rule. And your linked post doesn't support your claim at all - it is in no way evidence of me trying to get rid of RvW. I made a post AFTER it had been overturned. What I did say is that I don't disagree with the SC decision to overturn it - not because I disagree with the guidelines of RvW, but because the support for it being enforceable on constitutional grounds was shaky. I don't like that it was overturned, but it should never have been based on a flimsy interpretation in the first place - congress should have done their job and passed an actual law!

Your selective trimming and emphasis serves only to demonstrate your bad faith.

I actually take a bit of a different view, largely because I am completely opposed to the ends justifying the means.

Your position here is that the ends justify the means, that it's okay for the government to violate constitutional provisions if it achieves an end that you believe is worthwhile. I disagree - I think the ends is worthwhile, but I don't think that justifies the means. The problem for me is that what one views as a worthwhile end is highly subjective and can be extremely variable. It's subject to populist whims, the rhetoric of ideologues, and the pressures of special interest groups. What is viewed as "worthwhile ends" in the future could very easily end up being something that every one of us finds abhorrent.

If we abuse the means for something we all think is worthwhile now, there is nothing at all to prevent someone else from abusing the means in the exact same way in the future for something we would find horrific.

It gets messy and complicated, but I don't find fault with SCOTUS for overturning Roe v. Wade. The means by which it got put in place have always been sketchy, and the reasoning by which it was overturned is something I find justifiable and rational. I 100% am opposed to the rush from states to make abortion illegal - it hurts to my core. But I still don't think SCOTUS was wrong to overturn it, because the reasoning used to pass it was bad. I'd rather start the process over and seek a fully supported and justifiable law than have it hinge on a sketchy interpretation that can be applied to make other laws that I do not support.

In many subsequent discussions, I've repeatedly expressed a desire to have an ACTUAL LAW created that reinstates the exact same thresholds and guidelines that existed under RvW, but doesn't rest upon such a highly challengeable interpretation. Properly passed legislation would be much, much stronger. In order for that law to be overturned, the SC would need to demonstrate that the law itself is unconstitutional - and there's nothing in the constitution that would support such a result. RvW got overturned because it was never a law in the first place, it was ultimately a weak interpretation of existing constitutional rights that were extended well beyond what the text and historical commentary reasonably supports.

So I will say again: your claim is false. Please don't repeat it.

 

[Elixir]

Who cares, Emily?
It’s not like anyone is going to mistake you for a friend of abortion rights or bodily autonomy. The finer nuances (or lack thereof) of your “yes, but” position, are truly irrelevant chaff. Feel free to represent yourself as a fem freedom fighter if you wish. Just ignore the polite snickers.